U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facility Profilesinfohouse.p2ric.org/ref/30/29792.pdfNational Composting Program U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facilities Profile May 1992 Area Served: Population

The United States Conference of Mayors

The Unitdd States Conferende of Mayors 1620 Eye btreet, NW Washingtbn, DC 20006

I First Class

U.S. Postage PAID

Permit No. 4780

1 a @B %@ Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with soybean ink

i .,

r c

U.S. SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY PROFILES

NATIONAL COMPOSTING PROGRAM MAY 1992

National Composting Program Staff Mosi Kitwana

Director

Marc Aveni Research Associate

Monica Adams Administrative Assistant

Sponsored by Procter & Gamble Solid Waste Composting Council

N a t i o n a l C o m p o s t i n g P r o g r a m

Managing Sponsor ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

L- --J. Thomas Cochran Executive Director USCM

Dear Solid Waste Manager:

The National Composting Program has developed the U.S. Solid Waste Compostin Facilitv Profiles to make cities aware ofwho is doin what in solid waste compostin: The profiles provide essential information about a1 operating facilities in the United States and will put you in touch with the people who really know solid waste composting through experience. Where ever possible we provide a public sector contact person to make sure the perspective of the local government is represented. In cases where we have not been able to provide a public sector name, call The National Composting Program and we will try to help you get the local government information you need.

As an industry, solid waste composting is in its formative development. Four points make its future bright: 1) compostingcan process 50% ofthe waste stream, diverting it away from landfills, but more importantly, convertin it into a useful product; 2)

market development programs and research are being conducted; 4) solid waste composting is flexible, adapting well to integrated waste management.

These points are driving the increasing interest in solid waste composting. Currently 16 facilities are o erating, 6 are under construction, and at least 33 are in the

Program Director Mosi K. Kitwana f

high quality, marketable compost is being consistent 7 y produced; 3 ) effective

advanced stages o fp planning. In 1990, only 9 facilities operating.

The purpose of the National Composting Program is to be a resource to local government regarding composting. We hope you find this and other publications developed and disseminated by the National Composting Program useful in your consideration of composting as a waste management option.

Sincerely,

Mosi K. Kitwana Director National Composting Program

Managing Sponsor: The United States Conference of Mayors H 1620 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC H (202) 293-7330

0

The National Composting Program was organized in 199 1 to provide local governments with current information on the emerging solid waste management tool of composting. The focus of the program is to educate localities on developing solid waste and yard waste composting programs that are effective, cost efficient and environmentally safe.

The National Composting Program maintains the following positions:

Integrated Waste Management

Supports the concept of integrated solid waste management. This is broadly defined as combining the accepted hierarchy of waste management techniques; source reduction, recycling, composting, energy recovery, and landfill, to achieve the best results for a particular locality. Local government should determine the best combination of management techniques after careful assessment of landfill diversion, economic benefit, and market potential.

Composting

When correctly done, composting is a safe, viable, and economically competitive waste management method. It has the potential to process fifty percent of the waste stream while producing an end product with a variety of beneficial uses. Composting is a form of recycling, it can complement curbside, drop off and other types of recycling programs.

Standards

Supports the development of well researched compost contaminant standards and regulations to protect the public and the environment. The National Composting Program recognizes the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) standards for heavy metals and other contaminants developed by The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for land application of sludge.

Markets

Believes that a consistent high quality finished compost has a market potential greater than our ability to produce compost. Market development must be aggressively pursued, the National Composting Program supports procurement incentive policies to stimulate compost markets.

The following program services are available:

CompostinP Information Clearinghouse: The clearinghouse will monitor, collect, organize, and distribute data on composting activities across the country. Information on existing and under construction facilities, product standards, regulations, technologies, and markets will be cataloged and made available to local governments.

Technical Assistance and Program Development: Technical assistance to local governments in the areas of market development, compost standards, RFP development, and proposal evaluation will be provided.

CompostinP Demonstration Proiects: Composting facilities currently in operation that display efficiencies in facility development, composting methods and technologies, management, and marketing, will be highlighted as educational models for other localities.

