Microsoft Word - 4.2 Commerce FWM Evaluation Report

Washington State Food Waste

Management Evaluation

May 26, 2020

Prepared by

Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., and Partners

for Washington State Department of Commerce

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Contents

BackgroundandIntroduction__________________________________________________________________ 1

SystemandGeographicBoundaries _____________________________________________________________ 2

SystemBoundaries...................................................................................................................................................2

GeographicBoundaries............................................................................................................................................3

ExecutiveSummaryandKeyFindings____________________________________________________________ 3

FlowsofFoodWasteandWastedFoodinWashingtonState.................................................................................3

EdibleWastedFoodtoLandfill................................................................................................................................4 

KeyFindings.............................................................................................................................................................4



SummaryofCurrentandRecommendedReportingProtocolsbyEntityType.......................................................5

RecommendationsforFutureMeasurementStudies.............................................................................................7

ChallengesandOpportunitiesforIncreasingCapacity...........................................................................................7

DataCollectionandModelingApproach _________________________________________________________ 8

IdentifyRequiredDataElementsandPrepareInitialDataRequests......................................................................8

SetDataCollectionPriorities.................................................................................................................................

10

ReviewAvailableDataandLiterature....................................................................................................................11

ConductInterviewsandSurveys............................................................................................................................14

ConductDataModeling.........................................................................................................................................14

DataLimitations.....................................................................................................................................................16

FindingsbyEntityType______________________________________________________________________ 17

HungerReliefOrganizations..................................................................................................................................17

AnimalFeedDistributorsandFarmRecipients.....................................................................................................24

CompostFacilities..................................................................................................................................................29

IndustrialUses

........................................................................................................................................................38

EmergingSolutions_________________________________________________________________________ 43

FertilizerTechnologies...........................................................................................................................................43

Bio-BasedMaterials...............................................................................................................................................43

References _______________________________________________________________________________ 44

Appendices_______________________________________________________________________________ 50

AppendixA:WashingtonStateFoodWasteFlowModelMethodology...............................................................50

AppendixB:HungerReliefInterviewGuide..........................................................................................................60

AppendixC:CompostFacilityInterviewGuide......................................................................................................64

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

iii

AppendixD:CompostFacilitySurveyResponses..................................................................................................68

AppendixE:AnimalFeedFoodWasteCategories.................................................................................................97



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

CascadiaConsultingGroup,Inc.(Cascadia)beganthisevaluationofWashingtonState’sexcessfoodandfoodwaste

managementsysteminJanuary2020onbehalfoftheDepartmentofCommerce(Commerce)andtheDepartment

ofEcology(Ecology).ThepurposeoftheevaluationistosupporttheUseFoodWellWashingtonPlan(Plan)being



preparedbyEcologyunderHB1114.Thisundertakingrecognizestheimportanceofunderstandingcurrentdataasa

startingpointtodevelopandimplementplanstoreduceanddivertfoodwastemovingforward.

ThegoalofthePlanistoreduceby50percenttheamountoffoodwastegeneratedannually

inthestateof

Washington,relativeto2015levels,usingthefollowingstrategies:

 Strategy1:Preventandreducetheamountofediblefoodthatiswastedbyresidentsandbusinesses.

 Strategy2:Helpmatchandsupportthecapacityforediblefoodthatwouldotherwisebewastedwithfood

banks

andotherdistribu torsthatwillensurethefoodreachesthosewhoneedit.

 Strategy3:Supportproductiveusesofinediblefoodmaterials,includingusingitforanimalfeed,energy

productionthroughanaerobicdigestion,orothercommercialuses,andforoff-siteoron-sitemanagement

systemsincludingcomposting,vermicomposting,orother

biologicalsystems.

ThisevaluationaimstosupportStrategy3bycreatingasnapshotofthequantityandtypesoffoodflowingthrough

WashingtonState’shungerrelief,animalfeed,compost,andindustrialusessystemsanddescribingthecapacityof

thesesystemstomanagemorematerialinthefuture,asapreferablealternative

tolandfill.

CascadiacompletedthisevaluationwiththeassistanceofstakeholderscreatingthePlan,including:

 TheCoreTeam,asupportanddecision-makingstructureledbyMaryHarringtonofEcologyth atmeets

monthlytohelpdevelopthePlan,engagestakeholders,andensurec ompliancewithlegislativemandates.

Itismadeup

ofemploye esfromstategovernmentagenciesthatwillbeaffectedbythePlan,includingthe

DepartmentofAgriculture(WSDA),DepartmentofHealth(DOH),OfficeoftheSuperintendentofPublic

Instruction(OSPI),andDepartmentofCommerce(Commerce).

 SubjectMatterExpert(SME)WorkGroups,whichwereformedtoassistwiththe

Planinrecognitionthat

reducingwastedfoodwillrequiremanyfieldsofexpertiseworkingtogetherincooperation.SMEsreceive

invitationstoparticipateinworkgroupsasregularlyastheychoose.



Terms and Definitions

ThetermsusedinthisreportreflectthoseusedinthetextofHB1114.

FoodWaste

Wastefromfruits,vegetables,meats,dairyproducts,fish,shellfish,nuts,seeds,

grains,andsimilarmaterialsthatresultsfromthestorage,preparation,cooking,

handling,selling,orservingoffoodforhumanconsumption.Includes,butisnot

limitedto,excess,spoiled,orunusablefoodandincludesinediblepartscommonly

associatedwithfoodpreparationsuchaspits,shells,bones,andpeels.Doesnot

includedeadanimalsnotintendedforhumanconsumptionoranimalexcrement.

FoodWaste

Management

Anymanagementoffoodthatwasn’tconsumedbyitsprimaryintendedrecipient.

Includesdistribution,processing,preserv ing,serving,sel ling,andcomposting.Does

notincludedisposal.

WastedFood Theedibleportionoffoodwaste.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

SYSTEM AND GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES

Duringthisevaluation,Cascadiaconsideredthreemainresearchareas:currentflowsoffoodwasteandwasted

food,themetricsandreportingprotocolsusedtotracksegmentsofthoseflowsovertime,andtheexisting

capacity,barriers,andopportunitiesfordifferenttypesofentitiestomanagefoodwasteandwastedfood.To

guide

projectwork,Cascadiadefinedthefollowingcorequestionsbyresearcharea:

A. FlowofFood:Howmuchfoodiscurrentlyflowingthrougheachentityinthefoodwastemanagement

system,i.e.,hungerrelief,animalfeed,compost,andindustrialuses?

B. Metrics&Protocols:Foreachentity,whatisbeing

measuredandhowisitbeingmeasured?What

opportunitiesexisttoharmonizemetricsandprotocolsacrossthesystem?

C. SystemCapacity:Whatisthecurrentcapacityofeachentityinthesystemtohandlewastedfoodand/or

foodwaste?Whatarethebarrierstoincreasingthecapacityofeachentity

inthesystem?

System Boundaries

Thisevaluationfocusesonthehand linganddispositionoffoodafter its primary intended point of consumption,

excluding landfill.Accordingly,ourscopeiscomposedoffourfoodwasteandwastedfoodmanagemententity

types:hungerrelieforganizations,animalfeeddistributorsanddirectusers,compostfacilities,andindustrialusers.

Entitiesthatgeneratefoodwaste,suchasfarms,consumer-facingbusinesses,

wholesalers,ordistributorsareoutof

scopeforthisevaluation.Figure1illustratesthesescopeboundaries.

Figure1.ProjectScopeBoundaries



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Geographic Boundaries

WhilethescopeofthisevaluationdoesnotincludeentitiesoutsideofWashingtonState,werecognizethatsome

surplusfoodand/orfoodwastehandledbyin-scopeentitiescomesfromout-of-statesources.Wehaveincluded

thesesourcesofsurplusfoodandfoodwastetoprovidecontextforunderstandingthecapacityofin-stateentities.

Theseamountsarenotedandseparatedwherepossible.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

Flows of Food Waste and Wasted Food in Washington State

Basedonsecondarydatacollectionefforts,literaturereviews,andextrapolationofdatasets,weestimatethat

WashingtonStategenerates2.7milliontonsoffoodwaste.Ofthisamount,1.7milliontonsarerecoveredbyhunger

relieforganizations,animalfeeddistributorsanddirectrecipients,compostfacilities,andanaerobicdigesters.The

remaining1.0million

tonsgotolandfill(96%)orcontrolledcombustion(4%).Figure2illustratestheestimated

generationacrossfoursegmentsofthefoodsupplychainthatareconsistentwithReFED’ sRoadmaptoReduceUS

FoodWaste:farms,foodmanufacturers,consumer-facingbusinesses(includingdistributors,retailgrocers,

restaurants,foodserviceproviders,andinstitutions),andresidential

(includingalldwellings).Thedataandmodel

thatproducedtheestimatesinFigure2andthroughoutthisdocumentaresummarizedinAppendixA:.

Figure2.WashingtonStateFoodWasteandWastedFoodManagementPathways(tons)



FoodWasteDisposalFlow FoodDonationFlow FoodRecoveryFlow

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Edible Wasted Food to Landfill

Thedistinctionbetweenedibleandinediblefoodismeaningfulandnecessarywhenmeasuringthepotentialfor

increasingfoodrecoveryforhumanconsumption.Toourknowledge,WashingtonState’s2015-2016statewide

wastecharacterizationstudywasthefirstlarge-scalestudyinWashingtonincludethisdistinction.Table1shows

resultsfromthatstudybysector.

Overall,47percentoffoodwastetolandfillwasidentifiedasedible.(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2018)

Table1.2015-2016WashingtonStatewideWasteCharacterizationStudyEdibleFoodPortionsofDisposedOrganics

Sincethecompletionofthisstudy,otherWashingtoncityandcountywastestudieshavemeasurededibleand

inediblefood.Accordingtoa2019study,KingCountyresidentsandbusinessesgeneratedanestimated234,600

tonsoffoodin2018.Thestudyestimatedthat“39to70percent—approximately91,300to163,400tons—isedible



wastedfood,whereediblefoodisdefinedasanymaterialintendedforhumanconsumption,regardlessofwhether

itwasspoiledorpartiallyconsumedatthetimeofdisposal”(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

Thereisnotastatewideorganicscharacterizationstudythatdistinguishesbetweenedibleandinediblefoodin

WashingtonState.

Key Findings

Keyfindingsfromourevaluationareoutlinedbelow:

 Manufacturinggeneratesthemajorityoffoodwaste(58%),followedbyconsumer-facingbusinesses(24%),

andthentheresidentialsector(18%).

o Ahighpercentageofmanufacturingandprocessingwasteisrecycledintoanimalfeedand

compostproducts:96percent.Muchofthisquantity

isspentgrainandotherby-productsfrom

brewersanddistilleries,whichcouldnoteasilybedonatedforhumanconsumption.

o Restaurantsgeneratealmosthalf(46%)ofthefoodwastefromconsumer-facingbusinesses.The

nextlargestgeneratorissupermarketsandgrocerystores,accountingforalittleoverafifth(22%)

of

ConsumerFacing Businessfoodwaste.

 Animalfeeddistributorsanddirectrecipientsarereceivingthehighestpercentageoffoodwas te(55%) of

thefoodwastemanagementpathwaysconsideredinthisevaluation,primarilyfrommanufacturing

operations.

 Landfillsreceivethesecondhighestpercentage(34%)offoodwasteandwastedfood.

o Every

generatortypeweconsidered,exceptmanufacturing,sendsmorefoodwasteandwasted

foodtolandfillthananyothersingledestination.Residentialsourcessendapproximately91

 TotalFood(tons) EdibleFood(tons) EdiblePortion(%)

Residential 369,178 159,923 43.3%

Commercial 390,757 191,746 49.1%

Self-HaulC&D 3,580 1,589 44.4%

Self-HaulOther 32,579 21,233 65.2%

Statewide 796,094 374,490 47.0%

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

percentofallfoodwastetolandfillandconsumer-facingbusinessessendanestimated67percent

oftheirfoodwastetolandfill.

o Differentcommercialsectorshavedifferentlevelsofrecovery.Whileoverall,consumer-facing

businessesrecoveraboutathird(33%)offoodwaste,restaurantsandinstitutionssendmostof

theirfoodwaste

tolandfill.Restaurantssendanestimated88percentoftheirfoodwastetolandfill

andinstitutions.Groceryretailerssendonly39percentoffoodwasteandwastedfoodtolandfill

andmostoftheirfoodwasteandwastedfood(61%)goestohungerrelieforganizations,compost,

andanimalfeed.



Anestimatedsixpercentoffoodwasteiscompostedacrossthestate.Mostcompostedfoodwasteis

comingfrommanufacturingandwholesaledis tributors,31percentand26percentrespectively.Residential

foodwastecontributesonly16percentoffoodgoingtocompost.

 Ofthefoodenteringthestate’sfoodwastemanagement

pathwaysincludedinthisevaluation,only2

percentisdistributedtohungerrelieforganizations.Themainsourcesofdonationsarefarmsandgrocery

retailers.

Summary of Current and Recommended Reporting Protocols by Entity Type

Throughoutthisevaluationprocess,Cascadiafoundthatexistingdatawereoverallnoteasilyaccessibleandwere

spreadoutbetweenagenciesandotherstakeholders.Table2providesdescriptionsofexistingdatareporting

protocolsbyentitytypeandrecommendationstosupportdatamanagementforHB1114.Somerecommendations

willmaketrackingandreporting

morecomplicatedforthosesubm ittingit;theserecommendationsareidealfor

supportingHB1114,butmaynotbeidealforEcologytoimplementinotherways.Moredetailedsummariesof

currentandrecommendedtrackingandreportingarelistedintheFindingsbyEntityTypesectionbelow.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Table2.CurrentandRecommendedReportingProtocolsandMetricsbyEntityType

EntityType

CurrentEntityDataReporting

Protocols

Recommended

ChangestoEntity

ReportingProtocols

CurrentStateAgenciesReporting

Metrics

RecommendedAdditionalMetricsfor

StateAgencyReporting

HungerRelief

Organizations

Organizationsreportannuallytolarge

fooddistributionnetworks.Reportingto

Ecologyisoptional.

Largedistribution

networkssubmitannual

reportingtoWSDA

and/orEcology.

 Listofentitiesserved

 Poundsoffooddistributed

and/orservedannually

 Numberofindividualsserved

 Entitylocation(zipcode)

 Poundsoffooddonated

vs.purchased

 Donororsellertype

 Poundsoffoodtocompost/animal

feed/landfill

AnimalFeed

Feedcompaniesarelicensedandsubmit

annualreportingtoWSDA.

Petfoodcompaniesthatonlyproduce

petfoodmustregisterandsubmitsemi-

annualreportsaboutproductstoWSDA.

Reportsdonotincludeingredients.

Farmsdonotreportaboutfeed.

Farmssubmit

informationaboutfood

wasteusedasfeedas

part

ofanexistinglicense

orreportingprocess



Feedcompanies:Tonsoffeed

distributedbyingredientcategory

Petfoodcompanies:Productssold

Farms:Nometricssystematically

tracked

Feedcompanies:

 Tonsoffeedreceivedbyingredient

category

 Relevantingredientcategoriesmarked

forHB1114tracking

 Specifichumanby-productingredients

 Wetvs.drytons

Petfoodcompanies:Quantityoffoodwaste

ingredientsusedinproducts

Farms:Quantityoffoodwasteingredientsused

asfeed

Compost

Facilities

Compostfacilitiesaboveacertainsize

thresholdrequiresolidwastepermitsand

reporttoEcologyannually.

Compostfacilitiesbelowthepermitting

thresholddonotsubmitreports.

None

Feedstocksreceivedbypermitted

compostfacilitiesbytype,including

foodprocessingwaste,post-consumer

foodwaste,yarddebris/foodwaste,

andsometimes,otherfoodwaste.

None,

butfoodwastecategoriesshouldremain

thesameyearbyyearandideallybe

accompaniedbydefinitionsforcompost

facilitiesformaximumconsiste ncy.

Anaerobic

Digesters

Dairydigestersprocessingmanureas

50%ormoreandnon-manureorganicsas

nomorethan30%offeedstockvolume

submitannualreportstoEcologyand

localhealthdepartments.

Small-scaledigesterswithnomorethan

5,000gallonsor25cubicyardsof

materialon-siteatatimearepermit-

exemptandsubmit

noreports.

Dairydigesters:None.

Small-scaledigesters:

Voluntaryannual

reportingtoEcologyis

recommended.

Dairydigesters:

 Feedstocktypesandamounts

 Digestateamountandanalysis



Small-scaledigesters:

 Feedstocktypesandamounts

 Digestateamountandendproduct(s)

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Recommendations for Future Measurement Studies

MostfoodwasteandwastedfoodmetricsavailabletoWSDAandEcologyaremeasuredandreportedbyind ividual

entities,asdescribedinTable2.Inadditiontorecommendednewmetricstoincludeintheseongoingreporting

protocols,therearealsoopportunitiesforstateagenciestocollectdataontheirown.To

bolstertheinformation

availableandbestsupportHB1114,agenciescouldconductadditionalprimarydatacollectionstudiesaboutfood

wasteandwastedfood,outlinedbelow:

Hunger Relief Organizations

 Conductabarriers andopportunitiesstudybyentitytypeandge ographytogleaninsightsaboutunique

barriersandopportunitieswherelocal,regional,andState

agenciescouldprovidesupport.

 Conductagenerator-basedwas techaracterizationstudyofhungerrelieforganizationsanddonorsfora

morenuancedlookattheirwastestreamswithoutaddingstrenuousreportingrequirementsforhunger

relieforganizations.ThisdatacollectionshouldbeconductedincollaborationwiththeHungerReliefSME

WorkingGroup

andcouldresultinanadjustablemodelthatWSDAorEcologycouldusetotrackprogress

goingforward.

 Measureedibleportionsofdisposedfoodinstatewidecharacterizationstudiesviaaddedmaterial

categories.

Animal Feed

 Surveyfarmstounderstandtheextentofdirectrelationshipsbetweenfoodwastegenerators andfarms

using

foodwasteasanimalfeed.

Compost

 Conductbarriersandopportunitiesstudyaboutcompostprogramparticipationtounderstandlowratesof

compostinginWashington,especiallyamongresidencesandrestaurants.

 Conductcomposterfeedstockcharacterizationstudiestotracklevelsofcontaminationandthesuccessof

foodwastediversionprograms.SupportSmall‐andCommunity‐ScaleCompostSystems.

Anaerobic Digestion

 Conductinterviewsofon-farmanaerobicdigesterstounderstandtheirsourcesoffoodwaste,challenges,

andopportunities.

 Offervoluntaryreportingforsmall-scaledigestercompaniesorindividualsitestocollectinformationabout

theirinputsandoutputs.

Challenges and Opportunities for Increasing Capacity

Hunger Relief Organizations

ThehungerreliefsysteminWashingtonStatefacessiloedorganizationscompetingforresourcestoaccomplish

overlappinggoalsasitsmainchallenges;thesechallengesandaneedforgreaterflexibilityinsourcingand

deliveringfoodhavebeenhighlightedduringtheCOVID-19pandemic.Themainopportunitytoimprovecapacityis

tostrengthen

channelsforcommunication,collaboration,andresourcesharing–bothbetweenhungerrelief

organizationsandwithdonors.Thiswouldenablefooddonorsandhunger relief organizationstosharefoodand

resourcesefficiently,distributefoodwithinsafetywindows,andreducetheamountoffoodgoingtocompostand

landfill.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Animal Feed

Thisevaluationhasfoundthatanimalfeedpathwaysmaybeneartheircapacitytoacceptfoodwastebecausemost

foodwasteappropriateforthisuseisalreadysenttocommercialfeedcompanies.Withmicrobreweriesand

distilleriesgainingtractioninWashingtonState,theremaybeadditionalfeedstocksavailable,especiallyforfarms

willingtocreateindividualrelationshipswithgenerators.

Compost

Thereareseveralchallengesthatcompostfacilitiesfacetoexpandcapacityingeneral,suchaslengthypermitting

processesandNIMBYismduetoneighborconcernsaboutodors.Therearealsospecificchallengesforcompost

facilitiestoacceptmorefoodwastefeedstocks,suchasa

higherneedforodorandcontaminationmanagement.

Mainopportunitiesincludetappingpublicsectorandagriculturalmarkets,advertisingcarbonsequestration

potentialandotherenvironmentalbenefits,providingupstreameducationtoreducecontaminationatthepointof

foodwastedisposal,andcombininganaerobicdigestionwithcompostfacilities.

Industrial Uses

Themajorchallengesfacinganaerobicdigesters

areeconomic:highup-frontcosts,costsofoperationsand

maintenance,andunstablenaturalgasmarketsthatobscurethebenefitsofrenewablenaturalgasproduction.In

addition,digestatecanbedifficulttointroduceasasoilamendmentbecausetherearesomanydifferenttypesof

soilamendmentsonthemarketalready.For

small-scaledigesters,opportunitiesincludeclientsinterestedin

keepingthebenefitsofdigestionon-siteandaninnovativeblockchain-basedtrackingsystembeingpilotedby

ImpactBioenergytotrackdigesterinputsandoutputs.Renewablenaturalgasandnutrientrecoveryareboth

opportunitiesforon-farmanaerobicdigesterstobringinrevenueandcreatea

positiveenvironmentalimpact.

Anaerobicdigestionatwaterresourcerecoveryfacilities(WRRFs)hasbeensuccessfullyusedtomanagefoodwaste

insomemunicipalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND MODELING APPROACH

Duetoscope,budget,andtimeconstraints,thisevaluationwasnotaprimarydatacollectioneffort.Rather,itrelied

ongatheringexistingdatafromasmallgroupofrepresentativestakeholders,incl udingCoreTeammembersand

subjectmatterexpertswhoparticipatedinPlanworkinggroups.Belowisasummaryofthestepswetookto

compileandaugmentavailablequantitativeandqualitativedataaboutthefourin-scopeentitytypes.

Identify Required Data Elements and Prepare Initial Data Requests

Afterdefiningclearsystemandgeographicboundariesforourevaluation,weframedourinitialdatarequeststokey

projectstak eholdersusingtherequireddataelementsoutlinedinTable3,includingpromptingquestionsand

suggestedpossibledatasourcesforeach.



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Table3.RequiredDataElements

DataElement PromptingQuestions PossibleDataSource(s)

EntityListing&

Classifications

 Wherecanwefindthemostcomprehensivelistingof

theseentitiesinWashingtonState?

 Whatdefiningcharacteristicsormetricsareavailable

toclassifytheentitiesintosimilartypes,e.g.,sizein

termsofFTEs,operatingbudget,customersserved,

materialsaccepted,poundsprocessed,geography,

etc.?Thesemetricswillinform

datacollection

methodsandquotasbyentitygrouping.

 Askidentifiedagencyto

provideavailabledata

and/orconnectuswith

someonewhocan

Quantitative

Data

 Whatisthetotalquantityoffoodwastemanagedby

eachentity?

 Whatarethesourcesanddestinationsoffoodwaste

managed—includingproportionalityofeach—by

eachentity?

 Whatcategoriesoffoodwastearebeingmeasured

andhowaretheybeingmeasured?

 Whatisthecurrentestimated

operatingcapacityof

eachentity,specificallyformanagingincomingfood

waste?Whatquantitativedataisavailableabout

basicinfrastructuresuchasrefrigeratedtrucksand

coldstorage?

 DatareportedtoWSDA,

Ecology,Commerce,etc.

