oEPA
Anaerobic Digestion
Facilities Processing
Food Waste in the
United States
(2019)
April 2023
EPA 530-R-23-003
-------
Author
Jon Schroeder, ORISE Fellow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC
Acknowledgements
EPA would like to acknowledge all the facility operators who provided data for this report. Not only did
these individuals provide data, but in many instances, they also took the time to speak with EPA and
clarify the data provided. EPA greatly appreciates all their effort. This report could not be generated
without their valuable input. We hope that the information provided in this report is useful to all facility
operators and to the industry.
The following people contributed to this report through assistance with survey design and testing, data
analysis, or report review: Chris Carusiello, Lana Suarez, Melissa Pennington, Nancy Abrams, Ksenija
Janjic and Juliana Beecher.
Document Review
Technical peer review of this document was provided by:
Alexandra Stern, Ph.D.
ORISE Food Waste Reduction Fellow
Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA
Beau Hoffman
Technology Manager, Conversion R&D
Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy
Quality Assurance
EPA conducted a rigorous quality assurance review of the data and calculations used to generate the
information in this report. All critical data points were checked for outliers, an assessment of units was
conducted to ensure accuracy, and specific data points were compared to test for certain conditions
(e.g., reported capacity is greater than reported amounts of feedstock processed). In many instances,
anomalies were corrected with assumptions, which are further stipulated.
Disclaimer
The anaerobic digestion facilities and their locations are provided for informational purposes only.
Companies mentioned in this report are not certified or approved by U.S. EPA. EPA does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of this information.
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Executive Summary v
I. Background 1
II. Survey Data Collection 3
III. Results 5
A. Response Rates and Location Data 5
B. Processing Capacity 10
C. Operational Dates 12
D. Food Waste Processed 13
E. Non-Food Waste Processed 19
F. Tipping Fees 22
G. Pre-processing 23
H. Operational and Design Specifications 25
I. Biogas Production 27
J. Biogas Uses 27
K. Gas Cleaning Systems 30
L. Solid Digestate Uses 31
M. Liquid Digestate Uses 33
IV. Conclusion 35
Appendix A - Operational Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems A1
Appendix B - Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems Under Development or
Temporarily Shut-Down B1
Appendix C - Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems that have Ceased Operations
C1
Appendix D - Survey Questions D1
Appendix E - Conversion Sources E2
ii
-------
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Number of Operational Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste Surveyed
and Response Rate in 2021 vi
Table ES-2: Total Capacity for Processing Food Waste and Total Amount of Food Waste Processed by
Survey Respondents in 2019 vii
Table ES-3: Total Amount of Non-Food Waste Processed by Survey Respondents (2019) vii
Table ES-4: Summary of Biogas Data Reported by Survey Respondents (2019) vii
Table ES-5: Critical Data Point YOY Trend Analysis Amongst Survey Respondents x
Table 1: Reports Published and Data Included 3
Table 2: Comparison of Facilities Responding to Each Survey 4
Table 3: Number of Operational Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste Surveyed and
Responding to Survey 5
Table 4: Number of Operating Anaerobic Digestion Facilities in each State that Returned Surveys 9
Table 5: Total Reported Capacity for Processing Food Waste (2019) 12
Table 6: Food Waste Processed at Stand-Alone Digesters (2019) 14
Table 7: Food Waste Processed at Farm Digesters (2019) 15
Table 8: Food Waste Processed at WRRF Digesters (2019) 16
Table 9: Total Food Waste Processed at All Digesters (2019) 17
Table 10: Non-food Waste Processed at Stand-Alone Digesters (2019) 20
Table 11: Non-food Waste Processed at Farm Digesters (2019) 20
Table 12: Non-food Waste Processed at WRRF Digesters (2019) 21
Table 13: Total Non-food Waste Processed at All Digesters (2019) 21
Table 14: Reported Tipping Fee Data 23
Table 15: Reported Location of Pre-processing Activities 24
Table 16: Reported Pre-processing Activities for Stand-Alone Digester Facilities 24
Table 17: Reported Pre-processing for On-Farm Co-Digestion Facilities 24
Table 18: Reported Pre-processing for Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs 24
Table 19: Reported Temperature Range Data 25
Table 20: Reported Data on Wet v Dry Systems 26
Table 21: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for Stand-Alone Digester Facilities 26
Table 22: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for On-Farm Co-Digestion Facilities 26
Table 23: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs 26
Table 24: Summary of Biogas Data Reported (2019) 27
Table 25: Reported Uses of Biogas Produced at Anaerobic Digesters 29
Table 26: Reported Gas Cleaning Systems at Anaerobic Digesters 31
Table 27: Reported Solid Digestate Uses 32
Table 28: Solid Digestate Landfill and Incineration (dry tons) 33
Table 29: Reported Liquid Digestate Uses 34
Table 30: Summary of 2021 Survey Results 35
Table 1A: Stand-Alone Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S A1
Table 2A: On-Farm Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S A1
Table 3A: WRRF Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S A2
Table IB: Stand-Alone Anaerobic Digestion Facilities in the U.S. that are Under Development B1
Table 2B: WRRF's with Co-Digestion Systems in the U.S. that are Under Development B1
iii
-------
Table 1C: Facilities that Have Ceased Operation or are not going to be Completed in the U.S CI
Table IE: Feedstock Conversion Sources El
List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Operating Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State viii
Figure 1: Operating Stand-Alone Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State 6
Figure 2: Operating On-Farm Food Waste Co-Digestion Systems that Returned Surveys by State 7
Figure 3: Operating WRRF Food Waste Co-Digestion Systems that Returned Surveys by State 8
Figure 4: Total Operating Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State 9
Figure 5: Distribution of First Year of Digester Operation 13
Figure 6: Top Five Food Waste Types 18
Figure 7: Top Five Food Waste Sources 18
Figure 8: Top Five Types of Non-Food Waste 22
Figure 9: Top Five Sources of Non-Food Waste 22
Figure 10: Top Five Uses of Biogas 30
Figure 11: Top Five Constituents Removed 31
Figure 12: Top Five Uses/Destinations of Solid Digestate 32
Figure 13: Uses/Destinations of Liquid Digestate 34
iv
-------
Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the sustainable management of
food through prevention of food loss and waste, donation of excess food, and recycling of excess food
and food waste into animal feed, fertilizers and soil amendments, and/or renewable energy. While source
reduction and donation are the most impactful management pathways, communities will always have
some food waste to manage. EPA encourages lifecycle thinking and decision making for communities
when choosing which waste management systems and methods work best for their circumstances.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is one such method. AD is a process by which microorganisms break down
organic materials, such as food waste, in the absence of oxygen. AD is an alternative management
pathway for food waste that diverts food waste from landfill and recovers both energy and nutrients. AD
facilities must be permitted by the relevant federal, state, and local authorities to ensure they are
designed, constructed, and operated properly. When developed and operated effectively, AD projects can
provide economic, health, and environmental co-benefits to surrounding communities, such as diversified
revenue for farms, improved soil and water quality through better nutrient management, and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions through diversion of food waste and other organic materials from landfills.
In 2014, EPA began building a dataset of names and locations of anaerobic digestion facilities processing
food waste to better understand the practice and prevalence of food waste digestion in the United States
(U.S.). In December 2016, EPA was granted the authority to survey digesters annually, and EPA has since
renewed that authority until 2025. This report is the fourth in the series. Each report includes data for
three types of AD facilities: (1) stand-alone food waste digesters; (2) on-farm digesters that co-digest food
waste; and (3) digesters at water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) that co-digest food waste.
In 2021, EPA surveyed operators of AD facilities that accept food waste to identify the number of facilities
in the U.S. and their locations, and to learn about their operations. EPA previously published three reports
in calendar years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
EPA administered the survey for a fourth time in 2021 and the data collected from the 2021 survey is
summarized in this report. The following critical data points reflect calendar year 2019: processing
capacity, the amount of food waste1 processed, the amount of non-food waste2 processed, feedstock
types, feedstock sources, the amount of biogas produced, and tipping fees. The remaining data points
reflect circumstances in 2021: pre-processing/de-packaging, operational specifications, biogas uses, gas
cleaning systems, solid digestate uses, and liquid digestate uses. The data used in this report was
voluntarily submitted by survey respondents.
1 For the purposes of this report, food waste includes but is not limited to: food scraps that have been separated
and collected by municipalities from residential sources; food scraps that have been separated and collected from
institutions or venues (e.g., prisons, hospitals, stadiums); food scraps from food preparation at restaurants,
cafeterias, and other food services; plate scrapings from restaurants, cafeterias, and other food services; fats, oils
and grease (FOG); unused food collected from grocery stores (e.g., bakery items, bruised fruit, items past shelf
life); and pre-consumer by-products of the food and beverage processing industries.
2 Non-food waste feedstocks include but are not limited to: mixed yard waste, crop residues, manure, wastewater
solids (sludge), septage, de-icing fluid, lab (or pharma) wastes, paper mill wastes, and crude glycerin.
v
-------
EPA shared the survey directly with 2753 facilities believed to be operational and for which EPA had
contact information. Approximately 50 of those facilities were added to the EPA dataset of AD facilities
accepting food waste since the last survey in 2019. In addition to emailed surveys, EPA made the survey
available on the Agency's AD website. EPA received responses to the 2021 survey from 99 operational
facilities, a decrease from 118 responsive facilities in 2019. EPA also added to the dataset of AD facilities
that are known to be operational, in the planning and design phase, or under construction; as well as
facilities that have ceased operation or ceased co-digestion activities. This report includes information on
the status of AD facilities in each of those situations.
The 2021 response rates for the stand-alone and WRRF digester surveys were lower than in 2019 (32%
and 46% versus 66% and 77%, respectively). The on-farm digester response rate was slightly higher (23%
versus 17%). For each year that the survey has been administered, the list of operating facilities has been
different. Because both the facilities offered the survey and the facilities responding to the survey have
varied each year, any year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution. Please reference Appendix
A for the list of facilities that responded to this survey in 2021.
Table ES-1 summarizes the facilities that received surveys in 2021 and response rates by digester type.
See Section II (Table 2) of this report for a more detailed description of respondent participation for each
survey year.
Table ES-1: Number of Operational Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste Surveyed in
2021 and Response Rate
Digester type
Number of
Facilities Surveyed
in 2021
Number of
Submitted
Surveys in 2021
Survey Response
Rate in 2021
Stand-alone digesters
68
22
32%
On-farm co-digesters
79
18
23%
Co-digestion systems at WRRFs
128
59
46%
Total
275
99
36%
Processing Capacity and Amounts Processed
Based on data submitted by 894 survey respondents, the total processing capacity for food waste in all
three digester types combined in 2019 was over 42.7 million tons.5,6 The total amount of food waste
processed in all three digester types in 2019 was over 17.5 million tons.7 This number is higher than in
past years because the collection of new data on feedstock types allowed for updated conversion methods
3 The number of operational facilities receiving surveys in 2021 was higher than the number of facilities receiving
surveys in 2019, mostly because of new additions from top digester states, and keeping the survey open to
facilities that may have indicated in the past that they were not "operational." EPA will remove facilities who
indicated they ceased operations from its list. There may be more than 275 AD facilities processing food waste in
the U.S.
4 The total number of surveys may not be equal to the total number of respondents providing answers to any
question. Some respondents did not answer all questions.
5 For on-farm and co-digestion systems at WRRFs, "total capacity" excludes capacity dedicated to manure and
wastewater solids, respectively, and only refers to the available capacity to process feedstocks from off-site
sources, such as food waste. Because this survey focuses on AD capacity to process food waste in the U.S., EPA
assumes all available capacity could be used to process food waste.
6 'Tons" means wet U.S. tons throughout this report, unless otherwise specified.
7 This number is based on data reported by 73 survey respondents.
vi
-------
(see part III. Results, D. Food Waste Processing for more information). Beverage processing waste from
stand-alone digesters comprised the majority of food waste processed (98.5%), as described in Table ES-
2.
Table ES-2: Total Capacity for Processing Food Waste and Total Amount of Food Waste Processed in
2019 by Survey Respondents
Digester Type
Reported
Capacity in
2019
(tons)
Reported Amount
Processed in 2019
(tons)
Reported Amount
Processed in 2019
without beverage
processing waste
(tons)
Capacity
Utilization
(Reported Amount
Processed/
Capacity)
Stand-alone digesters
38,461,432
15,055,227
228,836
39%
On-farm co-digesters
442,020
319,303
305,330
72%
Co-digestion systems
at WRRFs
3,831,985
2,223,533
2,126,780
58%
Total
42,735,437
17,598,063
2,660,946
41%
The total reported amount of non-food waste processed in all three digester types in 2019 was around
945,000 tons (Table ES-3).8
Table ES-3: Total Amount of Non-Food Waste Processed by Survey Respondents (2019)
Digester Type
Amount
(tons)*
Stand-alone digesters
511,675
On-farm co-digesters
2,730
Co-digestion systems at WRRFs
431,049
Total
945,454
*Liquid and solid amounts are combined because of increased level of data granularity this year.
Biogas Production
Based on the data reported by 91 survey respondents, the total amount of biogas produced by all three
digester types in 2019 was 29,877 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM), which is equivalent to 93
megawatts (MW) of installed capacity, or 693 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity generated per
year which is enough energy to power almost 58,333 homes for a year (Table ES-4).
Table ES-4: Summary o
Biogas Data Reported by Survey Respondents (2019)
Digester type
SCFM*
MW
kWh/yr
(million)
Equivalent Number of
Homes Powered for One
Year
Stand-alone digesters
4,825
15
112
9,428
On-farm co-digesters
1,465
5
37
3,114
Co-digestion systems at WRRFs
23,587
73
544
45,791
Total
29,877
93
693
58,333
*SCFM values were reported by facility operators and added together to get a total for 2019. The MW, kWh/yr,
and homes powered numbers are calculated using the LMOP interactive conversion tool. These values are
rounded to the nearest whole number, which accounts for the fact that the column totals may not sum.
8 This is based on data submitted by 31 survey respondents.
vii
-------
The numbers in Table ES-2 through Table ES-4 likely underestimate actual processing capacity, food waste
and non-food waste processed, and biogas production because not all operational facilities provided a
survey response.
Based on the 2021 survey responses, 30 states have at least one operating digester that accepts food
waste (Figure ES-1). California has the greatest number of operating digesters (20) followed by
Pennsylvania (8). Massachusetts (7), New York (7) and Wisconsin (6) round out the top five. All other
states have four or fewer digesters.
Figure ES-1: Operating Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State
Operational Specifications and Pre-Processing Activity
In terms of operational specifications, most of the digester types were found to be wet and mesophilic
systems, as in the previous three surveys. For ail digester types in 2021, the most common pre-processing
activity was screening and/or sorting. This differs from the 2019 survey's results for stand-alone and on-
farm digesters, which had reported grinding and/or maceration and manual or mechanized de-packaging
as the top pre-processing activities, respectively.
Feedstock Sources and Types
When aggregated, the top five food-based feedstock sources for anaerobic digesters in the U.S. in 2019
were (in order):
• Industrial manufacturing and processing;
• Other;
• Food retailers and wholesalers;
viii
-------
• Restaurants and food services;
• Industrial (other).
When aggregated, the top five food-based feedstock types accepted by anaerobic digesters in the U.S. in
2019 were (in order):
• Beverage processing industry waste;
• Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG);
• Food processing industry waste;
• Other (not specified);
• Source-separated organics.
Biogas Uses and Cleaning Systems
The top use of biogas across all three digester types in the 2021 survey was production of combined heat
and power (CHP). The next two most common uses by digester type are listed below.
• Stand-Alone Digesters: to produce electricity (sold to the grid), and to produce electricity (net
metering) and to fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters;
• On-Farm Co-Digesters: to produce electricity (sold to the grid), and to produce electricity used
behind the meter; and
• Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs: to fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters, and to fuel boilers
and furnaces to heat other spaces.
Approximately 32% of stand-alone digesters, 27% of farm co-digesters and 76% of co-digesters at WRRFs
reported that they utilize gas cleaning systems. The top constituents removed for stand-alone digesters
were moisture, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur. On-farm digesters reported hydrogen sulfide and sulfur as
top constituents. The top constituents removed for co-digestion systems at WRRFs were siloxanes and
moisture.