For more information contact:

National Composting Program The United States Conference of Mayors

1620 Eye Street N W Washington D.C. 20006

202-293-7330

INDEX U.S . SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITIES IN OPERATION

MAY 1992

PINETOP/LAKESIDE. AZ ......................................................................................... 7

b NORTHERN DELWARE. DE 8

PEMBROKE PINES. FL ............................................................................................ 9

ESCAMBIA CO., FL ................................................................................................. 10

SUMTER CO., FL ..................................................................................................... 11

MONTGOMERY CO., KS ......................................................................................... 12

MORA (EAST CENTRAL). MN ................................................................................. 13

CITY OF ST . CLOUD, MN ........................................................................................ 14

MARTlN/FAIRBAULT CO., MN ................................................................................ 15

PENNINGTON CO., MN ........................................................................................... 16

.....................................................................................

FILMORE CO., MN; .......... ................................. 17

SWIFT CC., MN ................................................................................. ................... 18

LAKE OF THE WOODS CO., MN ............................................................................. 19

WHATCOM CO . (BELLINGHAM). WA .................................................................... 20

CITY OF PORTAGE. WI ........................................................................................... 21

CITY OF BIG SANDY. TX ....................................................................................

FACILITIES TO OPEN IN 1992 .......................... ......... 23

National Composting Program U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facilities Profile

May 1992

Area Served: Population TPD of MSW Generated

Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona 5,000 year round/35,000 seasonal high 12 low/30 high

Within Service Area: Lan df i I l?/Ti p Fee? I ncinerator?/Tip Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

Facility Location Ownership Operator Technology

Start-up Date

Y es/n o n e No Yes, 6TPD None

I Lakes i de, Arizona Public/Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District Bedminster bioconversion co-compost (Eweson digesters) August 1991

% of Throughput:

Rejected Recycled Composted

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Facility Recycling Tipping Fee

I 25% 0% 75%

15 MSW and sludge None None

End Use(s) Price Market Strategy I Nursery and landscape

Currently out to bid Professional horticulture industry

Capital Cost Funding Sources

$775,000 Private

Comments For More Information

Class I compost, unrestricted use Phil Hayes, Facility Manager 602-368-5370

TPD=Tons Per Day MSW=Municipal Solid Waste


May 1992

Within Service Area: Landfill?/Ti p Fee? Incinerator?/Tip Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Faci I i ty Recycling Tipping Fee?

Capital Cost Fund Sources


TPD=Tons Per Day MRF= Materials Recovery Facility *Approximately 50% of MSW is landfilled

Yes/$49.60 Ton No Yes/200 TPD Pilot program curbside, drop off sites, yardwaste collection in some cites

1000 MSW, 350 sludge MSW and sludge On site MRF, hazardous waste dropoff $49.60 Ton

$70 million (includes landfilI/water treatment) Federal and state grants, municipal bonds

Class II compost, not for homeowner use Rebecca Roe, Del. Solid Waste Authority 302-577-3457

MSW=Municipal Solid Waste


May 1992


Start Up Date

Within Service Area: Landfill?/Tip Fee? Yes/$62.50 Ton I nci nerator/Ti p Fee? Yes/$62.50 Ton Sludge Generation?

Curbside for newspaper, yardwaste collection in some cites

I Pembroke Pines, Florida P r ivate/Re u te r Rec y c I i n g of Florida Reuter Recycling of Florida Buhler equipment, aerated static pile in open hanger October 1991

%of Throughput: Rejected Recycled Composted

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Faci I ity Recycling Tipping Fee

I 15% 10% 75%

I 660 (expansion to 1000 TPD) MSW Onsite MRF, mechanical and hand sort $61.70 Ton

End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy I Contract with Bird Compost Management for

marketing to professional horticulture industry under name of “Earth Life” Sliding scale, up to $5.00 Ton Most goes to Bird Compost Management


Comments For more Information

Class I compost, unrestricted use Margie Rosenthal, Public Relations, Reuter Recycling, 305-436-9500

-

$48.5 million Private

National Composting Program US. Solid Waste Composting Facilities Profile

May 1992


Within Service Area: Landfill? Tip Fee? Incinerator? Tip Fee? SI udg e Generation? Recycling?

