&EFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-R-97-003
May 1998
www.epa.gov
Organic Materials
Management Strategies
© Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
-------
ORGANIC MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste
May 1998 '
-------
Ill 111 I II 1111(111 II 111 III I I III Illllllllllllllll 111 III 111
II Illllllllllllllll I 111 II II II I I 111
'«'/-,
'.•?•!'«!«&•.'
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .-. ...1
1. ORGANIC MATERIALS IN THE NATIONAL WASTE STREAM .: .5
1.1 Applicable Portion of the National Organic Waste Stream...; ..........5
1.2 Regional Variation in Yard Trimmings Composition £
2. ESTIMATING AVOIDED DISPOSAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIVERSION OF
ORGANIC MATERIALS.... ;_......-. 7
2.1 Avoided Disposal Costs and Tipping Fees -. ; •....„. 7
2.2 State Tipping Fees and RCRA Regulations..... . 8
2.3 Avoided Mixed Waste Collection Costs ., 10
3. ORGANIC MATERIALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 11
3.1 Grasscycling ...„ 13
3.1.1 Strategy Summary ...•„ ; :.. : ......13
3.1.2 Strategy Description..;.....- 13
3.1.3 Technical"Problems....'. „.'.....'. ..,...., .....14
3.1.4 Applicable Portioirof the.National Waste Stream Diverted ;.... .......14
3.1.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted... .'. ; 14
"' ' ' * •,'"•'''
3.2 Backyard Composting ........15
3.2.1 Strategy Summary '. ........ 15
3.2.2 Strategy Description.... ......... :... , ...:.. 15
3.2.3 Technical Problems 17
3.2.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. 17
3.2.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted.... .; ,....'. 18
3.3 Yard Trimmings Composting „ , 19
3.3.1 Strategy Summary ,.... '. ;. 19
3.3.2 Strategy Description .20
3.3.2.1 Collection Programs , '. 20
3.3.2.2 Composting Facilities.! : ......20
3.3.3 Technical Problems ."... „ 21
3.3.3.1 Collection Systems , '. , 21
3.3.3.2 Facilities .1 .'.... 21
3.3.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted :... 21
-3.3.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted „ „..'. 21
3.4 Onsite Institutional Composting „ ^ 23
3.4.1 Strategy Summary ,... 23
3.4.2 Strategy Description , ; ; .23
3.4.2.1 Correctional Facilities..... .• 24
3.4.2.2 Universities : ...24
3.4.2.3 Military Installations :... „...;.. 25
3.4.2.4 Other Institutions .- ..-..' : ." 25
3.43 Technical Problems '. ........; ...26
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
3.4.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. ....... ....... ...... 26
3.4.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted ...................... ' ............................................... 1*
..... '"""" ....... """"""""""
3.5 Commercial Composting [[[ 27
3.5.1 Strategy Summary [[[ . .................................... """"" ............................ 27
3.5.2 Strategy Description ..................... , ................. . .............................. . '".'.""". ................................. 78
3.5.3 Technical Problems.
28
3.5.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted 29
3.5.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted
,.29
3.6 Mixed Waste Composting 31
3.6.1 Strategy Summary 3j
3.6.2 Strategy Description , 3j
3.6.3 Technical Problems ".".".""""'""' 32
3.6.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted ' 32
3.6.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted , !""""""!!!.'""!!."!!."!"1""""" 33
3.7 Residential Source-Separated Composting t 34
3.7.1 Strategy Summary """"" '"" 34
3.7.2 Strategy Description '. "."."i!]""""™!!!!"!""!!!.' 35
3.7.3 Technical Problems .'.......„ ............. ™!!."!!.3.3!!1™Z.'".'.'."."".'"" 36
3.7.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted "^"."""'......37
3.7.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted.
.37
UN i| Illllll | II | 'i","(','" "'i,' ''• '.''"JiiiHii,! -: "» 'i • .•'"'••', '. ll'" '! '! '!!,'!!"• ' I II I 111
4. COMPOST MARKETS AND PRODUCT VALUE 39
4.1 Review of Benefits Associated With Compost End-Uses : 39
4.L1 Direct Benefits to Soil , .'. !.""""""!"" 39
4.1.2 Indirect Environmental and Economic Benefits 39
.42. Overview of Compost Markets, Applications, and Constraints 40
4.3 Compost Product Quality 44
4.4 Fertilizer Substitution _ 46
4.5 Potential Market Value of Compost ;. > 47
5, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 49
5.1 Midrange Savings of Organic Materials Management Strategies 50
5.2 Cost Ranges for Organic Materials Management Strategies 52
53 Conclusion.
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure ES-1 Savings Per Ton of Organic Diversion (Compost Strategies Savings Curve) 2
Table 1-1 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Targeted by the Composting Strategies
Described in This Report : , g
Table 2-1 Average Landfill Tipping Fees by State 9
Table 2-2 Avoided Mixed Waste Collection Costs Associated WithLeaf and Yard Trimmings .
Composting Programs : '. 10
Table 3-1 National Summary of Strategy Impacts .' .• 12
Table 3-2 Grasscycling Program Costs............: 15
Table 3-3 Backyard Composting Program Costs , : ; :. .....19
Table 3-4 Select Windrow Compost Facility Throughput and Costs. ....... 23
Table 3-5 Potential Onsite Institutional Composting Diversion Rates.... 26
Table 3-6 Onsite Institutional Composting Program Costs ; 27
Table 3-7 Potential Diversion Through Commercial Composting ...,....,.., ....... 29
Table 3-8 Collection, Processing, and Combined Costs Per Ton 36
Table 3-9 Mixed Waste Composting Facility Costs, : ,34
Table 3-10 Potential Diversion Through Residential Source-Separated Composting ,.37
Table 4-1 Compost Markets, Applications, and Potential Constraints ; ; 41
Table 4-2 Comparison of Compost Beneficial Use Parameters.... .....45
Table 4-3 Reported Revenues for Various Compost Program End-Products :............ 48
Table 5-1 National Summary of Strategy Impacts .....49
Table 5-2 . Midrange Savings Per Ton Diverted for Compost Strategies.. 51
Figure 5-1 Savings Per Ton of Organic Diversion (Compost Strategies Savings Curve) '.51
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
111
-------
Ill I III
1i'I,iiir,f JiiUMii ', i1 ,P!"
'ill!i|l|": ...... m^'^i
,„< i ,n,i ; IHiJi <
".!^; , ..... !• ..... '•'.,:.:,•'•" ill1
1 \
111 I II.
II )
I I I III I 11 r
'". ''" ,,,i,< r.iiiir ' ', nifpiiii i
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Organic materials make up the bulk of America's discarded municipal solid waste (MSW). In
1995, organic materials accounted for 1-77 million tons (85 percent) of the waste stream. Some
organic materials, such as newspaper, office paper, and corrugated, have a high recovery rate.
Other organic materials (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps, and certain grades of paper),
however, still tend to be landfilled and represent an area with high growth potential for recovery
(65 million tons). Depending on the type of waste and method of composting selected., average
national savings over conventional disposal vary from $9 to $38 per ton for 52 million tons of
the MSW stream. ' .
', ' . . , ' '! f '
This report describes seven composting strategies for organic materials in the U.S. MSW stream
and presents an analysis of the benefits and costs of each strategy, the potential for diverting
organic materials from landfills or waste-to-energy facilities, and the potential markets for
diverted organic materials. This report is organized into five sections: (1) an overview of organic
materials in the national waste stream, (2) estimates of avoided collection and disposal costs
attributed to diversion of organic materials, (3) descriptions of the organic materials management
strategies, (4) a review of compost markets and end-uses, and (5) a summary and comparison of
the net costs of each composting strategy. ,
This report focuses on the following seven composting strategies:
• Grasscycling: residential, commercial, and institutional establishments leave cut
grass on their lawns.
• ' Backyard composting: homeowners compost food scraps and yard trimmings on
their property. .
• Yard trimmings composting: leaves, grass, and brush are collected and "composted
at central facilities. ,
• Onsite institutional composting: institutions (e.g.; universities, schools, hospitals,
etc.) process food scraps, paper, and yard trimmings at onsite composting facilities.
• Commercial composting: commercial . organic materials generators (e.g.,
supermarkets, restaurants, schools, etc.) collect and separate organic materials for
collection and composting. • ^
• Mixed waste composting: mixed waste composting facilities separate MSW into
component streams for composting, recycling, and refuse disposal.
• Residential source-separated composting: homeowners separate specific organic
materials and set them out for collection and processing.
For each of these seven strategies,the folio wing two major categories of information are ;
presented: - . •'
• A description of the key aspects of each strategy, based on current applications,
including a discussion of numerous individual programs.
U.b. .Environmental Protection Agency
-------
:,",!:' ".' fill
., Organic Materials Management Strategies
/iiSKIt in i'lllllli
|<«in "„ '", ,ti' .I- ill,.
i PI:,;! i: "" , "'i-iim
? .A ,qfijnparative analysis of the benefits and costs of each strategy as well as an
estimate of the applicable portion of the organic waste stream each strategy targets.
511®. comparative results in this report are summarized in the compost strategies savings curve
that follows. The curve indicates that of the organic waste stream available for composting using
existing strategies and technologies (approximately 65 million tons), a total of 80 percent (52
million tons) could be composted at a net benefit to society (i.e., savings over traditional disposal
methods) through a combination of grasscycling, backyard composting, onsite institutional
composting, yard trimmings composting, and commercial composting. The term 'available (or
applicable) organic waste stream' indicates that newspaper, office paper, and corrugated have
2lfefdy beeMeE°Y^fl%JecyciFg- Grasscycling, onsite institutional composting, and backyard
composting programs could target 55 percent (36 million tons) of the applicable portion of the
organic waste stream at the greatest net benefit to society. Alternatively, yard trimmings
composting programs could capture some of the organic materials targeted by these programs.
Commercial composting could capture another 25 percent (16 million tons) of the applicable
°?Sanic ^ waste .stream ^at a net .benefit. Composting the remaining 20 percent (13 million tons) of
I!? ';,iPP^ca^e .°I^.^9..w^tei stream could be accomplished through more costly mixed waste
composting or source-separated composting once this strategy becomes better established in the
United States.
i||"'i|: ' ' |, -II'1 »,„ M, illlnl!":
Figure ES-1
Savings a Per Ton of Organic Diversion
(Compost Strategies Savings Curve)
$40 -
|H :•;•.,£j;i'r;;;ij>ii:.':;,i ,,;i«;";-:j!';';;;„!! ,':,« -'':••' -;"-' '••
" ' :'::ii:" " ''•'"'• l!. Grasscycling
$30 •:
$25 |
i
$20 f
$15 f
$10'i
• .$5--'
so
Onsite Institutional Composting
Backyard Composting'
- Yard Trimmings Composting c "
——^_— Commercial Composting
10
20
30
40
50
60
nifillipns of Tons
"These savings are from the viewpoint of local government and assume that any additional labor required from citizens is donated
atnocosttosocfety.
•: To be conservative, we assume no savings in collection costs. The tonnage in these "composting programs is not reduced
significantly enough to affect the cost of collection.
* This curve assumes that all yard trimmings will go to backyard composting as.ft is less costly.
Based on the applicable portion of the organic waste stream available for composting using existing strategies and
technologies. ' , .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Perhaps the most striking general result revealed by the savings curve is the cost differential
'between onsite compost strategies (e.g.,; grasscycling, backyard composting, and onsite
institutional composting) on the one hand and more conventional collection-based compost
technologies (e.g., yard trimmings composting and commercial composting) on the other. While
this result promises a real impact on local governments' budgets, it reflects an assumption that
the labor required by citizens in grasscycling or backyard composting is donated at no cost to
society. ' •. - ' • " ' , : '. • . • ,
t ' ' ' - '- •"
More specifically, this report supports the following conclusions:
• Approximately 31 percent (65 million tons) of the U.S. MSW stream is available for
composting using existing strategies and technologies. In this report we have assumed
that the 65 million tons of available organic materials do not include newspaper,
office paper, and corrugated, because these materials are currently, being recovered
for recycling at high rates. .--...' .,.'.•'
i .. (.'•••
• Depending on the type of waste and method of composting selected, average national
savings over conventional disposal vary from $9 to $38 per ton. .
* Organic source reduction programs,' including grasscycling, onsite institutional
composting,-and backyard composting, are quite cost-effective when compared to
other composting alternatives. This cost-effectiveness results from low program costs,
which are more than offset by avoided disposal costs, under the assumption that the
labor required by citizens is donated at no cost to society. In combination, these
strategies could target about 36. million tons of the available organic waste stream.
• Approximately 52 million tons of the available organic waste stream could be
targeted by a combination of grasscycling, backyard composting, yard trimmings
composting, onsite institutional composting, and commercial composting programs at
* a net benefit (savings over traditional disposal methods).
• Yard trimmings composting (a form of residential source-separation) is the most well
established arid widespread of the composting strategies in the United States. This
strategy could target about 30 million tons of leaves, grass, and brush.
• Although mixed waste composting facilities appear somewhat cost-effective, these
• ' . facilities have s experienced substantial , setbacks in the past few years. Public
opposition and technical difficulties have been troublesome for mixed waste compost
facilities in the United States. As a result, the United States saw a 25 percent decline
in the number of operating mixed waste compost facilities between 1992 and 1995, -
• Residential source-separated compost programs, which include food scraps, soiled
paper, and yard trimmings, are well established and successful in Europe. This
composting strategy, however, is still in its infancy in the United States. Nevertheless,
European experience suggests that residential source-separated composting programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
lll'ir11'!"1!! Ill 11 TllliPi'lllP 'ili1 'JliSI'liil!1 ''ixlli 'i
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
offer a viable alternative for capturing a significant percentage of the organic
materials available for composting that are riot targeted by established strategies or
technologies.
i
• The potential market for finished compost is much larger than the potential supply.
This situjtion is supported by the fact that virtually all municipalities and/or
companies that currently produce compost products have established markets for
those products. In addition, they are often unable to meet the demand for their
compost products. If all applicable materials addressed in this report were captured
for composting, approximately 26 million cubic yards (33 million tons) of finished
compost would be created each year. End-uses for compost in agriculture,
silviculture, residential retail, nursery sod production, and landscaping might have a
market potential of more than 1 billion cubic yards (1.27 billion tons) of finished
compost.
The conclusion of this report is that composting is feasible on almost every size scale, and it
works. The more material that is composted, the lower the cost per ton to operate whatever
composting strategy is used. The most important part of a successful composting operation,
however, is choosing a strategy or combination of strategies that works for particular
circumstances.
ill I ill
! :'*"
Sill: liiiii ,|, "!!'I!"1,1,.,,'.!., ;„ ii'Wi , ', ,., 11:11,1:1 |i,,iiii!"" 7'iTi ;: II „::'".. ,,i ,i ""IPS' '", t ::• <.,Lli,',
' """!' "!" ": I"1" =__J_
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
1. ORGANIC MATERIALS IN THE NATIONAL WASTE STREAM
Organic materials make up the bulk of America's discarded municipal' solid waste (MSW). In
1995, organic materials accounted for 177 million tons (85 percent) of the waste stream, as
reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the. United States: 1996 Update (the 1996 Update).1 Some organic
materials, such as newspaper, office paper, and corrugated, have a high recovery rate. Other
organic materials (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps, and certain grades of paper), .however, still
tend to be landfilled and represent an area with high growth potential for recovery. In recent
years, numerous programs have beeri set up to divert organic materials from the waste stream
and create beneficial uses for them. These programs include the following:
* , Grasscycling, or leaving cut grass on lawns. - , .
• Backyard composting of food scraps and yard trimmings. ••'
• • Yard trimmings composting at central facilities. , ',
: - • ' ' ' . • " • , i
» Onsite institutional composting of organic materials.
•• Commercial/ composting operations that target materials generated -by commercial
and industrial establishments. ."•:.-
• Mixed waste composting at centralized processing facilities that accept mixed refuse
and separate this material into composting, recycling, and disposal streams.
• Residential source-separated composting systems that target specific organic
materials separated by the generator, set out for collection,;and processed at a central.
dedicated compost facility. . . '
This report provides a detailed analysis of each of the strategies listed above, based on programs
implemented by public and private organizations across the nation. Larger programs could see
even greater savings since many of the programs in 'this study are relatively small. For each
strategy, the following two major types of information are presented:
• A description of. the key aspects of each strategy, based on current applications and
engineering estimates, including a discussion of numerous individual programs.
• A comparative analysis of the benefits and costs of each strategy as well as an
estimate of the applicable portion of the national organic waste stream each strategy
could potentially divert.
1.1 Applicable Portion of the National Organic Waste Stream
Although 85 percent of the national waste stream is organic in nature, 'a.significant portion of it
(e.g., newspaper, office paper, and corrugated) is currently being recovered for recycling and is,
thus, unavailable for composting. In this report, only the organic materials currently being
1 EPA. 1997. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update. EPA530-R-96-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
managed by the composting strategies described, as well as the amount of compostable material
these ^strategies potentially could handle, are evaluated. Table 1-1 shows the types and total
quantities of organic materials in the national waste stream addressed by the strategies described
in, this report. The information presented is based on the 1996 Update. The table suggests that 31
percent (approximately 65 million tons) of the U.S. waste stream—30 million tons of yard
trimmings, 14 million tons of food scraps, and 21 million tons of soiled or unrecyclable paper
is available for composting. Please note that the 1996 Update and this report focus only on the.
portion of yard trimmings that are not currently being diverted by source reduction programs
(e.g., grasscycling and backyard composting programs).
, - : ; • : i -Table 1-1
Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Targeted by
the Composting Strategies Described in This Report
- :;;:—;::;— ;: — ; ,;;: -
•1 ;ii:IKWm"ii:;., •fil'i,!',.
IMK Itlll'RIlitli;!' i1 111 i ililflt .rijUii "<
illiiniii iips'iiir ,e, jiiiiii i ; ',ii jiiir:;, «n\
1!:!!!" iill/t itliii- ":'!/ Mt:Wi'
' ill Xinill, l|ni,i|||||i|'i. n ' "iT'Illllli,,!1! 'li'l '"iii " ' 'Iliinil!,,,! 'Ill I'll 1 I
IHII.^ •! •*, ,,i • inniiiiiiinAi'iiiii'iti
Organic Materials Targeted by
Existing Strategies
Yard trimmings
Food scraps
Folding cartons
Soiled corrugated boxes a
Other nonpackaging paper
Tissue paper and towels
Bags and sacks
Other paper packaging
Paper plates and cups
Milk cartons
Other paperbbard packaging
Wrapping papers
ORGANIC MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR COMPOSTING
TOTAL MSW
PERCENT TOTAL MSW
MSW Reported in the
1996 Update
(Thousands of Tons)
29,750
14,020
5,310
4,673
3,800
2,950
1,990
1,120
970
510
260
70
65,423
208,050
31 percent
,:i' jriinii1 !,!:• laiiii!11 * *
111 Ohl'll 1 !'i|i|H!""i!' If 'SH! iii II
J Institute (1991), 6.6 million tons peryear of food scraps plus unrecyclable cardboard (soiled, wet or
waxed) from food retailers are generated at a 3:1 ratio.
'.,. Jill "I!"I'l'lilSI ,:,TJiBiili:11'1 '.iiWll "!< ''liillfilllf'-1! 'ill! "li'H ii'iiinliii" I1"!1' '' ii1!!!"1!)!" I' ", i"",, 1 • • i ilf": ,'ur I'' # fi' '•! :"' I"I .' : J • ""- -' ,• 1: '<>' ' "li ""'i'•' "'I1*-'' " i" • • '<''' "'."" ••'' '':>• • • '" i . •' ''•'« -1" i-l'" '"i"'
if i iii'l Sl'li1:;," «! '•&', '"i- i!"! u" i ill i" ''it;,'!!! !' jyt&f: in I :•; i,,i a If !';, • f !< i-: in!-...; ,a*. i LI *:•! :t t -t •< * M ,!",: •! tc. 'a; /, ;• M1* :.: n >,; i j: i i •.: •). •, " /•,;• p. • r • M, ; • «;i ,
1.2 Regional Variation in Yard Trimmings Composition
;'irJSni ffimmings make up _ approximately 14 percent (29 million tons) of the national waste
stream. This number can vary widely, however, from region to region—and within regions—due
to differences in rainfall, temperature, type of natural vegetation, and length of the growing
season. In the southeast region, for example, Fairfax, Virginia, found yard trimmings to be 25
percent of its MSW. Orange County, North Carolina, however, had a yard trimmings average of
SWy 5 percent. This example illustrates that locations within the same region with similar factors
(e.g., rainfall and temperature) can still vary widely in their yard trimmings percentages.
i • ' '«!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
2. ESTIMATING AVOIDED DISPOSAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DIVERSION OF ORGANIC MATERIALS
The management of organic materials involves several, different costs and benefits. This section
focuses on one benefit in particular; the reduction in garbage collection and disposal costs, or
'avoided costs.' These avoided costs result from the diversion of organic materials from the
waste stream through composting or other waste reduction programs. The costs for several
leading diversion programs are addressed in Section 3, while benefits due to compost sale and
use are discussed in Section 4. . . '
This section contains the following three subsections:
• The meaning of avoided disposal costs and their relationship to landfill tipping fees
• Data on average tipping fees by state
• Avoided garbage collection costs due to organic materials diversion
2.1 Avoided Disposal Costs and Tipping Fees
Avoided disposal costs include the amount saved on tipping fees by diverting waste to another
solid waste management strategy. While alternative methods for managing MSW are on the rise,
most of the nation disposes of its waste at landfills or waste-to-energy facilities. For the purposes'
of this report, avoided disposal costs are based on reported landfill tipping fees and, the costs of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance. In simple terms, a tipping fee is
the price paid by a community or solid waste company to use a waste disposal facility. Under the
textbook economic assumptions of perfect competition, perfect .information, and no barriers to
entry (i.e., no obstacles to opening new landfills), landfill prices would be equal to avoided costs.
