Food Service Operations

Most locations where large numbers of people assemble have food-service facili-
ties. Restaurants and pastry/doughnut shops are obvious members of this category. Food ser-
Most schools, hospitals, hotels, service stations with stores, and convenience vice op-
stores have food-service operations. Larger office buildings, factories, and insti- erations
tutional facilities provide food service of some type to their employees. Because are found
food-service facilities are characterized by many kinds of water uses and high en-
in many
ergy and water consumption, they are prime targets for incentives or requirements
for water-efficient equipment, both for new construction and for retrofit of exist- businesses
ing facilities. This report focuses on efficient equipment that should be required or and insti-
at least considered for new construction. tutions,
including
Water-using technologies that have specific potential for water conservation hospitals,
include:
schools,
Refrigeration Equipment hotels,
• Refrigerators and freezers
• Ice-making machines conve-
nience
Cooking and Food-Service Equipment stores,
• Steam tables specialty
• Steam kettles shops,
• Pasta cookers grocery
• Steamers
stores,
• Combination ovens (a new product in development)
• Dipper wells office build-
• Woks ings, and,
of course,
Scullery Operations restaurants.
• Garbage disposers
• Pre-rinse spray valves
• Dishwashers

Washing and Sanitation

• Floor washing
• Hood washing

Refrigeration Equipment

Refrigerators and Freezers

Refrigeration includes both coolers and freezers used to preserve food. Three ma-
jor considerations for minimizing water use in refrigeration operations are:

FOOD1
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook
• having adequate refrigeration equipment to minimize the need for thawing food under flowing
water
• eliminating once-through cooling
• encouraging air-cooling, especially with remote (outside) compressors that exhaust waste heat
outside the building

Description of End Use

Potential water savings from refrigeration equipment fall into three categories:
• sizing refrigerators to provide adequate capacity for thawing frozen food. The California Uni-
form Retail Food Facilities Law requires that food be defrosted in a refrigerator or be thawed
under constantly flowing water that remains below 75o F. Thawing under flowing water is
always wasteful and should be avoided whenever possible by designing for adequate refrigera-
tion equipment to be installed in food-service facilities.
• eliminating once-through or pass-though water-cooling by installing air-cooled equipment.
Reach-in refrigeration equipment (smaller display cases, glass- and solid-door coolers, etc.)
is almost exclusively air-cooled, but large walk-in units and large display cases can be either
air- or water-cooled. Some facilities use recirculating cooling water from either a chilled-water
loop or a cooling tower. Although more efficient than once-through cooling, it is usually less
economical than air-cooling.
• air-cooling, especially with remote (outside) compressors that exhaust waste heat outside the
building, not into the working space. Energy use for air-cooled equipment is primarily a func-
tion of the size and capacity of the refrigerator or freezer, combined with the energy efficiency
of the equipment.

Water-Savings Potential
Water savings from installing adequate refrigeration varies greatly. Some restaurants can use thousands
of gallons a day thawing food under running water in a sink. The typical kitchen faucet turned on half
way has a flow rate of about 3.0 gpm and may be left on for an hour or more a day for thawing. Using
equipment with once-through cooling saves approximately 145 gallons per ton hour. A three-ton refrig-
erator uses 5,000 gallons of water a day for once-through cooling.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Example: Thawing under water in a sink versus extra refrigeration space.
• Equipment capital costs: $27 per cubic foot.
• Estimated equipment life: 8 years (Nadel, 2002).
• Water and energy savings: Compare the cost of water and wastewater used to thaw in a sink
with the cost of purchasing and maintaining extra refrigeration space. Three faucets flowing at
3.0 gpm, used one hour each day, consume 200,000 gallons a year. The combined water and
sewer cost savings equals $1,400 a year.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The average operating cost of refrigeration is ap-
proximately $7.50 per cubic foot (for solid doors, Energy Star). The PV of the operating savings
and amortized capital costs justify purchasing an additional 121 cubic feet of refrigeration. This
change would save 0.6 AF of water per year at no additional cost.

Example: Once-through water-cooled vs. air-cooled.

• Equipment capital costs: The incremental cost for a water-cooled unit versus a remote-head
unit is $2,000 for even the largest units.
• Estimated equipment life: 10 years (Energy Star).

FOOD2
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations

• Water and energy savings: An air-cooled unit uses 145 gallons of water per ton-hour, at a cost
of $1.00 per ton-hour. A water-cooled three-ton refrigeration unit working 4,000 hours a year
would use 1.74 million gallons a year (5.4 AF), for an annual water and wastewater cost of
$12,400. The additional energy cost for an air-cooled unit would be $300 a year.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The simple payback for the additional capital
costs of a remote-head unit would be two months. The positive benefit per AF is $1,900.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Provide adequate refrigerator space for thawing food.
• Choose energy-efficient equipment.
• Prohibit once-through cooling with potable water.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Choose air-cooling rather than recirculating cooling-water systems.
• Follow requirements in the cooling tower section of this report.

