vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 430-S-22-001
Downstream Management
of Organic Waste
in the United States:
Strategies for
Methane Mitigation
January 2022
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Section 1: Organic Waste in the United States 5
Section 2: Organic Waste Collection Practices—Residential, Commercial and Institutional
Sectors 10
Section 3: Organic Waste Processing 17
Section 4: Benefits of Diverting Organic Waste from Landfills 24
Section 5: Considerations for Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Programs 28
Section 6: Policies and Programs for Promoting Organic Waste Diversion 38
Conclusion 43
Appendix A Incentives and Funding Resources A-l
Appendix B Tools and Resources for Evaluating Organic Waste Management Options B-l
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. All MSW Generated, Organic Waste Generated and Organic Waste Landfilled in
the United States, 2018 6
Figure 1-2. Food and Yard Wastes Generated and Composted in the United States, 1960 to
2017 7
Figure 1-3. Quantity of Wasted Food Managed, 2018 8
Figure 1-4. Percentage Distribution of Wasted Food Management, Including (left) and
Excluding (right) the Industrial Sector, 2018 8
Figure 1-5. Comparison of Life Cycle GHG Emissions for U.S. Food Waste Diversion from
Landfills 10
Figure 2-1. Containers for Food Waste Collection Programs 16
Figure 4-1. Byproducts and Beneficial Uses of Diverted Organic Waste 27
Figure 5-1. LFG Generation Curve Showing Effect of Organic Waste Diversion on a Typical
Landfill's NMOC Emission Profile 33
Figure 5-2. Decay Rates for Organic Waste Materials 34
Figure 6-1. Timeline for Implementing San Antonio's Solid Waste Management Plan 42
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Units of Measure
AD anaerobic digestion
CAR Climate Action Reserve
CHP combined heat and power
CI carbon intensity
CMSA Central Marin Sanitation Agency
CNG compressed natural gas
CoEAT Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool
CRMC Commonwealth Resource Management Corporation
D3 Renewable Identification Number category for cellulosic biofuel
D5 Renewable Identification Number category for advanced biofuel
DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
EBCI Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
F2E Food 2 Energy
FLW Protocol Food Loss & Waste Protocol
FLW Standard Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard
FOG fats, oils and grease
GHG greenhouse gas
ICI industrial, commercial and institutional
k methane generation rate
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LFG landfill gas
LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Lo Potential methane generation capacity
Mg megagram
MMBtu million British thermal units
MMTC02e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MSW municipal solid waste
MTC02e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MW megawatt
NMOC non-methane organic compound
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
OrganEcs Cost Estimating Tool for Managing Source-Separated Organic Waste
PAYT Pay-As-You-Throw
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
REAP
Rural Energy for America Program
RFS
Renewable Fuel Standard
RIN
Renewable Identification Number
RNG
renewable natural gas
RPS
Renewable Portfolio Standard
SMM
Sustainable Materials Management
SSO
source-separated organics
USD A
U.S. Department of Agriculture
WARM
Waste Reduction Model
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
WRRF
water resource recovery facility
ZWEDC
Zero Waste Energy Development Company
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Downstream Management of Organic Waste
in the United States: Strategies for Methane
Mitigation
Introduction
Diverting organic waste from landfills can achieve significant environmental, public health and
economic benefits. When organics end up in landfills, they release methane—a potent greenhouse gas
(GHG) that is 28 to 36 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over
a 100-year period.1 Less organic waste in a landfill will lower emissions of methane and non-methane
organic compounds (NMOCs), reduce odors, minimize leachate generation and conserve landfill space.
Methane is of particular concern because it is very effective at retaining heat in the Earth's atmosphere,
and landfills are the third-largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the United States.
Increasing levels of methane and other GHGs in our atmosphere are contributing to changing Earth's
climate—rising temperatures, changes in precipitation and more extreme climate events. The NMOC
portion of landfill gas (LFG) contains a variety of hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic
compounds, all of which can cause adverse health effects if the exposure is sufficient.
Key Findings
• Keeping food and other organics out of landfills will help the United States address climate change, as
more than 15 percent of total U.S. human-caused methane emissions come from municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills, which emitted 99.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02e) of
methane in 2019.2
• The amount of food waste generated in the United States continues to increase: food made up 21.6 percent
of MSW generated in the country in 2018, with yard trimmings accounting for an additional 12.1 percent.3
Notably, food waste is the single largest component of MSW disposed of in landfills.4
1 U.S. EPA. Understanding Global Wanning Potentials, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-
warming-potentials. Accessed November 8, 2021.
2 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. Chapter 7: Waste. April 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventorv-2021-cliapter-7-waste.pdf.
3 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet. December 2020. p. 8.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-ll/documents/2Q18 ff fact sheet.pdf.
4 Ibid. p. 9.
The food waste estimate comprises residential, commercial and institutional sources, but not industrial or on-fann
sources. Commercial and institutional industries covered include grocery stores, full- and limited-service restaurants,
public and private elementary schools, colleges and universities, prisons, nursing homes, residential hospitals, short-
term stay hospitals, and hotels. Estimates of wasted food generated by the industrial sector (i.e., food and beverage
manufacturing and processing) are not included in this statistic. EPA estimates industrial sector wasted food generation
and management separately (see the 2018 Wasted Food Report).
1
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Key Findings
• Food waste decays quickly in landfills. An analysis using EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) shows
that diverting just 25 percent of the food waste currently sent to U.S. landfills would reduce life cycle GHG
emissions by about 30 percent.5
There are many options for preventing or mitigating methane emissions from organic waste, including
food donation, animal feed and land application. Technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD) and
composting can produce renewable energy or other useful end products that can improve soil health and
reduce erosion. Implementing alternatives to landfills for organic waste management will also spur
investment and new job creation in local economies.
Key Findings
• Local governments and municipalities are successfully using different methods of treatment and disposal
for organic waste. Some municipalities with LFG energy projects as well as diversion programs treat a
portion of their organic waste by sending it to AD facilities to generate biogas or composting facilities to
produce soil amendments. Landfills provide excellent opportunities for siting new AD or compost facilities.
Diverting organic waste to generate biogas or compost can be part of an integrated solid waste
management approach using multiple options for disposal or treatment.
• Co-digestion of food waste with manure or water resource recover}! facility (WRRF) sludge allows facilities
to use existing assets and infrastructure to meet the growing interest in food waste management. With co-
digestion., facilities can more e fficiently use process equipment and lower costs when they process multiple
waste streams together. Facilities can also use co-digestion to adjust the solids percentage to improve
digestion and increase biogas production. Between 60 and 70 percent of the operational AD projects
accepting food waste in 2018 were co-digestion facilities, although stand-alone digesters processed the
bulk (84 percent) of the food waste.6
Sustainable downstream management of organic waste is a challenge facing local waste management
authorities and private haulers, as well as waste disposal, composting and AD companies. Because all
sectors of the economy (industrial, commercial and institutional [ICI] and residential) generate organic
waste, a comprehensive set of solutions is required to catalyze large-scale behavior changes from each
waste generator, tailor collection approaches to meet the needs of each community and mobilize
significant investment in new organic waste processing and treatment infrastructure.
5 U.S. EPA. Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Version 15. https://www.epa.gov/warm. Accessed February 24, 2021.
6 U.S. EPA. Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste in the United States (2017 & 2018). EPA/903/S-
21/001. January 2021. Tables ES-1 andES-2. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/
2021 final ad report feb 2 with links.pdf.
~2
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Key Findings
• In 2016, approximately 74 percent of MSW food waste (excludes industrial sector) ended up in either
landfills, controlled combustion or sewer/wastewater treatment, suggesting there is significant room for
improving existing organic waste diversion programs and implementing new organic waste diversion
initiatives.
• State and local policies and programs are emerging, gaining momentum and driving actions to divert food
waste away from landfills. However, there are still many barriers, including lack of infrastructure for
collecting, processing and treating the wastes; therefore, the practice is not widespread throughout the
United States.
• The success of source-separated organics (SSO) collection programs depends on several factors, including
ensuring the collection techniques are tailored to the needs of the local community. Community
involvement, education and outreach are also critical.
• A variety of incentives and funding resources are available to promote organic waste diversion from
landfills. Grants and low-interest loans for integrated solid waste management approaches, as well as
more traditional incentives for energy produced from biogas, can help facilities make these projects
economically feasible.
Purpose and Audience
This document provides an overview of downstream organic waste management in the United States,
focusing on alternatives to landfilling organic waste including composting and AD, for the primary
purpose of reducing or mitigating methane emissions. More specifically, it contains technical
information about collection practices and processing technologies, potential benefits of and barriers to
organic waste diversion, policies and incentives for increasing diversion rates, and tools and resources
for evaluating organic waste management options in communities. It includes brief case studies of
policies and programs to highlight successful examples, lessons learned and best management practices,
as well as links to resources and tools (found in the appendices).
The intended audience is primarily municipalities and other local governments seeking information
about downstream organic waste management options that reduce methane emissions from the solid
waste sector, and particularly those jurisdictions that own or operate landfills. State agencies, private
waste management companies and LFG energy project developers will also find this document useful,
as emerging solid waste management trends, practices and policies may affect landfill or LFG energy
operations.
Scope
This document provides information about the downstream management of food waste (i.e., discarded
food and any inedible parts of food) and yard and garden debris (e.g., leaves, grass clippings); it does
not address wood, paper, livestock manure or WRRF sludge.
The management strategies presented in this document include the last three levels of the EPA
Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) Program's Food Recovery Hierarchy: industrial uses,
7 U.S. EPA. 2018 Wasted Food Report. November 2020. p. 19. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
ll/documents/2018 wasted food report-11-9-20 final .pdf.
3
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
composting and landfill/incineration.8 This
document does not include discussion or
analysis of source reduction, feeding hungry
people or feeding animals. The Food Recovery
Hierarchy presents prioritized actions that
organizations can take to prevent and divert
wasted food. Each tier of the hierarchy focuses
on a different management strategy. The top
levels of the hierarchy are the best ways to
prevent and divert wasted food because they
create the most benefits for the environment,
society and the economy. Source reduction is the
most preferred option as it not only mitigates the
environmental impacts associated with
management of excess food, but also minimizes
the impacts associated with food production,
processing and delivery to the end user. Any management option chosen in a particular situation is
dependent on the characteristics and the source of the excess food. For example, some food preparation
residuals and/or post-consumer food discards may not be suitable for human consumption, so the next
most preferred use is for animal feed. Feeding people is the most preferred option and
landfill/incineration is the least preferred option for managing the edible fraction of excess food.
Contributing EPA Programs
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary EPA program that works with
stakeholders to reduce or avoid landfill methane emissions. To reduce methane emissions, LMOP
encourages the recovery and beneficial use of biogas generated from organic MSW. To help avoid excess
or uncontrolled methane generation, organic waste can be managed in other ways besides landfilling.
AgSTAR is EPA's voluntary program that promotes the use of biogas recovery systems to reduce
methane emissions from livestock waste. Many manure-based AD projects co-digest other organic
wastes; AgSTAR's information and resources about AD technology and biogas recovery are therefore
often applicable to stand-alone organic waste AD projects as well.
EPA's SMM Program focuses on protecting human health and the environment by advancing the
sustainable use of materials to minimize waste. Sustainable Management of Food is a systematic
approach that seeks to reduce wasted food and its associated impacts over the entire life cycle, starting
with the use of natural resources, manufacturing, sales and consumption and ending with decisions on
recovery or final disposal. EPA works to promote innovation and highlight the value and efficient
management of food as a resource as part of the SMM Program.
8 For more information on the hierarchy, see www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food.
4
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Section 1: Organic Waste in the United States
In 2018, residential, commercial and institutional sources in the United States generated about 292
million tons of MSW.9 The organic fraction—food, yard, paper and wood wastes—constituted more
than 63 percent of the total solid waste generated from these sources, while food and yard wastes made
up more than 33 percent of the total solid waste generated.10
Organic waste typically includes yard, wood and food wastes, paper, livestock manure and WRRF
sludge. It does not include metals, glass, textiles, leather or petroleum-based plastic. This document
focuses on managing food waste (i.e., plate waste, spoiled food and any inedible parts of food) and yard
and garden debris (e.g., leaves, grass clippings).11 It does not address the other main types of organic
waste, which are either managed differently or are generated by a sector other than ICI and residential
sectors: wood packaging or wood from furniture is likely to be recycled or used for fuel, paper has more
value as a recyclable material, and livestock manure and WRRF sludge are not considered MSW.
As defined by EPA in its Wasted Food Report, the following sectors generate food waste:
• Industrial: food and beverage manufacturing and processing
• Commercial:
o Food retail/wholesale, including supermarkets, supercenters and food wholesalers
o Hospitality, including restaurants/food services, hotels and sports venues
• Institutional: hospitals, nursing homes, military installations, office buildings, correctional
facilities, colleges and universities, and K-12 schools
• Residential
• Food banks12
Notably, EPA does not include "food loss" in its definition of food waste—that is, unused products from
the agricultural sector, such as unharvested crops.13
In the United States, food and yard wastes together constitute more than 50 percent of organic waste
generated, as shown in Figure 1-1.14 This suggests that preventing more food and yard wastes from
entering the waste stream would significantly affect the overall amount of organic waste generated, and
in turn the amount of methane emitted from the MSW sector. Food and yard wastes diverted from
9 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet. December 2020. p. 2.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-ll/documents/2Q18 ff fact sheet.pdf.
10 Ibid. p. 4.
11 U.S. EPA. Sustainable Management of Food Basics, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-
management-food-basics#Food%20Waste. Accessed February 15, 2021.
12 U.S. EPA. 2018 Wasted Food Report. November 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
ll/documents/2018 wasted food report-11-9-20 final .pdf.
13 U.S. EPA. Sustainable Management of Food Basics, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-
management-food-basics#Food%20Waste. Accessed February 15, 2021.
14 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet. December 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-ll/documents/2018 ff fact sheet.pdf.
5
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
landfills constitute more than 60 percent of the total organic waste, as shown in Figure 1-1.15 In 2018,
of total landfilled MSW, 24 percent was food waste and 7 percent was yard waste.16
Figure 1-1. All MSW Generated, Organic Waste Generated and Organic Waste Landfilled in the United
States, 2018.
EPA has encouraged the reduction of food waste going to landfills through the SMM Program's
Sustainable Management of Food efforts. These efforts include food waste measurement improvement;
coordination with federal agencies; working with industry to reduce food loss and waste in the supply
chain; connecting and convening stakeholders such as state, local and tribal governments with public
and private partners; and sharing funding opportunities. On September 16, 2015, in coordination
with Target 12.3 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and EPA announced the first ever domestic goal to reduce food loss and waste by
half by 2030. In December 2020, USD A, EPA, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration renewed a
joint agency formal agreement to affirm their shared commitment to work toward the national goal of
reducing food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030.
Trends in Organic Waste Generation, Diversion and Disposal
The amount of food waste generated annually increased 70 percent from 1990 to 2017, while yard waste
generation has remained relatively flat, as shown in Figure 1-2. Yard waste composting increased 373
percent from 1990 to 2005, and then experienced only slight gains between 2005 and 2017. Food waste
composting, while substantially smaller in volume than yard waste, grew by 278 percent between 2000
and 2017.1718 Despite this growth in composting, a large percentage of food waste generated is still
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid. p. 9.
17 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Tables and Figures. December 2020. Tables 1 and 2.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/2018 tables and figures dec 2020 fnl 508.pdf.
18 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013. June 2015. Tables 1 and 2.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2013 advncng sinin rpt.pdf.
6
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
disposed. In 2017, about 6.3 percent of the food waste generated was composted compared to about 69
percent of yard waste generated.19
45,000
40,000
w
o 35,000
I-
0 30,000
1 25,000
a '
= 20,000
.c
t. 15,000
a>
10,000
^ 5,000
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Food Waste Generated
Food Waste Composted
I Yard Trimmings Generated
• Yard Trimmings Composted
Figure 1-2. Food and Yard Wastes Generated and Composted in the United States, 1960 to 2017.
In 2020, EPA released an enhanced methodology to measure food waste to analyze additional food waste
generation sectors and destinations for the food waste, called waste management pathways.20 Using this
enhanced methodology, EPA estimates that in 2018, residential, commercial and institutional sectors
generated just over 63 million tons of wasted food, plus an additional 40 million tons from the industrial
sector, a sector not traditionally included in EPA's MSW reports.21 Food waste is managed through
many different management pathways beyond landfilling and composting, as shown in Figures 1-3 and
1-4. Figure 1-3 is organized by level of the food recovery hierarchy; donation and animal feed are not
the focus of this report.
19 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Tables and Figures. December 2020. Tables 1 and 2.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/2018 tables and figures dec 2020 fnl 508.pdf.
211 U.S. EPA. Wasted Food Measurement Methodology Scoping Memo. July 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2020-06/documents/food measurement methodology scoping memo-6-18-20.pdf.
21 U.S. EPA. 2018 Wasted Food Report. November 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
ll/documents/2018 wasted food report-l 1-9-20 final .pdf.
7
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
MANAGEMENT
PATHWAY
QUANTITY MANAGED
(TONS)
PERCENTAGE
MANAGED
QUANTITY MANAGED
(TONS)
PERCENTAGE
MANAGED
INCLUDING INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
EXCLUDING INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Donation1
7,394,096
7.2%
4,787,378
7.6%
Animal Feed
21,978,346
21.3%
1,814,984
2.9%
Bio-based Materials/
Biochemical Processing
2,186,873
2.1%
1,841,411
2.9%
Codigestion/Anaerobic
Digestion
10,691,756
10.4%
5,262,857
8.3%
Composting/ Aerobic
Processes
3,455,273
3.4%
2,592,566
4.1%
Land Application
9,144,093
8.9%
259,448
0.4%
Controlled Combustion
7,747,441
7.5%
7,552,705
12.0%
Landfill
36,612,263
35.6%
35,277,543
55.9%
Sewer/Wastewater
Treatment
3,743,229
3.6%
3,743,229
5.9%
TOTAL
102,953,370
100%
63,132,123
100%
1 These figures exclude the small share of excess food (426,057 tons) that food banks cannot distribute and is therefore food
waste that is routed to other management pathways. The food waste fraction is managed through conventional means
(landfilling, controlled combustion, composting/aerobic processes, and codigestion/anaerobic digestion).