Needless to say, such idealized conditions do not typically occur. In reality, landfilling often
involves imperfect information, a lack of local competition, and substantial barriers to entry.
, Landfill tipping fees are rarely based on any explicit calculation of the fixed and variable costs of
building, operating, and closing a landfill.2 How these fees are determined might not be simple or
consistent from one location to another, MSW disposal facilities incur substantial fixed costs
such as siting and permitting, design, land acquisition, construction, and monitoring. Landfills
also will require eventual closure and long-term postclosure care. These fixed costs do not
necessarily depend directly on the tonnage of waste received.
, • /,'•-•"
Care must be Used when estimating cost avoidance based on the national averages for tipping
fees because local conditions will more than likely be different. If a low cost disposal area uses
these averages, then the cost avoidance estimations will be overstated. Conversely, a high
disposal cost area will underestimate the savings potential.
No matter what the tipping fee is, however, there is a resulting avoided disposal cost to be gained
by diverting organic materials through other management methods. In this report, a measure
2 Although this analysis does not attempt to' model costs, such as fixed costs and closure and postclosure care, these are important variables to
consider. Full cost accounting is a useful tool decision-makers can use to evaluate these costs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
',, fi ,1111,,,,•».; >,iiii ',.", ,,iill, I.*.'!' 1 ,;•.'; I ... * , ?, ' :. i'l ,, ',;,» . ,!jii.i hi'liiiji ,,»uilj Li... 1, n, ,
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
in P^ on reported tipping fees and in part on costs of RCRA compliance is used as the
•JftSt. available proxy for avoided landfill costs (see next section).
.§tat?;,TippingFees and RCRA Regulations ' " i _ '^ '
fees ..varywidely across the country. One of the few comprehensive sources for this
^^M^y^6,^^^,, wtafc annually reports on state average landfill tipping fees.
igures for 1997 are shown in column three of Table 2-1 and range from $8 per ton in Illinois to
$80 per ton in Alaska. The population:weighted national average ^ $35 per t(m
Many of the lower state tipping fees reflect the continued use of older, long-established landfills.
; These landjSlls were built before RCRA regulations went into effect on October 9, 199.1, and,
'^^^^J^9l,il?!^..^^. ,^^5^9? .99?ts. Landfills built after October 9, 1991, tend to be'more
;^jjy g^£ ^g Qjder counterparts because they must incorporate liner systems as required
under RCRA. Engineering estimates of costs for RCRA compliance suggest that small landfills
1*?*!,.™2I1!5.P^^^y^te.^-^nsive,to_build and operate. Larger landfills—those that receive
ffli^r,lta1§S§i8n§,:D?? ^fffP)-^!0^ these fixed compliance costs to be spread over much
larger volumes of waste. RCRA compliance costs do not rise proportionally with the tonnage of
iXaste feee*ved>,.^ier?fore» RCR^-imP°sed costs are lower on a per ton basis in larger landfills.
vSi!' ii;
!;; I, j! fci
!;' ! t1 SIHIlii It 'I1' Will "I , ,'IEIi
li'"vi «•!„•: U! !*•
*."», Hi. .'iSili ,-
24 PS !°,2 IffiESlI
"
• I III
jf.r '."'•'
ii/1 rnii -1 •
M? tipping fees for landfills built after October 1991 determined? A
The Role of Recycling in
, Ye,ar 2000, prepared by Franklin Associates for Keep
.6a Igautiful (FranMin/KAB study). The study estimated the revenue needed to cover the,
fetg capital and operating costs of a 1,000 TPD landfill built after October 1991, again assuming
&at only large landfills can cover the costs of RCRA compliance. Landfills serving metropolitan
areas are "often,,, located, outside the urbanized area, requiring waste transportation. Landfills for
nonmetropolitan areas must serve large geographical regions in order to obtain enough waste.
For these reasons, $6 per ton was added to cover the costs of transfer and transportation for waste
sent to new, large landfills built after October 1991. Taking both factors into account, the costs
for transfer, transportation, and landfilling at facilities built after October 1991 is unlikely to fall
below $30 per ton.
The S30 per ton estimate was used as a floor for disposal costs. In states reporting average
tipping fees of less than $30 per ton, this report assumes that RCRA compliance will quickly
push these tipping fees up to $30 per ton. In areas where tipping fees are above $30 per ton, this
report assumes that lie costs of .RCRA compliance have already been included and no
adjustment was made. The resulting .costs are shown in column four of Table 2-1. The
population-weighted national average tipping fee for landfills built after October 1991 is $38 per
ton.
:, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Table 2-1
Average Landfill Tipping Fees by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii .
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana °
Maine °
Maryland "
Massachusetts *
Michigan c
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri " ~~
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico •
New York
North Carolina :,
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington *
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL"
' Population
4,040,587
550,043
3,665,228
• 2,350,725
29,760,021
3,294,394
3,287,116
666,168
12,937,926
6,478,216
1,108,229
1 ,006,749
11,430,602
5,544,159
2,776,755
2,477,574
3,685,296
4,219,973
1,227,928
4,781,468
6,016,425
9,295,297
4,375,099
2,573,216
5,117,073
799,065
1,578,395
1,201,833
1,109,252
7,730,188 •
1,515,069
17,990,455
6,628,637
638,800
10,847,115
3,145,585
- , 2,842,321
11,881,643
1,003,464
3,486,703
696,004
4,877,185
16,986,510
1,722,850
562,758
6,187,358
4,866,692
1,793,477
4,891,769
.-- ' 453,588
248,102,973
Tipping Fees for Landfills Built
Before Octobers, 1991
$33
$80
$23
$26
. $33
$17
$68
$59
$46
$25
$50
. ' $22
$08
.- ' $28
$32
' ' !• . $23
$25
$20
$45
$43
' - $55
, $30
$50
$16
$24
$35
$25
$13
$50
$77
$12
$55
$26
•$28
$30
$20
$25
$44
$35
$28
$32
$30
$29
$19
$58
$35
$30
$37
$30
. $10
$35
. Estimated Tipping Fees for
Landfills Built After
October 9, 1991 e
. $33
$80
$30
$30
: $33
$30
$68
- • $59
$46
$30
$50
$30
$30
$30
$32
. - $30
i $30
$30
$45
$43
$55
$30
$50
$30
$30
$35
$30
$30
$50
$77
$30
$55
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$44
$35
$30
$32
$30
$30
$30
. $58
$35
$30
$37
$30
$30
$38
Notes: • , .
" Goldstein, N. 1997. "The State of Garbage in AmericaAB/oCyc/e. April, p: -65.
Goldstein, N. 1996. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April, p. 60..
" Tipping fees for states were not reported in BioCycle and were .estimated at $30 per ton.
Total tipping.fee is the population-weighted average.
"Assumes 'floor price' of $30 per ton. See text for an explanation of this calculation.
U.S. Environmental Protectioii Agency
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
2.3 Avoided Mixed Waste Collection Costs
The Franklin/KAB study developed average costs for several standard collection operations,
assuming different levels;_of recycling and yard trirnmings collection. The cost of collecting
mixed waste in a, system with no separate collection will drop after introducing separate yard
trimmings and/or recycling collections, as long as the system is rationalized with regard to
routing, equipment usage, and staffing.
Table 2-2 presents the annual costs per household for mixed waste collection, both with and
without separate yard trimmings collection. The annual.dollar savings per household (shown on
line three of the table) ranges from $6.46 in nonmetropolitan areas with no recycling programs to
$12.48 in metropolitan areas with extensive recycling programs. In every case, the report
estimated that separate yard trimmings collection diverted 0.416 tons per household each year.
Total avoided collection costs per ton of diverted yard trimmings ranged from $15.50 to $30.00.
The average avoided collection cost is approximately $23 per ton of diverted yard trimmings
(line five). c
Table 2-2
Avoided Mixed Waste Collection Costs Associated With Leaf and
Yard Trimmings Composting Programs
Program Stipulations
Costs per house per year— no yard trimmings collection
Costs per house per year— with yard trimmings collection
Costs per house per year saved
Annual tons of yard trimmings diverted per house
Avoided collection cost per ton
Average
$63.06
$53.44
$9.62
0.416
$23.12
Franklin Associates/Keep America Beautiful. 1994. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Management to the Year 2000. Appendix H.
Less irrfprmation is available on the impact of food scraps and other organic materials diversion
on mixed waste collection costs. These, impacts, however, are likely to be substantial in some
circumstances. Institutions or commercial establishments that divert large portions of their waste
stream to onsite composting options, for example, are likely to realize significant savings in
mixed waste collection costs. Similarly, residential source-separated composting and mixed
waste composting programs might result in decreased mixed waste collection service or
frequency. These collection cost savings, however, have not been well documented.
(.; il-'lf 'I
if:,
1
lit',; iiiiii .
. ,; ,S|U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,;-'. -„'"i',::i! it;f;!iliii,I: ia" >:'r\;•" '.l;l|iij'• u'• 5;'i'. •$.",. ;,: ,,';i;:: i• i, , •; /.', I'i' f, i j:'" i;i," 1" =;.si,'!>,',(siifeji1:*::;" •!,i'&i1. vi,*,:>";'•:•
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
3. ORGANIC MATERIALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
... . • ^ . -
This section discusses seven organic materials management strategies—grasscycling, backyard
composting, yard trimmings composting, onsite institutional composting, commercial composting,
mixed waste composting, and residential source-separated composting. Where possible, 6 to 10
existing operations are used as the basis for reviewing each strategy. The following generic
information is provided for each strategy:
• Strategy Description. General features of the strategy are described, accompanied by
illustrative examples from existing operations.
• Technical Problems. Technical difficulties and limitations of the strategy are
discussed. , ,
• Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream. Information from the 1996
Update and existing programs is extrapolated to the national level to estimate the
quantity of organic materials that could be targeted annually. The applicable portion
for each strategy is estimated in isolation of other strategies.
• Costs Per Ton Diverted. Information from existing programs is used to develop
estimates of the cost per ton of organic materials diverted. Cost estimates do not
include costs to homeowners. For some pilot or low-volume programs, costs per ton
were high. . '
For each of the strategies reviewed in this section, Table 3-1 shows the applicable quantity of the
national waste stream targeted, estimated cost per ton diverted, annual national diversion
potential, strategy descriptions, and comments.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11
-------
in 111 i|i i in ii 11
nil
i iiiiiii
Organic Materials Management Strategies
! Riil" i! IIWV!
'
i
sr'i'yiiii';
' ,:, "1 F'liliN .It1 i
lllllii
Table 3-1
National Summary of Strategy impacts
Strategy
Grasscyding
Backyard
composting
Yard
trimmings
composting
Onsite
institutional
composting
Commercial
composting
Mixed waste
composting
Residential
source-
separated
composting
Materials
Targeted
Residential and
commercial grass
Residential yard
trimmings and food
scraps
Residential and
commercial yard
trimmings
Institutional food
scraps, select
paper grades, and
yard trimmings
Food scraps and
select paper grades
All commercial and
residential organic
waste
Select residential
Daper grades, food
scraps, and select
yard trimmings
Midrange
Cost Per Ton
$1.00
$12.90
$55.00
• $49.00
$72.00
$113.00
NA
Cost Per Ton
Range
$0.26
to
$7.04
$5.00
to
$15.68
$21.65
to
$88.21
$29.00
to
$98.00
„
$50.00
to
$144.00
$102.00
to
$126.00
NA
Applicable
Portion of the
Waste Stream
(Millions of
Tons Per
Year)
15.0
29.0
30.0
2.4
16.0
65.0
52.0
Strategy
Description
Primarily
education and
promotion
Education,
promotion, and
possibly bin
distribution
Dedicated
collection and
processing of
leaves, grass,
and brush
Institutions,
such as
universities,
correctional
facilities, and
military bases,
collect and
compost
organic
materials on
site
Dedicated
collection of
targeted
materials;
processing
done off site
Standard
garbage
collection;
separation of
compostable
waste at a
single facility;
composting of
organic
materials
Dedicated
collection of
targeted
materials;
processing at a
central facility
Comments
A time-saving
source reduction
strategy for lawn
care
Source reduction
option for those
with space to
compost at home
Well-established
strategy
Allows certain
institutions to
avoid high
collection and
disposal costs
Viable strategy
for large
commercial
generators
Several facilities
have closed due
to technical
problems
Limited
experience with
this strategy in
the United States
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
nil ni ii it
I In I Illllll lllllii ill ill
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
3.1 Grasscycling
3.1.1 Strategy Summary . " ,
• Strategy Description. Residential, commercial, and institutional establishments are
encouraged to leave grass clippings on the lawn after cutting rather than bagging and
setting them out for collection. This strategy might include both public education and
, • . financial incentives to reduce the cost of mulching lawn mowers or the equipment
. required to retrofit existing nonmulching lawn mowers.
• Technical Problems. Heavy clippings left oh the lawn can block sunlight and
effectively smother the lawn. Educational information must address this point.
• Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. Fifteen million tons of
'grass are generated annually by the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors.
• Costs Per Ton Diverted. Midrange costs for grasscycling education programs are
approximately $1 per ton of grass diverted.
3.1.2 Strategy Description
Grasscycling programs consist primarily of promotion and public education efforts. Press
releases, brochures, newspaper advertisements, and radio and television spots are often used to
promote grasscycling. Local governments often promote grasscycling by example. In New York
City's 'Leave-It-On-The-Lawn' program, for example, city workers leave grass clippings on the
city's parks and other lawns whenever feasible. Other organizations that often promote
grasscycling include schools, community groups, garden clubs, landscape businesses and
associations, garden centers, and lawn mower manufacturers and retailers. In some -cases, lawn
products manufacturers haVe become sponsors of programs through model lawn demonstrations,
workshops, and cooperative advertising. . " .
Examples of community grasscycling programs are provided below:
• Southeastern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority (SOCRRA),
Michigan. The authority mails and hand-delivers grasscycling, flyers and developed
fact sheets for residents interested in learning more about grasscycling.
• Pinellas County, Florida. Grasscycling establishments receive T-shirts, bumper
stickers, and signs for their lawns. Brochures were distributed to nurseries and
landscaping companies. In addition, two 30-minute video programs were made and
shown on the University of Florida's public access channel.
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee's 'Just Say Mow' program encourages
grasscycling through television commercials, radio and newspaper ads, and yard
festivals in which the city shows residents the benefits of mulching and. composting
grass clippings. , '
• Dubuque, Iowa. Shortly after Dubuque started charging for pickup of grass clippings
in 1994, the city developed a unique program that offers a $25 rebate to residents Who
purchase mulching mowers. - ' .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
13
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
j, iLi! ! i]: | 'ill?1
• Islip, New York. The first year of Islip's grasscycling program included creating and
distributing a video, sending out three direct mail pieces, and giving away several
mulching mowers.
• Huntington Woods, Michigan. This city does not collect grass clippings, and it
distributes brochures on grasscycling to educate residents.
J,/,J Technical Problems
Leaving grass clippings on the lawn is not harmful when mowing is frequent enough to produce
fine clippings or when a mulching mower is used. Still, heavy clippings left on the lawn can block
sunlight and smother the lawn. Educational information must address this issue.
•3. L 4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted
The general category of waste addressed by grasscycling is yard trimmings. Thus, estimating
national potential for grasscycling begins with the yard trimmings tonnage. According to the 1996
Update, about 30 million tons of yard trimmings are generated annually. Data hi the 1996 Update
also show that approximately 50 percent (15 million tons) of yard trimmings are grass clippings.
The applicable portion of yard Irirnmings that could potentially be targeted by grasscycling
programs, therefore, is 15 million tons (or 30 million tons times 50 percent).
3J.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted ,, '....'.... „"'". ".T. , , ' •
For the seven grasscycling programs analyzed in Table 3-2, total program costs for 5 years
ranged from $10,000 in Dubuque, Iowa, to $300,000 in Islip, New York.
Staff time required to increase public education and develop outreach brochures often represents
the^rnajority of costs incurred, but most grasscycling program coordinators do not dedicate all of
their time to grasscycling. For rebate programs, the majority of program costs are spent on the
rebates. The cost of developing and distributing brochures and advertisements is relatively small
Sd j? S!HS°^IP^ °f me budget for other recycling and composting efforts taking place in a
municipality.
Qpst per ton diverted through grasscycling programs can be calculated as program cost per ton
year: 91!06 residents have been educated abfiut grasscycling (the startup program
H^?^^X.,4? notneed to be reeducated each year. We assume, therefore, the
.S[Y®P', .S?P®!?rt9r to grasscycle is incurred only one time, and the program's
(i.e., Ihe quantity of waste diverted) lasts for 5 years before additional education or outreach
ht be a reasonable estimate since most generators are likely to continue
|r^scycling after an initial training period and because of the low, transient nature of the residents
wliousually participate in the programs.
The average cost per ton diverted was amortized over 5 years to arrive at an estimated average cost
of $1,03, Of the seven programs analyzed, costs per ton ranged from a low of $0.26 per ton in
¥°^tf°niery..poHFty? .P*uo,_ton_anihigh of $7-04 Per ton in Dubuque, Iowa. The higher cost hi
Dubuque is the result of the city's innovative program of rebating $25 to each resident who
purchases a mulching mower.
14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies'
May 1998
Table 3-2
Grasscycling Program Costs
Location
Dubuque, Iowa
Huntington Woods, Michigan
Islip, New York
Milwaukee, Wisconsin '
SOCRRA, Michigan
Pinellas County, Florida
Montgomery County, Ohio ,
AVERAGE
Tons of Grass
Diverted
•: Annually3
284
450
20,000
29,677
9,000
48,889
25,000
5-Year Program
Costs K .
$10,000
$10,500
$300,000
$200,000
$55,000
$80,000
$32,000
Program Costs Per
Ton Per Year
(Over 5 Years)
$7.04
$4.67
$3.00
$1.35
$1.22
$0.33
,$0.26
$1.03
"Tons of grass diverted in all locations except Pinellas County and Milwaukee are estimated based on reported reductions in
quantities of grass collected, processed, or disposed of after implementation of grasscycling programs, tons of grass diverted in
Pinellas County and Milwaukee are estimated based on responses to surveys conducted on residential participation in local
grasscycling. - . • •
Reported budgets for grasscycling programs., • '
3.2 Backyard Composting
3.2.1 Strategy Summary ."••;'• * ; .
• Strategy Description. Backyard composting of select organic materials is promoted
through outreach, bin subsidization, education, and training. ,
• Technical Problems. Possible technical problems include odors, flies* • pests, and
undersized bins. Proper education and bin selection can mitigate, and possibly even
, eliminate, these difficulties.
« Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. Five million tons of
food scraps and 24 million tons of yard trimmings, are generated annually by the
residential sector. Some programs also target other organic materials such as select
paper grades. •
• Costs Per Ton Diverted, Midrange costs of $12.90 per ton diverted are incurred for
public education and bin subsidization. ' ' •
3.2.2 Strategy Description
Elements of backyard composting programs might include outreach, bin subsidization, and
educational workshops. • . ,
Backyard composting program outreach efforts often include distribution of flyers and brochures,
production of videos and radio advertisements, and informational displays at local events, public
gardens, and gardening stores. To encourage greater participation, many programs subsidize the
purchase of backyard composting bins. Some smaller municipal programs also provide education to
• householders on how to build bins from chicken wire, wood pallets, or other materials.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
15
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
municipalities organize training programs such as master composter programs. In these
programs, a compost specialist trains a group of volunteers, who themselves become master
composters. They in turn train others in the community on proper composting techniques. Other
ro^cip^tiKpjpduce^show-and-tell programs. These programs include demonstration gardens and
composting education in local school science curricula, which allows children to learn about
composting hi the classroom and then bring the knowledge home to teach to their families.
Staffneeds for a successful backyard composting program, depend on the size of the community and
'.jSSi*J^i2fe?&*ViSSi SS feiSi dj^buted- Many ^ticipatiti68 nave recycling coordinators or other
lE^S^'K ''I1;;.!1 '''.."Stiff who spend a certain percentage of their tune encouraging and promoting backyard composting,
IT yard composting workshop. Olympia also .has a demonstration garden
ired by the state as an. educational tool, and the city has developed a full range
|gg composting brochures. .Staff time for ..thiscomprehensive program amounts to
10 percent of one FTE staff per year but is supplemented by over 830 hours of
volunteer labor per year.
IN,
Ml II 1111
i i
1 I'll
Palm Beach County, Florida. Palm Beach County initiated its program in 1993.
