ISTC Technical Assistance Program assists U. of I. campus with waste characterization study

ISTC and F&S staff sorting waste samples.

The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (U. of I.) Facilities & Services (F&S) Waste Management department recently released the results of a campus building waste characterization and opportunity assessment conducted with assistance from the ISTC Technical Assistance Program (TAP). This project was the latest example of collaboration between the two units on reducing waste and improving sustainable materials management on campus since the development of the original Illinois Climate Action Plan (iCAP).

Beginning in 2014, shortly after the inception of its Zero Waste Illinois program, TAP conducted its first university campus waste audit in the form of a two-phase project for U. of I., examining the types and amounts of waste generated in eight campus buildings, as well as the availability and location of waste and recycling collection bins. That study also included a survey of building occupants to gauge knowledge of current programs, gaps in service, and overall satisfaction with the campus recycling program. With this data, TAP made recommendations for waste reduction and diversion at the campus and individual building levels. The TAP zero waste team went on to conduct similar waste characterization studies for other institutes of higher learning, industrial clients, local governments, small businesses, and school districts in Illinois and beyond, as well as contributing to statewide systemic change through efforts like the Farm to Food Bank feasibility study and pilot projects. In 2019, TAP assessed indoor solid waste and recycling collection infrastructure for U. of I., leading to the initial deployment of branded three-bin collection stations for waste and recyclables in high-traffic campus locations. F&S continues to deploy those newer three-bin stations as funding permits, as part of ongoing progress toward iCAP zero waste goals.

In the fall of 2021, TAP, F&S, and other campus stakeholders began discussion of a new round of campus building waste audits. Plans were paused until after the hiring of Daphne Hulse, the first full-time U. of I. Zero Waste Coordinator, in fall 2022, to ensure the availability of dedicated staff to address waste audit results and recommendations. A spring 2023 grant from the U. of I. Student Sustainability Committee (SSC) supplemented available F&S funds to secure TAP services for waste audits of eight high-usage facilities in October 2023.  

Due to the size and volume of waste and recycling generated on campus, sorting all material was not feasible. Thus, TAP and F&S used an “activity zone” approach, developed by the TAP zero waste team after their work on the previous U. of I. campus audits. This involved selecting a representative set of buildings classified according to their main functions and services. Waste audit data from those representative buildings was used to formulate recommendations for waste reduction and improving the quantity and quality of collected recyclables. Those recommendations for improvement can then be applied to other buildings that fall within the same activity zone categorization. For this waste audit, activity zones and their respective buildings included:  

  • Academic: Business Instructional Facility (BIF) & Campus Instructional Facility (CIF)
  • Academic + Laboratory: Roger Adams Laboratory (RAL) & Noyes Laboratory
  • Multi-Activity: Illini Union & Activities & Recreation Center (ARC)
  • Student Living: Lincoln Avenue Residence Halls & Allen Residence Hall

TAP conducted walkthroughs of study buildings to assess current conditions and infrastructure, discuss waste and recycling challenges and successes with facility managers and other key personnel, and determine the best method for sample collection during the waste audits. The audits involved the collection of samples from trash (landfill-bound) and recycling streams from each of the selected buildings, which were then hand-sorted by TAP staff and volunteers into pre-determined categories defined in conjunction with F&S waste management staff. Following the waste audits, TAP held four focus group sessions (one per activity zone) to obtain input from campus community members (including students, faculty, and staff). Stakeholder engagement helped to gauge expectations, barriers, and sources of confusion, as well as garner suggestions for ways to reduce waste and improve collection of recyclables for the buildings included in the study. An online form was made available for submission of written feedback from those unable to attend focus group sessions and to allow session participants to submit any additional comments and suggestions. 

In addition to presenting methodologies and findings, the audit report outlines current waste and recycling management practices across campus and within the examined activity zones. This includes detailed descriptions of bin liner color-coding standards and the rationale behind them, procedures at the campus Waste Transfer Station (WTS), process flow diagrams, and a list of processors and destinations for the major categories of collected recyclables. The goal was to create a document that could support F&S’s efforts to educate and engage the campus community in improved waste management and the creation of a zero-waste culture. 