Figure 1-3. Quantity of Wasted Food Managed, 2018.22
Sewer/Wastewater
Treatment
(4%)
Landfill
(21%)
Bio-based
Materials/
Biochemical
Processing
(2%)
Sewer/Wastewater_
Treatment
Codigestion/
.Anaerobic Digestic
(10%)
Land Application
(9%)
Composting/
Aerobic Processes
(3%)
Bio-based Materials/
Biochemical
Codigestion/
Anaerobic Digestion
(8%)
Composting/
Aerobic Processes
(4%)
Land Application
(0%)
Figure 1-4. Percentage Distribution of Wasted Food Management, Including (left) and Excluding (right)
the Industrial Sector, 2018.23
22 U.S. EPA. 2018 Wasted Food Report. November 2020. p. 19. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
ll/documents/2018 wasted food report-11-9-20 final .pdf.
23 Ibid.
8
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Opportunities to Divert Organic Waste from Disposal
All sectors of the economy generate organic waste, from single- and multi-family residences to industrial
establishments (primarily food and beverage processing facilities), as well as commercial and
institutional sources such as schools, restaurants and hotels. The source from which the organic waste is
generated has unique implications for how the diverted material is best collected, processed and treated.
EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy lists source reduction, or reducing the volume of excess food generated,
as the most preferred way to avoid placement of organics in landfills. However, organic waste that is
generated can be diverted from its path to a landfill or waste incinerator and processed in a more
environmentally beneficial way, including through industrial uses (e.g., animal feed), AD, aerobic
processing (e.g., composting) or co-digestion with livestock manure or WRRF sludge. Managing organic
waste without landfilling provides various water, energy, climate and air quality benefits. Efforts at the
state and local level to divert organic waste from landfills have spurred interest in establishing and
promoting policies, incentives, practices and technologies that advance diversion and processing of
organic waste, as discussed in Section 6.
Climate Impacts of Organic Waste Management
The climate impacts of organic waste management are significant. Globally, the food loss and waste
portion alone of organic waste (including the food loss associated with unused products from the
agricultural sector, such as unharvested crops, which are beyond the scope of this document) accounts
for about 8 percent of human-caused GHG emissions.24 If wasted food were a country, it would be the
third-largest emitter of global GHG emissions, behind China (21 percent) and the United States (13
percent).25 Project Drawdown, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 2014 to communicate the
most substantive solutions to stop climate change, estimates that reducing food waste is the number one
solution (out of more than 80 analyzed) to avoid catastrophic climate change, where the temperature rise
causes great adverse effects for humanity, such as the frequency and severity of extreme climate events.26
The potential climate impact on a life cycle basis of diverting food waste from U.S. landfills is illustrated
in Figure 1-5, which presents a food waste diversion analysis using EPA's WARM.27 The food waste
that was placed in U.S. landfills in 2018 will generate about 17.6 million MMTC02e in GHG life cycle
emissions over its lifetime in the landfills. Food waste decays very quickly in landfills, often before a
gas collection is installed. With even just part of the food waste diverted to composting or AD, the
avoided methane emissions (composting) or higher methane collection rate (AD) results in a significant
decrease in GHG emissions.
24 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change. 2015.
https://www.fao.org/3/bb 144e/bb 144e.pdf.
25 World Resources Institute. ClimateWatch. Historical GHG Emissions, https ://www. climatewatchdata.org/ghg-
emissions?end vear=2018&start vcat^l990. Accessed July 13, 2021.
26 Project Drawdown, https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions. Scenario 1. Accessed July 13, 2021.
27 U.S. EPA. Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Version 15. https://www.epa.gov/warm. Accessed February 24, 2021.
9
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Q)
(N
O
u
u
X
u
2018 Landfilled
Food Waste
Divert 25% of
Food Waste
to Compost
Divert 25% of
Food Waste
to AD
Figure 1-5. Comparison of Life Cycle GHG Emissions for U.S. Food Waste Diversion from Landfills.
Notes on WARM analysis scenarios:
• Baseline: 35.3 million tons of food waste disposed of in landfills in 201828
• Divert 25 percent (8.8 million tons) to compost and landfill 26.5 million tons of food waste
• Divert 25 percent (8.8 million tons) to AD and landfill 26.5 million tons of food waste
In 2018, about 44 percent of food waste was diverted away from landfills.29 Diverting another 25 percent
(8.8 million tons) of landfilled food waste would reduce life cycle GHG emissions by approximately 30
percent compared to the baseline. The extent of emission reductions is dependent on the alternative waste
management process used for the diverted waste although both diversion scenarios have a similar impact,
as shown in Figure 1-5. Based on the assumptions and calculations within WARM, composting all the
diverted food waste would yield lower overall life cycle GHG emissions than digesting it.
Section 2: Organic Waste Collection Practices—Residential, Commercial and
Institutional Sectors
This section discusses SSO collection programs and technologies associated with the residential,
commercial and institutional sectors. Collection is a significant and critical component of the overall
process to manage organic waste. To develop an SSO collection program for residential, commercial or
institutional customers, waste managers should evaluate a variety of factors that will affect current solid
waste management services (e.g., current collection practices) and assess the impacts of adding SSO
collection (e.g., routing changes, increased vehicle traffic, vehicle maintenance or new vehicles,
personnel and training, collection frequency, materials acceptance and enforcement). Ultimately, waste
managers should tailor the collection techniques to the needs of the local community generating the
28 U.S. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet. December 2020. Table 1.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-ll/documents/2018 ff fact sheet.pdf.
29 Ibid.
~10
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
wastes while ensuring that the collected organic waste meets the needs of the processing facility(ies).
SSO collection programs are not a "one-size-fits-all" approach. A successful program design depends
on factors such as geography and size as well as which of the three sectors constitute the program's
customer base.
Collection Programs
Curbside30
Curbside residential and commercial SSO organic waste collection programs are growing in popularity.
Since 2005, access to residential curbside collection of food waste has increased steadily, growing from
just over 500,000 households in 2005 to 2.74 million households in 2014, then leaping to nearly
5.1 million households in 2017.31
Collection typically occurs weekly for residential and smaller commercial customers to minimize odors
and may be on the same schedule as trash or recycling collection. Some jurisdictions may reduce SSO
collection to every other week during winter months when odor or volume issues are less likely.
Collection may be more frequent for large commercial generators such as restaurants, hotels and
cafeterias.
Residential Source Separated Curbside Collection
Austin, Texas, instituted source-separated curbside collection of organic waste for some residential customers
in 2017 as part of its Zero Waste Initiative to divert 90 percent of waste from landfills by 2040. By July 2019,
nearly three-quarters of the city's residential curbside customers had curbside collection of food scraps, yard
trimmings, food-soiled paper and natural fibers for composting by Austin Resource Recover}', and the final
expansion to include all residential curbside customers was completed in 2021.32 This fidl-scale project
followed the city's successful pilot program, launched in 2013 at a cost of $485,000 to the city for new 96-
gallon composting carts but no cost to participants.33 Now that the program has reached the goal of being
citywide, the cost to residents is $4per month.34 Austin updates its community GHG emissions inventory every
three years:35 the 2018 emissions from the waste sector were 268,000 metric tons COie (MTCO^e) as compared
311 U.S. EPA. Managing and Transforming Waste Streams—A Tool for Communities. Community Implementation
Examples and Resources. 37. Expanded Municipal Collection—Food Waste, https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-
tool/communitv-implementation-examples-and-resources-l-50#37 provides several examples.
31 Streeter, Virginia, and Brenda Piatt. Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S. BioCycle. December 2017.
Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S. December 2017.
https://www.biocvcle.net/2017/12/06/residential-food-waste-collection-access-u-s/.
32 City of Austin, Texas. Curbside Composting Collection, https://www.austintexas.gov/composting. Accessed July 23,
2021.
33 Price, Asher. Austin Starts Pilot Program for Curbside Compost Collection. Austin American Statesman. January 2,
2013. https://www.statesman.com/storv/news/2013/01/02/austin-starts-pilot-program-for-curbside-compost-
collection/9848074007/. Accessed November 29, 2021.
34 Rosengren, Cole, and Cody Boteler. Austin, TX Set to Expand Curbside Composting to 38,000 More Homes. Waste
Dive. August 3, 2017. https://www.wastedive.eom/news/update-austin-tx-set-to-expand-curbside-composting-to-38000-
more-homes/445748/. Accessed July 23, 2021.
35 City of Austin, Texas. Austin Community Climate Plan 2015.
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=269714. Accessed July 23, 2021.
11
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
to 340,000 MI'CO 2e in 201 3.36 A portion of the 72,000 MTC02e net reduction in the waste sector over these
years is attributable to the reduced landfllling of organic waste, as the amount of organic waste collected for
composting increased from about 622,000 tons in 2013 to about 10.3 million tons in 2020.3
Residential Mixed Curbside Collection
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, offers curbside collection of co-mingled yard and food waste from single-family
residences. Collection happens weekly (on the regular trash day): every household is given a green cart
(nicknamed a "YARDY" cart), either 65-gallon or 95-gallon in size. Allowed items include leaves, sticks, grass
clippings, fruit and vegetable peelings, paper plates, napkins, paper towels, dryer lint and baked goods. The
Cedar Rapids-linn County Solid Waste Agency composts the collected organic items, and the finished product
is sampled and tested for quality before being provided for free to residents and sold to businesses.38•39,40 Cedar
Rapids set a goal in its Sustainability Action Plan to reduce landfilled waste from city operations 10 percent
from fiscal year 2020 baseline by fiscal year 202241—and this curbside collection of organics will help the city
meet that goal.
Mixed Food and Yard Wastes
Some regions offer year-round curbside yard waste collection based on their climate, while others may
offer only seasonal yard waste management (e.g., fall leaf gathering or Christmas tree pickup). In areas
that offer year-round yard waste collection services, and sufficient local processing capacity exists to
accept co-mingled food and yard wastes, adding food waste to an existing yard waste collection program
can take advantage of existing containers and routes and be the most economical option on a cost-per-
ton basis. Studies found that having customers add food waste to an existing yard waste bin increases
participation and the amount of organic waste collected, likely because customers are already
accustomed to the separate collection process and setting out a yard waste cart.42-43 44
36 Merski, Cavan. Community Inventory Metric Sprint Dashboard. May 1, 2020.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cavan.merski/viz/CommunitvInventorvMetricSprintDashboard/CommunitvInvent
orvMetricSprintDashboard. Accessed July 23, 2021.
37 City of Austin, Texas. Waste Collection & Diversion Report (daily). July 11, 2021.
https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-Citv-Services/Waste-Collection-Diversion-Report-dailv-/mbnu-4wa9.
Accessed July 14, 2021.
38 Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Yard Waste, http://www.cedar-rapids.org/residents/utilities/vard waste.php. Accessed September
3, 2020.
39 Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Collection Cart Information, http://www.cedar-rapids.org/residents/utilities/
collection cart sizes and weight limits.php. Accessed September 3, 2020.
411 Cedar Rapids Linn County Solid Waste Agency. Compost & Wood Chips, https://www.solidwasteagencv.org/compost-
vard-waste/compost-wood-chips. Accessed September 3, 2020.
41 Cedar Rapids, Iowa. iGreenCR Action Plan. January 2020. https://www.cedar-rapids.org/Sustainabilitv/
iGreenCR%20Action%20Plan Web.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2021.
42 RRS. District of Columbia Compost Feasibility Study. April 2017. https://dpw.dc.gov/compostfeasibilitvstudv.
Accessed November 29, 2021.
43 Layzer, Judith A., and Alexis Schulman. 2014. Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection: What Works and Why?
2014. Work product of the Urban Sustainability Assessment (USA) Project. Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attacliments/proiect/
Municipal%20Curbside%20Compostables%20Collection%20%20What%20Works%20and%20Whv.pdf.
44 Assessment of Residential Source Separated Organics Collection Options. A Study for the City of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Project ID: 13M030. October 2013 (revised). Previously available at
http://www2.ci.ininneapolis.mn. us/www/groups/public/@clerk/documents/webcontent/wcmslp-l 15115.pdf.
12
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Residential Mixed Curbside Collection
Seattle, Washington, requires that all residents and businesses keep their organic waste such as food scraps,
compostable paper products and yard waste separate from other garbage. These organic materials are
collected at the curb weekly on the regular trash collection day. The city offers three cart sizes (13-, 32- and
96-gallon) with varying collection fees. Seattle initially began collection of food waste in 2005, when single-
family households could start putting fruit and vegetable scraps into existing green waste carts. The city
expanded the program in 2009 to allow all types of food scraps and compostable paper and made this
separation mandatory for single-family households. The mandate expanded in 2011 to multi-family households
and, in 2015, Seattle prohibited food waste from the garbage.45,46,4 Seattle's GHG inventory shows a 25
percent reduction in GHG emissions from the food waste and mixed organics portion of its waste sector from
2008 to 2018,48 mostly reflecting reduced landfill methane emissions from lower food waste disposal rates.
Adding Food Waste to Residential Curbside Collection of Yard Waste
Palo Alto, California, has an advanced and comprehensive organic waste curbside collection program as part
o f its Zero Waste initiative. Its 2018 plan set a goal to virtually end all burning or burying o f city waste (95
percent diversion of materials from landfilling) by 2030.49 Single- and multi-family households as well as
businesses and schools have access to collection of several organic materials including food scraps, soiled
paper, yard trimmings, waxed cardboard and wood, all in a single green cart.50,51 Food waste collection was
added in 2015 to the existing yard waste curbside collection program.52 The waste is collected by a city
contractor and transported to the Zero Waste Energy Development Company facility in San Jose, California,
to be anaerobically digested.53 The city council reported in 2019 that Palo Alto's GHG emissions from the
landfilling of organic waste decreased 36 percent since 2017, as a direct result of less organic waste being
placed into garbage collection containers due to the city's "continued residential food scrap collection and
outreach efforts, and enforcement of and compliance with a new ordinance requiring commercial businesses
to compost their organic wastes. "54
45 City of Seattle, Washington. Food Waste Requirements, http://www.seattle.gov/utilities/vour-services/collection-and-
disposal/food-and-vard/food-waste-reauirements. Accessed September 3, 2020.
46 City of Seattle, Washington. Food & Yard, http://www.seattle.gov/utilities/vour-services/collection-and-disposal/food-
and-vard. Accessed January 14, 2022.
47 Fickes, Mike. Scrappy in Seattle. Waste360. January 28, 2013. https://www.waste360.com/food-waste/scrappy-seattle.
48 City of Seattle, Washington. Climate Data Visualizations. Total Annual Emissions by Sector.
https://www.seattle.gOv/environment/climate-change/climate-planning/performance-monitoring#data. Accessed July 23,
2021.
49 City of Palo Alto, California. Zero Waste Plan. August 2018. p. 1. https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/
zero-waste/zero-waste-website-files/2018-zero-waste-plan.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2021.
511 City of Palo Alto, California. What is Zero Waste. https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-
Waste/About-Us/What-Is-Zero-Waste. Accessed September 3, 2020.
51 City of Palo Alto, California. Curbside Collection Services.
https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/wliatgoeswhere/curbside.asp. Accessed September 3, 2020.
52 Malmberg, Brenna. Palo Alto Residents Adapt to New Food-Scrap Collection Program. Palo Alto Online. August 28,
2015. https://www.paloaltoonline.coni/news/2015/08/28/palo-alto-residents-adapt-to-new-food-scrap-collection-
program. Accessed February 23, 2021.
53 City of Palo Alto, California. Zero Waste Plan. August 2018. p. 5. https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/
zero-waste/zero-waste-website-files/2018-zero-waste-plan.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2021.
54 City of Palo Alto, California. City Council Staff Report. ID # 10095. April 15, 2019.
https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/citv-manager-repoits-cinrs/vear-
archive/2019/id-10095 .pdf.
13
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Drop-off55^56
Drop-off centers, while not as common, are an inexpensive alternative to curbside SSO collection
especially in areas where customers are accustomed to dropping off MSW or recyclable materials. For
areas that don't provide year-round yard waste collection, a dedicated food waste drop-off program may
be more feasible. A crucial element of a successful drop-off program is providing convenient operating
hours and locations for customers.
Yard Waste Drop off Center
Emmet County, Michigan, has operated a municipal yard waste drop-off center since 2005, where it composts
the materials in rows of long piles (commonly referred to as windrows). The compost facility is next to the
county's waste transfer station and recycling drop-off center for convenience.5/ In 2015, the county conducted
a pilot project for collecting and incorporating food scraps into its yard waste composting facility,58 which
developed into an ongoing, success ful program that includes selling compost as a revenue source.59
Food Waste Drop off Centers
Since 2017, Washington, D.C.. has hosted food waste drop-off centers at farmers markets in each of the city's
eight wards. The drop-off locations include information on items that can be composted.60 The DC Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) also has more than 50 community compost cooperative networks that use
critter- and smell-proof compost bins to allow trained community members to compost food scraps and garden
waste from DPR gardens.61 DC also provides residents with free compost.62 These activities fit into its goal to
achieve 80 percent waste diversion citywide without the use of landfills, waste-to-energy or incineration by
2032. The District is also working to establish a new organics processing facility to capture food and other
organic waste as part of the Sustainable DC and Climate Ready DC Plans.63
55 Freeman. Juri, and Lisa A. Skumatz. Best Management Practices in Food Scrap Programs: Final Report. Econservation
Institute. 2010. Submitted to EPA Region 5. Previously available at
http://www.foodscrapsrecoverv.com/EPA FoodWasteReport EI Region5 vll Final.pdf.
