EPA/600/R-17/337 | September 2017 | www.epa.gov/water-research
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Organic Waste Diversion in
Columbia, South Carolina
Feasibility Study
Lexington and
Richland Counties,
South Carolina
^Columbia
Lexington
Facilities
Coirposl
* Facltiy
Richland
Xr FORT JACKSON #
Office of Research and Development
[National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Systems Division
-------
Organic Waste Diversion in Columbia,
South Carolina
Feasibility Study
Prepared by
Steven Rock and Alexis Lan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Systems Division
Cincinnati, OH
September 2017
-------
Notice
This report has been peer reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Research and Development and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by EPA for use.
11
-------
Abstract
This study investigated the feasibility of diverting organic materials, specifically food wastes and FOG
from landfills. In accordance with the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy, methods for source reduction,
feeding hungry people, feeding animals, industrial uses, and composting were considered. The greatest
potential for reducing waste while lowering the costs is source reduction. There is currently no coordinated
emphasis on food waste reduction
Under current conditions, the two major landfills in the study region has an estimated remaining capacity
of 9.7 years and 31.2 years, respectively. Over 800,000 tons of organic material is generated in the two
county region with small amounts being recycled in the study region. There are twenty-one organizations
in the study region with the potential to accept safe and edible food for distribution and consumption.
The development status of using food waste for animal food are underdeveloped in the study region. While
there are animal feed manufacturers in the Columbia region, none currently produce animal feed from food
wastes. Columbia's Clean Water 2020 Program is currently focused on upgrading the wastewater systems
and increasing capacity. Timing is therefore right to consider including co-digestion and energy generation
to create value from the anaerobic digestion process. Centralized composting of food wastes is now an
available option for diversion of food waste at lower cost than landfilling.
in
-------
Foreword
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US
EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental
problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological
resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental
risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor
air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private
sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract iii
Forward iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgements viii
Executive Summary ix
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the Report 1
2.0 Study Overview 3
2.1 Approach 5
3.0 Sources of Organic Material 6
3.1 Diversions from Landfill 11
3.2 Characteristics of Organic Material 11
4.0 Receptors of Organic Material 13
4.1 Food Bank Services 13
4.1.1 Regional Development Status 14
4.1.2 Considerations for Diversion 16
4.2 Farms and Animal Feed 16
4.2.1 Regional Development Status 17
4.2.2 Considerations for Diversion 18
4.3 Anaerobic Digestion 18
4.3.1 Regional Development Status 19
4.3.2 Considerations for Diversion 20
4.4 Biofuel Manufacturers 21
4.4.1 Regional Development Status 22
4.4.2 Considerations for Diversion 23
4.5 Com posters 24
4.5.1 Regional Development Status 24
4.5.2 Considerations for Diversion 25
4.6 Landfills 27
4.6.1 Regional Development Status 27
5.0 Summary of Key Findings 28
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 29
7.0 References 32
8.0 Additional Bibliogrraphy 34
v
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study region: Lexington and Richland Counties, SC 3
Figure 2. U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy 4
Figure 3. Schematic of processes required from source to product users 21
Figure 4. Flow of food waste from sources to users 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia 6
Table 2. Top Source of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Non-Residential Colleges 7
Table 3. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Manufacturers 7
Table 4. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Hospitals 7
Table 5. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Nursing Homes 7
Table 6. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Correctional Instititutions 8
Table 7. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Wholesalers 8
Table 8. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Restaurants 9
Table 9. Estimated Annual Food Waste by DoD Facility 9
Table 10. Estimated Daily and Daily Food Waste by School District 10
Table 11. Estimate of Discarded Organic Material by Source in Lexington and Richland Counties 10
Table 12. Meal Providers and Food Bank Services for Hungry People in the Columbia Region 14
Table 13. Sources of Non-Animal Food Waste for Use as Animal Feed in the Columbia Region 17
Table 14. Constrained Potential for Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge 19
Table 15. Free Fatty Acid (FFA)contentfor Waste Oil Feedstocks 22
Table 16. Commercial Services for Collection of Trap Grease and Rendering 22
Table 17. Acceptable and Unacceptable Materials for Composting 25
Table 18. Markets for Compost Identified by the U.S. Composting Council (Source: Charleston
County 26
Table 19. Data for Class 3 Landfills in Richland County 27
Table 20. Summary of Organic Waste Diversion Options 29
vi
-------
Acronyms and
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
B5 5% biodiesel
B20 20% biodiesel
BTU British Thermal Unit(s)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DoD Department of Defense
EH&S environmental health and safety
FFA free fatty acid(s)
FOG fats, oils and greases
FY fiscal year
g gram
GWh gigawatt-hours (one billion watt-hours)
kW kilowatt(s)
kWh kilowatt-hour(s)
lbs pound(s)
MOD Partnership Midlands Organics Diversion Partnership
MBTU Million British Thermal Units
mgd million gallons per day
mL milliliter
MSW municipal solid waste
MW megawatt (one million watts)
n.d. no date
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
O&M operations and maintenance
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
SC South Carolina
SC DHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SC DoC South Carolina Department of Commerce
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
TD technical directive
TS total solids
USC University of South Carolina
USCC United States Composting Council
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VS volatile solids
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
vii
-------
Acknowledgements
The following persons are acknowledged for their comments and contributions of information to
this report:
g Robin Billings - U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA
"Anthony Centola, President, Re-Soil,
"Larry Cook Jr., Recycling Coordinator, University of South Carolina (USC), Columbia,
South Carolina (SC)
eRudy Curtis - Richland County, SC
0 William Davis - City of Columbia, SC
eChantal Fryer - South Carolina Department of Commerce, Columbia, SC
"Joey Jaco - City of Columbia, SC
"Alexis Lan - U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
eJohn McKernan - U.S. EPA Office of Research Development, Cincinnati, OH
ฐArdra Morgan - U.S. EPA Office of Research Development, Washington, D.C.
eSteve Rock - U.S. EPA Office of Research Development, Cincinnati, OH
"John Riggs - City of Columbia, SC
"Adam R. Saslow - SRA International, City, State
KSteve Smith - U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA
"Tameria Warren - Fort Jackson, City, State
eStacey Washington - South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC), Columbia, SC
vm
-------
Executive Summary
On September 16, 2015 U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the United States' first-ever national food waste
reduction goal, calling for a 50-percent reduction by 2030. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) seeks to prevent and reduce wasted food (and other organic materials) that will
otherwise be lost as a resource into landfills. "Let's feed people, not landfills. By reducing
wasted food in landfills, we cut harmful methane emissions that fuel climate change, conserve
our natural resources, and protect our planet for future generations" said EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy. "Today's announcement presents a major environmental, social and public
health opportunity for the U.S., and we're proud to be part of a national effort to reduce the food
that goes into landfills."
In collaboration with the Midlands Organics Diversion Partnership ("MOD Partnership") of
Columbia, South Carolina (SC), an integrated management strategy is being developed that will
result in the diversion of organic materials from landfills into valued uses. To this end, EPA's
Office of Research and Development supported a EPA Region 4 initiative to develop a feasibility
study of alternatives for organic material management for the Columbia region (Lexington and
Richland Counties, SC). This study is prepared to support the stated purposes of the MOD
Partnership:
Build infrastructure for diverting organic material
Identify integrated strategies and unrealized opportunities toward optimizing the recycling,
repurposing and recovery of organic materials
Connect organizations across various sectors (including business to business) with common
interests in sustainable municipal solid waste (MSW) management
Attract and leverage Partnership, business, and other financial opportunities in the
management of organic materials
Educate and raise awareness for better waste-management practices and consumption
behavior.
For purposes of this study, "organics" were defined as including "agricultural waste; commercial
food waste; fats, oils and greases (FOG); industrial food processing waste and byproducts". The
study examined the feasibility to divert these materials from landfills. EPA has a Food Recovery
Hierarchy (U.S. EPA, 2012) that prioritizes diversion of food from landfills/incineration to
valued uses as follows:
Source Reduction
Feed Hungry People
Feed Animals
Industrial Uses
Composting
The U.S. Army's Net Zero waste hierarchy (U.S. Army, 2011) is consistent with the EPA
Hierarchy: reduction, re-purpose, recycling and composting, energy recovery, and disposal.
IX
-------
The types of organic wastes generated include packaged food, prepared food, food scraps,
organic processing wastes, FOG, crop residuals/trash, biosolids, and manure.
Sources of organic materials in the Columbia region identified during the study, listed
alphabetically, include:
State Government facilities (eg., Correctional institutions, Public schools and colleges)
U.S. Government facilities (eg., Department of Defense military bases)
Farms
Groceries
Hospitals
Manufacturers/processors
Nursing homes
Private schools and colleges
Resort/conference
Restaurants
Supermarkets
Wholesalers/distributors
Receptors are organizations that accept the organic wastes either for direct use by food pantries,
shelters and soup kitchens, or for processing into a product that will be sold to a user in an end
market, for example to a composter who will produce and sell compost. The receptors (or
potential receptors) identified in the Columbia region included:
Food pantries, shelters, soup kitchens
Farmers who could feed animals
Composters who manufacture compost to enhance soil fertility
Biofuel manufacturer
Potential on-site anaerobic digesters for generating electricity and/or manufacturing
compost
Large wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) with anaerobic digesters.
Alternatives for waste reduction or diversion were identified at each level of the EPA Food
Recovery Hierarchy (U.S. EPA, 2012). The EPA's Hierarchy states preference for adopting
higher levels in the hierarchy. Thus, source reduction is preferred over composting and anaerobic
digestion that are lower in the hierarchy. Following are the alternatives investigated:
Source Reduction. Prevention of the generation of waste (source reduction) is the
preferred approach for keeping food wastes out of landfills. Typically, source reduction
begins with a waste audit to understand the amounts and types of wastes being generated
in order to identify the root causes for the wastes. Many approaches could be used to
select and adopt methods to prevent the generation of waste. Return on investment will
vary, but can be orders of magnitude greater than costs of implementation. Food waste
reductions of 30% - 80% have been reported by organizations. Effective adoption of
x
-------
reduction practices is expected to reduce the amount of food waste available for other
diversion uses.
Feed Hungry People. The reduction of waste by donation of overproduced or "off-spec"
foods to shelters, food banks, and soup kitchens to feed hungry people is the second-
ranked approach in the EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy. The primary financial benefit for
the source is the reduction in charges to dump at a landfill (tipping fees) due to less food
being landfilled. There are transaction costs (not estimated) associated with planning and
executing food donation programs. In addition, there are on-going costs associated with
safely storing the food and with implementing and managing the program. For
organizations like Fort Jackson that have a commitment to donating excess food (Mason,
2014), this diversion approach should be attractive. Likewise, the University of South
Carolina (USC) currently has a food donation program; diversion of overproduced food
could supplement the existing program. As with source reduction, food donation can be
implemented concurrently with other diversion approaches.