 Exportsfrompropri etary

databases,suchasFood

Lifeline’sCeressystem

 Annualreports

Qualitative

Data

 Whatarethegreatestchallengestoincreasingeach

entity’soperatingcapacity?

 Existingliterature

 Surveysand/orinterviews

withrepresentative

organizationsasidentifiedin

Table4.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Set Data Collection Priorities

Giventheproject’sacceleratedtimeline,Cascadiaworkedwiththe

planningCoreTeamtosetdatacollectionprioritieswithinour

scopeboundaries.InaccordancewiththeEcologyOrganicWaste

Hierarchy(Figure3),CascadiaandtheCoreTeamidentifiedhunger

reliefasourhighestpriority.Further,becausestatewidehunger

reliefdataisless

readilyavailableviacentralizedpublicdatasources

thanotherin-scopeentitytypes,weexpectedthathungerrelief

datacollectionwouldbemorelabor-intensivethandatacollection

forotherentitytypes.Incontrast,animalfeed,composting,and

industrialusesentitiesarefewerinnumberandalreadyhave

establishedreportingchannelsto

stateagencies,ifnotatthe

desiredlevelofdetail.

Table4summarizestheagreedupondatacollectionprioritiesfor

ourevaluation.

Table4.DataCollectionPrioritybyEntityType

EntityType In-ScopeEntityClassifications Priority

PrimaryAgencyPartner

forDataCollection

HungerRelief

 Foodpantries,foodbanks,andmeal

programs,segmentedbygeography:

urban/ruralandeast/west

High WSDA

AnimalFeed

 Farms

 Licensedfeeddistributors

 Petfoodcompanies

Mid-Low WSDA

Composting

 Commercialcomposters

Mid-Low Ecology

IndustrialUses

 On-farmanaerobicdigestors

 Small-scaledigesters

Mid-Low Commerce

Figure3.EcologyOrganicWasteHierarchy

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Review Available Data and Literature

WorkinginpartnershipwithCoreTeammembersandSMEworkgroupparticipants,weidentified,obtained,andcompiledthedatasetsand

litera tur eoutlinedinTable5.

Table5.EvaluationDataandLiteratureSources

EntityType Sources

TypeofInformationProvided

EntityLists

and/orNumber

ofEntities

Sources,

Disposition,

Measurement

SystemCapacity,

Challenges,

Opportunities

Cross-Cutting

ReFED:ARoadmaptoReduceU.S.FoodWasteBy20Percent(Cirilli,etal.,

2016)

 

FoodWasteReductionAlliance(FWRA)AnalysisofU.S.FoodWasteAmong

FoodManufacturers,RetailersandRestaurants(BSR,2014)



 

FoodWasteReductionAlliance(FWRA)2016AnalysisofU.S.FoodWaste

AmongFoodManufacturers,Retailers,andRestaurants(FWRA,2016)



 

WADepartmentofEcology2015-2016WashingtonStatewideWaste

CharacterizationStudy(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2018)

  

HungerRelief

Organizations

ListofEFAPandTEFAPContractorsandSubcontractors(WSDA,2019) 



FoodLifelineFoodBankActivityReport(FoodLifeline,2019)

 



NorthwestHarvestAnnualReport,2017-2018(NorthwestHarvest,2019)

 



FarmtoFoodPantryReport(RotaryFirstHarvest,2018)

 



SecondHarvestAccountabilityReport2019(SecondHarvest,2019)

 

Report:ModelingthePotentialtoIncreaseFoodRescue(NaturalResources

DefenseCouncil,2017)

  

DraftReport:StopWastePreparedFoodRescueStudyProjectSummary

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019)



 

Webinar:BetterTogether:RoodSystemBestPracticesforNavigating

COVID-19:Logistics(ReFED,2020)



 

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

EntityType Sources

TypeofInformationProvided

EntityLists

and/orNumber

ofEntities

Sources,

Disposition,

Measurement

SystemCapacity,

Challenges,

Opportunities

HealthyFoodAvailability&FoodBankNetworkReport.ReportforCityof

SeattleandSeattleCityCouncil(Bolt,etal.,2019)





Report:FoodWastePreventionandRecoveryAssessment2015,SPUand

SeattleOfficeofSustainabilityandEnvironment(Otten,Diedrich,Getts,&

Benson,2015)





Report:ATippingPoint:LeveragingOpportunitiestoImprovethe

NutritionalQualityofFoodBankInventory(MAZON,2018)





Report:FoodWasteInterventionEvaluations:ASystematicReview(Hecht

&Neff,2019)





ExcessFoodOpportunitiesMapVersion2.0–supportingdatafiles(U.S.

EPA,2019)

  

Report:NeedsAssessmentoftheRuralandRemoteMemberFoodBanks

oftheCaliforniaAssociationofFoodBanks(NutritionPolicyInstitute,

UniversityofCalifornia,2017)





AnimalFeed

Operations

Listoflicensedfeeddistributors(WSDA,AnimalFeedDistributor s

Licensees(In-state),2019)





USDAAgriculturalCensus,WAState(USDANationalAgriculturalStatistics

Service,2012)

 

CommercialFeedLicensingInformation(WSDA,2020)

AnimalfeeddistributionJuly’18-June‘19(WSDA,2020) 





InterviewwithLeannKrainickofKrainickDairy(Krainick,2020) 

IndustrialUses

Report:PromotingRenewableNaturalGasinWashingtonState(WA

DepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram,2018)







Article:EconomicsofDairyDigester sinWashingtonState(Kennedy,2013)  

Report:BiogasandRenewableNaturalGasInventorySB334(2017):2018

ReporttotheOregonLegislature(OregonDepartmentofEnergy,2018)

 

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

EntityType Sources

TypeofInformationProvided

EntityLists

and/orNumber

ofEntities

Sources,

Disposition,

Measurement

SystemCapacity,

Challenges,

Opportunities

AnaerobicDigesterProjectandSystemModifications:AnEconomicAnalysis

(WashingtonStateUniversityExtension,2012)





Compost

Facilities

2017WACompostedMaterials(WADepartmentofEcology,2019)

 



2018WACompostedMaterials(WADepartmentofEcology,2020)

 



Report:OrganicMaterialsManagementinKingCounty(KingCountyDept.

ofNaturalResourcesandParks,2019)





Report:SB1383InfrastructureandMarketAnaly sis(CalRecycle,2019) 



Article:IntegratingAnaerobicDigestionwithComposting(BioCycle,2014) 



Report:ValueofCompostinAgriculturalUses(Brown,2019)



Report:MarketAssessmentforOrganicMaterialsinKingCounty(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2015)

 

Report:CommercialCompostApplicationinWesternWashingtonFarms

(Collins,Harness,&Bary,2016)





Report:OrganicMaterialsManagementinKingCounty(KingCountyDept.

ofNaturalResourcesandParks,2019)





Report:Yes!InMyBackyard:AHomeCompostingGuideforLocal

Government,InstituteforLocalSelf-Reliance(Platt&Fagundes,2018)





Report:CompostinginAmerica:APathtoEliminateWaste,RevitalizeSoil,

andTackleGlobalWarming(U.S.PIRGandFrontierGroup,2019)





ReportandToolkit(WashingtonStateOrganicsContaminationReduction

Workgroup,2 017)

 

Report:AdvancingOrganicsManagementinWashingtonState:TheWaste

toFuelsTechnologyPartnership(Waste2Resources,2016)





WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Conduct Interviews and Surveys

Afterreviewingavailabledataandliterature,weconductedinterviewsandsurveyswithreleva ntstakeholder

groupstoaidinfillingdatagaps.

 HungerReliefOrganizations.Theinterviewguide,foundinAppendixB:HungerReliefInterviewGuide,was

developedwithinputfromKatieRains(WSDA),KyleMerslich(WSDA),andTrishTwomey(WA

Food

Coalition).DuetodisruptionscausedbytheCOVID-19pandemicduringthisevaluation’stimeframe,itwas

neveradministered.Theguidewasintendedtobeadministereddigitallyasanema ilattachmentorverbally

asaphonesurvey.

 AnimalFeedDistributorsan dFarmRecipients.Cascadiaconductedone-on-one interviewswithstaffat

WSDAandKrainickDairy.

 CompostFacilities.Theinterviewguide,foundinAppendixC:CompostFacilityInterviewGuide,was

developedwithinputfromMaryHarrington(Ecology).Thegoalofthisguidewastocollectinformation

frompermittedcompostfacilitiesprocessingfoodwaste.Itwassenttocompostersasanemailattachment



tobecompleteddigitally,withtheoptionofcallingthecontactinformationlistedbyphonetocomplete

thesurveyverbally.Cascadiapre-filledthepreviousyear’sreportingtotalsineachcategorywithinthe

survey.SurveyresponsesareincludedinAppendixD:CompostF acilitySurveyResponses.

 AnaerobicDigesters.Cascadiaconductedone-on-one

interviewswithstaffatCommerce,Ecology,and

ImpactBioenergy.

 EmergingTechnologies.CascadiainterviewedstaffatthebiofertilizercompanyWISErg.

Conduct Data Modeling

Toestimatethequantityandqualityoff oodwasteandwastedfoodflowingthrougheachsegmentofthestatewide

foodhandlingsystembysourcesanddisposition,CascadiaworkedwithERG(EasternResearchGroup,Inc.)to

createadatamodel.

Twelvegeneratorsoffoodwasteareindividuallyevaluatedinthemodel:

Food Waste Generators

 Farms

 Manufacturing

 Residences

 Consumer-facingBusinesses*

* Consumer‐facing businesses include:

 InstitutionsofHigherEducation

 Hospitals

 HotelsandMotels

 K-12Schools

 NursingHomes

 Prisons

 Restaurants

 Supermarkets

 WholesaleDistributors



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Generatedfoodwasteandwastedfoodisallocatedamongtwodisposalandsevenrecoverypathways.

Disposal

 Landfill

 

 Waste-to-EnergyCombustion

Recovery

 Donation

 AgricultureProducts

 AnaerobicDigestion

 AnimalFeed

 Bio-basedMaterials

 Composting

 LandApplication



Totheextentpossible,themodelreliesondata

specifictofoodwasterecoveryanddisposalinWashingtonState.

Statespecificdatawasavailableforsevenoftheninefoodwasteandwastedfoodmanagementpathwaysshown

above.Theserecordsaredeemedtobeofhighquality.Recoveryoffoodwasteviaagriculturalandbio-based

productsrecoverypathwayswas

estimatedbasedonnationalrecoverystatisticsformanufacturers,restaurants,

supermarketsandwholesaledistributors.Themostrecentlyavailabledatawereusedforallestimates.Model

resultsestimateannualfoodwastegeneration,recoveryanddisposalinWashingtonStateforarepresentative

periodbetween2016and2019.

WashingtonStatedatagenerallyprovidedestimatesof

foodwasterecoveryanddisposalviaindividualpathways

(i.e.landfill,compost,etc.).Nationalsamplingstudyestimatesoffoodwastegeneration,recovery,anddisposal

providemoredetailandinsightintothegenerationoffoodwasteforthefollowinggeneratingsectors:higher

education,hospitals,hotels,K-12schools,nursinghomes,prisons,restaurants,supermarkets

andwholesale

distributors.WashingtonStatedatawasuseddirectlytosupplyfoodwastegenerationestimatesforfarmsand

residences.AmixtureofnationalsamplingestimatesandWashingtonStatedatawasusedforthemanufacturing

sector.EstimationmethodsbasedonnationalsamplingdataareindependentofWashingtonfoodwastedisposal

statisticsand

donotperfectlymatchreporteddatatotalsforWashingtonState.Aniterativeprocesswasusedto

facilitateconvergenceofthefoodwastemodelwithWashingtonStatedatatotalsoffoodwastemanagement

pathways.

Originalmodelestimatesoffoodwastegeneration,priortomodelfitting,yieldedavalue2.7percentgreater

than

thequantityindicatedbyWashingtonStatedatarecords.Themodelfittingprocedurereducedthisdiscrepancyto

0.18percentandalignedestimateddisposalandrecoverypathwayswithdataavailableforWashingtonStatefilling

ingapswithreasonablenationalestimates.

Detaileddocumentationoffoodwasteestimationproceduresandsourcescanbefound

inAppendixA:,andthe

accompanyingMSExcelmodel(model).Reviewofthemodel,particularlytherangeindocumentedfoodwaste

generationfactors,estimationproceduresandfoodwastemanagementpathwaydistributions,willhelpgivecontext

tothecertaintyoruncertaintywithwhichindividualsectorestimatesshouldbeviewed.

Key Food Waste Generation Assumptions



Excessfarmproductiondonatedtofoodbanks,foodpantries,andotherdonation-baseddistribution

programsistheonlysourc eoffoodwasteproducedbythefarmingsectorthatisconsideredinthis

analysis;foodpurchasesandfoodfromfederalcommoditiesprogramsdistributedbydonation

organizationsisoutsidetheproj ect’sscopeandwas

excludedfromtheanalysis.



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 Foodwastegeneratedbyotherminorsources(e.g.officebuildings,sportsvenues),notexplicitlycalculated

bythemodel.Thesetonsaredistributedamongthetwelveincludedgenerators.Basedonthemodel’s

structure,mostofthiswasteisexpectedtobedistributedamongthenineconsumer-facingbusinesses,

potentiallyoverestimatingfoodwaste

generatedbytheseninesources.Giventhequalityofthematch

betweentheoriginalestimationandreporteddataforWashingtonState,priortomodelfitting,distortions

inmodelresultscausedbythisprocedureareexpectedtobeminor.

Key Food Waste Management Assumptions

 AWashingtonStatewastecharacterizationstudy for2015-2016wasusedto

estimatethequantityoffood

wastepresentindisposedMSW(16to17percentdependingonregion)andtheshareofdisposedMSW

fromcommercialandresidentialsources(CCG,2018).

 Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethreecommonroutesofmunicipalfoodwastedisposal

(compost,combustion,andlandfill)

basedontotalfoodwastedisposalviathesethreepathwaysin

WashingtonStateforInstitutionsofHigherEducation,Hospitals,HotelsandMotels,K-12Schools,Nursing

Homes,Prisons,andthenon-edibleshareofdonatedfood.

 WashingtonStatedatafor2018wasusedtoquantifyfoodwasteprocessedatcommercialcomposting

facilities.

Foodprocessingwastewasassumedtobeproducedbythemanufacturingsector.Post-consumer

foodwasteandyarddebris/foodscrapswereallocatedamongresidentialandcommercialge nerators

basedondataprovidedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.Thequantityoffoodwaste

presentinmixedyarddebris/foodscrapswasassumed

tobe10percentbasedonlimitedcompostfacility

surveydata.

 Estimatesoffoodwasteusedasanimalfeedincludeanimalproducts,brewerswaste,distillerswaste,

screenings,andhumanfoodby-products.

 Allfoodprocessingwastegoingtoanaerobicdigestionandlandapplicationwasassumedto beproduced

bythe

manufacturingsector.

Data Limitations

Themostsignificantlimitationofthisevaluationwastheavailabilityofdata,whichCascadiarecognizedduringthe

datacollectionprocessandtookstepstoaddress,withvaryinglevelsofsuccess.Thislimitationwasattributableto

threemainfactors:

 Somedataowners,suchasanimalfeedmanufacturers,largehungerrelieforganizations,

andcompost

facilities,werenonresponsivetomultiplerequestsforinformation.Thiscouldbeduetofactorssuchas

protectivenessofproprietarydataandlimitedresources.

 Oncetheneedforadditional,concertedoutreachtohungerreliefdataholderswasidentified,the

outbreakoftheCOVID-19pandemicrenderedthisimpracticaland

inappropriategiventhese

organizations’importantroleinmeetingbasicneedsofthoseimpactedduringthecrisis.

 Wheredatawereavailable,theywereprovidedinag gregate(i.e.,totaltonshandled)ratherthantons

disaggregatedbysourcesanddispositions.Thesedatabegintoanswertheresearchquestions,but

severallargeandsignificant

gapsremainwherewewillrecommendfutureresearchinbelowsections.

 Nationalsamplingdatawasusedtoestimatefoodwastegenerationforhighereducation,hospitals,

hotels,K-12schools,nursinghomes,prisons,restaurants,supermarketsandwholesaledistributors

havingnocomprehensiveavailabilityatthestatelevel.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 Nationalsamplingdatawasusedtoestimatefoodwastedisposalandrecoveryforrestaurants,

supermarketsandwholesaledistributorsduetoalackofstatespecificdata.Otherinstitutionalfood

wastegeneratorswereassumedtodisposeoffoodwasteviatheavailablemunicipalrecoveryand

disposalsystemwhichincludescomposting,landfill,

andcontrolledcombustion.

 Aswithallmodels,thismodelislimitedbythequalityofthedatauponwhichitisbased.Themodel

estimatesveryspecificvaluesbutshould onlybeviewedasestimateswithoneortwosignificant

figures.

FINDINGS BY ENTITY TYPE

Hunger Relief Organizations

Summary of Entities

UsingavailabledatafromFoodLifelineandWSDA,combinedwithonlineimpactandactivityreports,Cascadia

estimatesbetween652and724uniquehungerrelieforganizationsareoperatinginWashingtonState(Food

Lifeline,2019;WSDA,2020;SecondHarvest;NorthwestHarvest,2019;HarvestAgainstHunger,2020;WSDA,2020).

Thesenumbersareshown

inTable6.Thelongestlistofentitynamescamefromalistofrecipientsoffoodfromthe

EmergencyFoodAssistanceProgram(EFAP)andTheEmergencyFoodAssistanceProgram(TEFAP),whichoperateat

thestatelevelandthefederallevel,respectively,toprovidefundingforhungerrelieforganizationstopurchase

food.AnotherentitylistwasprovidedbyFoodLifeline.

ThelistofEFAPandTEFAPrecipientsandtheFoodLifelineentitylistcombinedtellusthatthereareatleast652

uniquehungerrelieforganizationsinWashingtonState,with112organizationsappearingonbothlists.

RepresentativesfromWSDAestimatethat

the652entitiesrepresent90percentofhungerrelieforganizationsin

WashingtonState,butadditionalresearchisnecessarytoverifythisestimate.Inaddition,therearelikelysmall-

scalelocalnonprofitsthatdonotreceivefoodfromanyofthesedistributors,althoughthequantitiestheyreceive

anddistributearemostlikely

comparativelysmall.

Table6.HungerReliefOrganizationsServedbyFoodDistributionOrganizationsandProgramsinWashingtonState

OrganizationorProgram

NumberofHungerRelief

OrganizationsServedinWA

Datayear

EFAP andTEFAP 543 2019

FoodLifeline 221 2019

SecondHarvest 227 2019

NorthwestHarvest 375 2018

FarmtoPantry 163 2019



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Theseentitiescanbefurtherclassifiedbasedonfunctionandlocation.Therearethreemaintypesofhungerrelief

organizations,differingincustomersserved,productsdistributed,andassociatedlogistics:

 Foodbanksstoreanddistributelargequantitiesoffoodtofoodpantrieswithlittletonodistributionof

fooddirectlyto

individuals.

 Foodpantriesdistributefooddirectlytoindividuals,particularlyshelf-stableitemsandothertypesof

groceries.

 Mealprogramsserveordistributeoneormoremealsperdaytoindividuals.

InWashingtonState,hungerrelieforganizationscanfacedifferentchallengesdependingongeography.Easternand

westernWashingtondifferbased

onpopulationdensityandavailabletransportationcorridors,providingdifferent

operatingcont extsforhungerrelief.Urbanandruralhungerrelieforganizationsfacedifferentchallengesand

opportunitiesrelatedtothedensityofdonorsandindividualrecipients,transportation,etc.(Bolt,etal.,2019)

(NutritionPolicyInstitute,UniversityofCalifornia,2017).

Flow of Food

Hungerrelieforganizations

obtainfoodthroughbothdonationandpurchase.Donationsofediblefoodcomefroma

varietyofsources.Thisfoodisnotconsideredwasteunlessitisnotservedtocustomersandissubsequentlysentto

composting,disposal,orsomeotherfoodwastemanagementpathway.Whileprovidingtheessentialserviceof

feeding

hungrypeople, WashingtonState’shungerreliefsystemalsoprevents49,802tonsoffoodfromentering

foodwastemanagementpathwayseachyear.Understandingthecapacityofhungerrelieforganizationstohandlea

potentialincreaseindonatedfoodisimportanttounderstandingtheeffectsonthestate’sfoodwastemanagement

system.

Of

the49,082tonsoffooddonationsmanagedbyWashingtonhungerrelieforganizationsin2019,approximately

54percentwasfromgroceryretaildonors,13percentwasfrommanufacturersandprocessors,20percentwas

fromrestaurants,institutions,andothercommercialkitchens,and13percentwasfromfarms,asi llustratedin

Figure4.Available

datadonotpermitfurtherdisaggregationofthesenumbersbyfoodbanks,foodpantries,and

mealprograms,respectively.

Figure4.SourcesandDispositionsofFoodforHungerReliefinWashingtonState(tons)



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Metrics and Reporting Protocols

WashingtonState’shungerreliefsystemishighlydiffuse,withfewcentralizedsourcesofdata.Thecentralizeddata

sourcesinclude:FeedingAmericaaf filiatesFoodLifelineandSecondHarvest,statewideagencyNorthwestHarvest,

andEFAPandTEFAPTherearecurrentlynostandardprotocolsforreportingannualtonsofdonatedfoodmanaged

by

hungerrelieforganizations—outsideofEFAPandTEFAP,whichdistributefederallysubsidizedfoodpurchases—to

WSDAoranyotherStateagency.Thereisavoluntaryprocessforhungerrelieforganizationstoreportpoundsof

donatedfoodreceivedtoEcology,butthelowtotalsindicatethatthereareminimalratesofparticipationinthis



reporting(WADepartmentofEcology,2017).

Themetricsconsistentlytrackedandreportedbyhungerrelieforganizationsarepoundsoffoodmanagedand

poundsoffooddistributed(asgroceriesbyfoodbanksandpantriesorasmeals bymealprograms).

Capacity

ThissectionsummarizescapacitychallengesandopportunitiesfromCascadia’sexperienceand

areviewofavailable

literature.

Challenges

Challengescommonlyfacinghungerrelieforganizationsarenumerousandwell-documented.Challengesdiscussed

hereincludelimitedresources,lackofaccurateandrobustdataacrossthesystem,needfornutritiousanddiverse

foodsfromdonors,andbettercommunicationwithandtrainingfordonors.

Limited Resources and Silos

Limitedfunds,space,

andinfrastructure,suchasvehiclesandcoldstorage,arenearlyubiquitouschallengescitedby

hungerrelieforganizations(Hecht&Neff,2019).Theselimitationscanmakeitdifficultforhungerrelief

organizationstoacceptasmuchnutritiousproduceandotherperishableitemsastheywouldlike,re-packagebulk

donations,andspendtime

onsorting,pickups,anddelivery(Otten,Diedrich,Getts,&Benson,2015).Attimes,staff

reportthatthetimespentseekinggrantscanlimitoperations(Hecht&Neff,2019).Limitedfundingalsomeansthat

manyorganizationsmustrelyonvolunteers,whichintroducesmanagementchallengesandsomeunreliabilityin

operations(Hecht&

Neff,2019).

Specificneedsvaryam ongdifferentsizesoforganizations,butthethemeofresourcelimitationsremainsthesame.

AccordingtoaNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)survey,thesmallestorganizationstendtodesirefunding

forpaidstaff,mid-sizedorganizationsindicateinterestinmorevehiclesandfundingtomaintainthem,and

large

organizationsmostfrequentlyaskforlargerfacilities(Berkenkamp&Phillips,2017).

