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.
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 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:
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:
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.
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.
“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.
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:
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!
With support from the Town of Stonington, the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority (SCRRRA) began a four-month food waste composting demonstration project at the Stonington Town Transfer Station on June 30, 2021. The environmental consulting and contracting firm SCS Engineers is supporting the project.
SCRRRA currently manages approximately 135,000 tons of garbage for its 12 member municipalities (East Lyme, Griswold, Groton, Ledyard, Montville, Preston, New London, Norwich, North Stonington, Sprague, Stonington, and Waterford). About one-quarter of the volume of garbage, or 33,750 tons, is organic waste.
The development of an organics facility could convert organic waste into a valuable organic soil amendment. The demonstration project is an integral part of a larger study that SCRRRA has undertaken to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale food waste composting facility in Southeastern Connecticut.
Pilot projects such as this allow the region to quickly gather information about the collection and sources of organic materials, then test and refine a high-quality compost mix. The project also provides hands-on experience and can help spark innovative waste management practices.
Compost is produced using a mix of feedstocks, raw organic materials, such as leaves, wood, and food scraps. The composting process in the SCRRRA demonstration project uses wood mulch produced by SCRRRA at the Stonington Transfer Station and food waste supplied by two Connecticut companies Blue Earth Composting of Hartford and Willimantic Waste of Willimantic.
Communities across the U.S. report success diverting organic waste from landfills and producing a viable commodity with significant benefits, as the U.S. Composting Council describes in its Factsheet. For more information and outcomes from the SCRRRA project, contact SCRRRA Executive Director David Aldridge.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking applications on Grants.gov for projects from states, tribes, territories, and non-profit organizations to help reduce food loss and waste and divert food waste from landfills by expanding anaerobic digester (AD) capacity in the United States.
To qualify, EPA is asking that your project application achieve one or more of the following objectives:
State, local, Tribal, interstate, and intrastate government agencies and Non-profit organizations (as defined by 2 CFR Part 200) may apply. In addition, up to approximately $800,000 of the estimated total will be set-aside specifically for awards to the following organizations:
Applications are due by October 7, 2021. Additional information is available on the EPA site or by requesting grant assistance at .
$2 million in cooperative agreements is available for local governments to host Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction (CCFWR) pilot projects. The cooperative agreements support projects that develop and test strategies for planning and implementing municipal compost plans and food waste reduction plans. They are part of USDA’s broader efforts to support urban agriculture.
USDA’s Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production will accept applications on Grants.gov until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 16, 2021. Projects should span two years, with a start date of September 25, 2021, and a completion date of September 25, 2023.
Local governments may submit projects that:
NRCS will assist in conservation-related activities.
Priority will be given to projects that include economic benefits; provide compost to farmers; integrate other food waste strategies, including food recovery; and collaborate with multiple partners.
The deadline for applications is July 16, 2021.
Project Example: The Department of Sanitation of New York and nonprofit Big Reuse establishes food scrap drop-off locations while New York City Parks Department is diverting wood chips and leaves from landfill disposal to create compost. GreenThumb, Brooklyn Grange, Hellgate Farms, Gowanus Canal Conservancy, and other urban farms distribute the compost for food production in the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, diverting approximately 600,000 pounds of food scraps and green waste from landfills and providing 350 cubic yards of compost to food producers.
Get Started with SCS’s ASP Composting Pilot Program
• Low-cost opportunity to test ASP composting feasibility
• Ability to test different feedstock mixes
• Assess the quality of the finished compost
• Assess odor control and process control
• Test footprint is 5000 sqft or less on your site
Webinar
A pre-recorded webinar will provide an overview of the cooperative agreements’ purpose, project types, eligibility, and basic requirements for submitting an application. The webinar will be posted at farmers.gov/urban.
More Information
Questions about this cooperative agreement opportunity can be sent to .
The Office was established through the 2018 Farm Bill and is designed to be a USDA-wide effort. Representatives from agencies throughout USDA play a critical role in successfully servicing urban customers. Other grant and engagement opportunities are available in addition to the CCFWR agreements. More information is available at farmers.gov/urban.