Feed Animals. The transfer of food scraps, overproduced or "off-spec" foods, and FOG
to animal feed manufacturer as an alternate input to products is the third highest priority
option. Food scraps and overproduced or "off-spec" foods could also be fed directly to
animals by farmers. Use of food waste to feed animals is challenging in South Carolina
because of the restriction on converting waste food containing animal products to animal
feed. Thus, only waste streams from sources that only contain vegetable matter, like
breweries, grain mills, or bakeries, could be used to feed animals. Pulverizing and
dewatering or other processing might be required at the source. Except for some FOG
components (used yellow grease processed by Tenderers), the restrictions, significant
transaction costs, and transportation costs make it unlikely that feed for animals is a
viable option for diverting significant food wastes in the Columbia region.
Industrial Uses. Anaerobic digestion is a process that transforms waste organics to
produce natural gas and of soil amendments. Anaerobic Digesters are generally large and
located near consistent sources of organic waste, like feedlots and wastewater treatment
plants. Though many AD facilities are built with one waste source in mind, lately
conversions to accept other organic sources are becoming common. AD facilities produce
biogas (methane) used as fuel for heat, converted to electricity, or compressed as liquid
fuel, and digestate that is used as a soil amendment.
Anaerobic digestion capacity exists at local wastewater treatment facilities. These could
be converted to accept food or other organic waste. Both engineering and commercial
investigations are needed to confirm this option.
Due to the relatively small size of the farms in Lexington and Richland Counties, there
are currently no on-farm AD units. It is possible that a third party could start an
anaerobic digestion facility that would accept manure from multiple farms. Significant
up-front effort will be needed to explore this idea.
XI
-------
Biofuel. Almost the entire used vegetable oil (UVO) component of FOG that is produced
in the area is currently being collected and processed into biodiesel. This report does not
consider UVO to be a waste product as it is a highly sought after fuel component. Other
types of FOG are considered waste and their disposal is of great interest.
Composting. Aerobic processing of food waste to produce compost, a soil amendment
product, appears to be a viable option for diversion of food waste from the landfill.
Compost from manure, food waste, yard waste, and biosolids may be used on farms,
silvaculture, landscaping, roadsides, and in some cases gardens as a cost-effective use of
organic waste. Composting is generally done 'open air', although in-vessel composting of
food waste might also be cost effective. A food waste composting firm has started in the
Columbia region and is accepting waste as of June, 2015. Customers for waste and
markets for compost have been identified by the company. Plans exist for expansion
already exist.
In summary, the study found that a variety of methods are technically and economically feasible
for diverting food wastes and providing a positive return on investment for the source.
Potential barriers and considerations for food waste diversion are identified in the study. Given
the EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy (U.S. EPA, 2012) and findings for the Columbia, SC region,
the following prioritized actions or decisions are recommended to overcome potential barriers
and incentivize actions to further support feasibility of diversion options:
Develop and implement programs to encourage waste reduction.
Start a regional "food waste exchange" to facilitate connections and efficient transactions
between sources of food appropriate for human consumption and those who feed people
in need.
Communicate the availability of food waste services in the region.
Perform an engineering study and a marketing study for one or all of the WWTP to
evaluate capacity to accept food wastes for anaerobic digestion and the financial
projections to produce and use increased amounts of biogas, and land-apply the digestate.
For governments, consider incentives and disincentives for food waste, such as:
o Driving up demand
ฆ Banning food wastes from the landfills, or
ฆ raising tipping fees for food wastes to encourage diversion, or
ฆ Instituting "pay-as-you-throw" programs that charge residents based on
the amount generated, thereby incentivizing diversion
Participating as a customer at the composting facility.
Refining the projections of available food wastes by source by determining the percentages
of food being diverted to beneficial applications.
This study found feasible alternatives with the potential, if fully realized, to significantly divert
food wastes from landfills in the Columbia, SC region.
xu
-------
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to prevent and reduce wasted food (and
other organic materials) that will otherwise be lost as a resource into landfills. Food loss and
waste in the United States accounts for approximately 31 percentor 133 billion poundsof the
overall food supply available to retailers and consumers and has far-reaching impacts on food
security, resource conservation and climate change. Food loss and waste is the single largest
component of disposed U.S. municipal solid waste, and accounts for a significant portion of U.S.
methane emissions, which fuel climate change. This large volume of wasted food is a main
contributor to the roughly 18 percent of total U.S. methane emissions that come from landfills.
Landfills are the third largest source of methane in the United States.
Furthermore, experts have projected that reducing food losses by 15 percent would provide
enough food for more than 25 million Americans every year, helping to sharply reduce
incidences of food insecurity for millions. It is estimated that at the retail and consumer levels in
the United States, food loss and waste totals $161 billion dollars. To this end, U.S. EPA's Office
of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Engineering
Technical Support Center provided support for an U.S. EPA Region 4 initiative to develop a
feasibility study of alternatives for organic material management for the Columbia, SC region
(Lexington and Richland Counties, SC). This study is prepared to support the stated purposes of
the MOD Partnership:
Build infrastructure for diverting organic material
Identify integrated strategies and unrealized opportunities toward optimizing the recycling,
repurposing and recovery of organic materials
Connect organizations across various sectors (including business to business) with common
interests in sustainable municipal solid waste (MSW) management
Attract and leverage Partnership, business, and other financial opportunities in the
management of organic materials
Educate and raise awareness for better waste-management practices and consumption
behavior.
Fort Jackson and the University of South Carolina (USC) are leaders focusing on food waste
reduction. Fort Jackson was inspired by the U.S. Army Net Zero program that seeks to reduce
energy, water and waste by source reduction, re-purposing, recycling and composting, and
energy recovery (U.S. Army, 2011). The USC, through its Sustainable Carolina program, strives
to be distinguished as a "green school" to attract students as well as seeking to lower expenses.
1.1 Purpose of the Report
ฆ Provide objective base-line information on the current state of organic materials in the
region to support the objectives of the MOD Partnership.
ฆ Identify existing sources and potential receptors of organic materials.
ฆ Assess potential diversion options and provide recommendations.
1
-------
The target audience for the report is primarily for sources and receptors, including private
businesses and public entities, in the Columbia, SC region. In addition, it is targeted to
organizations and decision-makers in determinining the feasibility and desirability to invest
resources in organic waste diversion efforts in Columbia, SC. Lastly, this report is intended for
communities in general that are seeking to reduce and divert organic materials going to landfills.
There are several limitations to this report. First, it is not a full-scale food waste audit of entities
listed in the study. Second, calculations on the magnitude of waste generation was estimated
based on secondary sources and publicly available data. Specific organization factors such as
waste diversion rates, were not examined and accounted for.
2
-------
2.0 Study Overview
Consistent with the objectives of the MOD Partnership, the overall purpose of this study was to
examine the current magnitude and nature of organic materials in the region, along with an
analysis of options for diversion from landfills. Such information will enable public and private
decision-makers to determine the feasibility and desirability to invest resources in organic waste
diversion efforts.
For purposes of this study, "organics" were defined as including "agricultural waste; commercial
food waste; fats, oils and greases (FOG); industrial food processing waste and byproducts". The
study examined the feasibility to divert these materials from landfills.
Specifically, the study has four main objectives:
Identify, in as much detail as possible, all major food waste generators in the region.
Estimate the volume of organic waste generation from major sources;
Determine current and potential receptors of organic waste; and
Provide a set of prioritized recommendations for organizations to prevent and divert
wasted food.
Figure 1 shows the two county region that was used as the focus of this report, and, within the
study area, the location of landfills, the location of an existing food waste composting facility,
and the locations of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) with capacity for co-digestion that are
further discussed in the study.
Richland
County
Re-SoiH
Compost
Columbia
Metro
Lexington
Columbia
Northeast
Sanitary
Cayce Regional Gills Creek
Richland
Lexington and
Richland Counties,
South Carolina
Facilities
Compost
Facility
_ Class 3
m Landfill
Wastewater
ฆ Treatment
Plant
Figure 1. Study region: Lexington and Richland Counties, SC showing location of landfills, centralized food waste composting (currently
available) and wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic digestion (potential for energy recovery).
3
-------
The U.S. EPA has a Food Recovery Hierarchy, shown in Figure 2, provides the priorities for
diversion of food from landfills/incineration to valued uses (U.S. EPA, 2012). In this study,
alternatives are included at each level of the hierarchy. Note that alternatives may not be
mutually exclusive, but selection of alternatives may impact the quantity of materials available
for other uses. Alternatives that are discussed in this study include:
Source Reduction: Systematic methods, such as lean practices, will eliminate wastes and
reduce cost for the sources
Feed Hungry People: Donation of overproduced or "off-spec" foods to appropriate
organizations will provide food to those in need
Feed Animals: The transfer of food scraps, overproduced or "off-spec" foods, and FOG to
farmer to directly feed to animals orto animal feed manufacturer as inputto animal feed
Industrial Uses Production of natural gas through anaerobic digestion, production of
biodiesel from FOG, and production of soil amendments through composting.
Source Reduction
Reduce the v-orume of surplus food generated
Feed Hungry People
Donate extra food to food banks, soup kitchens and shelters
Feed Animals
Divert food scraps to animal feed
Figure 2. U.S. EPA Food Eecoveiy Hieraicty
4
-------
2;! Approach
Secondary data sources were examined for relevant data on organic materials management for
sources and receptors in the study region.
Sources are organizations that generate organic materials such as food manufacturers,
processors, and hospitals. Sources were grouped according to major generator categories that
have previously been identified in the South Carolina Food Generation Report (SC DoC, 2015)
as well as additional categories identified during the study (listed alphabetically):
Colleges
Correctional institutions
Department of Defense facilities
Farms
Groceries
Hospitals
Manufacturers and processors
Nursing homes
Private schools
Public schools
Resorts and conference centers
Restaurants
Supermarkets
Wholesalers and distributors
The types of organic waste generated include excess packaged food, excess prepared food, food
scraps, organic processing wastes, FOG, crop residuals/trash, and manure.
Receptors are organizations that accept the organic wastes either for direct use, for example a
food pantry, or for processing into a product that will be sold to a user in an end market, such as
a composter who will produce and sell compost. The receptors (or potential receptors) identified
in the Columbia region included:
Food pantries, shelters, soup kitchens
Farmers who could feed animals
On-site anaerobic digesters
Large wastewater treatment facilities with anaerobic digesters
Biofuel manufacturers
Composters
5
-------
3.o Sources of Organic Material
The volume of food waste generated was estimated on a ton/year basis for each individual
company by various source categories (Tables 1-10). The generated tables show the sources by
name and address in specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories ranked by the
estimated amount of annual food waste generated. Included in Tables 1 to 10 are the
organizations that are estimated to produce at least 80% of the food wastes (up to ten generators).
As such, not all sources in a specific category are included in the table. Large, non-public
cafeterias and businesses not listed in Hoover's Business Data or with insufficient data to
estimate wastes were not included in food waste estimates since the information was not readily
available in a literature search.
Calculations of estimated food waste generation used formulas included in the Massachusetts'
food waste generation study (Draper/Lennon, Inc. 2002) and adopted by the South Carolina
Department of Commerce (SC DoC) in their recent Food Waste Generation Report (SC DoC,
2015); formulas for manufacturers/processors and wholesalers/distributors from a Food Waste
Reduction Alliance study (BSR, 2014); and formulas for agricultural manure and agricultural
crop generation were developed by Battelle. The types of organic waste generated include excess
packaged food, excess prepared food, food scraps, organic processing wastes, FOG, crop
residuals/trash, and manure.