InSeattle,theongoingFoodRescueInnovationInitiativehasfoundthatresourcelimitations,combinedwiththe

siloednatureofhungerrelieforganizations,hasledorganizationstofeelthattheyarecompetingforscarcefunding,

food,storage,transportation,and

volunteers.IntheSeattlearea,eachorganizationisoperatingseparatevehicles,

volunteers,staff,andfacilities,creatingnearlycompletesilos.Therearewa ysfororganizationstoworktogetherto

shareresourcesandbuildefficiencies,butthesenseofcompetitionbetweenorganizationsleadstoalackof

transparencyandtrust,whichcauseslow

levelsofcommunicationandcollaborationtopoolresourcesand

coordinatelogistics,whichmeansthatallorganizationshaveinsufficientequipmentandstaffing(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2020).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Communication with Donors

Hungerreliefrepresentativeslistcommunicationwithdonatingbusinessesasachallenge,especiallyaroundtraining

andcoordination.Insufficientcommunicationbetweendonorsandrecipientorganizationscanresultinmissed

opportunitiesandavoidablewaste.TheNRDCagreesthatinthecitiestheirteamhasstudied,coordinationand

trainingofdonorsisimportantto

improvelogisticalefficienciesandincreasethevolumeofdonations(Berkenkamp

&Phillips,2017).Whencommunicationchannelsarestrongbetweendonorsandor,fooddonationscanbebetter

sharedortransferredbetweenorganizationswithinfoodsafetywindows.

Inaddition,thereisaneedamongdonorsforeducationalmaterialsabouthowtodonate

andhandlefoodsafelyfor

donationandwhattheincentivesare(Hecht&Neff,2019).Thereisalackofknowledgeamongdonorsofdifferent

businesstypesaboutwhere,how,andwhattodonate(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

Lack of Data Across the Hunger Relief System

Resourcescarcity,silos,andlackofcommunicationhavecontributedtoasignificant

datadeficitthatpreventsa

completepictureoftherecoveryoffoodthroughhungerreliefinWashingtonStatefromcomingintoview.Oneof

thegapsidentifiedinthisevaluationhasbeeneasilyaccessibledataaroundthequantity,quality,andtypeoffoods

beingrecoveredbyhungerrelieforganizationsand

wherethosefoodsaredistributed,consumed,andwastedat

variousstages.Thislackofdatacreateschallengesforthehungerreliefsystemitself,sincethereisminimalclarity

aroundcertainaspectsoflogistics,inventorymanagement,andpatternsandopportunitiesth atcouldinform

decisionsaboutstaffing,fundraising,andmore,andhelporganizations

attractdata-drivenfunders.Inparticular,

real-timedata—oratleastdatatrackedmoreregularlythanquarterlyorannuallyforreporting—wouldhelphunger

relieforganizationsmaketimelyoperationaldecisions(Anzilotti,2020).

Need for Nutritious Donations

Manyorganizationsreportaneedforhigherqualitydonations(Hecht&Neff,2019;Otten,Diedrich,Getts,&

Benson,2015).Forexample,

inSeattle,grocerydonationrecipientshavenotedaconsistentoversupplyofbread

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2020).Onaveragenationally,accordingtoasurveyof196foodbankscompletedby

MAZON,freshfruitsandvegetablescomprisenearlyonethirdoffoodbankinventorydistributed,whileonequarter

ismadeupof

unhealthybeveragesandsnackfoods.Nearlyhalfoffoodbanksdonotuseasystemtotrack

nutritionalquality,butthosethatuseatrackingsystemreporthealthierinventorythanthosewithouttracking

systems(MAZON,2018).Itisimportanttonotethatanorganization’saccesstocoldtransportationandstorageis

linkedtotheircapacitytoacceptmorenutrient-densefoodssuchasmeat,dairy,andfreshproduce.

Challenges Highlighted by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Duringthesign ificantandunprecedenteddisruptionscausedbytheCOVID-19pandemic,thechallengesdiscussed

abovehavebeenexacerbatedandnewoneshavebecomeclear,includinga lackof:

Flexibilityinsourcingdonations:DuringWashington’ s

statewideStay-at-Home,allbut“essential”businesseshave

beenshuttered,includingbars,restaurants,hotels,cateringcompaniesandothercommonandpreviouslyreliable

sourcesoffooddonations(Kim,2020).Grocerystoresarelargelystilloperating,butincreaseddemandforgrocery

itemshasreducedthevolumeoffoodavailablefordonation.Traditionaldonation

streamstohungerreliefdropped

suddenlybyabout75percent(ReFED,2020).Someorganizationsareequippedwithwebportalsandotherlogistics

solutionstoacceptdonationsfromnewupstreamsources,suchasdistributorsandfarms,butmanyarenot(ReFED,

2020).

Staffingandcapacity:Duetothepublichealthcrisis,numbers

ofvolunteershaveplummeted,leadingtostaffing

shortagesatmanyhungerrelieforganizations(Guarente,2020).Atthesametime,thebusinessclosuresand

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

disruptionshavecreatedrapidlyrisingunemploymentrates—atrendnotisolatedtoWashington.Demandforfood

assistancehasriseninparallel,withsomehungerrelieforganizationsfacingdemandthreetofivetimeshigherthan

levelsbeforethepandemic(ReFED,2020).

Flexibilityinfooddelivery:Manyofthoserequiringfoodassistancearehomebound

seniorsorpeoplewithhealth

vulnerabilitieswhoareunabletotravelforfood.Somemealprogramsthatmanypeoplereliedonforfoodarenow

closedduetohealthorstaffingconcerns .Asaresult,last-miledeliverytoindividualsisanewandsignificantneed

toprovidehungerrelief(ReFED,

2020).

Opportunities

Prepared Food Rescue

Preparedfoodrescuehasbeencalledthenextfrontieroffooddonation(Ambroz,2017).NRDC’s2017report,

“ModelingthePotentialtoIncreaseFoodRescue:Denver,NewYorkCityandNashville,”notedthatmorethanone

thirdofalluntappeddonationpotentialunderanambitiousscenariocouldconsistofprepared

fooditems

(Berkenkamp&Phillips,2017).Cascadia’sinterviewswithbusinessesinAlamedaCounty,CAalsofoundthat

preparedfoodisacommonitemavailablefordonationathotels,hospitals,cateringcompanies,andgrocerystores

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).NRDC’sreportnotesthatprepared,ready-to-eatfoodscanbeusefultomeal

programsathomelessshelters,seniormealservices, andsimilarscenariosthatoftenservethemostacutelyfood

insecurepopulations(Berkenkamp&Phillips,2017).

Rescuingpreparedfoodcomeswithsomelogisticalconsiderations.Indeed,thereissomuchremainingpotentialfor

thistypeoffoodtoberescuedbecausetherearelogisticalchallenges

forbothdonorsandrecipients,including

shortfoodsafetywindows,packagingandchainofcustodyrequirements,and,amongdonors,fearofliability

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Thegreatestpotentialforpreparedfoodrescuecouldlieinurbanlocationsas

thereisaconcentrationofpotentialdonorsandrecipientsoffood,

anditmaybemorefeasibletodeliveranduse

foodwithinshortsafetywindowsthaninlessdenseareas(Berkenkamp&Phillips,2017).

Communications and Logistics Solutions

Theconsistentchallengeoflimitedresources,theCOVID-19crisis,andtheopportunityofpreparedfoodall

reinforcetheneedtocreateefficiencieswithinthehungerrelief

system.WhileFoodLi felineandNorthwestHarvest

playsignificantrolesinconnectingbusinessdonorstofoodpantriesandmealprograms,thesubsequentworkto

transport,store,andredistributethisfoodisprimarilydonebylast-mileorganizationswhodirectlyserveindividuals

andfamilies.Forthemostpart,last-mileorganizationsoperatetheirown

facilities,vehicles,staff,andvolunteers.

Thiscomplexsystemproducessiloed organizationswithfewincentivesortoolsforefficientcollaborationand

poolingofresources.Organizationsrelyoninformalnetworks,suchasemaillistsandphonecalls,todistributeand

sharefoodandothersupplies.However,thesenetworksdonotprovidethe

real-timecapacitynecessaryto

effectivelyredistributefoodwithinthefoodsafetywindow.Alackofaccessibletoolsforreal-timecommunication

amongorganizationsandbetweenorganizationsanddonorscontributestoperceivedscarcity,missed

opportunities,andwaste(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2020).

Thereisamyriadoftechnology-basedlogisticssolutions,bothfor-profitandnonprofit,

onthemarkettoconnect

thedotsbetweendonorsandrecipientorganizationsandtoensurethatfoodisallocatedappropriatelywithinthe

hungerreliefsystem.Thesesystemscanalsosupporttrackingandreporting,whichwouldenablestafftoreducethe

stepstheytaketorecordfoodvolumes,types,andwaste.

Astheybecomemorewidespreadandsophisticated,and

ifitispossibletointegratetheirresults,thesetoolsmaybeabletogivelocaland/orstateagenciesareal-time

windowintothecapacityofhungerrelieforganizationsandabetterabilitytorespondtotheirneeds.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

SeattlePublicUtilitiesiscurrentlyresearchingapilotprogramtouseafoodrecoverylogisticsappinSeattle.

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2020).Werecommendthatstat eagenciesseekopportunitiestosupportthiswork.The

pilotaimsto:

 Enablefooddonorsandhungerrelieforganizationstosharefoodandresourcesefficiently

todistribute

foodwithinsafetywindowswithoutaddingcosts.

 Connectvolunteerswithorganizationswhenandwheretheyareneededmost.

 Providehungerrelieforganizationswithreal-timeaccesstoinformationaboutthetypes,quantities,and

locationsoffoodavailableforrecovery.

 Reducetheamountoffoodgoingto 

compostandlandfillandincreaseth eamountoffooddeliveredto

hungerrelieforganizationclients.

 Buildonorconnectwithexistingsystemsthathungerrelieforganizationsusesothatimplementationis

streamlinedandscalable.

 Provideinformationthatreducesgapsaroundtransportationlogisticsandstorage.

Recommendations for Filling Data Gaps

Whileweareloath

toproposeimposingadditionalreportingrequirementsonalreadyoverburdenedandunder-

resourcedhungerreliefstaff,thecentralizedavailabilityofthedatadescribedinthissectionwouldprovideinsights

thatcouldbeusedtoinformfutureinvestmentsininfrastructure,programdevelopmentandstaf fing,andlogistics

coordination.Asmentionedabove,wewereunable

toengageindialoguewiththeseorganizationsduringthis

evaluation.WerecommendthatEcologyandWSDAconductfurtherdialoguewiththesestakeholdersbefore

institutinganynewreportingrequirements.

Centralized Annual Reporting of Quantitative Hunger Relief Data

Tofacilitateconsistent,ongoingtrackingofthequantityandqualityofpotentiallywastedfoodbeingdonatedto

hungerrelieforganizationsinsupport

ofHB1114,werecommendthatWSDAexpanditsannualreportingprotocols

toincludelargehungerreliefdistributionnetworksinadditiontoexistingEFAPandTEFAPreportingprotocols,then

forwardinformationtoEcology.Requesteddatawouldideallyinclude:

 Acompletelistofuniquehungerrelieforganizationsservedannua lly.While

thereareundoubtedly

independent,community-andfaith-basedorganizationsoperatingoutsideofthemajorhungerrelief

distributionnetworks,thisapproachwouldgoalongwaytowardobtainingacomprehensivelistingofthe

hungerrelieforganizationsoperatinginWashingtonState.

 Tonsoffoodmanagedannually,disaggregatedbysourceanddisposition:

Donatedvs.purchased.Theprimarypubliclyavailabledatasetcontainingtonsoffoodmanagedby

hungerrelieforganizationsinWashingtonStateisfortheEFAPandTEFAPprograms,whichpr ovide

federallysubsidizedfood.Giventhis,itisdifficulttoascertainhowmuchofthefoodcurrently

enteringhungerrelieforganizationsinWashington

Statewouldotherwisehavebeenwasted.

Trackinghowmuchfoodisdonatedversushowmuchispurchasedisone—albeitimperfect—way

toreachthisunderstanding.Trackingquantitiesofdonationsandpurchasedfoodcanalsoprovide

insightsabouttheextenttowhichthequantityandqualityoffooddonationsaremeetingthe

needsofthestate’shung errelieforganizations.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

o Donororsellertype.Understandingthemajorsourcesofdonatedandpurchasedfoodcanhelpto

prioritizefutureeffortstoimprovethequalityoffoodenteringthestate’shungerreliefsystem.

Thisinformationcanalsohelptoshapefuturewastepreventionefforts. 

o Location(zipcode).Locationinformationcaninform

futureinvestmentsininfrastructure,program

developmentandstaffing,andlogisticscoordination.

o Tonsoffooddistributedand/orservedtocustomers annually.Tonnageinformation,when

combinedwiththenumberofcustomersservedannually,canprovideinsightsintothescalability

ofcurrenthungerreliefinfrastructure,staffing,anddonationlevels.

o Numberof

individualsserved.Asnotedabove,thisnumber’schangesovertimecangiveinsight

intotheneedforanyadditionalhungerreliefcapacity,includinginfr astructure,staffing,and

donationlevels.

o Tonsoffoodreceivedbutnotdistributedorservedtohumansannually(foodwasteandwasted

food),i.e.,senttocomposting,

disposal,orsomeotherfoodwastemanagementpathway.Thereis

verylimitedunderstandingofhowmuchfoodreceivedbyhungerrelieforganizationsgoesto

waste,eitherbecausefoodwasdonatedinanunusablestateorbecauselogisticsormanagement

processesattheorganizationresultedinwaste.Measuringquantitiesoffood

wastedisan

importantstepthatwouldshinealightondonationdumpingbydonors,increaseunderstandingof

whethertherearecategoriesoffoodtha taredifficulttoworkwithorthataredonatedinexcess,

andopentheblackboxoffoodwastedriversinhungerrelieforganizations.

Conduct Barriers and Opportunities Study by Entity Type and Geography

Numerous

reportsbasednationallyandinurbanareasofWashingtonStateandcasestudiesfromdifferentpartsof

thecountrylistchallengesthatareuniquetodifferenttypesofhungerrelieforganizationssuchasfoodbanks,food

pantries,andmealprograms.Cascadiarecommendsconductinginterviewsorfocusgroupswithhungerrelief

organizations

ofdiff erenttypesandindifferentlocations(urban/ruralandeastern/westernWashington)toglean

insightsaboutuniquebarriersandopportunitieswherelocal,regional,andStateagenciescouldprovidesupport.

Conduct Generator-Based Waste Characterization Study of Hunger Relief Organizations

Wealsorecommendconductingagenerator-basedwastecharacterizationstudyofarepresentativesampleof

hungerrelieforganizationsanddonorstodevelop

amorenuancedlookathungerrelieforganizations’waste

streams.Aprimarydatacollectioneffortofthisnature,conductedregularlybyastateagency,canfilldatagapswith

comparativelyless intrusionthanaddingnew,moredetailedreportingrequirementsforhungerrelieforganizations.

Thisdatacollectionshouldbeincollaborationwith

anadvisorycommitteeliketheHungerReliefSMEWorking

GroupthathasadvisedthePlan.Themethod ologyforthestudyshouldinteractwiththeBarriersandOpportunities

studyrecommendedabove,ifitoccurs,andcaninclude:

 Surveysandinterviewswithfooddonors,intermediaries,andrecipients.Aspartofthis

evaluation,Cascadia

developedasurveyguide,whichisavailableinAppendixB:HungerReliefInterviewGuide.

 On-siteweighingoffooddonationsatfoodrescuefacilities,notingwhatproportionofdonationsisusable.

 On-sitecountingofmealsservedatmealprograms.

 Measurementofhungerreliefwastestreamsthroughreview

ofdisposaltonnagedatafromwastehauling

billsand/orgeneratorwastech aracterizationstudies.Wastecharacterizationstudiesaremoreexpensive

butalsoprovidericherdataaboutwhatisbeingdisposedthatcouldinformfuturestudiesandpolicies

relatedtodriversoffoodlossathungerrelieforganizations.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Aftercompletinglocaldatacollectionactivities,werecommendproducinganadjustablemodelthatWSDAor

Ecologycanusetotrackfoodrescueprogressgoingforward.Themodelcouldcontainanddocumentanyprimary

assumptions;storedemographicdata;modeltonsbysourceandfoodtypesrescued;producesensitivityanalyses

basedonvariation

inreportedtons,participationrates,andrescueefficiencyrates;andprovideaframeworkfor

ongoingdatacollectionandreporting.Wealsorecommendconsultingtheadvisorycommitteeafterdatacollection

toidentifyareaswhereadditionalduediligenceiswarranted.

Measure Edible Portions of Disposed Food in Statewide Characterization Studies

Statewidewastecharacterizationstudiesarethebestwa ytocaptureacomprehensive

pictureofdisposaland

recoveryacrossthestate.EcologycommissionedCascadiatoconductastatewidemunicipalsolidwaste(MSW)

characterizationstudyin2009and2015andhasenlistedth emtoconductanotherstudyin2020.Forthe2020

study,Cascadiahasrecommendedupdatingthematerialcategoriestosupportdatacollection

forfoodwaste

reductionandmanagementandhasthusdefinedthematerialcategoriestodistinguishbetweenedibleandinedible

fooditemstoassessdonationpotential.Cascadiahasdevelopedandrefinedapplicablematerialcategoriesduring

otherstatewideandlocalwastecharacterizationsandlooksforwardtoapplyingtheminWashingtonState.

Animal Feed Distributors and Farm Recipients

Summary of Entities

InWashingtonState,thereare136licensedcommercialfeeddistributorsthatdistributefeediningredient

categoriesthatmeetthisevaluation’sdefinitionoffoodwaste.Thesecategoriesare:

 Brewers

 Distillers

 AnimalProducts

 HumanFoodBy-Products

 Screenings

ExceptforHuman Food By‐Products,alltheseingredientcategoriesappearto

consistonlyoffoodprocessingwaste.

TheHuman Food By‐Productscategoryalsoincludessometypesoffoodprocessingwaste,aswellasrestaurant

foodwasteandrecoveredretailfood(WSDA,2018).Therearesixcommercialfeedcompaniesthatarelicensedto

distributeHuman Food By‐Products.Definitionsoftheingredientcategoriesconsideredas

foodwasteforthis

evaluationarelocatedinAppendixE:AnimalFeedFoodWasteCategories

Additionalentitiesthatcreateanimalfeedfromfoodwastearefarmsandpetfoodmanufacturers(Phillips-

Donaldson,2019;Pope,2014),butourresearchdidnotidentifyanydataaboutwhichfarmsandpetfood

manufacturersuse

foodwasteorhow muchfoodwasteentersthismanagementpathway,becauseregistrationand

permittingprocessesdonotrequiredisclosureofthisinformation(WSDA,n.d.).

KrainickDairy,locatedinEnumclaw, Washington,isonedairyfarmthatusesspentgrainandbakeryitemsasfeed

forcows(Krainick,2020).KrainickDairy

isaverylargedairyfarminWashingtonStatewith3,000headsofcattle.In

2018,theWashingtonDairyNutrientManagementProgramlisted320dairyfarmsinthestate,including106large

dairies,eachwithover700 headsofcattle(WSDA-DairyNutrientManagementProgram,20 18).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Flow of Food

BetweenJuly2018andJune2019,licensedcommercialfeedcompaniesdistributed1,494,807tonsoffoodwaste

ingredientsasfeed.Thevastmajorityofthisamount(92%)wasdistillerywaste,withsmallpercentagescomposed

ofBrewery Waste, Animal Products, Human Food By‐Products, andScreenings,asshowninTable7.

Table7.CommercialFeedDistributedbyIngredientCategory

Foodwasteingredientcategory TonsdistributedJuly2018-June2019

%oftotalfoodwastetons

distributed

Brewers 7,808.37 0.5%

Distillers 1,373,465.78 92.0%

Animalproducts 10,832.68 0.7%

Humanfoodby-products 17,077.78 1.1%

Screenings 85,621.98 5.7%

Total 1,494,806.59 100.0%



AsillustratedinFigure5,themainsourceoffoodwasteforanimalfeedismanufacturing,whichcontributed

1,442,380tonsoffoodwastetocommercialfeedcompanies,or96.5percentofthetotal,in2018-2019.Outofall

foodwastecategoriesgoingtoanimalfeed,“distillers’products”makeup92

percent.Theseproductsinclude

molassesdriedsolubles,potatodriedsolubles,driedgrainswithsolubles,wetgrains,andmore.Noneofthe

ingredientswithinthiscategoryisappropriatefordonationtohungerrelief;animalfeedmaybethehighestand

bestusefortheseproducts.Inmanycases,distillersandbrewersbuild

animalfeeddestinationsintotheirbusiness

models,asdonatingsolublesandgrainby-productsorsellingthematalowcostpertonismuchcheaperthan

payingtonnagefeestosendthemtolandfillorcompost(Pope,2014).Thisisauniquefoodwast e streaminthis

regard.

KrainickDairy

acceptsapproximately1,500tonsoffoodwasteannuallytofeedits3,300cows.Foodandbeverage

manufacturers,includingbrewersandalargebakeryproductfacility ,contributeallthefoodwasteingredientsthat

KrainickDairyacceptsasfeed(Krainick,2020).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Figure5.FoodWasteandWastedFoodtoAnimalFeed(tons)



Metrics and Reporting Protocols

Feedcompaniesmustbelicensedinordertomanufactureordistributecommercialf eedinWashingtonState,oract

asaguarantoronacommercialfeedlabel(WSDA,n.d.).Licenseddistributorsmustlistspecificingredientcategories

intheirapplicationsandreportonthequantitiesofthoseingredientsdistributedinfeedannually

toWSDA.The

ingredientcategoriesincludeseveralthatfallunderthisevaluation’sdefinitionoffoodwaste:Human Food By‐

Products, Distillers Products, Brewers Products, Screenings, and Animal Products(WSDA,2018).IntheHuman Food

By‐Productsingredientcategory,exampleingredientsincludeRestaurant Food Waste, Recovered Retail Food, and

Food Processing Waste.AdditionaldetailaboutthemainsourcesofHuman Food By‐Productsandtheassociated

barriersandopportunitieswouldprovide

aclearerimageoftheflowoffoodthroughanimalfeedentitiesasafood

wastemanagementpathway.Itispossibletoseetheaggregatequantityofeachingredientcategorydistributedina

givenyear,butnottoseethequantityperfeedcompany.

Petfoodcompaniesaresimilarlyrequired

toregisterpriortodistributingproductsinWashingtonState.Ifa

companydistributesonlypetfood,itisnotrequiredtoapplyforacommercialfeedlicense.Petfoodregistrants

submitsemi-annualreportsofallfeeddistributedwithinorintoWashingtonState,butregistrationsandreportsdo 

notcontaininformationabout

ingredientsoringredientcategoriesused(WSDA,n.d.).

Farmsandotherrecipientsoffoodwasteforanimalfeeddonotneedlicensesorregistrationtogivethefeedto

theirownanimals,andthereisnoreportingprocess(WSDA,n.d.).Farmsarerequiredtoholdseveraldifferent

licenses,butfeed-relatedlicenses

arenotrequired(WSDA,2019).