56 U.S. EPA. Managing and Transforming Waste Streams—A Tool for Communities. Community Implementation
Examples and Resources. 85. Drop-off Compostables. https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-tool/communitv-
implementation-examples-and-resources-51-100#85 offers additional examples.
57 Walker, Lindsey. Sowing the Future of Food Scraps: A 20 week Pilot Collection & Composting Program. Emmet
County Recycling. Presented at Michigan Recycling Coalition Annual Conference. May 5, 2016. Learning from Food
Scrap Collection Pilots. https://newsite.micMganrecvcles.org/images/Docs/Conf2016/presentations/
22 Learning From Food Scrap Collection Pilots.pdf.
58 Seltzer, Elisa. Emmet County Department of Public Works. Rockin' Rural Food Scrap Commercial Collection Program.
Presented at BioCycle REFOR16. October 19, 2016.
59 Emmet County Recycling. Compost for Sale, https://www.emmetrecvcling.org/for-sale/compost. Accessed November
29, 2021.
611 DC Government Department of Public Works. Food Waste Drop Off. November 2020.
https://dpw.dc.gov/foodwastedropoff Accessed December 15, 2020.
61 DC Government Department of Parks and Recreation. Community Compost Cooperative Network.
https://dpr.dc.gov/page/communitv-compost-cooperative-network. Accessed December 15, 2020.
62 DC Government Department of Public Works. Fort Totten Transfer Station, https://dpw.dc. gov/node/414922. Accessed
December 15, 2020.
63 Sustainable DC. 2021 Progress Report, https://sustainable.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sustainable/page content/
attachments/DOEE SDC ProgressReport2021 Digital Final.pdf.
14
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Single-family vs. Multi-family
Because organic waste and recycling collection from multi-family dwellings is more complicated than
from single-family residences, many collection programs start with single-family dwellings and phase
in multi-family dwellings over time. Multi-family dwellings can have a more complicated infrastructure
(trash chutes, space constraints) and, in some ways, are more like commercial food waste generators
than single-family residences. In addition, property management companies, landlords and homeowner
associations of multi-family dwellings, and often the parties in charge of contracting for waste collection
services, must be educated alongside the building residents. Finally, due to the turnover in multi-family
buildings, repeated outreach and education plus signage in public areas of the building are very important
to maintain program participation.64-65 Despite these challenges, the high-density population of these
buildings makes them an important target population for increasing diversion of organic waste.
Multi family Food Waste Collection
In Alameda County, California, a mandatory recycling ordinance required all multi-family buildings with five
or more units to have SSO programs by 2015. Due to implementation challenges at multi-family buildings,
many of these units received compliance extensions or waivers. In 2015, Global Green worked with the county
to deploy a food waste reduction and recovery outreach project at 15 multi-family buildings, ranging from 12
to 170 units per building. The project provided compost collection pails and conducted outreach to residents
on both food waste reduction strategies and food waste recycling. The project measured how much SSO waste
was captured, contamination rates in the compost pails, how much organic waste was still being disposed of
in the garbage, and other metrics. On average, each building increased its organic waste diversion by 44.6
pounds during the month-long project, for an approximate 91 percent increase in organic waste diversion
across all buildings.66,6/ Alameda County's Community Climate Action Plan established a target of diverting
90 percent of all waste from landfills by 2030, with an interim goal of 82.5 percent by 2020, to reduce the
community's waste-related GHG emissions. Waste is responsible for approximately 2,510 MTC02e per year
in the county, the equivalent of taking nearly 550 passenger cars off the road.68
Collection Technologies
Several considerations go into designing and selecting the appropriate technologies for an organic waste
collection program. Food waste is typically high in moisture and heavier than other types of MSW;
therefore, customers will be more likely to use containers that minimize odor and are easily maneuvered.
In addition, customers need to have room to store the container between pickups, so cart size is important.
64 Global Green USA. Piloting Food Scrap Recovery in Alameda County—Food Scrap Reduction and Recovery at Multi-
Facility Dwellings: Deploying and Assessing Enhanced Tenant Outreach, https ://static 1. square space .corn/static/
5548ed90e4b0b0a763d0e704/t/58fe7al2e6f2elelf7da96db/1493231516967/AlamedaReport.
65 Best, Jordan. Recycling Council of British Columbia. RCBC Background Paper: Best Practices for Multi-Family Food
Scraps Collection. February 2011. https://www.rcbc.ca/files/u7/policv 110207 mforganicsreport.pdf.
66 Belev, Anastas. Global Green USA. Global Green's Food Waste Prevention and Recycling Outreach Materials. May
30, 2017. http://globalgreen.sauarespace.com/blog/fwwv2xl6szx4gkssira53glg4wzrck.
67 Global Green USA. Piloting Food Scrap Recovery in Alameda County—Food Scrap Reduction and Recovery at Multi-
Facility Dwellings: Deploying and Assessing Enhanced Tenant Outreach.
https://staticl.sauarespace.eom/static/5548ed90e4b0b0a763d0e704/t/58fe7al2e6f2elelf7da96db/1493231516967/Alam
edaReport.
68 Alameda County. Community Climate Action Plan. February 4, 2014. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/
sustainabilitv/documents/110603 Alameda CCAP Final.pdf.
15
-------
Do wnstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Containers
As shown in Figure 2-1, common collection containers for residential
customers include kitchen buckets that they can place on the curb and
larger curbside carts ranging from 32 to 48 gallons for dedicated food
waste or up to 96 gallons for combined food and yard wastes. The cost,
including initial delivery, repair and maintenance, can range from about
$15 per bucket to about $50 per cart.69 Alternatively, some municipalities
allow customers to use any container with a locking lid, such as a
common 5-gallon bucket. Commercial or multi-family customers
typically use larger four-wheeled carts (64-gallon) or containers (3 cubic
yards).
Some municipalities provide or subsidize backyard composter containers
for residents who prefer a "do-it-yourself approach. If participation is
significant, this type of container can reduce costs for a city after it
provides the initial container, as it diverts organic waste from the MSW
stream and may avoid the need for SSO collection. For example, the City
of Orlando. Florida has delivered more than 7,000 composters to
residences since February 2015 and also offers a free oil recycling jug for
kitchen grease and cooking oil, which the city converts into biodiesel,
reducing GHG emissions.70- 172
Trucks73'74
Garbage trucks can be and have been adapted to haul organic waste while minimizing odors and risk of
leaking liquid waste more effectively. Despite additional capital costs, the following enhancements can
speed up collection times, reduce equipment failures and reduce the number of staff needed to operate
each vehicle.
• Since many routing plans collect SSO on the same day as normal MSW or yard waste pickup,
some routes use extra leak-proof compartments on standard collection vehicles. Trucks are also
available with container-washing capabilities.
• Trucks can be equipped with more robust lifting systems to handle the weight of high-density
organic waste, especially for the larger containers used in commercial collections. Some vehicles
also have scales to ensure the containers' weight will not damage them.
69 Cost range for containers is based on expert knowledge of the industry.
70 Yale Climate Connections. Orlando Gives Away Composting Kits. February 15, 2019.
https://valeclimateconnections.org/2019/02/orlando-gives-awav-composting-kits/. Accessed September 4, 2020.
1 City of Orlando. Recycle Your Cooking Oil. rtps://www.orlando.gov/Trash-Recvcling/Recvcle-Your-Cooking-Oil.
Accessed February 17, 2021.
72 City of Orlando. Food Waste, https://www.orlando. gov/Trash-Recvcling/Food-Waste. Accessed September 4, 2020.
73 Hesselgrave, Barbara. Food Waste Collection Truck Innovations. BioCycle 58(2): 24. February 14, 2017.
https://www.biocvcle.net/2017/02/14/food-waste-collection-truck-innovations/.
74 Goldstein Nora. Demand Grows for Food Waste Collection Trucks. BioCycle 55(7): 41. August 14, 2014.
https://www.biocvcle.net/2014/08/14/demand-grows-for-food-waste-collection-tmcks/.
Figure 2-1. Containers for Food
Waste Collection Programs.
16
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
• Another enhancement involves replacing conventional packing blades used in recycling and
MSW trucks with an auger. The auger can shred organic waste more effectively without jamming
and possibly prevent the need for equipment to extract the organic waste from collection bags
once the waste reaches the processing facility.
Waste Pretreatment/Feedstock Preparation
As discussed further in Section 5, community outreach and education are effective for minimizing
contamination of organic waste by keeping the contaminants out of the SSO stream in the first place. A
second way to minimize contamination is training and regular communication with collection crews on
keeping the SSO stream clean. For example, when collection crews identify customers improperly using
non-compostable plastic bags to line their containers, they could refuse pickup or provide a warning tag.
Once collected, contaminants (e.g., gloves, packaging, utensils, wrappers and plastic) can be difficult to
remove. Post-collection pretreatment requirements will vary depending on the source (residential,
institutional, commercial) of the food waste and how the organic waste will be processed (compost or
AD). If pretreatment is required, waste managers should evaluate available techniques and technologies,
including bag openers, mechanical sorting, grinders, pulpers or manual sorting.75
Section 3: Organic Waste Processing
This section describes the primary technologies used for downstream processing of organic waste. These
technologies are generally categorized in two main groups: composting (an aerobic process) and AD (an
anaerobic process). This section also briefly discusses pilot projects for dedicated organic waste cells at
landfills and using organic waste as feedstock for industrial processes.
Composting
Composting is the aerobic decomposition of organic waste by microorganisms into humus, a usable,
soil-like byproduct. Composting involves energy input and process control but does not generate energy
that could be captured and beneficially used. Composting systems manage the moisture content, oxygen
flow and mixture ratio of organic materials for optimal conditions. The composting process emits heat,
water vapor and carbon dioxide, reducing the raw organic materials in mass and volume.
Composting systems can range in expense, with several classification levels, but are broadly categorized
as passively aerated (including turned) or actively aerated. Examples of passively aerated systems
include static piles, bunkers and windrows. Examples of actively aerated systems include aerated static
piles and in-vessel composting such as tunnels, drums or other containers that are turned, mixed or
injected with air. EPA's "Types of Composting and Understanding the Process" webpage provides more
technical information and descriptions of composting technologies.
Turned windrows (i.e., organic materials piled in rows that are turned periodically to maintain aerobic
conditions and allow oxygen to flow to their cores) are the most common yard waste composting systems
used in the United States, due to their low capital costs (e.g., site improvements, equipment), their low
operating costs (e.g., labor, vehicle fuel, equipment maintenance), and the wide variety and large volume
of materials they can process (they are suitable for yard waste, food waste and other types of green wastes
75 McKicrnan. Christine. Containing Food Waste Contamination Essential for Anaerobic Digestion. Waste360. January
27, 2015. https://www.waste360.com/organics/containing-food-waste-contamination-essential-anaerobic-digestion.
17
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
with high concentrations of nitrogen). This type of composting is ideal for co-locating at landfills to take
advantage of the space and infrastructure available. Co-location can also lower transport costs and truck
traffic (to or from offsite locations) for disposing of contaminants or other non-compostable materials
removed from the process, which may be used for landfill alternative daily cover.
Given the long operating history and large number of yard waste compost facilities nationwide, one cost-
effective option available to many communities is to use existing yard waste facilities to accept food
waste. This may require modifications to a facility's permit as well as to site operations to accommodate
higher-moisture food waste, reduce odor and vector risks, and adjust for differences in material handling.
The way that food waste is defined can affect its ability to be accepted in a compost facility, based on
state or local regulations. Some examples of changes that a site may consider making are using smaller
windrows, increasing the turning frequency, blending food waste with carbon-rich materials or using
covered compost piles or forced aeration techniques.76
Composting at a Landfill
Lee County, Florida, built a composting facility with six covered windrow buildings adjacent to its landfill. The
facility processes a combination of yard waste and biosolids from seven WRRFs in neighboring municipalities
to produce Class AA (highest treatment level) compost sold as OrganicLee'W. The compost facility shares an
onsite stormwater system with the Lee/Hendry Landfill and can also use the landfill's monitoring network to
evaluate any potential nutrient loading impact. '•,s
Expanding a Yard Waste Compost Facility to Accept Food Waste
Prince George's County, Maryland, has used windrow composting for yard waste since 1990. In 2013, the
county piloted a food waste composting system using Gore Cover technology. Following the success ful pilot,
the county expanded its food waste handling capacity in 2014 and again in 2017. The county mixes yard and
food wastes in a receiving pile to control odors and reduce vectors, then places the co-mingled materials under
a cover and carefidly monitors temperature and oxygen. The covered system traps odors and volatile organic
compounds while reducing the time to produce final compost./9-80-81-82 As of 2018, annual compost sales were
about $500,000 and the demand for food scrap disposal is so high that there is a waiting list of 30 institutions
and communities. One client, the University of Maryland's College Park campus, delivered 950 tons of organic
76 Christiansen, Eva M. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Incorporating Food Residuals into Existing Yard Waste
Composting Operations. 1st ed. 2009. Published by the US Composting Council, Bethesda, MD. Funded by U.S. EPA
Region IV. https://compostfoundation.Org/Portals/l/Documents/BMP-for-FW-to-YW.pdf.
77 OrganicLee® Compost, https://www.flsustainabilitv.com/organiclee-compost/. Accessed February 17, 2021.
78 Lee County, Florida. Compost Production Facility, https://www.leegov.com/solidwaste/facilities/compost. Accessed
February 17, 2021.
79 Prince George's County, Maryland. Department of Environmental Resources. Prince George's County Yard Waste
Composting Facility. September 2013. https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-
documents/kVlaW19d20130920144752.pdf.
811 Prince George's County, Maryland. Prince George's Organics Composting Facility.
https://www.princegeorgescountvmd.gov/583/Organics-Composting-Facilitv. Accessed January 13, 2022.
81 Sustainable Generation. Prince George's County, MD Organics Composting Facility: Systematically Scaling from
Mobile Pilot Project to Full Scale Facility. 2021. https://d3tuzpe5s27et8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/mes-proiect-
profile 2019 2.pdf.
82 Prince George's County, Maryland. Comprehensive Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan. January 2017.
https://www.princegeorgescountvmd. gov/DocumentCenter/View/1716 l/Ten-Year-Solid-Waste-2017-2026—JPG-
Edits-8-as-of-Januarv-4-2017.
18
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
material to the facility in 2017 and uses the compost to grow vegetables for its dining hall. The facility's 2018
expansion increased its total organic waste capacity to 57,000 tons per year, of which 8,000 tons is food waste,
contributing to the county's goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80percent below 2008 levels by 2050.83-84
Composting Biosolids and Food Waste Separately
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) began composting WRRF biosolids in 1995 to avoid expensive
landfill disposal costs for this special waste; dewatered biosolids are mixed with ground wood from yard
trimmings and the finished compost is sold to area landscapers and farms. In 1997, with grant funding from
EPA, EBCI started the first food waste composting project on Indian Country in the United States. As of2005,
EBCI was composting about 1,100 dry tons of biosolids and 860 tons of food waste per year. EBCI utility staff
collect food waste more than once per day from multiple restaurants, already separated and decontaminated
by restaurant staff, and transport it to the windrow composting site for weighing and mixing with woodchips,
sawdust and shredded paper. To solve initial odor problems resulting from lack ofsufficient oxygen in the piles,
EBCI simply changed the equipment used to turn the piles. The two composting operations save EBCI
thousands of dollars annually in tipping fees, and the Qualla Boundary community benefits from high-quality,
low-cost compost for gardening. EBCI focuses on training for its compost operators and knowledge sharing,
including developing a composting guide for EPA to distribute to other Tribes.85,86,8'•88
Anaerobic Digestion
AD is the process that breaks down organic waste in the absence of oxygen to release a gas known as
biogas and leave an organic residue called digestate.89 AD facilities have a variety of configuration
options for the type of feedstock, type of loading, number of process stages and temperature within the
digester. EPA's "Types of Anaerobic Digesters" webpage has more information about AD systems.
AD facility costs are significant and will vary depending on factors, including the location of the facility,
feedstock source(s), pretreatment of feedstock, the selected AD configuration and treatment of the AD
products.90 A 2018 fact sheet from Ohio State University provides a capital cost range of about $450 to
$600 per short ton of feedstock, and an operational cost range of about $35 to $90 per ton of feedstock,
83 Karidis, Arlene. Prince George's County, Md., Ramps up Composting with Major Expansions. Waste360. August 2018.
https://www.waste360.com/composting/prince-george-s-countv-md-ramps-composting-maior-expansion.
84 Prince George's County, Maryland. Sustainable Energy. https://www.princegeorgescountvmd.gov/936/Sustainable-
Energy-Program. Accessed August 17, 2021.
85 U.S. EPA. Tribal Composting Nourishes Land and Tradition. Tribal Waste Journal. Issue 4. EPA530-N-05-001. June
2005. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/30006P0B.PDF?Dockev=30006P0B.PDF.
86 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Cherokee Indians' Premier Food Waste Compost.
https://www.fao.Org/nr/sustainabilitv/food-loss-and-waste/database/proiects-detail/en/c/135015/. Accessed November
24, 2021.
87 Long, John. Composting Operations at Cherokee Tribal Facilities. Cherokee Tribal Utilities, https://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/user upload/nr/sustainabilitv pathwavs/docs/COMPOSTING%20OPERATIONS%20AT%2QCHEROKEE%
20TRIBE.pdf.
88 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Solid Waste Management, https://ebci.com/services/departments/department-of-
housing/infrastructure-and-public-facilities/. Accessed November 24, 2021.
89 U.S. EPA AgSTAR. How Does Anaerobic Digestion Work? https://www.epa.gov/agstar/how-does-anaerobic-digestion-
work. Accessed July 28, 2021.