There are long-standing misconceptions about campus waste management practices according to Joy Scrogum, an Assistant Research Scientist with ISTC’s TAP and a member of the campus Zero Waste iCAP team. “When I was an Illinois undergraduate, I would hear people say it didn’t matter if you accidentally put recyclables in campus trash bins because everything would be sorted at the campus Waste Transfer Station. That was frankly decades ago, and I still hear people make that incorrect assertion. Although the U. of I. is an innovative research institution, our Waste Transfer Station is low-tech, with a small crew that hand sorts only a fraction of the materials collected. There’s no cutting-edge equipment using lasers or air currents to extract recyclables, just humans pulling items from certain colored bags that are emptied onto a conveyor belt. It would be physically impossible to hand sort all the waste generated on campus, and most people aren’t even aware of the fact that different colored bin liners are meant to signify different actions at the transfer station. The contents of black bags, for example, aren’t emptied for a hand sort, because that color is supposed to signify waste collected from restrooms or laboratories.” 

Graphic from the audit report illustrating the campus bin liner color-coding standard.

The study uncovered a lack of awareness, confusion, and/or inconsistent compliance regarding the bin liner color-coding standard, suggesting that improved communication and efforts to ease supply chain barriers could result in increased capture of recyclable materials. Observations during building walkthroughs and feedback compiled from stakeholder engagement indicated that greater consistency in collection bin style and signage, along with improvements in communication of proper waste management and recycling procedures to students, faculty, and staff could result in improved collection and reduced contamination of recyclable materials. 

Key findings from the analysis include: 

  • 34 percent of campus waste reviewed was avoidable 
  • 23 percent of all landfill materials were some form of paper towels
  • Recyclable materials made up 13 percent of the total waste stream
  • 17 percent of waste was compostable
  • 18 percent of recyclables were contaminated and therefore unsalvageable
  • Liquids contributed to contaminating 5 percent of all the recycling items sorted
Disposable single-use items, such as these beverage cups, are examples of potentially avoidable waste.

TAP made 39 recommendations for waste reduction and improved management grouped into seven themes (education & outreach, infrastructure, policy, programming, purchasing, research, and retail). Many of the suggestions encourage colleges and departments to look upstream at the source of waste generation to proactively reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills.

F&S Zero Waste Coordinator Daphne Hulse said, “ISTC’s important and updated insight gives us the ability to turn their work into meaningful results that have an impact across campus. To accomplish our goals, we need to keep looking at how we can all continue to make progress by taking all available actions to properly reduce, reuse, and recycle where we study, work, recreate, and live.” 

A more detailed summary of study findings, along with the full report and executive summary for download, are available on the F&S website at https://fs.illinois.edu/campus-building-waste-characterization-opportunity-assessment/.

Daphne Hulse will also discuss the audit results, the details of campus waste and recycling management, and ongoing zero waste initiatives in an ISTC Sustainability Seminar presentation entitled, “Landfills Are Organized Littering: How the University of Illinois Is Moving Toward Zero Waste.” This hybrid presentation (with in-person and online attendance options), is scheduled for September 11 from 2-3 PM. Learn more and register at https://calendars.illinois.edu/detail/6229/33493027. ISTC Sustainability Seminars are recorded with archives available online within a few weeks of the seminar’s completion. 

Study tracks emerging contaminants from landfill to treatment plant to application

Aerial photo of a wastewater treatment plant.
Photo credit: Amine KM/Pexels

Treatment plants can effectively remove microplastics and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from wastewater before they’re discharged to lakes and rivers, but large amounts of contaminants end up in solid waste, called biosolids, often used on agricultural fields as soil nutrients. By land applying this material, these contaminants then are re-released back into the environment.  

In a recent study published in an Illinois Sustainable Technology Center report, John Scott, analytical chemist at ISTC in the University of Illinois, studied the fate of microplastics and PFAS as they moved from landfill leachate, or water that filters though the mound of trash, to wastewater treatment plants and beyond. As health concerns about PFAS in water continue to grow, Scott predicts that state and federal regulatory agencies will set rules limiting these contaminants in water.

