The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation released a report concluding that: a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
…a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
The report goes on to say that interest in recovering food waste from municipal solid waste is growing to meet goals established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, but many major metropolitan areas lack the infrastructure to manage the ability to meet the established goals. Two examples were cited:
Several states, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, condition their food waste diversion requirements on the ability of generators to access adequate capacity within a certain distance.
Speaking as SWANA’s Executive Director and CEO David Biderman stated:
We believe that Americans need to rethink how food is handled before it is considered waste, to divert it into programs to feed people, and to find other productive uses for food as food. Once it becomes waste, however, municipal decision-makers, working with their processing partners, need to determine how to best manage the material.
The SWANA report focuses on the effects of food recovery at the two lowest tiers of the hierarchy – composting and landfilling/incineration. The report concludes that food waste diverted from landfill operations has the potential to be processed at composting facilities. Then, going on to say that anaerobic digestion (AD) and co-digestion at wastewater treatment facilities are also likely destinations for diverted food waste.
Jeremy O’Brien, Director of the Applied Research Foundation, noted:
The food recovery hierarchy does not apply universally; an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts based on local data and conditions is needed to identify the best food scraps management options for a specific community.
The report encourages solid waste managers to perform a life cycle analysis of economic and environmental costs and benefits based on local needs, system capabilities, and data to identify the most effective ways to manage food waste at the local level.
SCS Engineers and SWANA are both long-time advocates for local decision-making in establishing programs to collect and manage municipal solid waste.
Related articles:
Can Computer Technology Enhance Safety and Environmental Protection?
Just when you thought we had gone as far as we could, now there is remote monitoring and control technology. Did you know that you can have live access to monitor equipment and data in real time from your living room? You can see how fast pumps are running or what temperature or flow rate you have at your flare. You can access live video feeds from cameras and actually see inside your flare station or storage area. Notification of unplanned shut downs can be set up. You can be notified on your mobile device when something goes wrong. The technology exists to remotely start flares when they shut down. Imagine eliminating a three-hour drive to restart a flare. Not only do you save time and money, but you avoid a potential environmental impact or fine. This is cool stuff.
Remember, whatever technology you use or plan to use, make it user-friendly. Most people resist change, and the ability to use technology varies among employees. Generation X’s and Millennials tend to understand and use computers and mobile devices more effectively than some Baby Boomers. If you want your technology to work for everyone, take a slow and defined approach to implementing the use of technology. Provide training to explain what the benefits are, and how to do things step by step. Develop written procedures that can be accessed when people become confused or forget how to do things. These measures will help others welcome the introduction of technology in the workplace. Set employees up for success. Identify employees that are well suited to use technology, and consider empowering them to assist others. As technology use grows, develop IT positions to support your efforts.
Technology is continually improving; this is a good thing. Despite these advances, try to monitor the changes you make. Try not to fall victim to continually changing the way things are done. Allow time for people to understand and use the tools they have. Consider user abilities and develop updates that are necessary or enhance your process. Include end user employees in the technology development process. Keep in mind that technology, in most instances, solid waste industry included, should support workers and operations, and not the other way around.
Contact Michael Knox or continue to read his entire article here.
Technology in the solid waste and landfill gas industry.
About Michael Knox
For over 30 years, Mr. Knox has participated in projects ranging from clearance of unexploded ordnance (UXO) from military impact ranges to construction and management of waste treatment and disposal facilities. Currently, he performs compliance audits of SCS operations. His experience in environmental safety, construction, and remediation is exceptional in terms of both field and administrative application. He often serves as the primary interface between federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and SCS project teams.
In addition to his work as a compliance auditor, Mr. Knox is a Project Manager in Florida. In this role, his responsibilities include the execution of contracts, plus management oversight and coordination of all field operations; including landfill gas collection systems at numerous landfills.
Operational expenses such as replacing collection vehicles, considering and implementing recycling programs, and the impact of stricter environmental regulatory programs can all affect collection fees and the quality of service. Strategic business planning solves the ongoing process whereby an organization determines where it is going… plus how it will get there, and what tools and resources it will use.
The City of Killeen recently worked with SCS Engineers to create a 20-year master plan with modeling capabilities to determine the optimum scenarios that benefit the surrounding communities and one that helps manage environmental safety and the outlay of capital before the expense of planning, designing, and building begins. Population projections, demographics, cost and historical data, among other resources, make up the information that is then organized and analyzed to prepare projections based on changing scenarios over a period of years. This type of economic study enables the planning team on any proposed project to provide a “what if” analysis for the decision-makers with the potential impact a proposal may have on customer rates and fees.