911 U.S. EPA. Global Methane Initiative: Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste. October 2016.
https://www.globalmetliane.org/documents/AD-Training-Presentation Qct2016.pdf.
19
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
for a food waste AD plant.91 Similarly, a 2013 feasibility study showed capital costs for food waste
digester projects ranged from about $300 to $600 per short ton of annual throughput capacity and
operational costs ranged from about $30 to $90 per short ton.92 A 2018 AD project evaluation study by
Great Plains Institute included interviews with various types of organic waste digester project operators
in Minnesota on topics including capital and operations and maintenance costs. This study shows a range
of capital costs from about $140 to $360 per short ton of design capacity and an operating cost range of
about $15 to $40 per short ton of throughput.93
AD is also commonly used to treat municipal or industrial wastewater and sewage sludge and helps
manage the volume of manure generated on livestock and poultry farms.94 Some AD facilities co-digest
multiple types of organic materials by supplementing their onsite inputs with food or yard wastes.95 The
main benefit of co-digestion projects is the use of existing assets and infrastructure, which allows these
facilities to use process equipment more efficiently and lower costs when one facility processes multiple
waste streams. Facilities can also use co-digestion to adjust the solids percentage to improve digestion
and significantly increase biogas production, relative to sludge alone.96 However, because the bacteria
breaking down the waste are sensitive to the type and quantity of feedstocks added to a digester, several
factors (e.g., composition and pH of the waste, retention time of the waste in the AD, operating
temperature of the reactor and the rate at which the materials are added to the digester) affect the
feasibility of co-digesting food waste with other materials.97
Starting in 2017, EPA has annually surveyed operators of AD facilities that accept food waste and
provided reports on the findings online. Collecting data about food waste digestion will help EPA, states
and other stakeholders better understand the alternatives to landfilling food waste. EPA's survey includes
three types of facilities: stand-alone food waste digesters, on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste
and WRRF digesters that co-digest food waste. EPA's report published in January 2021 provided 2018
and 2017 operational data for 118 facilities that responded to the survey during 2019. These facilities
comprised 45 stand-alone food waste digesters, 10 on-farm digesters co-digesting food waste and 63
WRRF digesters co-digesting food waste.98
91 Vasco-Correa, Juliana, Manandhar, Ashish, and Ajay Shah. Economic Implications of Anaerobic Digestion for
Bioenergy Production and Waste Management. The Ohio State University, Department of Food, Agricultural and
Biological Engineering. June 2018. https://oliioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-6611.
92 Moriarty, Kristy. Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St. Bernard, Louisiana. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. January 2013. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fV13osti/57082.pdf.
93 Great Plains Institute. Anaerobic Digestion Evaluation Study. Prepared for the Partnership on Waste and Energy.
September 2018. https://recvclingandenergv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2018-09-GPI-Anaerobic-Digestion-
White-Paper-Final-Report-1 .pdf.
94 U.S. EPA AgSTAR. The Benefits of Anaerobic Digestion, https://www.epa.gov/agstar/benefits-anaerobic-digestion.
Accessed July 28, 2021.
95 U.S. EPA AgSTAR. Increasing Anaerobic Digester Performance with Codigestion. September 2012.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/codigestion.pdf.
96 U.S. EPA. Anaerobic Digestion and Its Applications. EPA/600/R-15/304. October 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/ad and applications-final O.pdf.
97 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Feasibility Study of Food Waste Co-Digestion at U.S Army Installations. Engineer
Research and Development Center. ERDC/CERL TR-17-7. March 2017.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntrvId=338053.
98 U.S. EPA. January 2021. Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste in the United States (2017 & 2018).
EPA/903/S-21/001. January 2021. Table ES-1. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/
2021 final ad report feb 2 with links.pdf.
20
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
WRRF Co Digestion
In 2014, Waste Management, Inc. (WM) entered into an agreement with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County (LACSD), California, to conduct a two-year demonstration project for co-digesting food waste at a
WRRF. WM delivered up to 25,000 gallons per day of food waste slurry to the Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant in Carson, California, paying a tipping fee of about $10 per ton. The additional food waste slurry
produced an additional 100,000 cubic feet per day o f biogas from one of the plant's AD systems.99,100 The
operation transitioned from pilot phase to full commercial operation in 2019, with capacity to process about
14 percent of the food waste generated in the Los Angeles Basin.101 In 2020, LACSD was co-digesting about
300 tons per day of food waste at the plant, with the slurry delivered by nine suppliers including LACSD's own
Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility. The slurry is fed into two of 24 digesters and, at optimal feed rate,
doubled biogas production. The biogas supplies onsite thermal and electrical demands and, beginning in
December 2020, is also used to produce compressed natural gas (CNG) for LACSD's nearby public fueling
station. The site's renewable natural gas (RNG) purification equipment was designed to produce up to 2,000
gasoline gallon equivalents per day from 400 cubic feet per minute of digester gas.l02J0S
Farm Based Co Digestion
Using AD to process animal manure is well demonstrated but often is not economical due to the relatively low
biogas yield from manure. However, adding food waste can increase biogas yield. In 2010, Rein ford Farms in
Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, began receiving 60 to 70 tons of food waste per week from 40 nearby Walmart and
Sam 's Club stores where employees separated the waste from packaging. In 2017, the farm installed a de-
packaging unit to also take waste from food distribution centers without pre-separation and in 2019, added a
second, larger digester. Rein ford also added a 50,000-gallon food waste holding tank to help balance the
addition of food waste into the digesters. The farm receives tipping fees for accepting waste, has reduced its
heating bill to zero and generates renewable electricity for onsite use and sells excess to the grid. As of2020,
the two digesters produce a total of 288,000 cubic feet per day of biogas. The original 140-kilowatt (kW)
generator is still in use as well as a newer 499-kW combined heat and power (CHP) engine. Engine waste heat
is recovered to dry corn for feed and heat water and buildings.104,105,106,10
99 Coker, Craig. Los Angeles County WRRF Embraces Codigestion. BioCycle 58(1): 53. January 12, 2017.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2017/01/12/los-angeles-countv-wrrf-embraces-codigestion/.
11111 Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Joint Water Pollution Plant, Carson California. Fact sheet. May 12, 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/la county digester proiect.pdf.
1111 Sarber, Kelly. Sanitation Districts Gear Up for Food Waste Codigestion. BioCycle. December 4, 2019.
https://www.biocYcle.net/sanitation-districts-gear-food-waste-codigestion/. Accessed September 4, 2020.
1112 McDannel, Mark. LACSD. Collection and Treatment of Food Wastes to Reduce Methane Emissions. Presented during
webinarby American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists (AAEES). March 3, 2021.
1113 BioCycle. Los Angeles County Producing RNG For Vehicle Fuel. December 8, 2020. https://www.biocvcle.net/los-
angeles-countv-producing-rng-for-vehicle-fuel/. Accessed March 11, 2021.
1114 Tucker, Mary Farrell. Dairy Farm Succeeds with Codigestion. BioCycle 52(3): 74. March 23, 2011.
https://www.biocvcle.net/2011/03/23/dairv-fann-succeeds-with-codigestion/.
1115 Goldstein Nora. The Art and Science of Codigestion on Dairy Farms. BioCycle. October 12, 2020.
https://www.biocvcle.net/the-art-and-science-of-codigestion-on-dairv-fanns/. Accessed February 24, 2021.
1116 Yu, Alan. Waste Not, Want Not: Why Aren't More Fanns Putting Poop to Good Use? The Salt. April 23, 2017.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/23/524878531/waste-not-want-not-whv-arent-more-fanns-putting-poop-
to-good-use. Accessed February 24, 2021.
1117 Colby, Sally. Innovation with Cow Comfort In Mind. Country Folks. February 14, 2020.
https://countrvfolks.com/innovation-with-cow-comfort-in-mind/. Accessed February 24, 2021.
21
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Industrial Co Digestion
In 2013, the Campbell Soup facility in Napoleon, Ohio, partnered with CH4 Biogas IIC to build an AD system
to process its waste, including spoiled vegetables and other products that did not meet quality standards. The
AD facility also accepts manure from nearby farms, waste from other food processors and food waste from
grocery stores and schools—up to a total o f425 tons per day. Only slightly larger than another of CH4 Biogas '
manure-only AD systems, the Napoleon AD facility produces twice as much electricity due to the mix of manure
and food waste—2.8 megawatt (MW)-hours per hour, about 25 percent of the soup plant's energy needs.108
As with composting, landfills provide excellent opportunities for siting new AD facilities due to the
existing space and infrastructure available, including waste handling, storage and (potentially) the
adaptation of existing LFG energy systems to use AD biogas.
Siting ADs at landfills
The Zanker Road Resource Recovery Operation and landfill near San Jose, Cali fornia, built an adjacent AD
system in 2013. Zero Waste Energy Development Company (ZWEDC) 's dry fermentation AD system processes
about 90,000 tons of organic waste per year (about 250 tons per day) in addition to creating about 30,000 tons
o f compost per year. The AD system's energy recovery capacity is 1.6 MW from two 800-kW CHP units; the
renewable electricity powers operations at ZWEDC and at the landfill next door, with any surplus going to the
grid. ZWEDC processes wet organic commercial waste from the City of San Jose as well as commercial and
residential organics from the City of Palo Alto. The City of San Jose 's 2007 Green Vision plan included the
goal of diverting 100 percent of the city's waste away from landfilling by 2022 and using waste to create
renewable energy. 109-U0-1U The City of Palo Alto officially instituted its recycling and composting ordinance in
April 2016 but began researching organic waste diversion options as early as November 2011 as part o f its
zero-waste initiative. U2-Ui
Segregated Organic Waste Landfill Cells
Another possibility for processing organic waste is a "biocell" (also called "biomodule" or "digester
cell") at existing landfills. This concept uses the available infrastructure in and around existing landfills
and involves constructing a separate lined cell with leachate recirculation that is dedicated to organic
waste. As the organic waste degrades anaerobically within the cell with leachate recirculation, it
produces LFG at a faster rate than in a landfill with mixed MSW. The facility can collect and use the
LFG as in a traditional LFG collection and control system until the LFG supply is depleted. When the
gas runs out, the facility can use the LFG collection wells to inject air into the biocell to facilitate aerobic
1118 Emerson, Dan. Entrepreneur Connects Generator to AD. BioCycle 56(6): 34. July 14, 2015.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2015/07/14/entrepreneur-connects-generators-to-ad/.
1119 Zanker Recycling. Zero Waste Energy Development. https://www.zankerrecYcling.com/zwedc/facilitv/. Accessed
March 12, 2021.
1111 Zanker Recycling. About Us. https://www.zankerrecvcling.com/zanker-recvcling/about-us/. Accessed March 12, 2021.
111 Goldstein Nora. High Solids Anaerobic Digestion + Composting in San Jose. BioCycle. March/April 2014.
https://www.zankerrecvcling.com/wp-content/uploads/zwedc-biocvcle-liighsolidsad-april-2014.pdf.
112 City of Palo Alto, California. Zero Waste, https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/default.asp.
Accessed March 12, 2021.
113 City of Palo Alto, California. Recycling and Composting Ordinance Begins April 1.
https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/bill-inserts/rc-ordinance-commercial-april.pdf.
22
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
composting. Once the composting is complete, it can be mined for beneficial use. Examples of
this technique are found in Yolo County, California;114 Calgary, Alberta; and Leon County, Florida.115
Yolo County's 2010 pilot project involved only manure and green waste in its dedicated biocell. The
county's report on the project considered the pilot to be a success (e.g., the process was cost-effective,
the pilot is transferable to a larger scale, it produced high-quality compost product) and
recommended additional pilot projects involving food waste to address the challenges that this
higher-moisture feedstock will present.116
Feedstock for Industrial Processes
In addition to composting and AD, pre-consumer organic waste from industrial sources such as the
food supply industry can often be used as a feedstock to other industrial processes given its
homogenous nature and low contamination levels. For example, the animal processing industry
generates byproducts (e.g., fats, blood, meat or bone meals) that are usually not suitable for human
consumption and would end up in landfills or incinerated, where they might contribute to public health
or environmental concerns (e.g., air or water pollution). However, rendering is a recycling
process that turns many animal byproducts into beneficial products. Rendering is the cooking and
drying process that converts livestock and poultry animal parts not intended for human consumption
into edible (e.g., lard, tallow) and inedible (e.g., meat meal and bone meal) byproducts, thereby
providing additional revenue for the meat industry and avoiding costly disposal. Uses of rendered
animal products include meat meal as an animal feed ingredient and bone meal as natural fertilizer.
Other byproducts of rendering may be used as feedstocks for industrial products (e.g., paints and
varnishes, explosives, lubricants), health and beauty goods (e.g., soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste,
pharmaceuticals), apparel (e.g., leather, textiles) and pet food.117
Markets
Markets for the organic waste feedstock and the end products(s) of the process used (e.g.,
compost, biogas, digestate) in organic waste processing are a key component of a successful
organic waste processing facility. When developing a new project, one must carefully consider
these markets to properly design the system (e.g., feedstock pre-processing equipment, type of
compost or AD system, end use of byproducts) and ensure long-term project operation and
economic viability. There can be challenges in selling end products—for example, public perception
of the quality and safety of compost or digestate given the lack of federal quality standards or
regulating body for these products. In general, the markets for organic waste feedstocks and end
products are growing in the United States due to regulatory requirements and public interest in
sustainable waste management and renewable energy, as evidenced by growing numbers of state
and local organic waste diversion regulations as well as composting facilities and SSO collection
programs (see Section 6).
114 Yazdani, P.E., Ramin. and Yolo County Planning & Public Works. Landfill-Based Anaerobic Digester—Compost Pilot
Project at Yolo County Central Landfill. Prepared for California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
April 2010. https://www2.calrecYcle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1354.
115 Waste Recovery Technology Review for the Toronto, Canada Long Term Waste Strategy, p. 81.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-83453.pdf.
116 Yazdani, P.E., Ramin and Yolo County Planning & Public Works. Landfill-Based Anaerobic Digester—Compost Pilot
Project at Yolo County Central Landfill. Prepared for California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
April 2010. https://www2.calrecvcle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1354.
117 National Renderers Association. North American Rendering: The Source of Essential, High-Quality Products. 2nd ed.
2016. http://assets.nationalrenderers.org/north american rendering v2.pdf.
23
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Section 4: Benefits of Diverting Organic Waste from Landfills
Diverting organic waste from landfills can reduce methane emissions, reduce the costs of landfill
operations or waste disposal, achieve local economic benefits from new jobs and revenue, demonstrate
sustainability to the community, improve public health and create environmental benefits (e.g., to water,
air and soil conditions). This section explores many of the benefits of diverting organic waste from
landfills.
Climate, Public Health and Other Environmental Benefits
Diverting organic waste from landfills reduces the amount of methane produced by landfills, providing
a benefit in reduced GHG emissions from the waste sector. Methane is a potent GHG, 28 to 36 times
more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period.118 Keeping
organic wastes out of landfills will help the United States address climate change, as more than 15
percent of total U.S. human-caused methane emissions in 2019 came from landfills, the third-largest
source of methane in the United States. 119 In 2019, MSW landfills were responsible for emitting 99.4
MMTCChe.120
By diverting organic waste before it enters a landfill, facilities can process that waste via composting
which does not produce significant amounts of methane or by AD wherein biogas production can be
carefully controlled. See the "Climate Impacts of Organic Waste Management" subsection of Section 1
for an analysis of how diversion of food waste would affect landfill GHG emissions.
Similarly, organic waste disposal facilities can more easily control, manage and treat the digestate (solids
and liquids) they produce for their intended end use before reintroducing them into the environment.
Composting can avoid the environmental consequences of nutrient overload, including algal blooms and
drinking water contamination associated with synthetic fertilizers. Diverting organic waste to other
processing facilities also reduces the generation of odors and pests at landfills. While odors and pests
can also be potential problems at composting and AD facilities as discussed in Section 5, proper
management can make those issues easier to control than at landfills.
It is well known that landfills can pose certain risks to public health and the environment.121 Many of
these risks are directly associated with landfilling organic waste, which can lead to water or air pollution,
odors, and rodents or other pests. Reducing organic waste disposal in landfills can therefore minimize
some of these potential hazards and more easily control them at organic waste processing facilities.
Benefits of less organic waste in landfills include, for example, lower emissions of methane and NMOCs
and reductions in odor and leachate generation. Since organic waste accounts for a large portion of the
MSW stream, the potential for realizing these benefits is significant.
118 U.S. EPA. Understanding Global Wanning Potentials, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-
warming-potentials. Accessed November 8, 2021.
119 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. Chapter 7: Waste. April 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventorv-2021-cliapter-7-waste.pdf.
120 Ibid.
121 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Landfill Gas Primer—An Overview for
Enviromnental Health Professionals. Chapter 3: Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues. November 2001.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/Landfill 2001 ch3.pdf.
24
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
While federal122 123 regulations require LFG to be collected and combusted at landfills above a certain
size threshold, smaller landfills that do not meet the threshold requirements are not subject to the control
requirements. Further, even at landfills with a robust gas collection system, the collection system can
never capture 100 percent of the gas so the remainder escapes to the atmosphere. In contrast, AD facilities
are estimated to collect 95 to 98 percent of their methane generated.124
Economic Benefits
As well as improving landfill operations through organic waste diversion, processing organic waste can
provide economic benefits. The two most common methods of processing organic waste (AD and
composting) produce useful end products that the owner of the processing facility can use or sell to
customers, as summarized below and shown in Figure 4-1. Organics recycling contributed more than
50,000 jobs, more than $2 billion in wages and a little under $500 million in tax revenue to the U.S.
economy in 2012.125
Anaerobic Digestion
• Recover and use biogas to produce electricity, heat or RNG for use as transportation fuel or in
place of fossil natural gas. Projects can enhance biogas potential by:
o Adding other organic wastes such as fats, oils and grease (FOG).
o Co-locating an AD plant near an existing LFG energy project to support opportunities for
combining AD biogas and LFG.
o Exploring co-digestion of food waste at a WRRF.126-127 Section 3 discusses co-digestion.