Solid and Liquid Digestate Uses
The top three solid digestate uses by digester type in the 2021 survey were:
• Stand-Alone Digesters: land applied with no dewatering/drying, composted into a
reusable/salable product, and de-watered/dried and land applied.
• On-Farm Co-Digesters: processed into animal bedding, de-watered and land applied, and
composted into a reusable/salable product.
• Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs: de-watered and land applied, landfilled, and composted into a
reusable/salable product.
The top uses of liquid digestate by digester type in the 2021 survey were:
• Stand-Alone Digesters: reused as fertilizer via land application, and discharge to a wastewater
treatment plant.
• On-Farm Co-Digesters: reused as fertilizer via land application.
• Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs: recirculated through the digester and reused as fertilizer via
land application.
ix
-------
Annual Survey Results
Table ES-5 is a brief snapshot of annual results in the following categories: capacity, amount of food
waste processed, and biogas produced.
Table ES-5: Critica
Data Points Reported by Survey Respondents
Calendar
Year
Total Available
Digester Capacity*
(tons)
Food-Based
Feedstock
Processed (tons)
Capacity Dedicated to
Food Waste
Biogas
Produced
(SCFM)
2015
-
11,341,813
-
34,967
2016
-
10,691,756
-
40,304
2017
24,045,403
9,633,373
40%
25,274
2018
23,993,122
9,814,871
41%
27,193
2019
42,735,437
17,598,063
41%
29,877
This is total digester capacity minus capacity dedicated to manure at on-farm co-digesters and
wastewater solids at WRRF co-digesters.
Capacity utilization is hard to pinpoint because some reports stated capacities for a different calendar
year than processing. Generally, it appears the amount of processed feedstock and capacity remained
relatively constant throughout the four calendar years prior to 2019. In 2019, the available capacity and
food-based feedstock processed were higher because densities were applied to individual feedstocks.
Beverage processing made up 85% of the total food-based feedstock tonnage in 2019, and beverage
waste is heavy, with a density assumed to be that of water (8.34 lb/gallon).
The noteworthy takeaway is that capacity utilization appears to have stayed constant since 2017. This
could indicate the potential to accept more feedstock at digesters, therefore maximizing capacity
utilization and generating more biogas. However, various factors may impact the potential for certain
digesters to process additional food-based feedstocks, such as quantities of non-food feedstocks
processed, including manure at on-farm digesters and wastewater solids at WRRFs; accessibility of food-
based feedstock (e.g., proximity to the digester); pre-processing technologies; and optimal mix of
feedstocks for efficient digestion. EPA's Excess Food Opportunities Map (EFOM) is an existing resource
to view generators of excess food in areas where digesters are located and could be utilized to initiate
discussions and acceptance of more food-based feedstock.
Biogas production was highest in the beginning years of the survey (2015 and 2016 data); those years
also had higher survey response rates. Because the reporting facilities and number of facilities
responding to survey questions varies annually, it is hard to draw more specific conclusions for this
metric.
The higher concentrations of digesters in California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin have remained steady, and this is logical given the dairy operations and local/state policies
that drive digester operation. Ohio did not feature prominently in this year's survey compared to prior
years.
x
-------
Key Highlights from the Report
• EPA encourages source reduction and prevention as key activities to reduce food waste, but
when food waste is generated, it is important to keep it (and other organics) out of the landfill
through alternative management pathways such as composting or AD.
• AD is a management pathway for food waste that recovers both energy and nutrients. AD
facilities must be permitted by relevant federal, state, and local authorities to ensure they are
designed, developed, and operated properly. When operated properly and effectively, AD
projects can provide economic, health, and environmental co-benefits to the agriculture
industry and surrounding communities.
• EPA encourages lifecycle thinking and decision making for communities when choosing which
waste management pathways and systems work best for their circumstances.
• According to this survey, a majority of food-based feedstock anaerobically digested is beverage
processing waste. Increasing the use of AD to process solid food waste in future years is
essential to keeping food waste out of landfills. This could also increase biogas yields and the
quantity of digestate that can be beneficially utilized.
• The capacity of existing anaerobic digesters appears to be underutilized.
o There are logistical and geographical considerations in diverting excess food. Although
capacity is underutilized, this does not mean it will all be utilized,
o Anaerobic digestion, like several technologies, should be utilized at a local level to limit
emissions from transporting materials over long distances,
o Other factors may affect capacity of certain digesters to accept food waste, such as
other non-food feedstocks processed and available pre-processing technologies.
• This report could be used in tandem with EPA's Excess Food Opportunities Map (EFOM), which
is a free tool that estimates where food waste generation is occurring and where opportunities
may exist for food waste to be managed locally, including through anaerobic digestion.
• Contamination of digestate with PFAS and microplastics is a topic of concern. Further research
needed to determine levels of contamination and potential risks to human health and the
environment.
-------
I. Background
In the U.S., food is the greatest fraction of material, by weight, in the municipal solid waste stream. In
other words, food is the most common type of waste in our garbage. In 2018, almost 103 million tons of
wasted food were generated in the industrial, residential, commercial, and institutional sectors,9 imposing
significant economic and environmental costs. To help alleviate these costs, EPA encourages diversion of
food waste from landfills, including its management in anaerobic digestion facilities.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process by which microorganisms break down organic materials, such as
food waste, in the absence of oxygen. AD is an alternative management pathway for food waste that
diverts food waste from landfill and recovers energy and nutrients, both of which have environmental and
economic value.
Keeping organic materials out of landfills is beneficial for the environment. If these materials are allowed
to decay in landfills, methane can be released into the air and contribute to climate change. Methane is a
potent greenhouse gas that traps 27 to 30 times more heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period
than carbon dioxide.10 AD systems capture methane for use in a beneficial way, such as generating heat
and electricity, offsetting the need for fossil-derived fuels. AD also produces "digestate," a nutrient-rich
material that can be used as a fertilizer or soil amendment. When developed and operated effectively, AD
projects can provide various economic, health, and environmental co-benefits such as greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and offering an alternative to landfill for managing food waste and other organics.
Permits are needed to construct and operate an AD/biogas system. The system must meet all relevant
local, state, and federal permitting requirements for air, solid waste, water, and construction. The
operation of an AD/biogas system may also require ongoing regulatory compliance for many of the issued
permits. Such permits are meant to ensure that anaerobic digestion does not result in adverse
environmental, human health, and other cumulative impacts to communities.
Every type of solid waste management pathway or system may have advantages and/or disadvantages.
EPA encourages lifecycle thinking and decision making for communities when choosing which waste
management pathway and/or systems work best for their circumstances. Quality data and information
can assist stakeholders in understanding the existing options and the landscape of food waste and
organics management.
In 2014, EPA began building a dataset of names and locations of AD facilities processing food waste. EPA
built the original dataset using publicly available information (e.g., American Biogas Council project
profiles, BioCycle articles, EPA AgSTAR11 database). That list of AD facilities and contacts has since been
updated each year prior to the dissemination of a new survey.
To enhance the quality and quantity of available data, EPA sought and was granted authority under an
Information Collection Request (ICR) to collect information through a survey for anaerobic digesters
(reference Appendix D for survey questions). The approval allowed EPA to collect data annually for three
9 EPA 2018 Wasted Food Report, page 5. Estimate includes residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional
sources of food waste, but not on-farm sources.
10 EPA Understanding Global Warming Potentials
11 AgSTAR is an EPA program that promotes the use of biogas recovery systems to reduce methane emissions from
livestock waste.
1
-------
years, from 2017 to 2019. That ICR was then renewed through 2025, and this report is the fourth in the
series. Each report includes data for three types of AD facilities: (1) stand-alone food waste digesters; (2)
on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste; and (3) digesters at water resource recovery facilities
(WRRFs) that co-digest food waste. This information is gathered to better understand the practice and
prevalence of digestion of food waste in the United States (e.g., the current amount of food waste being
processed by digesters, available capacity, etc.).
EPA has collected data regarding anaerobic digestion facilities processing food waste in four years: 2017,
2018, 2019, and 2021. Because AD facilities are typically not able to provide data for the current year,
most of the critical12 data points (e.g., total amount processed) are calculated after the close of the
previous calendar year. Other data are available at the time the survey is conducted (e.g., operational
specifications). As a result, each of the published reports contain data from previous years of operation
as well as the year in which the survey was conducted. Table 1 summarizes the different types of data
that are included in each report as well as the years from which the data originate.
For the 2021 survey, EPA employed a multi-media strategy for outreach to facilities. In previous years,
the survey was distributed via email directly to facilities. The methods used here included distribution
through an online survey platform, mailing paper surveys to over 100 facilities, and follow-up through
phone calls and email.
This report includes data collected from the 2021 survey and reflects calendar year 2019 for the following
seven data points: the amount of food waste13 processed, the amount of non-food waste14 processed, the
amount of biogas produced, digester capacity, feedstock type and feedstock source, and tipping fees. Pre-
processing/de-packaging, operational specifications, biogas uses, gas cleaning systems, solid digestate
uses, and liquid digestate uses reflect circumstances in 2021.
To identify respondents for the 2021 survey, EPA used the information gathered during the 2017 and 2018
calendar years. Ongoing research conducted throughout 2017, 2018, and 2019 also contributed to the
development of both the list of operating AD facilities that accept food waste (reference Appendix A) and
the list of AD facilities under development (reference Appendix B).15
This report does not address whether the food waste processed at AD facilities could have been
prevented, donated to feed people, or used to feed animals. By the time food that may at one time have
been recoverable is received by an AD facility, it is considered "food waste." Therefore, the term "food
waste" is used throughout this document to describe the food-based feedstock being processed in
digesters.
12 The critical data points are time-specific data points tied to a calendar year. These data points are the amount of
food waste processed, amount of non-food waste processed, and amount of biogas produced.
13 Food waste includes, but is not limited to: food scraps that have been separated and collected by municipalities
from residential sources; food scraps that have been separated and collected from institutions or venues (e.g.,
prisons, hospitals, stadiums); food scraps from food preparation at restaurants, cafeterias, and other food services;
plate scrapings from restaurants, cafeterias, and other food services; fats, oils and grease (FOG); unused food
collected from grocery stores (e.g., bakery items, bruised fruit, items past shelf life); and pre-consumer by-products
of the food and beverage processing industries.
14 Non-food waste feedstocks include, but are not limited to: mixed yard waste, crop residues, manure, wastewater
solids (sludge), septage, de-icing fluid, lab (or pharma) wastes, paper mill wastes, and crude glycerin.
15 "Under development" refers to phases of development prior to the facility becoming operational: siting,
permitting, design, construction, etc.
2
-------
Table 1: Reports Published and Data Included
Report name
Year
survey
conducted
Year(s)
associated
with critical
data points
Critical data
points
Year
associated
with
remaining
data points
Remaining data
points
Date report
published
Anaerobic Digestion
Facilities Processing
Food Waste in the
United States in 2015
2017
2015
2017
Processing capacity
Feedstock type and
source
September
2018
Tipping fees
Pre-processing/de-
packaging
Operational
specifications
Anaerobic Digestion
Facilities Processing
Food Waste in the
United States (2016)
2018
2016
Amount of food
waste processed
Amount of non-
food waste
processed
2018
September
2019
Amount of biogas
produced
Anaerobic Digestion
Facilities Processing
Food Waste in the
United States (2017 &
2018)
2019
2017 & 2018
2019
Biogas uses
Gas cleaning systems
Solid digestate uses
Liquid digestate uses
January 2021
Same as above as
well as:
Anaerobic Digestion
Facilities Processing
Food Waste in the
United States (2019)
2021
2019
Processing
capacity
Feedstock type
and source
Tipping fees
2021
Same as above minus
bolded items which
became critical data
points to the left
April 2023
II. Survey Data Collection
Under Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 2533, EPA developed electronic data collection surveys
for each digester type: stand-alone food waste digesters, on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste, and
digesters at WRRFs that co-digest food waste. EPA emailed the surveys directly to digester owners and
operators and made the surveys available on EPA's Anaerobic Digestion website. This report is based on
data collected via the 2021 survey. The surveys were open from June 2021 through October 2021, and
then were inactivated.
3
-------
The 2021 survey allowed EPA to:
• Identify the number and location of AD facilities that are operational and under development;16
• Document the total processing capacity at AD facilities;
• Document how much food waste and non-food waste were processed;
• Document how much biogas was produced;
• Document the types of food and non-food wastes, and the sources of these wastes, that are
accepted at these AD facilities;
• Analyze the end-uses of AD products (biogas and digestate); and
• Understand additional information about AD facilities such as pre-processing/de-packaging
activity, operational specifications, and gas cleaning systems.
Completion of the survey was voluntary, and the data collected was freely reported by survey
respondents. EPA sent the 2021 survey to facilities included in past years as well as additional facilities
identified through EPA's AgSTAR program and state17 referrals.
Consistent with prior survey results, the operational facilities that responded to the 2021 survey
were different from the facilities that responded to previous surveys. Table 2 provides information
on the number of facilities responding to each survey since its inception. In the first year, facilities that
were not operational were not included so 'N/A' has been assigned to reflect this.
Table 2: Comparison of Facilities Responding to Each Survey
Digester Type
Number of Facilities
2017
2018
2019
2021
Stand-alone digesters
50
46
45
22
On-farm co-digesters
15
16
10
18
Co-digestion systems at WRRFs
72
72
63
59
Total (confirmed operational)
137
134
118
99
Confirmed non-operational
N/A
20
14
10
Total surveyed (response rate %)
N/A
232 (66)
229(58)
275 (40)
In all four reports issued in this series (released in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023), EPA aggregated the
technical data collected for each facility (e.g., processing capacity) and summarized it in such a way that
individual facility information could not be identified. Personally Identifiable Information (Pll) will be
protected to the extent allowable under the Freedom of Information Act.
16 This data is current as of October 2021.
17 The top eight states by digester count (from 2019 report) were CA, Wl, NY, OH, MA, PA, IA, and FL
4
-------
III. Results
A. Response Rates and Location Data
Out of 275 surveys distributed to AD facilities that are thought to be operational, 99 were returned. Some
facilities submitted incomplete responses, and others did not respond, had ceased operations, or shut
down. This report only identifies the status of those facilities providing survey responses. The number of
potentially operational AD facilities increased from 229 in 2019 to 275 in 2021. This increase is largely due
to the joint EPA and USDA AgSTAR program, which provides support for the development of digesters in
the agricultural sector. Additionally, new facilities were identified through conversations with the eight
states that had the most digesters according to the previous report. The number of operational facilities
surveyed and the number of operational facilities returning responses by facility type is provided in Table
3. Names of facilities confirmed via survey response to be operating can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3: Number of Operational Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Surveyed and Responding to Survey
Digester Type
Number of Facilities
Surveyed
Number of Operational
Surveys Submitted
Survey Response
Rate
Stand-alone digesters
68
22
32%
On-farm co-digesters
79
18
23%
Co-digestion systems at WRRFs
128
59
46%
Total
275
99
36%
EPA is also tracking facilities that are under development or temporarily shut down. EPA distributed seven
surveys to a group of stand-alone AD facilities and WRRF co-digestion systems that are in one of the
following phases: planning, design, permitting, under construction, or temporarily shut down. Currently,
no on-farm co-digesters have been identified as under development or temporarily shut-down. Names of
these facilities and their operational status as reported via survey response can be found in Appendix B.
EPA's research also identified facilities that have ceased operations and they can be found in Appendix C.
Stand-Alone Digesters
Stand-alone digesters are primarily built to process food waste. While many of these digesters accept
other organic materials (e.g., manure, wastewater solids), they are typically designed for food waste
processing. Stand-alone digesters are divided into two categories, as described below: multi-source food
waste digesters, and industry-dedicated digesters.
Multi-Source Food Waste Digester: A digester that accepts and processes feedstocks from offsite
sources. These feedstocks may be accepted both for their tipping fee revenue and their biogas
yield potential. These digesters are sometimes called "merchant digesters." Feedstocks are
predominantly food waste, although non-food waste feedstocks (e.g., manure and wastewater
solids) may also be processed at these digesters. In most instances, feedstocks are obtained from
many different sources.
