EPA has opened applications for Federal recycling and composting grants. These grant programs are SWANA-supported and may assist in funding education and infrastructure. The EPA program is divided into two areas providing states, municipalities, and other entities the opportunity to apply for millions of dollars in funds. The Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling (SWIFR) and Education and Outreach Grant Programs were established by the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
EPA will be accepting applications for both programs through January 16, 2023.
The SWIFR Grant Program provides $275 million over five years for states, municipalities, and tribes to:
Improve post-consumer materials management and infrastructure;
Support improvements to local post-consumer materials management and recycling programs; and
Assist local waste management authorities in making improvements to local waste management systems.
The Recycling Education and Outreach Grant Program provides $75 million over five years to states, municipalities, tribes, non-profit organizations, and public-private partnerships to:
Inform the public about residential or community waste prevention or recycling programs;
Provide information about the recycled materials that are accepted; and
Increase collection rates and decrease contamination across the nation.
Nena Shaw, EPA Acting Director for the Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division, will speak about the grant programs and related EPA waste-related initiatives during her keynote presentation at WASTECON 2022 on Thursday, December 8, in San Diego, California.
Note that $100 million of this funding is available to help build and transform solid waste infrastructure, manage materials to achieve a circular economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create cleaner, resilient, and healthier communities through composting and organics management programs.
Applying the Lessons Learned – 1383 Compliance to your composting and food recovery planning can help make your program more sustainable.
SCS Engineers developed an SB 1383 Roadmap, which we customized for each municipality. The Roadmap outlines the requirements of SB 1383 by topic and by the responsible party. The Roadmap helped municipalities to plan for SB 1383 compliance, including a schedule for implementation, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement. Because SB 1383 is not only the responsibility of the Solid Waste Department, the Roadmap outlines the responsibilities of other municipal departments, including Administration, Finance, Purchasing, Fleet, Parks, etc.
SB 1383 requires the completion of capacity studies for organic waste recycling and edible food recovery. The Organic Waste Recycling capacity planning includes collecting data on the amount of organic waste (in tons) that will be disposed of, the amounts in tons of existing organic waste recycling infrastructure, both within and outside the county, that is available, and the amount of new or expanded capacity that will be needed to process the organic waste identified as being disposed of.
For the edible food recovery capacity planning, the counties had to estimate the amount of edible food that would be disposed of by commercial edible food generators, the existing capacity for food recovery organizations available in the County, the proposed or expanded food recovery organization that will be used to recover the edible food generated, and the new or expanded capacity that is necessary to recover the edible food that is generated.
It is a challenge for municipalities to meet these requirements, but feasible and sustainable using the SB 1383 Roadmap. Learn more on Wednesday, January 25, 2023, at the USCC Compost 2023 conference. During Session D1, the California Track Regulatory Trends and Experience at 8:15 – 9:45 am, Srividhya Viswanathan and Michelle Leonard discuss the Lessons Learned – 1383 Compliance, much of which is applicable for many evolving programs nationwide.
L to R – Ron Wiesman of Hillsborough County Solid Waste, Kollan Spradlin and Trent Arney of SCS Engineers.
Biosolids Composting – Award Winning Facility in Hillsborough County – Environmental Category
The Planning Commission celebrated its 40th Annual Planning & Design Awards at a ceremony in late October. The event is in conjunction with a nationwide celebration of the American Planning Association’s National Community Planning Month.
The County Planning Commission recognized a joint effort between the County Board of County Commissioners, the Solid Waste Management Department, the County Water Resources Department, and SCS Engineers with its 2022 Excellence Award.
Hillsborough County combines tons of mulched yard cuttings and biosolids (treated wastewater residue) to create an in-demand soil amendment. Mixing, curing, and selling the product preserves disposal space at the Southeast Hillsborough County Landfill, saving taxpayers about $1.5 million in hauling, disposal, and other costs over five years. Selling the resulting soil supplement, meanwhile, adds new revenue.