• Use the digestate (solid fraction) in many ways, including:
o Feedstock in compost production.
o Land application.
• Use the digestate (liquid fraction) as a liquid fertilizer or for irrigation.
122 U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Emission Guidelines (EG)
and Compliance Times, https://www.epa.gov/stationarv-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-new-
source-performance-standards. Accessed February 22, 2021.
123 U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
https://www.epa.gov/stationarv-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards.
Accessed February 22, 2021.
124 U.S. EPA. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model
(WARM). Management Practice Chapters. November 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/documents/warm management practices v!5 10-29-2020.pdf.
125 U.S. EPA. Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report. November 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-ll/documents/rei report 508 compliant.pdf.
126 U.S. EPA. Food Waste to Energy: How Six Water Resource Recovery Facilities are Boosting Biogas Production and
the Bottom Line. EPA 600/R-14/240. September 2014. https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/food-waste-energy-
how-six-water-resource-recoverv-facilities-are-boosting-biogas.
127 Coker, Craig. Los Angeles County WRRF Embraces Codigestion. BioCycle 58(1): 53. January 12, 2017.
https://www.biocvcle.net/2017/01/12/los-angeles-countv-wrrf-embraces-codigestion/.
25
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Anaerobic Co Digestion at Wooster WRRF in Ohio
Quasar partnered with the City of Wooster, Ohio, to upgrade its old WRRF which was experiencing operational
and compliance issues. After updating the AD system and introducing FOG and food waste, the facility went
"off the grid" for electricity needs, saving about $300,000 per year in electricity costs and getting back in
compliance. The digester also generates revenue from acceptance of waste, which in 2018 totaled $889,500.
Biosolids from the AD system are also being land applied as a nutrient source for farmers. All the biogas
generated by the AD system is used in a 1.1-MW CHP unit for electricity generation, half of which powers the
WRRF and the AD system and the rest of which is sold to the grid.128•129,13a 131
Compost
• Use the compost as a soil amendment (supplying nutrients, improving water retention).
• Help restore wetlands (increasing water filtration, plant growth).132
• Help control erosion (reducing runoff) or use the compost in roadside stabilization land
reclamation projects.133 For example, Marin County, California, applied compost to rangeland to
sequester carbon while also increasing the soil's water holding capacity by 17 to 25 percent and
increasing production of plants for grazing livestock by 40 to 70 percent.134
Baltimore Compost Collective, Maryland
In 2016-2017, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance began the Baltimore Compost Collective. This youth-led
food scrap collection service operates in Curtis Bay, Maryland, a historically disenfranchised neighborhood
in Baltimore with high poverty levels and low access to fresh food. The Collective's high school student
employees gather food scraps weekly from residents and a local juice bar to create compost for use in growing
produce for the community at Filbert Street Garden. As of 2018, about 30 customers were paying $25 per
month to have their food scraps collected by the Collective. Originally launched with a grant, the Collective
seeks to become financially self-sustaining by increasing its customer base. It has already built a second
128 Contipelli, Renato. The Impact of Co-Digestion on Water Resource Recovery Facilities In Order to Achieve Energy
Neutrality, quasar energy group. http://www.oliiowea.org/docs/Renato auasar.pdf.
129 Kurtz, Mel. The City of Wooster, Ohio: Water Resource Recovery Facility, quasar energy group.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/presenation kurtz.pdf.
1311 Givins, KevinP. City of Wooster Utilities Division: Annual Report for Year 2015. March 1, 2016.
https://www.woosteroh.com/sites/default/files/2018-ll/Utilities%20Division%20Annual%20Report O.pdf.
131 Coey, Nathan. City of Wooster Utilities Department: 2018 Annual Report.
https://www.woosteroh.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/2018%20Utilities%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
132 U.S. EPA. Innovative Uses of Compost: Reforestation Wetlands Restoration and Habitat Revitalization. October 1997.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/reforest.pdf.
133 Cogbum Barrie, and Scott McCoy. USCC Factsheets on Innovative Uses of Compost by State DOTs: Texas DOT—
Revegetating Difficult Slopes. Project conducted for TXDOT. 2008. https://nrcne.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/TxDQT Revegetating Difficult.pdf.
134 Scolari, Nancy. Carbon Fanning. Presentation at 2016 California Adaptation Forum. September 2016.
http://www.californiaadaptationforum.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Scolari.pdf.
26
-------
Do wnstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
composting system to accommodate more food scraps. Students are taught financial customer service and
other workforce skills in this entrepreneurshipprogram.li5-136-13'-138
Economic Benefits for the Local Economy
In Massachusetts, a commercial food waste disposal ban (in place since October 2014) has significantly
affected the state-wide economy. A 2016 analysis found that several affected industry segments, including waste
holders and processors, had experienced significant growth in the first two years and expected additional job
growth in 2017. More specifically, the study found approximately 400 direct jobs attributable to organic waste
holding and processing in 2016, $68 million in added value to the state, and $4.9 million in state and local
taxes.139
Figure 4-1. Byproducts and Beneficial Uses of Diverted Organic Waste.
135 Brolis, Linda Bilsens. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Fighting Food Waste and Employing Youth in Baltimore.
August 9, 2018. :ittps://ilsr.org/fight-food-waste-emplov-TOuth-baltimore/.
136 j]lc Baltimore Office of Sustainability. Baltimore Food Waste & Recovery Strategy. September 2018.
https://mavorbaltiniorecity gov/sites/default/files/BaltimoreFoodWaste&RecovervStrategy Sept2018.pdf.
137 WYPR News. Baltimore Plans to Expand Composting Citywide. September 17, 2018. https://www.wvpr.org/vvvpr-
news/2018-09-17/baltimore-plans-to-expand-composting-citvwide. Accessed November 12. 2021.
138 Natural Resources Defense Council. Food Scrap Recycling. 2019 Landscape Assessment. Baltimore, Maryland.
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/baltimore-food-scrap-recYcling-assessment-report.pdf.
139 ICF. Massachusetts Commercial Food Waste Ban Economic Impact Analysis. Prepared for the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. December 2016. Tables 3 and 4.
https://www.mass. gov/files/documents/2016/12/n\/orgecon-studv.pdf.
27
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Economic Benefits to Business
The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, California, has been recognized as EPA's Waste Wise Tribal Partner
of the Year more than once for their sustainable materials management practices involving food recovery,
landfill diversion, composting and recycling. The Band took the initiative to audit their resort's waste stream
annually and focus on the areas of highest waste reduction potential, learning some lessons along the way on
what worked and what did not. In 2012, the Band's Chumash Casino Resort generated more than 6 million
pounds of waste and spent about $255,000 on waste management; in 2017, the resort generated only 2.3 million
pounds of waste (a 60 percent reduction) and spent $165,000 in waste management (a 35 percent reduction).
The resort diverted more than 2.9 million pounds of waste from landfilling in 2018, about 90 percent of its
overall waste stream. Resort leaders started a free sustainability program for Native American properties to
share knowledge with other casinos and resorts who are interested in replicating Chumash' waste
successes.140'141142'143'144
The economic activity associated with diverting and processing organic waste and use of beneficial
byproducts also creates jobs. A 2016 ReFED analysis estimated five to 10 permanent jobs are created
for constructing, managing and operating each food waste composting center, plus an additional 1,600
ancillary jobs related to using the compost in green infrastructure or agriculture for every million tons of
processed compost. For AD, this same study estimated four to six new jobs for every 10,000 tons of
processing capacity in addition to jobs related to processing digestate.145
Section 5: Considerations for Implementing Organic Waste Diversion
Programs
There are economic and technical barriers to diverting organic waste from landfills. This section explores
some of these barriers and provides examples of how communities are overcoming them to implement
successful organic waste management programs.
Alternative Organic Waste Management Infrastructure
In some areas, there is limited capacity for organic waste receiving, processing and treatment facilities
(e.g., composters, anaerobic digesters). Estimates indicate there are between 3,000 and 5,000 active
1411 U.S. EPA. Sustainable Materials Management on Tribal Lands. EPA 530-F-19-001. March 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/documents/smm on tribal lands brochure march 2019 O.pdf.
141 Chumash Casino Resort. Sustainability. https://www.chumashcasino.com/about-us/sustainabilitv. Accessed November
24, 2021.
142 U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA Recognizes Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians for Zero Waste and Recycling
Accomplishments. November 12, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-recognizes-santa-vnez-band-
chumash-indians-zero-waste-and-recvcling. Accessed November 24, 2021.
143 U.S. EPA. 2019 WasteWise National Award Winners, https://www.epa.gov/smm/2019-wastewise-national-award-
winners#09. Accessed November 24, 2021.
144 Fehrenbach, Pete. One of a Kind: California Casino Resort Earns Zero Waste Certification. Waste360. May 20, 2019.
https://www.waste360.com/business-operations/one-kind-california-casino-resort-earns-zero-waste-certification.
Accessed November 24, 2021.
145 ReFED. A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent. 2016. p. 24-25. https://www.refed.com/downloads/
ReFED Report 2016.pdf.
28
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
composting operations in the United States.146 147 with between 465 and 880 of these facilities accepting
food waste.148 149 An estimated 185 are "full-scale" municipal or commercial composting facilities, with
the majority of these believed to be able to accept food waste.150151 Using existing composting
infrastructure when feasible can help offset the need for new facilities and reduce the costs and logistical
burdens of handling this waste stream in a new way (e.g., adding food waste collection to an existing
yard waste collection program or using existing capacity at a waste processing facility for mixed waste
composting or WRRF for co-digestion).
Municipal organic waste can also be processed at stand-alone AD facilities or co-digested with
agricultural or WRRF sludge. There are an estimated 1,600 AD facilities in the country; about 200 to
210 of these accept food waste, though more potentially could.152 153 Based on EPA survey data, of the
approximately 200 AD facilities processing food waste in 2019, about 32 percent were stand-alone
facilities, 28 percent were on-farm co-digesters and 40 percent were WRRF co-digesters. Based on the
117 facilities that responded to EPA's AD survey in 2019, about 9.8 million tons of food waste were
processed in 2018 (84 percent of it at stand-alone facilities) but those facilities' total capacity for food
waste is about 24.3 million tons.154
Collection
Diverting organic waste from landfills, whether by collecting SSO at the curb or separating organic
wastes from other MSW at a centralized location, entails additional costs for collection, handling and
disposal. SSO collection may require additional receptacles, truck routes, and personnel and public
outreach and education to maximize separation and minimize contamination, as discussed in Section 2.
146 Goldstein. Nora. The State of Organics Recycling in The U.S. BioCycle 58(9): 22. October 4, 2017.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2017/10/04/state-organics-recYcling-u-s/. Count of 4,713 composting facilities.
147 U.S. EPA. Excess Food Opportunities Map V2.1. Frequent Questions about the Excess Food Opportunities Map.
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/freauent-auestions-about-us-epa-excess-food-opportunities-map.
Accessed March 12, 2021. Filename CompostingFacilities.xlsx withinExcessFoodPublic_USTer_2020_R9.gdb.zip file.
Count of 3,013 composting facilities.
148 Goldstein Nora. The State of Organics Recycling in The U.S. BioCycle 58(9): 22. October 4, 2017.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2017/10/04/state-organics-recYcling-u-s/. Count of 880 is those indicating yard trimming and
food scraps, multiple organics or mixed MSW accepted.
149 U.S. EPA. Excess Food Opportunities Map V2.1. Frequent Questions about the Excess Food Opportunities Map.
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/freauent-auestions-about-us-epa-excess-food-opportunities-map.
Accessed March 12, 2021. Filename CompostingFacilities.xlsx withinExcessFoodPublic_USTer_2020_R9.gdb.zip file.
Count of 465 composting facilities accepting food waste based on feedstocks including "food," "source separate
organic," "vegetable," "household," "grain" or "crop."
1511 Sloan Willona. BioCycle Tracks U.S. Composting Infrastructure in New Report. Waste360. January 29, 2019.
https://www.waste360.com/composting/biocYcle-tracks-us-composting-infrastructure-new-report.
151 Goldstein Nora. Quantifying Existing Food Waste Composting Infrastructure in the U.S. BioCycle. November 29,
2018. https://www.compostingcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/ll/Task3 revl81129.pdf.
152 U.S. EPA. Excess Food Opportunities Map V2.1. Frequent Questions about the Excess Food Opportunities Map.
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/freauent-auestions-about-us-epa-excess-food-opportunities-map.
Accessed March 12, 2021. Filename AnaerobicDigestionFacilities.xlsx within
ExcessFoodPublic_USTer_2020_R9.gdb.zip file. Count of 1,607 AD facilities total. Count of 200 AD facilities
accepting food waste based on feedstocks including "food," "source separate organic," "vegetable," "household,"
"grain," or "crop."
153 U.S. EPA. Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste in the United States (2017 & 2018). EPA/903/S-
21/001. January 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/
2021 final ad report feb 2 with links.pdf. Count of 209 in Table ES-1.
154 Ibid. Tables ES-1 andES-2.
29
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Collection costs can be 50 to 75 percent of the total costs for collecting and processing food waste.155 A
community can minimize these costs by leveraging existing infrastructure and operations (e.g.,
combining collection of food and yard wastes), moving from manual to automated or semi-automated
collection, using collection vehicles with dual compartments or adjusting the frequency of waste
collection. Since the collection strategies are tailored to each community's needs, implementing a pilot
SSO program can help phase in a program before investing too much in infrastructure and operations
that do not work for the community.
Processing
Once organic waste is collected, it must be processed or pretreated before disposal via AD or composting.
Depending on the effectiveness of the source separation (i.e., the types or amounts of contaminants
remaining) and the type of collection that was used, the technologies used for pretreatment may include
a combination of bag opening; manual or mechanical sorting using screens, trommels or magnets; or
chemical or biological treatment. Educating the public about organic waste separation is one of the most
effective and least expensive methods of both decreasing pretreatment costs and increasing diversion
rates.156 Section 2 provides more detail about minimizing contamination of the feedstock and
pretreatment requirements; there is more information below in this section about community outreach.
Disposal
Traditionally, waste disposal costs in the United States have been based on landfill tipping fees—the
fees a waste collector or hauler pays to discard waste in a landfill. These fees vary widely across the
country, with state averages ranging from $30 to $142 per ton in 2020 and a 2020 national average of
about $54 per ton, an increase of 11.3 percent compared to 2016.157 Anaerobic digesters require
significant capital investment and often rely on tipping fees to recover costs to construct and operate the
facility. Costs for individual AD systems depend on several site-specific variables, including but not
limited to the size of the system, climate, gas use, and state and local regulations.158 Capital costs for
organic waste AD systems can range from $8 million to $34 million, based on interviews done with
existing projects in Minnesota.159 In areas of the country with low landfill tipping fees, it can be
challenging for AD facilities to compete. However, some AD facilities maintain a competitive tipping
fee against traditional disposal by supplementing with other revenue sources, such as selling biogas.
Landfill owners may lose revenue from landfill tipping fees if organic waste is diverted. However,
landfill owners who elect to also have alternative organic waste management infrastructure (as opposed
to a private entity in the area) can collect revenue from those tipping fees. These fees collected for organic
155 ReFED. A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent. 2016.
https://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED Report 2016.pdf.
156 Ibid.
157 Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF). Analysis of MSW Landfill Tipping Fees—2020. January
2021. https://erefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce uploads/2017/12/MSWLF-Tipping-Fees-2020 FINAL-
m2vvxt.pdf.
158 U.S. EPA. AgSTAR Project Development Handbook. 3rd ed. EPA 430-B-20-001.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/agstar-liandbook.pdf.
159 Great Plains Institute. Anaerobic Digestion Evaluation Study. Prepared for the Partnership on Waste and Energy.
September 2018. https://recvclingandenergv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2018-09-GPI-Anaerobic-Digestion-
White-Paper-Final-Report-1 .pdf.
30
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
waste treatment and the sale of compost or AD byproducts can offset the lost landfill fee revenue and
help pay for the organic waste processing.
In some instances, local solid waste agencies have offered reduced fees for source-separated loads of
organic waste at composting facilities. For example, Charleston County, South Carolina, has a $25 per
ton fee to drop off food and organic waste for composting, compared to $66 per ton for traditional waste
sent to the landfill.160 In addition, variable rate fees, or "pay-as-you-throw" pricing, incentivize separate
collection of organic waste and recyclables, as trash collection is typically priced at a higher fee than
SSO and recyclables (as discussed in Section 6).
Co Digestion of Commercial Food Waste at WRRF in California
The Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) Treatment Plant in San Rafael, California, already had two
anaerobic digesters with captured biogas fueling a 750-kW engine to power and heat the facility, but was
looking for a way to use its extra digester and engine capacity. Local private waste company Marin Sanitary
Services, meanwhile, needed help with Marin County's 2025 zero waste goals plus California's state goal to
reduce organic waste landfilling by 50 percent by 2020. Following a grant-funded GHG reduction feasibility
study, the public-private partnership's Food 2 Energ\> (F2E) program launched in January 2014. CMSA
invested in a new food waste and FOG receiving station and designed the collection process to ensure a clean
feedstock, benefiting from a nearby co-digestion project's experiences with contamination. The amount of
organic waste processed through the F2E program increased from 1,165 tons (from 70 customers) in 2014 to
2,420 tons (from 209 customers) in 2018. As of 2018, co-digestion had increased CMSA 's biogas production
180 percent over baseline and the CHP system was powering the facility an average of 23 hours per day as
compared to 8 hours per day previously. The F2E project reduces about 2,000 metric tons of GHGs per
Vear 161^162^63^64^65^66
If there is opposition to siting an organic waste processing facility in densely populated areas (e.g., due
to public concerns about odors, vectors or vehicle traffic), waste managers can have difficulty obtaining
permits to build facilities near the waste source(s), which increases costs to transport feedstock to the
digester.167 Co-locating a digester or composting facility with a landfill may reduce siting and permitting
1611 Tucker, Molly Farrell. Charleston County Fosters Food Waste Composting. BioCycle 54(1): 47. January 23, 2013.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2013/01/23/charleston-countv-fosters-food-waste-composting/.