FaciI ity Location Ownership Operator Technology

Start-up Date


% of Throughput: Rejected Recycled Composted


End Use(s) Price Market Strategy

Comments

For More Information

TPD=Tons Per Day MRF=Materials Recovery Facility



May I992


Within Service Area: Landfill?/Ti p Fee? Incinerator?/Tip Fee? Sludge Generation Recycling?

Fac i I i ty Locat ion Ownership Operator Technology

Start-up Date

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Faci I i ty Recycling Tipping Fee



End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy


TPD=Tons Per Day MRF=Materia!s Recovery Facility


83


May I992


Montgomery County, Kanasas 30,000 100

Within Service Area: Landf ill?/Ti p Fee? I n c i ne rat0 r?/Ti p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling? $/Ton?

Fac i I it y Location

Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date

Yes/$l4.90 Ton No Yes Curbside in towns, dropoff sites in rural areas

I Approximately 16 miles South of Coffeyvi I le, Kansas Private/Resource Recovery Inc. Resource Recovery Inc Open windrow on clay soil March 1989

'Yo of Throughput: Rejected Recycled Composted

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Facility Recycling Tipping fee

I 25% 10% 65%

300 MSW Small on-site MRF, hand sort $14.90 Ton

End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy I Land reclamation of nearby EPA super fund

site Not currently for sale Would like to expand to professional horticul ture industry and state highway department


Not available Private

Comments

For more Information I Some co-compost with sludge on experi- mental basis, final product not tested or rated improvements to be made in near future Mr. Carol Knisley I l l Facility Manager,

TPD=Tons Per Day MRF= Materials Recovery Facility



May 1992

Area Served:

Population TPD of MSW Generated

Counties of Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Pine, Isanti, and Chisago Minnesota 109,000 130

Within Service Area: Landf i I I?/Ti p Fee? Incinerator?/Tip Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

Facility Location Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date

Yes/$67.00 Ton No No Curbside in some areas

I Mora, Minnesota Public/East Central Solid Waste Commission Daneco of Minnesota, Inc. Aerated static pile July 1991


Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Facility RecycI ing Tipping Fee

I 30% 20% 50%

250 MSW Mechanical and hand sort $67.00 Ton

End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy

Landscapers, Xmas tree growers, land reclaimation $1 .OO Ton Work with buyers who represent above groups


Comments


I $1 1.2 million State grant, local obligation bonds

Class I compost, unrestricted use

Steve Knight, Facility Manager 6 1 2-679-4930

National Composting Program U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facility Profile

May 1992

Area Served:

TPD of MSW Generated . Population

Within Service Area: Landf ill?/Ti p Fee? I ncinerator?/Ti p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling ?


Start-up Date

Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Faci I ity Recyc I i ng Tipping Fee


I Capital Cost Funding Sources



TPD=Tons Per Day RDF=Refuse Derived Fuel


May 1992


Martin and Faribault Counties, Minnesota 54,000 82

Within Service Area: Landfill? Tip Fee? Incinerator? Tip Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?


I No No No Mandatory curbside, yardwaste collection in some cities

I Truman, Minnesota Public/Prairieland Solid Waste Board Prairieland Solid Waste Board “Siloda technology” OTVD/Seres, In vessel August 1991

% of Throughput: Hejected Recycled Composted


I 40% Not available Not available

100 MSW Magnetic and hand sort $50.00 Ton

End Use(s) Price Market Strategy I Agriculture, horticulture, golf course

No charge Hopes to sell in near future

Capital Cost Funding Sources I $8.6 million

State grant, general obligation bonds

Comments


Class I compost, unrestricted use, only “siloda technology” in US. Dennis Hanselman, Director 507-776-3232


May 1992

Area Served:


Pennington County and portions of Marshall County, Minnesota 13,000/4,000 households 40

Within Service Area: Landf i I I?/T p Fee? I n c i ne rat o r? Sludge Generation? Recylcing?

Fac i I ity Locat ion Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date

I No No No Mandatory curbside collection, yardwaste collected separately in spring

I

I Thief River Falls, Minnesota Pub I i c/Pen n i n g ton County Future Fuels Inc. Lundell for processing, open windrow November 1985


Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock Faci I i ty Recycling Tipping Fee

I 20% 35% 45%

I 80 MSW Onsite MRF, mechanical and hand sort 80,OO Ton

End Use(s) Price Market Strategy I Agriculture, land reclamation

No charge None


Comments Concrete pad and roof are being added, currently not class 1 compost

Richard Nordhagen, President For More Information 218-681-3710 -

$1 .7 million State grants, county funds


May I992


Within Service Area: Landf ill?/Ti p Fee? I ncinerator?/Ti p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?