Yard waste was traditionally burned to produce electricity or mixed with cover at the landfill. Treated wastewater by-products, known as biosolids, were trucked to the landfill for disposal, thus filling the landfill faster and, when combined with other organic matter creating greenhouse gases.
The plan to produce and sell compost results from a partnership between the County operations and SCS Engineers committed to finding a more efficient and environmentally friendly solution to reuse the two types of waste. The product meets stringent federal guidelines and regulations, providing a nutrient-rich material that safeguards consumers, crop production, and the environment.
The windrow compost turner in action mixing oxygen and moisture into the compost, and cooling it to promote the best conditions for microorganisms to do their work creating high-quality compost.
Thanks to everyone who joined the celebration showcasing excellence in planning and design that contributes to the quality of life in Hillsborough County. If you’d like to learn more about this biosolids composting facility, please contact Kollan Spradlin or .
Communities across our nation are going greener, we suggest these educational resources:
The world’s largest composting event, USCC Compost 2023, Jan 24-27 in Ontario, California, is the premiere professional meeting for composting, organics recycling, and related topics. SCS Engineers is sponsoring the State Chapter track, including the Networking Soiree on January 26.
Featured this year during Concurrent Session D1 California Track Regulatory Trends and Experience, on Wednesday, January 25 at 8:15 – 9:45 am is
Lessons Learned –1383 Compliancewith Srividhya Viswanathan. Vidhya and Michelle Leonard will illustrate SCS Engineers’ comprehensive planning process and tool, including a timeline, to achieve SB 1383 compliance. SB 1383 requires California to massively increase organic waste collection and recycling infrastructure in under ten years. The regulation requires a collective effort from entities, including jurisdictions, haulers, recyclers, and businesses, who will need to fund significant capital investments.
Compare and Contract Composting Systems VIDEO: Greg McCarron and Vidhya discuss managing tons of food scraps and other organic materials using different compost approaches. This forum is a resource for landfills, Solid Waste Departments, municipalities, and agencies working toward achieving waste diversion goals and lowering carbon footprints.
Composting Pilot Program: evaluate your organic waste streams and whether composting is a viable solution for your waste management program. The SCS pilot program includes everything you need to test before you invest.
Making Composting Work in High-Population Spaces: Managing hefty organic waste streams and associated costs while reaching lofty sustainability goals are among urban jurisdictions’ toughest pursuits. Some municipal solid waste operators set up local compost sites to help achieve these ambitions. They are finding other benefits along the way—from new, valuable products with a strong, local market to a way to …
California’s first fully solar-powered compost facility shines brightly: Republic Services’ Otay Compost Facility at the Chula Vista, California, Otay Landfill is open for business. The compost facility helps communities in San Diego County meet the requirements of California’s SB1383 law mandating the diversion of organic waste from landfills. The composting facility designed by SCS Engineers in collaboration with Sustainable Generation operates 100% on solar power …
Get assistance with USDA grant applications for composting | food waste reduction.
Cutting food loss and waste is widely recognized as one of the most powerful levers we have to address climate change and preserve our natural resources. In the United States alone, surplus food accounts for 4% of our greenhouse gas emissions, 14% of all freshwater use, and 18% of all cropland use. We’re wasting precious resources to produce and ship food only to have it end up in a landfill or rot in a field. [ReFED]
These are key action areas where the food system can focus its efforts over the next decade to prevent, rescue, and recycle food at risk of becoming waste. Strengthening food rescue and recycling anything remaining into compost or anaerobic digestion facilities creates beneficial by-products.
The USDA offers grants of up to $300,000 to composting and food waste reduction pilot projects benefiting community food waste and production programs.
Eligible projects can be in rural, urban, and suburban communities. The application deadline is fast approaching on September 1, 2022. USDA anticipates making selections by October 30, 2022, and executing the grant awards by February 8, 2023.
Visit SCS Engineers to learn more about this grant opportunity, check program qualifications, and sign up for free consulting supporting communities interested in this unique USDA grant program.