161 The Water Research Foundation. Food Waste Co-Digestion at Water Resource Recovery Facilities: Business Case
Analysis. 2019. https://www.waterrf.org/svstem/files/resource/2019-12/DRPT-4792.pdf.
162 Dow, Jason and Kim Scheibly. Central Marin Commercial Food-to-Energy (F2E) Program. March 12, 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/dow O.pdf.
163 California Water Environment Association (CWEA). Co-Digestion of Organic Wastes at Central Marin Sanitation
Agency, https://www.cwea.org/news/co-digestion-of-organic-wastes-at-central-marin-sanitation-agencv/. Accessed
December 23, 2021.
164 Goldstein Nora. Codigestion at Water Resource Recovery Facilities. BioCycle. March 12, 2018.
https://www.biocvcle.net/codigestion-water-resource-recoverv-facilities/. Accessed December 23, 2021.
165 Marin Sanitary Service. Food 2 Energy Program, https://marinsanitarvservice.com/food2energy/. Accessed December
23,2021.
166 Central Marin Sanitation Agency. A Virtual Tour of the Treatment Plant, https://www.cmsa.us/public-ed/virtualtour.
Accessed December 23, 2021.
167 Coalition for Resource Recovery. Managing Food Waste in New York City: A Development Framework for Organic
Waste Facilities. 2014. https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/migrated/documents/
Food%20Waste%20Report.pdf.
31
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
obstacles and associated costs. Leveraging the infrastructure of the hundreds of municipally owned
WRRFs already in place, many with additional capacity for co-digesting other wastes, is one way to
increase food waste treatment. For example, in 2018 amendments the State of New York streamlined its
environmental quality review process for organic waste digesters co-located at publicly owned
landfills168 and Texas incentivizes the co-location of compost facilities at landfills using a rebate program
for state fees.169 In addition, some states have provided permitting flexibilities for small or pilot
composting facilities.170
Electricity and Natural Gas Prices
Energy market conditions when natural gas and/or electricity prices are relatively low present economic
challenges to siting and operating new AD projects. Aside from tipping fees, the major revenue source
for an AD project is selling biogas as renewable energy in the form of electricity or RNG. So when prices
are low, the projects are not economically favorable and it is harder to justify investment in a new project.
While the price of electricity depends on several factors specific to the project's location and the needs
of the local utility, the forecasted buy-back rate (the rate projected for selling electricity to the grid) for
2021 ranges from 2.8 to 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and the forecasted rate remains low over the
next 10 years, ranging from 2.3 to 8.7 cents per kWh in 2031.171
Likewise, natural gas prices are depressed due to abundant domestic supply and efficient methods of
production. In 2020, the Henry Hub spot price averaged about $2.04 per million British thermal units
(MMBtu) (and averaged $2.57 per MMBtu in 2019). For comparison, natural gas prices peaked in 2008
with an average of nearly $9 per MMBtu. Modest increases in natural gas prices up to $3.36 per MMBtu
in 2021 are expected as electric power consumption of natural gas increases demand.172173
Financial incentives such as tax credits, environmental market credits and grants may be available to
encourage investment in biogas energy derived from organic waste, as discussed in Appendix A. EPA's
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and state-level fuel standards have been market drivers for the
production of renewable vehicle fuels sourced from biogas; more information about these policies is
available in EPA's "Overview of RNG from Biogas" document.
i(38 ny Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQR Handbook. 4th ed. 2020. Chapter 2: Changes to
617.5(c)(41). p. 41. https://www.dec.nY.gov/docs/pennits ei operations pdf/searhandbookpdf.
169 Texas Commission on Enviromnental Quality. Composting and Mulching: Am I Regulated?
https://www.tcea.texas.gov/pennitting/waste pennits/msw pennits/MSW amIregulatedcomposting.html. Accessed
November 19, 2021.
1711 US Composting Council. State Regulations. https://www.compostingcouncil.org/page/StateRegulations. Accessed
November 18, 2021.
171 U.S. Energy Infonnation Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020. Table 54: Electric Power Projections by
Electricity Market Module Region, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=62-AEQ2020®ion=5-
0&cases=ref2020&start=2018&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2020-dll2119a.5-62-AE02020.5-
0&map=&sourcekev=0. Prices by service category and generation.
172 U.S. Energy Infonnation Administration (EIA). Annual Energy Outlook 2021. Table 13: Natural Gas Supply,
Disposition, and Prices. Release Date: February 3, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables ref.php.
173 U.S. EIA. Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/Mst/rngwlilidm.htm. Accessed February 22,
2021.
32
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Impacts on Existing Landfill and Landfill Gas Energy Infrastructure and Operations
Considerations for a given landfill or LFG energy project that diverts a significant portion of organic
waste to alternative management options may include:
• Lower methane and NMOC emission rates
• Existing equipment costs and contractual obligations for LFG volumes
• Landfill airspace and life expectancy
• Decrease in leachate generation and its disposal cost and environmental risks
Diverting organic waste from landfill disposal will reduce a landfill's gas generation rate, thus reducing
the amount of methane and NMOCs emitted. Figure 5-1 depicts the time horizon when a typical landfill
(that stops accepting waste in 2040) would exceed the control emission threshold of 34 megagrams (Mg)
of NMOCs per year, with and without organic waste diversion.174 In this example, the landfill has a 60
percent organic waste fraction in 2013 and meets a goal of reducing the disposed organic waste by 50
percent between 2013 and 2030 by reducing the fraction of organic waste disposed of in equal increments
of 2.9 percent each year. As a result, the landfill reduces the time it exceeds the modeled NMOC emission
threshold by nine years. It is important to note that, while a landfill can reduce the years it is required to
control LFG under federal regulations, lower gas flows than originally planned could affect the LFG
collection and control system design and routine operations. To this end, solid waste managers must
consider those impacts and their potential effects—as discussed in more detail below.
rJCJCJCJ(N(N(M(MtNCJrJrJ(N(N(M(N(MCJrJ(N
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Combining LFG Energy and AD in Massachusetts
Anticipating the long-term challenges of decreased gas availability for its LFG electricity project due to the
state food waste disposal ban, the Greater New Bedford Regional Re fuse Management District and its private
partner, Commonwealth Resource Management Corporation (CRMC), co-located a new food waste AD
facility at the Crapo Hill Landfill. The biogas from the AD facility ties into the LFG generating facility where
the two sources of gas are combined prior to combustion in the engines. After a successful pilot phase, the
project expanded to increase the digester's capacity from about 5.000 gallons to about 30.000 gallons of liquids
per day and boost energy production from 3.3 to 4.1 MW.1'5•1 '6-1
Communities make an investment in the infrastructure for an LFG energy project or enter into a
contractual agreement with a third-party LFG energy project developer based in part on forecasted gas
quantity and quality to fuel the energy recovery equipment over the lifetime of the project. Landfill
owners may lose revenue from planned gas royalty sales or energy sales if less gas is available due to
organic waste diversion.
o
03
(1)
>-
C
c
o
M—
O
"O
ro
(L>
i_
to
CD
O
C
o
&>
to
O
O
d)
r
1_
o
(U
l—
_c
¦4-J
cu
+-»
o
>
_c
CO
CD
rsi
o
u
H
0.30
0.25
0.20
£ 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Food waste: k = 0.19, L„ = 1.62
Grass: k = 0.S0, L„ = 0.57
k in units of /yr
L0 in units of
MTC02e/short ton
Leaves: k = .085, L„ = 0.65
Branches: k = .007, L„ = 1.45
10
15
Year
20
25
30
Figure 5-2. Decay Rates for Organic Waste Materials.
LFG production is highly sensitive to the amount and composition of waste disposed of in a landfill.
Since food wastes decay more rapidly than other MSW components, these wastes generate methane
more quickly than other waste types. Figure 5-2 illustrates this decay pattern, based on national defaults
CRMC Bioenergy LLC. Final Construction Project Report for the CRMC Bioenergy Facility. Prepared for the
Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. February 13, 2015. https://files.masscec.com/researcli/CRMCPilot.pdf.
Fletcher, Katie. Pilot Biogas Project at Massachusetts Landfill Site Complete. Biomass Magazine. October 10, 2014.
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/11044/pilot-biogas-proiect-at-massachusetts-landfill-site-complete.
Karidis, Arlene. Massachusetts Landfill Operator Teams with Energy Project Developer for AD Project Expansion.
Waste360. February 20, 2018. https://www.waste360.com/design-and-construction/massachusetts-landfill-operator-
teams-energy-proiect-developer-ad-proiect.
34
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
for methane generation rate or decay rate (k) and potential methane generation capacity (Lo) values for
each waste type.178-179
One 2014 study modeled the long-term national impacts of food waste diversion programs in the United
States on LFG generation, looking at disposal patterns from 2000 through 2024. To establish the
modeling parameters, the study determined the decline in methane generation potential of MSW
disposed of over time, based on changes in MSW composition. The study also factored in a range of
diversion rate scenarios and material-specific decay rates. The baseline scenario for this study assumed
typical increases in organic waste diversion based on historical trends. Under a scenario with moderate
increases (over baseline) in diversion of food and yard wastes, the maximum LFG generation rate was
reached in year 2025 and was about 9.4 percent less than the baseline's maximum LFG rate; under a
more aggressive diversion scenario, the maximum rate was reached in year 2020 and was about 9.1
percent less than baseline.180
Ongoing research by EPA's Office of Research and Development has shown that diverting all food waste
from landfilling can decrease Lo by 33 percent and also slow the waste decay rate. Both changes can
reduce landfill methane emissions.181182
In addition to the impacts on LFG generation, diverting organic waste from a landfill can extend the
landfill's life and save valuable airspace. However, since food waste has a much higher moisture content
and degrades more quickly than other wastes, it occupies less space than other MSW waste types.183
Rural localities may be particularly interested in extending the life of a landfill by diverting organic
waste because alternative disposal facilities may be many miles away and the cost to dispose of waste
over long distances or across state lines may be prohibitive or undesirable. For example, Pitkin County,
Colorado, has a single landfill with 20 to 30 years of remaining life, so the county embarked on a plan
to divert organic waste to preserve landfill capacity.184
Because organic waste has such a high moisture content, reducing its amount in landfills also reduces
the amount of leachate generated. This in turn lowers the operational costs to manage leachate, which
178 U.S. EPA. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model
(WARM). November 2020. Management Practices Chapters, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/202Q-
12/documents/wann management practices v!5 10-29-2020.pdf.
179 U.S. EPA. WARM Component-Specific Decay Rate Methods. October 2009. Table 6.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/warm decay rate structure 10 30 2009.pdf.
1811 Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste Diversion on LFG Generation and Recovery from U.S. Landfills. Solid
Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 37th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium. 2014. Figures 11 and 13.
181 Jordan Page, Krause, Max J., Chickering, Giles, Carson, David, and Tliabet Tolaymat. Impact of Food Waste Diversion
on Landfill Emissions. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. February 2020.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?Lab=CESER&dirEntrvId=348317. Accessed August 11, 2021.
182 Krause, Max J., and Tliabet Tolaymat. Impact of Food Waste Diversion on Landfill Gas and Leachate from Simulated
Landfills. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. July 2019. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
08/documents/1025am krause 508.pdf.
183 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation. Food Waste Diversion Programs
& Their Impacts on MSW Systems. April 2016 (full report available for purchase).
https://www.mswmanagement.com/landfills/article/13025743/the-landfill-impacts-of-food-waste-diversion-programs.
184 Best, Allen. Diverting the Rot from Aspen. Mountain TownNews. January 10, 2015.
http://mountaintownnews.net/2015/01/20/diverting-smellv-stuff/.
35
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
can account for up to 30 percent of a landfill's operational expenses in areas with temperate climates.185
Reducing leachate generation also lowers any potential environmental harm caused by accidental
releases of leachate, which typically contains very high concentrations of dissolved organic matter and
inorganic macro components—often by a factor of 1,000 to 5,000 times higher than concentrations found
in ground water.186
Other Potential Barriers
Complexity of Local and Regional Waste Management Entities
The existing solid waste management structure can pose a barrier to diverting organic waste depending
on how local solid waste organizations are structured and financed. Some waste management may be
organized regionally, which makes changes to that structure more difficult to effect (i.e., buy-in is needed
from multiple municipalities). In addition, municipal entities generally focus on funding day-to-day
operations and can be averse to developing new projects. Further, many municipalities work with private
companies to haul their wastes; without the proper policies in place, this limits their ability to direct
where the waste is taken and could affect feedstock available to organic waste processing or treatment.
However, there are examples of successful public-private partnerships that show how municipalities can
limit their risk while allowing business opportunities for companies.
Risk vs. Reward: Public Private Partnerships
Prince William County. Virginia, worked with a private developer, who expanded and operates an organic
waste processing facility to handle county waste. The county provided the site and access to the local organic
waste market but took on very little risk, as the project was developed and operated by a private entity. The
facility is estimated to divert more than 80,000 tons of organic waste per year from the landfill by turning it
into compost, mulch and soil amendments. The facility will help extend the life of the county's landfill by 10 to
15 years and more than doubled the county's annual composting capabilities.18 '•188 The county benefits from
the facility including the addition o f 20 to 25 new jobs.189
Co-digestion of food waste often involves additional complexity, as solid waste management and
wastewater infrastructure are usually operated by separate entities. Each agency has its own operating
funds, priorities and perceptions (e.g., impacts of accepting food waste), and it can be a challenge
deciding which entity will pay for infrastructure improvements and routine operations.
185 Kremen, Arie. Getting a Handle on Landfill Leachate. Tetra Tech. February 1, 2020.
https://www.tetratech.com/en/blog/getting-a-liandle-on-landfill-leachate.
186 Kjeldsen, Peter, Barlaz, Morton A., Rooker, Alix P., Baun Anders, Ledin, Anna, and Thomas H. Christensen. 2002.
Present and Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review. Critical Reviews in Enviromnental
Science and Technology 32(4): 297-336. doi: 10.1080/10643380290813462.
187 Prince William County. Balls Ford Road Composting Facility Now Able to Process More Organic Waste. Prince
William Living. September 17, 2020. https://princewilliamliving.com/balls-ford-road-composting-facilitv-now-able-to-
process-more-organic-waste/.
188 Prince William County. The Buzz: Balls Ford Road Compost Facility Ribbon Cutting. YouTube video. September 17,
2020. https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=XrsodOM3U6s. Accessed November 29, 2021.
189 Prince William County. Prince William County Approves New Organic Waste Processing Facility. January 2015.
https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2021-04/Organics%20Proiect%20Web%20Release%20Final%201-20-15.pdf.
36
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Community Outreach and Involvement
Starting an SSO collection program can be difficult due to concerns about storing food waste, potential
odors and other nuisances, and the additional effort required. In addition, contamination is possible if
organic waste is not properly separated, which can lead to additional processing and sorting costs prior
to disposal. The primary source of plastic contamination in food waste streams collected for processing
at compost and anaerobic digestion facilities appears to be food packaging and containers, most likely
from residential, commercial and institutional sources.190 The presence of visible plastic particles in
finished products reduces their value and marketability. Processing facilities sometimes prohibit food
waste streams or reject incoming food waste streams collected for processing at compost and anaerobic
digestion facilities due to plastic contamination levels, thus reducing the amount of food waste diverted
from landfills.191 An outreach and education campaign is essential to communicate the need for organic
waste separation and diversion and any changes to solid waste program fees, and to educate the public
on how to properly separate and store their organic waste for collection and alleviate concerns and
misconceptions they might have. ReFED estimates that consumer education campaigns can potentially
divert an additional 584,000 tons of food waste in the United States with an economic value of more
than $2.6 billion, making them one of the most cost-effective approaches to food waste reduction.192
Food Waste Program Marketing
The City of Eugene, Oregon's Love Food Not Waste™ campaign, now servicing citywide residents and more
than 150 businesses and 50 schools, has diverted 20,000 tons of material from the landfill since 2011.193,194
EPA calculates that diverting this food from the landfill to compost has saved 12,260 MTC02e in GHG
emissions, the equivalent of removing 2,600 passenger cars from the road for a year.
Key program components include:
• A city ordinance allowing a 20 percent savings on commercial garbage rates for program participants.
• Onsite trainings for employees.
• Food scrap collection containers provided free of charge.
• Training manuals and marketing materials on reducing contamination for businesses and schools
available on a dedicated website and in an interactive video.
Manage Odor and Other Nuisance Complaints
Although minimizing the amount of organic waste in landfills can reduce issues with odors, pests and
other nuisances, these issues can also arise at composting and AD facilities if not addressed proactively.
1911 U.S. EPA. Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Plastic Contamination. August 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/sYStem/files/documents/2021-08/emerging-issues-in-food-waste-management-plastic-
contamination, pdf.
191 Ibid.
192 ReFED. A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent. 2016. https://www.refed.com/downloads/
ReFED Report 2016.pdf.
193 City of Eugene, Oregon. Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.eugene-or.gov/Faa.aspx?OID=668. Accessed
December 14, 2020.
194 Mattson Anna. What Are Eugene's Favorite Businesses Doing to Limit Food Waste? Daily Emerald. November 15,
2019. https://www.dailvemerald.com/news/wliat-are-eugene-s-favorite-businesses-doing-to-limit-food-
waste/article 828fc2aa-071f-l Iea-9b68-d3f598f6edda.html. Accessed February 22, 2021.