The collaborative effort between the City and SCS has culminated in a long-term financial roadmap and planning tool, which evaluates the impact of operational expenses and provides a basis for planning capital expenditures. The plan is already in use by the City’s decision-makers to determine the efficiency of investing in equipment and a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) as part of a waste management plan. Key outputs of this study included the justification for the City’s acquiring new collection equipment and further assessment of the feasibility of implementing single-stream recycling.
This type of business analysis requires technical expertise in the many aspects of waste management. You’ve got to dig deep into the conditions that present a financial, environmental, or quality challenge to managing wastes in order to deliver a system that is serviceable for decision-makers to use for many years.
Taken as a whole, mixed MRFs have operated well since their reincarnation in the early 1990s and continued refinement through today. The sorting technology, which has been evolving for the last 25 years, has been proven to work and is reliable. Complete, pre-engineered integrated systems have been available now for years from a growing selection of established companies dedicated to the solid waste industry that can provide planning, engineering, manufacturing, controls, and startup, whether for new facilities, or retrofits of existing older facilities.
With that said, the following conclusions are offered for consideration:
Contact the authors: Bruce Clark and Marc Rogoff
Dynamic compaction is a construction technique that increases the density of soil/waste deposits by dropping a heavy weight at regular intervals to consolidate and improve the geotechnical characteristics of the deposit so that it can be suitable for redevelopment. This construction technique can be used to transform otherwise undevelopable property, such as old landfill areas, into developable property.
Most soil types can be improved by dynamic compaction; the method is particularly well suited to non-organic, irregular fill, where variable characteristics such as solid wastes are present. Field conditions and several other parameters are considered when designing and implementing dynamic compaction programs to keep costs in line. The primary considerations include, but are not limited to, waste delineation, distance from the ground surface to ground water, waste thickness, minimum energy, and selection of dynamic compaction parameters.
The following factors and associated costs should be evaluated if dynamic compaction is to be considered:
Major change orders and environmental impacts can be expected if the plan does not address these factors.
If you decide to consider dynamic compaction in your redevelopment project, having onsite construction quality assurance monitoring during the process is important. CQA monitoring will verify that the work is implemented as designed and permitted, and that proper techniques are used to make sure the proper distribution of energy into the ground is taking place. The CQA monitor will also check to see that the final configuration of the fill is achieved, a safe working environment is maintained., and that ground vibrations are monitored near adjacent structures to to prevent structural damage.
For developments involving construction of buildings over a dynamically compacted areas, a combustible gas barrier layer is generally required below the building footprint to safely collect and vent subsurface combustible gases (i.e., typically methane) to the environment. Construction costs associated with a combustible gas barrier layer should include the following:
In summary, dynamic compaction is a proven geotechnical construction engineering method that can be used to improve certain landfill areas to support redevelopment. SCS Engineers has completed many projects of this nature and is ready to serve and help to bring your project in service.
Related Article
Pursuing Dynamic Compaction, by Ali Khatami, Ph.D., Bruce Clark, P.E., and Myles Clewner, L.E.P., Waste Age
Sample Case Studies
Environmental Due Diligence – Procacci Site, Sweetwater, Florida
Landfill Engineering and Consulting – Medley Landfill, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Landfill Site Redevelopment for the City of Industry, California
Ali Khatami, PhD, PE, LEP, CGC, is a Project Director and a Vice President of SCS Engineers. He is also our National Expert for Landfill Design and Construction Quality Assurance. He has nearly 40 years of research and professional experience in mechanical, structural, and civil engineering.
Dr. Khatami has acquired extensive experience and knowledge in the areas of geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, hydraulics, construction methods, material science, construction quality assurance (CQA), and stability of earth systems. Dr. Khatami has applied this experience in the siting of numerous landfills and the remediation of hazardous waste contaminated sites.
Dr. Khatami has been involved in the design and permitting of civil/environmental projects such as surface water management systems, drainage structures, municipal solid waste landfills, hazardous solid waste landfills, low-level radioactive waste landfills, leachate and wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. He has also been involved with the design of gas management systems, hazardous waste impoundments, storage tank systems, waste tire processing facilities, composting facilities, material recovery facilities, landfill gas collection and disposal systems, leachate evaporator systems, and liquid impoundment floating covers.
An SCS pro forma model for waste management gives you the much-needed ability to analyze how different elements of a business plan will impact your cash flows and value. Subsequently, using individual forecasts and operations data, you can analyze when in the future you might need financing allowing you the time to plan to acquire sufficient resources, permits, and equipment. Read the Merced County case study here to learn more.
SCS Engineers assisted the Merced County, California, Regional Waste Management Authority (RWA) in developing a Pro Forma Model that encompasses projected operational costs and revenues to help decision-makers develop timely cash flow forecasts. The RWA now has a useful tool for annual budgeting and developing long-term capital policies.
