Overview of Project Objectives For our S-Lab Project with Save That Stuff, we focused on two goals:

Transcription

1 Overview of Project Objectives For our S-Lab Project with Save That Stuff, we focused on two goals: Drive increased traffic to STS website by creating a set of white papers and tools on curbside composting Identify new business development opportunities for Save That Stuff in organic waste market Methodology To achieve the goals outlined above, we gathered and synthesized information from a variety of different sources through secondary research, interviews with key stakeholders, public meetings, and site visits. Research For our secondary research we focused on the following resources and topic areas: Current Programs in San Francisco, Boulder, Seattle, and Nantucket: We conducted research on the current programs, implementation or those programs, and pilots preceding those programs in these four successful cities. Potential programs in Cambridge and Arlington: We researched the current municipal solid waste programs and organic waste initiatives in these two municipalities. MassDEP Solid Waste Master Plan: We familiarized ourselves with the organic chapter of the 2010 Solid Waste Master Plan and spoke with John Fisher on several occasions to better understand the agency s plans to promote curbside composting in Massachusetts. Existing tools and models: We reviewed the EPA s comprehensive set of tools relevant to composting, including: o Waste Reduction Model (WARM) o Food Waste Management Cost Calculator o Saving Money and Reducing Trash Benefit Evaluation Tool (SMART BET) o Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool Anaerobic digestion technology: We reviewed descriptions of the different types of technology, where anaerobic digesters are currently in use in the U.S., and what new projects are under development. Interviews Sustainable Arlington/Arlington DPW: Interviews with Ruth Yannetti of Arlington Department of Public Works and Gail McCormick of Sustainable Arlington helped the team to better understand the perspective of a mid-sized city in eastern Massachusetts. These interviews also allowed us to recognize the significant issues 1

2 surrounding PAYT and the positive impact that citizens groups can have in the push for municipal organic waste collection. Nantucket DPW: Mohamed Nabulsi, Director of Nantucket DPW, gave us an overview of Nantucket s integrated waste management program, including the anaerobic digester technology used for the island s food waste. San Francisco Department of the Environment: Steven Chiv of the San Francisco Department of the Environment provided the prospective of a large city currently operating a successful full-scale composting collection program. Steven highlighted the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship with haulers and the issues surrounding competition for waste hauling contracts. The conversation also highlighted the importance of public education and the use of multiple forms of outreach to the general public. Boston Redevelopment Authority: Galen Nelson, GreenTech Manager, told us about the current state of anaerobic digester facility development in the Boston metropolitan area, and the BRA s willingness to support public-private partnerships that could hasten the development of these facilities for food waste processing. Owner-chef of restaurant EVOO and Za: We spoke to Peter about the decision that his business made to compost food waste in order to determine whether he was driven by economic incentives or personal values. His business model emphasizes being environmental sustainable (it is LEED Gold certified) and he views composting as an additional cost to stay committed to that goal. Stonyfield Farms: We spoke to Lisa Drake at Stonyfield Farms about the anaerobic digester they use to treat the wastewater from their food processing facilities. Currently, Stonyfield filters food solids out of the wastewater since the system is designed to handle liquids. They had not considered the option of adding food waste into their digester. Public Meetings Data, Infrastructure, & Markets Subgroup: We attended the Data, Infrastructure & Markets Subgroup of the Building Organics Capacity Task Force at Mass DEP on April 18, The meeting was chaired by Greg Cooper and John Fisher of Mass DEP. Mass DEP Task Force on Building Organics Capacity: We attended the full Mass DEP Task Force meeting on April 22, 2011 where the four subgroups presented their findings to date. Cambridge City Council: We Attended the Cambridge City Council meeting on organics collection held on August 21, This experience allowed the team to better understand challengers facing the city of Cambridge in its attempts to provide a full-scale organic waste collection service. 2

3 Visits Save That Stuff Facility/Brick Ends Farm: Visits to the Save That Stuff facility and Brick Ends Farm, the business s partner composting facility, provided a good understanding of the process that food waste undergoes once it is picked up by a hauler. This experience also allowed the team to view and consider the end product of the composting process. Description of Deliverables As a result of our project, we are delivering the following tools and documents to STS to be used as resources to generate increasing interest around composting and anaerobic digestion. These resources will also be available on the MIT Sloan S-Lab course website. 1) Getting Started: 10 Questions for Cities and Towns Considering Residential Curbside Composting This guide provides municipalities with an easy-to-understand overview of the key decisions and considerations that need to be taken into account as they evaluate the feasibility of curbside composting programs. While not a comprehensive discussion of existing best practices, it does point to relevant examples of positive and negative programs. It also provides context for the economic and environmental impact tool for municipalities. 2) Anaerobic Digestion in Managing Food Waste This paper explores the current state of the anaerobic digester industry in the U.S. and emerging opportunities for food waste processing with anaerobic digesters. It provides a basic overview of the various versions of anaerobic digesters and points to resources for further exploration. 3) Household Curbside Composting Impacts Calculator This spreadsheet-based tool gives individual households the ability to answer basic questions about their trash and calculates the economic and environmental impacts that they could expect if they were to begin composting. It is accompanied by a detailed User Manual. 4) Municipal Curbside Composting Feasibility Model This spreadsheet-based tool provides the framework for municipalities to plug in basic information about their municipal solid waste program and calculate the economic and environmental impacts that a municipal curbside composting program would have in their town. It is accompanied by a detailed User Manual. Analysis of existing barriers to municipal curbside composting Curbside composting programs create substantial environmental benefits by diverting food waste from landfills and recycling food waste into compost. Beyond the environmental 3