Suzanne Sturgeon is the Health and Safety (H&S) Program Manager for SCS Engineers staff working in the field. Suzanne is responsible for developing and implementing safety programs, policies, procedures, and regulations. She also manages H&S training for field staff, developing and conducting cultural-based training within SCS to promote understanding and participation while encouraging a behavior-based philosophy essential to eliminating unsafe practices and conditions.
Suzanne doesn’t stop there; she continually evolves her programs and participates in association speaking opportunities to share successful strategies throughout North America at Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) events and others. Her focus has been proactively identifying hazardous landfill and landfill gas situations and presenting unique and successful solutions she has developed for SCS. But, as the number of MRFs and Transfer Stations is expected to increase, those areas have become safety focus areas.
The industry is seeing a reduction in workplace fatalities based on the most recent U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, but there is more work to do. “Solid waste is a dangerous industry, and we collectively work to bring awareness to those most vulnerable to injury or worse,” said Sturgeon. “As an industry, we have the tools and more on-demand training to help reach more workers before problems occur to continue making our industry safer.”
As the SWANA National Safety Committee Chair, Suzanne is working hard and smart in the field, keeping up with new systems, equipment, and facilities that need her particular skills and insight to keep worker fatalities and injuries on the downward trend. Her innovative training and ability to communicate with so many saves lives.
Greg McCarron, PE, is a Vice President of SCS Engineers and the firm’s expert on Organics Management. Greg supports businesses and municipalities across the U.S. taking steps to address climate change, which many consider the most important challenge facing our planet. One popular option is reducing greenhouse gas and their environmental impacts by diverting organics from landfills, thus reducing methane production. The tactic also diverts much-needed food to food banks in some programs, but all programs produce a product good for the earth.
Greg’s 35 years of experience include operations, project management, design, permitting, regulatory support, construction oversight, system start-up, economic analysis, and technology assessment to find the right system and the proper mix for sustainable composting operations.
Among his successful innovative projects, there are award winners for demonstrating composting operations can be in urban areas, conveniently coexisting with buildings and people, even tucked under a bridge in New York City.
He created an Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting pilot program so that municipalities and businesses could evaluate their organic waste streams to determine whether composting is a viable solution before making a capital investment.
And he is leading the design of hybrid composting approaches that combine an ASP system with other technologies, such as open windrows. These hybrid systems can achieve necessary process control while maintaining cost efficiencies. The designs depend on the priority challenges unique to each project — processing increasing tons of food scraps, for example, but change as priorities differ within programs. Sustainability means the systems are flexible enough to adapt to waste trends and the end market, which demands various high-quality mixes to sell.
Greg says, “the advancements mentioned above help support sustainable composting and organics management because they account for changes that may occur over the life of the systems, such as waste characteristics and their relation to the end-product demand.”
There are many variables to consider with each organics management method, and there are no silver bullets as each has its pros and cons. Once the emission and energy impacts and benefits are determined, cost—both capital and operating—must be considered for a truly sustainable solution.
Solid waste facility operators and municipalities looking to invest in organic waste management strategies have plenty to consider to pinpoint the option with the greatest payoffs. And now is the time to better manage organics, with methane becoming front and center in climate change discussions and states enacting organics diversion requirements.
There is a robust menu, then submenus, of methods and technologies to explore when evaluating organics waste management. The one which makes the most sense will be very site- and or location-specific. It depends on how you manage waste now and its impact on your current environmental footprint. It hinges on each management system’s capabilities, from controlling different emission types to energy generation (or avoiding energy consumption), depending on which capabilities are most relevant to your goals. While these are core considerations, there are more layers to dig through in each situation.
Let’s look at several well-established organics management options and analyze them side by side. We’ll explore composting, anaerobic digestion (AD), and direct combustion, aka biomass-to-energy, looking at outcomes an SCS Engineers team evaluated using computer models and various analytical tools.