TPD=Tons Per Day


May I992


Swift County, Minnesota 11,700/4,300 households 13

Within Service Area: Landf ill?/T p Fee? Incinerator?/Tip Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

FaciI ity Location Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date

I No No No Mandatory 3 bag curbside collection system, yardwaste collection spring and fall

I Benson, Minnesota Public/Swift County Swift County Open areated windrow May 1990

% of Throughout: Rejected Recycled Composted


I 20% 35% 45%

40 MSW Onsite MRF, some hand sort $80.00 Ton

End Use(s) Price Market Strategy I Agriculture

No charge None


Comments


$1 .7 million State grants, county funds

Currently class II compost due to inerts, hopes to be class I by this summer Scott Collins, Facility Manager 6 1 2-843-2356


May 1992

Area Served: Population Served TPD of MSW Generated

Within Service Area: Landf i I I?/Ti p Fee? I n c i ne r at o r?/Ti p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

Fac i I ity Location Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date


% of Throughout: Rejected Recycled Composted

Capital Cost 1 Funding Sources

End Use@) Price Market

Comments




May I992


Whatcom County (Bellingham) Washington 125,000 230

Within Service Area: Land f i I I?/T i p Fee? I ncineratorni p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?

Fac i I i t y Locat ion Ownership Operator Technology Start-up Date

Nonransfer Station Yes/$90.00 Ton Yes Mandatory curbside, hazardous waste dropoff

I Ferndale, Washington Pu blic/Whatcom County Recomp of Washington, Inc. In-vessel with Royer agitated bed December 199 1

% of Throughput: Rejected R ec y c I e d Composted


I Not available Not available Not available

125 MSW On-site MRF $90.00 Ton

End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy I Demonstration and research purpose only

until approved Not currently for sale Plans to market to professional horticulture industry


$8 million Private

Comments

For More Information I Must satisfy year of testing prior to compost distribution, only fully integrated facility under one roof in U.S. Jim Anderson, Facility Manager

TPD=Tons Per Day MSW=Municiaal Solid Waste


May I992


City of Portage, Wisconsin 8,700/2,500 households Not available

Landfil I?/Tip Fee? I n c i ne r at o r?/T i p Fee? Sludge Generation? Recycling?


I Yes/$35.00 Ton No Yes Mandatory curbside, separate yardwate collection

I Portage, Wisconsin Public/City of Portage Portage Public Works I n-vessel, open wind row co-compost September 1986



I Not available Not available Not available

40 MSW and sludge Hand sort $35.00 Ton

End Use(s)

Price Market Strategy I Demonstration/research purposes, and daily

landfill cover only Not currently for sale Profess ional ho rt i c u I t u re i nd u st ry


$1.1 million Not available

For More Information Tim Pinnion, Public Works Director 608-742-21 76



May 1992


Within Service Area: Lan d f i I I?/Ti p Fee? I n c i n erato r?Di p Fee? SI ud g e Gene rat ion? Recycling?


Design Capacity TPD Feed Stock

Faci I ity Recycling Tipping Fee


Comments

For more Information


U.S. SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITIES TO OPEN IN 1992 May I992

AREA SERVED/STATE DES I G N ED CAPACITY OPERATOR/VENDOR

MSW TPD

CITY OF BALTIMORE, MD 700

MACKINAC ISLAND, MI 26

WRIGHT CO., MN 165

SEVIER COUNTY, TN 200

COLUMBIA CO., WI 80

FERST

wwos

PSG

BED M I NSTE R

COLUMBIA COUNTY

ADAMS CO., WI 25 ADAMS COUNTY

FERST=F&E Resource Systems Technology Inc. WWOS=Williams and Works Operational Services PSG=Professional Services Group

Documents

U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facility Profilesinfohouse.p2ric.org/ref/30/29792.pdfNational Composting Program U.S. Solid Waste Composting Facilities Profile May 1992 Area Served: Population