4 benefits, there is evidence that over the longer term, curbside composting can actually save towns and cities money. In conversations with local officials from San Francisco, they reported that their waste disposal costs were the lowest that they had been in 25 years. In Massachusetts, however, there are challenges to putting curbside composting programs in place. Lack of food waste processing capacity: During the project we spoke to representatives of Cambridge and Arlington s Departments of Public Works. In both cases, we encountered a strong interest in implementing curbside composting programs alongside a perceived difficulty in being able to cover the costs of a new program. Knowing how much the tipping fees for organics will be compared to MSW tipping fees is a key aspect of evaluating the financials feasibility of composting program. At this stage, with limited organic processing capacity in the Boston region, food waste would have to be trucked a considerable distance outside of the city making the disposal costs too high to compete with that of MSW. Until there is additional organics processing capacity in the Boston region that will lower the tipping fee to a competitive rate, municipalities will not be able to make an economic argument in favor of curbside composting programs. Lack of Pay-as-you-throw programs: PAYT programs are also a crucial component of successful curbside composting programs because they provide the economic incentive for people to separate their waste. With flat fees or waste collection covered by local taxes, people are not paying for waste disposal based on how much or what they throw out. Until there is a price associated with throwing away trash, it may be difficult to reach the level of participation needed to justify the investment in additional infrastructure, labor, and fuel needed to develop a curbside composting program. Community perceptions: Another barrier to curbside composting is the way residents perceive composting. In data collected on through an online survey of residents in Arlington, we saw that there are strong negative feelings about compost. In a section where residents were asked to explain why they don t currently compost, people described feeling of disgust at having to deal with the mess and smell of compost. There as also concern about attracting animals. There were also a number of people who cited that composting was too difficult and took too much time. In order for municipalities to successfully roll out curbside composting programs, they must engage in an extensive resident education program. Potential opportunities Despite the challenges to curbside composting, there are tantalizing opportunities in organic waste. In the last ten years there has been a steady increase in the number of community that put have food waste programs in place, pay-as-you-throw programs are expanding, and states and towns are experimenting with organic waste food bans. Furthermore, North America s first high solid anaerobic digesters designed to handle food waste are currently under development. For STS there are a number of developments that point to potential opportunities in organic waste. 4

5 5 MIT Sloan School of Management Organic waste ban: Our team learned that Mass DEP is currently contemplating a ban on commercial and institutional organic waste in the MSW to be put in place Although it is not likely to be enforced immediately, this ban will drastically alter the solid waste management landscape in Massachusetts. With increased demand for organic waste management services combined with the limited processing capacity that exists now, there is the potential for prices to rise until the processing capacity catches up with demand. In this scenario, organics haulers that have strong relationships with or operate organics processing facilities will be best placed to take advantage of the new business that will be generated. Wastewater treatment plants: There are currently five wastewater treatment facilities in Massachusetts that use anaerobic digesters. The largest is the Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant. Deer Island currently captures biogas to generate electricity. Some is used to operate the plant and the excess power is sold back to the grid. Food waste has three times the potential gas production as compared to biosolids and would be an energy-rich supplement to the wastewater. Mass DEP is also looking closely at the permitting issues around the inclusion of source separated organic waste into existing wastewater anaerobic digesters. STS should follow the work of the Task Force on Building Organics Capacity to be aware of any new developments in this area. Leaf and year waste facilities: There is a dearth of facilities permitted to take food waste in the greater Boston area. However, there are facilities that take leaf and yard waste. One potential avenue for increasing food waste processing capacity is the conversion of leaf and yard waste facilities to mixed organic waste facilities. For example, we understand that the town of Lexington is exploring the permitting process to accept food waste. Arlington is very interested in starting a pilot curbside composting program and their leaf and yard waste is currently taken to the Lexington facility. STS should follow Lexington s permitting process and attempt to build a relationship with them to take advantage of the potential capacity 15 miles from the Charlestown plant. Given Arlington s existing relationship with Lexington, there is a potential to expand Arlington s leaf and yard waste collection to include food waste as well. Pay-as-you-throw programs: Another harbinger of opportunity is the expansion of PAYT programs in Massachusetts. From 2000 to 2010, there was a 12 percent increase in the number of communities that had PAYT programs in place. This number is likely to continue growing and will help to pave the way for curbside composting programs. Of the towns around Boston, Milton, Natick and Concord currently have PAYT programs in place and Arlington is in the process of getting PAYT on the ballot. STS should explore curbside composting opportunities in places where PAYT is in place. Mass DEP Sustainable Materials Recovery Program: The Mass DEP has a grant program that aims to increase the diversion of MSW. The municipal grant proposal is due on June 15, While only municipalities and non-profits are eligible to apply, STS could work with a particular municipality to help them develop their grant proposal. Some of the potential uses include PAYT start-up costs, curbside composting bins, or larger composting

6 containers. Although this is the municipal round, the Mass DEP website indicates that there will be additional solicitations specifically for commercial, market development, and core services. STS should stay informed about these potential funding options. 6