“I expect regulations concerning PFAS will be coming soon, but the big question is that nobody knows where to set the limits because the toxicity of PFAS hasn’t been established yet,” Scott said.   

To date, wastewater treatment plants are not required to monitor for PFAS and microplastics, so studies on these contaminants provide a better understanding of their major sources and how they can end up in the environment.

Eighty percent of plastics are destined for landfills. Among the castaways are food packaging, furniture, clothing, and other textiles that shed microplastics and PFAS contaminants. Scott noted that while all samples contained both microplastics and PFAS, PFAS concentrations in landfill leachate were found to be much greater than in wastewater influent.  

After wastewater treatment, the highest levels of microplastics and PFAS were in the biosolids, of which 50% are applied back to the land. If farmers stop using biosolids in fields due to regulatory and liability issues, the only option is to send them to landfills where the cycle from landfill to wastewater treatment plant will continue.

“Once in landfills, the stuff moves into the leachate, which is headed back to the wastewater treatment plant,” Scott said. “We’re just moving them from one environmental compartment to the next without addressing the problem. We never get rid of them; we’re just shifting them back and forth.”

To manage this problem, which is increasing over time because plastics and PFAS take so long to break down, consumers have some responsibility, he said.

“People have the perception that when you throw something away and it goes to a landfill, then it’s gone forever, when it’s not,” Scott said. “A landfill is just a holding place, and actually, the contaminants will end up fugitive in our environment.”

If the use of PFAS is regulated, PFAS in raw sewage will decrease, but contamination in landfill leachate will continue to rise, Scott said. Similarly, as plastics are added to landfills, they breakdown to smaller sizes, increasing contamination levels in leachate. Over time, landfills will become an even more significant sources of these contaminants, as well as many others. 

—–

Media Contact: John Scott, 217-333-8407, zhewang@illinois.edu

Essential pollution prevention publications to celebrate P2 Week

Pollution Prevention (P2) Week begins on Monday. The 2023 theme is Pollution Prevention Works.

In celebration, this post highlights some classic P2 publications. Although these were originally in the published in the 1990s through early 2000s, they contain a trove of useful information to make P2 work in modern industrial facilities.

Want to learn more? Visit the Pollution Prevention 101 LibGuide for a comprehensive guide to pollution prevention and sustainable business resources.

EPA Sector Notebooks (U.S. EPA, late 1990s)
EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) developed the EPA Sector Notebooks to provide chemical profiles of selected industries. Each profile includes information about the processes conducted in the industry, chemical releases and transfers of chemicals, opportunities for pollution prevention, pertinent federal statutes and regulations, and compliance initiatives associated with the sector. Although these notebooks were published in the late 1990s, they still contain a wealth of information about the production processes, environmental impacts, and pollution prevention options for these sectors.

Facility Pollution Prevention Guide (U.S. EPA, 1992)
For those who are interested in and responsible for pollution prevention in industrial or service facilities. Summarizes the benefits of a company-wide pollution prevention program and suggests ways to incorporate pollution prevention in company policies and practices.

Guide to Industrial Assessments for Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency (U.S. EPA, 1990)
Presents an overview of industrial assessments and the general framework for conducting them.  It describes combined assessments for pollution prevention and energy and provides guidance for performing them at industrial or other commercial facilities.

The Industrial Green Game: Implications for Environmental Design and Management (National Academies Press, 1997)
This volume examines industrial circulation of materials, energy efficiency strategies, “green” accounting, life-cycle analysis, and other approaches for preventing pollution and improving performance. Corporate leaders report firsthand on “green” efforts at Ciba-Geigy, Volvo, Kennecott, and Norsk Hydro.

Organizational Guide to Pollution Prevention (U.S. EPA, 2001)
This Pollution Prevention (P2) Guide provides information to help organizations get P2 programs started or to re-evaluate existing P2 programs. It presents an alternative method for working on P2 projects and four approaches to implementing a P2 program in an organization.

