Spoiled, The Rotten World of Food Waste

A Case Study Report on Best Practices and Lessons Learned on Food Waste to Energy Programs for Los Angeles

Spoiled, The Rotten World of Food Waste

A comprehensive project submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban and Regional Planning by

Sandra Caballero

Client: Don’t Waste LA Campaign Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy Faculty Chair of Committee: Michael Stentrom

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

SPOILED TITLE PAGE

SOME FOOD WASTE QUOTE

Disclaimer

“Disclaimer: Neither the University of California nor the School of Public Affairs either supports or disavows the findings in any project, report, paper, or research listed herein. University affiliations are for identification only; the University is not involved in or responsible for the project.�

CONTENTS

04

07

12

13

16

17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ZERO WASTE POLICY

INTRODUCTION

CITY AT A PRECIPICE

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

METHODOLOGY

20

22

EBMUD, OAKLAND

28

NEWTOWN CREEK, BROOKLYN

34

38

42

PROFILING THE CASE STUDIES

WASTE TO ENERGY (EGE), OSLO NORWAY

APPLICATION FOR LOS ANGELES

47

49

RECOMMENDATIONS

1

APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW

AND SCOPE

LESSONS LEARNED

2

3

Source: National Geographic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thirty percent of the City of Los Angeles waste stream is food waste. As the second largest city in the United States, Los Angeles generates a total of 8.2 million tons of waste each year and sends 3.8 million tons to landfills each year. The city’s diversion strategy significantly reduces the total waste stream, however it only manages to divert 3% of food waste, the rest ends up in landfills. Landfilling food waste takes up space, generates 18% of methane greenhouse gas emissions and requires costly long term maintenance. On the labor front, waste management jobs tend to be dangerous, dirty, and poorly paid. While Los Angeles has taken steps to implement its waste reduction strategy, the city still lacks a comprehensive, city-wide food waste collection program for its commercial and residential sectors.

The City of Los Angeles stands at a precipice in food waste management. Most recently, it launched a zero waste initiative with the ultimate goal of 100% waste diversion. The Don’t Waste LA Campaign, under the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), is working to support LA’s commitment to zero waste while advocating for improved labor benefits and conditions in the industry. Don’t Waste LA’s vision stems from its belief that implementing a comprehensive waste management system will benefit the economy, people, and the environment. As a client project for the Don’t Waste LA Campaign, this project highlights best practices and key lessons from cities with food waste to energy programs.

Efforts to reduce and recycle food waste take different forms. This report explores 4

anaerobic digestion in which food waste is converted into biogas, electricity, and fertilizer.

Anaerobic digestion re-envisions waste management into a cyclical system; it provides an innovative solution to the food waste problem and reduces external energy requirements by producing renewable energy that powers the city.

Los Angeles is already piloting a food waste to energy program with select commercial businesses at existing county wastewater treatment anaerobic digestion sites. This report capitalizes on the momentum in the Zero Waste movement and provides a framework for Los Angeles’ food waste to energy program.

This report provides stakeholders key lessons and best practices from case study evaluations of three food waste to energy programs: East Bay Municipal Utility District, EBMUD in Oakland, California, Newtown Creek Waste Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, New York, and Waste to Energy (EGE) in Oslo, Norway.

The report examines 5 key aspects of each of the programs: policy, financing, infrastructure, labor, and community outreach.

• Policy examines the political framework that first initiated and now sustains the food waste to energy programs.

• The financing section analyzes the type of short term and long term investment and reviews public and private financing for a food waste to energy program.

• Infrastructure looks at type of facilities necessary for food waste to energy programs to run efficiently and effectively.

• Labor considers transitional job training, workers’ benefits, and green jobs.

• Community outreach reviews each city’s process of community participation and cooperation in initiating a food waste to energy program.

The case study analysis indicates that the food waste to energy programs arose through varied strategies and each followed unique paths for implementation. While there is no single path for implementation, there are key lessons the City of Los Angeles can learn from.

Key Findings • The funding streams that each of the programs tapped into came from very different sources, demonstrating that supportive funds can come from a multitude of unlikely allies.

The key takeaway is that despite the lack of pre-allocated funding for food waste programs, such programs can forge their own path and seek financing from multiple sources.

• One similarity all three programs share is that they established private-public partnerships and stipulated provisions for key infrastructure investment. The key advantage for each of the cities is that they control the waste management market. They leveraged their power to award time-restricted contracts to private haulers and included stipulations for zero waste goals.

• Landfilling is an environmental problem, a health risk, and a resource sinkhole. What each of the case studies recognized was a need for a new set of waste strategies, a new set of approaches to the same problem.

Consequently, food waste diversion efforts targeted waste at all levels of its generation.

Each program restructured its waste management strategy and launched informational campaigns to bring awareness.

• The solution to waste management rests on local solutions. Anaerobic digestion provides a local solution to a local problem. EBMUD and Newtown Creek harnessed the existing infrastructure solution of wastewater anaerobic digestion, and retrofitted it to include food waste.

5

• Waste is not a problem that exists in isolation. As cities create new strategies to divert waste and process it in an innovative and beneficial manner, they also inadvertently investigated the system that generated that waste. All three cities identified the flaws in the overall production and consumption process that were leading to a buildup in waste.

As a result, they recognized that waste management was not just about blind collection, but about developing holistic strategies that were informed by a deeper understanding of where waste originates.

Application for Los Angeles • There is no need to reinvent the wheel; Los Angeles can roll out a food waste to energy program by partnering with existing anaerobic digestion programs at wastewater treatment plants in the surrounding region.

• Los Angeles stands at a precipice in zero waste diversion. The city has expressed a deep commitment to waste reduction and has rolled out its Zero Waste Franchise Agreement and Zero Waste Diversion Goals.

Additional legislation, including a large commercial food waste ban, are all great opportunities to create awareness about the food waste problem and get people excited about alternative solutions.

• By renovating the waste collection process and expanding waste diversion programs, the city is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Anaerobic digestion of food waste can help establish Los Angeles as a climate change leader because it not only reduces emissions at landfills, but it also increases locally generated renewable energy.

6

INTRODUCTION About this Project: This project is a collaboration between Sandra Caballero MURP Candidate and Lauren Akhiam, Senior Research & Policy Analyst for the Don’t Waste LA Campaign at Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). The goal of this research project is to present a best practice case study analysis of food waste to energy city programs, with a particular focus on anaerobic digestion. The coupling of two great initiatives, Los Angeles Zero Waste Program and the Sanitation District of Los Angeles food waste to energy pilot program, serves as a catalyst for this research project.

Food waste to energy is a relatively new concept with little research supporting the potential expansion of innovative urban waste management programs. Working in tandem with Waste Management, Inc. the Sanitation District of Los Angeles launched a food waste collection program in which food scraps are collected from volunteers, sent to a food processing plant and eventually mixed with sewage at the Carson co-digestion plant and converted into electricity.

To address the knowledge gap and to support local authority initiatives to launch an organics collection and a food waste to energy program, this report aims to investigate concerns about waste to energy infrastructure. It will explore the technical, financial, and social challenges of Los Angeles’ fledgling food waste program and seeks to present solutions through three case studies: The East Bay Municipal Utility District, Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and Oslo Waste to Energy Agency.

The project will provide best practice strategies and key lessons Los Angeles can emloy in its own food waste to energy initiative.

7

Background: The Scale of the Solid Waste Problem in Los Angeles Los Angeles is a diverse and growing metropolitan region with a huge waste problem. Currently, Los Angeles relies on landfilling as its primary form of waste disposal. Though the city has made great strides on the waste diversion front, an alarming 3.5 million tons of waste end up in landfills (Guevarra 2014). The city currently sends its waste to 26 waste disposal sites all throughout California. (2013) Most of the landfills are located in the Southern California region but none within Los Angeles city limits. A good portion of LA’s waste ends up in Central California and a small portion goes as far as Northern California. Until recently, Los Angeles sent a portion of its waste to the largest landfill in the United States, the Puente Hills Landfill. The Puente Hills landfill is now closed but still acts as a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and continues to receive waste.

Los Angeles, like many other cities, has relied on landfills as the primary form of waste disposal because they are considered cheap and easy. Increasingly, cities are recognizing such assumptions are not true and landfills are much more costly than initially understood. The list of environmental impacts of landfills is extensive: Environmental Impacts: • ground water pollution • air pollution • greenhouse gas emissions (methane emissions) • unpleasant odors • truck emissions • condemnation of land Social Impacts • community health hazard • dangerous labor conditions • low paying jobs for workers

Economic Impacts: • costly to maintain • resource sink • increasingly more expensive

established minimum diversion rates for jurisdictions throughout California. The waste collection system is currently undergoing a restructuring, which will be discussed further in the following sections.

History of Waste Management in Los Angeles: The City of Los Angeles waste management is complicated and complex. The way in which waste management is coordinated in Los Angeles is broken up into two separate components.

For the residential sector, composed of single family households and select multifamily households, the City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation provides waste management services. It provides both, recycling, green waste (grass trimmings) and refuse collection to 662,000 single family households and 83,000 multi-unit buildings (four units or less.)The second component, the commercial sector, has long been serviced by independent, private waste haulers who may or may not provide recycling or diversion services.

The commercial sector is composed of commercial establishments and multi-family households which make up 69% of solid waste generated within the city. The reason for the division between public and private waste haulers for households came about from a 1991 moratorium approved by city council, in which multi-family households with five units or more were prevented from participating in the public waste collection programs.Multifamily households joined the commercial sector in being serviced by private waste haulers.

Before 2012, the waste hauler permit system allowed for businesses and households to establish a contract with a private waste hauler of their choice with essentially no regulatory oversight. The city modified the permit system in 2012 to response to AB 393 which 8

The Puente Hills landfill received a portion of Los Angeles waste until 2013 when it closed. It is the largest landfill in the United States.

9

The Rotten World of Food Waste Food waste is a serious concern. The average person wastes a third of all food they purchase. At the regional level, food waste comprises 30% of municipal solid waste. At present, food waste is disposed of at landfills and despite a high diversion, Los Angeles lacks a city-wide organics collection program.