As we begin the vetting process, be prepared to think about tradeoffs. For instance, the approach with the best greenhouse gas (GHG) profile may not perform as well with air pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Suppose you are recovering landfill gas (LFG) for energy. There will be considerations here too, with regard to gains and losses, as diverting organic waste away from a LFG to energy project can reduce benefits you already enjoy.
The first question to ask is whether to divert organics from landfills at all. This is where we narrow in on GHGs. How you currently collect LFG and whether you convert it into energy will result in a huge differential.
So, it’s important to know your baseline emission numbers when considering your options to understand better your current carbon footprint and your baseline emissions of other pollutants. Both will significantly affect your analysis and help inform your decision.
Let’s look at three different landfill scenarios, considering both GHG emissions and whether energy is recovered or avoided. These each involve the management of 1,000,000 tons of organic waste.
One landfill has no gas collection and control system, with very high GHG emissions—1.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (MTCO2e) and 640 tons of VOC emissions.
The second landfill has 75% gas capture with a flare used for emissions controls. Your GHG emissions go down to 370,000 MTCO2e and 170 tons of VOCs, but the NOx emissions increase to 80 tons.
There’s 90% gas capture in scenario three, with the gas being sent to engines to generate renewable electricity. Here the gap widens further in outcomes. By converting methane to renewable energy, you get more than direct GHG reductions. You also get GHG reductions from energy offsets. So now you’re down to -100,000 CO2 equivalents. And your VOCs are only 76 tons. However, NOx emissions increase to 96 tons with the engines.
How does knowing these metrics affect your investment decision?
First, let’s revisit the third landfill scenario – the operation with extremely well-controlled emissions that converts methane from organics using LFG to energy technology.
Diverting organics over landfilling, in this case, will gain much smaller emissions benefits compared to uncontrolled landfills or landfills with LFG capture systems that are not as robust. Plus, when you divert the organic waste, depending on the system, you lose a portion of that energy source to make power or fuel in the future. The landfill will generate less methane, eliminating some of the existing benefits you realize while decreasing the value of your energy recovery plant. Spending $10 million to $30 million on a plant to compost or anaerobically digest organic materials, a reasonable estimate depending on facility type and size, may not provide sufficient benefit to justify adopting either technology when you consider the loss in LFG to energy value and investment.
Conversely, if waste goes to a site with no gas collection system, organics diversion of any kind will perform exceedingly better in terms of emissions. At the top of the list of payouts: organics diversion methods can create a huge amount of GHG benefits.
Let’s analyze the options, beginning with composting (there are several possibilities within this one space).
Sizing up composting options
One commonality among all compost options differentiating them from other diversion methods is the benefit of carbon sequestration. Capturing carbon and storing it in the soil drives additional GHG benefits beyond the reduced energy consumption (less irrigation and avoided commercial fertilizer manufacturing). At the same time, AD has limited sequestration benefits, and biomass-to-energy has none. Keep this in mind if you need to improve your GHG profile.
There are three main composting methods, each with different emissions outcomes:
Open windrow composting
Forced aeration
Covered aerated static pile (CASP)
Open windrow composting involves mechanically turning piles to aerate them and break down the feedstock. But without an enclosure or controls, it provides no means to prevent VOC, ammonia, and other emissions.
Comparing the landfill scenarios detailed above, an open windrow composting facility without controls can emit 2,125 (green waste) tons of VOCs to 5,000 (green plus food waste) tons of VOCs for every 1,000,000 tons of throughput.
Windrow composting operations can also produce GHG emissions in the form of methane when aeration is not sufficient via mechanical means and some anaerobic degradation occurs. This is a bigger problem for food waste composting because of the faster degradation of organic materials.
You can add operational controls to windrows through forced aeration (aerated static piles). This method involves pumping air through the pile to speed up the composting process, which substantially reduces methane formation, reduces VOCs to a degree, and provides better odor control. Additionally, because throughput moves quicker, the operation requires less space.