Industry-Dedicated Digester: A digester that is developed to manage food waste generated from
a single business (e.g., grocery store chain, food or beverage processing plant). These digesters
may accept organic materials from other sources for tipping fees, but this practice is not typical
for this type of digester.
5
-------
EPA received 22 responses to the 2021 survey from a field of 68 operational stand-alone facilities, for a
response rate of 32%. According to the survey responses received from the 22 operating stand-alone
digesters: nine are multi-source (41%); 13 are industry dedicated (59%); and one was identified as "other"
(5%).
Operational stand-alone digesters are located within 15 states. Reference Figure 1 for a map of
operating stand-alone facilities by state and Table 1A in Appendix A for a list of stand-alone facilities
that responded to the survey.
Figure 1: Operating Stand-Alone Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State
In all four reports issued in this series, EPA aggregated the technical data collected for each facility (e.g.,
processing capacity) and summarized it such that individual facility information could not be identified.
6
-------
On-Farm Co-Digesters
According to EPA's AgSTAR program, there are over 317 anaerobic digester facilities operating on livestock
farms in the U.S. These digesters are primarily used for manure management. This survey targeted only
those digesters that are co-digesting food waste.
Using the information gathered from on-farm co-digesters during the 2019 survey as a starting point, in
2021, EPA identified and surveyed 79 on-farm facilities that are potentially co-digesting food waste. EPA
received 18 survey responses out of the 79 identified digesters for a response rate of 23%. This response
rate is comparable to the on-farm digester response rate reported in the 2019 Report (17%). This report
identifies the status of only those on-farm co-digesters that provided responses.
Operational on-farm digesters co-digesting food waste were confirmed in seven states. Reference Table
2A in Appendix A for a list of the 18 farms that provided data and Figure 2 for a map depicting the number
of operating on-farm co-digesters by state.
Figure 2: Operating On-Farm Food Waste Co-Digestion Systems that Returned Surveys by State
7
-------
Digesters at Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs)
The Water Environment Federation and the American Biogas Council built and maintain a database
(www.resourcerecovervdata.ore) of information on WRRFs.18 This database identifies approximately
1,265 WRRFs in the U.S. that have anaerobic digesters to manage wastewater solids, and roughly 20% of
these facilities co-digest other materials, including food waste from offsite sources.
In 2021, EPA received 59 survey responses from a field of 128 WRRFs with suspected food-waste co-
digestion systems for a response rate of 46%. WRRFs with operating co-digestion systems are located
within 25 states, as can be referenced in Figure 3. Reference Table A3 in Appendix A for a list of WRRFs
that responded to the survey.
Figure 3: Operating WRRF Food Waste Co-Digestion Systems that Returned Surveys by State
Total Operating Digesters in the U.S.
Figure 4 and Table 4 summarize total operating digesters by type and location. Note that there are
other operating AD facilities processing food waste in the U.S. that did not respond to the survey.
Table 4 identifies the operating facilities that provided survey responses.
18 Please visit http://www.resourcerecovervdata.org/biogasdata.ph for a listing of those WRRFs with operating
anaerobic digesters.
8
-------
Figure 4: Total Operating Food Waste Digesting Facilities that Returned Surveys by State
Table 4: Number of Operating Anaerobic Digestion Facilities in each State that Returned Surveys
Number of Facilities
State
Stand-Alone
On-Farm
WRRF
Alabama
0
0
1
Alaska
0
0
0
Arizona
0
0
1
Arkansas
0
0
0
California
6
0
14
Colorado
0
0
0
Connecticut
1
0
0
Delaware
0
0
0
Florida
2
0
0
Georgia
1
0
3
Hawaii
0
0
0
Idaho
0
0
1
Illinois
0
0
3
Indiana
1
1
1
Iowa
0
0
3
Kansas
0
0
1
Kentucky
0
0
0
Louisiana
0
0
0
Maine
0
0
0
Maryland
0
0
0
9
-------
Number of Facilities
State
Stand-Alone
On-Farm
WRRF
Massachusetts
l
5
1
Michigan
0
0
2
Minnesota
l
0
1
Mississippi
0
0
0
Missouri
l
0
1
Montana
0
0
0
Nebraska
0
0
1
Nevada
0
0
0
New Hampshire
1
0
0
New Jersey
1
0
2
New Mexico
0
0
0
New York
2
2
3
North Carolina
0
1
0
North Dakota
0
0
0
Ohio
1
0
2
Oklahoma
0
0
0
Oregon
1
0
3
Pennsylvania
0
4
4
Rhode Island
0
0
0
South Carolina
0
0
1
South Dakota
0
0
0
Tennessee
0
0
0
Texas
1
0
1
Utah
0
0
0
Vermont
0
3
1
Virginia
0
0
2
Washington
0
2
0
West Virginia
0
0
1
Wisconsin
1
0
5
Wyoming
0
0
0
Total
22
18
59
B. Processing Capacity
Processing capacity refers to the maximum amount of food waste feedstock an anaerobic digester can
accept per unit of time. EPA collected data on food waste processing capacity in either gallons or tons per
year.19 Capacity reported in gallons per year was converted to tons per year to quantify the total capacity
available for processing food waste.20 EPA recognizes that most anaerobic digesters typically process a
19 Throughout this document "ton" refers to a wet U.S. ton, unless otherwise specified.
20 Compared to previous iterations of the report, this report used an updated calculation for converting food waste
from gallons to tons. The updated conversion: 1) used a specific feedstock density if the entity only accepted that
10
-------
liquid slurry, which can be measured in gallons or wet tons (as opposed to dry tons, which measure solids
separated from a slurry). For food waste processing capacity, EPA converted the data from gallons per
year to wet tons per year because those are the industry standard for measuring food waste.
Out of the 99 operational facilities that provided survey responses, 89 provided information about food
waste processing capacity. EPA documented that the total capacity for processing food waste in all three
digester types combined is approximately 42.7 million tons per year (Table 5). Note that the actual
processing capacity for digesters in the United States is higher than the values reported because not all
operating facilities responded to the survey. This is true for all facility types.
Stand-Alone Digesters
Stand-alone digester operators were asked for the following:
Please provide the total capacity for accepting food-based feedstock of your facility in 2019.
The total reported available processing capacity for food waste at stand-alone digesters was
approximately 38.5 million tons.
On-Farm Co-Digesters
EPA asked operators of on-farm co-digesters to consider the following when calculating available food
waste processing capacity:
Considering the average volume of manure from your livestock processed in your anaerobic digestion
system, please identify the available capacity in 2019 to process other feedstocks from offsite sources.
EPA's goal was to determine how much outside food waste could potentially be processed at on-farm co-
digesters in the U.S. The total available processing capacity reported for on-farm co-digesters was
approximately 442,000 tons.
Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs
Determining the capacity for WRRFs to co-digest food waste is more challenging because there are more
factors to consider than just the size of the tanks. EPA asked plant operators to consider the following
when calculating available food waste processing capacity:
Please identify your facility's available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources for all
digesters combinedin 2019. When calculating this available capacity, please consider the average
volume of wastewater solids processed at your facility and conveyed to your plant via your collection
system.
feedstock (e.g., FOG); 2) for an outlier or potentially erroneous reported capacity (that was low, high, or under
amount processed), confirmation of validity was sought from reporting entity, and if not confirmed, that capacity
was either assigned the previous year's capacity or leveled with reported processing total; or 3) 3.8 lb/gallon was
assumed to convert (this factor comes from Volume-to-Weiaht Conversion Factors, USEPA ORCR, April 2016).
11
-------
Again, EPA's goal was to determine how much food waste could potentially be processed at WRRFs in the
U.S. The total available processing capacity reported for food waste at co-digestion systems at WRRFs was
approximately 3.8 million tons.
Total Food Waste Processing Capacity
Table 5 summarizes the total capacity for each type of digester. The total available processing capacity
reported for food waste in 2019 for all three types of digesters in the U.S. was approximately 42.7 million
tons.
Table 5: Total Reported Capacity for Processing Food Waste (2019)
Digester Type
Capacity
(tons/year)
Respondents
Providing Data
Median
(tons/year)
Min
(tons/year)
Max
(tons/year)
Stand-alone digesters
38,461,432
20
709,445
2,090
7,089,000
On-farm co-digesters
442,020
16
5,844
263
124,987
Co-digestion systems at
WRRFs
3,831,985
53
17,338
152
1,091,792
Total
42,735,437
89
N/A
N/A
N/A
C. Operational Dates
Figure 5 shows when digesters in all three categories began operations. In the last three decades, the
number of operational facilities has increased.
The earliest start dates reported for this survey are as follows:
• Co-digestion at farms: 1980s;
• Co-digestion at WRRFs: 1920s;
• Digestion at stand-alone digesters: 2000s.
The 2000s and 2010s showed the highest rate of facilities becoming operational. Historically, WRRFs have
become operational most frequently, because municipal governments incorporate digesters into
wastewater treatment plants, and wastewater treatment plants have been used since the 1920s. The
number of facilities that have started operations since 2020 may be lower because of the COVID-19
pandemic. While processing food waste via AD is still perceived as a relatively new practice, momentum
is gaining as interest in AD and biogas grows and funding opportunities help to overcome high
construction costs.
12
-------
Operational Start Year
45
a) 40
¦¦e 35
= 30
ra 25
t 20
o 15
fc 10
-Q 5
£ 0
Z Before 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 2010-19 2020+
1940
Year
¦ On-Farm ¦ Stand-Alone BWRRF
Figure 5: Distribution of First Year of Digester Operation
D. Food Waste Processed
A wide variety of feedstocks are processed in digesters throughout the U.S. Some feedstocks are more
common than others, varying based on local availability, demand, and type of digester accepting the
feedstock.
Feedstocks are classified as follows:
• Food: beverage processing industry waste; food processing industry waste; FOG; fruit/vegetative
wastes; food service waste pre- & post-consumer; retail food waste; slaughterhouse wastes; and
source-separated commercial, institutional, or residential organic wastes.
• Non-Food: crude glycerin; manure; wastewater solids (sludge); septage; crop residues; mixed
yard waste; de-icing fluid; and lab (or pharma21) wastes.
In the 2021 survey, EPA requested that AD facilities report data on the amount of food waste processed
in 2019 in either gallons or tons. EPA converted any amounts reported in gallons to tons.22 As with capacity
data, the amount of material processed is reported in tons because tons are the industry standard for
measuring food waste. Note that the amount of food waste processed in 2019 was likely higher than the
values reported because not all facilities known to be operating provided data. Out of the 99 operational
facilities that provided survey responses, 73 provided information about the amount of food waste
processed in 2019: 19 stand-alone, 14 on-farm, and 40 WRRF digesters. Projecting or predicting volumes
processed at non-reporting facilities was not within the scope of this report.
For the 2021 survey, respondents from 86% of stand-alone facilities, 78% of on-farm co-digesters, and
68% of WRRFs provided data on the type of feedstocks processed. Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 show
the source and type of feedstock for stand-alone, on-farm, and WRRF digesters, respectively, and
21 In the survey, lab wastes are described as "pharma" wastes, which is an abbreviation of pharmaceutical.
22 The gallons-to-tons conversion for food waste was calculated using various lb/gallon densities for various
feedstocks (e.g., FOG, all other food waste types) (Reference Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors, USEPA ORCR,
April 2016).
13
-------
Table 9 shows the source and type of feedstock for all facilities. For all digesters, Figure 6 and Figure
7 show the top five types and top five sources of food waste feedstock, respectively.
Beverage processing industry waste comprised the largest percentage (85%) of the total food waste
processed, largely because of ten facilities belonging to the stand-alone digester group that solely digest
beverage waste (98.5% of the total in the stand-alone category). Beverage processing waste was
converted using the density of water (8.34 lb/gallon), which was suggested by several digesters to be an
appropriate conversion factor. Because of this updated conversion factor, beverage processing waste was
heavier than any other feedstock, and increased the tonnage of the total processed waste such that it
was 79% greater than in 2018. Note that Figure 6 and Figure 7 have logarithmic y-axes for
increased detail on feedstocks other than beverage processing industry waste.
This was also the first year that quantitative amounts of food waste feedstock processed were related to
the qualitative type of the food waste feedstock. Because of this connection, specific densities were
applied to feedstock types. Behind beverage processing, the next four most processed feedstock types
were: FOG, food processing industry waste, other, and source-separated organics. Reference Appendix E:
Conversion Sources for information on converting specific feedstocks.
Table 6: Food Waste Processed at Stand-Alone Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
\ Type
Source \
Beverage processing
industry waste
Fats, Oils, and
Greases (FOG)
Food processing
industry waste
Food service waste,
pre- and post-consumer
Fruits/vegetative waste
Other
Retail food waste
Slaughterhouse waste
Source-separated
commercial, institutional,
or residential organic
waste
Total
Percent
(%) of
Total
Colleges/
universities
-
-
-
Correctional
facilities
-
-
-
Farmer's markets
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Food banks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fruit/vegetable
farms
-
-
-
Hospitals
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hotels
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Industrial (other)
-
11,985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,985
<1
K-12 schools
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock farms
-
-
-
-
-
3,984
-
-
-
3,984
<1
Manufacturing/
processing
14,826,377
40,157
53,652
10,000
16,209
-
14,946,395
99.3
Military
installations
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Office buildings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50,000
50,000
<1
Residential
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Resta ura nts/food
services
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Retail/wholesale
13
56
-
-
-
40,000
-
-
2,793
42,862
<1
Sports venues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
14,826,390
52,198
53,652
"
"
53,984
"
16,209
52,793
15,055,226
Percent (%) of Total
98.5
<1
<1
"
"
<1
"
<1
<1
14
-------
Table 7: Food Waste Processed at Farm Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
\ Type
Source \
Beverage processing
industry waste
Fats, Oils, and
Greases (FOG)
Food processing
industry waste
Food service waste,
pre- and post-consumer
Fruits/vegetative waste
Other
Retail food waste
Slaughterhouse waste
Source-separated
commercial, institutional, or
residential organic waste
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Colleges/
universities
-
-
Correctional
facilities
-
-
Farmer's markets
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Food banks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fruit/vegetable
farms
-
-
Hospitals
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hotels
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Industrial (other)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
K-12 schools
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Livestock farms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Manufacturing/
processing
10,223
2,091
143,922
132
188
16,752
52,000
225,308
70.6
Military
installations
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Office buildings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Residential
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Resta ura nts/food
services
-
3,521
-
-
-
-
-
3,521
1.1
Retail/wholesale
3,750
59,406
15,069
1,000
3,750
-
3,750
-
3,750
90,474
28.3
Sports venues
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
13,973
65,017
158,991
1,000
3,882
188
3,750
16,752
55,750
319,303
Percent (%) of Total
4.4
20.4
49.8
<1
1.2
<1
1.2
5.2
17.5
15
-------
Table 8: Food Waste Processed at WRRF Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
\ Type
Source \
Beverage processing
industry waste
Fats, Oils, and
Greases (FOG)
Food processing
industry waste
Food service waste,
pre- and post-consumer
Fruits/vegetative waste
Other
Retail food waste
Slaughterhouse waste
Source-separated
commercial, institutional, or
residential organic waste
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Colleges/
universities
700
20
925
1,645
<1
Correctional
facilities
-
-
-
-
-
Farmer's markets
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Food banks
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
7
<1
Fruit/vegetable
farms
-
-
-
-
-
Hospitals
-
1,400
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
1,407
<1
Hotels
-
1,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,400
<1
Industrial (other)
27,431
-
1,652
-
-
33,790
-
10,547
3,100
76,520
3.4
K-12 schools
-
2,801
-
13
-
-
-
-
2,267
5,081
<1
Livestock farms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Manufacturing/
processing
41,978
1,106,025
124,653
-
2,780
7,383
5,178
-
1,287,997
57.9
Military installations
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Office buildings
-
5,602
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,602
<1
Other
16,618
5,729
283,251
-
-
151,728
-
-
-
457,326
20.6
Residential
-
4
-
-
-
2,278
-
-
4,148
6,430
<1
Resta ura nts/food
services
-
208,657
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
209,657
9.4
Retail/wholesale
10,726
134,316
5,352
884
-
-
1,016
998
16,468
169,761
7.6
Sports venues
-
700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
700
<1
Total
96,753
1,467,335
414,909
1,930
2,780
195,179
1,016
16,723
26,908
2,223,532
Percent (%) of Total
4.4
66.0
18.7
<1
<1
8.8
<1
<1
1.2
16
-------
Table 9: Total Food Waste Processed at All Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
\ Type
Source \
Beverage processing
industry waste
Fats, Oils, and
Greases (FOG)
Food processing
industry waste
Food service waste,
pre- and post-consumer
Fruits/vegetative waste
Other
Retail food waste
Slaughterhouse waste
Source-separated
commercial, institutional, or
residential organic waste
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Colleges/
universities
700
20
-
925
1,645
<1
Correctional
facilities
-
-
-
-
-
-
Farmer's markets
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Food banks
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
7
<1
Fruit/vegetable
farms
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hospitals
-
1,400
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
1,407
<1
Hotels
-
1,400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,400
<1
Industrial (other)
27,431
11,985
1,652
-
-
33,790
-
10,547
3,100
88,505
<1
K-12 schools
-
2,801
-
13
-
-
-
-
2,267
5,081
<1
Livestock farms
-
-
-
-
-
3,984
-
-
-
3,984
<1
Manufacturing/
processing
14,878,578
1,148,273
322,227
-
2,912
17,571
38,139
52,000
16,459,700
93.5
Military installations
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Office buildings
-
5,602
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,602
<1
Other
16,618
5,729
283,251
-
-
151,728
-
-
50,000
507,326
2.9
Residential
-
4
-
-
-
2,278
-
-
4,148
6,430
<1
Resta ura nts/food
services
-
212,178
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
213,178
1.2
Retail/wholesale
14,489
193,778
20,421
1,884
3,750
40,000
4,766
998
23,011
303,096
1.7
Sports venues
-
700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
700
<1
Total
14,937,115
1,584,550
627,551
2,930
6,662
249,350
4,766
49,684
135,451
17,598,061
Percent (%) of Total
84.9
9.0
3.6
<1
<1
1.4
<1
<1
<1
17
-------
50,000,000
5,000,000
£
O
+j
c
~ 500,000
c
3
o
£
<
50,000
5,000
Mfg and Process Other Retail/Whole Restaurant/Service Industrial (other)
¦ Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 6: Top Five Food Waste Types
50,000,000
5,000,000
£
O
+j
c
~ 500,000
£
o
£
<
50,000
5,000
Mfg and Process Other Retail/Whole Restaurant/Service Industrial (other)
¦ Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 7: Top Five Food Waste Sources
Digester feedstocks come from many different locations, such as industrial, commercial, institutional, and
residential sources. The survey question about feedstock sources directed respondents to identify all
sources for the feedstocks that were received and processed at each facility. Some digesters have multiple
sources, and some have one or just a few. By source, manufacturing and processing comprised about
96% of the food waste total (Table 9 and Figure 8), followed by other, retail/wholesale, restaurants/
food services, and industrial (other). Facilities were required to specify the source to be included in this
section.