10

Source: National Geographic

of food is wasted

Food Waste: One of the largest components of municipal solid waste (MSW) is food waste; Los Angeles estimates that over a third of all its waste is comprised of organics. Further investigation reveals the following: 27% of multi-family household waste and 42% of business waste consist of food waste (Guevarra 2014).

Food waste is a layered problem. As a social justice issue, it contributes to a contradictory culture of waste and food insecurity. As an environmental issue it takes up space in landfills and contributes to the long list of environmental, social, and economic impacts. A key aspect of food waste is that it does not exist in a vacuum.

It is a part of a larger process called the food system. At the final point of disposal, food waste requires an input of resources. Put simply, landfilling consumes land, energy, money, and time.

However, that same food went through an entire supply chain in which it also consumed resources.

11

Producing that food required energy, water, and labor inputs. NRDC’s “Wasted” report indicates that “10% of the energy budget, 50% of land, and 80% of freshwater” was spent getting food from farm to table in the U.S (Gunders 2012). If 30% of food goes uneaten, NRDC calculated $165 billion is thrown away. That figure doesn’t even include the energy spent disposing of the waste.

To add to the discussion, a study on the environmental impacts of food waste disposal showcased the toxic effects after landfilling.

(Hall, 2009) Food waste in landfills, broadly referred to as municipal solid waste (MSW) was the largest producer of U.S. methane, comprising 23% of all methane emissions. Methane is 25 times more harmful in global warming than carbon dioxide, thus its decomposition is yet another factor contributing to climate change.

Throwing away that apple core may seem like the most harmless action, but amassed together, the food waste of Los Angeles is enormous and currently has few places to go other than the landfill.

What Collection of Food Waste Is Currently in Place: Although the City of Los Angeles has committed to waste diversion and recycling programs, the city has taken few steps in exploring the food waste frontier. Currently, much of the food waste diversion effort is voluntary. For example, there are multiple small scale composting and food recovery programs that take food out of the waste stream; however, all of those programs are private endeavors initiated by nonprofits or the private sector. As for city-led initiatives, the Bureau of Sanitation facilitates the Sanitation Restaurant Food Waste Recycling Program, which recovers over 38,000 pounds of food waste each year.(2012)

CITY AT A PRECIPICE If Los Angeles is to make significant strides in achieving Zero Waste, it has to roll out a comprehensive food waste diversion program.

Addressing food waste requires a multitude of strategies.

12

Zero Waste LA Los Angeles recently launched the Zero Waste LA Franchise System, which established exclusive franchises for waste collection zones for the commercial sector (Murphy, Pincetl, 2013). The Franchise agreement focuses on systemizing waste collection and incorporating greater regulation of waste hauling to achieve higher diversion rates. The agreement includes an organic collection framework, which will be phased in over time.

The Zero Waste LA Organic Collection Framework states: “The city seeks to expand organic collection over the term of the agreement. Initially the contractor will continue to provide food waste collection and processing service to approximately 846 customers in various parts of the city that currently receive those services. The Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation will provide these services to commercial establishments that request food waste collection. Additionally, contractors will be required to continue providing organics collection and processing to customers that are currently receiving yard trimmings collection service. Contractors shall actively encourage participation in organic diversion. Ultimately organic recycling

13

Other Policy Pushing Food Waste Out of the Waste Stream: • 1989 AB 939: Mandates landfill diversion and sets diversion goals.

• AB 32: Establishes methane control measures..

• 2011 AB 341: Mandatory multi-family recycling that includes moving organics out of landfills.

• 2014 AB 1826: Requires commercial generators of food waste to have composting or anaerobic digestion programs. (Gray, 2008)

A Shifting Food Waste Culture: Cities across the United States are recognizing both the harm and potential of food waste. Los Angeles organic collection framework is a good step toward advancing an eventual phase out of food waste from the waste stream. Los Angeles joins other key leaders in advancing the dialogue on food waste diversion.

Currently, three states, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have all passed food waste bans. Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco have also banned food waste (Henricks 2014). New York City is exploring a city-wide food waste ban and plans to ban food waste for hotels, hospitals, and large generators completely (Henricks 2014). So what do these food waste bans mean for waste management? Food waste bans mean cities have to look to innovative strategies to address food waste throughout all points of the waste stream. A few of these cities are already looking into anaerobic digestion which converts food waste into energy.

What to do about Spoiled Food?

Convert it to Energy!

The Zero Waste LA organics collection framework establishes a clear path for future organic collection; however, it does not outline what is to be done with that waste. One potential option, which this report explores, is converting food waste into energy through anaerobic digestion.

Anaerobic digestion is a large scale waste processing strategy that converts food waste into energy. Food waste is placed in large bio-digesters, consisting of a dark, oxygen-free environment operating at high temperatures. Waste is broken down into a biogas mixture consisting of methane and carbon dioxide, as well as fertilizer (Zhang, et al. 2007). The methane and carbon dioxide, also referred to as biogas, are transferred to a generator that converts the biogas into electricity, useable gas (transport fuel), and heat. The remaining byproduct, a fraction of the original volume, is used as fertilizer. The food waste to energy program has the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, public health issues, general waste collection frequency, increase renewable energy in Los Angeles, and provide fertilizer for our soil.

14

Why Anaerobic Digestion?

Anaerobic digestion provides a viable, innovative solution for processing large amounts of waste and providing renewable energy. Food waste to energy works off the basic premise that the waste stream is not linear, and is instead cyclical. In this approach, food waste is an asset, not a burden to manage, in that it returns to sustain the city in a different form as renewable energy and fertilizer. Anaerobic digestion offers an alternative to landfill disposal and large scale composting. Although composting is a valuable food waste diversion effort, anaerobic digestion offers the potential to process larger amounts of food waste without requiring equally large areas of land. (CalRecycle 2013) This isn’t to say composting is not a valuable alternative, all alternatives are valuable and preferable to landfilling.

Benefits of Anaerobic Digestion: • Less than 3% of food waste is diverted in California (Williams 2012). This means there is an extensive opportunity to collect that waste and process it for energy.

• The secret lies in the name; food waste produces renewable energy which means greater energy self-sufficiency.

• Processing food through anaerobic digestion conserves landfill capacity and reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Jenicek 2012).

• Potential to pass on savings to ratepayers Many cities already employ anaerobic digestion to process biosolids at wastewater treatment plants and a few of them have transitioned to include food waste in the digestion process, as later explained in two of the case studies. In the state of California alone, 137 wastewater treatment plants have anaerobic digestion programs to process biosolids; many of these operate with an estimated 15-30% excess capacity, which means food waste can be potentially included in the digestion (Gray 2008).

The City and County of Los Angeles are already piloting food waste to energy programs.

Los Angeles County Sanitation Department partnered with Waste Management, Inc, a private waste hauler, to collect food scraps from participating restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, and food processing plants. The food scraps are first processed at a Waste Management facility and then sent to a Los Angeles County wastewater treatment plant (Cernansky 2014). The food waste slurry is then added to the biosolids and processed in the existing anaerobic digesters. Los Angeles has great examples of anaerobic digestion programs all around, including the county it is in. Food waste to energy offers the city the opportunity to lead the way as a food waste diversion innovator, a renewable energy trailblazer, and a climate change leader.

15

What is Anaerobic Digestion?

Anaerobic Digestion is a large scale waste processing strategy that converts food waste into energy. Food waste is placed in large bio-digesters, consisting of a dark, oxygen free environment operating at high temperatures. Waste is broken down into a biogas mixture consisting of methane and carbon dioxide, as well as fertilizer. The methane and carbon dioxide, also referred to as biogas, are transferred to a generator that converts the biogas into electricity, useable gas (transport fuel) and heat. The remaining byproduct which is a fraction of the original volume is used as fertilizer.

Developing a food waste to energy program has the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, public health issues, general waste collection frequency, increase renewable energy production in Los Angeles and provide nutrients for our soil.

16

METHODOLOGY Research Question: The research was guided by the following research question: What best practices and emerging solutions can Los Angeles learn from food waste to energy programs employed in other cities?

Recap: This research draws findings from three case studies of model food waste to energy city-level programs: East Bay MUD in Oakland CA, Newtown Creek in Brooklyn, NY and MSWM in Oslo, Norway. Each program varies in extensivity, as food waste to energy is a fledgling urban initiative. Of the three, Oslo’s program is the most extensive. The factors examined for each case study were guided by a broader and comprehensive approach to understand food waste to energy programs in the context of the political, economic, and social frameworks of each city.

The context served as guidance for the analysis of the five categories selected for best practices and lessons learned. The categories are policy, finance, infrastructure, labor, and community engagement. These categories were selected per request of the client, the Don’t Waste LA Campaign, and because they were considered to be key in the initial development of food waste to energy programs.

• The policy section looks how each city’s’ food waste to energy strategy fits into the larger dialogue of achieving zero waste. It highlights the political strategy each city took to initiate and sustain the food waste to energy program.

• Finance reviews the type of investment dedicated to food waste to energy.

17

•

It pays particular attention to private, public and partnership funding schemes.

• Infrastructure assesses the type of infrastructure designated for anaerobic digestion programs. This section analysis the physical layout of AD sites and how they fit into the fabric of the city.

• Labor analyzes the labor benefits and green job transition of each program.

• Community engagement reviews the cooperation and engagement set in place by each program before and during the implementation of each food waste to energy program. \

Selecting the Cities: The case studies were selected based on various factors, including extensivity of the program, length of time of the established program, location of program, and service area. East Bay MUD, despite still being in its beginning stages, is located in California and services a similar population as that of Los Angeles, in terms of type of food waste generation. EBMUD functions within the same California legal and political arena and thus its political and financial strategy provide the most applicable insight for Los Angeles. Newtown Creek, also a new program, services the larger New York metropolitan region and thus resembles Los Angeles in size. Los Angeles can best learn from the strategies Newtown took in terms of infrastructure and community outreach. The MSWMD in Oslo, Norway is unique in that it is located in a different country so its political structure bears less resemblance to that of Los Angeles; nevertheless, it provides key insight because it has the most comprehensive, well- established, and most effective food waste to energy program of all three case studies.