Comparing to open windrow composting with no controls, VOC emissions are reduced to 978 (green waste) tons of VOCs to 2,300 (green plus food waste) tons of VOCs for each every 1,000,000 tons of throughput, a reduction of greater than 50%.
The next method, CASP, yields better outcomes by adding a control system to an aerated pile system. There are three main CASP options:
Pulling air through the compost piles with a vacuum and sending that air to a biofilter that treats and removes pollutants.
Blowing air into the pile, which operates under a biocover that acts as a treatment layer, removing pollutants.
Installing a synthetic cover, such as the GORE cover system, with semi-permeable membranes that achieve the same results as the biocover.
Each of these control technologies is similar in terms of VOC emission reductions. And when deployed in the example scenarios I just described, VOC emissions are reduced to 50 (green waste) tons to 75 (green plus food waste) tons for every 1,000,000 tons of throughput— a reduction greater than 95% compared to open windrows.
GHG benefits from composting range from -228,000 to -396,000 MTCO2e (-958,000 to 1.13 million MTCO2e when including sequestration)—even greater depending on the avoided landfill methane scenarios we reviewed.
The main takeaways on composting are:
Both GHGs and VOCs vary substantially, depending on whether you add aeration and controls.
Even without controls, the GHG profile is strong.
The CASP options achieve the best results. But be prepared to pay for this system’s additional benefits—up to two to three times more than windrows, depending on your facility size.
How does anaerobic digestion fare?
With AD, organics break down in enclosed vessels or reactors. Biogas comes out in one direction, and residuals exit through the other. Because AD happens in an enclosure, emissions are easier to control than when composting.
The ability to make renewable natural gas (RNG) is perhaps the greatest benefit that distinguishes this technology from composting. And the gas has higher methane content with fewer impurities than renewable biogas from landfill gas, adding to its value.
The federal government offers good subsidies for RNG-derived transportation fuel in the form of renewable identification numbers (RINs), which are credits used for compliance. California and Oregon issue low-carbon credits for RNG used for transportation fuel at the state level, and other states are exploring implementing similar programs. So, investing in AD can be lucrative now.
Some caveats: the AD systems require more energy to run and are more expensive on a dollar-per-ton basis than composting. There are building costs and reactors. You also have to pre-process material to a greater degree, so it’s more involved than composting.
And while producing RNG for transportation fuel reduces emissions significantly, burning the biogas in engines for electricity creates additional combustion emissions.
AD has a better GHG profile than composting when excluding carbon sequestration but not as good when including sequestration. And AD has much lower VOC emissions than composting because of its generally closed-loop design.
So, ask yourself if improving GHG emissions while achieving robust energy recovery are your top priorities. This is where you could cash in if you choose to make RNG leveraging AD, and if you are able and willing to make the additional capital and operational investment over composting.
The nitty-gritty of biomass-to-energy (direct combustion)
This option, entailing direct burning of solid organics, has the highest energy value and thus the greatest GHG profile if excluding sequestration.
While AD yields energy only from a certain portion of organics, and composting creates no direct energy (only energy offsets), you get energy from all of it when you burn organics. That’s because you are using the entire feedstock in the combustion process.
Here’s the drawback: there are more air pollution emissions with biomass-to-energy, especially NOx, as well as other combustion byproducts.
Technologies to control emissions are improving, and burning organics is cleaner than burning municipal solid waste. But biomass-to-energy is only a likely option if there is a strong need for electricity or there is very limited space for disposal or composting. But know that many regulatory jurisdictions frown upon direct combustion and prefer composting or AD.
There are many variables to consider with each organics management method, and there are no silver bullets as each has its pros and cons. It’s important to do a deep dive, site-specific analysis, carefully weighing each of your options. And of course, once the emission and energy impacts and benefits are determined, cost—both capital and operating—must be considered for a truly sustainable solution.
