Introduction
In response to Connecticut’s growing “trash crisis,” the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) awarded over $4 million to local governments to launch food scrap pilot programs. A primary goal of this program, officially known as Sustainable Materials Management (SSM) Grants, is to divert household food scraps from municipal solid waste, more commonly known as trash. Diverting food scraps away from solid waste matters because it’s one of the heaviest types of waste and removing it would reduce the amount of waste going to landfills and incinerators significantly. Food scraps can be anything from eggshells to meat trimmings.
What lessons can we learn from Connecticut’s food scrap pilot programs? This study provides an overview of 15 towns that accepted SSM grants, that got to create their own voluntary pilot program with curbside or transfer station collection of food scraps and/or pay-as-you-throw, with more in-depth analysis of West Hartford, that opted for a small food scraps collection program, and Stonington, that opted for a town wide food scraps collection program, using publicly-accessible data and visualization tools to tell a broader story. More specifically, the study poses three research questions:
- Representation: How representative are demographics (racial, socioeconomic) of the pilot program participants when compared to the greater town or city where it is located?
- Participation: What are the participation rates and food scraps tonnage of the participating pilot programs in CT and how do they compare to each other? How do the demographics of the programs compare with the participation rates?
- Benefits: What are the economic and environmental benefits of removing food scraps from our waste streams in Connecticut?
The goal of pilot programs is to understand the value, challenges, and scalability of the program. For a program to be implemented on a larger scale it is important to look at participation rates to understand if this is a program people want in their town to determine if it will work on a broader scale. One factor that is important to acknowledge in participation is how it correlates to representation of differing demographics, and how that can affect participation rates. Furthermore, if a pilot program is to be implemented there has to be a benefit.
These are important questions to both CT DEEP and the Center for Leadership and Justice. CT DEEP is providing these grants to towns so it is important for them to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the programs they are funding. Furthermore, a subsection of the CLJ, the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance (GIHAA) heavily advocated for H.B. 6664, the closing of Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) so it is important to them to keep that facility closed and ensure none other like it open by searching for alternative disposal methods.
Overall, of the 15 towns that accepted grants, I focused on collecting data from 5 towns that had food scraps collection as part of their pilot programs. Of those five towns only two towns publicly shared data. When analyzing those two towns, West Hartford and Stonington, both tended to be whiter, have greater incomes, and more home ownership. When we compare the diversion rates, the amount of food scraps removed from municipal solid waste, West Hartford diverted more than double the rate of Stonington.
Why do we have a “Trash Crisis”?
We are dealing with a “trash crisis” because there is more waste than environmentally friendly disposal options. Sending our waste to landfills away from the communities that generate it creates a greater negative environmental impact. Across the United States 63,130,000 tons of food waste were generated accounting for 21.59% of all municipal solid waste in 2018. In the same year half of all waste went to landfills with food scraps accounting for 24.14% or 35,280,000 tons (“National”). This is to say that about 21% of the garbage we set out on our curb each week is food scraps, and about half of those food scraps will end up in landfills. Food scraps in landfills generate methane, one of the most dangerous greenhouse gasses to climate change. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency it accounts for 58% of methane emissions in municipal solid waste landfills (“Quantifying”).
In Connecticut waste to energy incinerators are being used as alternatives to landfills, however this creates many environmental issues that are disproportionately affecting people with low income and people of color. One example of this can be seen in Hartford Connecticut (“Connecticut”; “We are”). The closing of the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) waste-to-energy plant in 2022 created a predicament for Connecticut waste management. Due to its closure Connecticut is estimated to ship 860,000 tons of waste a year to out-of-state landfills. This is a costly process due to shipping for disposal and tipping fees which depend on weight (Spiegel).
How can Diverting Food Scraps Help Address the Trash Crisis?
Food scraps are one of the heaviest types of waste being disposed of. There are multiple ways of dealing with food scraps like composting and anaerobic digestion. Food scraps, sometimes referred to as organic waste, is any kind of food product, leafy greens, vegetables, meats, fish, bones, fatty oils, and more (“Composting”). There are many ways to deal with food scraps and depending on how you or your municipality decide to dispose of food waste.
