1. Humboldt Regional Organic Waste Digester California Integrated Waste Management Board July 14, 2009

2. Purpose: Divert food waste from landfills

3. Why Divert Food Waste? ~20% of waste stream Develop diversion infrastructure: –AB 939 compliance –Population growth –Future legislation (AB 479) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions –Landfills emit methane –Waste trucked 190 miles one-way

4. Diversion Potential Source: HWMA quarterly reports, waste audits Assumes 100% capture

5. Food Waste Characteristics Wet Heavy Putrefies quickly Contains energy

6. Food Waste = Energy 75% H 2 O 25% Total Solids 85% volatile solids (VS) 15% fixed solids (FS) VS + A.D. = CH 4 + CO 2 RENEWABLE ENERGY!!!

7. Renewable Energy Potential

8. Food Waste in Landfills Methane (CH 4 ) –~23 x more powerful than CO 2 Uncontrolled CH 4 emissions –Food waste decomposes: 4 months –Collection systems installed: 2-5 years –Variable LFG capture efficiency

9. Diversion Options: Food Banks Pig Farms Composting Anaerobic Digestion

10. Existing Diversion Food banks Pre-consumer waste only Pig farms Pre-consumer or post-consumer + treatment Limited in local capacity Produce high-strength waste

11. Food Waste Composting Aerobic decomposition Produces soil amendment Green waste used as bulking agent Process time 90 – 180 days Emits some CH 4, N 2 O, VOC Kills pathogens

12. Local Compost Challenges Competition for green waste Food waste prohibited Odors VOC emissions Large footprint High rainfall levels Aerobic conditions = high energy inputs

13. Anaerobic Digestion Oxygen-free environment Mature technology –Wastewater treatment plants –Dairies & pig farms Produces biogas (CH 4 +CO 2 ) Reduces VOCs Positive net energy balance

14. Benefits: Renewable energy –Captures CH 4 Shorter process time 25 vs. 120 days Smaller footprint 3 vs. 20 acres Reduces waste Soil amendment

15. Challenges: Permitting Collection Contamination Residuals Cost efficiency Bottle Cap

16. Food Waste Digestion 70 in Europe East Bay Municipal Utility District Toronto UC Davis* Inland Empire*

17. Options: Dedicated food waste digester + compost Co-digest with municipal sludge at WWTP

18. Food Waste Diversion Flow Diagram

19. Digester Feed Stocks

24. Scenarios Scenario Tons waste per year Description A4268FOG + Whey + 50% Arcata & Eureka Commercial B7554 FOG + Whey + 50% of Arcata & Eureka Commercial + 50% County commercial C9919 FOG + Whey + 100% of Arcata & Eureka Commercial + 50% County commercial D11363 FOG + Whey + 50% of Arcata & Eureka Commercial + 50% County commercial + 100% of Del Norte Commercial

25. Life Cycle Cost Scenario Digester (Million $) Business-as-Usual (Million $) A$6.5$3.6 B$8.4$8.3 C$8.7$11.7 D$9.6$13.8 LCC

26. Renewable Energy Assumes 35% generator efficiencyAssumes 35% generator efficiency Assumes 25% parasitic loadAssumes 25% parasitic load ScenarioMWh/year# CA house equivalents A888126 B1,569223 C2,059293 D2,359335

27. $$$ Annual savings and Revenues Scenario Hauling savings ($/year) Offset Grid Energy at WWTP ($/year)* Renewable Energy Sold to PG&E ($/year) A$79,000$85,000$0 B$188,000$105,000$13,500 C$267,000$105,000$48,500 D$316,000$105,000$70,000 *Assumes $0.10/ kWh

28. GHG Reductions Assumes 0.7 MT CO 2 e / MT food waste (CCX) Assumes 0.524 lbs CO 2 / kWh (PG&E) Carbon Emissions Reductions Scenario Avoided long- haul trucking (lbs CO 2 /year) Fossil power replacement (lbs CO 2 /year) Avoided landfill gas (lbs CO 2 /year) A215,000434,00017,319,000 B541,000767,00041,392,000 C729,0001,007,00058,711,000 D861,0001,153,00069,288,000

29. Project Development Plan Organic Waste Resource Analysis Permitting – EPA Region 9 Pilot collection Phase 1: Demonstration and testing –Efficient pre-processing –Appropriate technology –Residuals management alternatives Phase 2: Expand to regional scale