Informing the Best Practices and Lessons Learned:

The scope of the best practices and lesson learned were defined by the client as the first goal of this project. Defining the scope was informed by various conversations with the client and supplemented by informal interviews with the City Department of Sanitation, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and UCLA Faculty in the Urban Planning Department and Environmental Engineering Department.

Methods: Literature Review: To provide an overarching historical foundation of waste management in cities and food waste, this report drew from a substantial amount of background research. The literature review provided key insight into cities as urban metabolisms, food waste generation, and anaerobic digestion as a final waste disposal strategy.

A better theoretical understanding of cities as urban metabolisms was key in understanding waste management as part of a larger system of production, consumption and disposal. Urban metabolisms highlight the disfunction of linear supply chain and provide insight into how food waste to energy programs contributes to transforming the supply chain into a cyclical system.

Investigating urban waste characterization and impacts of food waste better inform the type of waste in cities and type of waste directed to food waste to energy programs. Investigating the impacts of waste further support Zero Waste Initiatives and food waste collection programs.

Associated with food waste impacts are landfills in which significant attention was dedicated to understanding the impacts of landfills on community, environment and labor.

18

Finally investigating the anaerobic digestion process was essential for understanding how such a program fits within the zero waste dialogue and why and how cities can incorporate anaerobic digestion into their zero food waste strategy.

Field Research/ Informal Interviews: To buttress this report, I conducted several site visits of anaerobic digestion sites, landfill sites, and material recovery facility (MRF) sites in the Southern California region. I organized a site visit to the East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland, where I toured its waste processing facility and conducted informal interviews. All information from interviews served as foundational for understanding the anaerobic digestion process. I also toured a private facility run by Feed Resource Recovery Inc for retail giant, Kroger.

The facility, located in Compton, California, processes 55,000 tons of food waste through anaerobic digestion at a biogas facility built to help power the Ralphs/Food 4 Less distribution center.

The site tour and informal interview helped provide insight into energy benefits of food waste energy. I conducted several site visits to Hyperion treatment plant in El Segundo run by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. There I received a tour of the facility and learned more about the pilot program incorporating food waste into biosolids. I also toured several landfill sites and MURF sites. I visited the Puente Hills Landfill operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District in Puente Hills, California. The landfill is now closed and the facility operates as a material recovery facility.

Qualitative Research: The bulk of my research focused on: • Carrying out desktop research into previous studies of the amount and types of food waste produced by different urban secto • Using secondary data to estimate the likely amounts of food and organic waste arising in the Los Angeles region and the case study regions.

• Assessing different plant and location options across each city • Undertaking informal telephone interviews of organizations to provide in-depth information on food waste at different institution types.

Client Side Discussions: I met with my client a few times over the course of three quarters. I reached out to the Don’t Waste LA Campaign and proposed the client project in November and confirmed their acceptance as clients in December. The meetings arranged with the client were essential in determining the scope of the project and the prioritization of best practices and lessons learned.

The initial meeting confirmed the focus of the project on anaerobic digestion as a feasible Zero Waste strategy and my client expressed their interest in a labor and finance component.

Later discussions with the client provided insight into the structure of the Zero Waste initiative in Los Angeles and organic collection framework incorporated in the Zero Waste Plan. We also discussed the need for anaerobic digestion within the larger spectrum of food waste diversion strategies. In terms of efforts targeting food waste, anaerobic digestion lies at the end of the waste stream; nonetheless, it still proves essential for the waste that goes unprocessed and would otherwise end up in landfills.

19

PROFILING THE CASE STUDIES Three food waste to energy programs in separate cities were selected to guide the best practices and lessons learned. This section introduces the cities and the methodology used to define the scope of the project. Food waste to energy is a fledgling initiative as both a public city-wide effort and as a private endeavor. Cities often have multiple waste to energy facilities that are directed to, and service, distinct customers. The private sector, for example, operates a multitude of smaller scale food waste to energy initiatives that are tailored toward the agricultural industry, and the commercial sector. These initiatives, though important, are not included because the purpose of this report is to present food waste to energy programs servicing the city/county level.

These programs target the residential and commercial sector, and thus process much larger amounts of waste.

The methodology section covers the selection of comparability factors in each cities’ program.

Despite the disparity in comparable information, the five key areas were selected for the purpose of presenting information in a consistent manner to best demonstrate the basic political, economic, and social structure of each food waste program.

Selecting the Case Study Cities The goals for city selection where: • To demonstrate the potential impact of an all encompassing zero waste program that successfully targeted food waste • To showcase the benefits of food waste reduction.

• To expand on the renewable energy front by supporting innovative energy initiatives.

20

Criteria for the combination of cities: • A variety in the progress of each of the food waste to energy programs.

• Cities with Zero Waste Initiatives and a dedicated food waste reduction program.

• A large scale service area either at the city or county level.

• A range in the length of the existing food waste to energy program.

• A mix of investment strategies on the spectrum of public and private.

Criteria for each city: • A commitment to expanding the larger conversation of sustainability to encompass food waste.

• A waste collection service area including the residential and commercial sectors.

• A commitment to green energy job creation with labor rights considerations.

• A continuous expansion of the food waste to energy program.

Understanding the Case Study Cities A key element of the case studies is the significant variance in progress in each of the food waste to energy programs. The variation in progress is due to the newness of city-wide food waste initiatives. Food waste to energy is a high tech solution to the urban waste problems that is only beginning to gain momentum. Many cities are not equipped with the infrastructure to implement such a program. The infrastructure needed for anaerobic digestion is often large scale and costly. The cities which have implemented food waste to energy either already had existing anaerobic digestion infrastructure, which they activated to include food waste (i.e. EBMUD and Newtown Creek), or they had enough infrastructure set in place to collect food waste and invested in the infrastructure (i.e. Oslo.)

Food Waste to Energy Case Studies OAKLAND, CA East Bay MUD

BROOKLYN, NY Newtown Creek

OSLO, NORWAY MSWM

CASE STUDIES Lessons for Los Angeles

POLICY Zero Waste Policies

21

INFRASTRUCTURE Existing vs New

FINANCE Public/Private Partnerships

LABOR Contract Union

EDUCATION Outreach & Participation

East Bay MUD, Oakland Ouick Facts Service Area:

• San Francisco metro region

Service population: • 1.3 million residents

Organic Collection Service • City-wide mandatory food waste ban requires 100% of San Franciscans to participate in organics collection.

Total Waste Diversion: • 78% total waste diversion (includes recyclables and compost)

Key Topics

• San Francisco food waste ban requires city-wide organics collection.

• Co-digestion at existing wastewater treatment anaerobic digesters.

• First co-digestion program in the nation.

• Civicorps, a private waste hauler provides a job training program.

• Public-Private Partnership

In brief: The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is primarily a regional water and wastewater public agency servicing the east San Francisco Bay. It provides wastewater treatment for over 650,000 people in the Bay Area and is located in Oakland adjacent to the Bay Bridge (EBMUD). Its anaerobic digestion program processes biosolids separated from wastewater and produces energy that in turn powers the facility. (EPA) East Bay MUD was the first wastewater treatment plant in the United States to incorporate food waste into its anaerobic digestion program. Initially, the food waste program was a pilot collaboration between a local Bay Area waste hauler, Recology. To support the pilot initiative, EPA awarded EBMUD a research grant.

The program has proved effective and is in continuous expansion. It now receives waste from throughout the Bay Area and has expanded to include multiple waste haulers.

Civicorp, was recently awarded a contract with EBMUD, which included a job training program for recent high school graduates.

The program supports green jobs by offering training for clean tech jobs at EBMUD. In 2012, the anaerobic digestion program became a net area energy producer, meaning it not only powers all of the EBMUD facilities, but it sells back energy to the grid (Fulcher 2012). EBMUD expects significant expansion as the surrounding Bay Area cities expand their commitment to zero waste goals.

Policy The origins of the food waste to energy program at EBMUD are linked to a conscious effort to increase waste diversion in San Francisco. The first food waste pilot program launched in 2004 was a result of a partnership between Recology, San Francisco’s waste hauler, and EBMUD. (EBMUD 2015) During the years preceding the pilot program, Recology launched the Fantastic Three Bin system that provided refuse, organics, and recycling services (BG Alliance).

Around that same time, San Francisco took key policy steps on the waste diversion front. In 1997, it adopted its first Sustainability Plan in which it set the goal of eliminating waste generation in San Francisco. In its 2002 Zero Waste Plan, the City set concrete goals for that plan with 75% diversion in 2010 and 100% diversion in 2020 (Siemens 2014).

San Francisco did not adopt a food waste ban until 2009, but Recology’s three bin system offered a voluntary food waste collection program (ILSR 2012). Recology and the City of San Francisco reached out to EBMUD and initiated dialogue on the pilot program for food waste to energy. The program was supported by an EPA anaerobic digestion grant. (EBMUD 2015)Food waste to energy was an innovative idea at EBMUD; however, there was some precedent. EBMUD had previously accepted waste from canneries in the surrounding service area, but the canneries closed down and EBMUD was left with excess capacity.(EBMUD 2015) Recology and San Francisco’s partnership saw this excess capacity as an opportunity, and EBMUD eventually launched the pilot program. As part of the pilot program, EBMUD built a food waste processing facility onsite to prepare the waste for the digesters. The processing facility essentially serves as a blender, liquefying the food waste, and prepares it for co-digestion.

24

The pilot program was key in demonstrating that mixing food waste with biosolids actually increased the energy production of the digesters. While the pilot program was in practice, San Francisco continued pushing legislation aimed at minimizing and diverting waste production. Between 2004 and 2007, San Francisco passed ordinances promoting waste reduction for buildings, construction, and the food service sector (SFDE 2011). In 2009, the City of San Francisco officially mandated a food waste ban for all San Franciscans. To address the increase in food waste, recology offers composting and waste to energy services. All throughout this time, San Francisco was not only responding to local waste diversion goals but state goals too.

Key legislation includes: • 1989: AB 939 mandates landfill diversion for California jurisdictions and sets gradually increasing diversion goals.

• 2006: AB 32 establishing a greenhouse gas reduction plan and outlines landfill methane control measures and promotes zero waste goals.

• 2011: AB 341 requires that waste haulers provide mandatory multi-family recycling and composting.