After several years of revenue declines for numerous reasons, including the recession, a change in management in 2012 ordered a re-assessment of RWA’s operational and administrative functions. Throughout the year-long process, a new Regional Waste Director was selected to implement a progressive strategy that would realize operational efficiencies, cost savings, an expanded customer base, and lower long-term debt through bond refinancing. These measures provided considerable benefit, particularly in regards to the long-term financial health of the agency; however, it was not clear if cash could be generated quickly enough to meet the existing need. As a result, the agency hired a rate consultant in April 2015 to assess the anticipated shortfall and prepare a report to the RWA’s governing board.
The RWA owns and operates two disposal and recycling facilities, each located near the population centers of Merced County. Both landfills need expansions to increase disposal capacity in the coming years. SCS Engineers developed a Pro Forma Model to help the RWA prepare a long-term cash flow analysis and assess whether or not funds were available from operations to forestall a bond issue for the capital improvements as well as to fund adequate emergency reserves. At the beginning of SCS’s engagement, RWA staff provided background data and information concerning residential collection revenues and operating expenses.
The Pro Forma Model estimated annual net revenues during the 12-year planning horizon; determined that the current debt service is a major drain until the bonds mature in FY 2026/27; calculated that funds for projected capital improvements, fleet replacement, and a new “Rainy Day Fund” can be realized even if the RWA receives low waste deliveries to the landfill; and projected cash reserves. The model recommended that the RWA consider funding a landfill gas to energy project out of cash reserves rather than bond proceeds and projected annual revenues from methane sales.
The RWA adopted the findings of the proposed pro forma model in October 2015. Conducting the pro forma modeling effort enabled the RWA’s decision-makers to project costs of the various capital, fleet, and waste flow options. Key among the lessons learned was the implementation of a “Rainy Day Fund” to provide a long-term financial backstop for unforeseen events in landfill operations that cannot be predicted today. Such events could include groundwater and landfill gas remediation, issues with landfill liners, and weather events. The fund is capped at 25 percent of the RWA’s annual operating costs, which can also provide three to four months of operating expenses. While typical of many large County or municipal General Funds, it is less typical of individual enterprise funds in the past. Such Rainy Day Funds are becoming more and more prominent across solid waste agencies in the United States.
Lastly, the RWA now has a financial tool that can be updated annually and will continue to project future revenues and capital expenditures and ultimately forecast rate needs more accurately.
Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., is a Project Director for SCS Engineers’ and our National Expert on Solid Waste Rate Studies. Marc has over 30 years of experience in solid waste management as a public agency manager and consultant and has managed more than 200 consulting assignments across the United States on all facets of solid waste management. He has written and co-authored many articles, including the following:
Conducting Solid Waste Rate Studies and Business Plans
Trends in Solid Waste Collection
Click here for more information about SCS Engineers Solid Waste Services
On Monday, October 27, 2015, the Solid Waste Association of North America–SWANA and the National Waste & Recycling Association– NWRA submitted joint comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency– EPA on the proposed revisions of the Emissions Guidelines– EG and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and to the supplemental proposal to the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
SCS Engineers has also submitted comments pertaining to the proposed EG and compliance revisions to the EPA. SCS leaders are involved in many outreach activities to help landfill owners and operators understand and prepare for the impact of the proposed modifications.
Contact SCS Engineers at for more information, or visit the SCS website for upcoming events and pertinent resources.
Additional planning can help protect your facility from severe weather. This article discusses how owner/operators can help prevent damage to their critical solid waste facilities that need to function during and after a major storm.
Published in WasteAdvantage Magazine, October 2015. Click here to read the full article.
Written by Bruce Clark and Marc Rogoff, SCS Engineers in the Southeast Region.
Composting is a viable and important technology for managing organic wastes, as are modern landfills with comprehensive landfill gas collection and utilization systems. Both of these approaches have different capabilities and limitations. Understanding the facets of each approach allows individual communities to make waste management decisions, based on facts by environmental engineers that are beneficial for both human health and the environment.
SCS recently authored a report for the Metro Waste Authority in Des Moines, Iowa regarding their yard waste compost operations. Metro Waste’s yard waste compost system includes a bag and sticker program to support separate yard waste collection, shredding, screening, and windrow composting at the Metro Compost Center, which is co-located atop a closed City of Des Moines Landfill, and at the active Metro Park East Landfill.
The SCS report evaluated the costs, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, and the advantages and the disadvantages of continuing their current operations or alternatively considering a partial or full closing of the compost operations. If operations are reduced or stopped, these materials would be disposed of in the active municipal solid waste landfill. The active landfill has a comprehensive gas collection system, and Waste Management owns and operates an 11.2 Megawatt landfill gas-to-energy facility at the landfill.