Note that, in most cases, there likely is diversion of food waste that was not identified or
quantified as part of this study. However, this means that the estimated wastes generated are
before diversion and might be significantly higher than the actual food waste disposed in
landfills. In general, most wastes from meat processing plants would be expected to currently be
used as valuable by-products or for rendering. Likewise, grocery stores often donate safe food
that is not in saleable condition to food banks. No adjustments were made for these likely
existing diversions.
Table 1. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Residential Colleges
Primary Address
Annual Food
Waste (tons)
University of South Carolina
200 Pendleton Street
Columbia, SC 29208
410T
Benedict College
1600 Harden Street
Columbia, SC 29204
178.0
South University
3810 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29201
115.3
Columbia College
1301 Columbia College Drive
Columbia, SC 29203
82.9
Columbia International University
7435 Monticello Road
Columbia, SC 29203
81.8
TOTAL
868
tF&ME Consultants. 2009. Food Waste Audit - Phase 1 Final Report. Prepared for the University of South Carolina.
6
-------
Table 2. Top Source of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Non-Residential Colleges
Annual Food
Primary Address
Waste (tons)
Midlands Tech
1260 Lexington Dr.
219.9
West Columbia, SC 29205
Table 3. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Manufacturers
Primary Address
Annual Food
Waste (tons)
Columbia Farms, Inc.
125 N Lee St,
Leesville, SC 29070
6142.7
Devro, Inc.
785 Old Swamp Rd,
Swansea, SC 29060
1044.1
Beverage South of Aiken LLC
265 Metropolitan Dr.,
West Columbia, SC 29170
434.6
Caughman's Meat Plant, Inc.
164 Meat Plant Rd,
Lexington, SC 29073
168.4
Southern Produce, Incorporated
322 Little Chris Ln,
West Columbia, SC 29172
63.6
TOTAL
7,853.4
Table 4. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Hospitals
Annual Food
Waste (tons)
Lexington Medical Center
5 Richland Medical Park Dr
Columbia, SC 29203
426.3
Palmetto Health
2720 Sunset Blvd
258.4
West Columbia, SC 29169
Three Rivers Behavioral Health LLC
1301 Taylor St Ste 8a
Columbia, SC 29201
243.4
Palmetto Health Baptist Parkridge
2900 Sunset Blvd
West Columbia, SC 29169
73.6
Palmetto Health
400 Palmetto Health Parkway
Columbia, SC 29212
40.6
TOTAL
1,042.3
Table 5. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Nursing Homes
. ... ฆ Annual Food
Primary Address ฆ r , ,
Waste tons)
Lexington Medical Center Extended
Care
815 Old Cherokee Rd
Lexington, SC 29072
C M Tucker Jr Nursing Care Center
Roddey Pavilion
2200 Harden St
Columbia, SC 29203
C M Tucker Jr Nursing Care Center
Fewell And Stone Pavilions
2200 Harden St
Columbia, SC 29203
Pruitt Health Columbia
2451 Forest Dr
Columbia, SC 29204 '
Agape Assisted Living
2705 LeaphartRd
West Columbia, SC 29169 '
NHC Healthcare Parklane
7601 Parklane Rd
Columbia, SC 29223
Life Care Center of Columbia
2514 Faraway Dr
Columbia, SC 29223
Heritage at Lowman Rehabilitation
and Healthcare
201 Fortress Dr
Chapin, SC 29036
7
-------
NHC Healthcare Lexington
2993 Sunset Blvd
West Columbia, SC 29203
56
2601 Forest Dr
Heartland of Columbia
43
Columbia, SC 29203
TOTAL
707
Table 6. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Correctional Institutions
. , ,, Annual Food
Primary Address ฆ ,
Waste (tons)
Broad River Correctional Institution
4460 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Evans Correctional Institution
4556 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Walden Correctional Institution
4340 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Manning Correctional Institution
502 Beckman Drive
Columbia, SC 29210
Kirkland Reception and
Evaluation Center
4344 Broad River Road .. ,
Columbia, SC 29210
Kirkland Correctional Institution
4344 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Goodman Correctional Institution
4556 Broad River Road , . .
Columbia, SC 29210 ' "
Graham (Camille Griffin)
Correctional Institution
4556 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital
4344 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
TOTAL
840.8
Table 7. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Wholesalers
Primary Address
Annual Food
Waste (tons)
Capital Produce Distributors, Inc.
721 Oh Broad River Rd
Irmo, SC 29063
39.4
Columbia Meats, Inc.
1140 Carolina St
West Columbia, SC 29170
31.5
Ole Timey of St. Andrews Inc.
6352 Saint Andrews Rd
Columbia SC 29212
29.5
Gene Morris Company, Inc.
7201 Parklane Rd Ste F
Columbia, SC 29223
24.0
Severt & Sons Produce, Inc.
324 Wholesale Ln
West Columbia, SC 29172
19.0
Raybon Tomato, LLC
406 Wholesale Ln
West Columbia, SC 29172
8.5
Butcher Shop Inc.
1702 Bush River Rd
Columbia, SC 29210
8.0
L & N Produce Company Inc.
307 Little Chris Ln
Columbia, SC 29201
7.0
Belin & NYE Wholesale and Retail
611 Summit Ave
5.5
Meats, Inc.
Columbia, SC 29203
Brantley Meats, Inc.
2817 Swannanoa Dr
West Columbia, SC 29170
5.0
Valley Spring Water Co
11035 Farrow Rd
Blythewood, SC 29016
5.0
Mill Creek Pet Food Center
2841 Millwood Ave
4.8
8
-------
Primary Address
Annual Food 1
Waste (tons) |
Columbia, SC 29205
Drip
729 Saluda Ave
4.2
Columbia, SC 29205
Taylors Poultry Place, Inc.
4701 Augusta Rd
Lexington, SC 29073
3.8
Complete H2o Mineral Inc.
707 Greenwood Rd
West Columbia, SC 29169
3.3
Shealy Coffee, Inc.
220 Cedarcrest Dr
Lexington, SC 29072
3.1
TOTAL
201.6
le 8. Top Sources of Food Waste in the Columbia Region: Restaui
1
Primary Address
Annual Food
Waste (tons)
Classic Catering
1500 McSwain Dr.
West Columbia, SC 29169
300
Sandy Run Catering
338 Foxglove Dr
Swansea, SC 29160
278
Arch Enterprises, LLC
107 Burmaster Dr
Columbia, SC 29229
248
401 CORPORATION
401 Main St
Columbia, SC 29229
245
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
Inc.
2300 LegrandRd
Columbia, SC 29229
195
GMRI, INC.
274 Harbison Blvd
Columbia, SC 29229
195
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
2208 Bush River Rd
165
Inc.
Columbia, SC 29229
Harper S Restaurants, Incorporated
700 Harden S
Columbia, SC 29229t
153
Aramark Services, Inc.
500 Wildlife Pkwy
Columbia, SC 29229
150
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc.
7611 Two Notch Rd
Columbia, SC 29229
150
TOTAL
2079
'"Sources shown in the table are estimated to be the top food waste generator in this category representing about 7% of the food waste. To capture
80% of the annual food waste would require diverting the waste from 407 restaurants.
Table 9. Estimated Annual Food Waste by DoD Facility
N (Equation
Variable)
Total Waste,
tons/yr
Fort Jackson5"
NA
1,200
SC Army National Guard -McCrady Training Center'
475ง
30
Shaw Air Force Base Dining Facility'
NA 389
TOTAL
1,619
* Information provided by Tameria Warren, Sustainable Management Systems Coordinator for Fort Jackson during teleconference of June 25,
2015. NA - not applicable
T Information provided by Linda Johnson, South Carolina Army National Guard (e-mail to Stacey Washington [SCDHEC] dated March, 20,
2015).
' Data provided by Tameria Warren during June 25, 2015 teleconference.
ง N (Equation Variable) = N of meals x 0.35 lbs/meal x 365 days/yr / 2,000 lbs/ton
9
-------
Table 10. Estimated Daily and Daily Food Waste by School District
Number of Schools
in District
Student/Teacher Population
Students Teachers Total
Food Waste
lbs/day Tons/school yrJ
Lexington 1
29
24,222
1,677
25,899
6,190
557
Lexington 2
15
9,004
612
9,616
2,298
207
Lexington 3
4
1,980
130
2,110
504
45
Lexington 4
6
3,477
196
3,673
878
79
Lexington 5
21
16,637
1,269
17,906
4,280
385
Richland 1
53
24,395
1,925
26,320
6,290
566
Richland 2
35
26,783
1,867
28,650
6,847
616
SC Public Charter
39
14,307
643
14,950
3,573
322
TOTAL
202
129,124
2,777
'"Year based on 180 day school year.
Based on these categories, the estimated annual quantity of organic material (waste) before
diversion that's potentially discarded for the two counties is estimated to be 848,195 tons (shown
in Table 11).
Table 11. Estimate of Discarded Organic Material by Source in Lexington and Richland
Counties
Sources
Number of Generators
Total Potential Waste Discarded
(tons/yr)
DoD Facilities
3
1,619
Correctional Institutions
9 841
Restaurants
682 29,133
Supermarkets/ Groceries
72
7,986
Colleges (Residential)
10
2,859
Colleges (Non-Residential)
2
112
Boarding Schools
1
25
Private Schools
10
140
Public Schools (K-12)
202
2,777
Hospitals
8 1,083
Nursing Homes/Residential Care
103
1,781
Manufacturers/Processors
29
8,123
Wholesalers/Distributors
33
227
10
-------
Sources
Number of Generators
Total Potential Waste Discarded
(tons/yr)
Agriculture (animals)
64 331,887
Agriculture (crop)
22 460,968
TOTAL
1250
849,561
3.1 Diversions from Landfill
Limited information was identified to quantify local volumes of organic waste diverted from
landfills and thus, diversion levels were not quantified. Specific volumes of organic material
generated at the local/site-specific level were not identified. In addition, specific data
representing daily, weekly, and monthly volumes were not available. The collection of specific
volume generation estimates would require surveys of the local organic material generators. At
the state level, diversions were documented and include (SC DoC, 2015):
909,602 tons of food waste were generated in South Carolina
790 tons of food scraps were diverted by South Carolina state agencies and
colleges/universities
9,015 tons of cooking oil/grease were recycled in the Columbia region
20.25 tons of food waste were recycled in the Columbia region
3.2 Characteristics of Organic Material
Specific characteristics, such as the particle size, moisture content, and contamination with non-
organics of organic materials specifically generated by local sources, were not identified for
inclusion in this study. This is a knowledge gap that could be pursued through physical waste
audits. The collection of specific organic material characteristics would require a more
systematic study of the local organic material generators. For example, Food Waste Reduction
Alliance (2014) recommends conducting a waste characterization assessment to categorize and
quantify waste streams. Once a baseline has been established, opportunities to reduce waste or
reuse waste can be implemented and progress can be measured. Note that the waste audit was
performed by USC included only masses, not characterization (Resource Recycling Systems,
2012).