18
-------
E. Non-Food Waste Processed
EPA also collected data on the amount of non-food waste processed via AD, in either gallons or tons.
Non-food waste feedstocks include, but are not limited to: mixed yard waste, crop residues,
manure, wastewater solids (sludge), septage, de-icing fluid, lab (or pharma) wastes, and crude glycerin.
In the next section, variable densities were applied given the specific feedstocks to generate totals.
The scope of the survey was limited to anaerobic digesters that digest food waste. For example, the
survey scope does not include the amount of manure being digested at farm digesters that do not co-
digest food, or the amount of wastewater solids being digested at WRRFs that do not co-digest food.
Additionally, farms and WRRFs with co-digestion systems were not asked for quantities of manure
and wastewater solids that were generated on-site and processed in their digesters, so the numbers
here do not include those quantities, which are assumed to be the primary feedstocks at farm
and WRRF digesters, respectively. As a result, the numbers below represent only a portion of non-food
waste being digested in the U.S. The non-food waste data collected was intended to provide additional
information about the types of wastes being processed via AD.
Processing of non-food waste was reported at different frequencies:
• Stand-alone digesters: eight out of 22 (36%);
• On-farm digesters: three out of 18 (17%);
• WRRFs: 20 out of 59 (34%).
Non-food waste is processed at all on-farm co-digesters (manure) and WRRF digestion systems
(wastewater solids), but those quantities are not included here. As mentioned previously, not all
operational digesters responded to this survey. The actual amount of non-food waste processed at
anaerobic digesters in 2019 is likely to be higher than the values reported above.
For non-food-based feedstocks, densities were applied from various sources (Appendix E). Table 10,
Table 11, and Table 12 show the source and type of non-food waste for stand-alone, on-farm, and
WRRF digesters, respectively. Table 13, Figure 8, and Figure 9 show the top five non-food waste
feedstock types and sources. Septage and Other feedstocks were the top two non-food waste types
processed, while Other and Industrial were the top two non-food waste sources.
19
-------
Table 10: Non-food Waste Processed at Stand-Alone Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
Type
Source
Crop residues
Crude
glycerin
De-icing fluid
Lab (or
pharma)
waste
Manure
Mixed yard
waste
Other
Paper mill
waste
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Airports
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Biodiesel
production
-
11,912
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,912
2.3
Industrial
40,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,223
52,223
10.2
Labs/pharma
companies
-
-
-
7,810
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,810
1.5
Other
-
-
-
-
155,059
52,798
5,000
-
225,326
-
438,183
85.6
Retail stores
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WWTP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,547
1,547
<1
Total
40,000
11,912
-
7,810
155,059
52,798
5,000
-
225,326
13,770
511,675
Percent (%)
of Total
7.8
2.3
-
1.5
30.3
10.3
<1
-
44.0
2.7
Table 11: Non-food Waste Processed at Farm Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
Type
Source
Crop residues
Crude
glycerin
De-icing fluid
Lab (or
pharma)
waste
Manure
Mixed yard
waste
Other
Paper mill
waste
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Airports
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Biodiesel
production
-
2,730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,730
100
Industrial
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Labs/pharma
companies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Retail stores
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WWTP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
-
2,730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,730
Percent (%)
of Total
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-------
Table 12: Non-food Waste Processed at WRRF Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
Type
Source
Crop residues
Crude
glycerin
De-icing fluid
Lab (or
pharma)
waste
Manure
Mixed yard
waste
Other
Paper mill
waste
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Airports
-
-
786
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
786
<1
Biodiesel
production
-
5,174
-
-
-
-
3,231
-
-
-
8,405
2.0
Industrial
-
-
-
-
-
-
160,579
-
-
7,942
168,521
39.1
Labs/pharma
companies
-
-
-
15,206
-
-
-
-
-
-
15,206
3.5
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
30,898
-
149,752
-
180,650
41.9
Retail stores
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,864
-
20,864
4.8
WWTP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,813
29,804
36,617
8.5
Total
-
5,174
786
15,206
-
-
194,708
-
177,429
37,746
431,049
Percent (%)
of Total
-
1.2
<1
3.5
-
-
45.2
-
41.2
8.8
Table 13: Total Non-food Waste Processed at All Digesters (2019)
Source of Food Waste Feedstock versus Type of Food Waste Feedstock (tons)
N. Type
Source
Crop residues
Crude
glycerin
De-icing fluid
Lab (or
pharma)
waste
Manure
Mixed yard
waste
Other
Paper mill
waste
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Total
Percent (%)
of Total
Airports
-
-
786
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
786
<1
Biodiesel
production
-
19,816
-
-
-
-
3,231
-
-
-
23,047
2.4
Industrial
40,000
-
-
-
-
-
160,579
-
-
20,165
220,744
23.4
Labs/pharma
companies
-
-
-
23,016
-
-
-
-
-
-
23,016
2.4
Other
-
-
-
-
155,059
52,798
35,898
-
375,078
-
618,833
65.5
Retail stores
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,864
-
20,864
2.2
WWTP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,813
31,351
38,164
4.0
Total
40,000
19,816
786
23,016
155,059
52,798
199,708
-
402,755
51,516
945,454
Percent (%)
of Total
4.2
2.1
<1
2.4
16.4
5.6
21.1
-
42.6
5.5
21
-------
Non-Food Waste Processed
450,000
400,000
— 350,000
to '
o 300,000
4->
£ 250,000
c 200,000
° 150,000
< 100,000
50,000
0
I ¦
Septage Other Manure Mixed yard Wastewater
waste solids (sludge)
I Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 8: Top Five Types of Non-Food Waste
Non-Food Waste Processed
625,000
500,000
o
4->
_C
375,000
-M
c
250,000
o
£
<
125,000
I
Other Industrial WWTP Biodiesel Labs/pharma
production companies
I Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 9: Top Five Sources of Non-Food Waste
F. Tipping Fees
Facilities can generate revenue through contracts to accept and process feedstocks by using tipping fees.
Tipping fees can vary based on factors including, but not limited to, the type of feedstock; regional landfill
tipping fees; availability of organics recycling options.; and regulatory landscape (e.g. state and local
organics diversion laws). EPA included survey questions about tipping fees to gain a better understanding
of how digesters may be using them to offset capital expenditures and maintenance costs. EPA recognizes
that tipping fee data may be considered proprietary and therefore made these questions optional as part
of completing the survey.
22
-------
EPA asked respondents if they collected tipping fees and if they were willing to share information about
the fees they collected. Table 14 provides a summary of the tipping fee data collected.
Table 14: Re
ported Tipping Fee Data
Digester type
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Collecting
Tipping Fees
Percentage of
Facilities
Reporting
Collecting
Tipping Fees
Number of
Facilities
Providing
Tipping Fee
Revenue
Highest
Annual Facility
Revenue
Reported
2019
Average
Annual
Revenue
Reported
2019
Highest/
Average Tip Fee
Rate Reported
per gallon
Stand-alone
digesters
9
41%
3
$1,000,000
$471,130
N/A
On-farm digesters
14
93%
2
$115,000
$58,800
N/A
Co-digester systems
at WRRFs
47
80%
30
$1,522,318
$298,412
0.1 cents/
0.06 cents
In addition to the tipping fee data provided, many operators provided additional comments regarding
how tipping fees are collected as well as their tipping fee structures. Many WRRFs- but less so other types
of facilities - provided comments on tipping fees, including:
• Tipping fees are set based on cost recovery needs for facility solids handling;
• Tipping fees are based on the type of product and packaging;
• Administering a tiered system for tipping fees;
• Charging higher rates for waste generated outside of county;
• Fees varying depending on quality of product;
• Invoicing only for labor to process brewing waste.
G. Pre-processing
EPA asked operators if pre-processing activities were performed at their facilities. Of the facilities that
provided survey responses, 32% of stand-alone digesters, 100% of on-farm co-digesters and 57% of co-
digestion systems at WRRFs perform some type of feedstock pre-processing.
EPA also asked operators if pre-processing occurred onsite, offsite or both. Table 15 depicts the data
reported by facility type.
23
-------
Table 15: Reported Location of Pre-processing Activities
Number of Facilities
Digester Type
Pre-Processing Onsite
Pre-Processing
Off site
Pre-Processing both Onsite
and Offsite
Stand-alone digesters
5
2
0
On-farm co-digesters
2
7
l
Co-digestion systems
at WRRFs
13
14
6
EPA also asked operators to identify what types of pre-processing activities were performed on the
feedstocks utilized at their facility. Multiple types of pre-processing can occur at any one facility. Table 16,
Table 17, and Table 18 show the number of facilities that reported the use of each type of pre-processing
activity to prepare feedstocks for digestion. Third-party processing is typically conducted at an off-site
location and pre-processed feedstocks are then transported to the digester in a ready-to-digest form.
Table 16: Reported Pre-processing Activities for Stand-Alone Digester Facilities
Pre-processing Activity
Number of Facilities with Specified Pre-processing Activities
Screening for debris or sorting
15
pH adjustment
11
Liquid/solid separation
8
Grinding and/or maceration
4
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
3
Heating
3
Shredding
1
Centrifugal separation
1
Table 17: Reported Pre-processing for On-Farm Co-Digestion Facilities
Pre-processing/De-packaging Activity
Number of Facilities with Specified Pre-processing Activities
Screening for debris or sorting
4
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
3
Grinding and/or maceration
1
Liquid /solid separation
1
Shredding
1
Table 18: Reported Pre-
processing for Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs
Pre-processing/De-packaging Activity
Number of Facilities with Specified Pre-processing Activities
Screening for debris or sorting
24
Grinding and/or maceration
23
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
8
Heating
7
Liquid/solid separation
4
Third-Party Processing
3
pH adjustment
2
Shredding
1
Centrifugal separation
1
24
-------
For pre-processing, a few WRRFs - but no on-farm or stand-alone digesters - provided unique responses,
including:
• Screening the waste type to ensure it complies with criteria prior to delivery;
• Special screening equipment to remove inorganics (plastics, glass, etc.);
• A rock trap (grinder to remove large debris) is part of the biogas facility and staff manually check
for garbage.
H. Operational and Design Specifications
EPA asked respondents to share information about the operational specifications of their digesters,
including temperature range and whether operations were wet or dry. The temperature ranges are
typically 86 - 100°F for mesophilic and 122 - 140°F for thermophilic. Wet and dry classifications of
digesters refer to the moisture content of the feedstocks. A wet digester generally processes feedstock
with less than 15% solids content, whereas a dry digester generally processes feedstock with greater than
15% solids content.
The wet versus dry distinction was not posed to WRRFs because all WRRF digester systems are wet. Table
19 and Table 20 show the data for temperature range and wet versus dry facilities by facility type.
Table 19: Reported Temperature Range Data
Temperature Ran
ge
Response Rate
Digester
Type
Mesophilic
Thermophilic
Unheated
Number of
Respondents
Providing Data for
this Survey Question
Total
Surveys
Received
Stand-alone
digesters
7
5
10
22
22
On-farm co-
digesters
8
3
0
11
18
Co-digestion
systems at
WRRFs
50
8
l
59
59
Total
65
16
li
92
99
25
-------
Table 20: Reported Data on Wet vs. Dry Systems
Wet vs. Dry Systems
Percentage
Response Rate
Digester
Type
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Number of
Respondents
Providing Data for
this Survey Question
Total
Surveys
Received
Stand-alone
digesters
20
2
89%
11%
22
22
On-farm co-
digesters
12
0
100%
0%
12
18
Co-
digestion
systems at
WRRFs*
-
-
100%
-
-
59
Total
32
2
--
-
34
99
*WRRFs are all assumed to be wet.
Respondents were also asked to identify the design that best fits their facility's design type/configuration.
Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23 show the number of facilities that reported each design type.
Table 21: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for Stand-Alone Digester Facilities
Design Type/Configuration
Number of Facilities with Specified Design Type/Configuration
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor
7
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
6
Expanded Granular Sludge Bed
4
Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor
2
Internal Circulation
1
Table 22: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for On-Farm Co-Digestion Facilities
Design Type/Configuration
Number of Facilities with Specified Design Type/Configuration
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor
7
Mixed Plug Flow
5
Table 23: Reported Design Type/Configuration Reported for Co-Digestion Facilities at WRRFs
Pre-processing/De-packaging Activity
Number of Facilities with Specified Pre-processing Activities
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor
39
Plug-flow
7
Hybrid/Multi-stage
2
Nine WRRFs responded that the design of their co-digestion facility was "other." These responses are
summarized below from survey responses:
• Two WRRFs specified their design as "egg-shaped."
The other responses included:
• Floating cover/no mechanical mixing;
• Fixed film reactor followed by solids contact tank;
• Timed feedings;
• Heated and stirred.
26
-------
I. Biogas Production
Biogas production data was collected in, or converted to, standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM), which is
the industry standard unit of measurement for biogas. The total biogas produced is summarized below as
reported by facility type. SCFM was then used to estimate installed capacity in megawatts (MW), and
generation potential in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr) using methods described in the interactive
conversion tool23 on EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) website. The LMOP interactive
conversion tool assumes landfill gas is 50% methane. The calculation for SCFM landfill gas to MW capacity
was revised for the purposes of this report to reflect that biogas tends to be about 60% methane.24 To
provide a frame of reference, EPA presents the kWh/yr values for each type of digester in terms
of powering homes.25 Table 24 shows biogas production data by facility type for 2019.