• 2014: AB 1826 mandates commercial generators of food waste to have composting or anaerobic digestion programs.

San Francisco was the first to initiate the pilot program and as it responded to policy and the pilot’s success, EBMUD standardized the program, increased the amount of food waste it processed, and began receiving food waste from more Bay Area cities. EBMUD now receives waste from various cities, all of which are in one way or another responding to local and state zero waste goals. and state zero waste goals.

Policy behind Recology’s SF contact: The San Francisco Department of the Environment and the San Francisco Department of Public Works create zero waste policies, but the ground work of collection is done by the city’s private waste hauler, Recology, which is the sole waste hauler as a result of the 1932 Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance (SFDPW 2012).

The ordinance declares that waste haulers hold an exclusive permit to collect refuse in the city of San Francisco. It created a city-regulated utility model, meaning that the waste hauler is subject to new provisions of service as outlined

by San Francisco voters. (SFDE) The city considers the single waste hauler contract an effective way of adopting and implementing policies for achieving zero waste goals.

Finance: Financing the food waste to energy program at EBMUD consists of separate streams of public and private financing. On the public side, EBMUD is a public utility district and thus runs on publicly allocated funds (EBMUD). The existing bio-digesters are paid for by those existing funds. The food waste to energy program, however, was initially spearheaded by the pilot project. Additionally, Recology paid EBMUD a tipping fee to process the food waste(WERF). In 2006, EBMUD received a Region 9: Resource Conservation Fund Grant to support expansion of the pilot program (EBMUD). The grant was intended for the study of anaerobic digestion of food waste and its comparison to existing anaerobic digestion programs of biosolids. At the collection stage, private waste haulers throughout the Bay Area provide food waste collection.

Though the collection is coordinated by a private waste hauler, food waste collection is a response to a public mandate. The food waste processing facilities are also privately owned.

25

The first food waste processing facility opened during the pilot program was paid for by Recology and is located inside the EBMUD facility in Oakland. Other food waste processing facilities are also paid for by waste haulers with contracts for food waste delivery to EBMUD.

Infrastructure: Similar to funding, food waste to energy infrastructure consists of public and private resources targeting food waste throughout the process.

The collection stage collects waste through a three bin separation system and is coordinated by private waste haulers (RecologySF). Residents and businesses all throughout the San Francisco Bay area are provided this service. As the policy section illustrates, the bin collection system was a program that unfolded through many years of work and strategic policy initiatives.

In addition to widespread, organized, and routine food waste collection, food waste to energy requires food processing plants to prep the food waste for digestion. Because food waste bares a different compositional consistency than biosolids, food waste cannot be directly inserted into the digesters (EPA 2010). At EBMUD, the food waste processing facilities had to be constructed during the pilot program. Waste haulers in other parts of the Bay Area are building more food processing facilities as new contracts with EBMUD unfold.

The benefit of EBMUD’s food waste to energy program is that the largest component of necessary infrastructure, the digesters, were already in existence. The digesters were initially built to process biosolids and food waste from canneries in the Bay Area. Extra capacity was built into the design and the closing of the canneries further increased capacity. EBMUD continues to run its biodigesters below capacity, leaving

Labor: Spotlight on Recology: The City of San Francisco’s waste management collection system has not always looked the way it does now. Currently, Recology holds sole contract rights to waste collection in San Francisco (RecologySF). The company has a long history of organizing scavengers that has translated into its business model. In 1986, the employees of Recology, known as Norcal at the time, purchased the company as part of their Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Soon after, Norcal merged with another waste hauler, Envirocal, and formed Recology. The Employee Stock Opportunities Program (ESOP) plans for retirement benefits for company employees.

(RecologySF) Employees can purchase stock at a discount rate.

Labor: Spotlight on Civicorps EBMUD’s success has enabled the facility to receive waste from other waste haulers in the San Francisco Bay Area. As part of its Zero Waste Franchise Agreement, the City of Oakland awarded Civicorps a contract to collect commercial waste (cvorp.org). Civicorps included a job training program in the contract, and may be the first waste hauler to do so in the nation. The contract is set to create 13 new jobs for low-income Oakland youth and will provide critical revenue for Civicorps’ nonprofit work (SE Alliance). The ten-year contract will double Civicorps’ current $5 million budget. Profits will go towards supporting high school diploma, college preparation, and social service programs.

26

Community Outreach: EBMUD is an existing wastewater treatment facility located in an Oakland industrial area.

Its location is unique in that it is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, and is straddled by multiple freeways. Because of its existing infrastructure and unique location, the community outreach component of the food waste to energy program focuses on education at the food waste collection stage and on the benefits of the food waste to energy program. In San Francisco, as in Oakland and other small Bay Area cities, the department of environment focuses on educating the public on its Zero Waste campaign. In San Francisco, SF Environment partners with Recology to offer recycling and composting resources for residents and businesses.

Those resources include: • training • letters notifying tenants of new programs • signage and posters • stickers and buttons and • door to door multi-lingual outreach.

• San Francisco’s strength in community outreach lies in its diverse set of plans and goals that interweave zero waste goals into their framework.

For example, not only does its Sustainability Plan and Zero Waste Plan include food waste diversion guidelines and community outreach components, so does its Climate Change Plan.

The philosophy behind San Francisco’s diverse community outreach portfolio is that goals should not be siloed but rather interwoven in multiple strategies.

27

Newtown Creek, Brooklyn Ouick Facts Service Area • New York metro region

Service Population

• Services 1 million residents

Organics Collection Service Total Waste Dversion • Mandatory waste diversion for large food waste generators. Voluntary residential service

28

• 55% diversion rate (2010)

Key Topics

• Mayor’s Food Waste Challenge challenges restaurants to reduce food waste • Co-digestion at existing wastewater treatement plant.

• Interactive biogas plant includes nature walk for local community and visitors.

• Public-private partnership with Waste Management, Inc.

In brief: Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Northern Brooklyn services the New York City area and is the city’s largest treatment facility.

It is primarily a wastewater treatment plant and provides service for over 1 million people in the New York City area. The Newtown Creek food waste to energy program is part of a public-private partnership between Waste Management Inc, the regional waste hauler, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection and the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY), and metro NY’s energy supplier (NYCDEP). The project is part of a larger zero waste initiative under the PlaNYC sustainability plan and the Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability.

29

The food waste to energy program at NYC is in its nascent stages. The Department of Environmental Protection launched the food waste pilot program during the summer of 2013. By the summer of 2014, the department recognized its success in energy generation and waste diversion and has rolled out a second phase to scale up the program. (Fletcher 2014) Newtown Creek also recently renovated its biodigesters, which it refers to as “digester eggs” and include excess capacity for food waste.

To increase the diversion of organic material in the City’s waste stream, DSNY launched a voluntary residential organics recycling program in parts of Staten Island, Brooklyn, and the Bronx.

(DSNY 2014) The program is expected to serve 100,000 households by June 2014. DSNY also expanded the school food waste composting pilot to 400 public schools in all five boroughs in 2013. The food waste from some schools is processed by Waste Management and added to the anaerobic digester eggs at Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to increase the production of biogas at the facility (NYC.gov).

Policy: A series of state and local policies and have plans have transformed the waste landscape and prompted action on the zero waste front.

New York City and the surrounding burroughs has had a complicated history of waste management. Because of its areas density, the city heavily depends of efficient waste management practices to prevent waste buildup on the streets. In recognition that NY needed more than just efficient waste management collection, the state passed the 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan in which it outlined the goal to reduce, reuse, and recycle 50% of the waste stream based on 1988 waste generation rates.

(DSNY) 30

The plan also recommended a hierarchy in preferred solid waste management methods giving greater preference to recycle and reuse over landfilling. To give the plan more teeth, in 1988, the state passed the Solid Waste Management Act in which it clearly outlined those goals and set target diversion rates with a plan for annual review of waste reduction target and revision of goals (DECNY 2010).For a years, waste management goals and targets were placed on the backburner and few new policies were set in place.

Beginning 2010, however, New York has pushed its own new set of policies calling for drastic reductions in waste. New York’s Beyond Waste Plan recognized that few updates had been made to the 1988 Solid Waste Management Plan so the plan set new goals for waste prevention, reuse, comprehensive recycling, beneficial use and best residual management strategies. It additionally created a recovery of organics program in which it not only outlines food recovery (before it spoils) but also outlines support for innovative programs such as food waste to energy and composting (DECNY, 2010). The recovery of organics section states:

“Recovery of Organics (food scraps, non‐recyclable paper and yard trimmings) – creating a combination of policies and programs to: expand backyard composting; expand on‐site composting at institutions and large generators and develop greater collection and recovery infrastructure for commercial, institutional and residential food scraps and yard trimmings.” (CBC 2012)

During this same time, New York City passed two key pieces of legislation targeting food waste. Intro 1060, passed in 2013 restricted the sale of single service food items packaged in polystyrene (Biocycle). Seemingly unrelated, this ban is important to food waste recycling efforts because foam and packaging often pollute the waste stream, making it more difficult to recycle organics. The ban facilitates collection and separation of food waste, consequently making food waste collection much more economical.

(CAW) In the same year, the City of New York passed Local Law 146 requiring the city’s largest food waste generators to separate food waste in order to increase food waste diversion from landfills.

This policy was in response to PlaNYC’s goal of diverting more waste from landfills.

Preceding the adoption of 146, the city had a series of food waste collection programs that had been successful in collecting food waste (CORR). 146 built off these efforts and mandated commercial sectors participation, as they generated significantly larger amounts of food waste than any other sector. In recognition of the attention building around food waste, in 2013, NYC launched a public campaign called NYC Food Waste Challenge in which the Mayor invited New York City restaurants to help reduce food waste by committing to a 50% food waste diversion goal (NYC.gov).

31

The structure of the program consists of: 1. Regular Partner Meetings 2. Working Groups Workshop topics may include: • Carter contract negotiation: Group rates / Geographic cluster discounts; • Detailed billing Simple ways to measure waste generation and monitor diversion • Effective messaging (front-of-house & backof-house) and training (back-of-house) • Waste storage bin and optimized layout solutions 3. Access to Resources and Technical Expertise 4. Promotion and Recognition (NYC.gov) The food waste challenge is voluntary but promotes participation through public recognition and a rewards. The idea behind the food waste challenge is to elevate the discussion around food waste while simultaneously the city rolls out more food waste collection infrastructure.