Capacity

Challenges

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Themainchallengeforexpandinganimalfeedasafoodwastemanagementpathwayisthat,accordingtotheFood

WasteReductionAlliance,thevastmajorityoffoodwasteappropriateforuseinanimalfeedisalreadybeing

recoveredandusedacrosstheUnitedStates.Acrossthecountry,anestimated95percent

ofindustrialfoodwasteis

recycled,with85percentofthisamountbeingusedasanimalfeed(FoodWasteReductionAlliance,2013).ReFED

notesthatthisisarelativelysuccessfulfoodwastemanagementpathwayduetothepredictabilityofquantityand

qualityofthewastestream(Cirilli,etal.,2016).

Figure6showsthat,comparedtootherlayersoftheorganicwaste

hierarchy,thepracticeofdivertingfoodwastetoanimalfeediswidespread.

Datausedinthisevaluationsupp ortstheideathatanimalfeedisnearcapacityasafoodwastemanagement

pathway:outofthe1,585,100tonsoffood

wastegeneratedbythemanufacturingsector,91percentgoestoanimal

feed.AnimalfeedisthelargestfoodwastemanagementpathwayinWashingtonState,processingmorefoodwaste

thanallotherdispositionscombined,includinglandfill.

AccordingtoReFED,itwillbedifficultforanimalfeeddistributorstocapturetheremaining

foodwasteavailable

becausetheequipmenttocollect,transport,dry,and treatfoodwasteintoaproductappropriateforanimalsis

expensiveandoptimalnewlocationsinproximitytolargefoodwastegeneratorsandlargeanimaloperationsmay

notexist(Cirilli,etal.,2016).

Figure6.ComparativeMaturityofAnimalFeedasFoodWasteManagementPathway



(Cirilli,etal.,2016)

Atthesametime,therearechallengesforfarms,likeKrainickDairy,thatwishtoreceivefoodwastedirectlyfortheir

ownuseasanimalfeed.ChallengesnotedinCascadia’sinterviewwithLeannKrainickinclude:

 De-packaging:Manufacturingisthebestsourceoffoodwasteforanimalfeedbecauseit

doesnotrequire

de-packaging.Foodfromgrocerystorestakesalotoftimeandmoneytode-package.

 Separatingmeatoutofwaste:Ruminantscannothav emeatintheirfeed.Someprocessorscannotorare

notwillingtoseparatefoodwastewithmeatfromfoodwastewithoutmeat,makingit

unavailablefordairy

feed.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 Logisticsatmanufacturingsites:Itcanbetrickytonegotiatewithfoodmanufacturerstofindparkingfora

trailertocollectwaste.

 Regulation:Krainickwouldliketochargemanufacturersfortheserviceofcollectinganddistributingtheir

foodwastetootherfarmsbutnotesthatpayingfortonnage

andfeedlicensingareachallenge.

 Highcoststobegincollection:KrainickDairyhasspentover$1millionontrailersandtruckstocollectand

transportfoodwastefromprocessors.

Opportunities

Thegrowthofmicro-breweriesanddistilleriesinWashingtonStateispromisingforfarmsthatwouldliketodirectly

collect

grainforuseasanimalfeed(Forshee,2015).Over90percentoffoodwasteusedasfeedbybothKrainick

Dairyandallfeeddistributorsisbreweryanddistilleryspentgrain.AccordingtoKrainick,itiseasiesttobegin

relationshipswithsmall-tomid-sizedbreweriesanddistilleriestocollecttheir

spentgrain.

Opportunitiesforcommercialfeedcompaniesarelessclear,giventhatthisisarelativelymaturepathwayand

commercialfeedcompanieswerenotresponsivetoourrequestsforinformation.

Recommendations for Filling Data Gaps

Ourevaluationidentifiedseveraldatagapsrelatedtofeeddistributors,astheywerenotresponsivetoourrequests

forinformation.

GapsincludethespecificingredientswithineachWSDAfoodwastefeedingredientcategory,

informationaboutthewastestreamsoffeeddistributors,andspecificchallengesandopportunitiesfacedbyfeed

distributorsotherthanKrainickDairy.Thissectionofferssomerecommendationstofillthesedatagaps.

Augment Annual Reporting of Specific Food Waste Information

Tofacilitateconsistent,ongoingtrackingof

thequantityandqualityoffoodwastebeingsenttoanimalfeedin

supportofHB1114,werecommendthatWSDAupdateitsexistingreportingprotocolstocapturetheadditional

datapointsoutlinedbelow,andforwardrelevantreportingdatatoEcology.

Feedcompanies:Thecurrentreportingprotocolisagood

startingpoint.Ifpossible,itwouldbehelpfulifthe

reportsalsocaptured:

 Theamountoffoodwasteingredientsreceivedbylicenseeseachyear,inadditiontotheingredients

distributed,asthiswouldsupportmorerobuststatefoodwastegenerationestimates.

 Ingredientcategoriescontaining foodwasteclearlymarked

as“foodwaste”categoriesforthepurposesof

HB1114.Thiswouldbenefitdatamanagementbymaintainingclarityaboutwhichingredientcategoriesare

inscopeforongoingmeasurementandreporting.WerecommendthatEcologyandWSDAconfirmthe

categoriesoffeedingredientsconsideredfoodwasteandconsistentlytrackrelevantmetrics

forthose

ingredientcategories.

 Moredetailedinformationaboutcontentsofthehumanfoodby-productingredientcategory,i.e.,what

kindsofretailandfoodprocessingwasteareincluded.Thiswouldprovideaclearerimageoftheflowof

foodthroughanimalfeedasafoodwastemanagementpathwaybyproviding

informationaboutsources

andwhetheringredientscouldbeusedinhigherlevelsoftheEPAwaste managementhierarchy.

 Whethertheweightssubmittedinreportingare“wet” or“dry.”Manyfeedingredients,especiallygrains,

gothroughadryingandpowderingprocessbeforetheyaresoldasfeed,thusremovingahigh

percentage

ofeachingredient’sweight.Inordertomatchdistributedfeednumberswithfoodwastegeneration

numbers,the“wet”weightismostrelevant(Krainick,2020;Cirilli,etal.,2016).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Petfoodcompanies:Werecommendtrackingfoodwasteingredientsinpetfoodproductsbyincludingan

additionalinformationrequestontheexistingregistrationandsemi-annualreportingformsthatdefinefoodwaste

forthepurposesofHB1114.Ontheregistrationform,registrantscouldindicatewhethertheycurrentlyuseorplan

tousefoodwasteingredients,andinsemi-annualreporting,theycouldlisttheamountoffoodwasteingredients

usedinthefeeddistributedwithinthereportingtimeframe.Aswithfeedcompanyreporting,itwouldbehelpfulif

reportingeffortscapturedtheamountsoffoodwasteingredientsreceivedwithinthereporttimeframeinaddition

toamountsdistributed.

Farms:Althoughtherearecurrentlynorequiredreportingprotocolsforfarmsthatacceptfoodwasteasfeed,our

evaluationisnotrecommendingaddingthese,asthismaydiscouragefarmsfromparticipatinginthisfoodwaste

managementpathway.Krainicknotedthatsheviewsfees

andmandatoryreportingasabarrier;itisalreadyamajor

expenseforfarmstobegincollectingspentgrainusingtrailersandtrucks,andrigorousreportingwouldraise

barriershigher.Fromthelackofavailable,organizedinformation,webelievethatthisfoodwast e management

pathwayisbasedlargelyonindividualrelationships

betweenfarmsandfoodandbeverageprocessors,and

reportingprotocolscanremaininformal.

WasteData:Itisnotclearhowmuch,ifany,foodwasteingredientsreceivedbycommercialfeeddistributorsendup

incompostordisposal.Informationaboutthiswastestreamwouldhelpwithcomparingthepoundscommercial

feedcompanies

reportdistributingwithfoodwastegeneratedinWashington,sincethepoundsdistributedand

poundstowasteshouldadduptothetotalamountcommercialfeedcompaniesreceive.and petfoodcompanies

Survey Farms

Ourresearchdidnotidentifydataaboutthenumberoffarmsdirectlyreceivingfoodwasteasanimalfeed,likely



becauseindividualfarmsoftenformdirectrelationshipswithnearbyfoodwastegenerators.Werecommend

furtherresearchintohowwidesp readthispracticeisbypartneringwithstakeholdersatWSDAtosurveyanimal

farmsinWashingtonState.Understandingtheextentofdirectrelationshipsbetweengeneratorsandfarmswould

clarifyhowmuchand

whattypesoffoodwasteisflowingthroughthispathway.

Compost Facilities

Summary of Entities

InWashington,therearethreemaintypesofcompostfacilitiesthatacceptandprocessfoodwaste:commercial

compostfacilities,permittedon-sitecompostfacilities,andpermit-exemptsmall-scalecomposters.Ofthe65

permittedcompostfacilitiesinthestate,22ofthem (34%)acceptandprocessfoodwaste,includingeighton-site

facilitiesat

universitiesandcorrectionalcentersand14commercialfacilities(WAStateCompostedMaterialsfor

2018,2020).Those22facilitiesprocessed46.5percentofthetotalfoodwastefeedstocksreceivedbypermitted

compostfacilitiesinWashingtonState.

Permittedcommercialcompostfacilitiesandon-sitefacilitieshavedifferentfeedstocksourcesandproductend

uses,warranting

twodifferentsub-entitytypesforthisevaluation.

Flow of Food

In2018,permittedcompostfacilitiesprocessed187,977tonsoffoodwaste.Ofthisamount,159,574tons(85%)

camefromwithinWashingtonState.Thein-statefoodwastetonsare24percentlowerthan2017,whenpermitted

compostfacilitiesprocessedanestimated210,865tonsof

foodwaste;thisdifferenceappearstobelargelyduetoa

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

decreaseinfoodwastefeedstocksattwocompostfacilities.Oneofthetwofacilities,BoiseWhitePaper,didnot

acceptanyfoodwastefeedstocksin2018;theother,CedarGroveMapleValley,droppedfrom70,566tonsoffood

wastefeedstocksin2017 to49,609tonsin2018.Thedatainformingour

modelshowsthatthecombinedamount

offoodwastegoingtolandfillandcontrolledcombustionissixtimesgreaterthantheamountoffoodwastegoing

tocompost.

ThethreefeedstockcategoriesthatpermittedfacilitiesmustuseforreportingtoEcologyareFood Processing Waste

(frommanufacturers),Post‐consumer Waste(fromthekitchens

includedinConsumer‐facing Businessesforthis

evaluation,whichalsoincludescorrectionalcenters),Yard Debris/Food Waste(fromresidentialcurbsidecollection

programs).SurveysandWSDAestimateshavenotedthattheYard Debris/Food Wastecategoryisconsistently90

percentyardwasteand10percentfoodwastebyweight.Ourevaluationandmodelapplythisassumption

accordingly.

Figure7

showstheproportionoffoodwastefeedstocksthatcamefromeachsourcetocompostfacilitiesin2018.

Mostfoodwastefeedstockscamefromconsumer-facingbusinesses(52.4%),followedbymanufacturers(31.2%)

andresidences(16.4%).

Figure7.FoodWasteandWastedFoodtoCompostinWashingtonState(tons)





AccordingtotheeightfacilitiesthatrespondedtoCascadiasurveys,themainoutputsofcompostingarecompost

andmulch.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Metrics and Reporting Protocols

Compostfacilitiesacceptingfoodwasteasafeedstockarerequiredtohavesolidwastepermitsiftheyhave“greater

than25butnomorethan250cubicyardsofmaterialon-siteatanyonetime,nottoexceed1,000cubicyardsina

calendaryear”(WashingtonStateLegislature,2018).

Each

permittedfacilityreportsthequantityoffeedstockstheyreceiveannuallybycategoryoffeedstock,including

foodwastecategories:Food Processing Waste, Post‐consumer Food Waste,Yard Debris/Food Waste,and,

sometimes,Other Food Waste(WADepartmentofEcology,2019)(WADepartmentofEcology,2020).

Accordingtosur veyresponses,facilitiesmayalsotrack(butdonotreport):contaminationlevels,moisturelevels,

anddirtcontent.Theydidnotinformusaboutcontaminationlevelsoffoodwastefeedstocks.

Capacity

Sevenoutofeightcompostersurveyrespondentsindicatedthattheirfacilitiesarecurrentlyoperatingbelow

capacityandcouldprocessmorefoodwastethantheydonow.

Amongthefivepermittedfacilitiesthatprovided

theirpermittedcapacities,acomparisonwithEcology’s2018reportshowsthatthereisacombined164,184tonsof

excesscapacityavailable(WADepartmentofEcology,2020).

Althoughthereiscapacityamongsomecomposters

toacceptmorefoodwaste,projectionsindicatethatitwillfillupquickly,andactualavailablecapacitycanbe

dynamic.

Thedynamicsbehindpermittedcapacityandrealavailablecapacity arecomplicated.Evenifthereiscapacity

availableonpaper,theremaystillbe

challengestoacceptingfoodwasteoranyadditionalfeedstocks.First,amounts

ofmaterialenteringcompostfacilitiesarevariableacrossseasons:someseasonsmayfindfacilitieswithequipment

andstafftospare,whileothersmayhavethemoperatingatmaximumcapacity.Inaddition,factorssuch astraffic

limitations,companyaffiliations,feedstockquantities,

andmorecanaffectdailyandseasonalrealavailablecapacity

(CalRecycle,2019).

Capacitytoreceivefoodwasteasafeedstockcomeswithspecificissuesandrequirementsforcomposters.A

statewidesurveyofcompostersinCaliforniaindicatedthatveryfewfacilitiesprocessfoodwasteasmorethan30

percentoftheir

feedstocks,thoughthecurbsideorganicscollectionprograminCaliforniaisoneofthemostmature

inthecountry.DespiteupcomingstatewidemandatesforfoodwastediversionaspartofSB1383,themajority(66

percent)ofcomposterssurveyedsaidtheydidnothaveanyinterestorrealcapacitytoincreasethe

proportionof

foodscrapsreceived.Theycitedmultipleconcernsassociatedwithincreasingtheamountoffoodwastereceivedat

theirfacilities,includingodors,contamination,theneedtoamendexistingpermits,theneedtoupgradeprocessing

technology,andmore(CalRecycle,2019;Waste2Resources,2016).

Despitethis,thesupplyoffood

wastefeedstockswillgrowasstreamscontinuetoshiftfromlandfilltocompost,

makingadditionalpermittedcapacityatcompostfacilitiescriticalinthecomingyears.Accordingtoa2019

projection,organicsgenerationforth eregionincludingKingandSnohomishCountiesisprojectedtoincrease29

percentfrom2019levelsby2030

and36percentby2040,basedsolelyoncurrentper-persongenerationof

organicsandavailablepopulationgrowthprojections.Thisprojectiondoesnotassumeanyfuturechangesin

organicsdiversionbehavior, suchasincreaseddiversionoforganicsfromdisposaltocomposting(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2019).Figure8illustratesprojectedorganicsgeneration

increasesagainstcurrentannual



Tworespondentslistedtheirpermittedcapacityincubicyards;weconvertedtheirestimatestotonsbyassuming

thatonecubicyardofcompostis1,000poundsonaverage(Biernbaum).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

permittedcapacityatthethreecompostersthatacceptmaterialfromKingCountyandthesu rroundingregion:

CedarGrove(Everett),CedarGrove(MapleValley),andLenz Enterprises.Accordingtotheseprojections,2018

permittedcapacitywillbeexceededby2030andfurthercapacitywillbenecessarytocapturerecoveredorganics.If

diversionrates

fromlandfilltocompostincreaseasexpected,theneedforadditionalcapacitywillbeevengreater

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

Figure8.Regionaldisposalandrecoveryprojectionsthrough2040inKingCounty,Seattle,andSnohomishCounty



(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019)

Challenges

Amajorstatewidesurveyofrespondentsinrolesthroughouttheorganicsmanagementindustrynotedthreemain

challengestoexpandingcomposting:eliminatingcontamination,overcomingreluctancebyresidentstohavingnew

facilitiesneartheirhomes,andcontrollingodorsandairpollution(Waste2Resources,2016).Surveyresponses

collectedforthisevaluationechoed

thesechallenges,aslistedinTable8.Theseresponsessupportseveralknown

challengesforcompostfacilitiesthatanticipatereceivinganincreasedamountoffoodwaste,describedinthe

sectionsbelow.

Table8.ChallengesNotedbyComposterSurveyRespondents

SpecificChallenge

Commercial

Composters

(outof5respondents)

On-siteComposters

(outof3

respondents)

Total

Worriedaboutodor 3 1 4

Solidwastepermittingtoocostlytoobtainor

difficulttogetapprovalforfacilityimprovements

3 0 3

Contaminatedfeedstocks 3 0 3

Gettingloansfornewequipmentisdifficult 2 1 3

Needtoexpandmarkets 2 0 2

Acquiringfeedstocksischallenging 1 1 2

Spaceislimited 1 1 2

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

SpecificChallenge

Commercial

Composters

(outof5respondents)

On-siteComposters

(outof3

respondents)

Total

Theavailabilityofcheapmulchmakesitharderto

sellcompost

0 1 1

Needfordifferenttypeoffeedstock 0 1 1



Permitting and Approval

Expandingcompostingprocessingcapacityischallengingforreasonsthatincludelanduserestrictionsforpotential

neworexpandedsites,thecostofland,concernsfromneighboringresidentsaboutodorsfromacompostfacility,

andwhatcouldbealengthytimeframetocompletepermitting(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Three

composter

surveyrespondentsindicatedthatpermittingandapprovalsarebarrierstoexpansion.

Contamination

Threecommercialcomposters—60percentofcommercialsurveyrespondents—indicatedthatcontaminationisa

challengeforprocessingandsellingmorecompost.Contaminationreferstoitemsthatarenotcompostableand

shouldgotoadifferentwastestream.

Contaminationisapersistent

issueforcomposters.OfthematerialcollectedfororganicsprocessinginKingCounty

in2018,3.9percentbyweightwascontamination(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Thiscontaminationincluded

non-compostableplastic,glass,andnon-compostablepapers,suchasaseptican dpolycoatedpapers.

While3.9percentisalowamountbyweight,it

isnoticeablevisuallyinfinishedcompostandimpactscustomer

perceptionsandavailablemarkets(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).TheWashingtonStateDepartmentof

Transportation(WSDOT),amajorcompostbuyerinWashington,hasvariabledemandforcompostbasedonthe

numberofroadprojectsinthestate,butsince2015,itsdemandhas

substantiallydecreasedandshiftedtofiner

composttominimizecontamination,sincecompostcontaminationonroadwayscanbeconsideredlitter(Maurer,

2020;Batjiaka,2016).

Increasedrecoveryoffoodwasteforcompostislinkedwithhigherlevelsofcontaminationincompost,asresidents

andcommercialbusinesses mischaracterizefoodwasteandincludecontaminants

withtheirscraps.Thirtyeight

percentoffacilitiessurveyedbyCalRecyclein2019indicatedthattheirmainstrategytominimizecontaminationis

avoidingacceptingfoodscraps(CalRecycle,2019).CompostfacilitiesintheBayArea,California,wherecurbside

compostcollectionismorewidespreadthaninotherpartsofthestate,facehigher

contaminationratesthanother

facilities.Becauseofthis,finishedcompostandmulchmakeupasmallerpercentageofoutputsfromcompost

facilitiesintheBayAreathanfromcompostfacilitiesinotherpartsofthestate.Approximately41percentof

productsfromfacilitiesintheBayAreaarenotcompost

ormulch,butratherbecomeAlternativeDailyCover(ADC)

atregionallandfills(CalRecycle,2019;CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Washingtoncompostersurvey

respondentsforthisevaluationreportedthathighpercentagesoftheirmainproductsarefinishedcompostand

mulch,butascompostcollectionexpandsandmorefoodwasteisrecoveredfromthe

landfillstream,

contaminationislikelytoremainanissu e.

Therearesomeavailablesolutionsforremovingcontamination,buttherearealsobarrierstoadoptingthem.Inthe

CalRecyclesurvey,50percentofrespondentsreportedusingscreensorotherequipmenttoremovecontamination,

and32percentreportedusingapickingline.

InKingCounty,composterscitedcostsandhesitancytoinvestin

unproventechnologiesascurrentbarrierstothesesolutions,andCascadiadidnotobtaindataontheeffectiveness

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

orcostofthesesystems(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Educatingresidentialandcommercialcustomersabout

whatitemscanandcannotbeplacedincurbsideorganicswillbecrucialtominimizingcontaminationupstream.At

thesametime,educationcanreassurebuyersofcompostthatverysmallam ountsofinertcontaminationare

expected,

allowedwithinspecifications,andnotdetrimental,therebyre-shapingbuyers’expectations(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2019).

Markets

MostofWashington’ scompostisproducedinthe westernpartofthestate,whichpresentschallengesformarkets

ineasternWashington.Thetoptenfacilities,whicharemainlyinwesternWashington,produce80percentof

finished

compost(Waste2Resources,2016;WADepartmentofEcology,2020).Agriculturalmarketsandpublic

projectsineasternWashingtoncouldabsorbmorecompost—agricultureonlymakesupfivepercentofthedemand

forcompostinWashingtonState—butthehighcostsoftransportingcompostfromwesterntoeasternWashington

andthedifficultyof

marketinginnon-localareasmaybeprohibitive.RepresentativesfromWSDOThavereported

thatcompostcancostuptotwotothreetimesmoreineasternWashingtonthanwesternWashington(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2019).Moreresearchintothisareaisneededtodeterminewhetherserv ingthismarketis

economicallyfeasible.

Anadditional

barriertotransportingcompostfromwesttoeastistheapplemaggot,aproblematiccontaminantin

westernWashingtongreenwaste.WSDArequiresspecialpermitsfororganizationswishingtotransportgreenwaste

andmunicipalsolidwasteoutofapplemaggotquarantineareasinwesternWashington.Thoseorganizationsmust

grindandheat

treatthegreenwasteandcleantrailersextensively.Permitsarealsorequiredforfacilitiesoutsideof

quarantineareaswishingtoreceivegreenwastefromapplemaggotquarantineareas.WhentheCityof

LeavenworthincentralWashington(attheeasternedgeoftheapplemaggotquarantinearea)founditselfnewly

insidethe

applemaggotquarantinearea,itfacedtheoptionofanarduousprocesstofigureouthowtotreatgreen

wasteandtransportittoapermittedeasternWashingtonfacilityorpayawesternWashingtoncompostfacility .The

citypreviouslypaid$8,000-12,000peryeartobringwastetoan easternWashington

facilitybutitsquotefor

compostinginwesternWashingtonaddedupto$85,000(WSDAW.D.,2018).

Odors and NIMBYism

AWashingtonsurveyofnearly300organicsmanagementprofessionalsfoundthattheothertwomostfrequently

citedbarrierstoorganicsmanagementwereNIMBYism(neighboropposition,sometimesreferredtobythis

acronymwhichstands

for“notinmybackyard”)andodors(Waste2Resources,2016).Threecompostersurvey

respondentsinourevaluationlistedodorsasaconcern.NIMBYismrelatedtocompostfacilitiesismostfrequently

associatedwithodors,ratherthananyotherrisks,sothesetwoissuesaremostappropriatelycombined(Waste2

Resources,

2016).

Concernsaboutodortendtoberelatedtocompostfacilitysizeandtheextenttowhichitmanagesfoodscrapsand

otherwetorganicmaterials.Someresearchersnotethatodorissueshave“grownmoreproblematicascompost

facilities,particularlythoseinmunicipalzones,arepushedtowardsthehigherflow

ratescontainingthemore

putrescentorganicmaterials(i.e.,foodscrapsandlawnclippings)thatresultfromincreaseddiversionprograms”

(Ma,Wilson,Zhao,Yorgey,&Frear,2013).