Table 24: Summary of Biogas Data Reported (2019
Digester Type
Respondents
Providing
Data
SCFM*
MW'
kWh/yr
(million)+
Number of
Homes Powered
for One Year+
Stand-alone digesters
20
4,825
15
112
9,428
On-farm co-digesters
12+
1,465
5
37
3,114
Co-digestion systems at
WRRFs
55+
23,587
73
544
45,791
Total
87
29,877
93
693
58,333
*SCFM values are reported by facility operators and added together to get total SCFM.
+The MW, kWh/yr, and homes powered were calculated using the LMOP interactive conversion
tool. Values were rounded to the nearest whole number, so column totals may not align.
J. Biogas Uses
Most AD facilities have more than one use for the biogas they produce, and the survey questions regarding
biogas uses permitted multiple responses. All digester types were asked 1) if the biogas produced was
used onsite, sold, or flared, with multiple responses permitted, and 2) if they were able to utilize all the
biogas produced at their facility. Not all respondents provided data on biogas uses.
Table 25 summarizes the ways in which respondents reported using biogas and Figure 10 shows the top
five uses of biogas produced at AD facilities as reported by each type of respondent. All types of
respondents reported flaring some biogas, and all facilities that were unable to use all their biogas onsite
flared the excess. Flaring is not included in Table 25 or Figure 10.
23 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/interactiveconversiontool.xls
24 Anaerobic Digestion and its Applications, EPA, October 2015, page 9.
25 The average home consumed 11,880 kWh of delivered electricity in 2019, the most recent date for which data is
available (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references).
27
-------
Stand-Alone Digesters
Ninety-five percent of facilities used some or all of the biogas onsite, 5% flared some or all biogas, and 5%
sold some or all biogas produced at their facility; 5% reported multiple uses. Eighty-six percent of stand-
alone digesters reported being able to utilize all of the biogas they produced, through onsite use or sale.
On-Farm Co-Digesters
Sixty-seven percent of on-farm co-digesters stated onsite use for some or all biogas produced, 50%
stated it was sold, 33% stated it was flared; 50% reported multiple uses. Seventy-five percent of on-farm
digesters reported that all the biogas they produced was used.
Co-Digestion Systems at WRRFs
Of WRRFs with co-digestion systems, 86% reported some or all biogas used onsite, 12% reported some or
all sold, 64% reported some or all flared; 56% reported multiple uses. Thirty-seven percent of facilities
stated they utilize all the biogas produced at their facility. In addition to the uses in Table 25, one WRRF
operator reported using biogas to fuel a sludge dryer.
28
-------
Table 25: Reported Uses of Biogas Produced at Anaerobic Digesters
Stand-Alone Digesters
On-Farm Co-Digesters
Co-Digestion Systems at
WRRFs
Biogas Use
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
of Facilities
using Biogas
as Specified*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
of Facilities
using Biogas
as Specified*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage of
Facilities using
Biogas as
Specified*
Produce heat and
electricity (CHP)
7
32%
6
50%
39
67%
Fuel boilers and
furnaces to heat
digesters
2
9%
2
17%
31
53%
Fuel boilers and
furnaces to heat other
spaces
12
55%
2
17%
21
36%
Produce electricity (sold
to grid)
6
29%
4
33%
5
9%
Produce electricity used
behind the meter
(including net metering)
2
10%
4
33%
11
19%
Produce mechanical
power
0
-
0
-
3
5%
Compressed to vehicle
fuels: used for company
fleet/personal vehicles
1
5%
0
-
1
2%
Compressed to vehicle
fuels: sold to customers
0
-
0
-
1
2%
Renewable natural gas
(inject to pipeline)
0
-
1
8%
4
7%
*Percentage out of the 22 stand-alone facilities providing data on biogas uses.
+Percentage out of the 12 farms providing survey responses.
Percentage out of the 59 WRRFs providing survey responses.
29
-------
80
70
to
J 60
__
I I I ¦ ¦
Produce heat and Fuel boilers and Fuel boilers and Produce Produce
electricity (CHP) furnaces to heat furnaces to heat electricity used electricity (sold to
digesters other spaces behind the meter grid)
(including net
metering)
¦ Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 10: Top Five Uses of Biogas
K. Gas Cleaning Systems
The 2021 survey asked each facility type whether they had a gas cleaning system. Gas cleaning systems
were utilized at 17 out of 21 (81%) stand-alone digesters, four out of 12 (33%) on-farm co-digesters, and
45 out of 59 (76%) co-digesters at WRRFs.
Each facility type was also asked what constituents were removed by their gas cleaning systems. All
digesters that utilize gas cleaning systems provided data on the constituents removed by these systems.
Table 26 summarizes the type and frequency of constituents removed by gas cleaning systems for
each type of digester and Figure 11 shows the top five constituents removed by digester type.
30
-------
Table 26: Reported Gas Cleaning Systems at Anaerobic Digesters
Stand-Alone Digesters
On-Farm Co-Digesters
Co-Digestion Systems at
WRRFs
Constituent
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Removal
Percentage
Reporting
Removal of this
Constituent*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Removal
Percentage
Reporting
Removal of this
Constituent
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Removal
Percentage
Reporting
Removal of this
Constituent*
Sulfur
13
62%
2
50%
19
42%
Moisture
5
24%
1
25%
40
89%
Siloxanes
1
5%
0
-
42
93%
Carbon
Dioxide
1
5%
1
25%
8
18%
Hydrogen
Sulfide
3
14%
2
50%
36
80%
Compressed
gas
0
-
0
-
4
9%
VOCs
1
5%
0
-
4
9%
Oxygen
0
-
0
-
3
7%
Nitrogen
0
-
0
-
3
7%
Particulates
1
5%
1
25%
14
31%
*Percentage out of 21 stand-alone digesters providing data on constituents removed.
+Percentage out of four on-farm digesters providing data on constituents removed.
Percentage out of 45 WRRFs providing data on constituents removed.
70
(u
to
=> 60
Ctf)
c
o
&
.I40 1
1
£
° 20
J: 1
iiii
1 ¦
Moi:
¦
ture Silox
Stand-Alone Facil
anes Hydroge
ties BOn-Farm
n Sulfide Sul
Facilities BWR
ur Particulates
RF Facilities
Figure 11: Top Five Constituents Removed
31
-------
L. Solid Digestate Uses
EPA asked how facilities use the solid digestate they produce, allowing respondents to provide more
than one answer. Table 27 shows the frequencies at which common uses/destinations of solid digestate
were reported by the three digester types surveyed. Figure 12 shows the top five uses/destinations
of solid digestate by digester type.
Table 27: Reported Solid Digestate Uses/Destinations
Stand-Alone
Digesters
On-Farm Co-Digesters
Co-Digestion Systems
at WRRFs
Digestate Use
Number
of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Solid
Digestate
as
Specified*
Number
of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Solid
Digestate
as
Specifiedf
Number
of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Solid
Digestate
as
Specified*
De-watered and land applied**
5
25%
3
25%
36
62%
Composted into a reusable/
salable product
11
55%
3
25%
8
14%
Landfilled
0
-
0
-
19
33%
Other
5
25%
1
13%
8
14%
Processed into animal bedding
1
5%
8
67%
-
-
Dried into a reusable/ salable
product (e.g., fertilizer)
1
5%
0
-
3
5%
Land applied as is with no
dewatering or drying
4
20
-
-
7
12%
Incinerated
0
-
0
-
2
3%
*Percentage calculation based on 20 stand-alone facilities providing data on use of solid digestate.
Percentage calculation based on 12 farms providing data on use of solid digestate.
* Percentage calculation based on 58 WRRFs providing data on use of solid digestate.
**"Land application" most often refers to spreading digestate or biosolids as fertilizer or soil amendment, most often on
agricultural or reclaimed land.
45
d)
UO
=) 40
Ctf)
| 35
g. 30
(D
* 25
iJ I I I ¦
De-watered and Composted into a Landfilled Other Land applied with
land applied reusable/salable no dewatering or
product drying
¦ Stand-Alone Facilities ¦ On-Farm Facilities BWRRF Facilities
Figure 12: Top Five Uses/Destinations of Solid Digestate
32
-------
Stand-alone digester operators also reported the following other uses/destinations of digestate,
summarized from survey responses:
• Sold to other digesters (three responses);
• Registered as fertilizer with state chemist (one);
• Sent to landfill or WWTP (one).
No on-farm co-digester operators specified "other" digestate use. WRRF digester operators reported the
following other uses for biosolids (digested wastewater solids) produced (one WRRF per use):
• Thermal hydrolysis;
• Used as alternative daily landfill cover;
• Heat dried and sold as fertilizer;
• Dewatered with centrifuges and processed in rotary kiln for class "A" fertilizer land application;
• Sent to gypsum mine and used as backfill of exhausted mines;
• Thermal oil sludge dryer;
• Transshipped as liquid for dewatering;
• Facility manufacturing of fertilizer pellets.
Out of the responses received from WRRF digester operators, nine facilities (16%) indicated that they
produce Class A biosolids and 48 facilities (84%) indicated that they produce Class B biosolids.26 This is a
change from the previous survey, in which 22% of responding facilities reported producing Class A
biosolids and 78% reported producing Class B biosolids. This change could be due to different facilities
responding to the survey in 2019 versus 2021.
The federal biosolids rule is contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 and
defines two types of biosolids with respect to pathogen reduction, Class A and Class B, depending on the
degree of treatment the solids have received. Class A biosolids contain no detectible levels of pathogens.
Class B biosolids are treated but still contain detectible levels of pathogens. There are buffer
requirements, public access, and crop harvesting restrictions for virtually all forms of Class B biosolids.
Table 28 shows the breakout of landfilled and incinerated amounts in tons of solid digestate as reported
by digesters.
Table 28: Solid Digestate Landfill and Incineration (dry tons)
Stand Alone*
On-Farm
WRRFf
Landfilled
3.91
-
235,228
Incinerated
-
-
48,662
*Assume 0.032 kg/I to convert from gallons to dry tons. From "Density of biogas digestate
depending on temperature and composition," May 2015.
fAssume 30% Total Solids (TS) to convert wet tons to dry tons.
M. Liquid Digestate Uses
EPA asked how facilities manage liquid digestate, allowing respondents to provide more than
one answer, and these responses are summarized in Table 29. Figure 13 shows the top
uses/destinations of liquid digestate. No stand-alone digesters, one on-farm digester, and five WRRF
26 For additional information on biosolids, please reference https://www.epa.gov/biosolids.
33
-------
digesters that used liquid digestate as fertilizer via land application indicated further processing prior
to application. Further treatments included thermal hydrolysis, belt press, rotary kiln, and aerobic
holding tank.
Table 29: Reported Liquid Digestate Uses/Destinations
Stand-Alone Digesters
On-Farm Co-Digesters
Co-Digestion Systems at
WRRFs
Digestate Use
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Liquid
Digestate
as Specified*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Liquid
Digestate as
Specifiedf
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Use
Percentage
using Liquid
Digestate as
Specified*
Recirculated
through digester
1
5%
2
17%
15
26%
Reused as
fertilizer via land
application
7
33%
12
100%
16
28%
Discharged to a
wastewater
treatment plant
12
57%
0
-
-
-
Other
3
14%
0
-
27
47%
*Percentage calculation based on 21 stand-alone facilities providing data on use of liquid digestate.
Percentage calculation based on 12 farms providing data on use of liquid digestate.
Percentage calculation based on 57 WRRFs providing data on use of liquid digestate.
Many WRRF facilities (22 of the 27) checking "other" indicated that the liquid digestate is recirculated
through the treatment plant.
40
(D
to
=> 35
Ctf)
"¦§ 30
o
g" 25
DC
a) 20
u 15
(O
10
5
0
Reused as fertilizer via
land application
Other
Recirculated through Discharged to a
digester wastewater treatment
plant
I Stand-Alone Facilities
I On-Farm Facilities
WRRF Facilities
Figure 13: Uses/Destinations of Liquid Digestate
Facilities were also asked about recovering nutrients from digestate. The results are below:
• Ammonia recovery: one farm, one stand-alone, one WRRF;
• Phosphorus recovery by chemical precipitation (struvite): three WRRFs.
34
-------
IV. Conclusion
EPA's 2021 survey of three types of AD facilities in the U.S. (stand-alone digesters, on-farm co-digesters,
and co-digesters at WRRFs) provided estimates of the number and location of facilities processing food
waste in the U.S., their total amounts processed in 2019, and their available capacity to process food
waste. EPA's survey also gathered information on the non-food waste processed at these facilities,
feedstock types and sources, tipping fees, pre-processing/de-packaging techniques, operational
specifications, biogas production and uses, gas cleaning systems, and solid and liquid digestate uses.
Lastly, EPA gathered information on facilities not yet operational, but that were anticipated to become
operational in the future.
Based on information received directly from facilities that responded to the 2021 survey, the total
reported processing capacity for food waste at the responding AD facilities was approximately 42.7 million
tons per year in 2019. The total amount of food waste processed was approximately 17.6 million tons.
The total amount of non-food waste from off-site sources (i.e. not manure at on-farm digesters or
wastewater solids at WRRFs) processed was approximately 945,000 tons.
Table 30: Summary of 2021 Survey Results
Area of Data Collection
Result
Total Processing Capacity (2019)
42,735,437 tons
Total Food Waste Processed (2019)
17,598,063 tons
Total Food Waste Processed w/o
2,660,946 tons (15% of total)
Beverage Processing Waste
Total Non-Food Waste Processed at Co-
945,454 tons
Digesting Facilities (2019)
Total Biogas Produced (2019)
29,877 SCFM
Top Five States with the Most Digesters
CA (20), PA (8), NY & MA (7), Wl (6)
Top Three Food-based Feedstock Types
Beverage processing, FOG, food processing
(2019)
Top Three Food-based Feedstock Sources
Manufacturing and processing, wholesale and retail,
(2019)
restaurants/food services
Top Three Biogas Uses
Produce heat and electricity (CHP), fuel boilers and
furnaces to heat digesters, fuel boilers and furnaces to
heat other spaces
Top Three Biogas Constituents Removed
Siloxanes, moisture, hydrogen sulfide
Top Three Uses of Solid Digestate
De-watered and land applied, composted into a
reusable/salable product, landfilled
Top Three Uses of Liquid Digestate
Reused as fertilizer via land application, other,
recirculated through digester
The extent to which the results of the 2021 survey can be compared with previous surveys should be
caveated by the fact that the individual facilities responding from year to year are not identical. It
should also be noted that facilities voluntarily choose to submit data. Because the 2021 survey had
different facilities respond, the report cannot be used to express how the state of AD is increasing or
decreasing overall.
35
-------
Processed food waste doubled in this year's survey results because of the redesign of some key
questions in the ICR renewal (effective as of February 2022). This allowed EPA to collect more granular
data on the type and source of food-based feedstocks, and to apply densities to specific feedstocks.
For example, beverage processing waste was assigned a density of 8.34 lb/gallon, while other food
waste has a density closer to 3.8 lb/gallon. By using more specific conversion factors, EPA
determined that beverage processing waste made up 85% of total food-based feedstock by weight.
The 2021 survey was also the first time that non-food-based feedstocks were able to be combined into
one unit, tons. The conversion of processing capacity from gallons to tons was also different than in
previous surveys and capacity totals doubled.
The application of specific densities to specific feedstocks added detail to the data, but also made the
total quantities of food waste processed less easily comparable to previous years' data. Quantifying
food waste processed via AD in units such as calories or BTUs could better express the energy potential
of a feedstock and offer a more nuanced description of the differences between feedstocks.
EPA hopes that the data submitted by AD facilities across the U.S. and summarized in this report will
assist stakeholders in their strategies to divert more organic waste from landfills. Every type of solid
waste management pathway or system has advantages and/or disadvantages. EPA encourages lifecycle
thinking and decision making for communities when choosing which waste management pathways
or systems work best for their circumstances. When developed and operated effectively, AD projects
can provide economic, health, and environmental co-benefits to surrounding communities.