This policy buildup also resulted in a food waste buildup. In response the city of New York started coordinating with its private waste haulers to look to innovate ways of processing the large accumulation of food waste. In 2013, the City of New York partnered with a private waste hauler to pilot a food waste to energy program at Newtown Creek. Waste Management Inc, developed a pilot food waste collection program

program for public schools and farmers market and sent that waste to a food processing facility which it provided funding for construction.

(DSNY) The success of the program coupled with the new accumulation of food waste from the recently passed food waste diversion policies, prompted the City of New York to develop the pilot program into a standardized program (Casey 2014). Working with Waste Management Inc, and National Grid, Newtown Creek is increasing the amount of food waste it receives (Crean 2013). Simultaneously, Waste Management Inc, is rolling out more food waste collection programs in the five boroughs and National Grid, the metro NY energy provider is converting that waste into energy to power the surrounding community. The program is still in its early stages, nevertheless its potential for growth is infinite.

Financing: New York City’s food waste to energy program is a the result of a private-public partnership between the City of New York, National Grid and Waste Management, Inc. On the private side, Waste Management invested in an organic collection program and a food waste recycling facility. The facility, similar to Recology’s at EBMUD is for the purpose of preparing food waste before it enters the digesters. As for public side, the city of New York receives funds from environmental protection fund and bond acts and a series of fees. Newtown Creek was already in existence when the food waste to energy program was rolled out in 2013. Similar to EBMUD food waste program, it employs co-digestion by mixing food waste with biosolids. The bio-digesters at Newtown Creek were partially funded by the Environmental Protection Fund and Bond Acts of 1972, 1986 and 1996 to build environmental infrastructure. Additional solid waste 32

disposal fees, plastic bag fees, and permit fees generate revenue for City of New York, who then allocates money for the food waste to energy program.

As for the Newtown Creek facility, the facility underwent a vast upgrade and expansion in 2009. The expansion focused on building new anaerobic digesters. The reconstruction was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, federal stimulus funding.

Infrastructure: Much of the existing Newtown Creek wastewater treatment plant was built between 1965 through 1979. Recently however the treatment plant underwent an upgrade and now includes new egg-shaped anaerobic digesters. The egg digesters process New York City and the surrounding boroughs’ biosolids and more recently some of its food waste.

The food waste to energy infrastructure in New York City and at Newtown Creek is very much in its nascent stages. New York City nor any of the surrounding boroughs have any city-wide mandatory food waste collection. The recent 146 law mandating a commercial food waste ban is New York City’s first food waste ban. At the point of collection, waste is collected by various waste haulers in the region in which Waste Management Inc, is one of the largest waste collectors. The City has a mix of collection systems varying from a three bin program with organic collection, recycling and refuse to no purse refuse collection. New York is slowly standardizing the three bin system however,much work is left on that front.

The food waste that ends up at Newtown Creek is all source from the areas where Waste Management does have an organic collection program. The new food waste that Newtown Creek is set to receive will also come from an

established organic collection program.

In the City of New York and Waste Management Inc, partnership, waste management agreed to build a new food waste processing plant which is intended for food waste processing and preparation for co-digestion. The processing facility is also located in Brooklyn.

Labor: Similar to Los Angeles, New York City residential trash collection is handled by the City’s Sanitation Department. Commercial waste collection and multifamily collection is privately organized by waste haulers. Waste Management Inc, controls much of the waste collection in New York City. It is a national company headquartered in Texas, with a mixed record of labor rights (WM. com). Local 813, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is the union that represents the Waste Management Inc, workers. There is a long history of teamster strikes in response to poor worker benefits and hazardous working conditions(Chan 2006). Though New York’s waste to energy program does not establish new pro-labor requirements organic collection can help decrease hazardous conditions during waste collection. When food waste is separated from the waste stream, the remaining waste collection is less frequent (Zero 2011). In a Toronto case study, organics were collected weekly while the remaining waste was collected on alternate weeks(Bain 2011). New collection technology such as toters and semi-automated collection also offers the potential to reduce waste injuries.

Community Outreach:

Newtown Creek is located in an industrial area of Brooklyn but recognizes it can make the facility more appealing and welcoming to the public . As part of a public art project, during its 2009 reconstruction.

33

Newtown Creek created a Creekside nature walk which wraps around the facility and includes an education center for the public (NYC. gov). The nature walk was built as part of the City of New York’s “1% for art” which stipulates that new municipal construction include public amenities for open space.

In addition to the actual facilities’ outreach efforts, the City of New York’s public outreach efforts include the food waste challenge which provides technical assistance to businesses and informs the public of the environmental and economic impacts of food waste.

MSWMD, Oslo, Norway Ouick Facts Service Area

• Municipality and City of Oslo

Service Population • services 600,000 residents

Organics Collection Service • Provides city-wide organics collection.

Total Diversion Rate • 80% total diversion rate

34

Key Topics

• Most expansive food waste to energy program.

• Food waste to energy facility completed in 2014. No co-digestion, just food waste.

• Highest rate of waste diversion and highest rate of organics diversion.

• Large scale generation of energy powers city services, i.e. public transportation.

In Brief:

35

The Waste To Energy Agency (EGE) in Oslo, Norway is a public agency solely dedicated to organizing the waste collection program, energy plant and biogas production. The agency focuses on two big tasks: 1) waste incineration and energy production and 2) biogas production form from food waste to energy.

The agency collects food waste from its 1.4 million residents and provides renewable energy to households and public transportation buses. The biogas facility built to process the food waste is a recent development and was officially opened in 2014 but has been part of an ongoing wave of waste management strategies aimed at waste reduction and reuse (Dahl Monsen). Norway frames its waste strategy as not only important for environmental planning but essential in climate change mitigation and energy independence (EGE). Along with its waste management goals of zero waste, food waste to energy is also helping Oslo achieve its EU goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020. (EC)

Policy: Norway had been making efforts to reduce its waste generation through the 80’s and 90’s but the waste to energy movement was in part kickstarted by a European Union directive requiring member states to reduce the amount of waste they sent to landfills (Grose). Waste to energy had already been a waste management strategy all throughout Europe, but over the course of the last 15 years since the EU’s directive, 60 new WTE facilities have been built all throughout Europe (Russell, 2013). That’s about a 15% increase from the amount of WTE plants since 1999.

At the national level, Norway’s parliamentary system of governance has also mandated waste reduction goals for the entire country.The country sets national goals which the 400 local councils respond to. During the early 2000’s, Norway set the nation goal of recycling 75% of waste by 2010. In response, the local governments developed more innovative waste management strategies to comply with the national legislation. At the local level, the Oslo municipality responds to the national waste reduction by tailoring its waste strategy to its local population.

Finance: Norway’s waste to energy strategy is composed of strategic public-private partnerships. For the newly constructed Romerike Biogas Plant, the city of Oslo partnered with Cambi to provide assistance (Dahl Monsen). Cambi built and operates the Tunkey plant. They essentially work as the expert consultants and comply with Oslo’s increasing waste reduction goals. The food waste to energy program includes a third partner, the energy distributor, AGA, (Linde Group).

The distributor then sells back the energy for its public transportation service, municipal waste collection trucks and residents.

36

Norway has been able to establish successful private-public partnerships because it awards contracts with development and environmental stipulations. As in the Cambi-Oslo partnership.

Oslo awarded Cambi the contract because it would provide energy production services and comply with Oslo’s increasing food waste diversion goals.

Infrastructure: Norway has extensive waste to energy infrastructure throughout the country and municipality of Oslo (environment.no). Prior to the construction of the Romerike Biogas Plant, Oslo already operated two waste to energy, albeit they were incineration facilities.

Oslo’s waste to energy infrastructure consists of four main components. The city is in charge of providing the waste collection services. Because of Oslo’s extensive waste diversion program their collection program consists of a three bin system with color coded bags (Mikkelsen). Blue is recyclables, green is for food waste, and white is for other. Waste is then sent to a processing plant which they call optical sorting plant. The optical sorting plant is a mechanical pre-sorting facility which consists of three lines all focused on sorting food waste and plastics. The food waste is collected and taken to the recently built biogas plant where the food waste is converted to biogas via anaerobic digestion.

Community Outreach: Oslo’s Romerike Biogas plant is located outside the city near agriculture and is strategically intended to be away from populations in order to not cause nuisance. Oslo is one of Europe’s’ and to the world’s leaders in waste management. As the image demonstrates below, within two years Norway reduced its landfilling to less than 2%. In 2010 it already had one of the lowest landfilling rates in Europe and it achieved even further reduction within two years. (EGE) Part of this success has been in part due to effective waste collection education. Norway not only educates residents about the bin system but it provides residents with multicolored bags and trashcans for inside the home. The trashcans and color coded bags are suppose to facilitate waste separation even before it enters the waste collection bin. This strategic education piece paired with its extensive waste infrastructure have been key in Oslo and Norway’s food waste to energy success.

37

APPLICATIONS FOR LOS ANGELES The three case studies of anaerobic digestion programs reveal the complexity of food waste to energy initiatives. Of the three programs, Oslo’s is the most effective in capturing and converting food waste into biogas, but even they are only in the first phase of their biogas program. The purpose of this report is to highlight a few key components of each location’s food waste to energy program to provide key lessons for Los Angeles.

However, if Los Angeles is to apply the lessons from the food waste to energy programs, it must evaluate its own key strengths and weaknesses and then set up a food waste program as part of a larger Zero Waste Campaign.

38

Strength 1: Existing Infrastructure:

Strength 3: Sustainability Planning

There is no need to reinvent the wheel, Los Angeles can roll out a food waste to energy program by partnering with existing anaerobic digestion programs at wastewater treatments plants in the surrounding region. Potential partner sites include the Hyperion wastewater treatment plant in El Segundo and City of Carson Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) Both Hyperion and JWPCP service the Los Angeles metropolitan area and run with excess capacity. Both plants are already partnering with the county to develop pilot programs for food waste to energy. The actual anaerobic digestion structures are the most expensive infrastructural requirements of food waste to energy programs, Los Angeles has that key component, what it has to do is coordinate the collection and processing of food waste to make a food waste program run efficiently.