Opportunities

OurresearchshowsthattheamountoffoodwasteenteringcompostingfacilitiesinWashingtonStateisstill

dwarfedbytheamountenteringlandfillsand

waste-to-energy;thereissixtimesmorefoodwasteenteringlandfill

andwaste-to-energyfrommixedmunicipalsolidwastestreamsthanthereisbeingcomposted.Thissection

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

describessomeofthegreatestareasofopportunityforincreasingtheamountoffoodwastebeingcompostedin

Washington.

Restaurants and Institutional Kitchens as Feedstock Source

Ouranalysisshowsthat,byfar,mostfoodwastefromresidentialcurbsidecollection,restaurants,andinstitutional

kitchensgoestolandfill.As afirststeptocapturemorefoodwastefromthese

streamswhileminimizing

contamination,werecommendresearchintocollectionprogramsforback-of-housecommercialstreamsthatcould

betterrecoverfoodwastefromrestaurantsandinstitutionalkitchens.Back-of-housewastetendstohavelower

levelsofcontaminationthanfront-of-housewasteandresidentialwaste,andsincecompostfacilitiesarewaryofthe

contaminationassociatedwith

collectingfoodwasteingeneral,thiscouldbeagoodplacetostart.Thiswaste

streamwouldbeappropriateforeithercompostorhigh-solidsanaerobicdigestion;sinceourresearchhasindicated

thatWashingtondoesnothaveplanstobuildahigh-solidsdigester,compostisthemostviableoptiontocapture

thiscurbsidewaste(Maurer,2020).

Integration of Anaerobic Digestion

Whenanaerobicdigestionandcompostarecombined,somesynergiesarecreatedthatimprovetheperformance

ofboth.Someoftheoutputsfromdigestionbecomeinputstothecompostingprocess,andviceversa,leadingtoa

processthatefficientlymanagesdifferenttypesoffeedstock,digestereffluent,

andbiogaswithminimalincreasein

facilityfootprint.Thistypeofsystemcouldmitigateodorsandcreatemorevaluableproducts,suchasrenewable

naturalgas,bioplastics,orflavorants,thanacompostfacilityalone(Waste2Resources,2016).

Therearesuccessfulcasestudiesofthisconcept,suchasJCBiomethaneinEugene,

Oregon,whichprocesses6,000

tonsoffoodprocessingwasteperyear,12,000tonsofcommercialfoodwasteperyear,andsmall amountsof

manure.ThefacilityusesawindrowcompostsystemandawetEntecdigestionsystem(BioCycle,2014).

Oneofthecompostersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheyuseanaerobic

digestionon-site,notingthat

negotiatedpermitconditions“madecompliancepossible.”Otherrespondentscommentedthatbarriersto

implementinganaerobicdigestionattheirfacilitiesincludeinsufficientfeedstockvolume,variablefeedstock

amountsandtypes,anticipatedodors,andthehighcostofinvestment.

Agricultural Markets

Agriculturalapplicationsrepresentasmallportionofcurrentcompostmarketsbut

havehighpotentialforgrowth.

Inthe2015KingCountyRecyclingMarketAssessment,sur veyedprocessorsstatedthatagriculturedemandfor

compostrangedfromfivetotenpercentoftheircompostsales.Residentialdemandreportedlyrangedfrom15to

50percentandtheremainderisusedbygovernmentagenciesorlandscapers(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,2015).

TheCompostOutreachProject—aninitiativebytheWSUCooperativeExtensioninSnohomishCounty—has

collaboratedwithlocalcompostproducers,countyofficesandlocalconservationdistrictssince2011topromote

andevaluatetheuseofcommercialfoodscrapsandyardtrimmingsascompostonfarmsinSnohomishand

northern

KingCountythroughcompostusetrials;todate,thesetrialshavedemonstratedpositiveeffects.Areport

publishedontheprojectfoundthatagriculturalmarketsmadeuplessthanfivepercentofthetotalcompostmarket

inWashingtonState(Collins,Harness,&Bary,2016).Thereislikelytheopportunitytoexpandthisapproach,

particularlyforcompostapplicationinagriculturalareasincentralandeasternWashington,thoughmoreresearch

intotheeconomicsoftransportingcompostfromfacilitiesinwesternWashingtontotheseareasisneeded(Brown,

2019).AsurveyoffarmersinCaliforniafoundthatbarrierstoincreasedcompostuseinclude:costsof

compost

(includingtransportation);alackofunderstandingforhowcompostaffectsnutrientmanagementplans;andneed

forbetterenforcementaroundpathogenandweedmanagementinfinishedproduct(BioCycle,2018).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Municipal Purchasing Programs

Thereareopportunitiestoincludecompostinmoremunicipalprojects,whichwouldprovidevaluablemarketsand

demonstratelocalleadership.Thereisinterestfromcompostfacilityrepresentativesinseeinglocalgovernments

leadintheuseoflocallyproducedcompostfromlocallygeneratedorganicwaste(CascadiaConsultingGroup,

2019).Twocompostersurvey

respondentsforthisevaluationindicatedthatmunicipalbuy-backofcompost

productswouldbenefittheircompostfacilities.Agencycontractsandprocurementpoliciescanstatespecifications

andpreferencesforlocallyproducedcompost(CascadiaCons ultingGroup,2019).

Publicprojectswiththepotentialforincreasedcompostuseincludegreeninfrastructureinstallationsandother

stormwater

managementanderosioncontr olprojects,habitatandsiterehabilitation,parklandscaping,andturf

andtreemaintenance(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019;Waste2Resources,2016).

Carbon Sequestration and Other Environmental Benefits

Thereisagrowingbodyofresearchaboutthevalueofcomposttostorecarboninsoilintheformoforganicmatter,

tothebenefit

ofclimateactionandsoilhealth.Astheabilitytomapsoilandaccountforsoilcarboncontinuesto

systematize,itwillbecomeeasierforfarmers,ranchers,andopenspacestewardstojustifycompostapplicationin

certainamounts.Itisalsolikelytobecomemorecommonasabestpracticefor

stateandlocalgovernmentstoadd

compostapplicationintoclimateactionplanningandlandstewardshipplans,andforthecarbonoffsetsgainedin

compostapplicationeffortstobeindependentlyverifiedandtradedincarbonmarkets(Waste2Resources,2016).

TheMarinCarbonProjectinCaliforniahasalreadydevelopedacarbon

accountingprotocolforcompostuseon

grazedgrasslandsforcarbonsequestration,enablingrancherstohavetheirpracticesverifiedandgeneratecarbon

offsets(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

Inadditiontocarbonsequestration,compostapplicationcanbenefitsoilbiodiversity,waterquality,nutrient

availability,pestmitigation,andresiliencetofireanddrought.Thesequalities

havebeenrecognizedandtracked

extensively,includingbyEcology(Waste2Resources,2016;U.S.PIRGandFrontierGroup,2019).KingCounty

alreadyusesthelensofclimatechangeasawaytoshowthebenefitsofusingLoop®b iosolids,estimatingthattheir

useoffsetsthemajorityofthegreenhousegas

emissionsfromtheWastewaterTreatmentDivision’soperations

(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).Continuingtocommunicateandquantifythesebenefitswillindirectlyexpand

marketsanduseofcompostinarangeofsettings.

Small-Scale and Community-Scale Compost

Small-scaleandcommunity-scalecompostsystemsprovidetheopportunitytomanagefoodwasteandother

residualsclosertothesource,

reducinggreenhousegasemissionsfromtransportationandprocessing,creating

opportunitiesforeducation,andeliminatingsomecosts.A2018reportbytheInstituteforLocalSelf-Reliancefound

thatnationally,forevery10,000householdscompostingathome,between1,400and5,000tonsperyearcouldbe

divertedfromcurbsidecollection,withpotentialsavings

inavoideddisposal costsalonerangingfrom$72,000to

$250,000(Platt&Fagundes,2018).Theymaybeespeciallywell-suitedfordemonstrationareasatschoolsandin

otherpublicspaces,whereeducationcanconnecttheproductsofcompostbacktotheirsource(U.S.PIRGand

FrontierGroup,2019).Campuscompostingprograms

canbeeff ectiveformsofenvironmentaleducationinschools

(AmericanSocietyforHorticulturalScience,2016).

Whilethebenefitsofsmall-andcommunity-scalecompostsystemshavebeendocumented,thereislittledata

aboutthequantityoforganicstheycurrentlymanageandtheextentoftheirgrowthpotentialisuncertain(Cascadia

ConsultingGroup,

2019).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Recommendations for Filling Data Gaps

Conduct Barriers and Opportunities Study About Compost Program Participation

Amajordatagapisunderstandingthebarriersandopportunitiestoincreasingcompostingrates,especiallyamong

residential,restaurant,andinstitutionalgenerators.Limitedcapacityatcompostfacilitiesinthestateisoneknown

barrier,butadditionalfactorsincludethelackofcurbsidecollectionprogramsandlowparticipationratesamong

programs

thatexist.Curbsidecartstudiesandgeneratorstudiesaretoolsthatcouldbeusedtobetterunderstand

householdandcommercialsite-levelparticipationandrecoveryopportunities.Bothofthesety pesofstudieshave

beenusedinKing County–generatorstudiesin2017and2019,andacurbsidestudyin2018–

tobetter

understandregionalandsite-specifictrends(KingCountySolidWasteDivision,n.d.).Greaterinsightsinto

participationlevelsinorganicscollectionprogramswouldinformnextstepsrelatedtoincentivesand/ormandates

forcurbsideprogramsandeducationalinitiativesamongcompostcustomers.

Conduct Composter Feedstock Characterization Studies

Betterknowledgeofthecontentsofmaterialcollected,especiallyfrom

residentialandcustomer-facingbusinesses,

wouldbeusefultotracklevelsofcontaminationandthesuccessoffoodwastediversionprograms.Composter

surveyresponsesdidnotcontaininformationaboutquantitiesoffoodorcontaminationlevels.ThisInformationis

notreadilyavailabletocompostingfacilities,whiletheywilltypicallyhaveananecdotal

estimate.Amore

quantitativeapproach,suchasformalwastecharacterizationstudiestoquantifymaterialsenteringcompost

facilities,wouldprovidemorereliableinformationsourcesofcontaminationandquantitiesoffoodwaste.

Support Small- and Community-Scale Compost Systems

SomecitiesinwesternWashington,likeSeattle,haveimplementedprogramstogiveawayfreeordiscountedhome

compostbins,but

havesincestoppedthoseprogramsordiscontinuedtrackingthebins(Platt&Fagundes,2018).It

isimportanttonotethatsmall-scaleandcommunity-scalearevaluablefoodwasterecoverypathwaysandshould

stillbesupported.

Establish and Maintain Consistent Feedstock Reporting Categories

Werecommendmaintainingconsistentfeedstockcategoriesacrossreportingyearsandprovidingcleardefinitions

offeedstockcategories

toensurethatthereportingprocessisasclearaspossibleforcompostfacilities.Acategory

calledOther Food Waste wasincludedinreportingfrom2014-2017.AmountsoffeedstockreportedasOther Food

Waste grewsteadilyfrom2014-2017(WADepartmentofEcology,n.d.).In2018,whentheOther Food Waste

categorywasremoved,feedstocksreportedasPost‐consumer Food Waste

rosebyafactorof70,from906tonsto

63,492.47(WADepartmentofEcology,2020;WADepartmentofEcology,2019).Thesurveyresultscollectedduring

thisevaluationindicatethatmuchofthefoodwasteprocessedbycompostfacilitiesiscorrectlycategorizedasPost‐

consumer Food Waste.Theshiftinthefoodwaste

feedstockcategoriesusedinreportingindicatesthattheremay

beconfusionabouthowtoreportdifferentcategories,andthatsomesourcesoffoodwastemayprovidemorethan

onecategoryoffoodwaste.Werecommendreviewingthecategoriesprovidedandaddingcleardefinitionsofeach

forfacilitiestoreference.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Industrial Uses

Summary of Entities

Industrialuses,forth epurposeofthisevaluation,referstoanaerobicdigestion.Othertypesofindustrialusesfor

foodwasteincludemanagementpathwaysforfats,oils,andgrease,suchasrenderingandbiodiesel.However,

theseareoutofscopeforthisevaluationbecausemanagementpathwaysforthemarewell-establishedand

specific,andthereisextremelylimitedopportunityforthemtoberecoveredforahigheruseintheEPAfoodwaste

hierarchy(U.S.EPA,n.d.).

TherearethreemaintypesofanaerobicdigestersinWashingtonState:on-farmdigesters,waterresourcerecovery

facility(WRRF)digesters,andsmaller,on-sitedigesters.On-farmdigestersand

small,on-sitedigestersarewithinthe

scopeofthisevaluation;WRRFdigestersarenotinscopeforquantificationpurposesbutwillbediscussedinthe

Opportunitiessection.

Therearefiveactiveon-farmanaerobicdigestersinWashingtonStatethatprocessfoodwasteoutofninetotal

dairydigesters.Onlytwoof

theseareoperatingasofthewritingofthisreport;theotherthreeareundergoing

facilityrepairs(Maurer,2020).Mostoftheon-farmdigesterswerebuiltin2012and2013andhavedonemostof

theanaerobicdigestioninWashingtonsincethen.Themajorityuseahybridplug-flowcompletemixdigester



system,whileoneusesacompletemixdigestersystem(DairyNutrientManagementProgram,WSDA,2011).Eight

dairiesinWashingtonusetheirbiogastoproducerenewableelectricity (WADepartmentofCommerceandWSU

EnergyProgram,2018).

Therearealsofoursmall-scale,on-siteanaerobicdigestersoperatedbyImpactBioenergyatabrewery,

cideryand

farm,commercialkitchen,andtofuproducer,respectively.Thesearepermit-exemptdigestersbuilttoprocess

materialsgeneratedateachsite.Theyarerelativelynew—thefirstwasbuiltin2016—andinthecomingyearsmay

providelessonsaroundfeasibilityandconsiderationsforreplicabilityofcommunity-scaledecentralizedanaerobic

digestionprojectsinWashington.



Therearecurrentlynohigh-solidsanaerobicdigestersinWashingtonStateandtherearenoplanstobuildone 

(Maurer,2020).

Flow of Food

Anaerobicdigestersprocessedapproximately5,765tonsoffoodwastein2017(WADepartmentofEcology,2017).

Insubsequentyears,thisnumberhasfluctuatedduetodairydigesterclosuresforrepair

andthearrivalofImpact

Bioenergy’sVashonIslanddigester(Maurer,2020).

Thequantitiesoffoodwasteflowingthroughanaerobicdigestionthatareincludedinthisevaluationallcomefrom

on-farmdigestionbecausequantitiesoffoodwastedisposedbysmall-scaleanaerobicdigestersarenotknown.

Theyreceivedallfoodwasteinputs

fromthemanufacturingsector,asthisistheonlytypeoffoodwasteallowed

throughtheirpermits(WSDA,n.d.).Theyarealsoavaluablewayforfarmstoprocessmanure.

ImpactBioenergy’son-sitedigesterscameonlinebeginningin2013andarenowabletoprocessacombined1,637

tonsoffood

wasteperyear.MostofthatamountcomesfromthedigesteronVashonIsland,whichcanprocess

1,500tonsperyear,whichismorethansomedairydigestersinWashingtonState.Itoperatesusingpre-consumer

foodwastegeneratedon-siteatabrewery,commercialkitchen,cidery,andtofuprocessor(Kumar&

Patel,2020).

Outputsfromanaerobicdigestionincludeliquiddigestate,soliddigestate,biogas,andelectricitysales.Our

evaluationdidnottracethedestinationsofthedigestate,butgenerallytheliquidfractionofdigestatecanbe

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

appliedtofieldsseasonallyasabiofertilizer,andthesolidfractioncanbeusedasbeddingforcows,composted,or

processedasadifferentsoilamendment.ImpactBioenergysellstheliquidasasoilamendmentproduct.Biogasis

themaineconomicbyproductandcanbeusedafewdifferentwaysdepending

onagivensite’seconomics(WA

DepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram,2018),including:

 Minimallytreatedandusedtogenerateheaton-site,offsettingnaturalgas

 Treatedtoremovecontaminantsandfedintoanaturalgaspipeline

 Treatedandconvertedtocompressednaturalgas(CNG)asa

renewablevehiclefuel

 Convertedtoelectricityandheatwithacombinedheatandpower(CHP)system

Metrics and Reporting Protocols

On-farmanaerobicdigestersgenerallyprocess50percentormoreanimalmanureandupto30percentpre-

consumerorganicsnotcollectedviaasolidwastecollectionprogram.Thesedigestersmustsubmitreportsto

Ecology

thatincludetypeandquantityoffeedstocksandadigestateanalysisbutdonotrequiresolidwastepermits

(WSDA,n.d.).DairiesinWashingtonarerequiredtooperateunderanutrientmanagementplanandareregularly

inspectedbyWSDA.

Asofthewritingofthisreport,oneon-farmdigesterwasapplying

forasolidwastepermitinordertoprocessa

higherpercentageandgreaterdiversityoffoodwastefeedstocks.

Small-scaleanaerobicdigestersbelowathresholdof5,000gallonsor25cubicyardsofmaterialon-siteatanyone

timearenotrequiredtohavepermitsortoconductanyreporting(WSDA,

n.d.).

Capacity

ThethroughputofindividualdigestersisreportedtoEcologyannually;wewerenotabletoobtainaccesstothese

reportsforthisevaluation,soareunsurehowcloseeachcurrentlyoperatingdigesteristocapacity.Withthree

digestersthathavetheabilitytoacceptfoodwastecurrentlyoffline,as

awhole,dairydigestersinWashingtonare

operatingbelowcapacity(Maurer,2020).

Thereismuchremainingopportunitytobuildbothnewdairydigestersandnewsmall-scaledigestersinWashington

State,intermsofappropriatefoodwastefeedstocksandavailablesites(WADepartmentofCommerceandWSU

EnergyProgram,2018).

Washington

Statehas443commercialdairyfarms,totalingmorethan250,000dairycows.Roughly100ofthese

dairies,or23percent,canbeconsideredlargeproductionfacilitieswith700ormorematureanimals(Washington

StateUniversityExtension,2012).Sitingrequirementsarespecific,aspipelineinfrastructureislimitedandthereare

afinite

numberoflargeorganicsgeneratorsanddairyfarmswithinanallowableradius,butCommerceandthe

WSUEne rgyProgramhaveidentified27potentialdairysitesforrenewablenaturalgasthatcouldbegin

constructioninthenear-term(WADepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram,2018).

Challenges

Therearemanyrecognizedbarriers

todevelopinganaerobicdigestionfacilitiesforf oodwasteprocessingand

biogasandrenewablenaturalgasuse.Majorbarriersdiscussedherearerelatedtocostsandmarkets.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

High Up-Front Costs

Highup-frontcostswerelistedalmostuniversallyamongintervieweesforthisevaluationandanaerobicdigestion

literatureasachallengetobuildinganaerobicdigesters.Nearly50percentofourcompostersurveyrespondents

listedhighcostsasthemainreasonwhytheyarenotconsideringaddingadigestertotheircompostfacility

sites.

RepresentativesatImpactBioenergylistedup-frontcapitalexpendituresasamajorchallengeforthecompany,

whichreliesongrantfundingformuchofitswork(Kumar&Patel,2020).

Coststobuilddigestersarevariedanddependonseveralfactorsincludingthesizeandtypeoftheproject,enduse



forbiogas,andownership.TheGeorgeDeRuyterandSonsdairydigesternearOutlook,Washingtonwascompleted

in2006andcost$3.9milliontobuild(Kennedy,2013),andithassinceundergonerepairsandimprovementsto

producerenewablenaturalgas(RNG).Thereport“PromotingRenewableNaturalGasinWashingtonState”in

2018

foundinitsanalysisthatadairydigesterproducingrefinedbiogasasRNGforpipelineinjectionwouldcost$7.5

millionup-frontforaprojectserving2,000cowsorover$18millionforadigesterjustovertwicethatsize(WA

DepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram,2018).Overall,for

asetof27newdairydigestersacrossthe

state,thereportestimatedacapitalinvestmentof$400million(WADepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergy

Program,2018).RNG-enableddigestersaremoreexpensivethanothertypes,suchasdigesterswithCombined

HeatandPower(CHP)systemsorboiler systems,but

typicallygeneratebetterreturns(WashingtonStateUniversity

Extension,2012).

Operations and Maintenance

Operatingcostsaresimilarlycrucialtotheprofitabilityofan anaerobicdigesterproject.DigestersproducingRNG

cancostupwardsof$300,000peryeartooperate(WashingtonStateUniversityExtension,2012).RNGsystemscan

benefitfromtheU.S.EPA’sRenewableFuelStandard

(RFS)credits,whichhelpsincreaserevenuetooffsetthecosts

(OregonDepartmentofEnergy,2018).

Oneparticularrepaireffort,replacingdigesterlids,hasbeenacostlyandtime-consumingeffortfordigestersin

Washington.Mostdairydigestersinthestatewereconstructedusingthesamedesignandwithinasimilartime

period,

startingin2004andendingin2013.In2018,thelidsondigestersbegantofailduetocorrosion;by2020,

fourhavefailedandonemoredigester ’soperationhasbeenpausedtoassessthelidandthecostofreplacingit.

Onelidsofarhasbeenreplacedand

therearefourdigestersoffline.Thelidsareexpensivetoreplace,especiallyin

aperiodwhenelectricityanddemandfordairyproductsarebothrelativelylow(Maurer,2020).

Unstable Renewable Natural Gas Markets

ForanaerobicdigestionprojectsproducingRNGinWashington,thevolatilityofnaturalgasmarketprices,utility

policies,andlowelectricitypricingmake

itchallengingtofinanceprojectsthatrequirestable,long-termcashflows

(Cirilli,etal.,2016;DairyNutrientManagementProgram,WSDA,2011;WADepartmentofCommerceandWSU

EnergyProgram,2018).AccordingtotheNorthwestGasAssociation’s2020GasOutlook,fossilfuelnaturalgas

pricesareprojectedtorisesteadilythroughthe

nextdecades,creatinganopportunityforRNG,sinceRNGcostsare

expectedtodecline.Intheshortterm,however,fossilfuelnaturalgaspricescanberemarkablyvolatile(Northwest

GasAssociation,2019).Aperceptionofriskduetothesefluctuatingcostsandunfamiliaritywiththetechnologycan

affectdigesters’ability

tosecurefinancing(OregonDepartmentofEnergy,2018).

Reluctant Markets for New Soil Amendments

AnintervieweefromImpactBioenergynotedthedifficultyofintroducingnewliquidfertilizerproductintothe

marketduetothecostoftestingtoproveitseffectivenessandthestrategizingrequiredtoeffectivelydifferentiate

theproductfromthemanyavailabletypesof

fertilizersandorganicsoilamendments(Kumar&Patel,2020).There

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

aremanyorganicamendmentsonthemarket:bark,woodmulch,biochar,wormcastings,andengineeredhydro-

mulch,amongothers.Buyersareinundatedwithoptionstochoosefromandmaynotknowwhichamendmentis

bestforthem(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

Opportunities

Thereismuchattentionfocusedondevelopinganaerobicdigestionin

Washington.WashingtonStateUniversityis

propellingtheseeffortsbycontinuingtosupportrobustresearchanddevelopmenteffortsaroundimproved

efficiencyofconversionatvariousscales,nutrientrecovery,biogasconditioning,andintegrationofotherorganic

wastes,especiallyfoodwasteandwastedfood.Theopportunitieslistedherearegroupedbytypeof

digester.