36
-------
Appendix A - Operational Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems
This appendix lists the facilities that responded for each digester type. Two stand-alone facilities and five
on-farm digesters preferred not to be mentioned by name but are included in the results. Facilities that
responded to the 2021 survey are numbered, and this list is current as of October 2021.
Table 1A: Stand-Alone Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S.
Multi-Source
Stand-Alone Facility Name
Location
(MS)/lndustry-
Dedicated
(ID)/Other
l
AB-lnbev Baldwinsville
Baldwinsville, NY
ID
2
Cartersville BTS
Cartersville, GA
ID
3
Columbus BTS
Columbus, OH
ID
4
CRMC Bioenergy LLC
New Bedford, MA
MS
5
Fairfield Brewery BTS
Fairfield, CA
ID
6
Gills Onions, LLC
Oxnard, CA
ID
7
Hometown BioEnergy
Le Sueur, MN
MS
8
Houston BTS
Houston, TX
ID
9
Jacksonville BTS
Jacksonville, FL
ID
10
LA BTS
Van Nuys, CA
ID
11
Merrimack BTS
Merrimack, NH
ID
12
Newark BTS
Newark, NJ
ID
13
Pinellas County Utilities - South Cross Bayou AWRF
St. Petersburg, FL
Other
14
Quantum Biopower
Southington, CT
MS
15
Rialto Bioenergy Facility
Bloomington, CA
MS
16
St. Louis BTS
St. Louis, MO
ID
17
Stahlbush Island Farms
Corvallis, OR
ID
18
Viresco
Turtle Lake, Wl
MS, ID
19
Waste No Energy, LLC
Monticello, IN
MS
20
Yolo County Anaerobic Composter Facility
Woodland, CA
MS
Table 2A: On-Farm Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S.
Farm Name
Location
l
Bar-way Farm AD
Deerfield, MA
2
Belden Ag-Grid LLC
Hatfield, MA
3
Bio Town Ag, Inc.
Reynolds, IN
4
Edaleen Cow Power LLC
Lynden, WA
5
FPE Renewables/Vander Haak Dairy
Lynden, WA
6
Green Mountain Dairy Farm LLC
Highgate, VT
7
Haverhill AD, Crescent Farm
Haverhill, MA
8
Hillcrest Saylor Dairy Farms LLC
Rockwood, PA
9
JMA Farms LLC
Beavertown, PA
10
Jordan Farm, Rutland AD1
Rutland, MA
11
Monument Farms Three Gen
Weybridge, VT
12
Noblehurst Green Energy
Linwood, NY
13
Salisbury AD1
Salisbury, VT
A1
-------
Table 3A: WRRF Digesters Co-Digesting Food Waste in the U.S.
WRRF Name
Location
l
Burlington Water Pollution Control Facility
Burlington, Wl
2
Central Marin Sanitation Agency
San Rafael, CA
3
City of Davenport WPCP
Davenport, IA
4
City of Dubuque Water & Resource Recovery Center
Dubuque, IA
5
City of Flagstaff
Flagstaff, AZ
6
City of Gresham WWTP
Gresham, OR
7
City of Hayward WPCF
Hayward, CA
8
City of Newark Ohio Wastewater
Newark, OH
9
City of Pendleton WWTP
Pendleton, OR
10
City of Riverside, Regional Water Quality Control
Plant
Riverside, CA
11
City of Sandpoint
Sandpoint, ID
12
City of Santa Rosa, Laguna Treatment Plant
Santa Rosa, CA
13
City of Springfield Southwest Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Springfield, MO
14
City of St. Cloud NEW Recovery Facility
St. Cloud, MN
15
City of Stevens Point WWTP
Stevens Point, Wl
16
Danville Sanitary District
Danville, IL
17
Delhi Charter Township Wastewater Treatment Plant
Holt, Ml
18
Delta Diablo
Antioch, CA
19
Derry Twp Municipal Authority
Hershey, PA
20
Des Moines Metro WRA
Des Moines, IA
21
Douglas L Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Overland Park, KS
22
Downers Grove Sanitary District Wastewater
Downers Grove, IL
Treatment Center
23
Durham Advanced Wastewater Facility
Tigard, OR
24
East Bay Municipal Utility District MWWTP
Oakland, CA
25
El Estero WRC
Santa Barbara, CA
26
Encina Wastewater Authority
Carlsbad, CA
27
F. Wayne Hill WRC
Buford, GA
28
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District
Fairfield, CA
29
Flint Biogas
Flint, Ml
30
Fond du Lac WTRRF
Fond du Lac, Wl
31
Fresno Clovis RWRF
Fresno, CA
32
Gloversville Johnstown Joint Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Johnstown, NY
33
Greater Lawrence Sanitary District
North Andover, MA
34
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District (NEW
Water)
Green Bay, Wl
35
Hermitage Food Waste to Energy Facility
Hermitage, PA
36
Hill Canyon Treatment Plant
Camarillo, CA
37
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
Carson, CA
38
Lower Poplar Water Reclamation Facility
Macon, GA
39
Lucas County WRRF
Waterville, OH
40
Mauldin Road Water Resource Recovery Facility
Greenville, SC
41
Milton Regional Sewer Authority
Milton, PA
42
MMSD - South Shore Water Reclamation Facility
Oak Creek, Wl
43
MUB Wastewater Treatment
Albertville, AL
A2
-------
WRRF Name
Location
44
NAPA Sanitation District
Napa, CA
45
New Castle Sanitation Authority
New Castle, PA
46
North River Wastewater Treatment Facility
Mt. Crawford, VA
47
NYCDEP Newtown Creek Wastewater Resource
Recovery Facility Codigestion Program
Brooklyn, NY
48
Oneida County Water Pollution Control Plant
Utica, NY
49
Opequon Water Reclamation Facility
Winchester, VA
50
Piney Creek WWTP
Beckley, WV
51
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority
Rahway, NJ
52
Silicon Valley Clean water
Redwood City, CA
53
South Columbus Water Resource Facility
Columbus, GA
54
The Landis Sewerage Authority
Vineland, NJ
55
Theresa Street WRRF
Lincoln, NE
56
Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District
Urbana, IL
57
Village of Essex Junction
Essex Junction, VT
58
Waco Central WWTP
Waco, TX
59
West Lafayette WRRF
West Lafayette, IN
A3
-------
Appendix B - Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems Under
Development or Temporarily Shut-Down
This appendix lists the stand-alone facilities and co-digestion systems at WRRFs that are under
development or temporarily shut down. Two stand-alone facilities preferred not to be mentioned and are
not included in this list. The lists in Table IB and 2B are current as of October 2021.
Table IB: Stand-Alone Anaerobic Digestion Facilities in the U.S. that are Under Development
or Temporarily S
hut Down
Stand-Alone Facility Name
Facility Status
Location
1
Linden Renewable Energy, LLC
Under construction
Linden, NJ
2
The Resource Center at Tajiguas Landfill
Under construction
Santa Barbara, CA
Table 2B: WRRF's with Co-Digestion Systems in the U.S. that are Under Development
or Temporarily S
hut Down
WRRF Name
Facility Status
Location
3
City of Medford WRD
Planning/design/permitting
Central Point, OR
4
Regional Treatment Plant
Planning/design/permitting
Marina, CA
5
Sacramento Regional Community Services District
Temporarily shutdown
Elk Grove, CA
B1
-------
Appendix C - Digesters and Co-Digestion Systems that have
Ceased Operations
This appendix lists the facilities for each digester type that have either ceased operations or are not going
to be completed. One facility preferred not to be mentioned by name. This list is current as of October
2021.
Table 1C: Facilities that Have Ceased Operation or are not going to be Completed in the U.S.
Stand-Alone Digesters
Digester Name
Location
1
CR&R
Perris, CA
2
CleanWorld SATS (formerly Sacramento Biodigester)
Sacramento, CA
3
Garelick Farms
Lynn, MA
4
Gloucester City Organic Recycling
Marlton, NJ
5
Heartland Biogas
LaSalle, CO
6
IEUA RP5 Solids Handling Facility
Chino, California
7
JC- Biomethane Biogas Plant
Junction City, OR
8
Lime Lakes Energy
Norton, Ohio
9
Turning Earth
Southington, CT
Farm Digesters
Digester Name
Location
1
Central Sands Dairy
Nekoosa, Wl
2
George Deruyter Dairy
Outlook, WA
3
Wild Rose Dairy
LaFarge, Wl
WRRF Digesters
Digester Name
Location
1
Hyperion Treatment Plant
Playa del Rey, CA
2
Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Janesville, Wl
3
Sheboygan Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sheboygan, Wl
4
Struthers Wastewater Treatment Plant
Struthers, OH
CI
-------
Appendix D - Survey Questions
This appendix provides the survey questions for each digester type regarding their use of food waste and
food-based materials as a feedstock. EPA distributed the surveys via email directly to facility contacts,
when known, and made the survey available on EPA's website under Anaerobic Digestion Data Collection
Project.
Survey 1: Stand-Alone Anaerobic Digestion Facility Survey Questions
Survey 2: On-Farm Anaerobic Digester Survey Questions
Survey 3: Co-Digestion Systems at Water Resource Recovery Facilities Survey Questions
D1
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Welcome to the EPA 2021 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) stand-alone survey.
Participating in this survey enables policymakers, investors, and interested stakeholders to gain a
comprehensive picture of how food waste is being handled in AD facilities across the country. Your answers help
others glean important information, such as:
how much food waste is digested,
what available capacity exists,
feedstock type,
feedstock source, and
tipping revenue.
We only publish results in aggregate, so anything you note about your operations is solely for our purposes at
EPA to communicate with you individually.
We sincerely appreciate your input and completion of the survey!
1.1 am a stand-alone digester taking the stand-alone survey.
Yes.
No. Please see other two links in your email.
~
~
2. Please provide the following information about your Project/Facility. [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#1 is Yes. ]
(a) Project/Facility Name:
(b) Street 1:
(c) Street 2:
(d) City/Town:
(e) State:
(f) ZIP:
3. Please provide the following information for the contact person for facility operations.
(a) Title:
(b) Full Name:
(c) Telephone:
(d) Email Address:
D2
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
4. If you do not wish to have your facility's general information (facility name, city, state, facility type and
operational status) included in future EPA reports, please check the box below.
Please do not include the information above in future publications summarizing the data collected
via this survey.
O
Follow the branching rules in the sequence given below. Jump to the page as specified in the branching
rule if all the conditions specified in the rule are satisfied.
Rule 1: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 1 is (No. Please see other two links in your email.)) THEN Stop, you
have finished the survey.
5. Which of the following choices best describes your facility?
Multi-source Food Digester
~
~
~
Industry-dedicated digester
Other
6. Please identify the status of your facility
Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process
0
Under construction
0
Operational
0
Temporary shut-down
0
Ceased operation
0
Other
0
7. What date did your facility become operational? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#6 is Operational]
8. What date did your facility temporarily shut-down? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#6 is Temporary
shut-down]
D3
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Follow the branching rules in the sequence given below. Jump to the page as specified in the branching
rule if all the conditions specified in the rule are satisfied.
Rule 1: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 6 is (Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process OR Under
construction)) THEN GO TO Question# 10
Rule 2: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 7 is before (01/01/2020)) THEN GO TO Question# 15
Rule 3: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 7 (01/01/2020)) THEN Stop, you have finished the survey.
Rule 4: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 6 is (Other)) THEN GO TO Question# 15
Rule 5: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 8 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 11
Rule 6: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 8 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 12
Rule 7: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 9 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 13
Rule 8: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 9 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 14
10. What is the targeted date for your facility to be operational?
Branching Instructions If 10 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 10 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
11. What is the targeted date for your facility to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 11 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 11 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
12. What is the targeted date for your facility to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 12 is Answered, then Go To 15 If 12 is not Answered, then Go To 15
13. Please state the reason your facility ceased operations.
Branching Instructions If 13 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 13 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
D4
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
14. Please state the reason your facility ceased operations.
Please provide the total capacity for accepting food-based feedstock of your facility in 2019. Please watch zeros
and use commas for amount, if helpful.
15. Select Units Here
Gallons
Tons (US)
Total Capacity
O
O
16. Type Number Here
(a) Total Capacity
17. Does your facility accept and process food-based feedstocks?
Yes
O
No
O
Please describe the total amount of food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 2019. Do this by typing in
the amount of food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. Please watch zeros and
use commas, if helpful. [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#17 is Yes ]
D5
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
18. Feedstock
Type
fl>
QJ
CTO
(D
G)
—i
n>
QJ
O
G)
QJ
D
Q_
D O
Q_ O
c Q-
< o
< °
< a>
qj cn
co tn
<-+
fD ^
(TO
-a S
O QJ
(/) (/)
CD
~G
—i
n>
QJ
D
Q_
O
O
Q_
(/)
n>
—i
<
n"
n>
<
§ (TO
QJ (T)
fl>
QJ
<
n>
3D
n>
o
o
Q_
:>
Q)
on
Q)
C
< (TO
5"
ft 5
n> g-
o
c
CO
Q_
n>
D
O
D
QJ —
n
O cn
3 n>
5 ^
3 9J
H) QJ
r-h
Q. fl)
QJ Q
CO
O
c
—I
o
n>
o ~
O
r+
=r
n>
Feedstock 1
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 2
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 3
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 4
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 5
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 6
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 7
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 8
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 10
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 11
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 12
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 13
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 14
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D6
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
19. Feedstock
Source
Commercial-food
¦ -i / i i i
Commercial-hospitality-sports
venues
Commercial-hospitality and
hotels
Commercial-hospitality-
restaurants/food services
Industrial-
manufacturing/processing
Industrial (other)
Institutional-office buildings
Institutional-hospitals
Institutional-correctional
facilities
Institutional-
colleges/universities
lnstitutional-K-12 schools
Institutional-military
installations
Farmers Markets
Fruit/vegetable farms
Livestock farms
Residential
Food banks
Other
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 1
Feedstock 2
Feedstock 3
Feedstock 4
Feedstock 5
Feedstock 6
Feedstock 7
Feedstock 8
Feedstock 9
Feedstock 10
Feedstock 11
Feedstock 12
Feedstock 13
Feedstock 14
Feedstock 15
Feedstock 16
Feedstock 17
Feedstock 18
Feedstock 19
Feedstock 20
Feedstock 21
Feedstock 22
Feedstock 23
Feedstock 24
Feedstock 25
Feedstock 26
Feedstock 27
Feedstock 28
Feedstock 29
Feedstock 30
D7
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
20. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D8
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
21. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(I) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
22. Does your facility accept and process non-food-based feedstocks?
Yes
O
No
O
Please describe the total amount of non-food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 2019. Do this by
typing in the amount of non-food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. If
feedstock type or source is unknown or if you do not collect it, please select "other" for these responses. Please
watch zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful.
D9
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
23. Feedstock
type
73
fl>
n
q_ o
c -o
CD
^ Q
8 £.
-¦ fl>
D
O
fD
D
era
c
CL
QJ
cr
ar 3
cn O)
Manures
Mixed Yard
Waste
Paper Mill
Wastes
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Other
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 1
Feedstock 2
Feedstock 3
Feedstock 4
Feedstock 5
Feedstock 6
Feedstock 7
Feedstock 8
Feedstock 9
Feedstock 10
Feedstock 11
Feedstock 12
Feedstock 13
Feedstock 14
Feedstock 15
Feedstock 16
Feedstock 17
Feedstock 18
Feedstock 19
Feedstock 20
Feedstock 21
Feedstock 22
Feedstock 23
Feedstock 24
Feedstock 25
Feedstock 26
Feedstock 27
Feedstock 28
Feedstock 29
Feedstock 30
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D10
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
24. Feedstock
source
Airports
Biodiesel
production
Industrial
Laboratories/
Pharmaceutical
companies
Retail
Stores
Wastewater
Treatment
Plants
Other
Feedstock 1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 15
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 16
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dll
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
25. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D12
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
26. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(I) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
27. Do you collect tipping fees?
Yes
O
No
O
D13
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
28. Are you willing to share information about the tipping fees you collect? [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#27 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey
administrators.]