The report was used by the Metro Waste Authority in early 2015 to support an amendment to Iowa’s solid waste regulations. The amendment allows for yard waste to be disposed of and be managed in landfills, only if the landfill has an active landfill gas collection and control system with a landfill gas-to-energy facility to effectively control and reduce methane emissions. The legislation was passed as a restricted exemption to the State’s ban on yard waste disposal in landfills. The amendment in the State’s regulations provides landfill operators some flexibility in managing these types of materials, as other states have done as well.
Most media channels fully informed their readers of the science and function of both technologies, explaining that when considering all factors, one landfill operation can reap greater environmental benefits than another operation despite using the same solution. Some organizations view the law and the report prepared by SCS as “anti” composting, or that because SCS’s investigative analysis and report proposed options, SCS does not support composting. SCS Engineers fully supports composting. In fact, we design, permit, and operate compost facilities around the nation.
Read the SCS Organics Management webpage
Read about Anaerobic Digestion here and
Economic Strategies for Solid Waste Planning here.
By Kevin D. Yard, P.E., BCEE, Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., with contributions from SCS’ Environmental Consultants
In view of recent media coverage about the costs of recycling, perhaps it is time to take a “fresh look” at the compatibility of waste diversion and ultimate waste management, i.e., landfilling. Whereas some suggest that Zero Waste enthusiasts and Landfill Management professionals have counterproductive goals, through our recent experience with integrated waste management systems we have a newfound appreciation of the common ground of the two groups.
Zero Waste proponents espouse many important goals such as behavioral changes in consumers (e.g., reducing the generation of waste, minimizing the use of products that contain toxins, reducing energy consumption, etc.). Others, in the “No Burn/No Bury” ZW camp, suggest setting a goal at zero waste of resources achieved through measures such as: bans on disposal of materials that can be beneficially used, mandatory recycling programs to address hard-to-reach constituents, separate collection of food scraps, extended producer responsibility of hard-to-handle materials, etc. Some ZW enthusiasts have stated, “We put a man on the moon, so surely we can achieve ZW”.
On the other hand, many solid waste management professionals realize that landfills represent an important component of integrated solid waste systems and that other waste management options that are sometimes viewed as alternatives to landfills (e.g., material recovery facilities, composting operations, household hazardous waste collection programs, waste conversion and waste-to-energy plants, etc.) are more properly considered as complementary waste management tools. Further, most solid waste managers understand that landfills will continue to be required for residuals from other components of integrated waste management systems for decades to come.
While recognizing that recycling is presently common and an important component of modern waste management systems, particularly in large metropolitan areas, two questions remain:
Whereas in some areas, recycling can be a break-even proposition, in most areas, implementing recycling can cost from $0.50 to $3 per household, per month. One might ask with public school budgets being reduced, the nation’s infrastructure needing extensive improvements, and forecasted water shortages warranting major water resource projects, what is the most appropriate method for determining how the costs of recycling should be born?
Perhaps the answers lie in addressing recycling goals in a manner that makes economic sense depending on the conditions of each community or, more appropriately, each waste-shed. When viewing the magnitude of the investment in a modern-day municipal solid waste landfill, one can gain a greater appreciation for the need for properly managing and amortizing such investments. Like any investment in infrastructure, the public’s investment in disposal capacity should be valued and optimized in the interest of taxpayers. For instance, in areas with limited remaining disposal capacity and limitations for developing additional disposal capacity, investing in a more aggressive recycling program may be much more desirable and cost-effective than for areas with over 20 years of disposal capacity.
As prudent taxpayers, we need to work together to assure that the assets of waste management systems are optimized in a manner that protects the environment. This, of course, includes thoughtful consideration of recycling goals, which can contribute to a more cost-effective utilization of the available landfill capacity. As recycling enthusiasts provide an ongoing impetus for further waste reduction and enhanced recycling, optimization of waste diversion will continue to evolve. This evolution will be site-specific consistent with the variable impact of evolving waste management technologies and changes in the markets for recovered products. Given that the dynamics of each waste-shed can vary dramatically, many cities will benefit from a review of waste management alternatives. Based on our experience, it has been shown that such a review can not only result in an optimization of current assets, but also a plan for continued cost-effective solid waste service for many years in the future.
SCS’ professionals provide assistance to many municipalities across the U.S. by devising programs that address all aspects of the comprehensive waste management systems: waste collection, recycling, composting, waste conversion, and landfilling. SCS’ solid waste professionals stand ready to assist additional municipal managers upon request. Please visit our website at www.scsengineers.com, call or drop us an e-mail:
Kevin Yard, P.E., BCEE, Dallas, TX: , 817-571-2288
Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., Tampa, FL: , 813-621-0080
Greg McCarron, P.E., Suffern, NY:, 845-357-1510
Anastasia Welch, P.E., Overland Park, KS: , 913-681-0030
Michelle Leonard, Pasadena, CA, , 626-792-9593
Leaders and National Experts at SCS Engineers