Some general information characterizing organic material may be inferred from studies in other
regions. For example, food waste from San Francisco, CA was characterized for its use as
anaerobic digestion feedstock (Zhang et al., 2007). Food waste was collected from 300
restaurants, 50 grocery stores, and 150 commercial sources (hotels and businesses). The daily
average moisture content was 70% and the ratio of volatile solids (VS) to total solids (TS) was
83%. The methane yield was 348 and 435 mL/g VS, respectively, after 10 and 28 days of
digestion. The average VS destruction was 81% at the end of the 28-day digestion test. The
authors concluded that this food waste was appropriate for anaerobic digesters because of its
high biodegradability and methane yield. As part of the Co-digestion Economic Analysis Tool
(Co-EAT), U.S. EPA (2017) estimates that a mixed food waste will have 30% TS and a VS/TS
ratio of 89.5%. U.S. EPA (2010) also provides very similar estimates for these parameters for
11
-------
more specific food profiles, such as supermarket vegetable and fruit feedstock (30% TS and 88%
VS/TS) and FOG (29% TS and 96% VS/TS).
In general, inconsistent or mixed streams of organic material, free of plastic and metal but
including paper products like napkins, are suitable for composting. (Food Waste Reduction
Alliance, 2014).
Animal feed and anaerobic digestion systems require organics without paper. AD systems often
create a slurry of received materials.
12
-------
4,ฎ Receptors of Organic Material
Receptors are organizations that accept the organic wastes either for direct use, for example a
food pantry, or for processing into a product that will be sold to a user in an end market, such as
a composter who will produce and sell compost. Information of a receptor's development status
in the region is included in this analysis, as well as legal, regulatory, logistical considerations
relevant to organizations seeking to adopt these alternatives. With the exception of landfills,
receptors identified in the study region can divert organic materials to higher priority uses per
EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy (Figure 2):
Food pantries, shelters, soup kitchens
Farmers who could feed animals
On-site anaerobic digesters
Large wastewater treatment facilities with anaerobic digesters
Biofuel manufacturers
Composters
41 Food Bank Services
Donations of food to food pantries, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens is a potential alternative
to divert organic materials to the highest priority use - feeding hungry people. Organizations that
process, store, prepare, and serve food may have quality products appropriate for human
consumptions, but may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, size, or size,
or may be surplus. Often such organizations will donate such food to food banks, shelters, and
organizations that serve meals to hungry people.
Food Waste Reduction Alliance (2014) notes that the U.S. offers federal protections from civil
and criminal liability for good-faith food donations to food pantries through the Federal Bill
Emerson Good Samaritan Act. Although transportation constraints are cited as a reason for not
donating more food, the Feeding America network has a national supply chain (including
warehouse and freezer space, trailers, and trucking partners) that service every county in the U.S.
(Food Waste Reduction Alliance, 2014). The Feeding America nationwide network of food
banks secures and distributes more than 3 billion meals each year to communities throughout the
U.S., and four Feeding America food banks serve large areas South Carolina, including one
(Harvest Hope Food Bank) located in Columbia, SC (Feeding America, 2015). Local food banks
may also pick up donations at no cost and repack large quantities of food for household use
(Food Waste Reduction Alliance, 2014).
Food storage prior to delivery may be a barrier for prepared foods. They must be kept hot or cold
to keep them safe for consumption, and that requires temperature controlled storage. Liability
concerns may be a barrier to sources donating prepared foods to feed hungry people. These can
be addressed by making sources aware of Federal and state legal protections for good-faith
donors. Provisions of the Federal Bill Emerson Food Donation Act that protects good-faith food
donors from civil and criminal liability from potential harm to recipients. The state of South
Carolina has an equivalent under Title 15 Chapter 74 (Liability Exemption for Donors of Food).
13
-------
For both Federal and state laws, legal protection does not extend to injuries caused by gross
negligence and/or intentional misconduct on the part of the donor.
4.1.1 Regional Development Status
Twenty-one receptors/users were identified with the potential to accept safe and edible food for
distribution to the people in need of food. These are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Meal Providers and Food Bank Services for Hungry People in the Columbia
Region
Receptors to Feed Hungry People
Comments and Source of Information
Christ Central Columbia
803-765-1998
Columbia, SC
www.christcentralc0lumbia.0r2;
3,000 meals served
(From www.f00dDantries.0r2l
God's Storehouse
803-691-1622
1731 Risley Rd.
Columbia, SC 29223
htto ://aodstorehouse .sc .com
Agency provides food once a month.
(From htto ://suntooi a. or21
Harvest Hope Food Bank
803-254-4432
Columbia, SC 29202
www.harvesthooe.ors
Direct distribution of food to assist hungry people throughout their
20 county service area in South Carolina
(From htto ://suntooi a. or21
Harvest HOPE Food Bank - Lexington County
803-794-1627
1775 12th Street
Cayce, SC 29033
www.harvesthope.com
Eligibility: Anyone in need of food assistance.
(From htto ://suntooi a. or21
Hope Community Learning Center
803-451-2139
1234 St. Andrews Rd.
Columbia, SC 29210
Eligibility: Residents of Richland and Lexington Counties
(From htto ://suntooi a. or21
Jewish Food Pantry
803-787-2023
Columbia, SC
www.iewishcolumbia.ora
County or Counties Served: Richland
(From www.foodpantries.orgl
Mount Pleasant Swansea Outreach Foundation
803-260-6786
505 S Church St
Sansea, SC 29160
Agency provides food pantry.
Eligibility: Residents of Lexington County
(From htto://suntoDia.or2l
P.E.P. Senior Ministry - Unity Missionaiy Baptist Church
Hopkins, SC
(F rom www.h0melessshelterdirect0rv.0r2
Sharing God's Love
803-732-3188
147 Friargate Blvd.
Irmo, SC 29063
htto ://sharin aaodslove.net
Eligibility: Residents living in the following zip codes 29210,
29063, 29212 and 29002
(From htto://suntoDia.or2l
United Way South Carolina
803-929-1000
Columbia, SC
www.uwasc.0r2
Funds organization that feed people.
From www.f00dDantries.0r2l
14
-------
Receptors to Feed Hungry People
Comments and Source of Information
We Care Center
803-345-3244
1808 Chapin Rd
Chapin, SC
Food pantry
Eligibility: Individuals and families in need. Residents of zip codes
29126, 29036, 29122 and 29177 only on Mondays and 29075 and
29127 only on Wednesdays.
(From htto://suntoDia.or2)
White Knoll Baptist Church-Food Pantry
803-957-7065
742 Kitti Wake Drive
West Columbia, SC 29170
Eligibility: people in need.
(From htto ://suntooi a. ora)
Alston Wilkes Society
844-297-1962
3519 Medical Drive
Columbia, SC 29203
http ://www. alstonw i lkessoci ety.org/
Adult residential facilities.
Salvation Army of the Midlands
803-765-0260
Foo Served at Transitions
2025 Main Street
Columbia, SC
http://www.doingthemostgood.org/programs/homelessservices.aspx
Soup kitchen collaborating with City of Columbia Homeless Shelter
run by United Way and Transitions.
Serves meals to homeless individuals, three meals daily every day.
184,000 meals were served in 2014
Hannah House (Christ Central Ministries, Inc.)
803-771-4357
1726 Sumter Street
Columbia, SC 29201
http://www.hannahhousesc.org/
40-bed transitional housing for single women and families. Provides
meals.
Oliver Gospel Mission
803-254-6470
1100 Taylor Street
Columbia, SC 29201
http ://www. ol i verg osp elm issi on. org/
Homeless shelter and daily meals for homeless.
64,274 "freshly prepared meals" served in 2014.
Providence Home
803-779-2927
3421 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29203
http://www.providencehomecolumbia.org/
Homeless shelters.
Soup Cellar
803-256-2417
1401 Washington Street
Columbia, South Carolina
Lunch served Mondays through Fridays 10:45-12:15.
52,000 meals were served in 2012.
Sister Care
803-926-0505
P.O.Box 1029
Columbia, SC 29202
Sistercare.org
Emergency shelters (provide food)
Senior Resources, Inc.
803-252-7734
2817 Millwood Ave
Columbia, SC 29205
http://www.senioiresourcesinc.org/our-services/meals-wheels
Meals on Wheels
The Women's Shelter
903-779-4706
3425 North Main Street
Columbia, SC 29203
Maximum of 11 women in primary shelter. Dinner is served
(possibly other meals).
15
-------
4.1.2 Considerations for Diversion
Food pantries may be receptors for food beyond "sell by" dates, with damaged packaging, or
perishable goods that are over-stocked. While there are currently no State regulations prohibiting
food donations in any way, methods and logistics for collection and shipment of the food from
sources may need to be developed or expanded. For example, refrigeration will be required both
at the source, prior to the food being collected, and at the receptor, prior to the food being heated
and served or donated to clients of the food bank.
Donated food will enable more people to be served at the same cost for food, or the same number
of people to be served at a lower food cost. Several factors are important for organizations
seeking to adopt this alternative management strategy:
ฆ Establishing agreements with organizations as to the types and volumes of materials that
they would accept and timing for such receipts
ฆ Establishing procedures and training to ensure food safety
ฆ Making arrangements for diverted food to be conveyed from the source to the receptor
ฆ Storing and in some cases refrigerating, freezing, or keeping foods hot until they are
conveyed to the receptor.
The U.S. Army has a commitment to donate food to feed hungry people (Mason, 2014). While
specific to the Army, the general approach can be applied more broadly:
(1) Formally survey excess foods to determine the frequency and quantity; convey the results
to potential receptors who have feeding or food pantry programs
(2) Establish procedures and assign responsibilities for ensuring donated food is safe:
prepared foods must be stored at safe temperatures (adequately cold or hot) and protected
from contamination
(3) Coordinate with the organization(s) that will receive the food: types of food accepted,
timing of deliveries, availability of containers and/or transportation for donated foods,
ability of receptor to safely store, handle, prepare, and distribute the food
(4) Establish a formal written agreement with the receptor
(5) Establish procedures for safely donating food to the receptor and train staff
(6) Perform a trial run prior to implementing the process
(7) Review the program periodically.
An important caveat is that food banks also have large amounts of food waste. Efforts are needed
to ensure that food provided to food banks, soup kitchens, and shelters are in usable conditions
and quantities.
4.2 Farms and Animal Feed
Animal feed production is highly regulated by federal and state agencies.
16
-------
4.2.1 Regional Development Status
There are two general approaches for diversion of food waste to animal feed: direct feeding of
the food waste to the animals by the receptor and incorporation of the food waste into animal
feed by a receptor that is then sold to users. The status of development for these alternatives in
the study area is undeveloped, but nascent when viewed at a national level. While there are
animal feed manufacturers in the Columbia region, none currently produce animal feed from
food wastes.
The state of South Carolina has specific regulations guiding the use of food waste for feeding
livestock. In particular South Carolina Code of Laws, ง 47-15-20 (1970), states: "It shall be
unlawful for any person to feed garbage to swine." In this case garbage is defined in SC Code ง
47-15-10 (1970) as "any animal wastes resulting from handling, preparation, cooking, or
consumption of foods, including animal carcasses, parts of animal carcasses, or contents of offal.
Unpasteurized milk and unpasteurized milk products are animal waste." In addition, the
manufacture of ruminant feed is highly regulated (21 CFR งง 589.2000 and 589.2001 [2008])
and prohibits the use of animal proteins in ruminant feed.