Ice-Making Machines

Description of End Use

Ice makers are an extension of the refrigeration-equipment category, but unique in many ways. As with
refrigeration, both water-cooled and air-cooled equipment are available, with air-cooled being much
more water-efficient. There are two basic types of commercial ice equipment: flake-ice and cube-ice
machines. Ice-making machines are rated by the hundreds of pounds of ice the machine can make per
day. One hundred pounds of ice is equal to 12 gallons of water, but actual water use depends upon the
efficiency of the particular machine. Many local utilities in California provide rebates for efficient ice
machines.

Flake-ice machines, including the new nugget machines, are the most energy- and water-efficient equip-
ment available. Nugget machines press flake ice into a small cylindrical shape. Flake ice is crunchy and
tends to melt quickly in drinks; it is often used to ice down food in serving lines. Nugget ice melts more
slowly, can be used in most drink applications, and is increasingly being used instead of cube ice. Nug-
get ice is appealing in soda-fountain drinks, since the whole nugget becomes flavored with the soda and
is easy to chew.

Cube-ice machines produce clear cubes of ice by washing the cubes as they freeze, so any minerals that
may precipitate on the forming cubes are washed away. Cube-ice machines are the most common com-
mercial ice-making equipment.

According to the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), hospitals account for 39.4 percent of all
commercial ice-maker purchases, followed by hotels (22.3 percent), restaurants (13.8 percent), retail
outlets (8.5 percent), schools (8.5 percent), offices (4.3 percent), and grocery stores (3.2 percent).

Water-Savings Potential
Flake/nugget machines purge the cylindrical tubes with water two or three times a day to flush out any
precipitated minerals, using 10 to 30 gallons each time. It takes 20 gallons of water to make 100 pounds
of flake/nugget ice. Cube machines use water to wash the cubes so they are crystal clear, increasing
water use to 30 or more gallons per 100 pounds of ice in some cases. Water-cooled units use from 72
to 240 gallons of water for every hundred pounds (12 gallons) of ice produced. Once-through systems
simply dump this water into the sanitary sewer.
FOOD3
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook

The USEPA’s Energy Star program has published standards for cube-making ice machine equipment.
These standards do not yet include flake and nugget machines. Once separate flake and nugget ice ma-
chine standards are developed, they should be followed also. In the interim, the Food Service Technol-
ogy Center has published a list of qualifying ice machines that include both cube-making and flake and
nugget ice machines.

When cube-making ice machines are installed, the installer will set the purge rate, the rate at which
water flows over the ice plate surface to remove precipitating minerals. Having the installer set this rate
to the lowest level possible will also save water.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Example: 700-pound air-cooled vs. water-cooled ice machines:
• Equipment capital costs: $1,000 additional for an air-cooled unit.
• Estimated equipment life: 7 years, depending on usage.
• Water and energy savings: An air-cooled machine producing 700 pounds of ice per day will
save 1,350 gallons per day versus a water-cooled machine. The net annual operating cost
savings is $1,600 to $2,300 for an air-cooled versus a water-cooled machine, depending upon
the air-cooled configuration. Simple payback for selecting an air-cooled machine is 12 months.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The savings is 10.2 to 10.7 AF over the life of
the machine. The net PV of the operating savings is $12,100 for an air-cooled unit in air-con-
ditioned space and $9,200 for a remote-head. The positive benefit ranges from $880 to $1,180
per AF.

Example: 700-pound nugget/flake-ice versus a cube-ice machine:

• Equipment capital costs: Flake- and nugget-ice machines cost from $500 to $1,200 more,
depending upon size, due to the cost of a mechanical auger, which removes the flakes of ice
from the tubes surrounded by liquid refrigerant.
• Estimated equipment life: 6 years.
• Water and energy savings: Compared with cube machines, air-cooled flake-ice machines re-
duce water use by about 15 gallons and electricity use by a kilowatt hour for every 100 pounds
of ice made. An air-cooled flake machine that makes 700 pounds of ice daily will use 105
gallons and 7.0 kilowatt hours (kWh) a day fewer than a cube machine. In a year, this equals
38,000 gallons and 2,555 kilowatt hours, resulting in an annual operating savings of $475 per
year. The simple payback is five months.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The savings will be 0.7 AF over the life of the
equipment. There is a positive PV benefit of $1,800 per AF.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Prohibit once-through water-cooled ice makers.
• Cube-ice machines must meet USEPA Energy Star standards for cube-ice machines. Consider
requiring Tier 3 (CEE Commercial Kitchens).
• Nugget- and flake-making ice machines should be selected from the Food Service Technology
Center list of qualifying ice machines.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Ensure that installers set the amount of purge water to the lowest level possible for the quality
of water being used.