Small-scale Digesters

Small-scaledigestershavebeensuccessfuloutsideofWashington.HomeBiogas,locatedinIsrael,hasdevelopeda

digesterforhouseholdusethatcanprocesssixlitersoffoodwasteperdayandprovideenergyforcooking,heating,

andlighting.HomeBiogashasinstalledsystemsin90countriessince2015(BiogasWorld,2019).

LikeImpact

Bioenergyrepresentatives,HomeBiogasclientsseevalueinkeepingthebenefitsofanaerobicdigestionon-site.The

ciderythatImpactBioenergypartnerswithcanusethedigestateandthebiogascanbeusedasvehiclefueloron-

siteheating.ImpactBioenergyiscurrentlyplanningadigesterthatwouldsupporta

foodbankroofgarden,withthe

digesterprovidingfertilizer,savingwater,andprovidingavaluableeducationalopportunity(Kumar&Patel,2020).

ImpactBioenergyisdevelopingablockchainledgersystemtotrackdigesterinputsandoutputsthatcouldgreatly

benefittrackingandimpactmeasurementforsmall-scaledigesters.Thisnewsystemwouldmake

itpossibletotrack

feedstockvariablesandrespondtoproblemsinreal-time.Thedevelopmentofthissystemisanimportantlearning

opportunityfordistributeddigestersystemsand,ImpactBioenergyrepresentativeshope,willclearlyillustratethe

businesscasefordistributeddigesters(Kumar&Patel,2020).

Dairy Digesters

Solid Waste Processing

Oneon-farmdigesteriscurrentlyapplyingforasolidwastepermittoprocessahigherproportionoffoodwasteand

additionalfoodwastetypes (Maurer,2020).Wewerenotabletoobtainaccesstoindividualdigesterreports,sothe

realimpactofthischangeisnotclear.Dependingonthefood

wastesourcesthisdigesterwillprocess,itmayface

challengesofde-packagingfoodwasteandmaintainingaslurryconsistencywithinthedigester.Iftheapplicationis

successful,itmayresultinmorefoodwastebeingrecycledthroughanaerobicdigestionandprovidesomeuseful

learnings.

Renewable Natural Gas

Renewablenaturalgas(RNG)isapromisingopportunityfordairydigestersandothernewdigesters.RNGis

producedbyremovingcarbondioxide,othergases,andcontaminantsfromthebiogasoutputofanaerobic

digesters.Itcanbeusedasadirectsubstituteforfossilnaturalgasinapplicationsfrompowergenerationto

heating

andtransportation(WADepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram,2018).

InWashington,RNGcanprovidebetterreturnstodigestersthanelectricit ysales,particularlyduetoRFScredits

(WashingtonStateUniversityExtension,2012).Inaddition,thereareseveralnewprogramsandincentivesto

supportdigestersproducingRNG,including:



AnewlyadoptedrequirementthatthefournaturalgasutilitiesinWashingtonoffervoluntary“green

gas”programstoretailcustomers,whichshouldspurthemarketforRNGfrommultiplesources.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 EnergyTransformationProjectsestablishedundertheCleanEnergyTransformationActofferadifferent

pathwayforobligatedelectricalutilitiestoinvestinRNGdevelopment.

Nutrient Recovery

Ananaerobicdigestionprojectisusuallymoresustainablewhenithasmultiplesourcesofrevenue,suchasenergy,

fiberandnutrients,andenvironmentalincentives(WashingtonStateUniversityExtension,2012).

WRRF Digesters

Anaerobicdigestionisawidespreadstandardwastewatertreatmentprotocolandisawell-developedtechnology

forwaterresourcerecoveryfacilities(WRRF).Some

WRRFsacceptfoodwastewithhighpotentialenergyorfats,

oils,andgreases(FOG)toincreasetheirproductionofbiogasandcollecttippingfeesfordisposingoforganicwaste

products,thoughnoneofWashington’sWRRFsareknowntodothis(OregonDepartmentofEnergy,2018).Our

researchdidnotidentifyany

organizeddataindicatinghowmanyWRRFsinWashingtonStatehaveanaerobic

digesters,butpreviousresearchindicatesthatthereareatleast37inthestate,mostlikelylocatedinlarger

communities(Moulton,2018).Nationwide,ReFEDestimatesthatthereareover1,200ADfacilitiesinstalledat

WRRFs(Cirilli,etal.,2016).

IncludingfoodwasteasaninputtoWRRFsisunderactiveexplorationinKingCounty.TheKingCountyWastewater

TreatmentDivisionestimatesthatco-digestingafoodwasteslurrywithwastewaterwouldincreaseenergy

productionbyabout50percent,enablingtheWastewaterTreatmentDivisiontooffsetalargerportionofitscurrent



energyusewithitsownbiogas(CascadiaConsultingGroup,2019).

AnaerobicdigestionoffoodwasteatWRRFsisapromisingsolutionfortheCityofTacomaaswell.Sinceitwould

reduceemissionsanddivertwasteusingexistinginfrastructure,theCitycommissionedanevaluation,which

showedthatfoodwastesent

toanaerobicdigestionattheWRRFcouldfuel50refusehaulersatnet-zerocost.A

demonstrationprojectwasperformedinwhichfoodwastewascollectedfrom66commercialgenerators,

processedwithade-packagertopulpthematerialandcreateaslurry,thendigested.Theprojectcreateda

digestateofnormalquality,

butitdidhighlightsomechallengesaroundcontaminationfrommetals,plastics,and

fibrousordenseorganicwaste(Cirilli,etal.,2016).Commercialfoodwastecollectedinth eCityofTacomanowgoes

eithertocompostortheWRRF(CityofTacoma,n.d.).

Recommendations for Filling Data Gaps

Conduct Interviews of On-Farm Anaerobic Digesters

Knowledgeofspecificsourcesoffoodwaste

inputstoon-farmdigestersandasummaryofchallengesand

opportunitiesatthedigesterlevelwouldaddclaritytotheoverallflowoffoodandfutureprojectionsrelatedto

digestion.Forinstance,itisunknownwhetherthefourdairydigesterscurrentlynotprocessingfoodwastemay

beginacceptingit(orin

somecases,resumeacceptingit)(Maurer,2020).OneEcologyrepresentativebelievesthat

somedairydigestersmaynotre-openatall,thoughothersassessthattheywilllikelycomebackonlinebecause

digestionisthemostcost-effectiveoptiondairieshaveformanagingexcessnutrients,especiallyforlargeoperations

inthesouth-central

partofthestate(Kennedy,2013).

Offer Voluntary Reporting for Small-Scale Digesters

ImpactBioenergy’smultip lefacilitiesprovideavaluablecasestudyofdigestersofvaryingsizes,fromoneprocessing

about25tonsperyeartooneprocessing1,500tonsperyear.However,ImpactBioenergyisstillarelativelynew

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

companyandtheextentofothersmall-scaledigestersisnotknown.Werecommendofferingvoluntaryreporting

forsmall-scaledigesterstobeginestablishingadatasetforthisemergingfoodwastemanagementpathway.

EMERGING SOLUTIONS

Fertilizer Technologies

WISErgoffersasmall-scale,on-sitemanagementsystemforfoodwasteandnutrientrecoverybasedonfastaerobic

digestion.Thecompanyhasinstalledfoodwaste“harvesters”at13supermarketsinWashington.Supermarketstaff

addpre-consumerfoodwastetoeachharvester,andtheharvestermaintainsaconstanttemperatureandtracksthe

amountand

typeoffoodwasteenteringthesystematahighlevel.Thenthefoodwasteissenttoacentralized

facilityinRedmond,Washington,wheretheaerobicdigestionprocesstakesplaceandturnsthefoodwasteintoa

nutrient-densebiofertilizer.WISErgstaffdidnotdisclosetheamountoffoodwaste

processedeachyearand

predictedthatnoadditionalharvesterswillbeinstalledinWashingtoninthenear-term,butthecompanyhopesto

expandtodifferentregionsoftheUnitedStates.WISErg’sexistenceandsuccessinWashingtonspeakstothe

potentialforsimilaron-sitesolutionstospreadinWashington(Rehmat&Lugo,

2020).

Bio-Based Materials

Afewsmallcompaniesarebeginningtocreateplasticsandpackagingoutofanaerobicdigestionby-products.

Corumatisanearly-stagestartupcreatingpackagingmadefromsolidssourcedfromanaerobicdigesters,whichcan

thenbeplacedbackint oanaerobicdigestersforrecovery(CorumatInc.).MangoMaterialscreatesbiopolymersout

ofmethanefrom

WRRFdigesters,oxygen,andbacteria(Joyce,2019).Whenthebacteriafeedsonmethaneand

oxygen,itproducesPHAs(polyhydroxyalkoanoates),whichareseparatedfromthebacteriaandmadeintoplastics.

MaterialsproducedbyCorumatandMangoMaterialsarebiodegradableeveninmarineenvironments(Helmer,

2019).

Theseandothercompaniesarestill

workingtocommercializePHAs.Barriersincludecostsandinfrastructureto

producethematerials.PHAsarestillmoreexpensivetoproducethanconventionalplastics.Iftheydobecomemore

widespread,theymaypromotetheconceptofdistributed,small-scaledigesterstoproduceplastics.Iftheyareable

toscaleup,theycouldmake

asignificantimpactonplasticwasteintheenvironment(Helmer,2019).

 

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

References

Ambroz,J.(2017,October30).The Next Frontier in Food Donation.RetrievedfromSecondHarvestHeartland:

https://www.2harvest.org/content_types/blog-posts/the-next-frontier-in-food.html#.Xs1S3EBFxYc



AmericanSocietyforHorticulturalScience.(2016,December27).Campus composting programs effective in

educating students.RetrievedfromPHYS.ORG:https://phys.org/news/2016-12-campus-composting-

effective-students.html

Anzilotti,E.(2020,February18).How a new approach to data is powering Feeding America's fight against hunger.

RetrievedfromTableau:https://www.tableau.com/about/bl og/2020/2/data-powering-feeding-america-

fight-hunger

Batjiaka,R.(2016,October).Compost Use by State DOTs.RetrievedfromBioCycle:

https://www.biocycle.net/2016/10/24/compost-use-state-dots/

Berkenkamp,J.,&Phillips,C.(2017).Modeling the Potential to Increase Food Rescue: Denver, New York City and

Nashville.NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil.RetrievedMay12,2020,from

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/m odeling-potential-increase-food-rescue-report.pdf



Biernbaum,J.(n.d.).Compost for Small and Mid‐Sized Farms.MichiganStateUniversity.Retrievedfrom

https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/236/79117/Compost_for_Midsize_FarmsQuickCourse8pgs.pdf

BioCycle.(2014,November).Integrating Anaerobic Digestion with Composting.RetrievedfromBioCycle:

https://www.biocycle.net/2014/11/18/integrating-anaerobic-digestion-with-composting/

BioCycle.(2018).Compost & Digestate Volumes are Increasing ‐ Are California Markets Ready?Retrievedfrom

BioCycle:http://www.biocycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BCWC18_Workshop.pdf

BiogasWorld.(2019,July12).What is the Future of Small‐Scale Anaerobic Digestion?RetrievedfromBiogasWorld:

https://www.biogasworld.com/news/future-small-scale-anaerobic-digestion/

Bolt,K.,Carter,L.,Casey,D.,Chan,N.,Chen,

R.,Jones-Smith,J.,...Yang,A.(2019).Healthy Food Availability & Food

Bank Network Report. Report for City of Seattle and Seattle City Council.Seattle.RetrievedMay11,2020,

from

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/030519%20Corrected%20Heal

thy%20Food%20Availability%20Food%20Bank%20Network%20Report_FINAL.pdf

Brown,D.S.(2019).ValueofCompostinAgriculturalUses.King County Organics Recycling Summit Day 2.Retrieved

fromhttps://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/programs/linkup/organics/summits.aspx

BSR.(2014).Food Waste Reduction Alliance (FWRA) Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers,

Retailers, and Restaurants.

CalRecycle.(2019).SB 1383 Infrastructure and Market Analysis.RetrievedApril28,2020,from

https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/docs/cr/climate/slcp/infrastructuredraft.pdf

CalRecycle.(2019).SB 1383 Infrastructure and Market Analysis: Contractor’s Report.Retrieved

from

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1652

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2015).Market Assessment for Recyclable Materials.KingCountySolidWasteDivision.

Retrievedfromhttps://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/documents/waste-

monitoring-market-assessment-2015.ashx?la=en

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2018).WA Department of Ecology 2015‐2016 Washington Statewide Waste

Characterization Study.

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2019).King County LinkUp: Organic Materials Management in King County.KingCounty

SolidWasteDivision.Retrievedfromhttps://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/solid-

waste/linkup/documents/organics-materials-market-assessment.ashx

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2019).StopWaste Prepared Food Rescue Study Project Summary.Oakland,CA.

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2020).Food Rescue Innovation Initiative Executive Summary.Seattle:SeattlePublic

Utilities.

Cascadia

ConsultingGroup.(2020).Mayor's Innovation Advisory Council Food Rescue Project Approach.

CascadiaConsultingGroup.(2020).PCC Community Markets & Seattle Public Utilities Food Rescue Partnership

Proposal .Seattle.

Cirilli,M.,Briggs,J.,Rein,A.,Tanger,K.,Matheson,S.,Chom,B.,...Serafino,M.(2016).A Roadmap to Reduce U.S.

Food Waste by 20 Percent.ReFED.RetrievedMay16,2020,from

https://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf

CityofTacoma.(n.d.).Commercial Food Waste.RetrievedfromCityofTacoma:

https://cityoftacoma.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=121013



Collins,D.,Harness,H.,&Bary,A.(2016).Commercial Compost Application on Western Washington Farms.

WashingtonStateUniversity.Retrievedfromhttps://snohomishcd.org/blog/2016/7/8/commercial-compost-

application-on-westernwashington-farms

Corumat Inc.(n.d.).RetrievedfromEntrepreneurshipWorldCup:

https://entrepreneurshipworldcup.com/startup/corumat-inc/

DairyNutrientManagementProgram,WSDA.(2011).Washington Dairies and Digesters.WSDA.Retrievedfrom

http://northwestchptap.org/NwChpDocs/343-WashingtonDairiesAndDigesters-web.pdf

FeedingAm erica.(n.d.).Delivering Food and Services.RetrievedfromFeedingAmerica:

https://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/food-bank-network

FoodLifeline.(2020,April).

FoodLifelineFY19Year-EndStatistics.

FoodLifeline.(2019).FoodBankFY19ActivityReport.WA.

FoodWasteReductionAlliance.(2013).Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers, Retailers, and

Wholesalers.

Forshee,S.(2015,July6).Washington’s small distilleries, brewers and vintners get a boost on extending big federal

tax break .RetrievedfromSeattleTimes:https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/07/washington-

states-breweries-double-capacity-in-4.html

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

FWRA.(2016).Food Waste Reduction Alliance (FWRA) 2016 Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food

Manufacturers, Retailers, and Restaurants.

Guarente,G.(2020,April7).Washington Rushes to Relieve Food Banks, Which Could Be Fully Depleted in Two

Weeks.RetrievedfromEATERSeattle:https://seattle.eater.com/2020/4/7/21212770/washington-food-

banks-coronavirus-need-more-supplies-funding

HarvestAgainstHunger.(2020).2019FarmtoPantry .WSDA.Retrievedfrom

https://cms.agr.wa.gov/WSDAKentico/Documents/Pubs/749-FarmToFoodPantryHAHAnnualReport-2019.pdf

Hecht,A.A.,&Neff,R.A.(2019,November27).FoodRescueInterventionEvaluations:ASystematicReview .MDPI,

11(6718).doi:10.3390/su11236718

Helmer,J.(2019,

November5).Can Food Waste be Transformed into Biodegradable Plastic?Retrievedfrom

FoodPrint:https://foodprint.org/blog/biodegradable-plastic-food-waste/

Joyce,C.(2019,June17).Replacing Plastic: Can Bacteria Help Us Break the Habit? .RetrievedfromNPR:

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/17/728599455/replacing-plastic-can-bacteria-help-us-break-the-habit

Kennedy,N.(2013,November).Economics of Dairy Digesters in Washington State.RetrievedfromBioCycle:

https://www.biocycle.net/2013/11/18/economics-of-dairy-digesters-in-washington-state/

Kim,S.(2020,April22).Washington Lockdown Exit Plan Revealed by Gov. Jay Inslee as Stay‐at‐Home Order Due to

Be Extended Beyond May 4.RetrievedfromNewsweek:https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-update-

washington-stay-home-extended-lockdown-exit-plan-1499386

KingCountyDept.ofNaturalResourcesandParks.(2019).

Organic Materials Management in King County.Retrieved

April28,2020,fromhttps://kingcounty. gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/linkup/documents/organics-

materials-market-assessment.ashx

KingCountySolidWasteDivision.(n.d.).Documents ‐ waste monitoring & surveys.RetrievedfromKingCounty:

https://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/waste-monitoring/waste-documents.aspx

Krainick,L.(2020,March23).UsingFoodWasteasAnimalFeed.(M.Seibert,Interviewer)

Kumar,S.,&Patel,K.(2020,May6).ImpactBioenergy'sAnaerobicDigesters.(M.Seibert,Interviewer)

Ma,J.,Wilson,K.,Zhao,Q.,Yorgey,G.,&Frear,C.(2013).Odor in Commercial Scale Compost: Literature Review and

Critical Analysis.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.

Maurer,D.M.(2020,March19).AnaerobicDigestioninWashingtonState.(M.Seibert,Interviewer)

MAZON.(2018).A Tipping Point: Leveraging Opportunities to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Food Bank

Inventory.MAZON.RetrievedMay15,2020,fromhttps://mazon.org/assets/download-files/MAZON-

TippingPointReport-FINAL.pdf

Moulton,P. (2018).RNG-WWTP_2018-0827_allranked

+sitelocations.List of Wastewater Treatment Plans with

Anaerobic Digesters.

NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil.(2017).ModelingthePotentialtoIncreaseFoodRescue:Denver,NewYorkCity,

andNashville.RetrievedApril28,2020,fromhttps://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/modeling-potential-

increase-food-rescue-report.pdf

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

NorthwestGasAssociation.(2019).2020 Gas Outlook.NorthwestGasAssociation.RetrievedMay20,2020,from

https://www.nwga.org/gas-outlook/2020-outlook-study/

NorthwestHarvest.(2019).AnnualReport,2017-18.RetrievedApril28,2020,from

https://ww w.northwestharvest.org/financials

NutritionPolicyInstitute,UniversityofCalifornia.(2017).Needs Assessment of the Rural and Remote Member Food

Banks of the California Association of Food Banks.UniversityofCalifornia.

OregonDepartmentofEnergy.(2018).Biogas and Renewable Natural Gas Inventory SB 334 (2017): 2018 Report to

the Oregon Legislature.OregonDepartmentofEnergy.Retrievedfrom

https://www.oregon. gov/energy/Data-and-Reports/Documents/2018-RNG-Inventory-Report.pdf

Otten,J.,Diedrich,S.,Getts,K.,&Benson,C.(2015).Food Waste Prevention and Recovery Assessment 2015 Report.

Seattle:SeattlePublicUtilitiesandTheCityofSeattle'sOfficeofSustainabilityandEnvironment.

Phillips-Donaldson,D.(2019,November3).How pet food can reduce waste, use more ingredients.Retrievedfrom

PetfoodIndustry.com:https://www.petfoodindustry.com/articles/8571-how-pet-food-can-reduce-food-

waste-use-more-ingredients?v=preview

Platt,B.,&Fagundes,C.(2018).Yes! In My Backyard: A Home Composting Guide for Local Government.Institutefor

LocalSelf-Reliance.Retrievedfromhttps://ilsr.org/yimby -compost/

Pope,S.(2014,June20).Going Against The Grain: FDA Threatens Brewers' Feed For Farmers.RetrievedfromNPR:

TheSalt:https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/20/323957894/going-against-the-grain-fda-

threatens-brewers-feed-for-farmers

ReFED.(2020,April15).BetterTogether:FoodSystemBestPracticesforNavigatingCOVID-19:Logistics.Retrieved

fromhttps://www.refed.com/content-hub/better-together-food-system-best-practices-for-navigating-covid-

19/?mc_cid=0db465ae49&mc_eid=d6362b0b35

Rehmat,S.,&Lugo,J.(2020,April24).WISErgandCascadiaPhoneCall.(M.Seibert,&A.Lumper,Interviewers)

Rotary

FirstHarvest.(2018).2018F2FPReport.WA.RetrievedApril28,2020,from

https://www .firstharvest.org/farm-to-food-pantry/

SecondHarvest.(2019).Second Harvest Accountability Report.

SecondHarvest.(n.d.).GetFoodAssistance.Retrievedfromhttps://2-harvest.org /i-need-food-assistance/

U.S.EPA.(2019).Excess Food Opportunities Map Version 2.0 ‐ supporting data files.

U.S.EPA.(n.d.).Industrial Uses for Wasted Food.RetrievedMay22,2020,fromhttps://www.epa.gov/sustainable-

management-food/industrial-uses-wasted-food

U.S.PIRGandFrontierGroup.(2019).Composting in America: A Path to Eliminate Waste, Revitalize Soil and Tackle

Global Warming.

Retrievedfromhttps://uspirg.org/reports/usp/composting-america

USDANationalAgriculturalStatisticsService.(2012).CensusofAgriculture:2012CensusVolume1,Chapter1:State

LevelData.RetrievedApril28,2020,from

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/

Washington/

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

WADepartmentofCommerceandWSUEnergyProgram.(2018).Promoting Renewable Natural Gas in Washington

State.RetrievedApril28,2020,fromhttps://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2019/02/COMMERCE-RNG.pdf

WADepartmentofEcology.(2017).SolidWasteGeneratedandRecoveredinWashington-Tons,PerCapita,

RecoveryRate.Retrievedfromhttps://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Plans-policies/Washington-

state-waste-plan/Progress-report/Solid-waste-generation

WADepartmentofEcology.(2019).WAStateCompostedMaterialsfor2017(updated

11.14.19).

WADepartmentofEcology.(2020,Jan9).2018WACompostedMaterials(tons)Lastupdated01/09/20.

WADepartmentofEcology.(n.d.).Compost.RetrievedfromDepartmentofEcology,StateofWashington:

https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-recycling-waste/Organic-materials/Managing-organics-

compost

WAStateCompostedMaterialsfor201 8.(2020,April28).WA:WADepartmentofEcology.

WashingtonStateLegislature.(2018).Chapter 173‐

350 WAC: Solid Waste Handling Standards.RetrievedMay14,

2020,fromWashingtonStateLegislature:https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350

WashingtonStateOrganicsContaminationReductionWorkgroup.(2017).Report and Toolkit.Retrievedfrom

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c2db75016e175c9d685b7/t/59932c0be4fcb58c9335fec5/15028

17295485/Washington+State+Organics+Contamination+Reduction+Workgroup_FINAL.pdf

WashingtonStateUniversityEnergyProgram.(2018).Promoting Renewable Natural Gas in Washington State: A

Report to the Washington State Legislature.DepartmentofCommerce,StateofWashington.Retrievedfrom

https://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Energy-Promoting-RNG-in-Washington-

State.pdf

WashingtonStateUniversityExtension.(2012).Anaerobic Digester Project and System Modifications: An Economic

Analysis.WSUExtension.Retrievedfrom



https://research.libraries.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5268/EM090E.pdf;sequence=2

Waste2Resources.(2016).Advancing Organics Management in Washington State: The Waste to Fuels Technology

Partnership.Olympia,Washington:WADepartmentofEcologyandWashingtonStateUniversity.Retrieved

fromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1607008.html

Waste2Resources.(2018).Advancing Organics Management in Washington State: The Waste to Fuels Technology

Partnership 2015‐2017 Biennium.RetrievedMay25,2020,from

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1807010.pdf

WSDA-DairyNutrientManagementProgram.(2018,June5).Washington Dairy Farms ‐ 2018.Retrievedfrom

WSDA:https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5d59ea6756c7430c803e58441cdf34e1

WSDA.(2018).

Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Official Publication (OP), 2018 Defined

Ingredient Categories.RetrievedfromAnimalFeedProgram:

https://cms.agr.wa.gov/WSDAKentico/Documents/Pubs/766-AAFCO-OPDefinedIngred.pdf?/766-AAFCO-

OPDefinedIngred

WSDA.(2019).AnimalFeedDistributorsLicensees(In-state).WA.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

WSDA.(2019).ListofEFAPandTEFAPContractorsandSubcontractors.WA.

WSDA.(2019).Running a Successful Farm Business: Licensing.RetrievedfromWSDA:

https://cms.agr.wa.gov/WSDAKentico/Documents/DO/RM/RM/5_Licenses.pdf

WSDA.(2020).AnimalfeeddistributionintonsJuly'18-June'19.

WSDA.(2020,May11).Commercial Feed Licensing General Information.RetrievedfromWSDA:

https://agr.wa.gov/departments/animals-livestock-and-pets/animal-feed/commercial-feed-general-

information

WSDA.(2020).Spreadsheet:18-19ContractorsandSubs.

WSDA.(n.d.).Anaerobic Digesters.RetrievedfromWashington

StateLegislature:

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-250

WSDA.(n.d.).General Information about Commercial Feeds Licenses.RetrievedfromWSDA:

https://agr.wa.gov/departments/animals-livestock-and-pets/animal-feed/commercial-feed-general-

information

WSDA.(n.d.).Pet & Specialty Pet Food Product Registration.RetrievedMay20,2020,fromWSDA:

https://agr.wa.gov/departments/animals-livestock-and-pets/animal-feed/pet-food-registration

WSDA,W.D.(2018).Options for the Processing and Disposal of Municipal Yard Waste Generated in Apple Maggot

Quarantine Areas.Retrievedfromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1807026.pdf



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Washington State Food Waste Flow Model Methodology

WrittenbyFranklinAssociates,ADivisionofERG(EasternResearchGroup)

Model Introduction

AMicrosoftExcel-basedspreadsheetmodelwasdevelopedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwasteandwasted

foodthatisrecoveredanddisposedinWashingtonState,termedfoodwastemanagementpathways.Theprimary

goalofthemodelistoquantify

theamountoffoodwasteandwastedfoodthatisorcouldbedivertedfrom

disposalinlandfillsandcombustionfacilit ies.Twelvepotentialgeneratorsoffoodwasteareincludedinthemodel

:

Food Waste Generators

 Farms

 Manufacturing

 Residences

 Consumer-facingbusinesses

o Institutionsofhighereducation

o Hospitals

o Hotelsandmotels

o K-12schools

o Nursinghomes

o Prisons

o Restaurants

o Supermarkets



o Wholesaledistributors



Generatedfoodwasteandwastedfoodisallocatedamongtwodisposalandsevenrecoverypathways.Asmall

portionofnon-edibledonatedfood,approximately1.4percent,isultimatelydistribu tedamongtheothereight

disposal/recoverypathways.

Recovery

 Donation

 Agricultureproducts

 Anaerobicdigestion

 Animalfeed



Othergeneratorsoffoodwaste,expectedtobeminorcontributorstoStatetotals,werenotincludedinthe

analysis.Suchpotentialgeneratorsincludeofficebuildings,sportsvenues,etc.

Supermarketsincludebothsupermarketsandsupercenters.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 Bio-basedmaterials

 Composting

 Landapplication

Disposal

 Landfill

 Waste-to-energycombustion



TheanalysisisintendedtohelpWashingtonStateassessopportunitiesforexpandedfoodwasterecoveryandto

targeteffortsatspecificgeneratorswithlowfoodwasterecoveryrates.

Methods

Totheextentpossible,themodelrelieson

dataspecifictofoodwasterecoveryanddisposalintheStateof

Washington.Statespecificdata wasavailableforsevenoftheninemanagementpathwaysshownab ove.Recovery

offoodwasteviaagriculturalandbio-basedproductsrecoverypathwayswasestimatedbasedonnationalrecovery

statisticsformanufacturers,restaurants,supermarketsand

wholesaledistributors.Themostrecentlyavailabledata

wereusedforallestimates.Modelresultsestimateannualfoodwastegeneration,recoveryanddisposalin

WashingtonStateforarepresentativeperiodbetween2016and2019.

WashingtonStatedatagenerallyprovidesestimatesoffoodwasterecoveryanddisposalviaindividualpathways

(i.e.landfill,compost,

etc.).Nationalsamplingstudyestimatesoffoodwastegeneration,recoveryanddisposal

providemoredetailandinsightintothegenerationoffoodwasteforthefollowinggeneratingsectors:higher

education,hospitals,hotels,K-12schools,nursinghomes,prisons,restaurants,supermarketsandwholesale

distributors.WashingtonStatedatawasuseddirectlytosupply

foodwastegenerationestimatesforfarmsand

residences.AmixtureofnationalsamplingestimatesandWashingtonStatedatawasusedforthemanufacturing

sector.Theseestimationmethodsareindependentoffoodwastedisposalstatisticsanddonotperfectlymatch

reporteddatatotalsforWashingtonState.Aniterativeprocesswasusedto

facilitateconvergenceofthefood

wastemodelwithWashing tonStatedatatotalsoffoodwastemanaged.

Thefollowingsub-sectionsdescribeavailabledataandproceduresusedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwaste

processedbyeachoftheninerecoveryanddisposalpathways.Aseparatesub-sectionisprovidedforeachof

the

twelvegenerationsectors,describingrelationshipstorecovery/disposalpathwaysandproceduresusedtoestimate

sectorfoodwastegenerationwhenStatespecificdatawasnotavailable.

Donation

Statespecificdatawasidentifiedforthreeoftheprimaryfooddonationdistributionnetworksoperatingin

WashingtonState.Reportedquantitiesofdonatedfoodfromthese

organizationsincludefoodsourcedfromall

generationsectors,purchasedfoodandfoodfromfederalcommodityprograms.Foodpurchasesandfoodfrom

federalcommoditiesprogramsisoutsidethescopeofthisprojectandwasexcludedfromtheanalysis.The

distributioninTableA-1wasusedtoallocatedonatedfoodwasteamong

thevariousgeneratingsectorsbasedon

datareportedbyFoodLifelineand2

Harvest.Thesamedistributionwasappliedtoallthreedistribution

organizations.1.4percentofdonatedfoodwasassumedtobecompostedordisposedofbasedonaveragefood 

lossesreportedbyFoodLifelineand2ndHarvest(U.S.EPA,2019a).Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothe

threecommonroutesof

municipalfoodwastedisposal(compost,combustionandlandfill)basedontotalfood

wastedisposalviathesethreepathwaysinWashingtonState.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

TableA-1.SourcesofDonatedFood

SourceofDonatedFood Shareoftotalincomingfood

Grocerystore

 45%

RestaurantsandRetail 17%

Farmers 11%

Manufacturers 11%

FederalCommodities(TEFAP) 11%

Purchases 5%

Total 100%

Fooddonationfromgrocerystoresisassumedtoincludefooddonatedbywholesaledistributors.

Landfill

RecordsoflandfillMSWdisposalinWashingtonStatewereavailablefor2017.AWashingtonStatewaste

characterizationstudyfor2015-2016wasusedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwastepresentindisposedMSW.

Thewastecharacterizationstudyind icatesthatfoodwastecomprises17.3percentofMSWbymass.Thewaste



characterizationstudydocumentsthequantityofdisposedfoodwastefromresi dentialandcommercialgenerators

andself-hauling.Self-hauledwastecompriseslessthan5percentoftotalMSWdisposedandwasassumedtoshare

thesamesplitbetweenresidentialandcommercialgenerators asmunicipallyhauledMSW.InWashingtonState51

percentof

landfilldisposedfoodwasteisfromcommercialsources(includingmanufacturing)withtheremainder

fromresidences(CCG,2018).

Nationalstatisticswereusedtoseparateoutthequantityoflan dfilledfoodwastefromthemanufacturingsector.

Only3.4percentoffoodwastefromthemanufacturingsectorisestimateddisposedofinlandfills(BSR,

2014;

FWRA,2016).

Waste-to-Energy Combustion

RecordsofMSWcombustioninWashingtonStatewereavailablefor2017.TheWashingtonStatewaste

characterizationstudyfrom2015-2016wasusedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwastepresentincombusted

MSW.Thewastecharacterizationstudyindicatesthatfoodwastecomprises16.2percentofMSWby

massin

EasternWashington,wherethecombustionfacilityislocated.InEasternWashingtonState49.6percentoflandfill

disposedfoodwasteisfromcommercialsources(includingmanufacturing)withtheremainderfromresidences

(CCG,2018).

Nationalstatisticswereusedtoseparateoutthequantityofcombustedfoodwastefromthemanufacturingsector.



Only0.68percentoffoodwastefromthemanufacturingsectorisestimatedcombusted(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016).

Composting

WashingtonStatecollectsdataonfoodprocessingwaste,post-consumerfoodwaste and yarddebris/foodscraps

senttopermittedcompostingfacilities.Data fortheyear2018wasusedinthisanalysis.Foodwaste

fromout-of-

statesourceswasexcluded fromtheanalysis.Foodprocessingwast ewasassumedtobeproducedbythe

manufacturingsector.Post-consumerfoodwasteandyarddebris/foodscrapswereallocatedamongresidential

andcommercialgeneratorsbasedondataprovidedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.Thequantity

offoodwaste

presentinmixedyarddebris/foodscrapswasassumedtobe10percentw/wbasedonlimited

compostfacilitysurveydataprovidedbytheCedarGroveCompostingCompany.

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Animal Feed

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofAgriculturecollectsdataonwasteproductsthatserveasinputstoanimal

feedproduction.Datafortheyear2019wasusedinthisanalysis.Thefollowingwastecategorieswereincludedin

theanalysis:animalproducts,brewerswaste,distillerswaste,screeningsandhumanfoodby-products.National



statisticswereusedtoestimatetheportionoffoodwastegoingtoanimalfeedfromrestaurants,wholesale

distributorsandsupermarkets.Theremainderoffoodwastegoingtoanimalfeedwasassumedtobegeneratedby

themanufacturingsector.

Anaerobic Digestion

TheDepartmentofEcologytracksthequantityoffoodprocessingwaste

(pre-consumer)thatisanaerobically

digestedinthestate.Datafortheyear2017wasusedintheanalysis.Themanufacturingsectorwasassumedtobe

thesolesourceofthiswastestream,whichcomprises0.36percentoftotalmanufacturingfoodwaste.

Land Application

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologytracksthequantity

offoodprocessingwastethatislandappliedin

thestate.Datafortheyear2017wasusedinthean alysis.Themanufacturingsectorwasassumedtobeth esole

sourceofthiswastestream,whichcomprises0.17percentoftotalmanufacturingfoodwaste.

Agricultural Products

Nationalstatisticsonfoodwaste

recoveryformanufacturing,restaurants,supermarketsandwholesaledistributors

wereusedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwasterecoveredinagriculturalproducts(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016).No

dataspecifictoWashingtonStatewasavailabletoquantifyfoodrecoveredviathispathway.WISErg,aWashington-

basedfertilizercompany,isknowntouserecovered

foodwasteintheproductionofagriculturalinputs(WISErg,

2018).

Bio-based Products

Nationalstatisticsonfoodwasterecoveryfor manufacturing,restaurants,supermarketsandwholesaledistributors

wereusedtoestimatethequantityoffoodwasterecoveredinbio-basedproducts(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016).

Farms

Excessfarmproductiondonatedtofoodbanks,foodpantries

andotherdonation-baseddistributionprogramsis

theonlysourceoffoodwasteproducedbythefarmingsectorthatisconsideredinthisanalysis.Otherfarm-based

foodwastewilltypicallybecompostedonsiteordirectlyincorporatedbackintoagriculturallandsandhasnot

historicallybeendisposedofinlandfills.Thiswaste

fallsoutsidethescopeoftheMSWdisposalsystem.The

donationdistributionlistedinTableA-1wasusedtoallocat edrecordsoffooddistributiontothefarmingsector

basedon2019datafromFoodLifeline.

Manufacturing

ManufacturingfoodwastegenerationisbasedpartlyonWashingtonStatedisposal/recoverydata,withdatagaps



filledinusingrelevantnationalstatisticsonfoodwastedisposalinthemanufacturingsector.WashingtonState

reporteddatawasusedforanaerobicdigestion,animalfeed,composting,donationsandlandapplication.National

disposalstatisticswereusedtoestimaterecovery/disposalviabio-basedmaterials,agriculturalproducts,controlled

combustionandlandfill(BSR,2014;FWRA,

2016).

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Institutions of Higher Education

FoodwastegeneratedbyinstitutionsofhighereducationwasestimatedusingEPAestimatesforpoundsoffood

wastedisposedofpermealservedinpost-secondar yschools,0.4lbs/meal(U.S.EPA,2019b).Thenumberof

studentsenrolledinpost-secondaryinstitutionsinWashingtonStatewasdrawnfromnationaleducationstatistics

(NCES,2018).

Thenumberofmealsconsumed perstudentwasbasedon2017foodsalesfromtheUniversityof

Washington(HFSUW,2018)assuminganaveragepriceof$9permeal(Mathewson,2017).Foodsalesat the

UniversityofWashingtonwereassumedtoberepresentativeofotherstateinstitutionsonaperstudent

basis.

Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethreecommonroutesofmunicipalfoodwastedisposal(compost,

combustionandlandfill)basedontotalfoodwastedis p osalviathesethreepathwaysinWashingtonState.

Hospitals

Foodwastegeneratedbyhospitalswasestimatedbasedonaveragefoodwasteproductionperhospitalbed,

653

lbs/bed/year(U.S.EPA,2019b).TheDepartmentofHomelandSecurityreportsthattherewere15,657bedsat

openfacilitiesinWashingtonStatein2017(DHS,2019a).Ofthe124openfacilitiesinWashingtonStatetendidnot

includeabedcountinDHSstatistics.Themedianbedcount,77,offacilities

reportingbednumberswasassumed

forthesetenfacilitiesandwasaddedtothereportedtotal.Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethree

commonroutesofmunicipalfoodwastedisposal(compost,combustionandlandfill)basedontotalfoodwaste

disposalviathesethreepathwaysinWashingtonState.

Hotels and Motels

Food

wastegeneratedbyhotelsandmotelswasestimatedbasedonaveragefoodwastegeneratedperemployee

athotelsandmotels,1138lbs/empl oyee/year(U.S.EPA,2019b).TheUSEconomicCensusreportsthat40,554

personswereemployedinhotelsandmotelsinWashingtonStatein2017(USCensus,n.d.).Theemployeecount

includes

casinohotels.Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethreecommonroutesofmunicipalfoodwaste

disposal(compost,c ombus tionandlandfill)basedontotalfoodwastedisposalviathesethreepathwaysin

WashingtonState.

K-12 Schools

FoodwastegeneratedinK-12schoolswasestimatedusinganannualestimateoffoodwaste

producedperstudent

inWashingtonState,43.7lbs/student/year(limitedsurvey)(WWF,2019).WashingtonStateenrollmentrecords

indicatethat1,102,695studentswereenrolledinK-12institutionsduringthe2018-2019schoolyear (Wa State,

2020).Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethreecommonroutesofmunicipalfoodwastedisposal

(compost,combustionand

landfill)basedontotalfoodwastedisposalviathesethreepathwaysinWashington

State.

Analternatemethodofestimatingsectorfoodwastegeneratedwascalculatedbased onfoodwastegeneration

permeal(0.52lbs/meal)andthenumberofmealsservedannuallyatK-12institutions.Theestimationbasedonthe

number

ofstudentswaspreferredasboththenumberofstudentsandthewastegenerationfactorarespecificto

WashingtonState.Thealternatemethodreliesonnationalstatistics.Bothmethodsarepresentedforcomparison

intheaccompanyingExcelmodel.

Nursing Homes

Foodwastegeneratedinnursinghomeswasestimatedbasedonaverag efood

wastegeneratedperbedatnursing

andassistedlivingfacilities,1.8lb/bed/day(Draper/LennonInc.,2002).TheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity

reportsthattherewere36,654bedsavailableinnursinghomesandassistedlivingfacilitiesinWashington Statein

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

2017(DHS,2019b).Generatedfoodwastewasallocatedtothethreecommon routesofmunicipalfoodwaste

disposal(compost,c ombus tionandlandfill)basedontotalfoodwastedisposalviathesethreepathwaysin

WashingtonState.

Prisons

Foodwastegeneratedinprisonswasestimatedbasedonaveragefoodwastegeneratedperinmate

atWashington

Statecorrectionalfacilities,1.12lbs/inmate /day(U.S.EPA2019b).Theaveragenumberofinmatesinfederaland

statecorrectionalfacilitieswasdeterminedtobe19,590inmatesfortheperiodfrom2017-2018(Bronson&

Carson,2019;Carson,2020).ThenumberofinmatesinlocalandcityjailsinWashingtonState

(11,254persons)

wasestimatedbasedonthenumberofindividualsinsuchfacilitiesnationallyas sumingsimilarincarcerationratios

(Washington/National)acrossfacilitytypes.SeetheaccompanyingExcelworkbookforfurther details.

Restaurants

Foodwastegeneratedinrestaurantswasestimatedusingfoodwastegenerationfactorsbasedonthenumberof

employeesatfull

andlimitedservicerestaurantsinWashingtonState.Foodwastegenerationatfullandlimited

servicerestaurantsis3,392and2,494lbs/employee/year,respectively(CCG,2006).TheUSEconomicCensus

indicatesthat116,957and108,063personswereemployedatfullandlimitedservicerestaurantsinWashington

Statein2017(USCensus,n.d.).

Nationalstatisticsonfoodwastedisposalpathwaysfortherestaurantsector were

usedtoallocategeneratedfoodwasteamongthepotentialdisposal/recoverypathways(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016).

AdjustmentsweremadetothenationalstatisticsbasedonWashingtonspecificdata,asdescribedonthe

RestaurantstabintheaccompanyingExcelworkbook.

alternatemethodofestimatingsectorfoodwastegeneratedwascalculatedbasedonsectorrevenue.The

estimationbasedonthenu mberofemployeeswaspreferredasitdifferentiatesbetweenlimitedandfull-service

restaurants.

Supermarkets

Foodwastegeneratedinsupermarketswasestimatedusingtheaverageoftwomethodsbasedonsectorrevenue

andsectoremployees.Foodwastegenerationperunitrevenuewasassumedtobe0.01lbs/dollar/year(BSR,

2014).Foodwastegenerationperemployeeisdifferentiatedbetweensupermarketsandsupercentersbeing2.0

and0.39tons/employee/yearrespectively(U.S.EPA,2019b).TheUSEconomicCensusindicatesthat111,776

personswereemployedatfoodretailersand

supercentersin2017.Totalrevenuefortheassociated

establishmentswas34.9billiondollars(USCensus,n.d.).

Thequantityoffooddonatedbysupermarketswasderivedfromdataavailableforfooddistributionagenciesin

WashingtonState.Theestimationoffooddonationsmadebysupermarketsisexpectedtoincludefoodfrom

wholesale

distributors.Allocationoffoodwastetootherdisposalandrecoveryrouteswasbasedonnationalsurvey

data(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016),whichwereadjustedtoestimatedisposalbasedonassumptionsdescribedonthe

SupermarketstaboftheaccompanyingExcelworkbook.

Analternatemethodwasconsideredforfoodwastegenerationbasedon

foodwasteproducedperestablishment

peryear.Duetothewidevariabilityinthesizeofretailestablishmentsthismethodwasnotconsideredinthefinal

calculation.



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Wholesale Distributors

Foodwastegeneratedbywholesaledistributorswasestimatedbasedonannualrevenueassuming0.01lbsfood

waste/dollar/year(U.S.EPA,2019b).TheUSEconomicCensusindicatesWashingtonwholesaledistributorshada

totalrevenueof29.3billiondollarsin2017(USCensus,n.d.).Allocationoffoodwastetootherdisposaland

recoveryrouteswasbasedonnationalsurveydata(BSR,2014;FWRA,2016),whichwereadjustedtoestimate

disposalbasedonassumptionsdescribedontheWholesaleDistributorstaboftheaccompanyingExcelworkbook.

Residential

FoodwastedisposalfromresidentialgeneratorsisbasedonWashingtonStaterecordsofwastedisposedat

landfills,controlled

combustionfacilitiesandcompostingsites.

Model Fitting Procedure

Thesectionsaboveonfoodwastegeneratorsandrecovery/disposalpathwaysdescribesecondarydataand

nationalsamplingstudyestimationproceduresusedtoestimatefoodwastegeneratedinWashingtonStateandthe

recoveryanddisposalrout es currentlyusedtomanagethatfoodwaste.Nationalsamplingstudy

estimation

proceduresareindependentofWashington

Staterecordsoffoodwastedisposalanddonotperfectlymatchtheavailablerecords.Aniterativemodelfitting

procedurewasusedtocorrectthisestimationoffoodwastemanagedtofittheavailabledataforWashington

State.

Excludingagriculturalproductsandbio-basedmaterialrecoverypathways,

forwhichnoWashingtonStatedata

wereavailable,thenationalsamplingestimationmethodsindicatethat2,755,752tonsoffoodwastewillbe

generatedinWashingtonStateannuallyduringtheperiodfrom2016-2019.Thisvaluehasapercentdifferenceof

2.6percentwhencomparedtothequantityofwasterepresentedin

WashingtonStaterecords(2,683,971

tons/year).

Sectorspecificestimatesoffoodwastegenerationbasedonnationalsamplingcalculationswereadjust ed

downwardstoaccountforthedifferencebetweenreportedandestimatedfoodwastegenerationasshow nin

TableA-2.Theadjustmentisequivalenttoatenpercentdecreaseinsectorfood

wastegenerationforeachofthe

listedsectors.

TableA-2.AdjustmentsMadetoBottom-UpFoodWasteGenerationEstimates,SectorTotals

SectorName

FoodWasteGeneration,Original

Estimate

FoodWasteGeneration,Adjusted

Estimate

Highereducation 5,721 5,148

Hospitals 5,364 4,828

Hotels 23,075 20,766

K‐12schools 24,094 21,682

Nursinghomes 12,049 10,843

Prisons 6,290 5,660

Restaurants 333,114 299,774

Supermarkets 160,564 144,494

Wholesaledistributors 146,924 132,219

Total 717,196 645,414



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Followingtheseadjustments,thepercentdifferencebetweenestimatedandrecordedfoodwastegenerationin

WashingtonStatewasreducedto0.2percent.TableA-3showsestimatedrecoveryanddisposaltotalsforeach

pathwayandcomparesthemagainsttotalsfromWashingtonStatedatasources.Useofnationalstatisticsaccounts

forthediscrepancies.