While there are relatively few hogs in the two counties (only three farms with 50-99 hogs each),
there are many cattle in the two counties. As of 2012, the inventory of total cattle and calves in
Richland and Lexington counties was approximately 8,600 cattle on 375 farms (USDA, 2014).
Cattle are predominately present on small farms with over one-half of the animals found on
farms with less than 100 cattle.
Currently, the animal feed manufacturer Schell & Kampter (Gaston, SC) has a process for selling
to hog farms animal feed they produce that does not meet manufacturing specifications. The
"off-spec" product is further processed by the farmer and blended into feed for hogs.
There are organizations that process, produce, or store food waste of quality appropriate (i.e.
complies with federal, state and local regulations and standards) for use in the manufacture of
ruminant, swine or poultry feed. Because South Carolina regulations prohibit food waste
containing any animal or dairy products to be fed to hogs, sources of food waste must be limited
to sources that would not include animal products. Such manufacturers might include breweries,
bakeries, and grain millers. Materials from the larger sources of food waste, such as restaurants
and institutions, could not be used without heat processing. Three manufacturers, shown in Table
14, were identified as generating 80% of the non-animal food waste in the Columbia, SC region.
Table 13. Sources of Non-Animal Food Waste for Use as Animal Feed in the Columbia
Region
Company Name
Primary Address
1 Annual Food
1 Waste (tons)
265 Metropolitan Dr.
Beverage South of Aiken LLC
434.6
West Columbia, SC 29170
Allen Brothers Milling Company
804 Gervais St.
Columbia, SC 29201
39.8
17
-------
Hunter Gatherer Brewery & Ale
House
900 Main St.
23.1
Columbia, SC 29201
4.2.2 Considerations for Diversion
At the federal level, the production and manufacture of animal feed is regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For instance, 9 CFR ง 166 (2009),
the Swine Health Protection, requires that food waste/garbage be heated throughout at boiling
(212ฐF or 100ฐC at sea level) for 30 minutes before being fed to swine, and further requirements
(Part 166.7) are noted regarding the licensing of facilities that treat garbage for feeding to swine.
In this instance garbage is defined as "[a] 11 waste material derived in whole or in part from the
meat of any animal (including fish and poultry) or other animal material, and other refuse of any
character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material, resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking or consumption of food, except that such term shall not include
waste from ordinary household operations which is fed directly to swine on the same premises
where such household is located.'' The federal regulations guiding the use of food wastes for
animal feed are specific to the type of animal and requires separate food waste source streams
and production processes to avoid contamination and comply with regulations.
Compliance with these regulations may present a significant barrier to the use of food wastes for
animal feed. In addition many livestock suppliers have contracts with large-scale meat suppliers
that may have additional requirements regarding feed that need to be met.
Storage and collection of food waste to be used for animal feed also present potential barriers to
development of this market. Storage must be constructed to avoid contamination and spoilage
while collection of food wastes must be scheduled to be cost efficient while meeting the demand
for a consistent supply stream.
4.3 Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion uses microorganisms to decompose biological wastes in the absence of
oxygen. The process is typically conducted under wet conditions, without the presence of air, to
form biogas, primarily a combination of methane gas and carbon dioxide. The gas produced can
then be burned directly, compressed for vehicle fuel, or used to generate electricity. Anaerobic
digesters have been used in agricultural applications and waste treatment plants for decades.
Applications in the U.S. have primarily been for agriculture and wastewater treatment. Food
waste added to an anaerobic digestion system is called co-digestion.
Anaerobic digestion that utilizes only food waste (and other biomass) for purposes of generating
biogas and do not rely on wastewater treatment streams are also in operation. Zero Waste Energy
(Monterey, CA) is an example of a food-waste based digester with technical capability to convert
5,000 tons of organic waste to energy. The system generates up to 100 kilowatts (kW) of
electricity or biogas (60% methane, 3,200 British Thermal Units (BTU)/ton of organic waste).
Consideration of such a commercial anaerobic system for Columbia, SC was started in 2011.
18
-------
Anaerobic digester systems can use a wide range of feedstocks. These include MS W, food waste,
poultry litter, sewage effluent, and FOG (Khalid et al., 2011; Black & Veatch, 2012).
Pretreatment and may be required to solubilize and size materials prior to anaerobic digestion.
4.3.1 Regional Development Status
The potential total amount of food waste available is summarized in Table 12. This total includes
manure, which was estimated to amount to 331,887 tons for Lexington and Richland Counties in
2012. Much of the manure may currently be used for fertilizer. While the amount in excess is
unknown, it might be available for anaerobic digestion.
Animal manure from animal feeding operations provides a built-in supply of material for
digestion. According to recommendations by the U.S. EPA AgStar program (AgStar, 201 la),
facilities with at least 500 head of cattle or 2,000 head of swine are necessary for on-farm
anaerobic digestion to be appropriate. This study did not find hog or cattle farms of this size in
the Columbia region (USDA, 2014). The possibility exists that a successful anaerobic digester
could be established that would collect manure from multiple farms in the same proximity. Such
digester could be owned and managed cooperatively, or could be owned and managed by a third
party.
In 2014, Richland County reported 8,440 tons of cooking grease and oil were collected and
recycled; in the same time period, Lexington County report 575 tons of cooking grease and oil
recycled (SCDHEC, 2015). The majority of the oil and grease (approximately 98%) comes from
the commercial and institutional industry. Because of the high value for used cooking oil, this
potential waste stream would not be expected to be used for anaerobic digestion. In contrast,
brown grease from traps currently have a high tipping fee, high energy content, are already
collected by trucks and might be a useful feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
There are three publicly owned WWTPs in the two county area (Table 14). None of these
facilities are currently co-digesting food wastes through anaerobic digestion however there are
potentially sufficient amounts of food waste feedstocks generated in the region.
Table 14. Constrained Potential for Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge (Black & Veatch, 2012 -
Table 7-14)
Estimated Annual
Generation* (Dry
tons per yr)
Estimated Fuel
Potential (MBTU per
yr y
Constrained Potential
Capacity (MW)*
Constrained Potential
Generation (GWh per
yr)ง
Columbia/Metro
10,120
68,310
0.9
7.0
East Richland County PSD/Gills
Creek
2,670
18,023
0.3
1.8
City of Cayce Regional WWTP
1,620
10,935
0.2
1.1
* Quantity reported by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. (2006)
f Million British Thermal Units peryr
* megawatts (million watts)
5gigawatts peryr (billion watts peryr)
19
-------
Columbia's Clean Water 2020 Program is currently focused on upgrading the wastewater
systems and increasing capacity. Timing is therefore right to consider including co-digestion and
energy generation to create value from the anaerobic digestion process. There is a high level of
interest on the part of the Columbia/Metro WWTP in having a third party operate an energy
generation plant as an energy recovery system for the anaerobic digestion systems. This would
include a third party securing food waste and possibly FOG that could be incorporated as a
feedstock for power generation.
Additionally, Columbia/Metro WWTP intends to run a Class A anaerobic digestion system
which should generate a valued, pelletized residual. An initial concept is to return the pelletized
materials to sources of food waste for land application which could include Fort Jackson and
USC. Residual would compete with compost from other sources. The anaerobic digesters can
utilize a portion of the biogas or electricity generated for their own operations. The remainder of
the energy can be sold to the electric utility. The tipping fee charged by the anaerobic digester
will need to compete with landfill tipping fees. The size of the potential market is sufficient for
growth in volume digested. South Carolina has financial incentives for installation of anaerobic
digesters including corporate and personal tax credits that might offset some costs.
4.3.2 Considerations for Diversion
For agricultural applications in general, anaerobic digesters are complex and require experience
to optimize the power generation. Digester projects for farms are typically smaller than 400 kW
and rely on simple technology. Animal type, population, and manure collection system are the
primary considerations when determining a potential farm-based digester (Black & Veatch,
2012). However, power generated could both meet the needs of the farm (valued at retail
electrical rates) and provide excess electricity that can be sold to the grid. Third party ownership
of the anaerobic digesters may be used to remove financial risk from the farmer (New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority, 2014).
Funding incentives are available for utilizing these systems. For example, Rural Energy for
America Program Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement Loans and
Grants will cover up to 25% of the project (grants range from $2,500 - $500,000) and provide
loan guarantees for 75% of project up to $25 million (USDA, n.d.).
Co-digestion by adding food waste to wastewater anaerobic digesters can substantially increase
methane and biogas generation potential. Food waste generates 210 cubic meters of biogas per
ton (AgStar, 2012). The methane in biogas is 50% to 80% methane. The percentage of methane
determines the BTU in the biogas. A cubic meter of biogas at 65% methane will yield 23,242
BTU (Energy.gov, 2013). Each ton of food waste would generate about 220 kWh of electricity
per ton.
WWTPs with anaerobic digesters with excess capacity can accept food waste feedstocks with
little incremental cost. By installing generators, the biogas, enhanced by the addition of food
waste, may be able to generate electricity to power the facility and, potentially, sell to the power
utility. The partnership between the City of Wooster, Ohio and quasar energy group (quasar) is
20
-------
discussed as an example of an approach that could be evaluated for the City of Columbia
WWTP. Figure 3 provides a schematic of the process.
Food Waste and FOG
Agreements For Tipping
i
City Internal
Use
Sale to Grid
City Internal Use
of Biogas
Materials Hauled for Fee
Anaerobic Digestion
Tanks (3)
Sludge Dewatering &
Pelletizing
Biomass Equalization
Tank
Heat Capture and Use
Electricity Generation
Biogas Processing
Customer for Pellets
Figure 3. Schematic of processes required from source to product users.
Food Waste and FOG sources will need to sign agreements to provide the materials for a
specified tipping fee. In the Wooster case, quasar typically solicits sources. The city may also
solicit sources, in which case they receive a portion of the tipping fee. The target is sources
within 10-20 miles of the WWTP. A critical part of the agreements must include ensuring that
the food waste is segregated and free of contaminants.
4.4 Biofuel Manufacturers
Biodiesel produced from waste cooking oils is a mature technology with source markets for
producers and receptors as well as established markets for customers. There are established long-
term markets for used cooking oil both nationally (Wiltsee, 1998) and locally. For the assessment
of waste material diversion for biofuel generation, the targeted materials are waste cooking oils
in the form of yellow grease and trap grease.
21
-------
4.4.1 Regional Development Status
The production of biodiesel from trap grease is not currently occurring in South Carolina and
remains an area of study. Pilot plants have been developed that utilize pretreatment of trap grease
prior to the esterification process that may provide future markets for trap grease to produce
biofuels (Canackci and Van Gerpen, 2001).
As a practical matter, the existing biodiesel production uses cooking oil. Possible expansion will
be considered to incorporate trap grease into biodiesel production.
Table 15 identifies the typical free fatty acid (FFA) content for a range of waste oil feedstocks.
The amount of FFA is a critical quality characteristic of the source because it determines the
level of pretreatment necessary prior to the transesterification process for fuel generation.
Increasing levels of pretreatment can add to biodiesel production costs. The highest price
feedstock is refined vegetable oil with price typically decreasing as the product becomes less
refined as in the case of crude vegetable oil and restaurant waste grease (i.e., yellow grease).