FOOD4
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations

• Choose energy-efficient flake or nugget machines rather than cube machines. Nugget machines
should be adequate for most restaurant and food-service operations, as well as for drinks in con-
venience stores.
• Mount compressor units outside so rejected heat is not dumped into work or living spaces.
“Remote-head” is the term used to describe these outside units.
• Prefer air-cooled units to those using a cooling-tower loop, which increases water use by
evaporating 7 to 9 gallons of water per 100 pounds of ice made.

Cooking and Food-Service Equipment

Steam Tables

Description of End Use

Steam tables, used to keep food hot while serving, are filled with water and heated to keep the food at
140o F or higher (California Uniform Retail Service Law). At the end of the day, they are drained. The
major consideration regarding water efficiency is whether a steam table is actually needed. Though in-
dispensable in large cafeterias and many institutional settings, they are not needed in every food-service
operation. Some tables have both wet and dry options, and others use direct-heating equipment, such as
electrically heated serving wells, which use no water at all;

Water-Savings Potential
Steam tables require 20 to 100 gallons of water or more per day, depending upon their design and size.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Steam table prices range from a few hundred to $4,000, depending upon size and capacity. The deci-
sion, in terms of water use, is whether a steam table is needed.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• None
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• For smaller applications, choose dry heating tables that use no water.
• Prefer non-water-using equipment to steam tables, if feasible.
• Use hot water from the steam table for end-of-day mopping.

Steam Kettles

Description of End Use

Steam kettles are often selected for use in large facilities because, as with steam tables, temperatures can
be more easily controlled, thereby preventing scorching the food. They should be installed only where
large-volume food preparation justifies this water and energy use. Some steam kettles have their own
heat source, but where a central boiler is used to supply the steam, the condensate should be returned to
the boiler for reuse. Stand-alone steam kettles, which can use either electricity or gas as a heat source
and do not require a separate boiler, are the most common type found in restaurants. Large steam kettles
are more commonly found in institutional settings.

FOOD5
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook

Water-Savings Potential
The major water-savings potential for steam kettles is for the condensate to be retained and returned to
the boiler, if such a system is used.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: Steam traps and condensate return are the only water-saving features
available. Condensate return systems cost about $3,000. There is a one-time cost for piping.
• Estimated equipment life: Assume 10 years.
• Water and energy savings: The type of steamer used depends upon the availability of a com-
mercial boiler to produce steam. For example, a 40-gallon kettle using steam at 30 pounds
per square inch of pressure will use 214 pounds (25.7 gallons of water) an hour. Operating
12 hours a day, it would dump 308 gallons of water at 212o F. In a year it would consume 133
Mcf (thousand cubic feet) of gas and 113,000 gallons of water, which could cost as much as
$2,000 a year (Bowser). Assuming a 20 percent blowdown rate and 30 percent energy savings
from recirculating heated water, the annual water and energy cost savings is $1,000. The net
PV of the incremental cost and water and energy saving is $4,800.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The recirculating system will save 0.35 AF
per year at a net PV positive cost of $1400 per AF.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Return condensate for all boiler-type kettles.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Size steam traps to operate properly and not inadvertently dump condensate.
• Insulate condensate-return lines.

Pasta Cookers

Pasta cookers look much like fryers, but are used to heat and boil water in-
stead of oil. Strainer baskets, similar to those used in fryers, hold the pasta.
Pasta cookers have an overflow to skim off foam and either a manual or au-
tomatic fill valve. While in full operation, the fill valve is opened slightly to
add fresh water. This helps reduce evaporation that occurs during a rolling
boil. Many pasta cookers can be put into a standby or simmer mode when
not in active use. Steam kettles and pots on the stove are the alternatives
to this equipment. Source: Cleveland

Water-Savings Potential
Pasta cookers can be made more water-efficient by using automatic control valves to minimize over-
flow during the cooking process. The valves should shut off when the cooker is in simmer mode. Pasta
cookers need not be completely refilled with water regularly, like a pot on a stove, so they can save
some water, so long as the overflow is properly controlled.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: N/A
• Estimated equipment life: N/A
• Water and energy savings: Costs for all of the above are similarWater and energy savings
depend more upon how they are operated than on the types of controls installed. Having auto-

FOOD6
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations

matic overflow controls provides the opportunity to use the equipment

more efficiently.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: N/A

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Require pasta cookers to have a simmer mode.
• Require automatic overflow controls.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Minimize overflow by restricting flow to one-half gpm.