Subsidized compost bins are sold to the public at publicized events. The county also
has a master composter program, but it is provided and paid for by a separate service
at no cost to the county. Staff time for the county program costs $22,000 per year.
" " '• i, '' , " >''' '" • "™ i \
Glendale, California. Glendale began its program in 1991. The city gives away
composting bins and aeration tools at no charge to residents who attend a free 1-hour
workshop. The staff time for Glendale's program amounts to 6 percent of one FTE
per year as well as a total of 40 hours of volunteer assistance.
I, ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i mi ;^^ w,®mw>&diywr (iiTOHMwa^ss$m.•.•iis.;•; m*'i;. M -
^ast(ii Chicago, Indiana. East Chicago began its program in 1994. Free bins and
composting ^rks'hops'^ program. Fifty percent of one FTE
and 860 hours of volunteer labor provide the staff for this program.
Composting Council. 1996. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home Composting Programs in the United States. Prepared by Applied Compost
Consulting, p. 7.
i ii n i i
Based on information reported in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home Composting Programs in the United States.
illllll
I 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
III III I Illllll Illlllllllllllll
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
• Amherst, Massachusetts. Amherst began its program in 1991. Key components of
the program are bin distribution, workshops, brochures, books, and school'programs.
Much of the work is provided through volunteer assistance, as only $900 of the
budget is allotted to pay for staff, workshops, and a hotline.
• Austin, Texas. Austin's backyard composting program is administered by the Austin
Community Gardens. Training and education are the primary focus of the program.
Each year 25 students are trained as master composters, each of whom is encouraged
to contribute 24 hours of volunteer time to the program.
3.2.3 Technical Problems
The primary technical problems associated with backyard composting include odors and pests.
Odors cari be emitted when the compost pile is not turned often and anaerobic decomposition
occurs. Pests (e.g., raccoons, rats, and mice) might enter compost bins if they are not properly
enclosed and/or secured.
In order to avoid these problems and ensure that the right materials are composted, technical
assistance is essential. If municipalities ,do not adequately .educate and promote continual, correct
use of a composting pile, 'individuals [might] experience minor problems and refuse to ever
contemplate composting again. This, in turn, could impact other waste diversion efforts attempted
by the municipality.'5 •
3.2.4'- Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted -
In most cases, backyard composting applies to two major components of the waste stream—food'
scraps and yard trimmings. The 1996 Update indicates that 14million tons of food scraps and 30
millions tons of yard trimmings are generated by the residential and commerciai sectors.
Approximately 72 percent (10 million tons) of food scraps are compostable.6 This includes all food
scraps except meat, fish, cheese, milk, and fats and oils. In addition, the 1996 Update estimates that
50 percent (7 million tons) of food scraps are generated by the residential sector! The portion of
food scraps, therefore, that is generated by the residential sector and that is compostable is about
5 million tons (or 14 million tons times 36 percent [50 percent times 72 percent]).
The 1996 Update reports that about 90 percent (27 million tons) of yard trimmings come from
the residential sector. Making an allowance of 10 percent (3 million tons) for large items—tree
trunks and large limbs—that are not easily compostable, about 24 million tons of yard trimmings
are available for backyard composting (or 30 million tons times 81 percent [90 percent times 90
percent]). ...-•'. '
Based on the above, a total of 29 million tons of organic waste could be targeted by backyard
composting programs including 5 million tons of food scraps and 24 million tons of yard trimmings.
This estimate is likely to be conservative since some areas also /encourage composting of select
paper and other organic materials. ,
5 Metro Toronto. Report 19 of the Management Committee, p. 8.
6 Rathje, W. The Garbage Project Composition Analyses.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
17
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
•ii i n ill i
II ill llll 1 Ill
111111
Costs Per Ton Diverted
11111111 in 11
5.2.5
The costs of backyard composting programs generally fall into four categories: staffing, public
education and outreach, bin purchasing, and bin distribution. Education efforts often continue well
into the project, and some communities provide home visits and instruction on composting
techniques by experts for any interested residents. Frequently, bins are subsidized by grants and
homeowners make up the difference. Bins are a significant element of program costs in those
communities that provide or subsidize bins. ,
Municipally sponsored backyard composting program costs can vary significantly. Some
programs include significant startup costs associated with bin subsidization and initial education
and outreach programs. In these cases, the costs for initiating the programs are high compared to
the amount of waste diverted after the first year. But since bins typically last for 7 years (and
some are now even warranted for up to 25 years) ^jO1^y ^r^ additional f^ing might be
needed from the municipality to sustain the program, program costs decrease over time.
"
There is a wide range of compost bin prices; the simplest units can be as inexpensive as $10,
while the largest and most expensive can cost as much as several hundred dollars. Prices vary
depending on how many bins" are purchased at once; most municipalities have been able to
obtain bins at wholesale prices by purchasing bulk quantities. In general, backyard composting
bin costs range from $25 to $50.
Typical backyard composting program costs are provided in Table 3-3 for the various programs
described in Section 3.2.2. Tonnage impacts and costs per ton diverted assume 7 years of program
impact based on the assumed life of a bin.7
The programs are organized in Table 3-3 based on whether or not bin subsidies are provided. Bin
lft4;':^b|ady programs tend tojcost an average of $15.68 per ton diverted over their useful life, while
jwjr'^gtams emphasizing pocatfon cost an average ojf'$5 per" ^''^eated.''''ThiB 'average'"cost of all
::T:'.backyard composting programs is about $12.90 per ton diverted.
iilQ'JllUI!,! J aiEIU'lilM'
ill
•111
I li'nilf 111 1111
'Seven years is the standard bin depreciation time.
IS
iU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Table 3-3
Backyard Composting Program Costs'
Bin Subsidy Programs b
Alameda County, California
Palm Beach County, Florida
Amherst, Massachusetts
Glendale, California
Subtotal
SKKB««SM«^y!SS^aUBSiMS!BHBSsy*M!*«i*IKZ^^gi
Education Programs
Austin, Texas ,
East Chicago, Indiana
Olympia, Washington
Ann Arbor, Michigan . .
Subtotal . •
TOTAL AVERAGE COST
Program Tons
Diverted
28,000,
9,737
: 1,750
7,077
^^^46£64
379
1,400
1,500
13,000
16,279
7-Year
Program Costs
$537,600
$135,500
$13,803
. - $43,150
$730,053
L-^m^a*j>»aa«aaa£3»gi?g;
$20,000
$24,400
$11,530
$25,000
' $80,930
Average
Program Costs
Per Ton
•j - .
$19.20
$13.92
$7.89
$6.10
$15.68
m®&m$Zi!lzi$lM£M!iM8g}$jft^
$52.77
$17.42
$7.68
'- ' ' $1.92
$4.97
$12.90
"All data in this table are based on the Composting Council's Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home
Composting Programs in the; United States, 1996.
" Although no additional costs are assumed for years 2 to 7, there may be some additional costs if
educational workshops, a helpline, or technical assistance are provided.
3.3 Yard Trimmings Composting
3.3.7 Strategy Summary . .
• Strategy Description. Yard trimmings (e.g., leaves, grass, and brush) are collected
, and composted at a central location.'. " .
• Technical Problems. Odors from centralized compost facilities are the primary
technical problem, but stormwater management, litter control, and siting and
' / permitting issues can be of concern as well.
• Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. Thirty million tons of
leaves, grass, and brush are generated annually by the residential, commercial, and
institutional sectors. • ' ,. • .. - ' •,
, • Costs Per Ton Diverted. Midrange costs for the programs described in this section
are approximately $66 per ton diverted ($44.37 per ton for collection and $21.65 per ton
for composting).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
19
-------
ill; fflWfiratmTHIWi inilM^^^^ ISI'iliflllH 'I
OrganicMaterialsManagementSrategies
I'liiiiiii,, t inii-s,,;-i,a'i" iiii, :,i us
; §:f::y=;L?;T •!. :::S.•?•.!? Strategy Description
3.3.2.1 Collection Programs
Yard trimmings composting programs represent the most widespread and well established
composting strategy. There are many ways to collect yard trimmings, ranging from sophisticated
curbside collection programs to simple drop-off programs.
i i i in ill ii i n i i i i i i iiiii ii i n i i ii HI i in ii 11 i i 111 linn i " it ii I MI i n
Jwo general methods of curbside collection are bulk collection and bag collection. Bulk collection
programs often rely on vacuum machines, front-end loaders, or mobile chippers to collect loose
leaves or brush that are raked to the curb or into the street. Crew size for this operation is generally
three to five laborers per vehicle. Bag collection operations usually rely on existing packer fleets
and crews (typically two to three laborers) to collect yard trimmings. Brush, when collected
curbside^ is often either chipped on the street using a mobile chipper or collected in bundles with a
packer truck and taken to a composting site where it is chipped.
Drop-off systems can replace curbside collection completely or cover periods of the year when there
i§ no curbside collection. If the composting facility is centrally located, the drop-off can simply be
set up on site. In many cases this is not possible; therefore, secondary sites, such as at a
municipality's department of public works, are created. A rolloff container can be used for
temporary storage; when full, it can be hauled to the nearest compost facility.
3.3.2,2 Composting Facilities
Yard trimmings composting facilities range from low-technology operations, where piles of leaves
are turned periodically with front-end loaders, to high-technology operations, where size reduction
equipment, dedicated windrow turners, and screening equipment are used. An advantage to using
high-technology processing methods, aside from producing a higher quality product, is that compost
can be produced and moved off site within a year, making space Tor the following year's material.
Low-technology operations generally require more time to complete the composting process and
/'"•III1 I" ''lliiiiJ!'' WW '"'T ' '"J1"" ' "' '' "lU"' IT " ' '".I1'" '"' • n"''' ^ '-' ' *
;;,;:,;, consecjuentij |more land area. ^ to accommodate more than one season s_material.: Available land,
i'ri':ffi?i!tl?i^l«^£.1^,l^r Criterion for determining the most- appropriate composting method for a given
'•''"'' site. '' ' ''"""' "! " l""'"" "'' "•' '' "" ' : , :
Many public works departments use front-end loaders for a variety of purposes; therefore, a portion
oTthe equipment time can be allocated to the composting program. Capital and operating costs for
this equipment can be considered proportional to the volume of the total material handled by the
front-end loader or to the percentage of time the equipment is working at the composting site, hi
: iiiir. i™, Hi impii . '!!:,„.' niihiiijijjjjiijjiiiii! , .'jinjipi; fii: "I'Liiiiii/ii'iiiriiFi'iiiii'iiiiiiii'iiii;,, inai ,1111 miiiiiiiiiiiiiii „ t• .„,« n '&• nnmr i ft, ,«i «, »r • i >,.., *IMN n A S?, A , O
general, the cost of a windrow turner increases with increases in capacity, and operating costs
i 'i i™:!!; r!!!1'; increase with the complexity of the model. • '
'. • iUigt,"[; 1< Sliljf if •: JK ;.N'tr,11 WHfc.,• JjX*;lt;!•• .1 '»,; 1;:|IJ1 iHi"jK-f':; "MfH, E;-!: f •. :,,;|;;! •;;V:il';,,iM'f,:''!' I• ^,;:;if ,•:""i <'\ ii;,1:-!,';, >.i? 1";,:'i.i if Jl,S .r ;,, •;' ''i, ,;7:f ,|.i:, '•,';'« ;,'',;,;.; :,/..;'••,:',',:*!f
"'' If .brush tis jccepted at me site, it must be reduced in size prior to composting. Small quantities of
brush can be processed through a chipper, but a nib grinder or wood scrap processing equipment is
needed to process large quantities. Brush chips can be used for landscaping or can be composted
Mtfe high nitrogen material such as grass. Leaves and grass also can be size-reduced in a tub grinder
to reduce the time required to complete the composting process.
Expensive equipment, such as tub grinders or compost screens, can be purchased jointly and shared
IN'I,',fii"! 11',!,;1 "i iii! ill:, ''iliiiii ''i^illrLii1,,,!'1!,!!!1* yn ini'iiUiii ..iiJiJiiiiow:1!, «s y • • "i^1 " t1"1 ' '"if " " '"' '* "' - " *" ! •
among communities. Even windrow turners can be shared, although they must be transported from
.: I;1'"1 j |. j !|;i| *' v":'" |i|e l^lllg mMe, .fequentiy ftan^ ih& other equipment. -
r** '•': ''29,-, , , , , , , .,, , , ,.• ,,.,., ,,, , .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
t i'S • „,;;' , iilijii ,:!i|ih," • ; \>.'.(',' \> ii j,,; j if| :!j'' $;; >•,;;' i •: t&, >-. JS •% i!:; • ji",, ii • f:"; i\ !;<"- :;!,;f! -. I: >> >• {••«" • • i!1 :•!'", '^; ,,1-:';;' l.< :;:4P*'! :>t IWi^l'lgM, >;1: • .'•' ? Si I a' •.: r"" S"i':' ,5 'sni*
•iiiH ii W : 1! NNP r: 'l| ^
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
3.3.3 Technical Problems • ,
3.3.3.1 Collection Systems, ', ' ,
Disadvantages of bulk collection systems include contamination of leaves by street trash and oil,
leaf piles that blow into the streets, and leaf fibres,caused by hot catalytic converters. Bulk
collection methods usually require scheduled collection and associated parking bans if needed.
Disadvantages of the bag collection system include the'cost of the paper bags, which is somewhat
higher than plastic bags in most locations. Additional effort is required of homeo^vners.to purchase
and fill the bags. Finally, bagged leaves take somewhat more time to compost, if no grinding
equipment is used because the heavy bag itself creates more material to process.
Drop-off programs are not as convenient as curbside collection Strategies; therefore, participation
and diversion rates for drop-off programs might be lower. , .
3.3.3.2 Facilities '"'.'.' \ . '
Odor can be a problem at yard trimmings composting facilities. Factors that contribute to odor
generation include types of materials collected, management issues, siting, and climatic conditions.
Grass clippings in particular become anaerobic and emit offensive odors very quickly due to their
high moisture and nitrogen content. It is critical to process grass clippings as soon as possible after
delivery to avoid odor problems and ground-water contamination. While small amounts of grass
provide necessary nitrogen to accelerate the composting process and produce finished compost with
desired nutrient content, too much grass has a decidedly negative impact on composting sites. This
points to the logic of promoting grasscycling programs in conjunction with leaf collection.
While grass is the primary contributor to odor, leaf composting alone also can produce odors when
improperly managed. It is advantageous, to site composting facilities far away from residential areas,
as odorous compounds get diluted with distance; otherwise, siting and permitting battles can arise.
In addition to odor problems, stormwater management and litter problems might be of concern
and must be planned for accordingly. .
3.3.4^ Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted
Yard trimmings composting programs target leaves, grass, and brush generated primarily by the
residential sector. According to the 1996 Update, approximately 30. million tons of these materials
are generated annually. Ninety percent (27 million tons) is generated by the residential sector, while
the remaining 10 percent (3 million tons) is generated by the commercial sector.
3:5.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted ' .
A recent study of 500 U.S. municipalities provides a, median overall diversion rate through yard
trimmings, collection (both curbside and drop-off) of about 12 percent.8 According to the 1996
Update, 14.3 percent of the waste stream is comprised of yard trimmings. The 12 percent diversion
Skumatz, L.A. 1996. Nationwide Diversion Rate Study-Quantitative Effects of Program Choices on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion:
Beyond Case Studies. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. July. p. 13. The figure of 12 percent includes programs that already had some
sort of backyard composting program in place, which' would tend to lower the diversion rate of actual yard trimmings collection programs. Thus .
this figure should be viewed as slightly conservative. • , '• •'•'.'
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • - - . . „ . -21
-------
I 111^
I
. j?98 Organic Materials Management Strategies
I HI r":''*i 'j;* ; »™.'^!:'''*^;^'|W4;^.i;:;^^.^p,iii:B^',;^ 'WJ'&i |i;!;i ^WW]-M iiiirii^ir^atWflsai^'rnitiiir iw>'''.»i ft;v»7;¥ii'.;i:ffiH«j55ii ai; H
rate suggests that, on average, yard trimmings composting programs divert 84 percent (12 percent
divided by 14.3 percent) of all yard trimmings generated in a given area.
A variety of factors influence the cost of yard trimmings composting programs including the
collection strategy used (e.g., drop-off or curbside), the materials targeted (e.g., leaves, grass,
brush, or some combination thereof), the frequency of collection, the quantity of yard trimmings
generated, the technology used for taming compost windrows or grinding brush (e.g., dedicated
equipment versus existing or shared resources), and numerous other factors.
One study of 60 randomly selected U.S. cities with populations of over 25,000 examined the
relationship among collection frequency, diversion rates, and costs. That study yielded an
average cost of $66.56 per ton collected by programs that divert between 10 and 19.9 percent of
the municipalities' waste stream.9 More mature curbside programs, which target 20 percent or
more of the municipalities' waste stream, average $53.67 per ton collected.
I? ^?X®i°P a ^^^e6 5^°nil c°st estimate for yard trimmings collection, it was necessary to
consider the relative quantities and costs of yard trimmings drop-off versus curbside collection
programs. Curbside collection programs divert approximately two tunes the amount of yard
fiiffimings as drop-off collection programs. A 2:1 curbside to drop-off diversion ratio, therefore, .
i|SSgdJjr^qpnju^tion^
drop-off programs, the cost of collection is assumed to be $0 because individuals who drop off
their yard trimmings at the compost facility bear the. cost of collection. For curbside collection, a
cost of $66.56 ger ton collected is assumed based on the study referenced above of 60 randomly
selected cities that divert 10 to 19.9 percent of their waste stream through curbside yard
trimmings collection programs. This estimate is conservative because the same study indicated
that programs thatdivert larger quantities of their'waste; stream cost less per ton collected.
Combining the curbside collection cost with the drop-off collection cost at a 2:1 ratio (to reflect
the relative quantities of materials collected by curbside and drop-off programs) yields a
midrange estmaate of $44.37 per ton collected by yard trimmings programs.
Shether the yard trimmings are brought to a composting facility via curbside collection or dropped
Off by residents or commercial landscape contractors, once at the facility, further costs will be
:,: I •> i ,.',.. gs the material is t^.M.Mtel^K*: A recent BipCycle article presented the
results of a survey of seven public composting facilities-that process from 2,000 to 23,500 tons per
- year of feedstock. This survey revealed an average total cost (capital plus operating) of $21.65 per
;— ^'ir'^y.^Pt.^.S^P^1.?1.^!?!®,.?-^. , ' ; '
Yard trimmings diversion costs for the programs analyzed range from a low of $21.65 per ton
diverted for programs that rely on drop-off collection to a high of $88.21 per ton diverted for
programs that use more extensive curbside collection and processing operations ($66.56 for
collection and $21.65 per ton for composting). The assumed national midrange cost of yard
trimmings composting is $66.02 per ton diverted ($44.37 for collection and $21.65 for composting).
* Stevens, B, 1995. "Yard Debris: The Relationship Among Collection Frequency, Costs, and Diversion Rates." Resource Recycling. January, p.
29- A.fcNojW te!ePh°nc pon^atio?1 °n Pctojjer 21, 1996, confirmed that the, cities were ami* of public and private collection and that there
•Were some vacuum programs included. Also, it confirmed that administration and overhead costs were included as part of the calculations.
0 Skumatz, L.A. 1996. Nationwide Diversion Rate Study-Quantitative Effects of Program Choices on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion:
Btyoixt Case Studies. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. July. p. 13.
22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Table 3-4
Select Windrow Compost Facility Throughput and Costs
Facility3
St. Petersburg, Florida e
Des Moines, Iowa d
Atlantic County, New Jersey
Utilities Authority
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Three Rivers, Michigan e
Bluestem SWA, Cedar Rapids, .
Iowa °
Bozeman, Montana
WEIGHTED AVERAGE f
Throughput
(Tons Per
Year)
16,600
23,500
22,000
17,000
2,700
70,000
2,000
Total Costs
Per Year
$424,960
$528,750
$484,000
$314,500
$46,440
, $784,000
$16,000
$1,814,650
Operating
Costs Per
Ton
NA
NA
$11.80
$8.10
NA
$7.00
$6.50
Capital
Costs Per
Ton"
NA
NA
$10.20
, $10.40
NA
$4.20
$1.50
Total Costs
Per Ton
$25.60
$22.50
$22.00
$18.50
$17.20
$11.20
$8.00
$21.65
SteuteyiHe, R. 1996. "How Much Does It Cost to Compost Yard Trimmings?" BioCycle, September, p. 40.
Notes:
" All operations utilize open air windrows with turning. , .
b Capital costs generally do not include land.
'Two-thirds of throughput consists of nonyard trimmings from the commercial sector. ,
d Cost estimate is based on an average of 22,000 to 25,000 tons per year throughput.
e Operating and capital costs are calculated together. -'-_',
f The weighted average is based on tonnage throughput, and does not include the Bluestem SWA facility because the large majority
of its feedstock is nonyard trimmings; . . . -
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
Onsite Institutional Composting
Strategy Summary
•, Strategy Description. Institutions process food scraps, paper, and yard trimmings at
an ohsite composting operation.
• Technical Problems. Regulatory requirements are the greatest difficulty faced by
institutional composting sites. .
• Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. Universities,
, correctional facilities, schools, hospitals, and military bases generate 2.4 million tons
of food scraps, paper, and yard trimmings annually.
• Costs Per Ton Diverted. Midrange cost is $49 per ton of material diverted.
Strategy Description . .. .
Institutions, such as universities, schools, hospitals, correctional facilities, and military installations,
are uniquely suited to composting because they typically generate large quantities of organic
materials and have land available for composting. Institutional composting can reduce disposal costs
or, as is the case at many universities, provide opportunities for research and development of new
compost technologies. Examples of composting operations at correctional facilities, universities,
military installations, and other institutions are provided below, "
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
23
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
[i Tin I"! IliniFliljlW iL'Milllif:!
I
I
,' w"! "f ;,'!' * •' '' II ,- ;: h [j! "i .i1
!! ii1:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11:1!!" 'lil;!!!!!:!i!i|E!|!: !i" ^ ;i!' i! !l
3.4.2.1 Coirecti^na^Fjapjjjjjgis.^,:, ir iirt , iv ,,i iiiiri;i |jh ,i;iviii ,„
Lowrtechnology uistitutional composting occurs at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Center [GDCQ) and the^ New York State Department of Corrections (NYDOC), which has 30
Operating composting programs at correctional institutions throughout New York.11 Materials
collected for the programs include food scraps, brush, wood scraps, and some paper. Average
diversion rates reported by NYDOC are approximately 25 to 30 percent of the total waste generated.
Inmates collect materials using existing equipment that was formerly used primarily for garbage
disposal. Materials collected are composted in open windrows on concrete pads. An animal feeder is
used to mix the compostables, a skid steer loader is used for turning the piles, and, in some cases,
the finished product is screened with a trommel screen. Finished compost is then used in prison
and horticultural applications as well as in community projects.12
IH I"!
„;«' i1
A more high-technology approach is employed by the Rikers i^^ correctional facility in'New
jjiYork City. This approach uses an in-vessel compost technology that is suitable for institutions
with limited space. The program targets food scraps, corrugated, and a limited quantity of pallets.
Approximately 200 yellow 44-gallon containers are placed near feeding lines, in food
preparation areas (e.g., near vats and in vegetable preparation..locations), and in cleanup areas of
the kitchen. After each meal, the yellow containers are emptied by inmates into one of four 12-
cubic-yard containers. These containers are collected 5 days a week by the New York
jSeparta of Sanitation and delivered to the centrally located compost facility. Corrugated is
]l|gpecte(d from, kitchen, loading docks by inmate work crews, The facility is currently operated
|||aer contract to the New York Department of Sanitation by Wheelabrator Water Technologies.
finished compost is used by the Rikers Island Farm Project. The operation is expected to handle
about 4,000 tons of food scraps and corrugated cardboard annually when it is fully operational.14
: "§.4.2.2' Umversities
I !!!!! IE";
IPteiyersities often generate large quantities of organic waste. A feasibility study for a composting
: [project at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, estimated that a typical undergraduate
generates approximately 60 pounds of food scraps annually.15
!;2]h§ .IMyejslty of Vermont(UVM) implemented a pilot composting program hi 1992. During 1993,
approximately 17 percent of the UVM waste stream was co-composted with manure. Compostable
m'aferials diverted from the university's waste stream included 272 tons of mixed paper (68 pounds
.
!:£_Marioii,,J.1994. "Correctional_System Wins With Composting and Recycling." BioCyde. September, p. 30.
11 Based on telephone conversations with Glen Sluggs of GDCC and Jim Marion of NYDOC.
11 Rikers Island is operated by the New York City Depajtment of Corrections, which is separate from the New York State Department of
Corrections,
ii!fi.Thc Rikers Island composting facility commenced operations in September 1996.
" This estimate was derived using food scraps per diner per meal multiplied by the number of meals over the course of the school year divided by the
number of undergraduate students. In fact, some faculty, graduate students, and staff use the dining services, although the numbers were not estimated.
In addition, an unknown number of undergraduate students at Tufts eat their meals outside of university dining facilities. This information is based on a
vf«ste audit performed by Caroline Ganley and Peter Allison and provided by Sarah Creighton of Tufts University.
ill II II I IIIll|lll I 111 III
24
.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
per student) and 78 tons of food preparation scraps (19.5 pounds jper student). Finished compost was
used to fertilize animal feed crops.
The University of Maine at Orono (UMO) began composting leaves, brush, and manure in a
preliminary way in 1990. By 1992, UMO was composting dining hall food scraps, yard trimmings,
chopped brush, and lumber scraps. The, university began to reach out to surrounding communities
by accepting leaves and found that it incurred no additional costs by doing so. When additional'
surrounding communities became interested hi starting composting programs, UMO and four
communities applied for a capital investment grant from the Maine Waste Management Agency. In
this way, the program was able to generate the materials needed to support a relatively large,
sustained composting program.17 • , ' '
3.4.2.3 Military Installations
Some military installations also have begun composting operations, although the targeted
materials seem to be primarily limited to yard trimmings and wood waste. The Air Force has
initiated many composting operations since it issued a policy statement, in May 1994, requiring
each installation to operate an onsite facility or participate hi composting through a regional
program.,When a survey of the 114 Air Force bases was conducted in 1994, 35 had yard
trimmings programs or planned to have them in the near future. Nine of these had onsite
composting facilities operating; the rest were either off site or in the planning stages.
Kelley Air Force Base in Texas provides .one example of a planned onsite composting
operation.18 The program targets 700 tons of pallets and 100 tons of yard trimmings generated
annually. A tub grinder is used to shred pallets, and a front-end loader is used for 'turning
windrows.
3.4.2.4 Other Institutions . , , ' •
Other institutions, such as hospitals and primary and secondary schools, also have the potential for
diverting organic materials. Two elementary schools in Concord and Conway, Massachusetts, for
example, have started composting food scraps from the lunch rooms in composting bins managed
by students. Although this is primarily an educational project for the students, Concord's program
diverted an estimated 15 pounds per student in its first year, of operation. A higher technology
alternative is in operation at the London, Ontario, psychiatric hospital. This facility recently started
using an onsite enclosed in-vessel composting system. The'diversion of material is projected-to be
over 1,000 pounds per hospital bed per year.
In February 1995, the Canadian Department of Natural Resources (NRCan) in Ottawa implemented
a compost operation using a small in-vessel composting system. While its cafeteria alone generated
about 120 pounds of food scraps per day, NRCan decided to bring in food scraps from other
institutions hi the region because it had a throughput capacity of 750 pounds per day. Wood chips
16 Personal communication with Dennis Miller, University of Vermont Solid Waste Manager.
17 Wilderson, S. 1996. "University Composting Program Serves Four Local Communities." BioCycle. August, pp. 76-77.
18 United States Air Force. 1994. Yard Waste Composting Programs: Current and Planned Air Force Initiatives. Civil Engineer Support Agency
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
25
-------
! iii ........ n
t ..... t • ..... n -f ;> iiiiiii' : jrn? "Z r:mK*
'="*»" * ' ...... ill1 " - i! » '"i ......... f "!.i';
•• wi . H? "i1 •' '5 " r : ;<;1J:ifr ; • . i ..... «'•:? -,
1998
* Isiiiii 1 I"! H ii;: i'5" . Vi- SiSS1 vriii: v , :* • "'-'iJiiS .iitiiiiii! I
: ;i m ..... L"S; sr ..... ww m' S; -Af:K- •5^>,1i "ill :'*' i^-WS^WS / li',]'1!' '!" Y '''!;;:S
i' f ' illjipl" •• i j|' ' : ••„ " ' -3.4. 4 Applicable Portion of the National
i: (ii: i'lli; f tit ',;•<• : ' lib "S>'i u^t :• mw 111 1 •«' !ic iSiiii^ifUiB ;,-'i! .
'!*! a B':i!:|l|ll: •;"! ': Table 3-5 shows the potential for diverting <
ill it'SKi F'JS"
li Iii' '1 'iiili'l'l'ihiiiii/ JI, 'il'lllliL
'"'''"'""'It' !i' ii'1
III"'1: I. 'iiiii'U' b ft!1!',
II' 1' I ;''|l;; 111. Hi', ''I'; ill III
li "'>: 'Sfii !'i"ii' jiff,
: if I11. | HIH,iU| iii, IP 'iHiin
i, iilVi'iitli'T'l' !iii. ill
«'"' f 'a""" "' I
!!^i™
i'i-. \jsvilsa
• ••-—••:—
unit diversic
":':':::'' this, .analysis
j&om
In" ', ! ' ''|l|||||fi|||l |i,ll'Ki|" ill 'I'llli''^.!'!'!'"!"! '1 i|l i'f
* '' li r iii i'i"'' , ""'iri'iiiiiiii'1'!!1 " '"„ "iiiii
"''iill' Illllllir'!1^ '1'"' ' !::!'iii'l''"!ili I m'1*'
,. fi' m:t'-k v^jiii,./:^
Institutions
Correctional c
Hospitals d
Military •
Schools '
Universities fl
TOTAL
>n rates estimated in this sectic
if v i ;. -I • /. -"i' •! i!!1 ; •, • " i 'vvT .. i • i t 'Stri't .,'i' ': Sii , i ! ""'".ii1' : ; f, • ':• ;";!' I S, j i, ne
J^iar^e Stream Diverted
Si:) i;:,,,i; , ii '* s, as ;. , IKiil'i ¥ ifflrtMIt' i ; ' "i',, .1 iii''1 Wliii'ii!1:1 • '! ,i" Jiii ii a ••Jiwh,* 'i ;>> s ,•*?&' ' 3 i » wi • ••• "ti • i '-'- ' « ** ,:M * is : '. ; ™ .s
Population a
910,080
1,158,000
1,397,000
50,709,000
7,065,703
61,239,783
Per-Capita Diversion
i. i .ii",ii • • i. ./i. ,.i * , ..
(Annual Pounds Per Population j
Food
794
50:0
: 0
15
40
Paper
140
1.0.0
6
0
68
^m
Yard b
30
30
30
30
30
IM
Total
964
630
30
45
138
••
Total Diversion (Tons)
Food
361,302
289,500
0
380,318
140,431
1,171,550
Paper
63,706
57,900
0
0
240,234
361,840
Yard
13,619
17,329
20,906
758,860
105,738
916,453
Total
438,627
364,729
20,906
1,139,178
486,403
2,449,843
'. B**^.M§lB,9§SMI,MsJj^iQfJheUnit£d_SMes: |99§jDmate population includes federal and state prisoners. University population
InciudasJulMJme, undBrgraduate students only. Hospital population reflects number of beds at all hospitals. Military population includes active
military personnel located in the United States.
? ThejjeMapfta generation of yard trimmings for 1995 was multiplied by the percentage of yard trimmings generated in the nonresidential
sector (10 percent) to obtain a yearly per-capita yard trimmings generation rate for institutions.
^ Diversion estimate for food scraps is based on the average of Rikers and NYDOC data. Estimate for paper is based on Rikers data.
Diversion estimate is based on one-half of the London, Ontario, projection.
* No data were available on military food scraps or paper composting programs; only yard trimmings composting is assumed.
Food scraps estimate is based on Concord, Massachusetts, elementary school data. No data were available for school paper generation.
9 Diversion estimate for food scraps is based on the average of Tufts and UVM data. Estimate for paper is based on UVM data.
'3:A 5 Costs Per Ton Diverted
Table 3-6 provides a summary of the cost of the five institutional programs for which capital and
operating cost information is available.20
'* Sinclair, R.G. 1 996. "Managing Food Residuals Through On-Site Composting." BioCycle. January, pp. 34-36.
* The sources of this information are given in the footnotes to the text of the corresponding section (e.g., universities).
26
TJS Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
For correctional facilities with low-technology composting operations (NYDOC and GDCC), the
combination of inmate labor and existing equipment reduces collection and operation costs
significantly. Much of the cost estimated for the Rikers facility is^due to site-specific constraints that
would not necessarily apply to high-technology facilities in other locations.21
Costs for the five onsite institutional programs are organized in Table 3-6 by low-technology and
high-technology options. Weighted average costs range from $29 to $98 per ton diverted for low-
technology and high-technology operations respectively. Weighted average costs of low-technology
and high-technology operations are $49 per ton diverted. -
Table 3-6
Onsite Institutional Composting Program Costs
Facility
Tons
Composted Per
Year
Capital Costs
Operating
Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per
Ton
Low-Technology
Kelley Air Force Base
800
$47,143
$20,000
$67,143
$84
GDCC
1,040
$11,429
$28,000
$39,429
$38
NYDOC:
7,800
NA
NA
NA
$22
Weighted Average Low-,
Technology
^j^/^f^MM^^
High-Technology
$29
NRCan
94
$5,853
$11,274
$17,127
$182
Rikers
4,000
$152,070
$230,000
$382,070
$96
Weighted Average High-
Technology
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
''Marion, J. 1994. "Correctional System Wins With Composting and Recycling." BioCycle. September, p. 32.
The average cost per ton is weighted based on tons of material.composted per year.
3.5 Commercial Composting
3.5.) Strategy Summary
• Strategy Description. Commercial organic materials generators—supermarkets,
restaurants, schools, and others—receive commercial collection services and separate
organic materials (e.g., food scraps and unrecyclable cardboard, and paper) for
collection and composting. .
• Technical Problems. Compacted food,scraps can generate odorous liquids that leak
* from 'collection vehicles. Also, the containers used to store the food scraps before
" The Rikers Island facility is located on an island within a few hundred feet of the end of an a'ctive runway at LaGuardia Airport.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
27
-------
i.,,,„,_,,,,, ,„,,_,_. ,_ _ ,„,i,,_. , i, i,._,. u„„,.,...,.,,..., ,, i,,..,., ..,..,, ^OrganicMaterials Management Strategies
legtioncan become quite odorous themselves and need to be cleaned or
&#:1fexchj|nged', which itself can cause logistical problems.
• , •' t? C , II , L
;;;;;*r,;, .l-EElESM6, f £d:!0,n, °iile, National Waste Stream Diverted,, Sixteen million .tons
P.£ Isgd scraps and soiled, unrecyclable paper and cardboard are generated, annually
;~ ;r;j,"'.r'I.by the commercial sector.
Zl™."]'~rv ICosfs Per Ton Diverted. Midrange cost for collection and processing is estimated at
$72 per ton. .
1-5.2 Strategy Description
Commercial generators of organic materials, that receive commercial collection services, such as
Supermarkets, food processing companies, restaurants, and schools^ potential for diverting
fa-- ^Q^S QJ. ^£ scraps, soiled and waxed cardboard, and paper. In a supermarket, for
example, organic residues can represent 75 to 90 percent of the total waste stream.22 In schools,
Testaurants, and personal care facilities, organic materials make up an average of 74 percent of the
total waste stream.23 ,
There are several ways that commercial organic materials are collected. For larger generators,
roUoffcompactorsi can be Medon site then hauled directly to a composting site. Smaller generators
have their materials collected more frequently by packer trucks from smaller outside containers,
I Such as toters or durnpsters, or by a service that swaps empty containers for full ones.
iinniui'ii111 » jiiQiiinri' in1:.{pi r1 I f I i i i f
•"nilin 'i, 711,11'iiJiJ I,11,11'™! ijjjj.'lj'l'l,! Hill!
|!!ll|(l:||<|I|> ii'j | IIIIII 111 II II II I I II III III III II II III 111 I II II I 111, II I II I I Hill II III 111 II
1 K i fl Iii «-:i'ii i.',; 3.5,3 Technical Problems
Compactors without gaskets and packer trucks can leak substantially and create odors and messy
SSSdMojQS. This problem can be alleviated by using rolloff compactors with watertight gaskets.
IT •VltHKHMKWi'.NnmWi'VfPSfimH llWWE'WSKri! UfHrtrf'Wffi^'^i^ltriHWlkW'ISTJl'^lffi^rlWWV!'1 » «W >, ill ill;:l :il,l' f lllKllill :' jl *! I "j; M' II,! '.Will:'}! 'ill' ITIi I! 14 IP -I;!' ]!:: Hi'"1.» 1' 1.1+'!', 'I 'ii. Mi: I': I ,.WM» ; ' 11'»'IV '•'' ''llllllllliK 'I IJL ,i ijiinl*!1' i' 1,1'i'i:1;; "ji'll'li: III" *' 'i 111 ill1:1' I! Iii Illlllllf i1 : IWI'f ,ul«'' i>,' \",: II ,1' I1,.'' Ifl Si, '' I i'' Jill Illi ill' IKdWlllllllll l-ll IfffilllllB lll:;:i1!
is encountered by haulers that collect, toters or durnpsters and clean these
ers at the customers' site. The resulting wastewater must be handled appropriately. Waste
Management of Fort Worth, Texas, for example, captures the wastewater in a separate container in
the collection vehicle then dumps the water into its sewage system (for which it has a permit).24
'IBi: |l|H:ll<;t lUll! '; IIIIII III HI II 111 I I I 111 I 111 IIIIII II II I 111 I MM I 111 II I I * I ] I III I II
The second wastewater handling option is to actually store the water with the organics, as is done by
Food Waste Management of; Vermqnt. This company uses an over-the-top style truck and, thus,
does not have problems with leakage. The company does note, however, that this system increases
• - - -collectioncosts.25 , • •','.-
In an attempt to reduce the frequency with which the containers need to be cleaned, some haulers
have tried to use degradable liners to protect the container sides. In Fort Worth, Waste Management
has ordered 4,000 biodegradable bags- that will be held in place in the containers with oversized
I IIIIII I II I IIIIII 11 111 I III I IIIII I 111 I III III 11111 I III I II II I I III 11 II II 1 III I II II Illl Ill IIIIII II IIIIII Illl I I II I I II if I II III I II II Ml I II III III I II 11II lull II I 1111
II ll'lil'i"
a Kunzler, C.. and R. Roe. 1995. "Food Composting Projects on the Rise." BloCycle. April, p.65.
^ji&wE,:;::«?:ta!^ ^f^^S^S^^ , , ,'. ,, ,-, ,;,„,,™,..',, .,..!;,,:, : T ,,, .„ ,,
f|»i j§ .j|^;*R5r^p'1 ' • " "'"' - ""': •" "'• 'v '!'"'";""": ;i ':":'"'"""": " "•; ""B * ;i:""i'lli" •'•' il!!"""" '"''':!!'"" r 1'""1"1"1*-
r: ibf 11 Hi1': ,l,i|ii ,it ii<,,! IHi1 •<<' rtff' 'I • iliniHlhii ;Ar L ii \j±" fi IIIHIU iHii;' ^, IB, ' 'inikii i si •'' niiiiiiiiiiiini • •, 'ii;ii .u, •„ v, "i1 •:.. ii,;;»"*,:, '•<' • ,n i n, j i>, i';»: „„; • i':, < T " ,i, ; ,< <'.,,: ^ »«•' » ,/ <, j i,': '»'"•'« ,,, i i ,11 ;i.<:< <\ "i"1 >»f i < :i >.i: <• ,i.;/ <,". • ;i;'" in,' »t, " •' :,:":.iin:i iii: SIIIIIIEI^ iniiiiiiw1!;!:!!,
II1:1"!!"11'i'lillllrl'ni: lulr Hi1" 141 'i»' Jl' "I1 IIIIIKI',1 'i!1!1:'1'!! C1 n.,,111't'lifimi 'i''! IK'FS1 • i ',!• ,1,,! \M9\ll '< I* Pi«i.' !• •!!#' ^"^^;, "•' VU'li"! ill"!1:. ,:*'• „ . Jlh /i,: i1 '"'' I "!:,!' :i Jj:" '"'' /.: 'Ci1"1". ,'' ;;,,"' •:' ''i!!!,!:!;!,1!11!'!^' 'ft.''I:! ''IBP, pT' i/t'.iiiiliy:1,!*,"!! ill'' Wl|:» r^ i"11'1' „,'', V' '' 'ii'i liJI'i , "•'.::"'!'!;,'": ''!,('t." I;1'!.1' •' ^ 'V ','! Ili'liU, PI ili''^^^^^^ J^ I
2$ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SSltSSiSM' ..... MM ..... • '
...... '"'"' ........ '"" ......... " ........... '" ................................ '"""' "'"" ............ ; ........ i"1 [[[ ' ............. ' .............................. ' .................. ; ........... ! .................. " .......... '"'!"'!'!! ......... !"" I! ............... !'! ...... !'" T 7 " ........................ !! .......... !! ....... II ...... [[[ ! ........... !
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
rubber bands. Waste Management hopes this option will reduce the number of times the containers
require washing. • ••-..'