Table 15. Free Fatty Acid (FFA) content for Waste Oil Feedstocks (Source: Van Gerpen [2001] in Hall et
al. [n.d.])
Feedstock
Percentage of Free Fatty Acid Content (FFA)
Refined Vegetable Oil
<0.05%
Crude Vegetable Oil
0.3 to 0.7%
Restaurant Waste Grease
2 to 7%
Animal Fat
5 to 30%
Trap Grease
40 to 100%
The receiver of the waste FOG generally collects the materials at the source. There are a large
potential number of commercial entities that advertise cleaning of grease traps and management
of contents via use of rendering technologies in the Columbia, SC area (Table 15). The
registration and proper management (i.e., regular clean-out) of grease traps is a regulatory
requirement in Columbia, SC and other areas with the region.
Table 16. Commercial Services for Collection of Trap Grease and Rendering
Company Name and Address
(Web Site)
Identified Services and Material Uses
Identified Material End Products from
Company Web Site Information
Valley Proteins Inc.
Management Restaurant Greases
Animal feed products
271 Valpro Rd
Grease Trap Cleanout
Biofuels - biofuels, including industrial boilers
Ward, SC 29166
Rendering
(803) 685-2590
htto: //w w w. va 1 levorote ins.com
22
-------
Carolina By Products/Valley Proteins
144 Miley Rd
Branchville, SC 29432
(803)274-8214
Note: Now a fully owned subsidiary of Valley
Proteins
Management Restaurant Greases
Grease Trap Cleanout
Rendering
Assumed same as Valley Proteins, no separate
company web site maintained
E & D Enterprises Inc.
831 Veterans Rd.
Columbia, SC 29209
(803) 470-3460
htto://www. ed e ne nte ro rises i n c. co m
Grease Trap Cleanout
General Septic and Rental Toilet
Needs
Not identified in company web site
Stanley Environmental Solutions
131 Mariposa Rd.
Stanley, NC 28164
(877)263-8186
htto: //w w w. sta n leve nviro.com/
Grease Trap Cleanout
General Septic and Rental Toilet
Needs
Not identified in company web site
Publication identified composting of grease
trap waste (Dayton, 2010)
DAR-PRO Solutions
Darling-Griffin
667 Lincoln Ave
Summerville, SC, 29485
htto://www. griff in ind.com/
httD://www.darDro.com/locations
Cooking Oil Removal Only in South
Carolina
Animal feed
Biodiesel generation and direct use of animal
fats and yellow grease as fuel
Biocycle
26 Park Hill Dr
Lugoff, SC 29078
(803) 549-2994
No Web Site Identified
Grease Trap Removal
Unknown
4.4.2 Considerations for Diversion
There are regulatory limitations on how waste cooking oils must be managed by the source.
Waste grease, yellow grease or trap grease, generated from commercial entities will not be
accepted as solid waste by haulers. In 2009 the City of Columbia launched a "Trash the Grease"
communication campaign and since 2009 has performed more than 5,500 FOG inspections in an
effort to reduce waste in the sewers (Clean Water 2020,
http ://www.cleanwater2020. com/learn/pro gram-overview). This effort encourages grease
recycling.
23
-------
4.5 Composters
Composting businesses secure materials for composting, perform composting operations, and
market and sell compost as a soil amendment. Figure 4 provides a conceptual model of the
composting process from organic wastes to the end product.
Must segregate food wastes
ปPay hauler (competes with landfill and other potential uses)
ปSave difference between landfill and hauler charges.
ปGets food wastes delivered by independent haulers
Significant investment in land and equipment
Sell verified high-quality product to end users.
Large number of diverse, but idenfiable, potential users
Compete on price and quality with farm and garden supply stores.
Figure 4. Flow of food waste from sources to users.
4.5.1 Regional Development Status
The SC DHEC regulation R.61-107.4 Solid Waste Management: Compost and Mulch Production
from Land-clearing Debris, Yard Trimmings and Organic Residuals provides requirements for
permitted facilities. Category 1 feedstocks do not include food wastes. Category 2 feedstocks do
include food wastes, but exclude FOG, wastewater sludge, and anaerobic digester residuals.
Currently there is one compost site, Re-Soil, in Lexington and Richland Counties that accept
food wastes (but not FOG or manure). Re-Soil has a capacity to handle 792 tons of raw or
composting material at a time. Re-Soil can currently process 300 tons/month of compost,
increased to 1,200 tons/month using forced aeration. Re-Soil currently is beginning to receive
monthly 150 ton deliveries of organic waste from outside the two-county region. Additional
capacity (100,000 square feet) is currently being planned.
24
-------
4.5.2 Considerations for Diversion
Segregation of food waste, willing haulers, a composting facility with sufficient customers
(tonnage guarantees for food waste), and adequate compost customers to purchase the compost
are key factors in ensuring a successful composting operation.
Bees Ferry Compost Facility (Charleston County Landfill) was the first commercial facility in
the state to offer food waste composting. While they do not receive waste from the Columbia
area, they highlight that food waste must be devoid of unacceptable material to ensure a high
quality compost product. Table 24 describes acceptable food waste for composting at the Bees
Ferry Compost Facility. The types of organizations that Charleston County Landfill describes as
providing materials for food wastes for composting include schools (public schools, private
schools, and higher educational facilities) and restaurants.
Table 17. Acceptable and Unacceptable Materials for Composting
Acceptable
Unacceptable
- Cooked meats and fish, shells, and bones
- FOG or non-consumable liquids
- Egg and dairy products
- Raw meat
- Food preparation scraps and table scraps
- Plastic or rubber
- Fruits and vegetables
- Wood, metal, glass, plastic, rubber, or other non-
- Materials from grains - bread, baked items, pasta
food items
- Coffee grounds, filters, tea bags
- Consumable liquids
- Wooden skewers and cocktail sticks
- Food-soiled paper
Post-startup composting process costs include labor, maintenance of equipment and facilities,
packaging supplies, and marketing and selling expenses. As an example, Bee's Ferry
Composting Facility is 28 acres, has 18 employees, and processes 60,000 tons per yr. Food from
school cafeterias received by Bee's Ferry is recycled into compost donated back to schools.
Bee's Ferry receives food wastes from commercial sources by haulers/truckers diverting waste
for a fee.
The financial driver for a source to divert their food wastes to composting is potential cost
savings compared to landfills. Charleston County provides an example of a $344 annual savings
by switching from a six cubic yard dumpster to a four cubic yard dumpster with two cubic yards
diverted to composting and recycling.
For on-site food waste composting, aerobic in-vessel rotary drum technologies can be used at
many locations with adequate food waste. The compost would need to be used on site or a
market for the compost would be needed. Financial justification depends on savings from tipping
fees avoided and savings from compost purchases avoided or revenue from sale of compost.
25
-------
Markets identified by the U.S. Composting Council are shown in Table 18. A survey of compost
businesses identified landscapers, homeowners, topsoil manufacturers, retailers, and nurseries as
the most important customers for compost (Alexander, 2000). The survey indicated that most
composters sell only in bulk (58%), but the remainder sell both bulk and bagged. Most marketing
is done by in-house staff.
The Charleston County Landfill (Class 2) currently accepts about 8,000 tons of yard waste, but
lack a good market. Identifying adequate markets is likely the greatest challenge for expanding
or launching commercial composting in Lexington and Richland Counties.
Table 18. Markets for Compost Identified by the U.S. Composting Council (Source: Charleston County)
Applications and Uses
1 Approximate Usage Rates
Homeowners
Common Landscape and garden uses
1" application or 20% by volume
Golf Courses
Construction mixes for golf courses
5% - 20% by volume, depending on application
Sports Turf
Top dressing mixes
1/4" -1/2" after aeration
Landscapers
New turf establishment
1" - 2" tilled to 5" depth
Turf renovation and top dressing
1/8" -1/2" top-dressed after aeration
Planting bed preparation
1" - 2" tilled into raised beds
Mulching
2" - 3" evenly applied
Backfill for tree planting
30% by volume
Nurseries
Field application as a soil amendment
1" - 2" incorporated 5" deep
Band application for shade trees
2" applied in two foot bands
Liner beds incorporated
1" - 2" incorporated replant
Liner beds mulched
1" - 2" mulched post plant
Container mixes
5% - 40% by volume depending on plants
Topsoil Blenders
Soil amendment for many blends
10% - 50% by volume for blends
Roadside
New seed establishment / upgrading soil
1" disked to 4" depth
Erosion control
1" - 2" as a course mulch
Mulch for tree planting
2" - 3" evenly applied
Planting beds at interchanges
1" - 2" tilled into raised bed
Landfills
Vegetation establishment during closure
1" - 2" disked into soil
Silviculture
Seedline establishment mulch
1" - 2" disked where possible or 1" - 2" evenly applied
Agriculture
General field soil amendment
1" - 2" incorporated
Specialty crop production
1/4" - 2" incorporated or as a mulch
26
-------
4.6 Landfills
In South Carolina, there are three classes of landfills, based on the types of material that they can
accept. A Class 1 Landfill can accept land-clearing debris; a Class 2 Landfill can accept
construction and demolition wastes, including, among other debris, land-clearing debris,
furniture, lumber, vinyl siding, pipes, and pallets. Class 3 Landfills (the only landfills permitted
to receive MSW) are a traditional disposal option for organic material.
4.6.1 Regional Development Status
Lexington County has contracted to send all waste to the landfill through 2019.
The permitted annual rates of disposal and estimated remaining capacity (both in tons) for Class
3 Landfills located in Richland County are listed below (SCDHEC, 2015). There are no Class 3
Landfills in Lexington County as they have contracted to send all waste to the landfill through
2019. (Table 19):
Northeast Landfill, LLC: 529,600 tons (annual disposal rate permitted) and 5,161,282
tons (estimated remaining capacity)
Richland Landfill, Inc.: 988,209 tons (annual disposal rate permitted) and 30,828,275
tons (estimated remaining capacity).
Table 19. Data for Class 3 Landfills in Richland County
FY 2014*
Estimated
County*
Landfill
Ownership*
Food Waste
Recycled
(Commercial/
Institutional),
tons
FY 2014*
Cooking
Oil/Grease,
tons
FY 2014
Disposal
(tons)*
Remaining
Life Based on
Current
Disposal Rate
in Years*
(None in
Lexington
County,
transported to
Richland
Lexington
0.25
575
(Not
Applicable)
(Not
Applicable)
Landfill)
Northeast
Landfill LLC
Richland
Privately
Owned
144,625
35.7
Richland Landfill
Richland
Privately
Owned
20.07
8,440
931,247
33.1
'"SCDHEC, 2015
^Lexington County Solid Waste Fees Updated October 2012. http://www.lex-
co. sc. gov/departments/DeptRZ/solidwaste/Documents/S WM%20FEE%20('CURRENT) .pdf
27
-------
Summary of Key Findings
The greatest potential for reducing waste while lowering the costs is source reduction.
There is currently no coordinated emphasis on food waste reduction
Under current conditions, the two major landfills in the study region has an estimated
remaining capacity of 9.7 years and 31.2 years, respectively.
Over 800,000 tons of organic material is generated in the two county region with small
amounts being recycled in the study region.
There are twenty-one organizations in the study region with the potential to accept safe
and edible food for distribution and consumption.