About the Author: Patrick Sullivan, BCES, CPP, REPA, is a Senior Vice President of SCS Engineers and the Business Unit Director of our Southwest Region, encompassing California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. He is also our National Expert on the Clean Air Act and the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). He also serves as the Practice Leader for SCS’s Solid Waste Practice in the Southwest, and he oversees companywide GHG and Risk Assessment programs. Mr. Sullivan has over 30 years of environmental engineering experience, specializing in solid waste management and other environmental issues.
Managing hefty organic waste streams and associated costs while reaching lofty sustainability goals are among urban jurisdictions’ toughest pursuits. Some municipal solid waste operators set up local compost sites to help achieve these ambitions. They are finding other benefits along the way—from new, valuable products with a strong, local market to a way to cut out multiple complex steps involved in sending compost out of town. They are regenerating depleted soils, and some are bringing their shuttered landfills back to life with another purpose: home to these new facilities.
But how do you make compost projects work with residential neighborhoods and businesses close by, limited space that’s at a premium, and other challenges of high-density urban and suburban communities?
An urban compost success story.
The answer varies depending on each jurisdiction’s special needs and characteristics. New York City is one example of a compelling metropolitan success story, with over 200 drop-off sites and seven community-scale compost programs or facilities across its five boroughs.
SCS Engineers’ Vice President Greg McCarron helped design two of that flourishing city’s facilities, including a layout and design overhaul of one of them, located near Manhattan. The project goal was multifold: keep pace with the growing demand for finished compost and food scraps management and do it within a compact facility footprint –one-third of an acre.
Known as the Queensbridge project, it operates under the Queensboro bridge, next to six-story residential towers, a hotel, and other commercial development. So, maintaining tight odor control is a paramount priority. It’s a job that takes technical skills mastery and a robust design; the facility can process up to 1,000 tons of rapidly decomposing food scraps a year, which are mixed with leaves and woodchips.
GORE cover for odor control and process control.
“The proximity to a dense residential neighborhood allows little tolerance for issues such as odors, pests, and dust, and we designed the site with this in mind.
One of our most important strategies was to install a second SG/GORE cover [there was already one in operation]. It’s an in-vessel system with a semipermeable membrane, so it traps odors and other emissions such as dust and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and prevents pest issues by encapsulating all fresh food scraps,” McCarron says.
The technology also sheds rainwater as clean water and provides process control, enabling a higher throughput on a smaller footprint.
Designing an efficient stormwater management system is a critical part of the plan, entailing site grading and installing drainage pipes. The team ensures the collection of contact water that touches the initial compost piles via an in-ground trenching system, which also delivers air to the composting process. Contact water is recycled back into the composting process.
Stormwater control features prevent run-on to the facility site. And clean stormwater is routed away from the in-process compost material.
Another situation called for special attention: existing utilities nearby, including high-voltage electric lines and high-pressure natural gas lines.
“It required due diligence to ensure the facility’s infrastructure would not disrupt the utilities’ operations. We looked at site surveys, prepared design drawings, and dug construction test pits to make sure we would not run into these large lines during installation of the below-grade components of the aerated static pile system,” McCarron says.
Between these build and design strategies and other tweaks, Queensbridge has continued to grow its operations while melding with the active, surrounding community. The outcome? Doubled processing capacity and improvements to access and overall workflow while managing contact water and stormwater in a better manner.
SCS Senior Project Professional Ryan Duckett finds municipalities like the control they gain when they opt to run their own facilities rather than transfer their organic waste long distances. Some haul these heavy, wet loads more than an hour away, and common organic waste hauling methods can be inefficient on a pound-for-pound basis. Besides having tighter reins on monetary and time investments, their local governing authority can allow easier rezoning of parcels or other changes to permit new activity.
Aerated static piles for faster throughput.
For composters in more densely populated areas such as urban municipalities, Duckett typically suggests bunker aerated static piles (ASP), which involve mechanically pushing or pulling air through organic waste.