Steamers

Description of End Use

Steamers are used to cook food with steam. There are two basic types. The first uses a boiler. Water is
turned into steam and the left-over steam is vented. These systems require both water and wastewater
connections. Water is continuously flushed through the boiler to prevent scale buildup. The boiler must
be de-limed on a regular basis.

The second type is the connectionless steamer. It heats water in a reservoir at the bottom of the steamer,
and the steam produced is recondensed and returned to that reservoir. These systems do not require wa-
ter and wastewater connections. Boiler de-liming is not needed since there is no boiler. At the end of the
day the reservoir is simply wiped out with a cloth soaked in vinegar.

Other boilerless systems do have water connections. One refills the reservoir as needed and does not
dump water; its water efficiency is similar to the connectionless steamer. Another, just like the boiler
type, dumps water, requires both water and sewer connections, and has similar water and energy use
characteristics.

Water-Savings Potential
Both water and energy consumption vary significantly by steamer type. In a recent study, boiler steam-
ers averaged over 450 gallons of water and 89 kWh a day, while comparable boilerless steamers used
only 14 gallons and 17 kWh a day. Connectionless steamers use approximately 3 gallons of water per
hour of operation, while boiler types use 40 gph or more (Fisher-Nickle).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: The costs of connectionless and boiler steamers vary little. However,
boiler steamers must have both water and sewer hookups and a reduced-pressure zone (RPZ)
backflow preventer, which can add several thousand dollars to the total cost. In addition, the
backflow preventer must be tested annually.
• Estimated equipment life:
• Water and energy savings: The cost of operating a boiler steamer is substantially higher for
both water and energy. Water consumption is about 175,000 gallons per year, compared with
13,000 for a connectionless steamer (Fisher Nickle). Water savings is 0.5 AF per year. Energy
usage is almost four times that of a boiler steamer. Annual savings in operating cost is $1,800
for the water and energy, after deducting the annual testing cost for an RPZ.

FOOD7
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: After deducting the cost of the RPZ, the sav-
ings is $2,600 per AF.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• All steamers must be either connectionless or boilerless and consume no more than three gph.

Combination Ovens

Description of End Use

Combination ovens help keep food from drying out while baking or roasting. Both gas and electric mod-
els are available in several configurations. One has a boiler that produces steam which is injected into
the oven chamber. Others achieve high humidity with sprays, and some models have closed systems that
recondense steam to achieve higher energy and water savings (Alto–Shaam). The cooking capacity of a
typical oven is significant. One six-pan model can cook as many as 32 chickens at a time (Sorensen).

Water-Savings Potential
A heavily used ten-pan boiler combination oven can consume 30 to 40 gallons of water per hour, while
a boilerless misting oven uses only 10 to 15, resulting in an annual savings greater than 110,000 gallons
(Reed).

Gas and electric combination ovens vary widely in energy efficiency. Some models are 40 to 60 percent
more energy efficient than their conventional counterparts. Inefficient models consume 360 to 480 gpd,
while efficient models use only 120 to 180 gpd.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: Combination ovens are expensive; small units start in the $10,000
range, while larger units can cost as much as $50,000. Energy Star examples show prices for
larger, more-efficient equipment to be approximately $8,400 higher than for conventional
models.
• Estimated equipment life: 10 years.
• Water and energy savings: The energy savings is 12,450 kWh per year in this example. Com-
bine this with an estimated savings of 130,000 gallons of water per year, and the annual oper-
ating savings is $1,700. Over the life of the equipment, this saves $17,000 in energy costs and
4 AF of water (Energy Star).
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: When both energy and water savings are con-
sidered, the net benefit to the customer is $1,360 per AF or a total of $5,500.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Combination ovens must use no more than 15 gph.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• All combination ovens should comply with the rebate list prepared by Fisher Nickel for energy
rebates in California (www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/rebates/combis/combis.pdf).

Dipper Wells
Dipper wells are used for applications such as rinsing ice-cream scoops on the serving line. Most have a
single faucet or spigot and can be supplied with either hot or cold water.

FOOD8
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations

Water-Savings Potential
The faucet or valve can be adjusted by the server. Typical flow rates are 0.5 to 1.0 gpm. For smaller
dipper wells, a flow rate of 0.25 gpm should be adequate. In-line flow restrictors can be installed on the
supply line to the dipper well. These can be set at the minimum adequate flow and locked so that em-
ployees cannot increase flow.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: N/A
• Estimated equipment life: N/A
• Water and energy savings: As many as several hundred gpd.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: N/A

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• In-line restrictors that reduce flow to under 0.3 gpm.