3.5.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted
The commercial sector has strong potential to contribute to the diversion of organic materials. One
9-month pilot examined collection of food scraps and soiled, unrecyclable paper and cardboard
from 51 commercial establishments including restaurants, schools, personal care facilities, a grocery
store, and others. They found that these businesses on average captured 48 percent of the materials
targeted for collection.26 Food scraps and soiled, unrecyclable paper and cardboard make up about
19. percent of the commercial stream (a total of about 16 million tons). See Table 3-7 for a
summary. , ,
Table 3-7
Potential Diversion Through Commercial Composting
Total Commercial MSWa , ,
Portion of Commercial MSW Targeted for Collection" ^
Percentage of Commercial MSW targeted for Collection b
85,300,000 tons
16,254, 000 tons
19 percent
a Derived using the total MSVV generation figure in the 1996 Update and applying it to the percent overall commercial from Table
C-1 in the 1994 Update. ,. , :
b The materials included are tissue paper and towels, paper plates and cups, other nonpackaging paper, milk cartons, folding
cartons, other paperboard packaging, bags and sacks, wrapping papers, other paper packaging, food scraps, and corrugated
boxes. The commercial makeup in these categories was derived using the percentage in Table O-1 in the 1994 Update, with the
exception of corrugated cardboard. The amount of corrugated targeted was assumed to be only the portion that is waxed or
food-soiled. This was calculated using a ratio of 1:3 of waxed or soiled cardboard to food scraps, as has been experienced by
food retailers.
3.5.5 'Costs Per Ton Diverted
In the commercial, sector, the costs of collection and processing are often not easily accessible,'as
they are considered proprietary information. The city of Seattle, the King County Solid Waste
Division, and the Washington Department of Ecology, however, funded development of detailed
cost models for collection and processing of commercial organics as part of the Seattle/King County
Commercial Food Waste Demonstration Project.28 The collection models were based on several
factors including food scraps generation rates per employee for different types of generators,
participation rates based on survey' information, .efficiency of organics separation by participating
firms, collection frequency, and container weight limits. The model indicated that the quantity of
food scraps generated at each commercial site and the distance between generators had the greatest
impact on commercial organics collections costs. Collection and transport and processing cost
ranges were calculated for several service areas as shown in Table 3-8. The model also: estimated
20 Ibid. p. 63. • . ,' , . : ,.-.'.'
27 Food scraps plus unrecyclable_cardboard (soiled, wet, or waxed) from food retailers alone account for 6.6 million tons per year, approximately 5
million—75 percent—of which is food scraps. , •''...
28 Sasser, L. 1995. "Feasibility of Large-Scale Organics Diversion." BioCycle. October, p. 68. Cost models were developed by E&A
Environmental and Bender Consulting, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' ' 29
-------
'il'KBi [W.HXS IBIIiiK
Organic Materials Management Strategies
costs anc^ amortized total processing costs for standard
..... , ..... examples of prices charged per ton to commercial establishments for collection and/or
,, ....... ?£,°rgan*° materials also a??. ..... Panted ...... !?_ Table 3-8. ........ For large generators that can use
ctofs, ...... such as fee Shop-Rite supermarket chain in northern New Jersey, the charge for
^ Depends Pn ^e distance to the composting facility
....... ' " ........
I
of $250 per haul. Given that these compactors hold 15 to 20 tons, tills
ge charge of about $14 per ton for collection alone. The material is then delivered
«,_,_,,__,, _^ about $36 per ton.30
IP I lliiiiiii-il'.ril'ltiifi'1!]!1!!!!:1''!;,!! iirililliiJIiH-p'illE'iSllillllH,1! I'lliiiSiiiiliiUiyini'BuiUli'i liliillli^jr.'iKaA ,,,i i« "IB r ;, - m ', > i
"Li fl: i '>t,nNttiiHc;iiiri; IMS:!!! ''i:1,; «
i',; j„: •[&' "siiH'i: j :' „ n'j k«;« :: t*i ;•> i, t • ,i ,1 •; • ;«i i u :m "lii ^ i: ''iiT'.iiiiiniiii i!!:i,i,, /'",:! ii i: ,,i: i'"' iii,i;;,iii u 'an:. n ii", ,;.ik:';', •,, i1,:!'! i j ii'''';: i i „' i \ "• v:'':i, i"1 "bifii1 ^ijnt- s^aiiiiiii' • ;;: lij TI
I 1,,'il.: J •li|l!;!iji^nii!Ilfll!i|li, ii'"IP J,:
I iiii:j!i:i:fuiiii:: I'i :::'
,..::vl:fV Wj&i
PIIIIII lit llljv'P.'"^'!!!! II1 IplllP" JIP
^ ,s K- 6a:'
i! ii" i; ' in;!''," Miii"!',:"«. \iinj r '''I'^m, «n,", "in11,. ii iiiLnRim '"ii.v niiiJon, viAi: 'it,! ^iiiiiniiH1: >. 'jif J1',!!1'*1" n >:" .miiiifiiii"! wii.'!! n MI"I m
ii, r :';i*^^is:ai&ff^^i^!i«^f^Tabl.e 3-8,
:! :-!5'*;! ;i:,::l|:!;:^
'L !|:|"P,lp|IP|:ll PllllpLllllliPIIIIIIII''!
..... IlllllW .....
I
I
It,
..... i:!!.;1!!;;::
'11"
ITljiiilK^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 'il'iiii'flliifiiisn (IIE'SS KM li1!' U|i-;'i'.;l';::!lv:;:!MW^^^^^^^^^^^^^
, ll'lll":' [1111 IIIIIIII''III'1'
I
Shop-Rite
Collection Services
Seattle Cost Model
Downtown service area
Urban neighborhood
Suburban city
Seattle Cost Model average
Shop-Rite
Hannaford Brothers
AVERAGE COST OF COLLECTION
Reported Processing Costs
Seattle Cost Model
Hannaford Brothers
ntervale Compost Facility
Earthgro Compost
AVERAGE COST OF PROCESSING
AVERAGE COLLECTION AND
PROCESSING
Costs Per
Ton
(Low)
$34.00
$46.00
$63.00
$47.67
NA
NA
$23.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Costs Per
Ton
(High)
$45.00
$89.00
$1'02.00
$78.67
NA
NA
$42.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Costs Per
Ton
(Average)
$39.50
$67.50
$82.50
$63.17
$14.00
$43.00
$40.06
$32.50
$36.00
$18.00
$40.00
$33.00
$31.90
$71.96
, ,!2iS £2§l IMS,! was developed by E&A Environmental Consulting and Bender Consulting for the Seattle/King
ICounty Commercial Food Waste Composting Demonstration Project, 1995. See accompanying text and footnotes for
" cfetails on all other cost estimates.
iiii i i iiiiiiiii M i n i i i i mil i ii i i n n i i i in ii i i n iiiii 11 n i m in i ii i
I -
Th® model assumes use of an enclosed, aerated static pile for initial stabilization and that slightly differing technologies would be used after
initial stabilization, , , , ,
•• ,£f UUKS in this paragraph are based on personal communication with Tim Vogel, Manager of Environmental Affairs, Wakefern Corporation
ii (owner of Shop-Rite supermarkets), October28, 1996. " '
I ' II Ill III
III I Illl'i'liMIMII
30
•III11
•INI
11dl Hill
'
U.S. Enviro
Environmental Protection Agency
. 1 1 Hi i iNf IMP I i . ......... n ................................
HI ' id i In 'I ill " i , il i II 1 1 ii in 1 1 Iiii liill I iiii ill
i in in 11 n in i in nil in in in i in iiiiiiiiini i n iiiiii iiiiiiii iiiiiiii in in i in i in i inn iiiiii i j i iiii i
iiiiiii in in i ••• nnnnn^
Ill I III II IIIIIIIII Illll 11 II I I |ll IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII I IIIIIIIII I IIII ill IIII I Illll III ,ll IIIIIIII Illll IIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII Illll IIIIIIII II IIIIIIII II
iiiii i iiiiii ii| 1 in|iiiiniii 1 ii ii iiii in 1 iiii iiiii infill iijil iiiii i|ii n in ii| ill fin ii n 111| in i in ninif i n i ii in in 111 |ln inn i|ii fin ii 111 ii inn nn inni|ii n n|iiini|iin in n inn in in if iiillnn inn 11 in i n n linn nn
H
I IIII II 111111 1 IIIIII II IIIIII IIIIIIII III 1 1 I Illll I
I ............... | .............. | ..... |i|| ........ I"!""!"! ......
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998 .
Many generators, however, cannot or prefer not to use compactors and, thus, use a smaller-scale
approach. The food scraps from Hannaford Brothers' stores are placed in 95-gallon toters and
collected one to three times per week, The company pays $40 to $45. per ton for this service.31 •...'
Once at a composting facility, charges will vary as well, Hannaford.Brothers reports being charged
$10 to $25 per ton for its material; the Intervale Compost Project in Vermont charges $40 per ton;
and the Earthgro composting facility in Lebanon, Connecticut, charges $25 to $40 per ton for food
scraps.32 What has been generally noted, however, is that composting tip fees are, in most cases, less
than half of the local disposal option.33-
As summarized in Table 3-8, average costs for this strategy are assumed to be about $72 per ton
diverted. Costs per ton collected and composted range from a low of about $50 ($14 plus $36) as
reported by Shop-Rite to a high of around $144 ($102 plus $42) estimated for suburban areas by the
Seattle Cost Model.
3.6 Mixed Waste Composting
3.6.1 Strategy Summary - .- , ', .'
• Strategy Description. Mixed waste composting facilities separate MSW into
component streams for composting, recycling, and refuse disposal.
• Technical Problems. Odor problems have plagued mixed waste composting
facilities, and odor mitigation initiatives have raised'mixed waste composting costs.
Emissions of harmful airborne fungi also have been reported. The compost produced
by these facilities is often contaminated by metals present in MSW, which reduces its
range of application and its value.
• Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted. In theory, this strategy
1 could divert all organic waste 'that is currently targeted for composting. This includes
30 million tons of yard trimmings, 14 million tons of food scraps, and 21 million tons
of soiled or unrecyclable paper—resulting in an annual total of 65 million tons of
material. . . ,.
• Costs Per Ton Diverted. Midrange costs are estimated at $63 per ton for collection
and $50 per ton for processing for a total cost per ton of $113.
3.6.2 Strategy Description - .
Mixed waste composting refers to a centralized processing system that accepts mixed MSW and
separates materials 'into component parts for composting, recycling, and ultimate disposal. Facilities
in the United States range in.capacity from 15 to 220 TPD and employ a range of technologies.
There are 12 mixed waste composting facilities operating in the country.34
31 Personal communication with Ted Brown, Environmental Affairs Manager, Hannaford Brothers, October 25,1996.
'32 Op Cit. Parrel. p.'62. . . ' ' . • • . '. • . '
33 Kunzler, C., and M. Parrel. 1996. "Food Service Composting Update." BioCycIe. May. p. 49. , , •
34 Steuteville, R. 1995. "MSW Composting at the Crossroads." BioCyck. November, pp. 44-46. A followup call was made to contributing author
•Nora Goldstein on October 22, 1996, who was able to separate out the source-separated organics facilities from the mixed waste composting
facilities described in the article. . _. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
31
-------
En:, S, iiiiiiiisiiiiiiii'iiiniiiiiih ";\i%.Jk\'„'" ^Sm^iS^MSSSi'i:ir;ii!J»% *. 'inL liiiiiiiiiiE'un«'t\M fliiiyi'iiaiiliIi!;!"'liiifi!"KJh!iii: iiSl11 •''JK":'"i":ii,,«ii • ^'S»- "isiiiii" 'iliij'Hif ''",'i»'!""'i Si"""'Ii• i,>ii|il»^^ ri'i'iiii;,,1,!?'!": i,!,;''itf1'"'!'JTIII,, , Hi1,!11"hii'ipiu a: .I'Jr1 •'•!• ""P"'|', 'iiiHii1, ^i1"1! I'viifliltU'liiiiiifiiiiJiPiiiiiiiiiiiipviviiiiii^ iiiiiiiliiiiiii.iiiiniiiii I
• •• •> •••• " • • - • • - • ••- -••'•'•• - • • •- • •* "•• • •• -Ore*""0 Maten'als Management Strategies
: in" "ii'i'ii1! iiiniiiiNii siiii: !:s> ,::„! Jdii'i am, \> IB "in11'::," in «"i BBBBBII BIII iiiiiiiimriBi S:!BI,B ?ii i m i:" i n / • wf wi i iiGRiii' < »t i \ i ?, i,ii»' "i •' "•' "mi :'!nt \nm, !i, '4 !< "t„'»• iii.< < it i' • ir '!•' •,' yii: B k IB; ' "'ia,!!1'1 ui*!'JB »r B I1 m '•>' ;i>: "BBIB'BB pi iin 'JII'BIJBB/, v" IBB „. *:„'' i1 i n,''! i B7iB BB" ' i', >: i'«',:»!'n iLiBBi1: ;,> >" ,;i!; BBBIB™ rKaiiii B iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1!' ii' tiiiiiiiiiiii 'B
Mixed waste composting once appeared to be a solid waste panacea. Mixed solid waste was
promised to be transformed into high-quality products'with no modification to waste collection
Systems while vastly decreasing our dependence on landfills. A number of mixed waste composting
plants were established in the United States in the 1980s with mixed results, as discussed below.
Most mixed waste composting facilities include basic preprocessing equipment such as trommels,
shear shredders, or other size reduction equipment. Composting technology ranges from relatively
simple windrows to capital-intensive digester drums. This range of technologies exists to
accfimmodate needs for more process control (in terms of odor control), finished product quality,
and composting speed in order to maximize throughput for a given facility size.
Ii1 liRliLf1,!! If fife ,FPn,ffi!i,Pfelby a combination of facility enclosure, material handling procedures,
Processing technologies, competent process control, and end:pf-pipe odor control technologies. The
" ' * ''" War control technologies most often used at mixed waste composting facilities are biofilters.
I'll1 "I'll III I'M IIIIIRI1 ill'ill "IN!'I'" I 111" Vllllll 'llll I I I II "III I H il II I l't;imi'%^lBS<7V'! i;J!i IT*; : ( t ;-;»' „.•!, v;i:.!"«, „;,:',-!, • I • I Ml ;,! 11
3,6,3 Technical Problems .^Z'llI™.!- '-! ™ 7"'' "ll'l ', "I ™Z
Many of the early mixed waste composting facilities were built with no provisions for odor control.
' Odor problems have been the primary reason for closing a number of mixed waste composting
facilities. In 19939 there were 16 mixed waste composting facilities in operation. At the end of 1995,
iii
Other concerns include the potential health problems caused j^ g^ome fungal ,Spores and
increased truck traffic and noise in residential areas. Li the past, composting facilities were easier to
site than other waste handling facilities as they were considered more benign. Siting new facilities,
however, has now become difficult.
Another potential concern with mixed waste composting is the quality of the finished compost
Chemical contamination, due to the heavy metals and organic chemicals found in batteries,
consumer electronics., household hazardous waste, and other components of the waste stream,
concerns potential end-users. Physical contaminants, such as pieces of glass and plastic, even if not
regulated, can reduce the marketability of the product.
The composting industry is learning from past experience and putting much more time and effort
into effective facility planning and operations, especially with regard to odor control. Technology
has improved, but this has substantially increased the cost of mixed waste composting. Tipping fees
have increased in the past few years. New facilities with state-of-the-art equipment will be
increasingly expensive to build. In most areas of the country, tipping fees at mixed waste
composting facilities are higher than landfill tipping fees.
i
3,6.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Stream Diverted
In theory, this strategy could divert all organic waste currently targeted for composting—
approximately 65 million tons per year.36 All organic materials might never be composted this
5 Nora Goldstein was able to confirm that the four plant closings were all mixed waste facilities.
!?**!*"«^." '"I™ l'1:"™""' I, J*?= 5!*!!™'? .9?.*?. quantity of materials targeted for composting is based on the 1996 Update. It includes 30 million tons of yard trimmings, 14
" ll£! "IJtfJon |pn| °fjpij?d or precy_clable paper.
1'
li|i« ' „ ,,""— :,,,, , • , i, , ,:,', "i
ilici-i iiiji '^r'-jpiviLi1
:' 32
•1 IS:filsMKi^ITCB!" iilllillill!."if;»WUHffl.:1!*'.,li'nt;''S* i\fit!;,(iflE'1 tl'-Si• iM"f ''SUflM, 1",;:iiSi:.%'Ziv11'S'''i'S!!!;;11'1!','"i1:;[-S''Si:3S£ii?
.imlff'.llillilt'l.iallll1'!1 I, ''.TH'llllhlll'i, nil! II ill.1: Irill ", I, I'lllil, Ulllllllli'''1!™!!'!'1 „ » ,1 1 'ii1 Ill II >'l .llu1, T:'jlldllfl,',1 'tliilllln,', .ilili'llllilrin'l,'1 rlVllllHILV "j I11'!! Mil' I'l'llllLT : IM illnlMI .vi'lllllllli'''!!!*!' nil'1 „'" ij'1"!,, 'I "Hrtll "nl'ill, I1" Illh
U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency
I'iiiiiav11!.mi,i!ii ''>"", ,'' iici!i -mii1 iKfis:-,"an .:'.;;;iiiiiiiii-I'si"a.)::s;:,r"i 11.1 >-;• a ' DVM , i<'",ii• '•"• •."i.-iiit K '•'•>?,.:* 'in"» / •' i f IA.;.; ' iw; • .1'fliiiiiiifcisi:r.. sf r*,,>i , •! •'•. « - ••< ii'»-' •• :• • ••• • :,• t*1'- •« i *' "' i "' ! I
lliyilllllllH^^^^ JIIPKIIIIIM
^ II ! Ill • »"!' ' " |. I .1 " I .' .1 I' |.' .' '. , lijl',!!
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
way due to the cost and problems with marketing the end-product. Technically, however, this
method of composting is capable of handling 100 percent of the currently discarded organic
materials stream.
3.6.5 ' Costs Per Ton Diverted '
Major cost elements for mixed waste composting facilities include siting, capital expenditures for
equipment and odor control devices, and operating costs. Siting new facilities, especially in nonrural
areas, is becoming increasingly time consuming'and expensive as a sophisticated public actively
works against these projects. These costs are very difficult'to quantify, as they include a
combination of public sector staff time as well as legal and engineering fees.
Mixed ;waste composting facilities, use much higher levels of technology than other organics
diversion strategies in order to sort recyclabies and compostables from disposed of waste. Facilities'
have dramatically different capital costs depending on the level of technology employed and the
reliance upon low-skilled labor for sorting. Odor control technologies also have associated design,
construction, and operating costs that vary widely from project to project. -. •
Operating costs include labor, operation and maintenance, utilities, and residuals disposal. The
technology used will determine labor requirements. Residuals disposal can be a very large cost item
depending on the compost quality, the corresponding degree of contaminant removal, and the cost
of disposal., . . • '
One study reported estimated costs for the capital debt service (presented as Capital Cost Per Ton in
Table 3-9) and operation (presented as Operating Cost Per Ton in Table 3-9) of a number of mixed
waste composting facilities around the country. The estimates do not generally include the costs for
land, as.the facilities are all publicly owned and land was already available.37 The resulting average
cost per ton ($49.89) is within the range of tipping fees examined for this report. These tipping fees
are listed in Table 3-9. In addition, it is clear from the data provided in these tables that these
programs are not financially self-sufficient.
In addition to facility costs, mixed waste composting involves collection costs. Unlike other
organics management.strategies, however, mixed waste composting does not require a separate
collection system. There is no additional collection cost, therefore, for a community that changes
from hauling its waste to a landfill to hauling its waste to a mixed waste composting facility. For the
sake of comparability with other strategies,.a generic collection cost of $63.06 has been developed
from the estimates presented in Table 2-2.38
Costs per ton diverted by,: this strategy range from a low of $102 to a high of $127. The weighted
average cost of diversion for this strategy is $113 per ton.39
37 It is also excluded to be consistent with the accounting of the other strategies that have sites and that do not include land costs.
38 In Table 2-2, four estimates of collection costs for communities that have no yard trimmings collection were developed; it is reasonable to use
communities with no yard trimmings collection costs as a proxy because communities that haul to mixed waste compost facilities are unlikely to also
collect yard trimmings. The average of the four estimates developed is used here. ' '
35 The average total cost from Table 3-9 plus the estimated collection cost per ton.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency " 33
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
Table3-9
Mixed Waste (Composting Facility Costs
Facility
Sumpter County,
Florida
Wright County,
Minnesota
Truman, Minnesota
(Prairieiand Solid
Waste Board)
Columbia County,
Wisconsin
Sevierville,
Tennessee (Sevier
Solid Waste)
Pinetop-Lakeside,
Arizona
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE11
Tons Per
Day
« ' 42.50
190.00
70.00
72.00
220.00
15.00
Tons Per
Year3
11,050
49,400
18,200
18,720
57,200
3,900
Capita! Cost
Per Ton b
$24.25
$26.32
$41.81
$14.96
$23.60
NA°
Operating
Cost Per Ton b
$39.19
$33.40
$13.13
$28,31
. $15.73
$32.05
Total Cost
Per Ton
$63.44
$59.72
$54.95
$43.27
$39.34
NA
$49.89
Public v.
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Publicly
Owned,
Privately
Run
Public
Tip Fee
$49.00 f
$55.00 h
$55.00 g
$33.00 h
$35.00 h
$38.00 e
$44.17
Notes:
* Assumes a 5-day work week.
Assumes full cost accounting.
* This facility has no debt service because sanitary district funds paid for the project.
......... J|^f jojg cos| perton figure is weighted based on tons per year and does not include the Pinetop-Lakeside facility.
Sources: ..............