30. To conclude… Project Benefits include: –Divert waste from landfills –Generate renewable energy –Reduce GHG emissions –Retain $$$ in County –Create jobs –Increase regional sustainability

31. Acknowledgements Gary Bird - City of Eureka Clay Yerby, Gerry Snead - Elk River WWTP Kurt Gierlich - City of Eureka Paul Suto, Sophia Scota – East Bay MUD Charles Chamberlin, Arne Jacobson – HSU Cara Peck – US EPA Region 9 Josh Rapport - UC Davis Mike Leggins, Chris Choate - Recology Brown and Cauldwell – Eureka WWTP Engineers Dufferin Organics Processing Facility BTA Processing – Canada Composting Cedar Grove & Jepson Prairie composting facilities Andrew Jolin – HWMA Mad River Composting Facility Hambro Forest Products Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

32. Questions?

33. AB 32: Emissions Reductions Goals State-wide: 146.7 MMTCO 2 e Local government: 15% by 2020 Waste sector goal: 10 MMTCO 2 e Annual tons food waste in the California waste stream (CIWMB) MMTCO 2 e / year % of AB 32 emissions reductions 9,663,4057.53%

35. Major costs for digestionCost per unit ($) Building ($/ft 2 ) w/slab$100 50' Truck weighing scales$32,700 Foundation for scales inclu. Const.$20,000 Print Kiosk (for weight records)$4,000 Software capable of running reports$10,000 PC computer$2,000 Card Scanner$5,000 Odor control system$85,000 Front-end loader$118,000 Pre-processing equipment$450,000 Metering Pumps$40,000 Peristaltic pumps$90,000 Trommel screen$110,000 Buffer tank ($/ft 3 )$9 Digester ($/ft 3 )$9 Mixers$40,000 Post digestion tank (for gravity separation) ($/ft 3 )$9

36. Gas collection equipment$75,000 H 2 S Scrubber Tank$5,000 H 2 S scrubber media (Sulfa Treat)$5,760 Solids drying area ($/ft 2 ) concrete slab$30 Monitoring equipment (SCADA)$100,000 Engineering Planning and Design$250,000 Permitting$100,000 EIR$250,000 New Full Solid Waste Permit$6,300 Geotechnical analysis$17,500 Wetland deliniation$17,500 Land Preparation$30,000 Infrastructure (fencing) ($/linear foot)$35 Infrastructure (roads) ($/ft 2 )$12 Program Design$100,000 New Water Service$110 Access Gates$10,000 Balance of systems (contingency)30% of total capital

37. O&M Costs O&M costsCost per unit Labor ($/hour)$22 Supervision and training ($/hour)$30 Insurance ($/year)$15,000 Water ($/750 gallons)$2.84 Iron sponge media replacement ($/year)4,160 Equipment maintenance50,000 Solids management ($/ton)41 New Wastewater disposal permit fee (good for first 3 years)450 Waste water disposal permit fee (not new)250 Waste water disposal fee ($/lb BOD)1 Solid waste permit annual inspection fee3,788

38. Funding Options Regional partners share funding –Bonds or low-interest loans –Complete ownership –Revenues and “green attributes” allocated to facility owners Public/Private partnership –Shared ownership and operation –Shared benefits from “green attributes” –Shared revenues Performance contractors –Delayed ownership – option to buy after 6 years –“Green attributes” and revenues allocated to owner –Flat rate electricity at just below utility rate

39. Feed-in Tariff AB 1969 – “requires all electrical corporations to file with the CPUC a standard tariff to provide for payment for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of renewable energy output produced at an eligible electric generation facility” CPUC Decision 07-07-027 –Tariffs and standard contracts for the purchase of renewable energy from WWTPs

40. Feed-in Tariff PG&E: 104 MW capacity allocation to WWTPs PG&E: 104 MW allocation to non-WWTPs Rates based on: –# kWh sold –Time of delivery –MPR set by CPUC –10, 15, 20 year contracts Interconnection through FERC SGIP “Green Attributes” –To facility for generated RE they use on site –To IOU for RE sold to grid

42. Analysis Data & Inputs HWMA records CIWMB EPA region 9 Food waste digestion projects & case studies –EBMUD –Dufferin Organics –NewMarket –UC Davis Eureka WWTP Brown & Caldwell Equipment manufacturers Eureka City Garbage, Nor Cal

44. Regional Waste Streams