“Aerated static piles have faster throughput than some other methods because you run blowers, so you constantly inject air, which speeds decomposition. In urban areas with limited real estate, accelerating production in a controlled manner is important. It’s how you scale and produce a quality product with what land resources you have,” he says.
Though having small, narrowly spaced parcels can actually facilitate economies of scale when it comes to residential collections. With hundreds to thousands of households in close proximity, the process tends to be quicker per customer and more efficient.
Still, collections are typically the most expensive part of the compost equation, so Duckett does feasibility studies to model the costs and benefits of different approaches to recover organic waste.
“If you include food scraps, you have to consider whether you want curbside or front door collections or if you prefer drop-off sites, keeping in mind that a third bin at each home will add expense. Some municipalities add a fee,” he says.
Space can be an issue; not all urban and suburban communities feel that they have enough room for another bin. Sometimes the answer is to collect food scraps from porches in buckets, though it can be more time-consuming and labor-intensive than curbside.
Operational considerations span more than identifying the best collection approaches.
“For example, sometimes in our evaluations, we find efficiencies through methods to accomplish more than one function in one stroke, perhaps co-shredding leaves and branches at the same time. Or using compostable bags instead of plastic ones that require a separate debagging operation.
Or we may make suggestions around the deployment of equipment, sometimes replacing a truck or tractor tow-behind compost turner method with a self-propelled windrow turner. It’s a one-time investment that could save time and money in the long run,” Duckett says.
Early planning is a consistent theme.
Preliminary work should include market research to identify the quality and quantity of available feedstocks. And it should involve stakeholder engagement with potential feedstock suppliers, haulers, city departments, and citizens.
“You must make sure everyone is on board because there are a lot of considerations, such as estimating the participation rate to design the size and type of processing facility. Mitigating contamination also takes forethought. It’s a big issue in the compost world.
Among Duckett’s recommendations to deter contamination from the start is implementing a ban on plastics mixed with yard waste. And setting up to provide paper in lieu of plastic bags for collecting materials, as plastics are a big problem for composters.
Duckett does site visits before going into design mode in keeping with the mantra of planning ahead. He’s looking from a technical lens for details to address to circumvent barriers later.
“One issue we give special thought to is that there are a lot of rules around buffers. Buffers could be from schools, playgrounds, adjacent residents, or water bodies, among community resources. We have to keep in mind that these are not potentially usable areas when planning the layout and design. So, we look at available space after accounting for them,” he says.
There are also rules around the proximity of compost pads to water tables, so the team is heedful of groundwater fluctuations. As important are soil characteristic studies to determine if pad construction will require outside soil or a different pad type. And key to the design process is evaluating stormwater management systems, as McCarron exemplifies with the Queensbridge project.
The considerations are vast, with no single right answer, but quite a few options exist to make composting work well in highly populated spaces. Regardless of the circumstances, local composting can provide burgeoning communities a viable, sometimes profitable, way to manage what typically is at least 30 to 40% of their waste stream. And keeping the processing site at home, close to the generator, comes with multiple benefits beyond.
Mr. McCarron, PE, is a Vice President of SCS Engineers and our National Expert on Organics Management. He has nearly 35 years of progressively responsible experience in solid waste management, including waste composition studies, solid waste planning, composting, recycling, transfer stations, waste-to-energy systems, landfill design, and landfill gas systems. His expertise is in the design, permit, construction, and operation of compost systems and facilities for public and private clients.
Ryan Duckett, PE, is a Senior Project Professional experienced in solid waste research and consulting. He serves as a project engineer for a variety of design projects, financial analyses, feasibility studies, and overall planning efforts in support of solid waste assets such as collection, transfer stations, recycling facilities, and landfills. He is a Professional Engineer licensed in Virginia and North Carolina and has a BS in Environmental Engineering and an MBA.
California’s first 100% solar-powered composting facility is located on the Otay Landfill serving San Diego County.
In October, Republic Services’ Otay Compost Facility at the Chula Vista, California, Otay Landfill opened for business. The compost facility helps communities in San Diego County meet the requirements of California’s SB1383 law mandating the diversion of organic waste from landfills.