37
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Composting and AD produce many of the same chemical byproducts of organic waste degradation, and
issues with odor have shut down composting programs across the country. However, proper management
of these processes (e.g., aeration and turning of compost, containment and treatment of AD byproducts)
can mitigate these potential issues. Before building a facility, developers could conduct an odor study
and engage the community about the project to increase awareness and address community concerns.
The facility design should also incorporate redundant odor mitigation systems.195
Section 6: Policies and Programs for Promoting Organic Waste Diversion
Policies and programs play an important role in the amount of organic waste diverted from landfills.
This section summarizes example policies and programs that support organic waste management
projects. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list.
Policies
State Disposal Bans
As of 2019, 28 states have banned yard waste from
disposal in landfills; many of these bans have been in
effect since the late 1980s or early 1990s.196 The bans have
spurred investment in processing facilities. In 1988, there
were 651 composting facilities in the states with bans,
compared with 2,981 in 1992, 3,357 in 2004, 3,453 in
2013 and 4,713 in 2017 (counts reflect the subset of states
that responded to a national survey each year) 197-198-199-200
Furthermore, the five states with the largest number of
yard waste composting facilities (Ohio, Wisconsin,
Florida, New Hampshire and South Dakota, with 1,032
facilities total) also have yard waste disposal bans.201
Harvard Law School's Food Law and
Policy Clinic and the Center for
EcoTechnology published a toolkit in
2019 named "Bans and Beyond:
Designing and Implementing Organic
Waste Bans and Mandatory Organics
Recycling Laws." The toolkit compiles
information about organic waste bans
including current policies, costs and
benefits, best practices, challenges
and solutions, and alternatives to
bans.
Five states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont) have established food
waste disposal bans. Since the requirements of these bans are still being phased in (the earliest
implementation date was 2014), data are limited on how successful food waste bans are in spurring
investment in organic waste collection and processing projects. However, a recent Massachusetts survey
showed a 160 percent increase in organic waste collection employees and a 190 percent increase in
processing employees between 2010 and 2016, as well as a nearly $200,000 per year capital investment
195 Johnston, Marsha W. Managing Odors at Anaerobic Digestion Plants. BioCycle 58(3): 39. March 8, 2017.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2017/03/08/managing-odors-anaerobic-digestion-plants/.
196 Other organizations are tracking state-level disposal bans of food and yard wastes. One example is the map provided by
the US Composting Council at https://www.compostingcouncil.org/page/organicsbans. Accessed November 29, 2021.
197 Simmons, P., Goldstein N„ Kaufman S.M., and N.J. Themelis. The State of Garbage in America: 15th Nationwide
Survey. BioCycle 47(4): 26. 2006.
198 Ibid.
199 Piatt, Brenda, and Nora Goldstein. State of Composting in the U.S. BioCycle 55(6): 19. July 16, 2014.
http://www.biocYcle.net/2014/07/16/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/. Survey results from 39 states that responded.
21111 Goldstein Nora. The State of Organics Recycling in The U.S. BioCycle 58(9): 22. October 4, 2017.
https://www.biocYcle.net/2017/10/04/state-organics-recYcling-u-s/. Survey was completed by 43 states and D.C.
201 Ibid.
38
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
for organic waste processing during the same time.202 Likewise, in Connecticut, Quantum Biopower
reported the state's organic waste disposal ban was one of the factors it considered before investing in
the food waste AD project in Southington.203
Local Organic Waste Diversion Goals or Bans
Solid waste management has historically been a locally driven issue; many communities have announced
or established waste reduction or diversion goals (e.g., zero waste), with an emphasis on organic waste
reduction, in recent years. Several of these local efforts are voluntary programs, but some larger cities
including New York City, San Francisco, Seattle and Austin (Texas), have passed ordinances prohibiting
disposal of food wastes, particularly commercial and institutional organic wastes, recognizing more food
waste is collected from schools, restaurants, hotels and multi-family residences.
Example Voluntary Program
In 2011, Portland, Oregon, expanded its residential yard waste program to include food waste. Yard debris
and food scraps are collected weekly from roll carts at residences. The combined organic waste is sent to
nearby commercial composting facilities. In 2010, prior to this change, diversion of yard waste averaged 523
pounds per household; the rate nearly doubled by 2018, to 1,030 pounds per household, due to both the
inclusion of food waste in the program and a change to weekly collection. During the first 10 years since food
waste started being accepted, the city has collected nearly 800,000 tons of food and yard wastes and created
enough compost to benefit 1,500 acres of farmland.204-205-206
Example Required Program
The City of Palo Alto, California, collects food and yard wastes and other degradable materials through a
contractor company as part of the city's goal to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The city phased in a composting and recycling ordinance requiring recyclables and composting in April 2016
for larger commercial sector generators, multi-family buildings and food service generators. In 2017, it
expanded to smaller commercial generators and by January 2018 covered all commercial customers. To
comply, the ordinance requires customers to subscribe to the recycling and compost collection, place collection
containers in convenient locations, train and educate stakeholders about waste sorting, and sort the waste. The
city sends the organic materials to the ZWEDC facility in San Jose, where they are anaerobically digested.20 '-20S
2112 ICF. Massachusetts Commercial Food Waste Ban Economic Impact Analysis. Prepared for the Massachusetts
Department of Enviromnental Protection. December 2016. Table 1. https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-
commercial-food-waste-ban-economic-impact-analvsis/download.
2113 Portz, Tim. Diversion Dynamics. April 12, 2017. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/14306/diversion-dvnamics.
Accessed November 29, 2021.
2114 City of Portland, Oregon. Residential Compost Tips, https://www.portland.gov/bps/garbage-recvcling/residential-
compost-tips. Accessed November 12, 2021.
2115 City of Portland, Oregon. Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. FY 2020-21 Requested Budget. January 29, 2020. p.
99. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/752708. Accessed November 12, 2021.
2116 City of Portland, Oregon. Happy 10-year Compost-iversary, Portlanders! https://www.portland.gov/bps/garbage-
recvcling/news/2021/10/27/happv-10-vear-compost-iversarv-portlanders. Accessed November 12, 2021.
2117 City of Palo Alto, California. Recycling and Composting Ordinance. Last updated October 13, 2021.
https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/Zero-Waste-Reauirements-
Guidelines/Recvcling-and-Composting-Ordinance.
2118 City of Palo Alto, California. Zero Waste FAQs. https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-
W aste/What-Goes-Where/F AO#section-3.
39
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
The following stakeholder groups track additional information about state and local policies:
• The American Biogas Council maintains a brief summary of key policy implementation
milestones of state and local policies with mandatory or voluntary organic waste diversion
policies that may help spur investment in biogas opportunities.
• The Northeast Recycling Council has developed a state-level report on disposal bans and
mandatory recycling in the United States, which catalogues policies affecting a wide variety of
waste materials banned by landfills, including food and yard wastes.
• ReFED's Food Waste Policy Finder tracks several types of state policies to reduce food waste,
including organic waste bans and recycling laws.
Diversion Goals
California's AB 939 law in 1989 required local jurisdictions to meet incremental organic waste diversion
goals, setting a goal of 25 percent diversion by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The legislation also required
local jurisdictions to establish integrated solid waste management planning and implementation
programs. The legislation included penalties of up to $10,000 per day for municipalities in
noncompliance with the goals. Built into the legislation were extension provisions if a municipality had
a plan in place to meet the extended timeline. This policy, along with a network of strong partners, helped
make San Francisco the first major city to institute an SSO waste program.209
Programs
Voluntary or Mandatory SSO
Between 2009 and 2017, the number of communities with access to
SSO collection more than tripled (from 90 to 326) and the number of
households with access to SSO collection grew by about 170 percent
from 1.86 million to nearly 5.1 million.210-211 There are residential
organic waste diversion programs across the United States—about
200 curbside food waste collection programs, as documented in
several studies or reports. A 2017 survey found these programs
served about 5 million households, or about 4 percent of the U.S. population.212
Mandatory SSO subscription services require either all customers or a targeted subset of customers such
as commercial entities above a certain size to register for organic waste collection. This approach, while
mandated, recognizes that different customers have different organic waste generation profiles and can
match the appropriate hauler and ultimate end use to the volume and type of organic waste generated.
2119 Piatt, Brenda, and Nora Goldstein. State of Composting in the U.S. BioCycle 55(6): 19. July 16, 2014.
http://www.biocYcle.net/2014/07/16/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/.
2111 Streeter, Virginia and Brenda Piatt. Nationwide Biocycle Survey: Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S.
BioCycle. December 2017. http://www.biocvcle.net/17 10 06 1/0002/BioCvcle ResidentialFoodWaste 2017.pdf.
211 Streeter, Virginia and Brenda Piatt. Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S. BioCycle 58(11): 20.
December 6, 2017. https://www.biocvcle.net/2017/12/06/residential-food-waste-collection-access-u-s/. Accessed
February 22, 2021. Tables found in print edition only.
212 Streeter, Virginia and Brenda Piatt. Nationwide Biocycle Survey: Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S.
BioCycle. December 2017. http://www.biocvcle.net/17 10 06 1/0002/BioCvcle ResidentialFoodWaste 2017.pdf.
For more information on
specific programs, BioCycle
conducts a periodic survey
of residential food waste
collection programs in U.S.
municipalities.
40
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
The number of voluntary SSO programs has also been growing and expanding the service to additional
households. In this model, there is no requirement to participate, but municipalities with high recycling
rates, existing yard waste collection programs or high tipping fees for traditional MSW disposal may be
good candidates for SSO because the jurisdiction is likely to see high participation in the program, in the
absence of any mandate. In addition, these municipalities can leverage some existing collection
infrastructure and logistics and offset costs of the program by avoided disposal fees. With a voluntary
program, effective marketing of the program and providing incentives can increase participation rates to
achieve economies of scale to operate the program. For example, Takoma Park, Maryland, offers
program participants complimentary kitchen collection containers and the opportunity to obtain free
compost each year.213 Repeated outreach efforts may be needed to maintain long-term participation in
voluntary programs. In 2016, WM and the King County Solid Waste Division, Washington, conducted
a study of 450 households to assess how tagging curbside collection carts with SSO program information
affects how many households participate in the program as well as how much SSO is collected.214 Results
showed that cart tagging increased the number of new households participating in the program. In
addition, tagging increased food capture rates by approximately 9 percent.
Pay-As-You-Throw
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs require waste generators to pay for waste disposal services as a
function of the amount and types of waste disposed of instead of a flat fee structure. In these programs,
the rate to dispose of trash is typically higher than the rate to put items in recycling or SSO collection,
or there may be no fee for recyclables or SSO. The purpose of PAYT programs is to create an economic
incentive to generate less waste and recycle more.215 The size of containers for each material type and
the collection frequency of each material type may vary under this type of program. Communities that
implement unit-based PAYT pricing generally see a decrease in overall waste production.216 With regard
to a specific impact on organic waste, a 2017 study found that cities with PAYT are more likely than
those without to prioritize waste diversion and have a curbside food scrap collection program. The study
also concluded that given the strong association between PAYT and SSO, municipalities may want to
expend their efforts on piloting holistic PAYT unit-pricing schemes first, which can then serve as a
foundation for organic waste management as well as other waste diversion pilot programs.217
Reduced Trash Collection
Reducing MSW collection frequencies can provide more incentive for program participants to place all
organic materials in the proper SSO container to avoid smells and odors. For example, Portland, Oregon,
offers trash collection every other week and weekly organic waste collection, depending on the type of
customer. In addition to directly "nudging" participants to put more of their organic waste in the SSO
container, this program can also help reduce collection costs for traditional trash pickup.
213 City of Takoma Park, Maryland. Food Waste Collection, https://takomaparkmd.gov/government/public-works/curbside-
collection-services/food-waste-collection/. Accessed December 29, 2021.
214 Morrigan, McKenna, Hervin Kirstin and Omkar Apliale. Increasing Residential Food Waste Diversion Behavior
through Promotional Cart Tags. Poster presentation at 2017 ISWA World Congress and WASTECON. September 2017.
215 U.S. EPA. Pay-As-You-Throw. https://arcMve.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/pavt/web/html/index.html.
216 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. Save Money and Reduce Trash (SMART).
https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Reduce-Reuse-Recvcle/Pavt/Save-Monev-and-Reduce-Trash.
217 Pollans, Lily Baum, Krones, Jonathan S., and Eran Ben-Joseph. 2017. Patterns in Municipal Food Scrap Programming
in Mid-Sized U.S. Cities. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 125(2017): 308-314.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.resconrec.2017.07.001.
41
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Pilot Programs
Because SSO waste management can be such a significant change from historical waste disposal
practice, pilot programs can provide meaningful data to better understand local waste generation habits
to inform service delivery options and necessary investments in organic waste infrastructure. A pilot
program may gather real-time data on participation rates, set-out rates, truck capacity, route timing and
seasonal variations as well as provide lessons learned. In addition, a pilot program may ask participants
for feedback via survey to gather input on behavior changes and perceptions of the program.
Phased Approach in San Antonio, Texas218
In 2010, the City of San Antonio adopted its 10-vear plan to enhance recycling efforts, with a focus on providing
each resident convenient access to recycling services while also improving recycling options in the ICI sector.
The city initiated a pilot organic waste collection program with 28,000 households. The program expanded to
190,000 households after the initial phase and, in 2017, expanded to all 350,000 residential customers, with
weekly curb side recycling (blue), organic waste (green) and garbage (brown) collection in a three-cart, color-
coded collection program. The organic waste is sent to a nearby compost facility operated by New Earth.
The city conducted extensive outreach and took a phased approach throughout the scale-up of the program.
Figure 6-1 outlines the timeline for the three components of the plan: residential recycling, organic waste
collection and PAYT pricing systems. City officials held more than 80 community meetings to educate the public
about the switch to a PAYT pricing structure, commissioned an ad campaign, "Trim Your 'Waste ' Line, " on
its collection vehicles and issued cart tags with pamphlets to help residents choose the appropriate cart size.
As of 2017, the city had increased its overall waste diversion to 33 percent, substantially up from 4 percent in
2005 and on the way to 60 percent by 2025.
fM
r-v
CO
O
O
Project Phase
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
O
fM
O
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
fM
Single-Family
Residential
Recycling
Outreach/Marketing
Organic Materials
Recycling
Implementation
Outreac h/Ma rketi ng
PAYT Pricing
Systems
Implementation
Outreach/Marketing
Figure 6-1. Timeline for Implementing San Antonio's Solid Waste Management Plan.
219
218 McCary, David. San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio's Recycling and Resource Recovery Plan. Presented at 2017 TCEQ
Conference. San Antonio, Texas. May 17, 2017. https://slideplaYer.com/slide/13517752/.
219 Figure adapted from McCary, David. Creating a Pathway to Zero Waste in the City of San Antonio. U.S. Mayors
Conference. October 2011.
42
-------
Downstream Management of Organic Waste in the United States: Strategies for Methane Mitigation
Programs Focused on ICI Sources
The large quantity of organic waste generated from the ICI sector offers significant opportunities for
emission reductions. Waste disposal is peripheral to the core missions of ICI sources, though, so organic
waste diversion programs should be designed to make a business case for participating in the program
while minimizing the costs and labor time required for ICI stakeholders to participate. As discussed in
Section 3, some jurisdictions provide free or subsidized containers or training assistance to increase
participation from this sector. In addition, ICI waste generators who participate in organic waste
diversion can save directly on regular trash collection because they will need smaller trash containers or
reduced trash pickup frequency. In some areas, lower tipping fees at composting facilities than at
landfills can also reduce the costs charged to ICI generators through their hauling contracts.
Franchise Agreements to Increase Diversion in ICI Sector: recycIA
Many municipalities do not directly provide collection services to the ICI sector, rather they contract with a
private third party. The City oflos Angeles, California, awarded seven vendors contracts to provide collection
to nearly 65,000 customer accounts in 11 franchise zones serving the ICI sector. Each vendor was required to
demonstrate its ability to achieve the city's cost-effective service delivery goals while also achieving waste
diversion from landfills. Collectively, the franchises must divert 1 million tons annually from landfills by 2025
or face heavy penalties. The agreements include stipulations for monitoring the segregation of collected
materials and the diversion requirements for landfill reduction, recycling and organic waste programs.220,221
Conclusion
Food waste is the single largest component of landfilled MSW in the United States and it decays quickly,
generating LFG, which is typically about 50 percent methane. Methane is 28 to 36 times more effective
than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year timeframe. This means keeping
food (and other organic) waste out of landfills will help the United States address climate change by
reducing methane emissions from the waste sector, the third-largest source of U.S. anthropogenic
methane emissions. Modeling shows that diverting just 25 percent of the currently landfilled U.S. food
waste would reduce life cycle GHG emissions by approximately 30 percent. Cities that have reduced the
amount of organic waste being landfilled have seen a decrease in GHG emissions in their inventories—
for example, Seattle saw a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions in the food waste and mixed organics
portion of its waste sector inventory from 2008 to 2018, reflecting reduced landfill methane emissions.
There are many options for preventing or mitigating methane emissions from organic waste. Effective
organic waste management solutions for an individual community can vary widely depending on many
factors including the size of the program, types of generator customers, local market conditions for
compost and AD end products, feasibility of incorporating organic waste into existing processing and
treatment infrastructure, and state and local policies and regulations affecting those programs. There is
no one-size-fits-all program, but the examples of best practices included in this document from small
towns to large cities across the United States may help communities adopt a more sustainable approach
to organic waste management and reduce GHG emissions.
2211 Coca, Karen, et al. City of Los Angeles Exclusive Franchise System for Municipal Solid Waste Collection and
Handling. Presented at 2017 SWANApalooza: Road to Zero Waste Conference. March 27-30, 2017.
221 Zaldivar, Enrique. Message from the Director. LA Sanitation & Enviromnent. https://www.lacitvsan.org/san/faces/
wcnav externalld/s-lsh-au-i-md? adf.ctrl-state=10107msbz0 9& afrLoop=3829284438389672#!.