In 2014, Los Angeles released its first Sustainability Plan. The pLAn outlines a series of targets and goals including waste diversion. Each of the goals includes provisions for decreased energy consumption and renewable energy expansion. The effort on waste reduction focuses on the environmental impacts, two bigs ones being that landfills are the number one source of methane, a harmful greenhouse gas and the second being the current waste plan is a archaic, inefficient and heavily dependent on fossil fuels. By renovating the waste collection process and expanding waste diversion programs, the city is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Anaerobic digestion of food waste can help uplift Los Angeles as a climate change leader because it not only reduces emissions at landfills but it also increases locally generated renewable energy.

Strenth 2: Commitment to Zero Waste Los Angeles stands at a precipice in zero waste diversion. The city has expressed a deep commitment to zero waste and has rolled out its Zero Waste Franchise Agreement and Zero Waste Diversion Goals. Additional legislation including a large commercial food waste ban are all great opportunities to create awareness about the food waste problem and get people exciting about alternative solutions.

The Zero Waste Franchise Agreement has an organics collection framework including in the contract with waste haulers. Though the agreement does not set a deadline for the implementation of the food waste plan, the simple fact that it includes a framework gives future food waste initiative much more grounding . The city should take advantage of this provision and require citywide food waste collection as does San Francisco and Oslo.

39

Opportunities for growth #1: Understanding the Technical Landscape

Opportunities for growth #2: Define the Food Waste Landscape

As food waste to energy and composting gain more attention and Los Angeles begins to seriously invest in this type of waste infrastructure, the city needs to understand the regulatory restriction of these facilities. Both compost and anaerobic digestion facilities require compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and california state policy. These type of facilities require permits from local land use and building permit agencies from the local air district, regional water board and CalRecycle. (CalRecycle) • Local Air District Restrictions: As a Clean Air Act requirement, anaerobic digestion and composting facilities have to control volatile organic compounds. New facilities are required to implement best management practices (BMPs) to meet environmental standards. BMPs including a compost cap and aerated static piles or in-vessel systems.

• Regional Water Board Restrictions: To comply with the Clean Water Act, the regional water board requires a green waste only waiver for composting facilities. The waiver is now the waste discharge requirement law. CalRecycle also requires specific compliance for composting sites including compliance with the Compostable Material Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements.

• California Department of Food and Agriculture Restrictions: CDFA requires licensing and product registration and labeling of bulk compost intended Anaerobic digestion and composting plants cannot process livestock or poultry carcasses. Animal byproducts are required by CDFA to go to licensed rendering plants or collection

To move forward with a food waste to energy program, the City of Los Angeles has to understand the food waste landscape. Where is food waste coming from, who is producing that food waste and where is it going are all key question Los Angeles needs to ask itself.

• Pinpointing where food waste comes from will help provide Los Angeles key insight to the best solutions. Anaerobic digestion is one strategy focused on food waste at the final point of disposal. This report aims to provide a framework for such a program, nevertheless there are several other strategies the city can and should implement alongside anaerobic digestion. Those strategies include: campaigns for behavioural change to reduce overall food waste at the source, food recovery programs to divert edible food and increase the city’s food security in the most food insecure neighborhoods, small scale composting for community gardens and regional farms.

• To understand the food waste landscape, Los Angeles needs to identify who are the biggest food waste producers and what infrastructure and assistance is in place or can be put in place to reduce waste. Los Angeles, to a certain extent is already doing this by by targeting large commercial food waste producers. Pinpointing big producers and then working toward implementing targets for small scale producers will help Los Angeles ease into a full scale food waste diversion program.

• While pinpointing the production of food waste, Los Angeles simultaneously needs to follow the food waste stream to understand where it all is ending up. Los Angeles currently has a general understanding of

40

• of where food is going, however a more indepth understanding can prove useful if it is set to expand its waste diversion efforts.

Opportunity for growth #3: Coordinate public and private collection programs Los Angeles’ Zero Waste Franchise Agreement is an important step in advancing waste diversion efforts because it establishes a partnership between the city and private waste haulers and incorporates an element of accountability. Prior to the agreement, private haulers abided to minimal regulation.

Nevertheless, the city’s waste collection is still divided into public waste collection services and private waste collection. The public side already has a three bin system for the residents it services. On the private side, the City only requires recycling and refuse collection and eventually organics collection. In whatever steps the city takes in it future food waste diversion, it needs to make sure that the goals apply to both the public and private collection services.

Opportunity for growth #4: Frame Waste Reduction as a Key Climate Change Mitigation Strategy As an overarching goal, the city recognizes the need for climate change action and includes provisions in its sustainability plan. The pLAn alludes to the potential benefits of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in renewable energy, however it doesn’t champion those benefits as key elements for overall sustainability. Oslo’s waste to energy agency ties food waste diversion to energy independence, the two go hand in hand. Framing the benefits of renewable energy may increase overall understanding and support of food waste diversion.

41

LESSONS LEARNED This report reviewed the political, economic and social framework of food waste to energy programs at three case study locations: East Bay MUD in Oakland, Newtown Creek in Brooklyn and Waste to Energy (EGE) in Oslo, Norway.

There is much variation between the food waste to energy programs of each of these locations and the cities they service, nevertheless the simple existence of these programs offers key lessons for which Los Angeles can learn from.

42

COMPARATIVE FINDINGS OAKLAND, CA East Bay MUD

BROOKLYN, NY Newtown Creek

OSLO, NORWAY MSWM

CASE STUDIES Lessons for Los Angeles

COLLECTION Procedure Policy

ADVANTAGES Los Angeles has anaeorbic digestion infrastructure that can be activated to capture food waste energy.

East Bay MUD uses wastewater infrastructure for food waste to energy.

SMART SYSTEMS

43

INFRASTRUCTURE Existing New

FINANCE Public/Pirvate Private

DISADVANTAGES Food waste to energy programs do not address exessive waste generation.

Oslo, however has low per capita waste rates and remains a food waste to energy leader.

LABOR Contract Union

ADVANTAGES The majority of waste that goes to landfills in Los Angeles is food waste, this waste can be diverted and converted into energy to power residential businesses and commercial sectors.

CYCLICAL METABOLISM

EDUCATION Outreach Participation

DISADVANTAGES Waste to energy facilities are expensive to construct; projects tend to be heavily subsidized by government.

Projects tend to have low return on investment without gov. support.

CLEAN ENERGY

Key Lesson #1: Regulation and Finance

The funding streams that each of the programs tapped into look very different depending on the city. EBMUD was able to tap into federal funds because it was the first pilot program in the nation to test food waste to energy at wastewater treatment anaerobic digesters. Newtown Creek was able to inadvertently build up its anaerobic digesters through federal recovery act funds and Oslo invested in infrastructure as a result of a strong national and local initiative. All three of these financing streams came from different sources which mean supportive funds can from a multitude of unlikely allies. The key takeaway is that despite there not being one set path for food waste infrastructure and programs, a program can forge their own path and seek help from a multiple sources.

What all three programs do have in common is that they established private-public partnership and stipulated provisions for key infrastructure investment. EBMUD partnered with Recology, San Francisco’s private waste hauler, to collect the food waste and fund the food waste processing plant. At Newtown Creek, Waste Management, New York City’s private waste hauler followed a similar strategy and built the food processing plant. Oslo had a slightly different strategy in which the Waste to Energy Agency partnered with a private company to build and operate the biogas plant.

The key advantage for each of the cities is that they control the waste management market. They have the power to award time-restricted contracts to private haulers and thus can include stipulations such as a three bin system with organics collection. Los Angeles is just beginning to realize the power such contracts hold. The city’s Franchise system creates 7 different waste districts and establishes a bidding system for each of the districts. Those waste haulers that are awarded a district must comply with the city’s waste diversion goals.

In addition to managing the public private partnerships each of the case studies invested in education and community outreach efforts to facilitate waste collection. All sectors of the city from individual residents to large businesses were informed of what type of waste disposal was available, how they would comply and what happened if they didn’t. Education was essentially in making each program successful.

44

Key Lesson #2: Smarter Working Systems

Food waste to energy is an innovative idea with infinite room for potential.

If there is anything that Los Angeles is to take away from these case studies it is that innovation can come in vastly unique forms and that if the city supports innovation, it can reap tremendous benefits. • Different Approaches to Similar Problems The Zero Waste goal is a recognition that the old system of waste disposal no longer works. Landfilling is an environmental problem, a health risk, and a resource sinkhole. What each of the case studies recognized was a need for a new set of waste strategies, a new set of approaches to the same problem. Consequently, food waste diversion efforts targeted waste at all levels of its generations. Each program restructured its waste management strategy and launched informational campaigns to bring awareness. • Local Solutions to Local Problems The old technique of waste disposal was simple; fill a hole with waste until there was no more room than move on to the next hole. Landfills popped up through the cities, then slowly popped moved out to the metro areas then moved further out into surrounding region or the surrounding states. As landfills moved further away from the city and land became more expensive, waste rates increased and transportation rates increased. The case studies illustrate that the solution to waste management does not lie in shipping out the waste further out, it lies in local solutions. Anaerobic digestion provides a local solution to a local problem. EBMUD and Newtown Creek harnessed the existing infrastructure solution of wastewater anaerobic digestion, and retrofitted it to include food waste.

45

.Key Lesson #3: Knowledge and Understanding: Integrated Waste Management

Waste is not a problem that exists in isolation. As cities create new strategies to divert waste and process it in an innovative and beneficial manner, they also inadvertently looked into the system that generated that waste.

All three cities recognized the flaws in the overall production and consumption process that were leading to a buildup in waste. As a result they recognized that waste management wasn’t just about collecting waste and not ask who generated it and why but developing holistic strategies that provided deeper understanding of how cities work. For example, in the case of New York, as the city was looking into expanding its food waste collection it realized that a big component of that food waste was the packaging that went along with it. In response it banned polystyrene packaging, consequently reducing food waste packaging and facilitating food waste diversion.