;SojidJ|^te Ajsoda|ioj of North, America ....... If §5. Costjnfojwaiipn Baserf on Municipal Solid Waste Composting— A Status Report. Prepared
'"By GiririmiC ..... B^^^'^pttOT|Tfw. Ta^yw! [[[
' 3cP5f9nJT^fflil;M.Se^vi^'R"l^957M'SW Composting "---- ..... ''"" ...... ....... [[[ ' .......... ' ........
"BfoCycfe. 1995. February, pp. 48-49.
>i.^'£yc'*' 1993* November. pp. 56-64. ' , • '
•* Resource Recycling. 1 993. December, pp. 50-51 .
SoW Waste Association of North America. 1 995. Municipal Solid Waste Composting— A Status Report. Prepared by Gershman, Brickner &
Bratton,, Inc., Table VM.
|vember.pp 45-46
••:,"' 3.7 i Resjdential^Source-Separated Composting
Z,,/ Strategy Summary ' ' •
i 'Ni. illlK ""„ )ii|" '„!;:•'! liUi!!!" K!*• II' "Hiii.. Illllllllllllllllllll ,'.IPIII1,, .fl'!'!1. l!,'ii p.1: itf'iW/"1' .n1:.'.i. «:'"' .Ir "'".I, I, rs ^"AltlihMi "l'..i ""TMlr''.!!',,;!"-;, • ,i ,:k\/,:'\ V'll»'' T1' , Hlii"!,i, W '.IMP"! " •' ' "I1"1 hit h,1*!'11!1!"1,1!,!!!:; iJlilL' ,!F' ',:'!',/!" nn'iiv '.'I II, niii',!!.:™1 111'A!,, lilhliUVll.!! inilli1!1 ,iil
;::^;H: ,;:=;„;;:= ..... '-, . :'=-; ;;JL=i: ; Strategy Description. Homeowners separate' specified organic materials and set them
PI .'»:.' 1 1 'jj'jui f fii jiniih. HIII ' , '''jj"11,,!. , iiiininiii. ,'ii'iii,;!"" ..iiir ..... mv i ''Kpniinn ....... KB. ............... ' ..... ............ "'''yi ................. n ........ ............ ................ ....... i"" ....... |M ........ • ........................ ; ....... ............... ........ • ....... ....... ' ....... •» [[[ - ............... - ................................................. • ...........................................
'
-m ........ •
Ilitlj.: ;i,!': ;: i|i|f MI'",,,• JKfJpKy tJJW iJt,!MKirWrt Giiill'l) !<'Hill,ILIE-tl 'SillS'-'iiJi „:M" III! SSI.iHnittf.ii' ;>!;-': • 1, II' SiiKlltI]!'1:;,':! 'i!1:1;,)''lil'MIINit£! '•liri It1 :K'lilii'l,! Willj-,:'1!; It,!<:' :'
' fi T--~I~:-~I Problems, Prosrams are relatively new to the United States .and have not
,
' i!:r ''Sibeen widely teste
J fl, ,
tlt'flUHt i'ii[|l||!|K' ft* .' jllBlil1!. iilil'1".! tyWflr'+gJWfiiS;!U^f!lT*ift,(aj(CMS»W lI'I'I'IIHilliif''-1; Slililiil'i1!*; ll!!';!!"i;;'';!l!!!'!l!i':. III*"I: H'.i'1*:!.; i'i" I'S'E'ii
[;:^f>£S'-i; !': sl^i^'-'^PPiL0^!?,?!?.*!*^?. P,f ,,,!^, National Waste^Stream Diverted. The residential sector
^ ' ." i in til1: :i'*. ,>! i ">::'!:! -:)' ;;U It'ltiill V'!i>'!'
I I- in ' L 'lliffuLl'.:"
Pfr. Ton,^ Diverted:. Since....^?, strategy is not well established in the United
States and only limited operating cost data are available, no cost estimates have been
derived in.tiiis report. Limited cost information is, however, provided below based on
pilot results.
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
.3.7.2, Strategy Description « ;
Increasing sensitivity about the poor quality of mixed waste compost in Europe started a wave of
residential collection programs targeting the organic fraction of solid waste. Several pilot programs
in the Netherlands and Germany in the late 1980s demonstrated that the compost produced with
residential source-separated feedstock contained substantially lower levels of toxic heavy metals
and physical contaminants, such as glass and plastic, than mixed waste compost.
A variety of methods for collecting source-separated organics are used in northern Europe. Many
municipalities that use semiautoniated collection for trash issue all households standard size bins or
rolling carts for organics. Other communities nave tried dual compartment bins or paper bags.
Collection is generally once per week. .
s - • . ^ -
The first U.S. pilot program was in East Hampton, New York, followed by others in Fairfield,
Connecticut, and Santa Barbara, California. The main objectives of these pilot programs were to
determine if residents would comply with additional separation requirements, what type of sort
seemed to yield the best compost quality and diversion results, and what collection systems could be
used. -'.','. • . .
Several pilot and full-scale residential organics programs are described below: i
• Mississauga, Ontario. Four different combinations of sorting and collection were
tried in four zones of the city. These methods included two-stream (i.e., wet and dry)
sorts using bags and three-stream (i.e., recyclables, organics, ,and trash) sorts using
varying combinations of containers. The report indicated a preference for a three-
stream sort, even if the program cost was determined to be slightly higher, as the'
,recyclable and compostable materials collected were of higher quality.
• Fillmore County, Minnesota. The source-separated composting facility in this
county is one of the oldest operating plants in the United States (started in 1987).40
Compostables (including food scraps, nonrecyclable paper, and diapers) are collected
weekly. Residents source-separate organics and recyclables from refuse. The facility
is permitted to accept 3,100 tons per year and is operating at close to capacity.41
* Lake of the Woods County, Minnesbta. This county has mandatory source
separation of Organics. If materials at the curb are not separated they are not collected.
Private haulers bring materials from both commercial and residential sources to the
facility. Incoming loads are screened for contamination. Of the approximately 2,500
tons of material brought to the facility each year, approximately 1,200 tons are
composted.42 The system yields about 500 tons of compost and 500 tons of residuals
per year.
43
40 Goldstein, N., R. Steuteville, and M. Farrell. 1996. "MSW Composting in the United States."'BioCycle. November, p.50.
41 Personal communication with Sandra Benson, Fillmore County, Minnesota, October 23,1996.
42 Personal communication with Gary Lockner, Lake of the Woods'County, Minnesota; October 22,1996.
43 Goldstein, N., and R. Steuteville. 1995. "Solid Waste Composting Plants in a Steady State." BioCycle. February, p. 50.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,
-------
E
May 1998 Organic Materials Management Strategies
_ . . .
• Mackinac Island^ |^chigan.^ThisiiiCoinmumty converted its mixed waste composting
j^ WifSij^^m^ !° % ™SC,±SeParate
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
-.Residents sometimes Complain that tiieir organics containers become more odorous than regular
mixed trash containers. This is more likely to be-a problem for households that have a relatively
small portion of nonfood compostables, such as paper, yard trimmings, or cardboard, in the organics
container. This also is especially true for homeowners who have less than weekly collection for the
organics stream. Due to concerns about odor and health, programs that include food scraps should
consider collecting these materials more than once per week, especially in warmer climates.
3.7.4 Applicable Portion of the National Waste Sir earn Diverted
As shown in Table 3-10, approximately 52 million tons of the U.S. residential MSW stream
(e.g., food scraps, yard'trimmings, unrecyclable paper, and corrugated) can be targeted by this
strategy.
Table 3-10
Potential Diversion Through Residential Source-Separated Composting
Total residential MSW a ' ,
Compostable portion of residential MSW b
Percentage compostable of residential MSW b
128,381,000
52,287,000
41 percent
a The residential percentage of material is taken from the 1994 Update because the 7996 Update does not provide
detail on the commercial versus residential breakdown.
b Since materials targeted by the programs examined include yard trimmings, food scraps, and contaminated or
unrecyclable paper and cardboard products, the following categories from the 7996 Update were defined as the
compostable portion of the MSW stream: yard trimmings, food scraps, paper bags and sacks, tissue paper and
towels, paper plates and cups, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, folding cartons, and other paperboard packaging.
5.7.5 Costs Per Ton Diverted
Costs for residential organics programs are not readily available because such programs have not
been widely implemented in the United States. .
Average collection costs for^the wet and dry collection technologies evaluated in the DeKalb,
Illinois, pilot program ranged from $48 to $62 per ton diverted. Wet and dry organics were
collected weekly by a dual collection vehicle. Residents were supplied with cellulose-lined bags,
8-gallon containers to hold the wet waste bag, and 20-gallon wet waste containers to hold full
wet waste bags for curbside collection. On one of the two pilot routes, recyclables were co-
collected with wet and dry organics in blue bags. The cost of the recycling and wet and dry co-
collection was $48 per ton diverted. . . , -
Other studies have estimated monthly food scraps collection service fees50 as well as source
separation collection costs in Europe.51 '
m Waste Management, Inc. and E&A Environmental Consultants. 1995. p. 56.
511 See, for example, Table 2 in the King County Residential Food Waste Collection Pilot Project Report. 1996. p.13.
51 See, for example, Scheinberg, A. 1996. "Going Dutch: Collecting Residential Organics in the Netherlands." Resource Recycling. January.
p. 37. This source provides-a relatively detailed study of the costs of residential collection done in the City of Rotterdam, Holland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
37
-------
Illll 11 Illll Illll IIIIIII II
IIIIIIIIH Illll Illll
IIIIIII IIH| I IIIIIII I 111 II
111 IIIIIII III II 111 Illll 11 ill II IIIIIII
I (I 111 11 III 1 IIIIIII
I I
IIIIIII 111 I III Illll 111 III 111 III
I IK I'" il I i 1 11 III III
111 IIIIIII II Illll 111111111 lllllllllllllllllll
'I II 11 III III III lllllllllllllllllll I
May 1998
.Organic Materials Management Strategies
As with source separation collection information, there is a general lack of complete cost
informs.*™,. _specificto source separation processing technologies. Swift County, Minnesota, built a
" to receive bagged source-separated MSW as feedstock. The cost for
. and processing at this facility was compared to the cost of mixed waste
ia SSSM-'HS! co,H?^e,s,: Source-separated costs ranged between $11 and $15 per
ilOiPl per household, whereas mixed waste composting costs ranged between $10 and $22 per
household per month.53
IU! inVi*>ii:,!,lili
.lyi.V'SMSiiitiS
i: Hi11; I,,::!:,,;!,,!,!1:,: ::;:iiiiiif ,,|in:.
1 II Illll I 1111 I I II
" • illllll II I I 111 I III I. . I IIIIIII I I II II II II I I II I I II til I II 11II III I I I III I I 111 II I
The $3.5 million composting facility in East Hampton, New York, has a capacity of 40 wet tons per
d-ay- For the first 9 months of1996, the facility received an average of 18 to 20 tons per day.
..Approximately 48 percent of the compostables are received from residents while the rest of the
malerjal was received from commercial sources. Operating costs were not available.54
!
|jK|i, ir iiiiijiia f, is;,'; "'i! i" iiju jgi -• _,;;;:: ii it:, xs,, i, - JIB »;,,,f •••• i;:.";,,:; |> isa 3 ym;: ~. i,;,;;,_ jt: -,, ,i'*j;'pj; i "•{. f[i: ..'' •: K ,'!•;' vsir ws i1!, §.;; :,'ftr \ ',„,».',! g #' •:if] i',;,, lr. i; ifi,.(,: ;|i; Jgit..})^1 (flWiWi I
lIlilLil'illi1 .h'iiiiisii »'!** I'1 -If'' ,','!!! l'' ',Illll'i'llll .i!"!,!1!!,,' 'll'lll'illi' lillll' ' '!'' ,' 'I!'"'!!! ,""!''" XIBIIIIIIIIIIII '' !''",',;,,:„;' '"','11! ,,, 'I! " I1' '»!!,!!!'' 'i!i '' 1 !'„ '"i, " i 1 ' 'I! l"1"1 '"'l"! »'' ',,1 "I,'1 , ''','' I" '" h ' A, '',,'" , "hi iii'i ,,"„':" Illllll fc,:,!,f! ' ,!' ' " ,' , ' I1 "i" , "i1!1 ',''[ ''„„!,', '!'"', '"l!!, ' , II' 1,1 „„''" ' » ,: '' !'l'''"l
ill •„ lilii, rilli'i'Liii'I;:1 IIJil il'llil1 :ni.i" "''i . IPIHliiFi'^'lifT1! ,11, • 'i'Milii,1,,!1'1!1.: ' ihif '' ' ' ii Wiiiilllli i1'1'*! -n'li •«' '" I'n",,;::!!1* V &•*,,,', "V'h9"< ' \y „ h »,i,!! ! .'i|'.i',! "n •: • ^"^iii.iji:! !, P, • ''iili',!,",!!, >,',:!":!'"' ''.fM'..!!!!!' ifil..!**!:1!!1 ''.H'l.'1':1!,'1 ',!..r!,' i,"ii '.;!'„"!!' ' 'i"'.!"!1"" .•„:," ,11,!'"!, ,'., ,,!'M|':!ll, "Vl-liwra
illKiir;!! JIIKFSjiir^liil! Illllll!1 MI'I n;, M'! jljltiil ii'ii."1;,' fbiif11 'if .''I, * U, I, ni ul1"1 ,,!'',i "u i'llllHIB ' - {iKl "I'M1 ",,,'M'i11:1: I i' Li!11::,,!, Jit:1 111 ' i, ^ :, , ^^.jjiiJ'WIiT'i !,!';'"!,!,!' i' ''<;, I ' "WI'M. "i,"''1'"1!, I'';!1'' ill|'1>>'li;hl'lUll< '';''' ' :• ..' ''J'lii'V '• l|!": '!'»''"'!!;'I'; , ' '"'<',' ' ||I!|"''»1' 'V'1''' : i'l? ;/;'!;;;'llf11'—'!™^
iiiijii'' i!S^^^^ .hj1'!!11™:, ' Sisi " jfijii'i'ii.'iiii" iHiiliiiiii ''"i'Siii''!!'''!,!!, i/:ili»ii;ii'iii:''j;ii,,1:,, !iiii;i •! Silii '•« •' : \,:rJi:f?liiri!|li!li!!K '"',''' I'K"''1*!.""1 :'"''!ii -i!iii''ljii!;Ji4M!i:iii|.;iiiiil K ^:!•l|\iiii.Iliifii i"'11'"!1";,,,!1"1'", T' :.'!'""'' ii1!::",1 "'iiw-'iil' 'I'.i'wii'i-'iK'"! .; .iv,. "j;j,,!:,! i'iliji'fli^
ilf'ii'liiil'V'ilLltii'i'Mir1,!.1!!!11, i!i, „"" i llllili "'If'ji1'!" • "HVi'S-ifi1 V m' niHIK '„''• I'lflilni "f! I,,1;1 Ii1 Iii "'!!"• ''"'iliii,,' i i?!!"1 in'i "' '• , ,||.' 'ii'i,1'!'!! iii,1" i. ; , ,i !'• ,n' :"'"' "'' "'' * '' ! "i "•'!! '''i'l1 i!|1"" !"li"» ''•' IIPI Hi 'i,'"'i'"ii hi •'•!?!: i''••'"" i "i" ii'1' '"' • 'W il" , '» H^ ''Mi'i -• lirV I'1'"; i1'1rr"iif 111 •: i, nl^1'Illllll111 'lllFiri111!,.111'1!1"!1!
•iii"11, if m. iiiii. 'I1* iiniiii N,' ',. iii, i • '"iiiTni PI i Hi', i,,:iiii r " ' I'.rt i ii iiiniiii. "iiWiiMiJiifiihi1- 'i, i"i 'i 'iri:!" , iiiiiihii \f, * '''vii' ' 1*1"'/ir- ?ii " 'i,. . ',V'"" ,.',: ' , 'fii1:.:.'iViiiiiiiiin IK.'. M.; ",,'»!•*',MI i 'j'l,,11,1'."I'l'iiiii, .i,i/',;i i] 'i,!!1",, utii', , ,''• •' iinh,,,!":,,,'!!1'!,!... ' 'i „ ,'iii',!i«'iiii .|\:iii;:.iiiiii!i|.::fiviii:i|U^^^^^
'I,!'11:;? ! iiB!14,, ,3 Rt ;'.;i,,i"!;. "lllffli., li'.! i!!' ,i," :,"fci, "i1 ,„ ;!h *••• 'L, ..lilliill! :M*;X^Ji.r ''"m"' ", "C'1 , H iMiil"!; •",: >W \'':' v •'.' y 'lihii,; 'J, ; «:,,. *
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
4. COMPOST MARKETS AND PRODUCT VALUE
4.1 Review of Benefits Associated WithCompost End-Uses
The demand for finished compost helps divert an increasing amount of organic materials from
landfills. In addition, the use and application of finished compost result in, a multitude of benefits,
such as enhancing the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils, which in turn jesults in
various environmental and economic benefits. A summary of some of the major benefits of
composting is provided below.55 " .
4.1.1 Direct Benefits to Soil
• Improves the Physical Properties of Soils. Compost enhances water holding, soil
aeration, structural stability, resistance to water and wind erosion, root penetration,
. . and soil temperature stabilization. •
• Enhances the Chemical Properties of Soils. Compost increases macro- and
micronutrient content, increases availability of mineral substances, ensures pH
stability, and provides a long-term source of nutrient input by acting as a nutrient
reservoir.
• Improves the Biological Properties of Soils. Compost promotes the activity of
••beneficial micro-organisms, reduces attack by parasites, promotes faster root
development, and promotes higher yields of agricultural crops.
4.1.2 Indirect Environmental and Economic Benefits
.' • Since compost has the ability to improve soil water holding capacity and fix nitrogen
into a form that can be used by plants, its use mitigates (at least partially) nonpoint
sources of pollution such as commercial fertilizers.
• By improving soil water holding capacity and reducing water loss as a result of
percolation, evaporation, and . runoff, compost application results in water
conservation benefits. • -• .
• Compost reduces reliance, on pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides by providing an
environment rich in organic matter. Beneficial micro-organisms thrive in this
environment and can outcompete and suppress detrimental pathogens found in soils
where'organic matter is low.
• Consistent application of compost reduces soil erosion resulting from wind and water
by improving soil stability. ,
Based on Pratt, W., and W. Shireman. 1994. Agricultural Markets for Compost and Mulch: Cost, Benefits,,andPolicy Recommendations.
California Futures, Sacramento, California. Also based on Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation. 1991. End Use of Leaf and Yard
Waste Compost. Prepared by Tellus Institute. For more information on characteristics and benefits of compost, see Markets for Compost, EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
39
-------
•'•' May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
ii;i!»^^^^^^^^^ mm
iXjew oj Compost Markets, Applications, and Constraints
, [[[
can be used in a variety of applications. A report- prepared by the Composting
*]* ........ Eating ....... BE^et ........ segments for compost, with a potential demand for over
.....
l ..... $E ....... estimated ...... 26 ..... million ....... cubic yards (33 million tons) of finished compost that would •
...... if ...... fee .......... entire ........ applicable waste stream shown in Table 1-1 were composted.57 Each
n
.
JS ..... Si ....... ISE?!* ..... J§ ........ ^??Sbed briefly in Table 4- 1 along with the potential
., ,„, AA s, relative market size^and potential' barriers to widespread use of finished compost by
,;; • tEemarjEei segment. • .
I Jill liHlMliiilffliSish:,!":!!:!
'
I lilt-';
i
liim^^ liiiiii
*ii,i:i:'!,' ininiiiiiiiiiwniiiiii ii ^
S'iiiill i •!lll(lil!ii,!i«^^^
l! i: ",!*;, I
:g I
I
.are always behig explored. The Clean Washington Center in
i l^hHgtpn, for examp_ie, has experimented wMi using compost in wetland restoration
; The PESi,??! ^sl^d, monitored, ^and evaluated the use of yard trimmings compost to
I;1'."!!! '
ESS§~ftSl feSltefl iig^ficantty damaged by concrete production activities.58
Compost is increasingly being used as a medium for biofilters. These filters are designed to scrub
Industrial process air containing odorous and potentially toxic organic chemicals. Biofilters are large
|gds> usually constructed in the ground, with pipes that deliver process air placed in a layer of gravel
overs of compost and soil. The active microbial populations in compost use many organic
"ids in | the process air as a food source by breaking them down, reducing their odor, and
iHerjng them harmless.
I illliiJ ii!!!
ail
i •IK
......... Aese^lines, ........... SolumiriRemediationi ..... ServiceSj ......... Inc., ...... in ....... Lake ...... Bluff, .......... Illinois, is investigating the
;ntial for planted compost and contaminated soil mixes to contain or degrade toxic compounds
Initial ..... field ....... Mais ...... indicate ...... that certain pesticides were substantially degraded using this
'
'IIIIIW^^^^^^^^^^^
..... Mi
.
.......