43
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
Appendix A
Incentives and Funding Resources
This appendix summarizes example incentives and other funding-related items, offering links to more
information. It includes incentives and funding sources that encourage diversion of organic waste as well
as those that encourage energy generation from organic waste such as biogas from AD. This is not
intended to be a comprehensive list of incentives and funding sources that can be used for organic waste
management projects.
Waste Management Grants and Loans
California: The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant and Loan Programs offer competitive grants and loans
to reduce GHGs and divert materials from landfills by expanding existing capacity or establishing new
facilities within the state.
• The purpose of the Organics Grant Program is to reduce the amount of California-generated green
materials, food materials or alternative daily cover being landfilled.
• One purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Loan Program is to provide funds to support new
or expanded organic waste management infrastructure, such as composting and AD facilities.
California Organics Grant
CR&R Incorporated received a $3 million grant in 2014222 to double the capacity of its under-construction AD
project in Ferris, California. Initially, when the digester began operations in 2016, it was using nearly 230
tons per day of high-solid yard and food waste feedstocks to produce biogas for conversion to RNG.223-224 As
of 2017, CR&R was using the CNG in 320 of its waste and recycling collecting vehicles and planned to expand
CNG to be the designated fuel, for its full 900-vehicle fleet.225 A pipeline also transports the RNG to a natural
gas pipeline.226,22
Iowa: The Solid Waste Alternatives Program offers financial assistance in the form of forgivable loans,
zero-interest loans and 3 percent interest loans for projects that reduce the amount of solid waste
generated or landfilled in the state.
Massachusetts: The Sustainable Materials Recovery Program offers grants for recycling, composting,
reuse and source reduction activities that will increase diversion of MSW from disposal. The program's
222 CalRecycle. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Organics Grant Program (ORG1) Awards. https://www2.calrecYcle.ca.gov/Docs/
Web/113976. Accessed February 23, 2021.
223 Relis, Paul. CR&R Anaerobic Digestion Project. CR&R Environmental Services. CR&R Anaerobic Digestion Project.
Presented at Act Expo & NGV Global 2014. May 7, 2014. http://www.gladstein.org/pdfs/ACTE2014Presentations/3-
5RenNatGasLowCarbonOps/4PaulRelis.pdf.
224 Miller-Coleman, Nicole. Perris Facility to Meet State's Enviromnental Goals. San Diego Tribune. July 29, 2017.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/sd-tm-0729-digester-20170719-storv.html.
225 Energy Vision. 2017. Case Study: CR&R Perris Biodigester. 2017. https://energy-vision.org/case-studies/crr-perris-
biodigester/. Accessed December 15, 2020.
226 Coker, Craig. Pipeline Injection of Biomethane in California. BioCycle. March 12, 2018.
https://www.biocvcle.net/pipeline-iniection-biometliane-california/.
227 Relis, Paul. The Law Policy and Regulatory Matrix Driving Biomethane in California. CR&R. Panel discussion at U.S.
Biogas 2017. October 27, 2017.
A-l
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
grants are organized into several categories, including waste reduction and organics capacity projects.
Additionally, the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs provides a matrix of financial and
technical assistance options for AD projects.
New York: Various state agencies administer funds or award grants using the Environmental Protection
Fund. Eligible projects include infrastructure for composting or AD facilities for food scraps.228 229
Federal: EPA's Sustainable Management of Food effort includes a webpage about funding opportunities
related to the food system, including EPA grants and other federal agency grants. EPA's SMM Program
offered an opportunity for AD-related funding in 2020; the Program announced that 12 organizations
received a total of $3 million to support AD projects in this funding opportunity's inaugural year.
The USD A Rural Development program offers solid waste management grants focused on reducing
water pollution by providing funding, technical assistance and training to improve the planning and
management of solid waste sites.
USDA Solid Waste Management Grant
The Hancock County Planning Commission in Maine was awarded $17,000 in 2016 to fund technical-
assistance to communities to reduce the food disposal rate through composting, providing collection bins and
holding collection events.230
The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility and
select federal incentives that promote renewable energy resources. DSIRE offers further details
on the examole incentives included in this section as well as others.
Renewable Energy Incentives
Massachusetts: The state's Clean Energy Center supports the development of facilities that convert SSO
materials and sewage sludge into heat, electricity or CNG through its Commonwealth Organics-to-
Energy program. This program awards grants for implementation and pilot projects, feasibility studies,
and technical studies/services.
228 State of New York. Methane Reduction Plan. May 2017. https://www.dec.nv. gov/docs/administration pdf/mrpfinal.pdf.
229 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. State Assistance Programs (Grants) for Waste Reduction
Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Programs, https://www.dec.nv.gov/chemical/4776.html. Accessed
December 29, 2021.
2311 USDA. Solid Waste Management FY 2016 Grant Recipients. https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/UWP-
SWMrecipients2016.pdf.
A-2
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
Massachusetts Organics to Energy Grant
CRMC received grant funding in late 2012 to construct its CRMC Bioenergv Facility, located at the Crapo Hill
Landfill in New Bedford, Massachusetts. CRMC applied the funding toward purchasing and installing
equipment in the facility.231 This AD facility generates biogas that supplements an existing LFG electricity
project at the landfill.
Multiple States: A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a legislative requirement for utilities to
generate or sell a certain percentage (which varies widely by state) of their electricity from renewable
energy sources. Many of the state RPSs include MSW, biomass, biogas, LFG and RNG as eligible
renewable resources. In a few instances, cities or utilities have implemented their own RPSs in the
absence of state-wide programs. Some states or territories have enacted renewable portfolio goals in lieu
of actual mandates.
Federal: USDA's Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) includes a Renewable Energy Systems
& Energy Efficiency Improvement Loans & Grants program to provide guaranteed loan financing and
grant funding to eligible projects. Funds can be used to purchase, install and construct renewable energy
systems including AD projects.
Fuel Credits
California: The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was designed to encourage the use and production
of cleaner low-carbon fuels in the state. The LCFS parameters are expressed in terms of the "carbon
intensity" (CI) of gasoline and diesel and the fuels that replace them. A fuel's CI is the measure of
emissions associated with producing and consuming the fuel and is based on a complete life cycle
analysis. Fuels with a CI lower than the annual standard set by the LCFS generate credits, while fuels
with a CI higher than the annual standard generate deficits. The LCFS includes various fuel pathways,
including options for feedstocks of AD biogas or LFG.232
Oregon: The Clean Fuels Program seeks to reduce the CI of transportation fuels in Oregon. It functions
very similarly to California's LCFS described above and includes pathways with AD biogas or LFG as
the feedstock.233 The program includes a standard for gasoline and its fuel substitutes and a standard for
diesel and its fuel substitutes.
Federal: Congress created the RFS program to expand the nation's renewable fuels sector (for
transportation) and reduce reliance on imported oil. The program requires obligated parties to meet a
Renewable Volume Obligation based on the amount of petroleum-based fuels they produce or import
annually, and one way to meet the obligation is by obtaining credits known as Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs). To generate RINs, the fuel must meet one of the EPA-approved pathways. One of
these is cellulosic biofuel (RIN category D3), which can be produced from biogas from landfills,
231 CRMC Bioenergy LLC. Final Construction Project Report for the CRMC Bioenergy Facility. Prepared for the
Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. February 13, 2015. https://files.masscec.com/researcli/CRMCPilot.pdf.
232 California Low Carbon Fuel Standard. California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Sections 95480-95489; 95491-95497.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfsfinalregorder.pdf.
233 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon Approved Carbon Intensity Values. File cfp-All-CIs.xlsx. July
22, 2016. https://www.oregon.gov/dea/ghgp/cfp/Pages/Clean-Fuel-Pathwavs.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2021.
A-3
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
municipal WRRF digesters, agricultural digesters and separated MSW digesters. Another is advanced
biofuel (RIN category D5), which can be produced from separated food waste digesters.
Renewable Fuel Standard
The Ohio Bio-Energy Digester project in Columbus, Ohio, is producing biogas from wastewater, food scraps
and FOG. The biogas is recovered to generate electricity and renewable CNG for vehicle fuel. The facility is a
registered renewable fuel producer of biogas under the RFS program 234 This project also received Ohio state
funds related to alternative energy and green job creation.235
Voluntary Carbon Markets
A carbon offset (or credit) is equivalent to 1 MTCChe of emission reductions from an unregulated source
(i.e., an entity that voluntarily reduces its emissions). The voluntary destruction of biogas methane has
market value and can be sold in voluntary or compliance markets. There is not a single market or single
standard for the trading of these credits.236 Voluntary markets operate using several different standards
and protocols for determining eligibility and verifying credits.
• Carbon standards include the American Carbon Registry. The Climate Registry. Gold Standard
and Verified Carbon Standard. Organizations like these certify qualifying emission reduction
projects so entities needing to mitigate their own carbon footprints can buy the credits.
• Protocols outline eligibility, monitoring, recordkeeping, quantification and reporting
requirements. Many are applicable to biogas projects, including Climate Action Reserve (CAR)
Organic Waste Digestion. CAR Organic Waste Composting. Greenhouse Gas Protocol and
Recycling and Composting Protocol.
Carbon Credits
Lenz Enterprises ' organic waste composting project in Stanwood, Washington, registered more than 10,600
emission reduction credits through CAR for 2014 and more than 17,900 credits for 2015. By composting food
waste and food-soiled paper that would otherwise be landfilled, the facility avoids methane generation and
produces an organic compost product with multiple environmental benefits.23 /,23S
234 U.S. EPA. Registered Companies and Facilities in Fuel Programs, https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-
and-compliance-help/registered-companies-and-facilities-fuel-programs. Accessed March 27, 2017.
235 Energy Vision and CALSTART. 2012. Renewable Natural Gas (RNG)—The Solution to a Major Transportation
Challenge. 2012. https://energv-vision.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EV-RNG-Facts-and-Case-Studies.pdf.
236 U.S. EPA. Landfill Gas Energy Project Development Handbook. Chapter 5: Landfill Gas Contracts and Regulations.
LMOP. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/landfill-gas-energy-proiect-development-liandbook.
237 ClimeCo. ClimeCo Announces 1st Carbon Offset Credit Registration for Lenz Composting Project:
Washington State Organic Waste Composting Project Receives 10,611 Climate Action Reserve CRTs. January 4, 2016.
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/01/prweb 13148347.htm. Accessed February 24, 2021.
238 Climate Action Reserve Project Database. Project ID: CAR1096. https://thereserve2.apx.com/mvmodule/reeJ
priView.asp?idl=1096. Accessed February 24, 2021.
A-4
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
Appendix B
Tools and Resources for Evaluating Organic Waste Management Options
EPA and other organizations have developed many pertinent tools and resources to help public or private
entities involved in making decisions or policies related to organic waste management. This appendix
describes a selection of these items as a resource to stakeholders.
EPA Tools and Resources
Anaerobic Digestion—Project Screening Tool EPA and the Climate & Clean Air Coalition developed
this Excel-based tool to help with feasibility assessments of AD projects for a variety of feedstocks
including organic MSW, agricultural residues and wastewater. Users of the tool can estimate the biogas
and digestate production potential of a proposed AD project and end use options for each.
Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste in the United States: Sun'ey Results. Beginning
in 2017, EPA has annually surveyed operators of AD facilities that accept food waste and published
reports on the findings. EPA includes three types of AD facilities in the survey: stand-alone food waste
digesters, on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste and WRRF digesters that co-digest food waste.
The reports provide information such as facility processing capacity, amount of food waste processed,
feedstock types and sources, biogas cleaning systems, biogas production and use, and digestate use.
Biogas Toolkit. EPA designed the Biogas Toolkit as a centralized knowledge hub for biogas project
stakeholders to search and browse for information and resources that meet their specific needs. At its
launch in 2020, it included more than 30 tools and other resources compiled from several EPA programs.
Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool (CoEAT). EPA developed an initial economic feasibility tool
and corresponding user's manual to assist decision-makers who are considering adding food waste or
other organic feedstocks into co-digestion applications at water resource recovery facilities, farms or
food processing facilities.
Cost Estimating Tool for Managing Source-Separated Organic Waste (OrganEcs). The Climate &
Clean Air Coalition and EPA developed this Excel-based tool for estimating the costs associated with
an organic waste management project, including high-tech wet or dry AD, low-tech wet AD and open
air composting with or without forced aeration. Local governments, waste professionals, policymakers,
facility operators and project developers can use the tool to help in making financial decisions related to
organic waste management.
Excess Food Opportunities Map. EPA developed the Excess Food Opportunities Map with the goal of
diverting excess food away from landfilling and toward beneficial use. The map helps bridge the gap
between potential generators of excess food and potential recipients who can use it. It displays the
locations of nearly 1.2 million excess food generators in the ICI sector and about 5,000 potential
recipients, as well as communities with SSO programs.
B-l
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
Managing and Transforming Waste Streams: A Tool for Communities. EPA developed this planning
tool (available in web and spreadsheet format) featuring a table of 100 measures communities can use
to reduce waste and recover materials. The tool can help local and tribal governments learn how to shift
their communities' solid waste stream away from disposal and toward waste reduction, materials reuse
and recovery. The tool includes a "Material or Product Group" field with a category named "Organics"
that can be used to filter for policies or programs involving organic waste. It also offers a browse by
topic feature that shows all the topic options on a single page.
Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW DST). EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy
developed this comprehensive tool to aid solid waste planners in evaluating the cost and environmental
aspects of integrated MSW management strategies. The tool enables users to simulate existing MSW
management practices and conduct scenario analyses of new strategies based on cost and environmental
objectives. The tool includes multiple design options for waste collection, transfer, materials recovery,
composting, waste-to-energy and landfilling.
Overview of RNG from Biogas. This resource from LMOP, AgSTAR and Natural Gas STAR provides
key information about the creation of RNG from biogas. including feedstocks, delivery and use options,
benefits, counts and examples of RNG projects, processes for upgrading biogas to RNG, and policies
and incentives for RNG project development.
Tribal Waste Management Program Sustainability Evaluation Tool. EPA developed this Excel-based
tool to help Tribal leaders assess their current waste management practices and identify areas where
sustainability could be introduced. Tribes can self-evaluate or have a third party evaluate their program
using the tool's seven key indicators.
Waste Reduction Model (WARM). EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations
track and voluntarily report emission reductions from several different waste management practices.
WARM calculates emissions from baseline waste management practices and various alternatives—
source reduction, recycling, AD, combustion, composting and landfilling. The tool allows for data inputs
for several specific waste types such as food waste, mixed organic waste and yard trimmings.
Other Tools and Resources
Commission for Environmental Cooperation Reports and Resources. The Commission has worked
with partners in Canada, Mexico and the United States to help reduce the amount of food loss and waste
in North America. They have published several reports on the characterization and management of food
loss and waste, as well as a Food Matters Action Kit to teach youth about actions to reduce food waste.
Community Toolkit: Adding Food Waste to a Yard Trimmings Compost Facility. BioCycle and the
Center for EcoTechnology co-developed this resource to help municipal yard trimmings composting site
operators determine if incorporating food waste is feasible. The toolkit includes information on topics
such as best practices, regulatory requirements and costs.
Food Loss & Waste (FLW) Protocol. Seven institutions launched the FLW Protocol in 2013 and
developed the global Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (FLW Standard) to
provide common language and requirements for quantifying food loss and waste. The FLW Standard
includes requirements, guidance, a sample reporting template, case studies and trainings.
B-2
-------
Managing Organic Waste in the United States: An Overview
Food Matters. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) partners with cities and other local
coordinators to reduce food waste through policies and programs. The Food Matters website offers
several guides and other tools and resources to help cities navigate the complexities of this process.
ReFED Tools and Resources. ReFED, a nonprofit organization created to reduce U.S. food waste, offers
several tools and other resources on its website. The Food Waste Solution Provider Directory includes
information about hundreds of nonprofit and for-profit organizations ready to help implement food waste
reduction initiatives. The Food Waste Policy Finder is a tool to research current food waste policies at
the federal and state levels and discover best practices for preventing, recovering and recycling more
food waste. The Insights Engine is an information hub for food loss and waste data and solutions.
EPA and Other Tools and Resources for the ICI Sector
While the ICI waste generating sector is not the primary audience of this document, jurisdictions may
be looking for ways to improve recovery rates for ICI-generated organic waste as the sector produces a
large volume of it. There is a variety of outreach tools to encourage behavior change and increase
participation in organic waste reduction and diversion programs. Jurisdictions may want to publicize
these resources to their ICI customers.
The Center for Ecological Technology developed a toolkit to support organic waste diversion in
restaurants and schools.
Fighting Food Waste in Hotels Toolkit In 2017, the World Wildlife Fund partnered with the American
Hotel and Lodging Association and The Rockefeller Foundation to conduct a 12-week pilot study on
organic waste in the hotel industry, with plans to compile a report on the data collected during the pilot
and create a toolkit to engage the hotel industry in best practices. Hotels in the study saw their food waste
decrease between 10 and 38 percent. The resulting Fighting Food Waste in Hotels Toolkit is geared
toward full-service hotels but also beneficial to other food service institutions. The toolkit provides the
background, tools and resources to help prevent food waste, donate what cannot be prevented but is safe
to consume, and divert the remainder from landfilling.
The Food Waste Reduction Alliance released a Lessons Learned from Fighting Food Waste guide in
2020 to keep waste from the food manufacturing and processing, food transportation and food retail
sectors out of landfills. The Alliance's "Resources" webpage also provides links to many other
organizations active in the food waste prevention, reduction or diversion space.
Managing and Transforming Waste Streams: A Tool for Communities. A section of EPA's
Transforming Waste Tool is dedicated to resources for training and outreach materials focused on
business and institutions as well as recognition programs.
Massachusetts' Supermarket Composting Handbook provides a step-bv-step guide to the grocery
sector on developing and maintaining an effective food waste composting program.
NRDC released a 10-step quick start guide with examples for starting a compost program at sporting
events.
B-3
------- |