Cities are urban metabolisms. They consume and produce waste as a by-product. If we use that metaphor to analyze our current method of waste disposal, we can conclude that we have a dysfunctional urban metabolism. A key component of a well functioning metabolism is that it is cyclical, or waste stream is not cyclical, it is linear. Anaerobic digestion alongside with food recovery and composting transform cities into functioning metabolism. All of these solutions go a step further and not only reduce waste but return local renewable energy and resources back to the city.

46

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOS ANGELES • Commit to the most rigorous definition of zero waste. Los Angeles has set itself the goal of 100% diversion by 2020, nevertheless it has not included food waste diversion provisions into its goal. If Los Angeles is to be a zero waste leader it has to commit to diversion of all waste including food waste. To accomplish its goal it should include include food waste into its waste diversion metrics.

• Provide check-ins with private waste haulers. As the case studies demonstrate, a good relationship with private waste haulers can be tremendously helpful.

In addition to awarding contracts to those waste haulers that are committed to zero waste, Los Angeles should check in with waste haulers to make sure they are meeting diversion goals and if there are not provide them technical assistance.

• Standardize waste collection goals.

Los Angeles is in charge of two separate waste collection programs, the public waste collection service for residential households and small multifamily units and the private waste collection service, part of the zero waste waste franchise agreement. Los Angeles needs to make sure that whatever zero waste goals the city implements, both waste collection systems modify their collection services to meet those goals.

• Establish a clear message on zero waste. Everyone that is part of the program, from the Department of Sanitation and the private waste haulers to the individual residents and business owners, should know what zero waste means and how they are contributing to it. There should be no ambiguity about who and what is required to recycle.

• Develop food waste diversion targets and develop food waste • collection infrastructure. In addition to creating food waste diversion “aspiration goals,” the City should set aggressive reduction, composting, and recycling targets. To achieve those targets, Los Angeles should track waste disposal for each sector and provide progress reports on food waste diversion goals.

47

• Retrofit existing anaerobic digestion infrastructure to include food waste. Los Angeles can follow EBMUD and Newtown Creek food waste to energy model by co-digesting food waste at the county’s existing wastewater treatment anaerobic digesters. Hyperion and JWPCP both have anaerobic digesters that run below capacity and each already is running a pilot program.

• Establish a city food waste to energy network. Similar to C40 which is a collaboration of 75 cities all around that world that exchange ideas on greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, cities with food waste to energy programs should form an international platform where they can exchange ideas and best practices and technical assistance on food waste collection and energy generation.

• Adopt a Food Waste Challenge. New York’s food waste challenge is an exciting concept because it create awareness about the food waste issue. It is an entirely voluntary program but it incentivizes restaurants who participates through public recognition.

Such a strategy is important to raise awareness about the food waste issue and give agency to the people on the ground responsible for the food waste.

• Award contracts to waste haulers with good labor practice. The Franchise system grants Los Angeles the power to select a waste hauler that corresponds with good labor laws and provide high skill, safe, green jobs.

• Continue efforts to target overall waste reduction at the point of consumption. While disposal is one solution to waste production, an effective waste to energy strategy should not keep us from educating the public about reducing their overall waste generation. Changing behaviour around over consumption is key to reducing overall waste.

48

APPENDIX

49

LITERATURE REVIEW

DISCUSSION: Theories on Behavioral Change around Food Waste

Project Objective:

Characterized as the “Material Age” and the “throwaway economy” by Brown (2001), postmodern societies have magnified vigorous and even excessive consumption of materials for convenience, comfort, and luxury. In the past half-century, the per capita municipal solid waste generation rate in the U.S. increased over 70%.

(US EPA 2010)

The review will provide the foundational framework to conduct a best practice and emerging solutions comparative study on city-wide waste to energy programs for the Don’t Waste LA Campaign in Los Angeles.

The project will accomplish this by showing the feasibility of technologically innovative measures for optimized food waste disposal and by giving policy recommendations to integrate LA’s food waste to energy pilot program into the larger waste management landscape. A series of food waste to energy case studies of other cities will provide a lens through which to evaluate and target current infrastructural, technical and educational weaknesses in LA’s fledgling food waste program. This project will encourage, engage and support key actors such as the Don’t Waste LA Campaign in helping LA move toward the goal of zero waste.

50

Urban Metabolism Theories Cities are living urban metabolisms that produce, consume and generate waste. (C. Kennedy, S. Pincetl, P. Bunje). The more they consume the more strategic cities have to be about managing their urban waste streams. To complicate the situation, waste is not homogenous, thus urban waste management schemes have to address variety in source: the industrial, commercial, institutional and residential sectors, and variety in composition: recyclables, food waste, industrial debris etc.(C. Caruso, A. Colorni, M. Paruccini). These factors, coupled with geographic and climatic variables require strategic collection and disposal strategies.

Conventional waste management focuses on landfill disposal, but such a strategy places an excessive burden on land use, is resource intensive and compromises environmental quality and community livelihood.(Mutasem El-Fadel). In short landfilling is unsustainable.

Nevertheless, landfilling remains the most popular disposal option because it is viewed as simple and cheap. (source) Increased urbanization and increased waste generation pose growing concern to traditional landfill disposal. Cities are now looking for innovative approaches to deal with urban waste.

The new most efficient and cost effective waste management strategies are diversion and waste minimization. (source) These two efforts have a web of smaller strategies that focus on specific sectors and waste composition. This report focuses on one specific type of waste: food waste (organics) and one specific waste management approach: anaerobic digestion.

Urban Waste Characterization: Though this project focuses on food waste, food waste is part of a larger category, Municipal Solid Waste. MSW is an all-encompassing term and describes the waste that is produced from residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional sources but does not include hazardous and universal wastes such as construction and demolition waste and liquid waste (water, wastewater and industrial processes.) (Tchobanoglous & Kreith, 2002). Food waste is generated throughout its production process but this report focuses primarily on distribution and consumption. Within the distribution category, waste includes losses in the market system, at e.g. wholesale markets, supermarkets, retailers and wet markets. In the consumption category, food waste includes losses at the household level (Davidson, 2011).

A study focused on categorizing food waste, concluded food waste is composed of FFV fresh fruits and vegetables, bakery, dairy products, and meat and fish. Within these products 7% of milk, 36% of baked goods, and 50% of lettuce and leafy salads is waste. (Partiff 2010)

Overall, the studies reviewed all presented different numbers for total food waste generated within urban cities.

The difference is due to various factors including source and region. For example, NRDC presented a report on food waste and concluded 51

40% of food waste goes uneaten (Gunders, 2012). This number varies among sources because NRDC’s food waste postulation captures waste throughout the food stream, from its point of production at the farm, its transportation, its distribution, and its consumption. Its important to note that because food waste is generated at such different stages and in different locations, who is managing this waste also varies. (source)

Impacts of Food Waste: Despite the variety of food sources within the supply chain, what all this food waste has in common is the amount of energy that goes into its production. It highlights the impact of food waste throughout its life cycle. The need to divert food waste from the landfills is important because it not only consume resources (land, energy, money, etc.) during its disposal but it also means all of the energy and resource input into making this food are also going to waste.

NRDC’s “Wasted” indicated that 10 percent of the U.S, energy budget, 50% of land, and 80% of freshwater” was spent getting food from farm to table in the U.S. (Gunders 2012.) If 40% of food goes uneaten, NRDC calculated $165 billion is thrown away. That figure doesn’t even include the energy spent disposing of the waste.

To add to the discussion, Halls study of the environmental impacts of food waste disposal showcased the toxic effects of the food waste after landfilling. (Hall, 2009) Food waste in landfills or broadly MSW was the largest producer of U.S. methane, comprising 23 percent of all methane emissions. Methane is 25 times more powerful in global warming than carbon dioxide, thus decomposing is yet another factor contributing to climate change. (Hall, 2009)

Adhikari’s study on predicted growth of world urban food waste presents a series of scenarios that highlight the potential impact and growth of GHG (Bijaya, 2006) Her control presumes that landfilling remains the standard form of disposal, scenario 1 assumes her Indian city case study lowers its urban food waste sent to landfills by 30% and scenario 2 assumes scenario 1 and focuses on minimizing population growth and maintaining lively rural communities. Her findings for the control group indicated there would be an 8-10% increase by 2025, Scenario 2 would maintain landfill emissions at 8%, scenario 2 would reduce emission to 6% and reduce leachate production by 40%. (Bijaya 2006) Adhikari’s report is important to this report because it strengthens the argument for waste disposal.

Waste Production While sifting through various articles, there were five major studies that calculated the amount of food waste, highlighted the drivers of food waste generation and presented potential solutions.

Two of the case studies take place in the UK, one in Australia, one in the European Union and one in the United States. All five studies take place in urban cities in developed, western nations and were selected because of these similarities. Los Angeles specific case studies are not included in this section; they are included further down in the literature review.

The UK studies were conducted by Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in Scotland (Ventour 2009) and in England/Wales (Ventour 2008). The studies focus on the amount and composition of waste generated by households. Both presented similar findings; the England/Wales study concluded that a third of the food bought for consumption went to waste.

52

The study further categorized food waste into three categories, avoidable, unavoidable, and possibly avoidable of which results indicated 61% of food was avoidable, 19% was unavoidable and 20% was possibly avoidable. WRAP has similar findings in Scotland, where food waste was 68% avoidable. (Ventour 2008)

The Australian study focused on food waste household composition and generation in Auckland and Waiheke rather than national trends due to lack of available data for the nation. (Waste Not Consulting, 2008). The study concluded 35.6% of household waste per week was food waste in Auckland and 36.6% in Waiheke. The EU study used a different methodology and instead focused on overall food waste in the UK and concluded only 12% of food waste gets diverted from landfills. (Ventour, 2008) Though much of this literature focuses on food waste within households, with the exception of the EU study, these studies are important because they shed light on the overall

The US study presented a slightly broader focus and evaluated food waste throughout the entire production cycle from farm to plate to trashcan.