Pollution Prevention : A Guide to Project and Program Implementation (Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center, 1999)
This manual serves as an overview for Illinois businesses of all sizes that have chosen to learn more about developing a pollution prevention program.

Searching for the Profit in Pollution Prevention: Case Studies in the Corporate Evaluation of Environmental Opportunities (U.S. EPA, 1998)
This research was initiated to more fully illuminate the challenges facing industry in the adoption of pollution prevention (P2) opportunities, and to identify issue areas that can be studied and addressed by policy-makers and industry. The case studies in this paper describe three P2 projects that were chosen/or analysis precisely because they were in some way unsuccessful. This analysis, based on a small and non-random sampling, is not necessarily representative of the experiences of all companies or all P2 investment possibilities.

Scientists study how a diabetes drug affects soils

The transport of pharmaceuticals released from sewage treatment plants into farmland soils, with the potential to load into drinking water sources, is one that researchers at the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center (ISTC) study carefully. Even at low concentrations, medications can affect water ecosystems and soil health.

“Applying sewage waste to crop fields is a win-win practice because it provides nutrients and organic matter to the soil and prevents waste sludge from ending up in landfills,” said Wei Zheng, ISTC environmental chemist. “The issue is that wastewater treatment plants cannot remove emerging contaminants and pharmaceuticals. We cannot ignore the potential risks from this practice.”

Biosolids, which are treated sewage sludge, are a product of the wastewater treatment process. Biosolids can be used on farmland to improve soil fertility, Zheng said.

In a recent study, Zheng and colleagues investigated the adsorption of sitagliptin in soils treated with sewage wastewater. Sitagliptin is commonly used to treat diabetes and is frequently detected in sewage effluent and the environment because it does not fully degrade during the wastewater treatment process. Lagoon-based sewage treatment systems in rural areas also remove fewer contaminants than typical municipal wastewater treatment facilities, so contaminant concentrations in sewage are higher.

Sitagliptin concentrations in the environment are unregulated in the United States. The drug is considered an emerging contaminant for its potential risk to the public. 

Study findings showed that biosolids, which have a large amount of organic matter, bonded with the medication in soils and reduced its adsorption. Results also showed that increasing the amount of sewage effluent used for soil amendment reduces the adsorption of sitagliptin in soils.

Metformin is often prescribed, sometimes with sitagliptin, to treat diabetes. As part of this study, the researchers examined how this medication affects the uptake of sitagliptin in soils. Metformin is more water soluble, more degradable, and has less adsorption in soils than sitagliptin. 

They found that increasing metformin concentrations in sewage effluent reduced the interaction of sitagliptin with the soil surface. This means that multiple pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in sewage can compete in soils, reducing the adsorption capacities of individual products.

“Some states have regulations for contaminants, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are considered ‘forever chemicals’, in biosolids and sewage effluent, so over certain levels, biosolids cannot be used for soil amendments,” Zheng said. “In Illinois, there are no regulations, so it’s highly possible that organic chemical contaminants released from biosolids will leach to drinking water supplies, especially in rural areas. It is important to study and explore ways to minimize the leaching and runoff of PPCPs.”

The results of this study can be used to predict how other PPCPs are transported and adsorbed on agricultural soils and develop management strategies to reduce the risks of using sewage wastes in rural areas.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture funded the project. An article, “Influence of Biosolids and Sewage Effluent Application on Sitagliptin Soil Sorption,” was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment. Zheng is also working on a project supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to monitor PPCPs in sewage effluent and develop mitigation strategies to protect the environment and drinking water quality.

—-
Media contact: Wei Zheng, 217-333-7276, weizheng@illinois.edu

Farm to Food Bank project publishes 2022 year in review report

Friend of the Food Banks signage

As previously reported on the ISTC blog, the Farm to Food Bank program recently developed six case studies highlighting work with farmers during the 2022 growing season. Each case study includes a summary of the project, as well as lessons learned. Pilot project models included food flowing from farm to food bank, farm to food pantry, and utilizing aggregation sites.