Woks

Wok stoves commonly used in oriental restaurants rely on a constant flow of water over the surface
of the stove to keep it cool for the comfort of the cook. Efforts are underway in Australia to develop a
“waterless wok” which employs better insulation and air cooling. For new construction, the waterless
wok should be used as soon as it becomes available (Sydney, 2005). As of 2007, waterless woks can be
ordered from Australia, but most American kitchen appliance dealers were unaware of them when called
in a November 2007 survey.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: N/A
• Estimated equipment life: N/A
• Water and energy savings: N/A
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: N/A

Scullery Operations
Garbage Disposers

The process of scraping dishes and disposing of waste prior to dishwashing can use from zero to very
large quantities of water and energy, depending upon the design of the equipment selected. Commonly
found equipment includes garbage disposers, sluice troughs, and pulpers.

Garbage disposers grind food and other items that enter the grinder and send them down the sewer. This
waste material adds to the solids and grease entering the sewer and the grease trap. If a grinder is used, it
should be equipped with a solenoid to shut off the flow of water when not needed.

Sluice troughs are usually built into the stainless-steel table systems. Water flows continuously into the
top end of the trough at 5 to 15 gpm and flushes food waste from pots, pans, dishes, etc. into a garbage
disposer. Large flows of water are required. A variation of this is the recirculating system that passes the
waste through a grinder, strains out the solids for flushing down the drain, and returns the water to the

FOOD9
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook
sluice trough to flush down more waste. These systems use only two to three gallons of make-up water a
minute, but are expensive.

Pulpers strain the solids from the grinder waste stream and compact them to make disposal more con-
venient. These systems have the advantage of removing solid waste, fats, oils, greases, and other com-
ponents from the wastewater. According to manufacturers’ literature, they can also recirculate up to 75
percent of the water to the head of a sluice-trough system, as described above.

The main consideration with any of this equipment is whether it is needed in the first place. Many res-
taurants and food-service establishments are eliminating garbage disposers from their design, in favor of
more thorough scraping into garbage cans and the use of strainers or “scrapper baskets” to collect food
solids for solid-waste disposal. In a typical operation, upwards of 80 percent of solids are already col-
lected in the solid-waste disposal system. Some restaurants, however, may still prefer to have a garbage
disposer. In these cases, disposers should be linked to pulpers, recirculating trough-collection systems,
and related systems that use no more than 2 gpm of fresh water, or systems with a load-sensing device
that regulates the water use to 1 gpm in a no-load situation and 8 gpm in a full-load situation. Only cold
water should be supplied to the disposer, and a 15-minute shutoff timer should be installed.

Water-Savings Potential
Strainer (scrapper) baskets can eliminate the energy and water associated with grinders, pulpers, and
related systems, saving as many as 1,000 gpd, depending upon the grinder’s size and hours of use. A
typical grinder in a restaurant or food-service setting has a 2- to 8-horsepower (hp) motor and a water-
flow rate of 5 to 10 gpm. Some food-service operations report using their grinders 2 to 3 hours a day.
Water-saver kits can cut grinder water-use in half. The Aqua Saver grinder reports to tailor energy and
water use to the load. It costs several thousand dollars, but can reportedly cut water use by up to 70
percent. Another major savings realized by installing a scrapper or strainer system is that grease traps
do not need to be pumped as often, and greases, solids, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load-
ings are reduced at wastewater treatment plants.

Where a food-service or restaurant operation may deem it necessary to install a garbage-grinder-type

system, the following guidelines should be followed:
• Use cold water — common code requirement.
• Equip the system with a load-sensing device that regulates the water use to 1 gpm in a no-load
situation and 8 gpm in a full-load situation, or use a pulper or trough system with a make-up
rate of no more than 2 gpm of fresh water.
• Employ a time shutoff — after 15 minutes (option: after 15 minutes of idle use or no-load) the
operator must push a button to reactivate.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Example: Strainer system versus a scrap basket
Grinders cost from a few hundred to over $3,000. Huge savings are possible if a strainer system is
used. Strainer-basket systems often eliminate pretreatment charges for grease and suspended solids,
and grease traps do not have to be pumped as often.
• Equipment capital costs: For this example, the capital cost for a 4 hp grinder is $750. Pulper
systems, recirculating sluice troughs, and similar equipment cost over $10,000. Additional
equipment can be added to grinders that adjust water flow to the load, but they cost several
thousand dollars, while strainer baskets cost about $350 and eliminate energy and water use.
• Estimated equipment life: One scrap basket should have a life equal to two grinders: 10 years
for a scrap basket; 5 years for a grinder.