........ i,:!!!"i
. shJiiier!!* ....... - I
...... ..... • ..... I
project, m_Washingtpn County, Oregon, entails using yard trimmings compost
for roadway stormwater runoff This runoff usually contains various organic
I h
|norganic rjollutants. The compost was used. as.a substitute for conventional teataenLmethods
^^!isSgBi°(S,E°nIs, £?I i!a,?S swales. Ireliminary results indicate that the prototype facility
BaMjaJSk !eS!2v.£l ?22l§iis2H!:§ from the stormwater,while occupying less than 10 percent of -
|f f ilfie land required by conventional methods.6"
lI'^JI'TI'^li.lIIIIIK «I.1.|111H !' MBWHMCSMW.'KCV.HMMHH, >» I'iilii'S"'ill •!!« IdMTO iilliiii'lll
!i;"if:»;"» itvttKi'Wi! ;•$$.$/> i HiWfiS
¥^MfAtMtmm^!H I ; !
^.I'p'r'iiix'j.iiiiluiiiiiE.iiiiiF'i iiiiiiiiiiiliiliiLl;.!!',!!
s1:,: Pln.31!!! .1 ' lllihi1 'liiiliiit'ia^:
' "' :; , iiiPindiiiP ' ,; < iiii ' 'm>s:r IHP ..... ,:,ii ,!< ; « ^^i PL, \ : ,11 eanji ' '""" ' I|;; ti:" >, ; , i,;1! i i "i ..... :: ....... i, " i\i vi iii:i >. ' :•,< ..... P ..... ^ :«;;
i , '''• il'llnJi ...... i 'Slli ;". ' ;,lMllliiB j.iili.1,!' .«: 1 ..... HI , 1, ''Bui' .ill!1 ' ;ii , " ...... ..... ' ' '' J'lll M' ' , ; ,, ,!' i1! ,' i ...... 'iJilliii'lliiiiii'fl i < i«PI< iP< ' V'1 , ;f M
iiiti! A' T;I aiif i;iiiii||HiPi iijji!' iiiiir ";\/:», !!;• u \ ,1,,, jiiiiiiiii' iiw'iifiiji I; iiMyiaiiiii jijiiji jriil! i ^ urn 4^'!" iiiiuiiiiiiijij"° j liji:;i|i^::';''''iD|" !,"ii:ii]|' ijujiiL1;1 as < iiin', i, *|t!| iiu: £..:"': '»li|' 11 i,'!' "vi'i"1 T ''i:'1: i;; n'jij r -''!! < J i, iij,, /''; ijif"'' ni'irii!' 'k • 11'!.1,' J' & \ ;::||'i<|; K>:«\a«'[:, ":f '^ \i w < i' * iiiwii! 'i "t( '»": <' iJ, ;|: 'I! ,,1:;' 'I; J |! ]\:' t,; i;] »>."/:;"' j!iiiii< f ° "^'lii >\ f;«, ilf''"':, J \' ju' "^ ,i wt IHP' '«|cu!i|iiiii|d iiiiiiUiiiiiiaiiiiiiii 1111
** Composting Council. 1992. Potential U.S. Applications for Compost. Prepared by Batelle.
1 M Volume estimates for the applicable waste stream were calculated assuming 50 percent weight loss due to volatilization in the compost process
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Table 4-1
Compost Markets, Applications, and Potential Constraints
Market
Segment
Applications
Potential Market Size
Primary Constraints
Agriculture
Soil conditioning,
fertilizer amendments,
and erosion control for
vegetable and field
crops and forage
grasses.
Development of
marginal lands.
Mulching after
conservation seeding.
Very large, estimated at
895 million cubic yards
per year. Research
indicates that the'
demand for'compost for
agricultural purposes
within a 50 mile radius,
of the 190 largest U.S.
cities would exceed the
supply of compost.
Contaminant.,
concentrations for crop
production and
cumulative loading limits.
Cost of transportation to
end-user. ,
Bulk application
equipment requirements
and costs.
Silviculture
Landspreading as soil
conditioner for
evergreen *
establishment. •
Mulching for woodlot
soil improvement and
maintenance.
Very large, estimated at
104 million cubic yards
per year. This
segment's potential
demand could exceed
the available supply of
compost.
Transportation cost and
distance.
Bulk application
equipment requirements
and costs.
Sod production
Blending with topsoil to,
reduce the amount of
fertilizer needed to
establish sod.
Moderate, estimated at
20 million cubic yards
per year. Market
potential will be dictated
by the rate at which sod
producers deplete
existing topsoil. •
Transportation cost
Bulk application
equipment requirements
and costs.
Residential
retail
Soil amendment to
enrich planting areas.
Top dressing for lawns.
Moderate, estimated at
8 million cubic yards per
year. Much of topsoil
sold in bags is currently
made with compost;
thus, this market has ,
already been
penetrated.
Postprocess
requirements (e.g., ,
screening and bagging)
and associated costs.
Consistent quality
assurance.
Contaminant levels must
be low enough to meet
requirements for , •
unrestricted distribution.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
41
-------
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
111 II Kill 11111« Ml
Table 4-1
Compost Markets, Applications, and Potential Constraints (Continued)
I!
1.1 EiJrt:
,:W 1' I'd
111^^^
v HI
, Pill Jill! lilHi:,.!!, , millllh "Inil
Market
Segment
Nurseries
Delivered
topsoil
Landscapers
Landfill cover
and surface
mine
reclamation
Applications
• Potting mixes.
. .
• Topsoil amendment for
areas in which field
grown trees are
harvested on a periodic
basis.
--•
Blending with marginal
topsoils to produce
topsoils used for
establishing new lawns
and planting trees and
shrubs.
• Soil amendment for .
lawn establishment.
• Top dressing.
• Mulch.
• Topsoil amendments for
lower grade and
nonuniform compost
products.
Potential Market Size
Small, estimated at 0.9
million cubic yards per
year.
•
Small, estimated at
3.7 million cubic yards
per year.
Small, estimated at
2 million cubic yards per
year. '
Small, estimated at
0.6 million cubic yards
per year. There are only
a limited number of
landfills or mines that
are undergoing
reclamation at any
given time.
Primary Constraints
• Consistent pH balance,
nutrient content, particle
size, shrinkage, and
•water-holding capacity
required.
• .Complete and continuous
testing requirements to
ensure high-quality
product and associated
costs.
• Compost suppliers will
need to be sensitive and
responsive to specific
growing requirements.
Consistent supplies of
compost required to meet
seasonal demands.
• Quality assurance that
compost does not contain
harmful amounts of
contaminants.
• Physical contaminants
that might be visible on
lawns.
• Consistent supplies of
, compost required to meet
seasonal demands.
• Transportation cost.
*
"Compost Supply and Demand." BipCycle. January.
iiiiiii'iiLii'iiiiiiriiiiiiiiniiiriiii!;,1 tut ami: iin ir
:in^^^^^^
liln •ilill^^ I A1:! i Fill! ',i AH,!:' KM 11!;1 All jiWiliil^ »II iillls ill lil'ilfe iliiili'''! •!' iul^
ectipn .Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
Portland,. Oregon, sponsored a study to demonstrate compost's effectiveness in controlling
erosion as compared with conventional methods such as .sediment fences and wood fiber
hydromulch.61 Fewer sediments were collected from the runoff of the compost-amended plots
than the others. The Federal Highway Administration formerly specified the use of straw to
control erosion on road embankments. It now authorizes the use of compost and mulches as well as
' straw. As a followup to the Portland project, EPA will fund a demonstration project to compare the
erosion controlling effectiveness of straw and compost on steep embankments.62
In addition to innovative uses for standard compost products, there has been increasing interest in
'value-added composts,' qr composts amended .with fertilizers, disease-suppressive micro-
organisms, and other products to stimulate plant growth.63 Specific organisms known to possess
disease-suppressive qualities are cultivated and sprayed onto compost. Disease-suppressive compost
products can be made to order based on customer requirements. O.M. Scott and EarthGro are two
companies marketing lines of fertilizer-amended compost products formulated for specific
applications such as lawn establishment, acid-loving shrub planting, and vegetable planting.
It is clear that many more uses for compost can be discovered with time and attention. As more
organic materials are composted as part of a waste management strategy, the greater the imperative
will be to develop markets with prices sufficient to cover compost production Costs.
More information regarding these innovative uses for standard compost products can be found in a
recently published series of EPA fact sheets: •
• Innovative Uses of Compost: Bioremediation and Pollution Prevention
(EPA530-F-97-042). . ' .
• Innovative Uses of Compost: Erosion Control, Turf Remediation, and Landscaping
: (EPA-530-F-97-043). .
• Innovative Uses of Compost: Disease Control for Plants and Animals.
(EPA530-F-97-044).
• Innovative Uses of Compost: Composting of Soils Contaminated by Explosives
(EPA530-F-97-045). ,
i
• Innovative Uses of Compost: Reforestation, Wetlands Restoration, and Habitat
. Revitalization (EPA530-F-97-046). •
These fact sheets can be ordered by calling the RCRA' Hotline. Callers within the Washington
metropolitan area must dial 703 412-9810 or .TDD 703 412-3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance .
callers can call 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672. The RCRA Hotline operates weekdays 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m., e.s.t.
61 Ettlin, L., and B. Stewart. 1993. "Yard Debris Compost for Erosion Control." BioCyde.-December.
62 U.S. EPA. 1997. Innovative Uses of Compost: Erosion Control, Turf Remediation, and Landscaping, p.3.
63 Holusha, J. 1994. Making Compost Double as Pesticide. New York Times. February 27. . ' '
:: ~ ~~" ! 43
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
•Ill 11II ill 111 Illlllllllllllli ll
i null inn ill i iiiiiiiiiiii
illinium iiii 11 In
n in limn ii in in IK
nil i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i I
in mi mi minium inn null
1 111 IIII IIII III 111 Illllli 111
111 Illlllllllllllli 111 I 11 Illlllllllllllli III
IIII II 11111111 Illlllllllllllli 1
^Organic Materials Management Strategies
4.3 Compost Product Quality
end-product quality is highly variable depending on the type of organic feedstocks and the
&odH5£d: .YardMSSSSI? cpmpost can include'unscreened oak leaf compost with
iSiSS iiS 'ffe fo&E&fa&XafolS* On ftS tafi!& screened leaf and grass
aye relatively high nutrient content and potentially high levels of soluble salts. MSW
;h often considered to. produce lower quality products due to the unsorted
BWWtf sSifS'j
|£esen^ .SeELSLEveral ,!?Sn.^£!?l Hs,2 parameters for yard triminings compost, source-
cbmposC and mixed waste compost. For comparison, the table also lists typical beneficial
parameters of fertilizers, manures, and potting-soil. As the table shows, compost has nitrogen,
—*-"us, and potassium concentrations in the same range as manures and potting soils but vastly
characteristics from fertilizer. Conductiyiry^m^Table 4-2 refers to the.soluble salts.levels of
r;;oompost Accordiiigto meNorftCarolma1 ErteraibnSerrice^^
less than 10 nullimhos per centimeter (mmho/cm) to be rated as unrestricted grade compost.64 All
' listed in the table meet this standard except the Minnesota samples of mixed waste
'lili'Lililllrlllilllill'.!';:^!...!^''!'!!'!''!!!!!1"1 ^hll,':!
^';Stete environmental agencies are increasingly adopting compost product quality standards to protect
^public health and the environment. Several categories of compost have emerged such as unlimited
Pill^ife!?^011' nonfood chain crop use, and land reclamation. Mixed waste compost, depending on
Sow it is prepared, might contain concentrations of chemicals that preclude it from being used on
food chain crops or distributed to homeowners for gardening use. Yard trimmings compost has been
"f~"""t .-to?on!ain only low levels of pesticide and herbicide, and the concentrations of these
no way impacts the potential end-uses for this valuable commodity. There are general
.of decreasing levels of physical and chemical contamination as a function^f.tlie degree of
..^^^^^S:,,.^^! iSSSSIS sI.f^SSHSiiL ffisti^onalj or even^residentialry collected
c|J||aralec! compost is much less likely to exceed state chemical contaminant -standards than is
gste cgmpost 5 The value of restricted use products will necessarily be lower than that of
iucts that have unrestricted use.
IS HGimii&!
If'illitlll^
§?n?Eal, compost should be rich in organic matter, be low in soluble salts, meet all regulatory
ISfeSiS f0,E Jl§ gai;a,§itnot contain^any weed seeds, have no undesirable odor, have a consistent
(usually near neutral), and have a moisture content of less than 50 percent.66 The Composting
§ has developed compost product use guidelines for several applications.67 In all cases,
producing compost of consistent quality and composition is important to ensuring that the compost
is marketable.
iiiii n i mi i in i n ii iiiiiiiiiiii INI i 11 i p ii n n ill mi ii n i i n i in in i nn i i n
M i
A raillimho is one-thousandth of a mho, a measure of conductivity and the inverse of an ohm. Bilderback, T.E., and M.A. Powell. Using
Compost In Landscape Beds and Nursery Substrates. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Water Quality & Waste Management
Publication Number AQ 473-14. '
' "" ' '
-, .and PJB, Woodbury. 1992. The Impact oj 'Separation on Heavy Metal Contaminants in Municipal Solid Waste Composts
Biomiss and Bioenergy, 3:3-4. . ' '
1 ...................... 1 ....... • ................................. • ........ 'i .......... Y; ...... , ...... ;i
" MSW Management Elements, f.
i1'' 'Ii Ii: i f|J 1 ii iiiiiiiiii in 'i«
l/'SslSitlftnSnSEK?!'!^!^H^y^-.CoW0^P?rameters^ndCompost Use Guidelines.
:t !,8 •
1]-!!1. ....... «:, c ..... ::i>: 'i
3s,m i I'tiiiiiiAi!' i!i;<: .w, E i ".nil! i!iiiM^^ I
; ;;;_;«• ,1^^*-|'** t «K.««i«i«g(h.Mjtjjij-'
'SI* 4?
19^^^^^^^^^^^
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies ,
May 1998
Table4-2
Comparison of Compost Beneficial Use Parameters
Compost Type
Yard Trimmings
Compost a
Average
Range
Source-Separated
Organic Compost b
Average
Range
Mixed Waste
Compost
European samples °
Minnesota samples d
Range
Manure e
Dairy cattle
Feeder cattle
Poultry
Swine .
Sheep
Horse
Average ,
Potting Soil f
Range
Fertilizers 9
Scotts Vegetable "
Garden Fertilizer
Scotts Starter
Fertilizer
_esco Professional
Starter
Scotts Azalea
Camellia &
Rhododendron Food
Nitrogen
Percent
-
-0.94
0.0002. to 2.1
'
1.15
0.88 to 1.47
1.11.
1.22
0.51 to 1.63
0.50
• 0.60
1.50
0.65
0.65
0.75
0.86
0.005 to 0.1
17
20
.18
' '. ^ 15
Phosphorus
Percent
0.30
0.009 to 0.7
0.62
0.38 to 0,8
- 0.37
0.27
0.1 5 to 0.69
0.06
• 0.10
0.31
0.16
0.16
o.fo-
0.15
0.003 to 0.1
•
25
27
24
11
Potassium
Percent
0.28
0.1 7 to 0.37
. 1.01
0.63 to 1.37
0.49
0.59
0.14 to 0.91
• 0.31
0.30
0.29
0.45
0.86
0.55
0.46
0.005 to 0.1
. 5
5
12
11
PH
7.65
7.1 to 8.2
'7,6
7.2 to 7.8
- 7.66
8
6.8 to 8.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
> NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
,NA
NA
Conductivity
mmho/cm
2.99
1.4 to 5.6
3.9
1.9 to 5.6
6.23
14.6
3.2 to 22
NA
NA
NA
- NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
"NA
NA
• * NA
a Sample analyses reported from four yard trimmings composting facilities.
b Average of 150 samples collected in Europe. Results from Vogtmann.'H. 1993. Compost Science and Utilization. Autumn, p: 70.
° Average of 14 samples from European MSW composting facilities by E&A Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Average of eight compost products from Minnesota MSW composting facilities. Results from Johnson. 1993. Resource Recycling.
December, p. 52. . .• .
e Brady, N.C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, p. 500.
Personal communication with-Bruce Bargar, Peters Company.
9 These values were taken -from fertilizer labels at a home and garden store. -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
45
-------
11 .\ 'ij' :M'K: M'-te^' :<«:. I M'Ul J Ji'iSf fHii'L iiitt't »,ifll: i Sf 1ffi| 'W'.' ,'fj ';', '¥WK !:i;•' *i i'"'ill) • '* l!l!« IB |
^.ifi::.':::i:::"::;;;;:;"i1^™6,™^™,,!8, 2™™s,™i S^EZ?!^,Ca5 r?duce .&? u,s.?.9f'f?1^!!?^? by approximately 33 to 50
VuJ^riii' Z'I::S?f^!: -^ ,,4-year Eodale Institute study found that a year's worth of grass clippings was equal to
,;:::';23;5pounds'per acre^of nitrogen(5.4 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet), 77 pounds per acre
~"^- J7=.':: ~ '. oTphosphate, and 210 pounds per acre of potash.72
According to these findings, fertilizer, use on lawns could be reduced in certain horticultural and
agricultural applications. The. quantities of compost needed to displace the fertilizer depends on the
-ii'tif i A': i IH (!': hiiWiSi lililli!' ',iii! l!!lllll!i K:!!i Jii&i'lii1 mil. • iC!': illiii' i'i: :ili!ii'l!! 4»:"' iiil!!»^^^^^^^^ '.; i ii'' K:>' S'i''"!1!! JIM^'t'liS^^ i«i ;!>!V-::>», iiiiilil i.'' "• ii!'*! i1!":1!': ;!t < ' ailiiiii! Ili!
I UP.. IlikJlllinn ,'i,:i|.l|| ,;:|,i i ',: lllllllHi1, Hill'1 Kt Illll i 'iilPlil, Ifil ii.ll P»i' .1 'iillNII",!!, i i "''liiH: Ji. HiSr, EnvirQnmental Protection Agency
IIM^^^^^^^
'• ":":": ' :": : : ' : ' :'": :"": -- : : - - ::":: : :::""' "': '' :" "'"l' :"'"":":":":: °J1'"":""": -:";"'"":":': '' ' :'": : ::':": "-•' '--' ::: " ' '"-' "; '':::":"": 1:"":':"":'":: iiw^^^^^ iiiiiiiw : L:"": "
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
4.5 Potential Market Value of Compost
The market value of compost is influenced by a variety of factors including the .demand for soil
organic matter, availability of competing products, compost quality, and the effectiveness of the
producer's marketing strategy. The extent of pre- and postprocessing (e.g.,-curing, screening,
bagging, and mixing) of compost feedstocks also has a direct effect on the market value of compost.'
Compost market value also is affected ;by the type and quality of organic materials (or feedstocks)
diverted by a given compost program. Source-separated food scrap compost (typically collected in
commercial, institutional, and residential source-separation compost programs) will generally have
high nutrient value and low contamination. Yard trimmings compost will have somewhat lower
nutrient value as well as low contamination. Mixed waste compost will usually have moderate
nutrient value with higher levels of contamination.
Table 4-3 shows reported revenues received from bulk sales of compost end-products. The table
.organizes revenue information by type, of compost program.74 Yard trimmings composting and'
residential source-separated composting operations receive a similar range of revenue per ton of
finished compost. While mixed waste composting products have a lower market value, these
composts (as well as other types of composts produced in municipal facilities) are, often used in
the public sector or are given away to home gardeners and farmers. Compost produced by
grasscycling and backyard composting is used by the homeowner. Similarly, onsite institutional
composting facilities often use the compost they produce in their own landscaping operations.
While no money is exchanged hi these cases, the end-users. are likely to realize economic
benefits in the form of reduced fertilizer and/or soil amendment costs.
A74 Revenues are for bulk sales of compost only.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
47
-------
,., , Ojganic.Matanals Management Strategies
ZswSSnSim'Bii I
4-3
Revenues for Various Compost Program End-Products
iie^
!iH^^^^^^
111 '
t»,l
• lili 1, i,i.
Feedstocks
Yard Trimmings
Metro Portland Solid Waste Department Facilities,
Oregon a
Atlantic County Utilities Authority, New Jersey
Rexius Forest Byproducts'
Nature's Choiced
AVERAGE REVENUE PER TON
Source-Separated Organics
Intervale Compost Project6
Commercial Composting Companyf
31uestem Solid Waste Agency, Cedar Rapids, Iowa g
AVERAGE REVENUE PER TON
Mixed MSW h
'inetop-Lakeside, Arizona
Sumpter County, Florida
Seyier County, Tennessee
AVERAGE REVENUE PER TON
Revenue Per Ton
$45
$25
$30
$27
$32
$53
$50
$15
$39
$4
$6
$1
$3
1 Personal communication with John Foseid, Metro Solid Waste Department
November 27,1996.
BioCycIe. 1996. September, p. 42.
•"Nurseries, Landscagers_and Spjj. Blenders.Are Leading Compost Markets." 1994. BioCycIe.
, , , ,,,, i ,;i,„ i ,„,., ,:iii,,,_ ,, „ ,_. ,September, p. 44"
^ii'j^i^'iE l*ii.''i. Swaiirii™nf™w^lp"Nurseries, Landscapers and Soil Blenders Are Leading Compost Markets." 1994. BioCycIe.
. September, p. 51.
; * Personal communication with Adam Sherman, Intervale Compost Project, December 3,1996.
These costs are proprietary information of the composting company involved. The company
did not wfeh to be identified.