Now the program has releasedIllinois Farm to Food Bank Program 2022 Year in Review.” This report outlines all the different pilot projects that occurred in 2022 along with key takeaways. It also details central challenges and opportunities that exist in expanding this statewide program. The report was authored by the ISTC Technical Assistance Program (TAP) Zero Waste Program, in collaboration with Steve Ericson of Feeding Illinois.

Learn more about the Farm to Food Bank project on the TAP website and the Feeding Illinois website. You may view the complete list of Farm to Food Bank project publications on IDEALS.

Farm to Food Bank project publishes case studies highlighting recent collaborations

Peaches in a wooden crate

The Farm to Food Bank project recently published six case studies of their work with farmers during the 2022 growing season. Each case study includes a summary of the project, as well as lessons learned.

The case studies highlight projects with:

During the 2022 growing season, these six partners delivered over 975,000 pounds of surplus and off-grade fresh produce to food banks and pantries throughout Illinois.

Key takeaways

  • Getting an early, off-season start with farmers markets and growers is essential. It allows farmers markets to introduce the program when growers aren’t as busy. It also allows food banks, food pantries, and growers to have conversations about what crops to plant, especially in areas of the state where the communities are diverse and may have preferences for specific types of produce.
  • Using reusable plastic crates prevents both packaging and food waste.
  • Growers can champion the program and recruit other growers.
  • Farmers can be aggregators. Having one farmer handle communications on behalf of several growers makes it easier for food banks to coordinate delivery and receive a variety of products.
  • Pairing farmers new to growing specialty crops with more experienced growers may help overcome challenges to participation.
  • Matching up harvest schedules with food bank pick-up schedules is essential.
  • When partnering growers directly with food pantries, additional considerations include:
    • how close in proximity they are to each other.
    • ensuring that food delivery and distribution schedules are in synch.
    • relying on food pantries to pick up at the farm presents challenges. Pantries often do not have adequate staff, capacity, or access to large vehicles, which means that some food gets left at the farm.

Learn more about the Farm to Food Bank project on the TAP website and at Feeding Illinois and view the complete list of Farm to Food Bank project publications on IDEALS.

Illinois Farm to Food Bank Feasibility Study report now available online

Cover page of Farm to Food Bank report

As reported in previous posts, the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center Technical Assistance Program (TAP) has been collaborating with Feeding Illinois, the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Specialty Growers Association, and other stakeholders to explore ways to reduce food waste from farms while also recovering nutritious fresh foods to increase the state’s food supply and help citizens facing food insecurity.

Recently, project partners released the initial feasibility study report from the first year of this project, entitled Exploring the Development of an Illinois Farm to Food Bank Program. The report is available in IDEALS, the University of Illinois’ institutional repository.

Through interviews, surveys, focus groups, and pilot projects it became clear that a Farm to Food Bank program would be welcomed by both the farming and food banking communities in Illinois. Such programs are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations [at 7 CFR 251.10(j)] as “the harvesting, processing, packaging, or transportation of unharvested, unprocessed, or unpackaged commodities donated by agricultural producers, processors, or distributors for use by Emergency Feeding Organizations (EFOs)” – i.e., hunger relief agencies. Several such programs exist throughout the United States, though not in every state (for examples, see the “Lessons from Other Farm to Food Bank Programs” section of this report). While commonly referred to as Farm to Food Bank, these programs can also operate as Farm to Food Pantry programs.

While this is an ongoing research project, this report serves to demonstrate research efforts undertaken from December 2020 – February 2022 that have led to this conclusion along with identifying strengths, weaknesses, threats, opportunities, and recommendations for a statewide Farm to Food Bank program.

Recommendations for 2022 and beyond include the following:

Three essential aspects of a farm to food bank program1. A Farm to Food Bank program should have three primary goals:
➢ Support farmers by providing a secondary market for off-grade and  surplus products.
➢ Increase access to local, nutritious foods.
➢ Reduce food waste/surplus on farms and associated energy and resources.