FOOD10
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations
• Water and energy savings: Estimating 3 hours of operation a day, 365 days a year, with water
running at 6 gpm, daily use would be 1,080 gallons and 9 kWh. Potential annual water savings
are 395,000 gallons or 1.2 AF and 3300 kWh. Personnel costs of approximately $1,600 per
year for emptying the scrap basket into a dumpster may be absorbed by existing personnel.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The benefit over the life of the scrap basket is
$1,600 per AF.

For savings related to the use of pulpers or trough-recirculation systems using no more than 2 gpm,
information and calculators are available on manufacturers’ web sites such as www.salvajor.com/
troughCollector.aspxas or www.insinkerator.com/foodservice/aquasaver.php and related systems.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Use strainer (scrapper) baskets in place of grinders.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• If a water-using grinder is selected, install a water-saver kit or choose a grinder that tailors the
water use to the load.
• Use a trough or pulper system that uses no more than 2 gpm of fresh water.
• Supply only cold water to such systems and install a timer to shut the system down after 15
minutes of operation or no-load, so that it requires the user to reactivate the system.

Pre-Rinse Spray Valves

Description of End Use

Pre-rinse spray valves are used to spray dishes and cooking ware prior to placement in a dish washer.
The spray knocks off solid food and rinses soluble residues down the drain or into the garbage grinder,
usually after the items have been placed in a holding rack that can be inserted into the dish washer. Prior
to 2006, there were no restrictions on spray-valve flow rates. The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005
now restricts flow rates to 1.6 gpm, however, unlike the California Energy Commission standard, the
Federal standard does not include cleanability criteria. The spray-valve replacement program in Califor-
nia used valves that met ASTM test standards F2324-03 for flow and cleanability.

Spray valves now becoming available could reduce flow rates to as low as 1.3 gpm and achieve
cleanability standards. Since 1.6 gpm is now the standard, new facilities will benefit from these savings.
Additional information on spray valves, including the new 1.3 gpm models, can be found at both www.
fishnick.com and www.EnergyStar.gov.

As a word of caution, some restaurants have been observed using equipment other than pre-rinse spray
valves for spray cleaning, for example, garden hoses and garden-hose sprayers, which may use in excess
of 7 gpm. To avoid this, pre-rinse spray valves should be required.

Water-Savings Potential
Since the national standard is now 1.6 gpm, all new facilities will have the more efficient spray valve.
New spray valves are now on the market that reduce water use to as low as 1.3 gpm and still pass the
ASTM standards F2324-03. The new lower-flow spray valves should be field tested before they are
mandated. Since hot water is used, the new valve consumes both energy and water. In a very-large res-
taurant serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner, such a valve may have as many as four hours of continuous
use. Studies done by the California Urban Water Conservation Council show that average savings in a

FOOD11
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook
restaurant are 137 gpd and 0.93 therms for gas hot-water heating per day. If a garden-hose sprayer were
used instead, additional water consumption could be as much as 5.0 gpm or 1,000 gpd.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: N/A.
• Estimated equipment life: 5 years.
• Water and energy savings: Both water and energy savings accrue. When compared with older
devices no longer allowed, the savings is approximately 137 gpd. The 1.3 gpm valves would
reduce water use by another 15 to 20 percent.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: N/A.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Use pre-rinse spray valves for dish rinsing.
• Require pre-rinse spray valves that use less than 1.6 gallons per minute.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Conduct a test program of the 1.3 gpm pre-rinse spray valves to determine their acceptability
and performance.
• If test results are acceptable, offer incentives for installation of the 1.3 gpm spray valves.

Dishwashers

Description of End Use

Commercial dishwashers are very different from those found in homes. Residential dishwashers use 3
to 10 gallons per load, and the wash cycle lasts for half an hour or more. Commercial dishwasher run
times are typically 1 to 3 minutes, and one machine may wash hundreds of loads per day. The majority
of smaller commercial machines are leased by the companies that supply chemicals and detergent to the
market; these machines tend to be less efficient. Three technical variations make a significant difference:
• The first variation is whether the machine saves water from the last wash to use in the next
load or is a fill-and-dump machine that dumps all of its water after each load. Fill and dump
machines are inherently inefficient.
• The second variation is how dishes are sanitized. One of the types most commonly found in
small restaurants is the chemical machine, which typically uses a chlorine-based disinfectant.
The other is the high-temperature machine, which uses 180o F water for sanitation and uses a
booster heater to achieve these high temperatures. Chemical machines tend to use more water.
Based upon information from the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and studies by the
Food Service Technology Center and the CEE, hot-water sanitation machines use less water
than chemical-sanitation equipment of the same capacity and type. This is borne out by the
new set of commercial dishwasher standards set by the USEPA’s Energy Star program, which
lists both energy and water-use standards for all but flight-type dishwashers. An independent
study of flight-type machines found in the NSF data base, done for this publication, indicates
that maximum water use should not exceed 185 gph.
• The third variation has to do with the basic design of the washer.
»» Under-the-counter dishwashers are commonly found in bars, where only glassware is
washed, or in small restaurants serving fewer than 60 people a day. They cost $3,500 to
$4,000 each.
»» With the door-type machine, a rack of dishes is hand-loaded into the machine, and the
cycle is started by hand. These are primarily found in restaurants that serve fewer than
150 customers a day. The cost can range from $4,000 to $10,000.