The development status of using food waste for animal food are underdeveloped in the
study region. While there are animal feed manufacturers in the Columbia region, none
currently produce animal feed from food wastes.
Columbia's Clean Water 2020 Program is currently focused on upgrading the
wastewater systems and increasing capacity. Timing is therefore right to consider
including co-digestion and energy generation to create value from the anaerobic digestion
process.
The production of biodiesel from trap grease is not currently occurring in South Carolina
and remains an area of study.
Centralized composting of food wastes is now an available option for diversion of food
waste at lower cost than landfilling.
28
-------
6.o Conclusion and Recommendations
This study investigated the feasibility of diverting organic materials, specifically food wastes and
FOG from landfills. In accordance with the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy, methods for
source reduction, feeding hungry people, feeding animals, industrial uses, and composting were
considered. A summary of organic waste diversion options are provided in Table 20.
In many cases the alternatives are not mutually exclusive, although the amount of waste diverted
by one approach means less waste available for other diversion methods. It is recommended that
the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy be followed. To be consistent with the Hierarchy,
decisions will be biased toward adoption of source reduction and feeding hungry people over
alternatives that are lower in the hierarchy.
Table 20. Summary of Organic Waste Diversion Options
Hierarchy
Benefits
Status in Columbia Region
Potential Barriers
Reduce Waste
Greatest potential for reducing waste while lowering the costs for
the source.
Can be implemented concurrently with other diversion
approaches.
Prevent pollution related to food production, such as fertilizers
and pesticides, and save energy associated with growing,
preparing, and transporting food.
Reduce methane emissions from landfills.
Currently no coordinated
emphasis on food waste
reduction.
Inertia of status quo.
Little infrastructure in place
Feeding Hungry
People
Helping communities in need
Can be implemented concurrently with other diversion
approaches.
Donations of excess,
unsalable food
Have many organizations
currently involved
Lack of coordination results in
substantial waste of donated food costs
associated with planning and executing
food donation programs including costs
associated with transportation,
storage, and distribution.
Animal Feed
Food scraps for animal can save farmers and companies money.
With proper handling, it can be cheaper to feed animals food
scraps rather than having them hauled to a landfill.
Not used currently
Waste streams from sources that only
contain vegetable matter, like grain
mills or bakeries, could be used to feed
animals.
Must not contain meat or dairy
products or byproducts; processing,
storing, transporting; quantity, quality,
and seasonality
Anaerobic
Digestion
Co-digestion at a WWTP to generate energy for sale is estimated
to be break-even, contingent upon the value of energy, tipping
fees, and the use of the digestate.
Not in use currently
Significant investment is required,
including efforts to establish supply of
feedstock and product usage.
Composting
Can provide nourishment to soils and improve crops.
Can save costs compare to landfilling
Newly central facility
available for food waste
composting,
Start-up issues
29
-------
A variety of methods could be adopted to divert food wastes from landfills that will provide a
positive return for the source. Based on the investigation, the following recommendations are
made.
Recommendation 1 Implement source reduction practices for greatest generators
Develop and implement education programs to encourage reduction practices be adopted by those
organizations that generate the greatest amount of food wastes.
Recommendation 2 Implement food donation programs
Develop and implement food donation programs. Organizations with excess or non-saleable food
that is safe to eat can divert food from landfills by providing the food to organizations that
provide meals and food pantries for those in need of food. A regional "food waste information
exchange" can facilitate connections and efficient transactions between sources of food
appropriate for human consumption and those who feed people in need.
Recommendation 3 Investigate Opportunities for Co-digestion at WWTPs
Perform an engineering study and a marketing study for one or all of the WWTP to evaluate
capacity to accept food wastes for anaerobic digestion and the financial projections to produce
and use electricity from biogas, and land-apply the beneficial residual. Anaerobic digestion of
food wastes is not currently an option, but is feasible at the WWTPs with some structural change.
Recommendation 4 Characterize organic materials
Examine specific characteristics, such as the particle size, moisture content, and contamination
with non-organics of organic materials specifically generated by local sources. Conduct food
waste audits and waste characterization assessments for top generators and refine the projections
of available food wastes by source by determining the percentages of food being diverted to
beneficial applications. This information would help inform decisions for potential co-digestion
with WWTPs.
Recommendation 5 Establish a Campus-Community Partnership
EPA works with universities and communities to introduce them to the successful Campus-
Community Sustainability Partnerships (CCSP) model and other EPA tools and approaches for
advancing sustainability. In the CCSP model, a university (campus) provides direct support to a
city (or other local governmental organization) to achieve the city's self-identified sustainability
goals, particularly in attaining net zero energy, water, and waste. The CCSP program enables
local governments to execute their sustainability-related projects in an affordable manner while
university students learn through hands-on problem solving and develop valuable skills. The
long-term objective is to establish mutually beneficial partnerships that help communities
become more sustainable and resilient, build capacity, and provide university students with real-
world experiences.
Recommendation 6 Divert segregated food waste to composting facility
Communicate the availability of competitively-priced food waste composting services in the
region. Centralized composting of food wastes is now an available option for diversion of food
waste at lower cost than landfilling.
30
-------
Recommendation 7 Divert segregated food waste to composting facility
For governments, consider incentives and disincentives for food waste, such as:
Providing optional separate collection of food wastes
Banning food wastes from the landfills or raising tipping fees for food wastes to
encourage diversion
Instituting "pay-as-you-throw" programs that charge residents based on the amount
generated. Some municipalities charge for landfill waste but not for recycling or food
waste
Participating as a customer to dispose of food wastes at composting facility for municipal
buildings and at events.
Recommendation 8 Continue updating DHEC's website as a continual education
resource. Encourage the collection of data on food waste generation and diversion usage
utilizing DHEC's platform.
Understanding that changing the infrastructure of food waste management creates changing
economics. Waste is a commodity. Sometimes it has a positive value, like the current market
for used vegetable oil- this we now call a resource rather than a waste. Generally waste is a
negative value commodity, an unavoidable cost. Sometimes a new process will change the
established pricing structure as when the composting facility opens with lower tipping rates than
the landfill; now disposal clients have a choice and a less negative value on their waste. Each
innovation, each new source that decides to divert its waste from landfill alters the market.
Some of the recommendations are for increasing options for using wasted food and other
organics. Some recommendations are for increasing demand for more and different waste
services. These systems, laws, and ideas have been successful in other parts of the U.S.
This study found feasible alternatives with the potential, if fully realized, to significantly divert
food wastes from landfills in the Columbia, SC region. Most promising are source reduction
practices, developing efficient connectivity between sources of edible food and organizations
feeding hungry people, composting of food waste, and capture and use of biogas during co-
digestion as existing WWTP in the region.
The last recommendation is to mix large measures of patience, creativity, and cooperation into
the process. Changing infrastructure is hard work, and moving toward a zero waste or circular
economy will involve disruption. New facilities and processes will have start-up problems that
will require time and energy to resolve.
31
-------
7,ฎ References
AgStar. 2011. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems at U.S. Livestock Facilities. U.S. EPA.
AgStar. 2012. Increasing Anaerobic Digester Performance with Codigestion. U.S. EPA. September.
Alexander, R. 2000. Compost Marketing Trends in the .U.S. Biocycle (July), 64-66.
Black & Veatch. 2012. Prepared for the South Carolina Energy Advisory Council. 2012. South Carolina Resource
Study. Section 7.0, Biomass Resources: 7-1 through 7-37.
BSR 2014. Analysis of U.S. Food Waste among Food Manufacturers, Retailers, and Restaurants. Prepared for the
Food Waste Reduction Alliance.
Canackci, M. and J. Van Gerpen. 2001. A Pilot Plant to Produce Biodiesel from High Free Fatty Acid Feedstocks.
2001 ASAE Annual International Meeting. Sacramento Convention Center. Sacramento, California. July 30 -
August 1, 2001. https://elibrarv.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=4209&t=2&redir=&redirTvpe= Accessed June 18, 2015.
Clean Water 2020 - Columbia's Clear Vision for Clean Water, http://www.cleanwater2020.com.
Draper/Lennon, Inc. 2002. Identification, Characterization, andMapping ofFood Waste andFoodWaste Generators
in Massachusetts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/recvcle/priorities/foodwast.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2015.
Energy.gov. 2013. Anaerobic Digestion Basics: Feeding America, 2015. Find Your Local Food Bank.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/find-vour-local-foodbank/.
F&ME Consultants. 2009. Food Waste Audit - Phase 1 Final Report. Prepared for the University of South Carolina.
Feeding America. 2015 http://www.feedingamerica.org/find-your-local-foodbank
Food Waste Reduction Alliance. 2014. Best Practices & Emerging Solutions Toolkit.
http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FWRA Toolkit FINAL 0415141.pdf. Accessed
May 29, 2015.
Hall, M., S. Adhikari, and S. Taylor, n.d. Producing Biodiesel for Municipal Vehicle Fleets from Recycled Cooking
Oil. Auburn University in Cooperation with the Energy Division of the Alabama Department of Economic and
Community Affairs.
http://www.alabamacleanfuels.org/docs/AU%20Muncipal%20Biodiesel%20Guide%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed on
June 17, 2015.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. 2006. Bioenergy from Municipal Sludge Study Report. Report No. K530-
526081-01-0223. Columbia, SC(SERBEP).
Khalid, A, M. Arshad, M. Anjum, T. Mahmood, and L. Dawson. 2011. The Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Organic
Waste. Waste Management 31, 1737-1744.
Mason, R.V. 2014. Memorandum: Army Food Donation Procedures. Department of the Army. Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff, G-4, Washington, D.C.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2014. Anaerobic Digester Business Model and
Financing Options for Dairy Farms in New York State Final Report May 2013 Report Number 14-30.
32
-------
Resource Recycling Systems. 2012. Comprehensive Report and Recommendations: University of South Carolina.
February 16, 2012.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). 2015. South Carolina Solid Waste
Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2014.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). 2002. Standards for the Permitting of
Agricultural Animal Facilities. South Carolina Department of Commerce (SCDoC). 2015. South Carolina Food
Waste Generation Report. 23 April 2015.
U.S. Army. 2011. Army Vision for Net Zero. Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army.
http://www.asaie.armv.mil/Public/ES/netzero/docs/4Qctll NET ZERO White Paper.pdf. Accessed August 29,
2015.
USD A. (n.d.) Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-energy-
america-program-renewable-energv-svstems-energy-efficiencv.
USD A. 2014. Census of Agriculture 2012 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data. Table 11. Cattle and
Calves Inventory and Sales: 2012 and 2007.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full Report/Volume 1, Chapter 2 County Level/South Carolin
a/.
U.S. EPA. 2017. Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool (CoEAT). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA. 2012. U.S. EPA Food Recovery Challenge. Water Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and U.S. EPA
Region 9. November 2012. http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/foodrecovery/FoodRecovervChallenge.pdf.
Van Gerpen, J.H. 2008. Biodiesel Economics. Oilseeds and Biodiesel Workshop. Billings, Montana. January 9,
2008. Accessed on June 17, 2015.
Wiltsee, G. 1998. Urban Waste Grease Resource Assessment. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/SR-
570-26141. November 1998. http://www.epa .gov/region9/waste/biodiesel/docs/NRELwaste-grease-assessment.pdf.