2. Equity must be an essential part of the program.
3. Seek out partnerships with existing aggregation and processing centers.
4. Seek out partnerships with new food pantries.
5. Make Feeding Illinois and their member food banks a staple at ag-focused and food access events.
6. Increase communication between food banks.
7. Ensure buy-in from food banks and food pantries.
8. Improve capacity and resources at the food pantries.
9. Connect a Farm to Food Bank program with existing
technology platforms.
10. Diversify funding sources. Develop an advocacy plan to pursue public and private support.
11. Establish an advisory board to guide the actions of the Farm to Food Bank program.
12. Develop guidance and educational programs for farmers.
13. Measure success by more than just pounds of donated food.
14. Hire a dedicated employee to manage the Farm to Food Bank program.
15. Adapt the program as needed.
16. Continue piloting Farm to Food Bank strategies around the state.

While these recommendations can serve to guide Farm to Food Bank efforts, further research is needed to uncover opportunities and test collection and distribution strategies. ISTC and Feeding Illinois will collaborate to continue this research for the remainder of 2022 into 2023. The project team will continue outreach and engagement efforts to both increase participation and gather feedback on the program. They will also continue to work with Rendleman Orchards, which participated in the first pilot project of the study, as well as conducting additional pilot projects. In the coming year, ISTC and Feeding Illinois will also work with farmers markets around the state to test aggregation strategies.

Read more about this project on the “Project Descriptions” section of the TAP website.

Scientists study ways to reduce PPCPs transferred from soils to food plants

Plant growing in soil

The debate continues: how much risk to human health is the transfer of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) through soils to food plants when biosolids, sewage effluents, and animal wastes are applied to fields? As scientists speculate and study the factors that affect risk, researchers at the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center (ISTC) are finding innovative solutions to remove PPCPs before they contaminate the vegetables and fruits we consume.

PPCPs are the chemicals that make up fragrances, cosmetics, over-the-counter drugs, and veterinary medicines. These chemical residues in the environments are considered emerging contaminants because they are not yet regulated by state and federal agencies.

Organic wastes like biosolids, sewage effluent, and animal waste contain PPCP residues. When these are applied to farm fields, some of the chemicals may degrade, while others may transfer from soils to roots of vegetables and fruits, and then possibly accumulate in edible plant tissues.

Field studies have shown that pharmaceutical concentrations in soils were lower than predicted because PPCPs may degrade in soils, latch on to soil particles, or run off/leach into surface and groundwater. Yet continued and long-term application of PPCP-containing biosolids, animal wastes, and wastewater effluents may increase their concentration levels in plants, according to Wei Zheng, ISTC scientist.

“There has been much argument and debate if PPCPs derived from organic waste application in crop fields can cause risks on public health,” Zheng said. “This issue will become even more at the forefront as the use of biosolids and sewage effluents in crop production systems increases. More studies are necessary because PPCPs vary in their toxicity and physicochemical properties in the environment. In particular, the compounds that are highly persistent and toxic will be a concern.”

Zheng reviewed the literature, summarized the research findings, and made recommendations for future research in a recent article published in Current Pollution Reports.

Factors affecting PPCP transfer

In his review, Zheng reiterated that the factors that have the greatest effect on PPCP transfer are the properties of the PPCPs and soils as well as plant species. Plants grown in sandy soils have higher levels of PPCPs than those grown in high organic matter and clay soils. For certain PPCPs that are destroyed in soils, the process breaks down the original compound into metabolites that may be more toxic and mobile. Metabolites with lower molecular weights could be taken up by plant roots more readily.

Studies have also found that leafy vegetables, such as lettuce and cabbage, tend to have a higher potential to take in PPCPs than root vegetables. Furthermore, certain chemicals accumulate in the roots and have little effect on human health, while others can be transferred to leaves. Further research is needed to develop thresholds for accumulations of PPCPs in food crops when biosolids, effluents, and animal manure are used on fields.

Mitigation efforts

At ISTC, Wei and colleagues are studying several technologies to remove PPCPs, either before they reach the soils or after sewage waste application. The study is being supported by a project funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In the project, Wei is studying the feasibility of using inexpensive oils to capture hydrophobic PPCPs from wastewater effluents. The treatment, which would be used at water treatment plants, is especially low cost when applying used cooking oils, such as those from restaurants.