Basedonnationalstatisticsrecoveryanddisposalviaanaerobicdigestion,controlled

combustionandlandapplicationareoverestimated,whileanimalfeed,compostingandlandfillare

underestimated.Nationalstatisticalprofilesforfoodwastedisposalandrecoverywereredistributedtocorrectfor

thenoteddifferences.Detailsandlinkedcalculationscanbefoundin

theaccompanyingExcelworkbook.

TableA-3.Disp osalan dRecoveryRouteEstimatesfollowingAdjustmentofSectorTotalFoodWasteGeneration

Recovery/DisposalPathway

RecoveryandDisposalTotals,

Estimated

RecoveryandDisposalTotals,WA

Data

Agricultureproducts 2,928 NA

Anaerobicdigestion 21,368 5,765

Animalfeed 1,489,363 1,494,807

Bio‐basedmaterials 48,576 NA

Composting 135,754 159,574

Controlledcombustion 58,830 40,833

Fooddonation 49,082 49,082

Landfill 927,287 931,293

Landapplication 7,105 2,618

Totals,excludingagriculture and

bio-basedmaterials

2,688,790 2,683,971



TableA-

4

presentsasimilartabletothatincludedinTableA-3followingtheredistribution.Furtheriterationcould

bringthefiguresintocloseralignmentbutwouldyieldlittleornoadditionalinsight.

TableA-4.FinalDisposalandRecoveryRouteEstimationsfollowingModelFitting

Route

RecoveryandDisposalTotals,

ModelEstimate

RecoveryandDisposalTotals,WA

Data

Agricultureproducts 2,914 NA

Anaerobicdigestion 5,765 5,765

Animalfeed 1,494,582 1,494,807

Bio‐basedmaterials 48,414 NA

Composting 164,198 159,574

Controlledcombustion 39,792 40,833

Fooddonation 49,082 49,082

Landfill 930,254 931,293

Landapplication 2,618 2,618

Totals,excludingagriculture and

bio-basedmaterials

2,686,291 2,683,971

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Summary Model Interpretation and Limitations

Wherepossible,themodelprioritizesuseofdataspecifictowasterecoveryanddisposalinWashingtonState.The

modelfittingproceduredescribedconstrainsthemodelsuchthatsectorspecificestimatesoffoodwaste

generationbasedonnationalorWashington-basedstatisticsandfoodwastegenerationfactorsarenotallowedto

produce

estimatesthatexceedreportedfoodwasterecoveryanddisposaltotalsavailableforWashingtonState.

Priortothemodelfittingprocedure,estimatio noffoodwastegenerationintheStateofWas hingtonwas

overestimatedby2.7percent.Themodelfittingprocessreducedfoodwastegenerationestimatesbringing

estimatedquantitiesinlinewith

reporteddata.Nationalsamplingestimatesforspecificdisposalandrecovery

routeswereredistributedtomatchtheavailabledata,adjustingquantitiesestimatedforotherdisposaland

recoverypathwayssuchthat100percentofwastewasaccountedfor.

Themodelfittingprocedurealsoensuresthat100percentofreportedfoodwastedisposalreported

for

WashingtonStateisaccountedforinthegenerationestimatesproducedbythetwelvegenerationsectors.Food

wastegeneratedbyotherminorsources,notexp licitlyincludedinthemodel,isdistributed amongthetwelve

includedgenerators.Basedonthemodel’sstructure,themajorityofthiswasteisexpectedtobe

distributed

amongthenineconsumerfacingbusinesses,potentiallyoverestimatingfoodwastegeneratedbythesenine

sources.Giventhequalityofthematchbetweentheoriginalestim ationandreporteddataforWashingtonState,

priortomodelfitting,distortionsinmodelresultscausedbythisprocedureareexpectedtobeminor.

Itis

believedthatthemodelfittingprocedurereasonablyallocatesknownfoodwastegenerationintheStateof

Washingtonamongstthe12primarygeneratingsectors.Amendednationalstatisticalprofilesoffoodwaste

recoveryanddisposalfor manufacturing,supermarkets,restaurantsandwholesaledistributorswereamendedto

reflecttheavailabledisposaldataforWashington

State,fillingindatagapswithreasonablenationalvalues.

Aswithallmodels,thismodelislimitedbythequalityofthedatauponwhichitisbased.Asdescribedabove,

priorityisgiventorecordsorestimatesoffoodwasterecoveryanddisposalinWashingtonState.Theserecordsare

deemed

tobeofhighquality.Themodelestimatesveryspecificvaluesbutshouldonlybeviewedasestimateswith

oneortwosignificantfigures.Reviewoftheaccompanyingspreadsheetmodel,particularlytherangein

documentedfoodwastegenerationfactors,estimationprocedu r esandmanagementpathwaydistributionswill

helpgivecontextto

thecertaintyoruncertaintywithwhichindividualsectorestimatesshouldbeviewed.

Model References

Bronson&Carson.(2019).AppendixTable2.Prisonersunderjurisdictionofstateorfederalcorrectionalauthorities,

byraceandHispanicorigin,December31,2017.BureauofJusticeStatistics.

BSR.(2014).Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers, Retailers and Restaurants(p.34).FoodWaste

ReductionAlliance.

Carson.

(2020).AppendixTable2:Prisonersunderjurisdictionofstateorfederalcorrectionalauthorit ies,by

jurisdictionandraceorethnicity,December31,2018.BureauofJusticeStatistics.

CCG.(2006).Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups(No.341–06006).California

IntegratedWasteManagementBoard.https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/787

CCG.(2018).2015‐2016 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study(No.16-07–032;p.157).Stateof

WashingtonDepartmentofEcology.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1607032.pdf

DHS.(2019a).Hospitals. Washington 2017‐2018 Data download.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity.https://hifld-

geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/hospitals

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

DHS.(2019b).Nursing Home / Assisted Care. Washington 2017‐2018 Data download.DepartmentofHomeland

Security.https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/78c58035fb3942ba82af991bb4476f13_0

Draper/LennonInc.(2002).Identification, Characterization, and Mapping of Food Waste and Food Waste

Generators in Massachusetts.MassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.

https://recyclingworksma.com/food-waste-estimation-guide/#SourcesForBusinessSectorEstimates

FWRA.(2016).Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers, Retailers and Restaurants(p.51).Food

WasteReductionAlliance.

HFSUW.(2018).Housing & Food Services. Resource Guide 2017‐2018.Housing&FoodServices.

https://hfs.uw.edu/HFSExtranet/media/Header-Footer/HFS-Resource-2017.pdf

Mathewson,T.R.(2017,January18).Atough-to-swallowreasoncollege

keepscostingmore:Thepriceofmeal

plans.The Hechinger Report.https://hechingerreport.org/tough-swallow-reason-college-keeps-costing-

price-meal-plans/

NCES.(2018).Total fall enrollment in degree‐granting postsecondary institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Selected

years, 1970 through 2017[NationalCenterforEducationStatistics].

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_304.10.asp

USCensus.(n.d.).Economic Census Tables 2017[U.S.CensusBureau].RetrievedMay5,2020,from

https://www.census. gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/data/tables.html

U.S.EPA.(2019a).Excess Food Opportunities Map Version 2.0—Direct Download Data Files(No.EPA530-R-19–001).

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

https://edg.epa.gov/data/PUBLIC/R9/ExcessFoodPublic_USTer_2020_R9.gdb.zip

U.S.EPA.(2019b).

Excess Food Opportunities Map Version 2.0—Technical Methodology(No.EPA530-R-19–001). U.S.

EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/technical-

methodology-excess-food-opportunities-map 

WAState.(2020).Report Card Enrollment 2018‐19 School Year.StateofWashington.

https://data.wa.gov/Education/Report-Card-Enrollment-2018-19-School-Year/u4gd-6wxx

WISErg.(2018).WISErg: About Us.https://wiserg.com/about/

WWF. (2019).Food Waste Warriors: A deep dive into food waste in US schools(p.53).WorldWildlifeFund.





WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Appendix B: Hunger Relief Interview Guide

ThisinterviewguidereceivedrevisionsfromKatieRains(WSDA),KyleMerslich(WSDA),andTrishTwomey(WAFood

Coalition)inFebruary2020.DuetodisruptionscausedbytheCOVID-19pandemicduringthisevaluation’s

timeframe,itwasneveradministered.Thegoalbehindcreatingthisguidewastocollectinformationaboutthe

threecore

researchareasofthisevaluationfromasampleofhungerrelieforganizationsofeachfunction(food

bank,foodpantry,andmealprogram)andgeography(urbanandrural,eastandwest)inWashingtonState.Itis

intendedtobeadministereddigitallyasanemailattachmentorverballyasaphonesurvey.

Background

TheStateofWashingtonispreparingaWastedFoodReductionandFoodWasteDiversionPlan.Myteamishelping

withanevaluationofthesurplusfoodandfoodwastelandscapetoinformthatplan.Forthisevaluation,we’re

studyingdifferenttypesofbusinessesandorganizationsthatmanagefoodafterits

primaryintendedconsumption

point.Theseincludehungerrelieforganizations,anaerobicdigestersandotherindustrialprocessors,compost

facilities,andanimalfeedoperations.



We’restudyingthreemainareastobuildapictureofthestate’sfoodwastemanagementsystem:

 FlowofFood:Howmuchfoodiscurrentlyflowingthroughfacilitiesin

thefoodwastemanagementsystem,

i.e.,hungerrelief,animalfeed,compost,andindustrialuses?

 Metrics&Protocols:Whatisbeingmeasuredandhowisitbeingmeasured?Whatopportunitiesexistto

harmonizemetricsandprotocolsacrossthesystem?

 SystemCapacity:Whatisthecapacityofeachentity?What

arethebarrierstoincreasingcapacityofeach

entity?

Respondent Information

Name:Business/OrgName:

Role:Business/OrgLocation:

Questions

Flow of Food and Metrics Questions

I’mgoingtostartoutbyaskingyouaboutwhereyourfoodcomesfrom,whatyoudowithit,andtheend

destinationswhereitgoes.Thiswillhelpusgetapictureof

currentfoodwastepathwaysandthefactorsthat

matterindeterminingwherefoodwasteendsup.

1. Howmanypoundsoffooddoesyourorganizationreceiveintotal,fromallsourcesincludingTEFAP?

Poundsoffood:

Timeframe:



2. Howwhatamountofthatfoodisdonatedtoyou,and

howmuchisfoodyoubuy?

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Donatedpoundsorpercent:

Boughtpoundsorpercent:

3. Besidesthenumberofpounds,whattypeofinformationdoyoutrackaboutthefoodyoureceive?

o Preparedfoodvs.othertypes?

o Packagingtype?

o Proportion ofusablefood?

o Other?

4. Whatspecificsourcesdoesyourfood(donatedand

purchased,ifapplicable)comefrom?Ex.Fromfood

banks,grocerydonations,individualdonations,gleaning ,wholesalepurchasingagreements,etc.

Source1:__________________________ __________

i. Whatpounds(or%)offoodcomesfromthissource?____________________________________

ii. Overwhattimeframe–perweek,month,year,etc.?__________________ ___________________

iii. Whattype(s)offood

comefromthissource?

_____________________________________________ _______________________________

iv. Howdoyouhandlefoodfromthissource?_____________________________________________

Source2:__________________________ __________

i. Whatpounds(or%)offoodcomesfromthissource?____________________________________

ii. Overwhattimeframe–perweek,month,year,etc.?__________________ ___________________

iii. Whattype(s)offoodcomefromthissource?



_______________________________________________________________ _____________ 

iv. Howdoyouhandlefoodfromthissource?_____________________________________________

Source3:__________________________ __________

i. Whatpounds(or%)offoodcomesfromthissource?____________________________________

ii. Overwhattimeframe–perweek,month,year,etc.?__________________ ___________________

iii. Whattype(s)offoodcomefromthissource?

_______________________________________________________________ ____________

iv. How

doyouhandlefoodfromthissource?_________________________________________ ____



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Source4:__________________________ __________

i. Whatpounds(or%)offoodcomesfromthissource?____________________________________

ii. Overwhattimeframe–perweek,month,year,etc.?__________________ ___________________

iii. Whattype(s)offoodcomefromthissource?

_______________________________________________________________ ____________ 

iv. Howdoyouhandlefoodfromthissource?_____________________________________________

5. Isfoodhandled

thesamewayfromallsources,ordoesfoodfromsomesourcesgetprocesseddifferently?

6. Destinations:Wheredoesthefoodgowhenyou’redonehandlingit?

Check

box

Destination Quantity

offood

Percent

offood

Time

frame

Notes

□

Mealsserved(mealprogram)    

□

Foodgiventoclientsorcustomers   

□

Otherfoodgivendirectlytopeople    

□

Donated/senttoanotherfood

program



□

Compost(on‐site)    

□

Compost(of

‐site)

□

Animalfeed    

□

Anaerobicdigestion

□

Landfill    

□

Other 

7. Arethereanyotherwaysinwhichyoutrackthefooddonationsthatcomeintoandoutofyour

organization?

Capacity Questions

Next,I’mgoingtoasksomequestionsaboutyourcapacityandtheb arriersandopportunitiesforyourorganization

toexpandyourwork.Irecognizethatyourabilitytoprocess

ahighervolumeoffoodisnottheonlyimportant

factorhereandthatweneedtomaintainahighqualityoffoodandhighlevelofrespectforrecipients.Withthatin

mind…

8. Doestheamountoffooddonationsflowingthroughyourprogramrepresentthemaximumyoucanhandle



withyourcurrentresources?Whyorwhynot?

9. Doyouanticipateanyupcomingopportunitiestoincreaseyourcapacity,suchasnewfunding,specific

policies,oranythingelse?Ifso,whatarethey?

10. Whatfactorslimittheamountoffoodyoucandistributetoclientsorcustomers?



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Barriers Notes

Administrative □Schedulingdifficulties

□Stafftimeoncertaintasks

□Other

Limited

resources

□Funds

□Space–refrigerated

□Space–other

□Space–equipment

□Time

□Space–freezer

□Other

Staffing

challenges

□Highturnover

□Lowmotivation

□Trainingchallenges

□Other



□Relianceonvolunteers:inconsistency 

Other

□Needformoreinformation □Other



 □Needfordifferenttypeoffoods

□Needfordifferenttechnologyorequipment



11. Whichofthosefactorsarethemostsignificantforyou?

12. Ifyoucouldaskfor1or2thingsthatwouldenableyourorganizationtoexpandthevolumeoffood(waste)

youcanhandle,whatwouldtheybe?

13. Thegoalofthisinterviewistoprovidea

pictureofsurplusfoodandfoodwastemanagementsystemsto

informastateplantopreventandmanagefoodwaste.

Giventhatgoal,isthereanythingelseyouwouldliketosharewithus?





WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Appendix C: Compost Facility Interview Guide

ThisinterviewguidereceivedrevisionsfromMaryHarrington(Ecology)inApril2020.Thegoalbehindcreatingthis

guidewastocollectinformationaboutthethreecoreresearchareasofthisevaluationfromallpermittedcompost

facilitiesprocessingfoodwaste(includingFood Processing Waste, Post‐consumer Food Waste, and Yard Debris/Food

Waste)inWashingtonState.Itwassenttocomposters

asanemailattachmenttobecompleteddigitally,withthe

optionofcallingthecontactinformationlistedbyphonetocompletethesurveyverbally.Cascadiapre-filledthe 

previousyear’sreportingtotalsineachcategorywithinthesurvey.

Letter of Introduction

TheStateofWashingtonispreparingaWastedFoodReductionandFoodWaste

DiversionPlan.Aspartofthis

evaluation,we’rereachingouttodifferenttypesofbusinessesandorganizationsthatmanagefoodafteritsprimary

intendedconsumptionpoint.Theseincludehungerrelieforganizations,anaerobicdigestersandotherindustrial

processors,compostfacilities,andanimalfeedoperations.

We’restudyingthreemainareastobuild

apictureofthestate’sfoodwastemanagementsystem:

 FlowofFood:Howmuchfoodwasteiscurrentlyflowingthroughfacilitiesinthefoodmanagementsystem,

includingcompostfacilities?

 Metrics&Protocols:Whatisbeingmeasuredandhowisitbeingmeasured?Whatopportunitiesexistto

harmonizemetrics

andprotocolsacrossthesystem?

 SystemCapacity:Whatistheavailablecapacityofeachentity?Whatarethebarrierstoincreasingcapacity

ofeachentity?

Participatinginthisstudyisvoluntary.Thestudyteamwillnotpublishyourfacility’snameoraddressoranystaff

namesinourreport.

Thereportwillbenefitstatedecision-makingaroundfoodwastemanagementplanning.



Ifyoucan,pleasehelpusbyfillingoutthesurveyonthefollowingpages.Itshouldonlytakeupto15minutesto

complete.Wecanalsoscheduleaphonecallsothatyoucantalkthroughyour

answersifyou’dlike.



Forquestionsand scheduling,pleasecontact<insertcontactinformation>.



Thankyou,

<insertsignatureblock>

Respondent Information

Name:

Position:

BusinessName:

BusinessLocation:

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Questions

1. Pleasefilloutthetablesbelow,whicharebasedonDepartmentofEcologyreportingcategories.

Whatarethesourcesofyourfoodwastefeedstocks(ex.foodprocessors,grocery,farms,curbside

collection)?

Food processing waste

In2018,yourfacilityreported:_____tonsoffoodprocessingwaste

Foodprocessingwastesource1: 

Whatpercentoffoodprocessingwastecomesfromthissource? ____________%

Whattypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource? 



Foodprocessingwastesource2: 

Whatpercentoffoodprocessingwastecomesfromthissource? ____________%

Whattypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource? 



Foodprocessingwastesource3: 

Whatpercentoffoodprocessingwastecomesfromthissource? ____________%

Whattypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource? 

Post-consumer food waste

In2018,yourfacilityreported:_____tonsofpost-consumerfoodwaste

Post-consumerfoodwastesource1: 

Whatpercentofpost-consumerfoodwastecomesfromthis

source?

____________% 

Whattypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource? 



Post-consumerfoodwastesource2: 

Whatpercentofpost-consumerfoodwastecomesfromthis

source?

____________% 

Whattypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource? 

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Yard debris/food waste

In2018,yourfacilityreported:_____tonsofyarddebris/foodwaste

Yarddebris/foodwastesource1: 

Whatpercentofyarddebris/foodwastecomesfromthis

source?

____________%

Whatpercentageofthiscategoryisyarddebrisvs.foodwaste? ______%yarddebris_____%foodwaste

Whatothertypesofitemsareinfeedstockfromthissource,if

any?



2. Whatqualitiesoffoodwastefeedstocksdoyoutrackatyourfacility ,ifany?Ex.levelofcontamination.

3. Whatareyourfacility’smainoutputs?



Check Typeofoutput Quantity/ %oftotaloutput

□ Finishedcompost 

□ Mulch

□ Landfill:ADC 

□ Other(pleasespecify)

Capacity Questions

4. Whatisyourfacility’spermittedcapacity?

5. Couldyourfacilityprocessmoretotalfeedstockthanitdoescurrently?

6. Couldyourfacilityprocessmorefoodscrapsthanitdoescurrently?

7. Doyouhaveanyplanstoexpandyourfacilityortobuildanewone?

8. Haveyou

consideredaddinganaerobicdigestionon-site?Whyorwhynot?

9. Whatfactorslimityourabilitytoprocessadditionalfoodscraps?



Barriers Notes

Regulatory □Solidwastepermingtoocostlytoobtain □Other 

Economic

□Acquiringfeedstocksischallenging

□Compeonfromotherfacilies

□Hardtogetloansfornewequipment

□Other



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Barriers Notes

Markets

□Needtoexpandmarkets

□Contaminatedfeedstocks

□Availabilityofcheapmulch

□Limitedmarketsforcontaminatedproducts

□Other 

Landuse

□Noavailableland

□Costoflandtoohigh

□Other



Other

□Needfordifferenttypeoffeedstock 

□Worriedaboutodor □Other 



10. Whichofthosefactorsarethemostsignificantforyou?



11. Ifyoucouldwaveamagicwandan dwishfor1or2thingsthatwouldhelpyoubeabletohandlemorefood

wastefeedstocks,whatwouldtheybe,ifdifferentthanabove?



12. Thegoal

ofthisinterviewistoprovideapictureoffoodwastemanagementsystemstoinformastateplan

tomanagefoodwaste.

Giventhatgoal,isthereanythingelseyouwouldliketosharewithus?



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Appendix D: Compost Facility Survey Responses

Outof22facilitieswesentthesurveytoinApril2020,8responded.Theirresponsesarebelow.

Cedar Grove (Everett)



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Cedar Grove (Maple Valley)



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

JBLM Composting



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Ovenell Farms



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Stafford Creek Corrections Center



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Stemilt World Famous Compost Company



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Washington Corrections Center



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Washington Corrections Center for Women



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION



WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Appendix E: Animal Feed Food Waste Categories

ThefollowinglistsofingredientsarethosethattheWSDAincludesinitsingredientcategoriesforcommercialfeed

distributors’reporting(WSDA,2018).Thisappendixincludesallingredientcategoriesthatthisevaluationconsiders

tobefoodwasteundertheHB1114definition.

Animal Products

 Meat(ifground,artificiallydried,and/ormixedwith

otherfeeds)

 Meatby-products

 Animalliver

 Poultryby-productmeal

 Poultryhatcheryby-product

 Driedmeatsolubles

 Poultryby-products

 Hydrolyzedpoultryfeathers

 Fleshingshydrolysate

 Animalserum

 Serumalbumin

 Serumglobulin

 Spraydriedanimalbloodcells

 Meatmeal

 Meatand

bonemeal

 Meatmealtankage

 Hydrolyzedhair

 Hydrolyzedleathermeal

 Spraydriedanimalblood

 Poultry

 Hydrolyzedwholepoultry

 Hydrolyzedpoultryby-productsaggregate

 Eggshellmeat

 Bloodmeal

 Bloodmeal,flashdried

 Bloodprotein

 Glandularmealandextractedglandular

meal

 Unborncalfcarcasses

 Animaldigest

 Cookedbonemarrow

 Mechanicallyseparatedbonemarrow

 Poultrymeal

 Animalplasma

 Ensiledpaunch

 Eggproduct

 Leatherhydrolysate

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 (Mammalianorpoultry)stock/broth

 Meatproteinisolate

 Airdriedanimalbloodcells(airswepttabulardrying)

 Hydrolyzedwholeswine

Brewers Products

 Brewersdriedgrains

 Maltsprouts

 Maltcleaning

 Malthulls(ifground,artificiallydried,and/ormixedwithotherfeeds)

 Driedspenthops



Brewerswetgrains

 Brewerscondensedsolubles

Distillers Products

 Molassesdistillersdriedsolubles

 Molassesdistillerscondensedsolubles

 Potatodistillersdriedresidue

 Distillersdriedsolubles

 Distillersdriedgrains

 Distillersdriedgrainswithsolubles

 Condenseddistillerssolubles

 Distillerswetgrains

 Deoiledcorndistillersdriedgrains

withsolubles,solventextract

Human Food By-products

 Driedapplepomace

 Driedapplepectinpulp

 Driedtomatopomace

 Cerealfoodfines 

 Driedpotatoproducts

 Gelatinby-products

 Driedbeans

 Sugarfoodsby-products

 Pastproduct

 Foodprocessingwaste

 Restaurantfoodwaste

 Recoveredretailfood

 Mixedfeednuts

 Otherfruitpomace

WASHINGTON STATE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Screenings

 Grainscreenings

 Mixedscreenings

 Chaffand/ordust