Accessed on June 17, 2015.
Zhang, R, H.M. El-Mashad, K. Hartman, F. Wang, G. Liu, C. Choate, and P. Gamble. 2007. Characterization of
food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology 98:929-935.
33
-------
s.ฎ Additional Bibliography
AgStar. 2011. Burrows Hall Renewable Energy Project, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/confl 1/hamdan.pdf)
Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2015. South Carolina Laws and Incentives for Biodiesel. U.S. Department of Energy
- Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/BIOD/SC. Accessed June 16,
2015.
Beta Lab Services, 2015. Diesel Substitutes: Biodiesel and Biomass-based Biodiesel.
http://www.betalabservices.com/biofuels/biomass-based-diesel.html. Accessed June 16, 2015.
BestColleges.com. Best School Ranking, http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/greenest-universities/).
Biodiesel Magazine. 2015. USA Plants. http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/plants/listplants/USA/. Accessed on
7/6/2015.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton. 2014. Technical and Economic Assessment of Biodiesel for Vehicular Fuel Use. April 14,
1994. http://www.biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/reports-database. Accessed June 18 2015.
Centola, A. President of Re-Soil (personal telephone communication 6/18/2015).
City of Cayce Minutes of 1/07/14 Regular Council Meeting. http://www.cityofcayce-
sc.gov/files/5691797120140131143321883cm.Ddf. Accessed July 8, 2015.
Cook, L. Recycling Coordinator, University of South Carolina (personal e-mail communication with Harry Stone
with attachment "Composting proforma final" document. 6/16/15).
Copeland, T. andE.H. Myers. 2010. An Assessment of the Restaurant Grease Collection and Rendering Industry in
South Carolina. Revision: September 1, 2010. Prepared for the Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program
Under Contract No. SERBEP-SSEB2003MO-MSA-001.
http://www. scbiomass.org/Resources/Documents/assessment%20o f3/o20restaurant%20grease%20report%20-
%20summer%202010%20_updated_.pdf. Accessed on June 18, 2015.
Crockett, J. 2006. Feasibility study for the Commercial Production of Biodiesel in the Magic Valley of Idaho.
December 2006. http://www.energv.idaho.g0v/informatior1resources/d/biodiesel reasibilitv study mv 2.pdf .
Accessed on June 18, 2015.
Dayton, S. 2010. Marketing Grease Trap Waste. Pumper, http://www.pumper.eom/editorial/2010/02/marketing-
grease-trap-waste. Accessed on June 20, 2015.
Dudbridge, M. 2011. Handbook of Lean Manufacturing in the Food Industry, Wiley-Blackwell.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2008. Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste Final Report.
http://www.epa.gov/region9/organics/ad/EBMUDFinalReport.pdf
East Bay Municipal Utility District inMoriarty. 2013 Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St.
Bernard, LA. NREL.
Emerson, D. 2012. Refining Cooking Oil into Biofuel Becomes a Growing Industry. April 16, 2012. http://finance-
commerce.com/2012/04/refining-cooking-oil-into-biofuel-becomes-a-growing-industrv/. Accessed on June 17,
2015.
Engelund, E.H., G. Breum, and A. Friis. 2008. Optimisation of Large-Scale Food Production Using Lean
Manufacturing Principles. Journal of Foodservice. 20: 4-14.
34
-------
Frank, D.E. 2014. Waste Cooking Oil-to-Biodiesel Conversion for Institutional Vehicular Applications. Thesis.
Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from
http://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8832&context=theses on June 18, 2015.
FOR Solutions. 2015. Return on Investment and Return on Environment Analyses and Report May 19, 2015.
Prepared for the University of South Carolina.
Haas, M.J., A.J. McAloon, W.C. Yee, and T.A Foglia. 2006. A Process Model to Estimate Biodiesel Production
Costs. Bioresource Technology. 97: 671-678.
Hart Jr., F. 2006. Lean Manufacturing and the Army Industrial Base. Army Logistician 38(6) November-December.
Howell, S.A. and J.A. Weber. 1995. U.S. Biodiesel Overview. January 1, 1995.
http://biodiesel.org/reports/19950101 gen-263.pdf. Accessed on June 18, 2015.
Jeffers, K. 2013. Kitchen Secrets: An inside look at dining facility meal preparation, Shaw Air Force Base News.
http://www. shaw. af.mil/news/story. asp?id=l 23356035.
Johnston, M. 2014. Wastewater Treatment Plant in Compliance - And Off the Grid. Biocycle. December 55:(11),
35.
Karwan, K.R 2001. An Analysis of Food Waste Reduction and Disposal Alternatives in Military Installations in
South Carolina.
Lane, J. 2015. The (Oil Price) Crash of '14: What lessons Can We Learn? Biofuels Digest.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2015/02/01/the-oil-price-crash-of-14-what-lessons-have-we-learned/.
Accessed June 17, 2015.
Lehtinen, U. and M. Torkko. 2005. The Lean Concept in the Food Industry: A Case Study of Contract a
Manufacturer Journal of Food Distribution Research 36(03).
Lexington County, SC. Updated October 2012. Solid Waste Fees.http://www.lex-
co.sc.gov/departments/DeptRZ/solidwaste/Documents/SWM%20FEE%20(CURRENT').pdf
Midlands Biofuels. 2015. http://www.midlandsbiofuels.com/. Accessed on June 17, 2015.
Moore, T. and E.H. Myers. 2010. An Assessment of the Restaurant Grease Collection and Rendering Industry in
South Carolina. Prepared for the Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program.
http://www.scbiomass.org/Resources/Documents/assessment%20ofVo20restaurant%20grease%20report%20-
%20summer%202010%20_updated_.pdf.
Moriarty, K. 2013. Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St. Bernard, Louisiana - A Study
Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America's Land Initiative:
Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites. U.S. EPA National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2015. Crop Values 2014 Summary. USDA
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todavs Reports/reports/cpvl0215.pdf.
NORA. 2015. Developing a Renewable Biofuel Option for the Home Heating Sector. Northeast Oilheat Research
Alliance. May 2015. http://noraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing-a-Renewable-Biofuel-Qption-
May-2015-R1 .pdf. Accessed on June 20.
Peters, D. 2011. The Market Hog Guide to Success. Oregon State University Extension Service.
35
-------
Piatt, B., N. Goldstein, and C. Coker. 2014. State of Composting in the US: What, Why, Where & How. Prepared
for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. http://www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/state-of-composting-in-
us.pdf.
quasar energy group. N.d. http://www.quasarenergygroup.com/pages/profile wooster.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2015.
Renewable Waste Intelligence. 2013. Business Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion in the U.S.A.
Rindge, B. 2014. GenEarth to Address Complaints about Stench. The Post and Courier. September 7.
RIT. 2015. Waste Cooking Oil to Fuel Program: "How to Start Your Own Biodiesel Fuel Program". Presentation.
Rochester Institute of Technology Workshop with U.S. EPA, New York State Pollution Prevention Association, and
County of Monroe, New York. Date Unknown.
http://www.rit.edu/affiliate/nvsp2i/sites/rit.edu.affiliate.nvsp2i/files/biodiesel workshop presentation 2012-10-
05.pdf. Accessed on June 17, 2015.
Schumacher, J. and C. Gustafson. 2012. Economics of Small-Scale Biodiesel Production, extension. Farm Energy.
March 27, 2012. http://www.extension.org/pages/30024/economics-of-small-scale-biodiesel-
production#.VYRNc3 D85s . Accessed on June 16, 2015.
Soberg, M. 2011. W2E to Build $23 million WtE Facility in SC. BIOMASS Magazine
Sustainable Endowments Institute. 2011. College Sustainability Report Card, 2011
http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2011 .html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015a. Quick Facts. Lexington County, South Carolina.
http://Quickfacts.census.gov/Qfd/states/45/45063.html. Accessed on June 18, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015b. Quick Facts. Richland County, South Carolina.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45079.html. Accessed on June 18, 2015.
U.S. Composting Council (USCC). 2001. Field Guide to Compost Use. http://compostingcouncil.org/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015. Petroleum and Other Liquids. Monthly Biodiesel Production Report
with Data for March 2015. Release Date: May 28, 2015. http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/.
Accessed on June 16, 2015.
U.S. EPA. (n.d.) Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants.
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/docs/reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf/.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Lean Manufacturing and the Environment: Research on Advanced Manufacturing Systems and the
Environment and Recommendations for Leveraging Better Environmental Performance. EPA10-R-03-005, October
2003, www.epa.gov/irmovation/lean.htm.
U.S. EPA. 2009. Feeding Animals - The Business Solution to Food Scraps.
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/success/rutgers.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 2009. Rock and Wrap It Up! Helps Fight Hunger. EPA 530-F-09-023.
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/success/rockin.pdf. Accessed on July 8, 2015.
U. S. EPA. 2011. Combined Heat and Power Partnership. Opportunities for Combined Heat and Power at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Market Analysis and Lessons Learned.
http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/WWTP_opportunities.pdf.
36
-------
U.S. EPA. 2015. EPA Proposes Renewable Fuel Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and the Biomass-based Diesel
Volume for 2017. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA/420/F-15/028. May 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420fl5028.pdf. Accessed on June 17, 2015.
Valley Proteins. 2015. http://www.vallevproteins.com/energy. Accessed on June 18, 2015
Van Gerpen, J.H. 2014. Used and Waste Oil and Grease for Biodiesel. extension. Farm Energy. May 28, 2014.
http://www.extension.Org/pages/28000/used-and-waste-oil-and-grease-for-biodiesel#.VYRM73 D85s. Accessed on
June 16, 2015.
Warren, T. Fort Jackson (personal telephone communication 6/25/2015).
Westerman, P. W. and J.R Bicudo. 2005. Management considerations for organic waste use in agriculture.
Bioresource Technology, 96(2), 215-221.
Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, andD. Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World.
37
-------
Mary Pat Baldauf - City of Columbia
Jay Bassett - U.S. EPA Region 4
Robin Billings - U. S. EPA Region 4
Patrick Brownson - South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control
Carolyn Carosus - Charleston County
Anthony Centola - Re-Soil
Richard Chesley - South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control
Larry Cook - University of South Carolina
Rudy Curtis - Richland County
Amanda Edwards - Lexington County
Dave Eger - Lexington County
Chantal Fryer - South Carolina Department of
Commerce
Stephanie Gillian - Fort Jackson
Tom Harmalik - Lexington County
Susan Harrison - Greenville County
Alexis Lan-U.S. EPA Office ofResearch and
Development
Bruce Johnson - Johnson's Garbage Service
Ryan Nevius - Sustainable Midlands
Marcia Papin - Greenville County
Anne McGovern - South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Ardra Morgan - U.S. EPA Office ofResearch
Development
Daniel Rickenmann - First Generation Energy
Steve Rock - U.S. EPA Office ofResearch
Development
Adam R. Saslow - SRA International
Richard Shores - U.S. EPA Office ofResearch and
Development
Tameria Warren - Fort JacksonStacey Washington -
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Jana White - South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
Barbara Williams - Fort Jackson
Samantha Yager - City of Columbia
38
-------
EPA/600/R-17/337
September 2017
------- |