One advantage of this process is that oils remove PPCPs from rural sewage water while leaving behind the nutrients that fertilize crops. After capturing PPCPs, the spent oils can be used as fuel for diesel engines. The process can eliminate the captured contaminants.

Carbon-rich biochar produced from forest and agricultural residues can be used as a filter to absorb PPCPs from sewage water.  Biochar can also be directly applied to soils.

Studies found that the average PPCP concentrations in lettuce leaves decreased by 23 to 55 percent when biochar was used in the soil compared with the soils without biochar. Biochar can also be composted with solid waste to immobilize PPCPs and reduce their transfer in soil-plant systems.

In the USDA project, scientists will conduct laboratory, field, and numerical modeling studies to better understand the transfer of PPCPs to crops when rural sewage effluents are applied to agricultural lands. The results will help federal and state agencies and farmers evaluate their current nutrient management and nontraditional water-use practices, inform science-based regulatory programs, and suggest best management strategies to minimize risks and promote the safe and beneficial use of nontraditional water in agriculture.


Media contact: Wei Zheng, 217-333-7276, weizheng@illinois.edu
news@prairie.illinois.edu

This story originally appeared on the PRI News Blog. Read the original story.

DOE publishes survey of U.S. federal and state-level solar system decommissioning policies

DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently published A Survey of Federal and State-Level Solar System Decommissioning Policies in the United States. ISTC’s Jennifer Martin was one of the report’s peer reviewers.

The report provides a survey and brief overview of both Bureau of LM and U.S. statewide solar decommissioning policies, and a discussion of some of the potential impacts different policy designs may have on utility-scale solar development, including impacts that might influence construction timelines and over project costs.

Read the full report on the NREL website.

US EPA releases report on environmental impacts of US food waste

EPA infographic on environmental impacts of US food waste
Image from US EPA Office of Research and Development.

On November 30, 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new report entitled “From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste (Part 1).”

This report reveals the climate and environmental impacts of producing, processing, distributing, and retailing food that is ultimately wasted and projects the environmental benefits of meeting the US goal to prevent 50 percent of food waste by 2030. The report was prepared to inform domestic policymakers, researchers, and the public, and focuses primarily on five inputs to the US cradle-to-consumer food supply chain — agricultural land use, water use, application of pesticides and fertilizers, and energy use — plus one environmental impact — greenhouse gas emissions.

This report provides estimates of the environmental footprint of current levels of food loss and waste to assist stakeholders in clearly communicating the significance; decision-making among competing environmental priorities; and designing tailored reduction strategies that maximize environmental benefits. The report also identifies key knowledge gaps where new research could improve our understanding of US food loss and waste and help shape successful strategies to reduce its environmental impact.

The new report reveals that each year, the resources attributed to US food loss and waste are equivalent to:

  • 140 million acres agricultural land – an area the size of California and New York combined;
  • 5.9 trillion gallons blue water – equal to the annual water use of 50 million American homes;
  • 778 million pounds pesticides;
  • 14 billion pounds fertilizer – enough to grow all the plant-based foods produced each year in the United States for domestic consumption;
  • 664 billion kWh energy – enough to power more than 50 million US homes for a year; and
  • 170 million MTCO2e greenhouse gas emissions (excluding landfill emissions) – equal to the annual CO2 emissions of 42 coal-fired power plants

In short, significant resources go into growing, processing, packaging, storing, and distributing food. Thus, the most important action we can take to reduce the environmental impacts of uneaten food is to prevent that food from becoming waste in the first place.

A companion report, “The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste: Part 2,” will examine and compare the environmental impacts of a range of management pathways for food waste, such as landfilling, composting, and anaerobic digestion. EPA plans to complete and release this second report in Spring 2022. Together, these two reports will encompass the net environmental footprint of US food loss and waste.

Read the full report at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/from-farm-to-kitchen-the-environmental-impacts-of-u.s.-food-waste_508-tagged.pdf.  (PDF document, 113 pages)

For questions, contact Shannon Kenny, Senior Advisor, Food Loss and Food Waste, US EPA Office of Research and Development.