FOOD12
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations
»» The C-Line or conveyor pulls the rack of dishes through the washer and pushes the clean
rack out the other side. Larger restaurants serving between 150 and 300 people a day
commonly use these, which cost from $12,000 to $50,000 per machine.
»» Flight machines are designed for service to many hundreds or even thousands of people
per day and are typically found in large institutional facilities, hospitals, and large hotels
with banquet facilities. Their costs range from $50,000 to well over $100,000.

CEE Commercial Kitchens preliminary annual sales data show about 65 percent of machines are door-
type, 12 percent under-the-counter, 18 percent C-Line (conveyor), and 5 percent flight machines. Many
door and C-Line machines are rented from companies that also supply the chemicals needed for the
dishwashers. Rental costs depend upon how the chemicals are sold in the contract, but for a typical door
machine, rents range from $80-$100 per month, while C-Line machine rents are $200 a month. The
food-service-facility owner who rents has less opportunity to choose higher-efficiency equipment.

Dishwashing machines have variable lifespans. Door and C-Line machines typically function 7 to 10
years, while flight machines can last 15 or more. However, the rebuild and refurbish market for this
equipment is enormous, with many new restaurants purchasing older, less-efficient rebuilt equipment.

C-Line conveyor and flight dishwashers can be equipped with electronic sensors and door switches to
stop water flow when the machine is not washing dishes. Steam doors can reduce evaporation by up to
40 percent.

Water-Savings Potential
It is not uncommon for a C-line machine to wash 500 loads a day. Therefore, even a small increase in
efficiency can make a big difference. NSF International data show water-use rates ranging from 72 to
852 gph, with the median use for all makes and models being about 280 gph. For other machines, the
difference in water use is about 2 gallons per rack. Savings are based upon the number of racks washed
per day. Savings realized by choosing an efficient door or conveyor model may range from hundreds to
thousands of gpd, depending upon size and usage. Median use for door machines is about 1.5 gallons
per rack and, for conveyors, about 1.2 gallons per rack.

The restaurant industry makes extensive use of refurbished dishwashers. Many of these older refur-
bished models are far from water-efficient. When purchasing or leasing any ware-washing equipment,
ensure that it meets both energy- and water-saving standards.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Example: C-Line conveyor high-temperature machine which can wash 900 racks of dishes a day.
• Equipment capital costs: 0.
• Estimated equipment life: 10 years.
• Water and energy savings: The average C-Line conveyor machine uses 1.2 gallons per rack.
An efficient machine uses 0.9 gallons per rack or less. Annual operating savings for water,
sewer, and avoided water heating are $1,800.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The benefit is $4,500 per AF saved.

Example: Flight machine

• Equipment capital costs: 0.
• Estimated equipment life: 10 years.
• Water and energy savings: Operating continuously eight hours a day, an inefficient machine
uses 500 gph, while an efficient machine uses 214 gph. The savings is 835,000 gallons per
year or 2.6 AF, for an annual operating cost savings of $15,000.

FOOD13
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook

• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: The benefit is $4,500 per AF saved.

Example: Door machine

• Equipment capital costs: $2,500 incremental cost for a machine with a recycle system.
• Estimated equipment life: 10 years.
• Water and energy savings: The machine washes 300 racks a day. A fill-and-dump machine
uses 1.5 gallons a rack, while a machine with a water-recycle system uses 0.9 gallons per rack.
Annual water savings is 66,000 gallons or 0.2 AF. Annual operating-cost savings of $1,200,
including water, wastewater, and avoided gas water-heating.
• Incremental Cost per AF of Efficient Equipment: The benefit is $4,000 per AF saved.

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Ban the use of fill-and-dump machines.
• Equipment must meet efficiency standards for dishwashing equipment set by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency Energy Star program.
• For flight-type dishwashing equipment, require a flow-rate not greater than 185 gph.

Washing and Sanitation

Floor Washing

Description of End Use

Washing floors in food-service establishments can use large quantities of water. The common practice
has been to mop the kitchen floor with soapy water, then use a high-pressure hose with hot water to rinse
the soapy water into the floor drain. This process uses large amounts of water, as well as energy to heat
the water, and has a tendency to splash dirty water onto clean equipment. Some literature reports that
water use for floor cleaning in a large commercial kitchen can be in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 gpd.