Figure 1. Examples of accepted food scraps by Quantum Biopower, an anaerobic digester in Southington, CT. [Source: Quantum Biopower]
One way of disposing of is through composting, an aerobic process in which food waste is broken down by microorganisms in the presence of oxygen to produce a dark soil-like organic material called compost that can be used to enrich farms and gardens (Barrett).
This can be done right at home in one's own backyard. Collecting food scraps and letting them digest in a bin in a backyard or this can be done indoors through vermicomposting with worms. When composting at home one will want to avoid food waste such as meat, fish, bones and fatty oils since it's harder to break these down (“Composting”). However, when done at a larger scale different rules can apply.
New York City recently developed an organic waste program in which all the waste collected goes to regional composting facilities. Composting on a large scale like this qualifies different food waste than composting at home. For example, meat, fish, bones and fatty oils can all be put in the food waste. Additionally, food-soiled paper such as tea bags, coffee filters, napkins, and paper plates are not traditionally composted but due to the scale are acceptable (“Organics”). However, not all facilities are the same and it's important to pay attention to what a municipality accepts as compost.
An alternative to composting, which is being used in most food scraps pilot programs in Connecticut, is anaerobic digestion. This is done at large facilities such as Quantum Biopower where food waste can be turned into biogas, a cleaner source of energy (“Anaerobic”). Additionally, a co-product called digestate can be used as fertilizer (“How does”). Quantum Biopower accepts all food scraps, however, they don’t accept food-soiled waste like the composting facilities in NYC so it’s important to check with municipalities what is being accepted in the food waste since it can differ by facility and disposal method.
Figure 2. Anaerobic digesters intake organic materials such as food scraps, and outputs biogas to create electricity, and digestate that can be used as fertilizer. [Source: Quantum Biopower]
What can we learn from food scrap collection programs in other states?
Residential food scraps waste collection programs are becoming increasingly more prevalent across the United States. There are currently 700 communities across 25 states participating and giving nearly 15 million US households access to food scrap collection programs (Pinkerton). Although the number of food scraps programs are increasing, it is difficult to learn about their effectiveness because only a third reported participation rates that greatly varied form 30-95% due to difference in calculation methods (Pinkerton).
Additionally, the successes of food scraps programs can be difficult to compare to each other because they do “not have a universal result reporting method.” (Alia). For example, in calculating diversion rates a common measurement was “pounds per capita” however, this is not a good measurement for comparisons when programs varied who they served with some only serving single-family households, while others included apartments, and businesses (Alia).
One program that we can learn from is Cambridge, MA, US. They ran a city-wide curbside food scraps program accessible to 117,000 people with an estimated 50% participation rate (Corrin). Additionally, they estimated that 7 tons of food scraps were collected per day which can make a big economic difference (Skahill). Cambridge pays $109 per ton to dispose of solid waste and $65 per ton to compost food scraps. This is a $44 difference per ton, which can begin to make a large difference if food scraps are continued to be diverted at larger rates.
Which CT Towns got Approved for Reimbursement Grants?
One solution being brought up by Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is to separate out food scraps due to it being one of the heaviest materials in the waste stream. In October 2022 awarded nearly 5 million dollars in grants to 15 towns to help municipalities start food scraps and/or unit-based pricing collection programs to reduce waste (CT.gov). In May 2023 they awarded an additional $577,100 to 4 additional towns. In total 19 towns were approved for Sustainable Materials Management grants. These grants are to be used to reimburse towns for program costs such as tipping fees, hauling fees, food scraps buckets, and trash bags (CT.gov).
Towns awarded grants were able to create voluntary programs by their own design. These programs could consist of food scraps collections via a new hauling route or co-collected with regular trash. Towns also had the option of implementing unit-based pricing (UBP), also referred to as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), in which people pay a small fee for every unit of solid waste they throw away, typically by the bag. Towns were able to choose which diversion method they wanted to focus on. This study looks more specifically at food scraps pilot programs, not UBP programs.
All of these towns were approved for grants; however, their programs are in varying states. Many towns have decided to move forward and have begun pilot programs, some towns are still in the planning stages, and others decided not to accept the grant. A total of 15 towns decided to move forward with the Sustainable Materials Management Grants. Green towns have opted for curbside pickup programs, yellow towns have transfer station drop-offs, blue towns are still in development, orange towns have decided to conclude their pilot programs, and red towns decided not to move forward with the grant.
Figure 3. Map of CT towns approved for reimbursement grants.