Yes
No
O
O
29. How much revenue did your facility collect in tipping fees in 2019? [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#28 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey administrators.]
30. If you would like to provide any other relevant or important information related to tipping fees, please do so
below.
31. Are pre-processing or de-packaging activities conducted on your feedstocks before they are added to your
digester?
Offsite
O
Onsite (at your facility)
O
Both
O
None of the above
O
32. Please identify the pre-packaging or de-packaging activities that are conducted at your facility. Check all that
apply.
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
~
Screening for debris or sorting
~
Grinding and/or maceration
~
Third party processing
~
Shredding
~
Heating
~
pH adjustment
~
Centrifugal separation
~
Liquid/solid separation
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D14
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
33. Please identify the operating temperature range for your digester.
Mesophilic
0
Thermophilic
0
Unheated/ambient
0
34. Please indicate if your digester is "wet" or "dry."
Wet, low-solids system, less than 15% (by volume) solids content.
0
Dry, high-solids system, greater than 15% (by volume) solids content.
0
35. Please identify the design that best fits your design type/configuration:
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)
0
Plug-flow
0
Covered Lagoon
0
Fixed film
0
Suspended Media
0
Percolating Bed
0
Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
0
Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR)
0
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
0
Hybrid/Multi-stage
0
Other (Please specify)
0
Please provide the average biogas production volume at your facility during calendar year 2019 in one of the
units identified below. Please watch zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful.
Other (Please
36. Units
SCFD
SCFM
SCFY
specify with
amount)
Average Biogas Production
O
O
O
O
37. Amount
(a) Average Biogas Production
38. Is the biogas produced at this facility?
Used onsite
~
Sold
~
Flared
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D15
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
39. Please identify how the biogas produced at this facility is used. It could be used onsite by the facility or
offsite by a purchaser. Check all that apply.
Produce mechanical power
~
Produce heat and electricity (CHP)
~
Produce electricity (including net metering)
n
Produce electricity (sold to grid)
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat other spaces
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels: used for company fleet/personal vehicles
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels & sold to customers
~
Renewable natural gas (processed in order to inject to pipeline)
~
Other (Please specify)
~
40. Are you able to utilize all of the biogas produced?
Yes
O
No
O
41. Do you flare the excess biogas? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#40 is No ]
Yes
O
No
O
42. Do you have a gas cleaning system?
Yes
O
No
O
43. What is removed by your gas purification system? Check all that apply. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#42 is Yes ]
Moisture
~
Sulfur
~
Siloxanes
~
Carbon Dioxide
~
Compressed Gas
~
Hydrogen sulfide
~
Particulates
~
Oxygen
~
Nitrogen
~
VOCs
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D16
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
44. Do you use the solid digestate you produce in any of the following ways? Check all that apply.
De-watered/dried and land applied
n
Land applied as is with no dewatering or drying
~
Composted into a reusable or salable product
~
Processed into other salable products (e.g., flower pots)
~
Landfilled
~
Incinerated
~
Other (Please specify)
~
If any digestate was disposed of in landfills or incinerated in 2019, please specify the amount in tons or gallons
(if known).
45. Units
Tons (US)
Gallons
Landfilled
O
O
Incinerated
O
O
46. Amount
(a) Landfilled
(b) Incinerated
47. Is the de-watered/dried digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
O
No
O
N/A
O
48. How do you manage the liquid digestate you produce? Check all that apply.
Beneficially reused as fertilizer via land application
~
Recirculated through digester
~
Discharged to a wastewater treatment plant
~
Other (Please specify)
~
49. Is the liquid digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
O
No
O
N/A
0
D17
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
50. Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#49 is Yes ]
51. Do you recover nutrients from your digestate?
No
O
Yes, phosphorous recovery by chemical precipitation (e.g., struvite)
O
Yes, ammonia recovery
O
Other (Please specify)
O
52. If you have any additional comments, please leave them below.
End of Survey.
D18
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Welcome to the EPA 2021 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Farm Survey.
Participating in this survey enables policymakers, investors, and interested stakeholders to gain a
comprehensive picture of how food waste is being handled in AD facilities across the country. Your answers help
others glean important information, such as:
• how much food waste is digested,
• what available capacity exists,
• feedstock type,
• feedstock source, and
• tipping revenue.
We only publish results in aggregate, so anything you note about your farm operations is solely for our purposes
at EPA to communicate with you individually.
We sincerely appreciate your input and completion of the survey!
1.1 am a farm and am taking the farm survey.
Yes.
~
n
No. Please see other two links in your email.
2. Please provide the following information about your Project/Farm. [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#1 is Yes. ]
(a) Project/Farm Name:
(b) Street 1:
(c) Street 2:
(d) City/Town:
(f) ZIP:
(e) State:
3. Please provide the following information for the contact person for farm operations.
(a) Title:
(b) Full Name:
(c) Telephone:
(d) Email Address:
D19
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
4.
If you do not wish to have your farm's general information (farm name, city, state, farm type and operational
status) included in future EPA reports, please check the box below.
Please do not include the information above in future publications summarizing the data collected
via this survey.
Follow the branching rules in the sequence given below. Jump to the page as specified in the branching
rule if all the conditions specified in the rule are satisfied.
Rule 1: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 1 is (No. Please see other two links in your email.)) THEN Stop, you
have finished the survey.
5. It is assumed that your anaerobic digestion system was primarily built to process livestock manures produced
on your farm. In addition to this manure waste stream, are organic wastes accepted from offsite sources and
processed in your anaerobic digester (practice of co-digestion)?
Yes
0
No
0
6. If organic waste is currently not accepted from offsite sources and processed in your anaerobic digester,
your farm planning for or interested in receiving organic wastes from offsite? [ Answer this question only if
answer to Q#5 is No ]
is
Yes
O
No
O
7. Please identify the status of your farm.
Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process
O
Under construction
O
Operational
O
Temporary shut-down
O
Ceased operation
O
Other
O
8. What date did your farm become operational? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#7 is Operational ]
D20
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
9. What date did your farm temporarily shut-down? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#7 is Temporary
shut-down ]
Follow the branching rules in the sequence given below. Jump to the page as specified in the branching
rule if al
Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3
Rule 4
Rule 5
Rule 6
Rule 7
Rule 8
the conditions specified in the rule are satisfied.
F ANSWER TO (Question# 8 is before (01/01/2020)) THEN GO TO Question# 16
F ANSWER TO (Question# 8 (01/01/2020)) THEN Stop, you have finished the survey .
F ANSWER TO (Question# 7 is (Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process OR Under
construction)) THEN GO TO Question# 11
F ANSWER TO (Question# 9 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 12
F ANSWER TO (Question# 9 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 13
F ANSWER TO (Question# 10 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 14
F ANSWER TO (Question# 10 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 15
F ANSWER TO (Question# 7 is (Other)) THEN GO TO Question# 16
11. What is the targeted date for your farm to be operational?
Branching Instructions If 11 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 11 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
12. What is the targeted date for your farm to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 12 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 12 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
13. What is the targeted date for your farm to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 13 is Answered, then Go To 16 If 13 is not Answered, then Go To 16
D21
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
14. Please state the reason your farm ceased operations.
Branching Instructions If 14 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 14 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
15. Please state the reason your farm ceased operations.
Taking into account the average volume of manure from your livestock processed in your anaerobic digestion
system, please identify the available capacity in 2019 to process other feedstocks from offsite sources. Please
watch zeros and use commas, if helpful.
16. Units
Tons (US)
Gallons
Available capacity
O
O
17. Amount
(a) Available capacity
18. Please briefly describe how you calculated the available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources.
19. Please identify the number of months during the year 2019 that your anaerobic digestion system received
and processed feedstocks from offsite sources.
20. Does your farm accept and process food-based feedstocks from off-site sources?
Yes
O
No
O
D22
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Please describe the total amount of food-based feedstock accepted by your farm in 2019. Do this by typing in
the amount of food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. Please watch zeros
and use commas, if helpful. [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#20 is Yes ]
21. Feedstock
Type
D
m
c n ro
-- - n>
<
fD
C
oo o
n
*< fl> --
oo T5
cn QJ
— crq
fD
? J-
oo (TO
fl>
O ~n
^ QJ
fD r+
O) oo
oo ""
!B O
QJ
D
Q_
D O
Q_ O
c Q-
ft -o
-5 -5
-c o
< °
< fD
qj oo
oo oo
r+ —
a ^
QJ <
c/> fD
<8
u-l lU.
Q)
<
fD
70
fD
O
O
Q_
Q)
00
r+
fD
On
Q)
C
era
< T
O) <—II-
oo fD
O
C
fD
S2. 5'
Q_
fD —¦
D
Q)
O
—i
crq _
QJ O ^
D -5
Ln
o
c
n
fD
o
r+
fD
IT
"O
fD
QJ
—i
QJ
r+
fD
Q_
Feedstock 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D23
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
22. Feedstock
Source
n
o
3
3
tD
—I
o
o/
—h
o
o
Q_
—j
fl>
r+
QJ
n
o
3
CO
q
O
O
n)
—i
n
CO
QJ
<
i
0)
_>
D
O
r
CO
fD
U
CO
QJ
r+
<
n
o
3
3
QJ
0)
13
Q_
o
=T
QJ
O
=T
0)
O
CO
CO
"O
r+
QJ
r+
<
n
o
3
3
n>
—i
o
QJ*
O D~
O O
Q_ CO
Ur, -O.
QJ_
r+
<
Q_
C
CO
p+
—I
D
Q_
QJ_
C
CO
r+
3
QJ
Qj"
^^
C
o
—h
r+
QJ
~T
O
fD
C
^3-
crq
o
D
QJ_
o
o
—i
—i
fD
n
r4"
o'
D
QJ
O
o_
oT
crq
(D
co
c
<'
(D
O
D
QJ
=3 C
r+
QJ O*
D
0) Qj
I' I
r+
QJ
—J
<
7T
(D
<
fl)
crq
(D
r+
QJ
(D
—h
QJ
—I
3
<
a>
CO
p+
O
o
7s"
—h
QJ
—I
3
73
(D
c/]_
CL
(D
D
O
O
Q_
cr
QJ
D
7s"
Feedstock 1
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 2
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 3
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 4
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 5
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 6
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 7
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 8
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 10
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 11
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 12
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 13
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 14
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D24
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
23. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D25
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
24. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(I) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
25. Does your farm accept and process non-food-based feedstocks from off-site sources?
Yes
O
O
No
Please describe the total amount of non-food-based feedstock accepted by your farm in 2019. Do this by typing
in the amount of non-food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. If feedstock
type or source is unknown or if you do not collect it, please select "other" for these responses. Please watch
zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful. [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#25 is Yes ]
D26
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
26. Feedstock
type
Crop
Residues
Crude
Glycerin
De-icing fluid
wastes
Lab(or
pharma)
Manures
Mixed Yard
Waste
Paper Mill
Wastes
Septage
Wastewater
solids
(sludge)
Other
Feedstock 1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 15
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 16
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D27
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
27. Feedstock
source
Airports
Biodiesel
production
Industrial
Laboratories/
Pharmaceutical
companies
Retail
Stores
Wastewater
Treatment
Plants
Other
Feedstock 1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 15
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 16
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D28
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
28. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D29
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
29. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(1) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
30. Do you collect tipping fees?
Yes
O
No
O
D30
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
31. Are you willing to share information about the tipping fees you collect? [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#30 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey
administrators.]
Yes
No
O
O
32. How much revenue did your farm collect in tipping fees in 2019? [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#31 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey administrators.]
33. If you would like to provide any other relevant or important information related to tipping fees, please do so
below.
34. Are pre-processing or de-packaging activities conducted on your feedstocks before they are added to your
digester?
Offsite
O
Onsite (at your farm)
O
Both
O
35. Please identify the pre-packaging or de-packaging activities that are conducted at your farm. Check all that
apply.
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
~
Screening for debris or sorting
~
Grinding and/or maceration
~
Third party processing
~
Shredding
~
Heating
~
pH adjustment
~
Centrifugal separation
~
Liquid/solid separation
~
Other (Please specify)
~
36. Please identify the operating temperature range for your digester.
Mesophilic
O
Thermophilic
O
Unheated/ambient
O
D31
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
37. Please indicate if your digester is "wet" or "dry."
Wet, low-solids system, less than 15% (by volume) solids content.
0
Dry, high-solids system, greater than 15% (by volume) solids content.
0
38. Please identify the design that best fits your design type/configuration:
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)
0
Plug-flow
0
Covered Lagoon
0
Fixed film
0
Suspended Media
0
Percolating Bed
0
Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
0
Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR)
0
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
0
Hybrid/Multi-stage
0
Other (Please specify)
0
Please provide the average biogas production volume at your farm during calendar year 2019 in one of the units
identified below. Please watch your zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful.
Other (Please
39. Units
SCFD
SCFM
SCFY
specify with
amount)
Average Biogas Production
O
O
O
O
40. Amount
(a) Average Biogas Production
41. Is the biogas produced at this farm?
Used onsite
~
Sold
~
Flared
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D32
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
42. Please identify how the biogas produced at this farm is used. It could be used onsite by the farm or offsite by
a purchaser. Check all that apply.
Produce mechanical power
~
Produce heat and electricity (CHP)
~
Produce electricity (including net metering)
n
Produce electricity (sold to grid)
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat other spaces
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels: used for company fleet/personal vehicles
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels/sold to customers
~
Renewable natural gas (processed in order to inject to pipeline)
~
Other (Please specify)
~
43. Are you able to utilize all of the biogas produced?
Yes
0
No
0
44. Do you flare the excess biogas? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#43 is No ]
Yes
0
No
0
45. Do you have a gas cleaning system?
Yes
0
No
0
46. What is removed by your gas purification system? Check all that apply. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#45 is Yes ]
Moisture
~
Sulfur
~
Siloxanes
~
Carbon Dioxide
~
Compressed Gas
~
Hydrogen sulfide
~
Particulates
~
Oxygen
~
Nitrogen
~
VOCs
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D33
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
47. Do you beneficially reuse the solid digestate you produce? Check all that apply.
Yes, de-watered/dried and land applied.
n
Yes, composted into a reusable or salable product.
~
Yes, processed into animal bedding.
~
Yes, processed into other salable product (e.g., flower pots).
~
No, landfilled.
~
No, incinerated.
~
Other (Please specify)
~
If any digestate was
disposed of in landfills or incinerated in 2019, please specify the amount in tons or gallons
(if known).
48. Units
Tons (US)
Gallons
Landfilled
O
O
Incinerated
O
O
49. Amount
(a) Landfilled
(b) Incinerated
50. Is the de-watered/dried digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
O
No
O
N/A
O
51. How do you manage the liquid digestate you produce? Check all that apply.
Beneficially reused as fertilizer via land application
~
Recirculated through digester
~
Discharged to a wastewater treatment plant
~
Other (Please specify)
~
52. Is the liquid digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
O
No
O
N/A
0
D34
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
53. Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#52 is Yes ]
54. Do you recover nutrients from your digestate?
No
0
Yes, phosphorous recovery by chemical precipitation (e.g., struvite)
0
Yes, ammonia recovery
0
Other (Please specify)
0
55. If you have any additional comments, please leave them below.
End of survey.
D35
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Welcome to the EPA 2021 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) Survey.
Participating in this survey enables policymakers, investors, and interested stakeholders to gain a
comprehensive picture of how food waste is being handled in AD facilities across the country. Your answers help
others glean important information, such as:
• how much food waste is digested,
• what available capacity exists,
• feedstock type,
• feedstock source, and
• tipping revenue.
We only publish results in aggregate, so anything you note about your operations is solely for our purposes at
EPA to communicate with you individually.
We sincerely appreciate your input and completion of the survey!
1. 1 am a WRRF taking the WRRF survey.
Yes.
n
~
No. Please see other two links in your email.