Four approaches can help reduce the amount of water use.

• First is to perform the conventional floor practice more efficiently, including:
»» Use a broom and dust-pan to clean up solid wastes before mopping.
»» Install a self-closing nozzle on the wash-down hose, so the water runs only when needed.
»» Use a new enzyme product that helps break down grease on the floor and require less
water for rinsing.
»» Use a squeegee to push water to the floor drain prior to the final rinse.
• Second is to use the mop and squeegee method only, followed by a rinse with fresh mop water.
While sometimes more time consuming, it does eliminate the use of the wash-down hose.
• Third is to use a pressure washer. Especially useful in cleaning floor mats and exhaust-hood
filters, they can also be used in place of the standard hose for floor cleaning. Care should
be taken not to splash water onto cooking surfaces. A pressure washer is much more water-
efficient than a hose hooked to the hot-water faucet, as well as for the occasional need to clean
outside areas. In all cases, regulations related to watershed protection and pollution control
should be followed.
• Fourth involves the purchase and use of a wet-dry vacuum system or mechanical floor-clean-
ing system, which can often be used to clean the dining area also. It minimizes water and
chemical use. These systems often look like carpet-cleaning equipment, but are designed to

FOOD14
Watersmart Guidebook Food Service Operations
handle heavily soiled solid surfaces. These cost from about $1,000 to more than $6,000, de-
pending upon the size and type of equipment purchased.

Water-Savings Potential
When examining ways to reduce water use at a new facility, the choice of floor-cleaning processes
must be part of the facility design.
• Any conventional floor cleaning system with a hot-water hose should, at a minimum, have a
self-closing valve.
• Choose pressure-washing equipment for floor, exhaust-hood-filter, and floor-mat washing.
• Arrange equipment so squeegeeing can be done easily.
• Use floor-cleaning machines that have a water tank.
• Consider a floor washer or other systems.

Traditional floor-washing systems can use 1,250 gpd. A water-broom and mop system will cut this to
under 500 gpd, and a floor-washing system or machine can reduce this to under 250 gallons, for a sav-
ings of 750 to 1,000 gpd of hot water. It is difficult to estimate water savings exactly, since it depends
upon many parameters and must be done on a case-by-case basis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Equipment capital costs: N/A
• Estimated equipment life: N/A
• Water and energy savings: The cost effectiveness of these systems is strongly dependent upon
the individual situation. A range for savings would be $2,000 to $3,500 per year.
• Incremental cost per AF of efficient equipment: N/A

Recommendations
Proven Practices for Superior Performance
• Require all hoses used for washdown to have self-closing nozzles and limit flow to no more
than five gpm.
Additional Practices That Achieve Significant Savings
• Use water brooms that are limited to 3.0 gpm where feasible.
• Use a floor-cleaning machine.
• Use an enzyme cleaning processes.
• Choose pressure-washing equipment for floor, exhaust-hood-filter, and floor-mat washing.
• Arrange equipment so squeegeeing can be done easily.

Hood Washing

Hood-washer systems offer a convenient way to clean slot and extractor hoods. The hood washer sprays
soapy hot water over the grease-extractor systems after the hood is turned off for the day. Timing can
be pre-set depending upon the amount of grease that collects. Hood-washer systems use from 0.5 to 1.0
gpm of water per linear foot. Hood washers may or may not use less water than conventional manual
cleaning methods, depending upon the frequency of washing and how the water use with the hood sys-
tem compares with the water use of manual cleaning, usually done with a pressure washer. Hood sys-
tems have a significant cost, although when properly operated, they may save water.

References
Alto-Shaam. Combitherm. www.alto-shaam.com.

FOOD15
Food Service Operations Watersmart Guidebook
Bowser, Tim, P.E. Food Technology Fact Sheet.

Energy Star. Energy Star Calculator. www.EnergyStar.gov.

__________. www.EnergyStar.gov/ia/products/commercial_food_service/CFS_Full_Service.xls.

Fisher-Nickle Inc. February 2005. Best Practices – How to Achieve the Most Efficient Uses of Water
in Commercial Food Service Facilities.

__________. www.fishnick.com.

__________. www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/rebates/combis/combis.pdf.

Reed, Clark. October 2005. Saving Water Counts in Energy Efficiency. Energy Star. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.

Sydney Water Australia. September 1, 2005. Wok Stove and Steamer Water Efficiency Report.

Sorensen, Greg. July 2006. Rational Model SCC 62G Combination Oven Performance Test. Food
Service Technology Center. Fisher-Nickel, Inc.

FOOD16