sign in sign up
<<
Home , Engineered wood, Forest

San Francisco Urban Re-Use Study

Presidio Graduate School Jonathan Dirrenberger Cheryl Dorsey Ryan Miller Sonja O’Claire

Agenda • Presidio Team • Project Scope • Methodology • Case Studies • Current State of Re-Use • Stakeholders • EOL Wood Products • Recommendations • Barriers to Implementation

Presidio Team

• Presidio Graduate School MBA candidates • Experiential learning project for Operations and Production course • Study produced for SF Planning Department

Project Scope

• Current wood waste processes • Street (DPW) • Park Trees (RPD) • Case studies • Evaluate EOL processes • Make recommendations for a future wood re-use program

Methodology

• Stakeholder meetings • Facility tours • Phone interviews • Demand forecast • Value analysis

Case Studies

• Sacramento, CA • Olympia, WA • Cincinnati, OH

Current State of Re-Use • DPW (Street Trees) • Hauls to Recology • RPD (Park Trees) • Chips, and composts all waste on-site • Some logs used in parks • 100% re-use rate • is not a current end product • Estimated 10-20% of removed trees are of lumber quality

Stakeholders Urban Tree EOL Wood Products

• Logs • Lumber • Wood Chips • Mulch

IncreasedProcessing • Compost • Hog Fuel • • Products • •

Immature Mature Debarking and Tree Growth Tree Removal Logs Storage Transport Tree Tree Chipping

Storage Storage

Pruned and Tree Sawmilling Rough Cutting Wood Chips Tree Binders

Tree and Wood Barriers, Engineered Transport Storage Lumber Wood Debris Pyrolysis Fermentation Pulping Debris Benches, etc.

Landfill Chipping or Non-Tree Bio-oil and Cellulosic Paper Engineered F/E Biochar Waste Grinding Wood Waste Syngas Ethanol Products Wood

Mixed Contaminated Storage Transport Wood Chips Wood Chips†

Wood Chip Overs Hog Fuel Screening Process Diagram for San Francisco

Manure or Wood Chips Sand Fines Storage Other Applications Waste (Accepts) Urban Tree Wood Re-Use

Storage Storage • Ovals indicate processes • Rectangles indicate materials Composting Mulching • Yellow indicates relevant EOL wood products • Abbreviations: GHG = greenhouse gas emissions

Seed and P = pollution Other Applications Storage Compost Mulch Storage Other Applications F/E = fuel and/or

Storage Storage • Dashed lines indicate processes and materials not recommended but shown for completeness Planting & • Transport process indicates transport out of the Sapling Growth city (transport within the city is not shown) † Contaminated wood contains toxic chemicals (, waterproofing chemicals, chemicals to Sapling prevent rot, etc.) and is thus only suitable as hog fuel. This normally only occurs when non-tree wood waste is used. Defining Value of EOL Wood • Minimize GHG emissions and pollution • Minimize landfill • Keep local • Reduce costs • Raise awareness • Optional: obtain revenue

Lee, C., Erickson, P., Lazarus, M., & Smith, G. (2010). Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions of Alternatives for Woody Residues, Final Draft Version 2.0. Stockholm Environment Institute Lee, C., Erickson, P., Lazarus, M., & Smith, G. (2010). Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions of Alternatives for Woody Biomass Residues, Final Draft Version 2.0. Stockholm Environment Institute Best Options • Priority • Lumber & Logs • ~10-20% of removed trees • Secondary • Wood chips, mulch, and compost • ~70-80% of removed trees • Last resort • Hog fuel • ~10% of removed trees • Future • Biochar • More research needed

Demand & Financial Value - 2014 Demand & Financial Value - 2034 Key Recommendations 1) DPW process and store wood chips, mulch, and compost 2) The City develop program to harvest lumber • Short term: pilot for rough sawn program • Long term: rough and finished lumber 3) DPW & RPD share

Secondary Recommendations

A. Improve data collection

B. Pre-empt possible public disapproval Barriers to Implementation

• Funding

• Legal & policy barriers

• Public opinion Thank you!