2. Please provide the following information about your Project/Facility. [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#1 is Yes. ]
(a) Project/Facility Name:
(b) Street 1:
(c) Street 2:
(d) City/Town:
(f) ZIP:
(e) State:
3. Please provide the following information for the contact person for facility operations.
(a) Title:
(b) Full Name:
(c) Telephone:
(d) Email Address:
D36
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
4. If you do not wish to have your facility's general information (facility name, city, state, facility type and
operational status) included in future EPA reports, please check the box below.
Please do not include the information above in future publications summarizing the data collected
via this survey.
5. In addition to wastewater solids, is organic waste accepted and processed in your anaerobic digesters
(practice of co-digestion)?
Yes
O
No
O
6. If organic waste is currently not accepted at your anaerobic digesters, is your facility planning for or interested
in receiving organic wastes from offsite? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#5 is No ]
Yes
O
No
O
7. Please identify the status of your facility
Planning stage/ Design stage/Permitting process
O
Under construction
O
Operational
O
Temporary shut-down
O
Ceased operation
O
Other
O
8. What date did your facility become operational? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#7 is Operational ]
9. What date did your facility temporarily shut-down? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#7 is Temporary
shut-down ]
10. What date did your facility cease operations? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#7 is Ceased
operation ]
D37
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Follow the branching rules in the sequence given below. Jump to the page as specified in the branching
rule if all the conditions specified in the rule are satisfied.
Rule 1: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 1 is (No. Please see other two links in your email.)) THEN Stop, you
have finished the survey .
Rule 2: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 7 is (Planning stage/Design stage/Permitting process OR Under
construction)) THEN GO TO Question# 11
Rule 3: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 8 is before (01/01/2020)) THEN GO TO Question# 16
Rule 4: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 8 (01/01/2020)) THEN Stop, you have finished the survey .
Rule 5: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 9 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 12
Rule 6: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 9 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 13
Rule 7: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 10 is before (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 14
Rule 8: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 10 (01/01/2019)) THEN GO TO Question# 15
Rule 9: IF ANSWER TO (Question# 7 is (Other)) THEN GO TO Question# 16
11. What is the targeted date for your facility to be operational?
Branching Instructions If 11 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 11 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
12. What is the targeted date for your facility to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 12 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 12 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
13. What is the targeted date for your facility to re-start operations?
Branching Instructions If 13 is Answered, then Go To 16 If 13 is not Answered, then Go To 16
14. Please state the reason your facility ceased operations.
Branching Instructions If 14 is Answered, then Stop, you have finished the survey If 14 is not Answered,
then Stop, you have finished the survey
D38
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S. EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
15. Please state the reason your facility ceased operations.
Please identify your facility's available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources for all digesters
combined, in 2019. When calculating this available capacity, please take into account the average volume of
wastewater solids processed at your facility and conveyed to your plant via your collection system. Please watch
zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful.
16. Units
Tons (US)
Gallons
Available capacity
O
O
17. Amount
(a) Available capacity
18. Please briefly describe how you calculated the available capacity to accept feedstocks from offsite sources.
19. Please identify the number of months during the year 2019 that your co-digestion system received and
processed feedstocks (other than wastewater solids) from offsite sources.
20. Please indicate how organic feedstocks from offsite sources are handled upon receipt at your facility.
Fed into a separate digester
O
Combined with wastewater solids
O
Other (Please specify)
O
21. Does your facility accept and process food-based feedstocks?
Yes
O
No
O
Please describe the total amount of food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 2019. Do this by typing in
the amount of food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. Please watch zeros and
use commas, if helpful. [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#21 is Yes ]
D39
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
22. Feedstock
Type
D
Q_
C
<
$
QJ £
TO
CD
O fD
O <
n> fl>
cn -i
en QJ
=;¦ to
fD
CD —n
^ QJ
fD r+
qj m
m
n> o
cn ~
o §
CD q_
3 o
Q_ O
c Q-
ft -o
-5 -5
< o
< °
< fD
qj cn
co in
<-+
fD ^
TO
-a S
O QJ
in m
n>
"O
—i
fp
QJ
D
Q_
O
O
Q_
m
fD
—i
<
n"
fD
s >
Si £
Jj TO
fS
^ r+
QJ
r+
<'
fD
70
fD
O
O
Q_
QJ
m
r+
fD
On
QJ
C
< TO
aj 5"
a ^
fD 3-
1/1 o
C
co
fD
QJ
ft Si
?D o
TO
QJ
D
fD
S2. 5'
Q_ cn
fD d".
=? 5?
o c
§ n
3 tD
3 si
(D fD
T3
O Qj
SL S
¦*- r+
fD
Q_
o
r+
=r
fD
Feedstock 1
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 2
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 3
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 4
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 5
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 6
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 7
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 8
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 10
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 11
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 12
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 13
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 14
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D40
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
23. Feedstock
Source
Commercial-food
Commercial-hospitality-
sports venues
Commercial-hospitality and
hotels
Commercial-hospitality-
restaurants/food services
Industrial-
manufacturins/Drocessins
Industrial (other)
Institutional-office buildings
Institutional-hospitals
Institutional-correctional
facilities
Institutional-
colleges/universities
lnstitutional-K-12 schools
Institutional-military
installations
Farmers Markets
Fruit/vegetable farms
Livestock farms
Residential
Food banks
D
+
y
D
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 1
Feedstock 2
Feedstock 3
Feedstock 4
Feedstock 5
Feedstock 6
Feedstock 7
Feedstock 8
Feedstock 9
Feedstock 10
Feedstock 11
Feedstock 12
Feedstock 13
Feedstock 14
Feedstock 15
Feedstock 16
Feedstock 17
Feedstock 18
Feedstock 19
Feedstock 20
Feedstock 21
Feedstock 22
Feedstock 23
Feedstock 24
Feedstock 25
Feedstock 26
Feedstock 27
Feedstock 28
Feedstock 29
Feedstock 30
D41
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
24. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D42
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
25. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(I) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
26. Does your facility accept and process non-food-based feedstocks?
Yes
O
No
O
Please describe the total amount of non-food-based feedstock accepted by your facility in 2019. Do this by
typing in the amount of non-food waste, and selecting the units, feedstock type, and feedstock source. If
feedstock type or source is unknown or if you do not collect it, please select "other" for these responses. Please
watch zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful. [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#26 is Yes ]
D43
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
27. Feedstock
type
TO
fD
n
q_ o
C ~G
fD
*< Q
8 S.
-¦ n>
D
O
fD
o
d'
era
~h
C
CL
:>
QJ QJ
in
sr 3
cn QJ
1—
QJ
QJ
cr
=3
^^
C
o
—5
fD
(/)
< X
< fD
QJ Q_
cn
r+ _<
fD QJ
-O
< QJ
< "O
QJ fD
ft ^
fD ^
fD
"O
r+
QJ
era
fD
QJ
1/1 (/)
o £¦
(TO Q- g
tD <" Q)
—¦* r+
fD
C
Q_
o
r+
IT
fD
Feedstock 1
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 2
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 3
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 4
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 5
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 6
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 7
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 8
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 10
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 11
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 12
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 13
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 14
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D44
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
Labor
atorie
28. Feedstock
source
Airports
Biodiesel
production
Industrial
s/
Phar
mace
utical
comp
anies
Retail Stores
Wastewater
Treatment
Plants
Other
Feedstock 1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 15
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Feedstock 16
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D45
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
29. Units
Gallons
Tons (US)
Feedstock 1
O
O
Feedstock 2
O
O
Feedstock 3
O
O
Feedstock 4
O
O
Feedstock 5
O
O
Feedstock 6
O
O
Feedstock 7
O
O
Feedstock 8
O
O
Feedstock 9
O
O
Feedstock 10
O
O
Feedstock 11
O
O
Feedstock 12
O
O
Feedstock 13
O
O
Feedstock 14
O
0
Feedstock 15
O
0
Feedstock 16
O
0
Feedstock 17
O
0
Feedstock 18
O
0
Feedstock 19
O
0
Feedstock 20
O
0
Feedstock 21
O
0
Feedstock 22
O
0
Feedstock 23
O
0
Feedstock 24
O
0
Feedstock 25
O
0
Feedstock 26
O
0
Feedstock 27
O
0
Feedstock 28
0
0
Feedstock 29
0
0
Feedstock 30
0
0
D46
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
30. Amount
(a) Feedstock 1
(b) Feedstock 2
(c) Feedstock 3
(d) Feedstock 4
(e) Feedstock 5
(f) Feedstock 6
(g) Feedstock 7
(h) Feedstock 8
(i) Feedstock 9
(j) Feedstock 10
(k) Feedstock 11
(I) Feedstock 12
(m) Feedstock 13
(n) Feedstock 14
(o) Feedstock 15
(p) Feedstock 16
(q) Feedstock 17
(r) Feedstock 18
(s) Feedstock 19
(t) Feedstock 20
(u) Feedstock 21
(v) Feedstock 22
(w) Feedstock 23
(x) Feedstock 24
(y) Feedstock 25
(z) Feedstock 26
(aa) Feedstock 27
(ab) Feedstock 28
(ac) Feedstock 29
(ad) Feedstock 30
31. Do you collect tipping fees?
Yes
O
No
O
D47
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
32. Are you willing to share information about the tipping fees you collect? [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#31 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey
administrators.]
Yes
No
O
O
33. How much revenue did your facility collect in tipping fees in 2019? [ Answer this question only if answer to
Q#32 is Yes ] [Please consider providing a response. This information will be helpful for survey administrators.]
34. If you would like to provide any other relevant or important information related to tipping fees, please do so
below.
35. Are pre-processing or de-packaging activities conducted on your feedstocks before they are added to your
digester?
Offsite
O
Onsite (at your facility)
O
Both
O
None of the above
O
36. Please identify the pre-packaging or de-packaging activities that are conducted at your facility. Check all that
apply.
Manual or mechanized de-packaging
~
Screening for debris or sorting
~
Grinding and/or maceration
~
Third party processing
n
Shredding
~
Heating
~
pH adjustment
~
Centrifugal separation
~
Liquid/solid separation
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D48
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
37. Please identify the operating temperature range for your digester.
Mesophilic
0
Thermophilic
0
Unheated/ambient
0
38. Please identify the design that best fits your design type/configuration.
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)
0
Plug-flow
0
Covered Lagoon
0
Fixed film
0
Suspended Media
0
Percolating Bed
0
Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
0
Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR)
0
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
0
Hybrid/Multi-stage
0
Other (Please specify)
0
Please provide the average biogas production volume at your facility during calendar year 2019 in one of the
units identified below. Please watch zeros and use commas for amount, if helpful.
Other (Please
39. Units
SCFD
SCFM
SCFY
specify with
amount)
Average Biogas Production
O
O
O
O
40. Amount
(a) Average Biogas Production
41. Is the biogas produced at this facility?
Used onsite
~
Sold
~
Flared
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D49
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
42. Please identify how the biogas produced at this facility is used. It could be used onsite by the facility or
offsite by a purchaser. Check all that apply.
Produce mechanical power
~
Produce heat and electricity (CHP)
~
Produce electricity (including net metering)
n
Produce electricity (sold to grid)
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat digesters
~
Fuel boilers and furnaces to heat other spaces
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels: used for company fleet/personal vehicles
~
Compressed to vehicle fuels & sold to customers
~
Renewable natural gas (processed in order to inject to pipeline)
~
Other (Please specify)
~
43. Are you able to utilize all of the biogas produced?
Yes
0
No
0
44. Do you flare the excess biogas? [ Answer this question only if answer to Q#43 is No ]
Yes
0
No
0
45. Do you have a gas cleaning system?
Yes
0
No
0
46. What is removed by your gas purification system? Check all that apply. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#45 is Yes ]
Moisture
~
Sulfur
~
Siloxanes
~
Carbon Dioxide
~
Compressed Gas
~
Hydrogen sulfide
~
Particulates
~
Oxygen
~
Nitrogen
~
VOCs
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D50
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
47. Are the post-digestion biosolids Class A or Class B?
Class A
0
Class B
0
48. Do you use the solid digestate you produce in any of the following ways? Check all that apply.
De-watered/dried and land applied.
~
Land applied as is with no dewatering or drying.
~
Composted into a reusable or salable product.
~
Processed into other salable products (e.g., flower pots).
~
Landfilled.
~
Incinerated.
~
Other (Please specify)
~
If any digestate was disposed of in landfills or incinerated in 2019, please specify the amount in tons or gallons
(if known).
49. Units
Tons (US)
Gallons
Landfilled
O
O
Incinerated
O
O
50. Amount
(a) Landfilled
(b) Incinerated
51. Is the de-watered/dried digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
O
No
O
N/A
O
52. Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#51 is Yes ]
53. How do you manage the liquid digestate you produce? Check all that apply.
Beneficially reused as fertilizer via land application
~
Recirculated through digester
~
Other (Please specify)
~
D51
-------
EPA Anaerobic Digesters Processing Food Waste in the U.S.
EPA ICR No. 2533.04
OMB Control No. 2050-0217
54. Is the liquid digestate further treated prior to land application?
Yes
0
No
0
N/A
0
55. Please indicate what the further treatment is and why it is necessary. [ Answer this question only if answer
to Q#54 is Yes ]
56. Do you recover nutrients from your digestate?
No
0
Yes, phosphorous recovery by chemical precipitation (e.g., struvite)
0
Yes, ammonia recovery
0
Other (Please specify)
0
57. If you have any additional comments, please leave them below.
End of survey.
D52
-------
Appendix E - Conversion Sources
Table IE: Feedstock Conversion Sources
Non-food waste sources
Feedstock
Density (tons/gallon)
Source
1
Septage
0.0042
Assume like water (1,000 kg/m3). Several results online
show assumptions like this.
2
De-icing fluid
0.0053
Guide Specification: Fluid, Deicing/Anti-icing, Runways
and Taxiways, Potassium Acetate Base in addition to
requirements set by AMS 1435A.
https://p2infohouse.org/ref/19/18054/e36gdspec.htm
3
Crude glycerin
0.0052
Crude Glycerin. Safety Data Sheet Univar. 2015.
https://www.chemicalassociates.com/images/stories/virt
uemart/product/sds/CA2803-Crude-Glvcerine-SDS.pdf
4
Wastewater solids (sludge)
0.0043
Climate Policy Watcher. Physical and Biological
Properties. June 2022.
https://www.climate-policv-watcher.org/wastewater-
sludge/phvsical-and-biological-
properties.html#:~:text=The%20densitv%20of%20primar
V%20sludge,1.2%20to%201.4%20g%2F%20cm3.
Assume mix of activated and primary sludge.
5
Lab (or pharma) wastes
0.0042
Chapter 1: Characterizing Medical Wastes and Applying a
Comprehensive Management Strategy. US EPA.
https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/me
dical/web/pdf/chl.pdf
Assume fluids, residuals.
6
Mixed yard waste (MYW)
0.0006
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. US EPA. ORCR.
April 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
7
Crop residues
0.0017
Engineering Properties of Various Agricultural Residue.
J.M Makavana, V.V. Agravat, P.R. Balas, et. al. 2018.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325824638 E
ngineering Properties of Various Agricultural Residue.
Mix of rice husk, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, and
cotton stalk.
8
Manures
0.0042
Manure Sampling for Nutrient Management Planning.
Penn State Extension. 2014.
https://extension.psu.edu/manure-sampling-for-nutrient-
management-
planning#:~:text=Liauid%20manure%20densitv%20can%
20varv,and%20a%20set%20of%20scales
9
Other
0.0037
Average of all other non-food-based feedstocks.
El
-------
Food waste sources
Feedstock
Density (tons/gallon)
Source
1
Beverage industry
processing waste
0.0042
Individual correspondence with facilities confirming this
density if they processed this waste. This number is the
density of water, what many facilities told us to use as a
proxy.
2
Food industry processing
waste
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
3
Food service waste, pre-
and post-consumer
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.eoa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
4
Fruits and vegetative
waste
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.eoa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
5
Other
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
6
Retail food waste
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
7
Slaughterhouse waste
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
8
Source-separated
commercial, institutional,
or residential organic
waste
0.0012
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
9
Fats, Oils, and Greases
(FOG)
0.0037
Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. EPA ORCR, April
2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume to weight conversion factors m
emorandum 04192016 508fnl.pdf
E2
------- |