.? BioCycIe. 1995. September, p. 44.
i!? At revenues for mixed waste compost are based .on Solid Waste Association of North
America. 1995. Municipal Solid Waste Composting—A Status Report. Prepared by Gershman,
Bnckner & Bratton, Inc. Table VI-4.
" • ' ' ':!
J I I
I
" I
1 f
itriii up iiiLiiiiiiiii hi!iiiii;i!iri":F;i .iiiiiiiiiiiiii.ii.ii'i'if'ihipii'iiiiiiiittiii'i'iiJiiii11,1' ,iiiiiii"i» IL i'liir:'., iii'.'fiii'H.imiiii1' IL re1* ii'nr"! Jiv i1 'I'll,:;:; ii Sv"'!!^!.^!!!^'^^"!!!!!!!1':!;!''! ii'im1 <\":is J< i iiiiiiiiiiiH"! iv1! I'i'irni,, !I,II."H :TI,'I i1:'1!11!1 h \/uw j/jiiniiiniir i ,i MI; iiiiii!!i:,<ii:'i l|l|iilii ,ii PiiiW .vijniniiiiiiil11'lHiiipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii'jii' '"BiiiiiiSTiiiimiii
I iiill'H^ M-MUfli . Kii'"! -ItliM !i»i! iJib^MNlJiilillV Silim! lt« ;> . I
• j1!'1; ;• '•;,;!,;;'jjjjjjf''j^l'']'ijjjjjjijljj! jj"S'Silyj!™!!,iiiiiiiijiyiiiiiiiiii™'!, jii!i!iii!n'iiiiiiEii!iiiiii'liiiiiiiiliii'!!'iiii''iiiih'iiuui'iS™i|i:i'"Siii'ni'iiii!!iii 'liiiii1'iiii1 ii'iiEi»''riiihiSSi!!""'!!1!! r'ii''I'i'iiii'ii T pi'"IIINIIIn?!I'T'PI"'!!i»iih'i?''!;''*i1"i'l''!!ii»i'f•''I iilii HI iSi'i"!n! '!"'win'""!"!!!»!'"H°'!!'iiiiMiii iiiiI'tiiii'ii11* •'"'''"';i"——""'' ''•'''™' '''"';"'''' "• • •""»"»'"''"''»l;;"'''"'"'"'»"'"'—"'"''' • •' • "''""'••'"''""•'''"* ——'''»'—'!—" — "SIS'I'!!!!!!:!"1!!!!!!!!"!!!!:!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,:!!:' I!!!::!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:!!,!'!!!!,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I
Illil :»!! ill!:.: -K ' Illlllllillillllltinil!1 f i tOSWHSl IK; iBIR'NBi1' W i lillilllllVVI!' "':fOM, 9U JiANIII W "!i 'III:;;:!: 1VS mot I'll K,,iii!ii!ii["i|i"""1« li'JI'iilii!1": Clii i!!!!!1! IIH ' VI vliji;:!!!! "K M!!1 TF i:i '' ;,ii' illlll
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Building on the analyses and information in Sections 2, 3, and 4, this section addresses the potential
cost impacts of compost strategies. Strategy costs (i.e., midrange compost strategy costs derived in
Section 3 and shown in Table 5-1) are combined with benefits (i.e., revenues as well as collection
and disposal savings) in order to derive a national 'net cost? per ton diverted and are reported in
Table 5-2. A 'compost strategies savings curve' (Figure 5-1) displays the relative savings of
•individual compost strategies (over traditional disposal methods) and the total.quantity of organic
materials targeted nationally by each strategy. .
Table 5-1
National Summary of Strategy Impacts
Strategy
Grasscycling a
Backyard
composting a
Yard
trimmings
composting
Onsite
institutional
composting
Commercial
composting
Mixed waste
composting
Residential
source-
separated
composting
Materials
. Targeted
Residential
and
commercial
grass
Residential
yard
trimmings and
food scraps
Residential
and
commercial
yard
trimmings
Institutional
food scraps,
select paper
grades, and
yard
trimmings
Food scraps
and select
paper grades
All
commercial
and
residential
organic waste1
Select ,
residential
paper grades,
food scraps,
and select
yard
trimmings
Midrange Cost
Per Ton
$1.00
$12.90
$55.00
$49.00
$72.00
. $113.00
~ NA
Cost Per Ton
Range
$0.26
to
$7.04
$5.00
to
$15.68
$21.65
to •
$88.21
. $29.00
to
$98.00
$50.00
to
$144.00
$102.00
to
$126.00
NA
Applicable Portion
of the Waste
Stream
(Millions of Tons
Per Year)
15.00
29.00
30.00
2.40
16.00
. 65.00
52.00
Strategy
Description
Primarily education
and promotion
Education,
promotion, and
possibly bin
.distribution
Dedicated
collection and
processing of
leaves, grass, and
brush
Institutions, such
as universities,
correctional
facilities, and
military bases,
collect and
compost organic
materials on site
Dedicated
collection of
targeted materials;
processing off site
Standard garbage
collection;
separation of
compostable waste
at a single facility;
composting of '
organic materials
Dedicated
collection of
targeted materials;
processing at a
central facility
. Comments
A time-saving
source reduction
strategy for lawn
care
Source reduction
option for those
with space to
compost at home
Well established
strategy
Allows certain
institutions to avoid
high collection and
disposal costs
Viable strategy for
large commercial
generators
Several facilities
have closed due to
technical problems
Limited experience
with this strategy in
the United States
' The labor required by citizens is donated at no cost to society.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
49
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
~~~^=^~= ;:;,:,,:; ^Jo H!^®1!0,0!® !*!£ 5S,ed ,*2 c°M^r indiyidual circumslance§,,,,, cost .ranges per ton diverted by
ViHSSiK'^ir^^?! C,2S22,§! Regies also are suinmarized inMssj^^
1,^;'^™:^ -JJ2£MP.S, !°jhow^how indiyidual compost strategy costs vary depending on the type and extent of
technologies implemented.
Report conclusions are provided in the final subsection of the section.
<" ilVIIIIIU'l1, Illllill1, ""IHlii liiflppi: .'jaill'ii,
Midrange Savings of Organic Materials Management Strategies
S"'jl ........... "5
if ..... l;i .......... , ...........
..... ff
joyides an estimate of the^national savings of indiyidual compost strategies. The table is
Sffi gSteS8,! !Sl iffiffiol gdbffilk Midrange Program Costs Per Ton, presents
r costs from Section 3 (see Table 3-1 for more details on these costs).
iiimi'i,,, lau: iiinMiiiM^^^^ i at,, ,,:i ;', j»i; i:,,< i, i , ™ii u iiniiH'iiiiis iiiii 111, >r,:, IE 8"iBS,.~'Si"ra7/:
Nun riMCiiiiEtii'ii av1" ji.i
UjjjUIk.flililjM^ ' III!::!"
:jl:i:!ll!rM^^ l!;!l',M!'l!
column, Collection and Disposal Costs Saved Per Ton, shows the avoided collection and
cost per ton based on informatipn in : Section 2. Avoided disposal costs for all programs
iie ..... weigjSed^average-tipping fee of $38 per ton (which reflects all of the, requirements of the
,
* ...... ji ....... andfill ..... regulations) as reported in Table 2-1. No avoided garbage collection costs
^ to grasscycling and backyard composting programs as it is conservatively assumed that
of these strategies is not large" enough to affect garbage collection
Fill ihltl I* 111 Jill
ii' 111
""'ilillfliil
ll'-'llllltli'l'
costs. An avoided garbage collection cost of $23 per ton is assigned to the commercial composting,
I.:. ,'jonsite institutional composting, and yard trimmings composting strategies based on avoided
, cojllection costs experienced in well established yard trimmings programs (see Section 2.3). For
mixed waste composting, avoided collection costs are equivalent to garbage collection costs ($64
per ton) since such programs are assumed to obviate the need for garbage collection.
The fourth column in Table 5-2, Revenues Per Input Ton, uses average end-product revenue per ton
from Table 4-3 as a proxy for revenue received for finished compost products. Despite the avoided
'^Si|S ^£9&?tfW,tai££iift 8£®^s£E^..^.b^?ky^ composting (see Section4), no dollar
IBS S assigned for end-product revenues for these strategies. Similarly, conservative bulk revenue
,-|||HfiS Hi assigned to all other strategies as reported in Table 4^3. TJiereyenueyalues in Table 5-2
l|:''""~""'J"c£d |f 50 percent in order to _take mto axjcount losses in lie compost process.7* In most
??..to ^.decomppsitipjci^fhscomposting process reduces 5ie weight of the incoming material by
a-ESZeSSSS SSSffled for aii,,§trategies are conservative and, thus, do not reflect the social and/or
environmental value of compost. •
"^&!S Iffll
>lg 5:2, Savings Per Ton, shows the savings per ton diverted for each
were calculated by sublxacting the total avoided cost per ton and revenue per input
I,,program cost per ton. Assuming midrange costs for well established compost
".? strategies with the exception of mixed waste composting would result in a net
benefit when the value of avoided collection and disposal and revenues are taken into account.
The savings (over traditional disposal methods) per ton diverted for each strategy shown in Table
5-2 were combined with the applicable size of the waste stream targeted by each strategy to
construct the savings curve shown in Figure 5-1 below. Mixed waste composting is not included in
the curve since it did not result in a savings.
(i! ill! i IK1!11!
n i nun in n in nil
^ M discussed, the 50 percent volatilization is assumed to ensure that revenues are properly allocated to 'diverted tons,' or the total number of
tons thit are input into a strategy.
nil Id Fill III 1 in)! 11)
ilii'llililiiillilllll 11(1111 mil i
ii U,S. Environmental Protection ^Agency
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii „„„„„„„„„ „„„„„„„„
I „„„ in „ ,„„ i in in 11 ill iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1111 in inn i ill in iiiiiiiii ii iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii
I |!llii| ill l I
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 19S>S
Table 5-2
Midrange Savings Per Ton Diverted for Compost Strategies
Strategy
Grasscycling .
Onsite institutional
composting
Backyard composting
Yard trimmings
composting' :
Commercial .composting
Mixed waste composting
Midrange Program
Costs Per Ton a
$1
$49
$13
$66
. $72 •
$113
Collection and Disposal
Costs Saved Per Ton
. $38 c
'.$61
$38 °
$61
$61
$102
Revenues Per
Input Ton b
$0
$20
$0
$16 •
$20
$2
Savings Per Ton
$37
$32;
$25 '
$11
$9
($9)
° Midrange program costs are taken from the results derived in Section 3 and rounded to the nearest dollar.
In most cases, half the material (by weight) that is input into a composting strategy is 'lost1 or reduced during processing to evaporation,
insects, and other factors. Thus, these figures reflect the number of tons produced by a composting program, rather than the number of
tons input to that program. " .
c To be conservative we assume no savings in collection costs. The tonnage in these composting programs is not reduced significantly
enough to affect the cost of collection.
$40 T-
FigureS-1
Savings a Per Ton of Organic Diversion
(Compost Strategies Savings Curve)
« 52
D) a
II
W c'
$35 -
$30-
$25 -
$20 •
$15 r
$10-
$5-
. .$o. -
C
• • . ' Kff
10
sscycling b
. Onsite Institutional Composting
3 . . " '•..'•-
. Backyard Composting b . . '
-Yard Trimmings Composting °
20 ..." 30 40 50 60
Millions of Tons d
Notes: ' - .
' These savings are from the viewpoint of local government and assume that any additional labor required from- citizens is donated
at no cost to society. .
To be conservative, we assume no savings in collection costs. The tonnage in these composting programs is not reduced
significantly enough to affect the cost of collection.
° This curve assumes that all yard trimmings will go to backyard composting as it is less costly.
Based on the applicable portion of the organic Waste stream available for composting using existing strategies and
, technologies. • -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
51
-------
I (II
May 1998
Organic Materials Management Strategies
111 III III 111 111 iii||||||i
iiii iiiiiiiiiii in in inn
II | |n;IIIEJIIfi'i'iii'irIlljlllllllllllllllllllllillllllllUI i||liil!i'TiiPillli IIIIIiill||l|i< IBi'lfl,il'llllIIIIIH1'"ill,,! ,f' ,,!'iPl!l< iiilliiiilllillliiiW"h.! ll'fcllllf Jilll!I!ii;.liii.!i:.ii:i|!iii.i4|!i<:iir:|i|i|iiiiii|iiii!!iiiii;,iiiiii;:i
source reduction programs, including grasscycling, onsite institutional
»= and backyard composting, require much less public outlay (when
iSS™*^
liiis , ir ., • 1,1 •• i. ,» •».; * „• ...donated. As a result, operational costs are more than offset by avoided disposal costs.
In combination, these strategies could target about 55 percent (36 million tons) of the
: stream available for composting.
ill i i 11 nil i 52
About 80 percent (52 million tons) of the applicable organic waste stream could be
targeted by a combination of grasscycling, backyard composting, yard trimmings
composting, onsite institutional composting, and commercial composting programs at
a net benefit.
Yard trimmings composting programs are the most well established and widespread
compost strategies in the United States. These strategies target about 45 percent (29
million tons of leaves, grass, and brush) of the applicable organic waste stream.
I i 11" I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organic Materials Management Strategies
May 1998
• Although mixed waste composting facilities can be cost-effective, these facilities
haye experienced substantial setbacks in the past few years. Public opposition and
technical difficulties have been troublesome for mixed waste composting facilities in
the United States. As a result, the United States saw a 25 percent decline in the
number of operating mixed waste compost facilities between 1992 and 1995.
• Residential source-separated composting programs have been tried on a limited scale
. in several places in the United States. Trends in Europe suggest that source-separated
composting programs might offer a viable alternative for capturing the remaining 20
percent (13 million tons) of organic materials that are not targeted by established
strategies or technologies.
• The potential market for finished compost is much larger than the potentially
available supply. If all applicable materials addressed in this report were captured for
composting, approximately 26 million cubic yards (33 million tons) of finished
compost would be created. End-uses 'for compost in agriculture, silviculture,
residential retail, nurseries'' sod production, and landscaping might have a market
potential of over 1 billion cubic yards (1.27 billion tons) of finished compost.
•. Higher technology does not necessarily yield a more efficient or cost-effective
system. In many cases a low-technology method, such as static pile composting,
might be more cost-effective in terms of compost sales and reduced tipping fees than
a high-technology counterpart such as an in-vessel system. States and municipalities
should use the level of technology that fits their needs.
While this report reflects national average statistics, the basic assumptions are easily translatable
to specific programs. On a basic level, the message of this report is that composting is feasible on
almost every size scale, and-it works. The key is choosing the most appropriate strategy. The
more MSW produced, the more organic materials are available for composting. The economies
of scale dictate that the more material available for composting, the lower the cost per ton to
operate whatever composting strategy, is used. By their very nature, however, some composting
strategies are more costly to operate than others. The most important part of a successful
composting operation is choosing a strategy or combination of • strategies that works for a
particular situation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
53
-------
iiiH
liiiln '
llli^iliiSili^l^lliillillv^ lill!l!II!;i;!ili|l'i''!l|!'!;i:iliii|l
', iii: uiiiiiiiii' ,, nPi iii.i !"• in >i iinim*! /iiiniiilihi aliR i< B, BBBBE 1J1 .BBBBB EIIBBE "''BBB i IB' Til I 'IBBIB Hi,, El BIBB'' Bill BlBBIElBIBBJ' VIP1'', I, '''"BE BI "Bl" "HP, EBBE B BE EBB BiBIEBB IBIEEBBBEBlii"
III '"ll ElBiBBIIIIEE BBBE BIB BlllliiEBIiilBBIBIIIIE ' E ilBB'IIBillBlllliBillBiilBlliBIIIIIIIIBIEB I
iiiiiEiin^^^^^^^^^^ gMmt-i&B'iu K+aMM! winiKiimer>re!i ' iaa^^^^
r,i'ii,ii,imi I,! tiiihi, i|[iiii;i: Hi,! ,;'»in, ,<'' , , -'I i in' ''iiii'i, i'i ii, vj 'ii ii'i iijiiiii ,,,111' in. ,T mi niii'i1' i ",|, i, iiiiii'"i''iniiiii , ii;iiii|i'' p M , < iiipiiniinninniniii ;FI t :i PITI ii» >, i I'll1,' n ,„ 11, IP' .din '•' * B1 .""ii, in mi": 'iii IP n' ;:iii;, '"T'' i, •, •! i:, j inn 11111' < iiinini n i if"n i n' « "11,1,11 • i, iiK'iiiiiiiiiiriiiiimii nnp iiiiiniiniiii' in iiiiiii'iiiiinii'iiii'inniii'iiiiiii: iiiiiiini'i iipp1: in4rlA4RIIMI{;(MD "T
'JffiirWOT • 'iS'lili ilCLJI'llH^ lliiH^^
| E::: ,: - . nipHiiin1",!;' iiri;": >!i!!p!!i!i:!:i!i:!:iiiiin ii,;i;:'! ° ^ •
EiiEiiBiii, EiBiB',,,iiiiEi 3'",ill!]'
'iiiiii'IIEE"E1'EBBBBBiiiil!lBli!
'.toiviKjidWM.W'iw.i
in EEIEEBIE '"BliBE'li Pill IEEIEBB' I l'i IIBIBElii B E" i'i' 'BBIIIEB'' lEBEBEIBI1' EB3,' IIBBBBIIIIB '' IB1'"' ill'!
Illllllllill^
^^^
:BB;I'|IBBBBB|BII! jiBBBiBBBBiniBBilBiBBBH i,i:i< • JIBBJI :ii,i f v1; >•'> nrnv "m^ ,:<"Sf\ IB ;; BBI' ..... i; s ' 14 • BBIBBBF, -a, ^\M\ ..... BEBBIP iBBi'B1 ',\\ ..... BBIH •'"tif i: ..... i BII^BII!, ..... BB : sn '" i i'i!|;i > mi IB ' BBn "n\K B ,BB BBitE r ' a,, ' BflBi!!!ii!iirB!<'iiB:BBBiBiBBBiBiBiBBi iiBBiBiiiBii B!1 IIBIIIIIIIIB' B :BI i: iii'iiiiiiBBiBBBiBiBB
HE IIHU'H "BBB'BBBi!11 iBiiiiiiiiiiBBp IBBBI 1 1
n.ilihij1 ::,": iiiiiipi iiii,i' "'BiiB1 BBBjp iBi' «„ BE' ii • Biiii, „ B1 IjiiBii iBEIBiBBB B-iiBii1'liiBBB; 1,41 B,1
lIT'ii ,< IIBiiii1,1,; BB' !| BliBBIlBBBBli:'' Bill,: BBBBBJIBEIiliSB'f II, il iB'lj1 BBBi^BBilBBi I:' !< I:1 BEJI|flflBBiB:BI '• i" '|BBn BilBBBI1 ::'Bll!E liBBI 'f liiBilBBI' li BiBBI BBBi !i!i < B1BBB ISBBBBBBBi'B I1":!' Ill,:1 Hi «i,iiiii, iBBJEE!: BBBEBIBi!1 iiiiilHillllilHili1' ii;!1 BEiBBBVEBi I* 'ill 111111191111: i,,! iiiilii', IBI • IIIIIB i, IBB iBEIEIIBBB IIIIIBIIIIIIIIE BBBiBSB ,,,,
"
f| i'|l 11, i 'EEiiE ," E'»:I r, BE''!l HIP1' BI"l| B"''''"'"' BUBBT' B BEE 'EW11'"'»" B" IBB1' E-IE'''''!!™!!!!!! I' <'|! Bmi ifiE'E f iillEBl'B B1, B"«l J ,1111" B"' m1' BBI11 < BE I""* lllln1:1 "I'! ,11'i»BBBllUBlBliyiBI BIB IB11 EBB1 IB
SjWfiRTS,
"ifeSSft' '••
11!|||( , 11 "jfcii i jiiyS1;' i if! ^f I iBi'ppi' i; i': i ;!!!«•! ji )!iiil!!ii!iiiii!i!i:i!S t liiiillllS Ji;i S' /I" ^ Jlf B JSlillilif Ifi 'i !!iiii!!@i!i!i'i! -i1 liiiiii! I \ I ^M ii; ^ liiiiil 'illliiillS iiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiii; i!1 i ^HJ
I ll'iiliJl*!!!!!!!!!!!!!*' f 3!!!!!!!!l!!!!3!ii!J!!lil!ll!f IB! • i'! .'il!'1' l'^ !"lillBBi iii/iiiEBiilll' ill ii' IBBi'lliES'E Ell iif'ii 11 Ei,"; illlliilBlilllllililli.ili,'! lull BEE''' BE1 E'li'iiBiBI I'liillE1,1! i B' lE|i BI1 iEPil ill i1' ,ili" N :»»'! El, nilEElii1! I'P'illli'ni",' iP||i;Pl4ll|,< EIE1 i'l'lllli PI, , "IP1, lillEiiiilEIIE11 EllllB'EEIEil iEiEIIEEE' iiilMlllllilliHrnnilllll.lii'iilli BBBE111 Illlli,'
IBBiBiBJIIIBBlBIBiBE^
iiliiillllliiliiiiilllllilllllliiiiiiBliEllilBIBI^
------- |