Additional resources that may be of interest to urban agriculture entities include NIFA grants, FSA loans, and AMS grants to improve domestic and international opportunities for U.S. growers and producers.
SCS Engineers is expanding its environmental expertise hiring Richard Southorn, PE and PG, as Project Director in the firm’s St. Charles, Illinois office. Richard is a Professional Engineer in 13 states and a Professional Geologist in Illinois and Delaware. He will support SCS clients with their coal combustion residual (CCR) and municipal solid waste projects, including facilities for composting and the safe management of hazardous wastes.
As a Project Director, he runs teams providing comprehensive services ranging from construction plan development to full-scale design services. His client responsibilities include the coordination and supervision of the project teams made up of professional engineers, geologists, technicians, planners, and support staff.
Richard has expertise in developing site layouts and analyzing designs for multiple landfill facilities. These designs fit within the comprehensive environmental services landfill operators need to manage these complex, integrated systems. Richard’s design approach for landfill infrastructure integrates the elements that all play a role in environmental due diligence, including the landfill base and final cover liner systems, leachate extraction and cleanout systems, landfill gas control systems, and stormwater management controls.
As a licensed Professional Geologist, Southorn also oversees geotechnical stability evaluations, stormwater modeling, and the design and evaluation of landfill gas systems that minimize greenhouse gases. He has overseen many hydrogeological investigations that characterize subsurface stratigraphy, hydrology and hydrogeology, protecting groundwater for safer and more efficient facilities.
As with all SCS Engineers employee-owners, Richard engages in industry associations and his community. Learn about Richard Southorn and how SCSs’ work protects all citizens.
About SCS Engineers
SCS Engineers’ environmental solutions and technology directly result from our experience and dedication to industries responsible for safeguarding the environment as they deliver services and products. For information about SCS, watch a documentary, or follow us on your favorite social media. You can reach us at .
The Virginia Composting Council is the state affiliate of the US Composting Council; its mission is to support the efforts and initiatives of the USCC and bring the practice of composting to more Virginians. The Composting Council is growing because of increased efforts by communities to divert food waste from disposal. Demand is growing with increased awareness of composting’s beneficial uses.
The Virginia Council, led by President Ryan Duckett of SCS Engineers, cites the obvious benefits of less waste going to landfills and lower greenhouse gas emissions in the environment. He also points out the jobs and business development potential and using compost for stormwater management, erosion control, and other green infrastructure as benefits. Expanded programs also offer the opportunity to collect edible foods for non-profits feeding many in need while diverting non-edible organics to composting.
The Council brings together manufacturers, municipal managers, organics collectors, researchers, and other compost allies in the waste industry. The group works to educate state regulators, local officials, and the public about composting’s value in a circular system. Members also help develop positions on regulations and legislation that affect composting and the market.
USCC has 13 state chapters that do local work to advance the composting industry alongside the national advocacy and programs. Without their on-the-ground education, attention to and work in regulations and legislation, and building networks of people in the industry, USCC could not be effective.
The 2020 Compost Awards recipients, nominated by peers were honored this year at COMPOST 2021, the USCC’s virtual conference. The 2020 Small-Scale Compost Manufacturer Award, given to facilities producing 10,000 tons or less, was awarded to Big Reuse, New York City Compost Project. Big Reuse operates two community composting facilities in NYC, one in Brooklyn and the other in Queens. Big Reuse redeveloped a garbage-strewn lot into an effective facility beneath the Queensboro Bridge on NYC Parks land. Big Reuse works with the New York City Department of Sanitation, community organizations, and NYC Parks to collect food scraps and leaves for composting. Big Reuse composts 2 million pounds annually.
Greg has 35 years of experience in all aspects of solid waste management, including composting and solid waste management plans. He is SCS’s national expert for organics management projects. SCS offers comprehensive services including the design, permit, construction, and operations of compost and anaerobic digestion systems and facilities for public and private clients. Greg’s expertise includes all of these services and regulatory support, economic analysis, and technology assessment.
Outside of work, Greg is the Compost Team Leader for a community garden in Bergen County, New Jersey. The garden produces about 1500 pounds of produce annually, which is 100% donated to soup kitchens in Newark and New York City. He also manages a backyard compost system for use in his own garden.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