Landfilling In a EPA study evaluating the toxic pollutants generated by landfills, their findings stated 30 of the 188 toxic air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act were emitted during landfill waste decomposition. (US EPA 2010) Further investigation on air pollution, impairment of aesthetic value of the natural environment and transportation activity of collection trucks is necessary. In a study conducted on the impacts of waste treatment management changes, Aalborg, Denmark went from being a net consumer to a net producer of energy and net saver of GHG emissions (Tjalfe, 2009). The study concluded that the change was due to a change in waste management strategy focused on landfilling to one focused on composting, incineration, waste treatment and biogas production (Tjalfe 2009).

LA/California Waste Management Policy Los Angeles continues to dispose of its food waste through conventional landfilling; recently however it has taken steps toward created an integrated waste management system. The Don’t Waste LA Report highlights current infrastructure, challenges to transitioning the WM system and presents innovative diversion and minimization strategies. The idea of zero waste societies presumes that much of the waste we throw away can be reduced, repaired and reused or recycled and it can.

Innovative Approaches to WM: Anaerobic Digestion Theories The studies presented below quantify the benefits of anaerobic digestion of food waste. All of the studies selected present a positive review of anaerobic digestion and that may be due to its recent introduction as a large scale urban energy source. Curry and Pillay’s article concludes AD food waste to energy’s could potentially provide a solution to growing garbage problems and reduce external energy requirements (Curry 2012.) The article labels anaerobic digestion a renewable energy sources with the potential of increasing urban energy production and reducing regional fossil fuel dependency.

Curry concludes by highlighting a few of the 53

challenges around ADliterature; “the literature on AD of solid waste in urban areas is difficult to summarize and is often confusing due to the black box aspect of the process. The research motivation affects available data on digestion.

Its rare to find experiments done from an energy or economics perspective as the focus of the research is on the stability and completion of biochemical reactions and not on optimum biogas production and high methane content.”

Conclusion This draft literature review delved into food waste management and primarily focused on defining food waste, the impacts of food waste, quantification of food waste production and waste management strategies . The studies selected primarily focused on food waste within the conventional disposal techniques: landfilling.

The review lacks a comprehensive examination of food waste minimization efforts, educational awareness efforts and community/business engagement. There is literature that focuses on food waste minimization and should be included in the next draft. Overall, there is a little focus on community business engagement pertaining to anaerobic digestion, community engagement, thus the report will focus on educational outreach to participants.

Literature Review Bibliography

Adewale M. Taiwo , 2011. Composting as A Sustainable Waste Management Technique in Developing Countries. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4: 93-102.

Bijaya K. Adhikari, Suzelle Barrington, and José Martinez. Predicted growth of world urban food waste and methane productionWaste Manag Res October 2006 24: 421-433, C. Kennedy, S. Pincetl, P. Bunje, The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design, Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, Issues 8–9, August–September 2011, Pages 1965-1973, ISSN 0269-7491, C. Caruso, A. Colorni, M. Paruccini, The regional urban solid waste management system: A modelling approach, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 70, Issue 1, 8 October 1993, Pages 16-30, ISSN 0377-2217 Curry, Nathan and Pillay, Pragasen, (2012), Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for the urban environment, Renewable Energy, 41, issue C, p. 200-209, http://EconPapers. repec.org/RePEc:eee:renene:v:41:y:2012:i:c:p:200-209 Davidson, Gary. (2011)Waste Management Practices: Dalhouise University Office of Sustainability.

Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC (2009) The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.000794 Gunders D. 2012 Wasted: how America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. New York, NY:Natural Resources Defense Council.http://www.nrdc.org/food/wasted-food.asp.

Mutasem El-Fadel, Angelos N. Findikakis, James O. Leckie, Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Landfilling, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 50, Issue 1, May 1997, Pages 1-25, ISSN 0301-4797 Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 Tjalfe G. Poulsen and Jens Aage Hansen. Assessing the impacts of changes in treatment technology on energy and greenhouse gas balances for organic waste and wastewater treatment using historical dataWaste Manag Res November 2009 27: 861-870 Tchobanoglous, G., & Kreith, F. (2002). Handbook of solid waste management (2nd ed., p. 950). McGraw-Hill.

Waste Not Consulting. 2008a. Auckland Isthmus Solid Waste Analysis. Auckland: Wast Not Consulting .

U.S. EPA. (2010). Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures.

Ventour. 2008. The Food We Waste. United Kingdom: Waste and Resources ActionProgramme (WRAP). Available online at www.wrap.org.uk/thefoodwewaste Ventour, Lorrayne. 2009. The Food We Waste in Scotland. United Kingdom: Waste andResources Action Programme (WRAP).

54

Works Cited:

Bain, Jennifer. Food Waste: An Unappetizing, $27B Problem. The Star. 2011.

Ban on Food Scraps in Landfills and Mandatory Participation Ordinances. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. ILSR 2012.

Benefits of Anaerobic Digestion at Wastewater Treatment Facilities. EPA Region 9 Organics. 2010.

Beyond Waste: A Sustainable Materials Management Strategy for New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2010.

Casey, Tina. NYC Has More Food Waste To Energy Tricks Up Its Sleeve. Cleantechnica.com. 2014.

Cernansky, Rachel. On Front Lines of Recycling: Turing Food Waste into Biogas. Yale Environment 360. 2014.

Chan, Sewell. Trash Workers Go on Strike After Months of Negotiations. New York Times. 2006.

City Announces Innovative New Partnership. New York City Department of Environmental Protection.

2013.

City Climate Leadership Awards. C40 Cities. San Francisco Climate Close Up. Siemens 2014.

City of Los Angeles Zero Waste Progress Report. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. 2013.

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Exclusive Franchise System for Municipal Solid Waste Collection Final Program Environmental Impact Report. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. 2014 City and County of San Francisco Refuse Collection and Disposal Rate Board. 2013 Resolution and Order. San Francisco Department of Power and Water. SFDPW 2012.

Composting and Anaerobic Digestion. CalRecycle. Action Draft 2013.

Crean, Sarah. The Zero Waste Future is Now, and it’s in Brooklyn. New York Environment Report.

2013.

Dahl Monsen Rikke. Biogas in Oslo EGE. City of Oslo Waste to Energy Agency. www.nobio.no.

Diversion Report II. NYC Organics Collection Pilot. Department of Sanitation New York. 2014.

EBMUD Food Waste Initiative. EPA Sustainable Materials Management. 2015.

Fletcher, Katie. New York City Scaling Up Food Waste to Energy Program. Biomass Magazine 2014.

Food Waste. Coalition for Resource Recovery. Global Green USA. Fulcher, Jennifer. California Wastewater Utility Makes History as Net-Energy Producer. Water Environment Foundation. 2012.

Gray, D., Suto, P., & Chien, M. (2008, January). Green Energy From Food Wastes At Wastewater Treatment Plant. Biocycle.

Guevarra, John. From Waste to Resource: Restoring Our Economy with Recycling Careers. LAANE 2014 55

Guevarra, John. From Waste to Resource: Restoring Our Economy with Recycling Careers. LAANE 2014 Gunders, Dana. “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farmto Landfill.”

Issue Paper. August, 2012.

Grose, Thomas K. Urban Ski Slope to Raise Profile of Europe’s Waste-to-Energy Drive. National Geographic. 2013.

Hanson, Casey. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Oakland: Resource Recovery and Energy Generation. Water Environmental Research Foundation. WERF. Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC (2009) The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.000794 Henricks, Mark. More States Ban Organic Waste in Landfills. American Recycler News, Inc. 2014.

Jenicek P. Baracek J. Zabranska J. Dohanyos M. Potential and Limits of Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Slude: Energy Self-Sufficienc Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water Science Technology.

2012.

Inside Solid Waste. Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force. 2014 Landmark Oakland Garbage Franchise Agreement Includes Civicorps Job Training Program. Social Enterprise Alliance 2014.

Mikkelsen, Pal. Challenges in Waste to Energy Industry. Waste-To-Energy Agency. Oslo. www.sinef. no.

Murphy, Sinnott, Stephanie Pincetl. Zero Waste in Los Angeles: Is the emperor wearing any clothes?

Resources, Conversation and Recycling 81. 2013.

New Exciting Partnership. Civicorps. cvcorp.org.

New NYC Food Waste Recycling Law Will Have A National Impact, Say American Biogas and Composting Groups. BioCycle.net.

Newtown Creek Nature Walk Flyer. NYC.gov.

One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City. NYC.gov. 2014.

Oslo Introduces Buses Powered by a By-Product of Food Waste. European Commission Environment. 2014.

PlaNYC Mayor’s Food Waste Challenge to Restaurants. NYC.gov.

Polystyrene Takeout Food Packaging Pollution. Californians Against Waste. cawrecycles.org Putrescible Waste. Zero Resource. zeroresource.com. 2011.

Prema Viswanath, S. Sumithra Devi, Krishna Nand, Anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable processing wastes for biogas production, Bioresource Technology, Volume 40, Issue 1, 1992 Russell, Helen. Trash to Cash: Norway leads the Way in Turning Waste into Energy. The Guardian.

2013.

56

Russell, Helen. Trash to Cash: Norway leads the Way in Turning Waste into Energy. The Guardian.

2013.

Renewable Energy. Moving Toward a Low Carbon Economy. European Commission.

Recology Pursues Zero-Waste in the Bay Area. BlueGreen Alliance.

Residential/Commercial Recycling, Compost, and Trash. RecologySF. San Francisco Department of the Environment.”Zero Waste Legislation and Initiatives”. (2011) Section 9.0 East Bay Municipal Utility District Water and Wastewater Service Taxes In, Garbage Out: The Need for Better Solid Waste Disposal Policies in New York City. Citizens Budget Commission. 2012.

Turning Food Waste into Energy at the East Bay Muncipal Utility District: Investigating the Anaerobic Digestion Process to Recycle Post-Consumer Food Waste. EBMUD EPA Fact Sheet.

Waste Management Goals and Indicators. www.environment.no Williams, David. Renewable Energy at EBMUD. CASA Mid-Year Conference Presentation for Joint Land/ Air Forum. 2012.

Zero Waste LA, Adopted Board Report. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. 2012.

Zero Waste Frequently Asked Questions. SF Department of Environment.

Zhang, Ruihong. Hamed M. El-Mashad, Karl Hartman, Fengyu Wang, Guangqing Liu, Chris Choate, Paul Gamble, Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion, Bioresource Technology, Volume 98, Issue 4, March 2007

57