The composting facility designed by SCS Engineers in collaboration with Sustainable Generation operates completely off the grid using solar energy. It is the first fully solar-powered compost facility in the state and can process 100 tons of organics per day, with plans to double capacity by year-end.
Both organics recycling and reuse leaders, Republic Services hired SCS Engineers to design the Otay Compost Facility. The design uses renewable energy to run 100 percent of the composting operations at the site. The facility design includes using technologies to speed the maturation rates and reduce excessive odors. Blowers to aerate the organic material, oxygen and temperature sensors, and advanced compost cover technology produce a high-quality product.
L to R: The Republic Services Team at the Otay Landfill includes Gabe Gonzales – Operations Manager, Vidhya Viswanathan – SCS Engineers Project Director, Neil Mohr – General Manager, Marco Cervantes – Environmental Manager, Chris Seney – Organics Operations Director.
“Republic’s taken the goals of SB 1383, to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants further. They’re running a sustainable facility that enables residents, businesses, and government to easily reuse and recycle more within a smaller carbon footprint than ever expected,” says Vidhya Viswanathan, engineer and project director.
As California collects and recycles organic materials from homes and businesses, local governments will use the products made from recycled organic material for compost and mulch. Recycling organic waste into compost creates a nutrient-rich soil amendment, preserving natural resources and reducing water consumption working within a circular economy. This California jurisdiction is ready for the SB1383 deadline on January 1, 2022.
“Republic Services supports California’s effort to divert food and yard waste from landfills to facilities such as this one,” said Chris Seney, Republic’s director of organics operations. “We’re grateful to SCS for their partnership in helping us bring this facility, co-located at an active landfill, to reality.”
Please watch the YouTube video to see the facility and learn more about its environmental value.
SCS Engineers is proud of helping our municipal and private clients bring the most value to their environmental solutions and communities. To learn more about SCS Engineers, view our 50th-anniversary video.
Waste characterization studies help businesses, government planners, haulers, and recyclers understand what’s in their waste streams, a first step in devising ways to reduce waste and cut disposal costs.
Recently the state of Wisconsin released its updated 2020-2021 statewide waste characterization study. The study found that the broad organics category, including yard waste and diapers, accounted for about 1.3 million tons. An estimated 924,900 tons of paper, including cardboard, compostable and office paper, comprised about 21 percent of the landfills’ tonnage. That was followed by plastic at about 17 percent or 745,600 tons.
You can read the study, but why do local governments, states, and waste management businesses request these studies? Because waste and landfills are expensive to manage. Diverting waste from landfills cuts greenhouse gases and supplies materials for reuse as new products or compost – a more sustainable system.
Waste characterization information is designed for solid waste planning; however, anyone interested in the characteristics of the solid waste stream may find it useful. Studies can also target specific waste or needs such as construction and demolition waste and business waste generators. A generator means a person, specific location, or business that creates waste.
These studies help start answering questions such as:
How much wasted food could be diverted for consumption or organics management?
How is COVID impacting recycling and recycled material feedstocks?
Which business groups dispose or recycle the most tons, and what materials make up those tons?
What is the commercial sector’s overall waste composition for disposal and diversion streams?
What are the detailed compositions for different groups or generators?
How much building debris is mixed in, and what kind of impact does it have?
States, jurisdictions, citizens, and businesses can use this information as a planning tool to help meet state mandates and their goals to reduce waste and achieve the benefits of sustainable practices. Kudos to Wisconsin, Iowa, and California, several of the many states moving toward more circular waste management!
EPA has opened applications for Federal recycling and composting grants. These grant programs are SWANA-supported and may assist in funding education and infrastructure. The EPA program is divided into two areas providing states, municipalities, and other entities the opportunity to apply for millions of dollars in funds. The Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling (SWIFR) and Education and Outreach Grant Programs were established by the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
