Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley

8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley

1/95

Constructing a

Regional Organic Waste

Management Program for the

Central Pioneer Valley

Final Report

Prepared By

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

under a grant provided through the Massachusetts District Local Technical Assistance Fund

December 2010

te

for the


2/95


3/95

CONSTRUCTINGA

REGIONALORGANICWASTE

MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

FOR

THECENTRALPIONEERVALLEY

FINALREPORT

PreparedbythePioneerValleyPlanningCommission

underagrantprovidedthroughthe

MassachusettsDistrictLocalTechnicalAssistanceFund

December2010


4/95


5/95

Acknowledgements

PreparedbyPioneerValleyPlanningCommission

Development of this report was funded through a District Local Technical Assistance Grant.

Funding

for

this

program

was

provided

by

the

Department

of

Housing

and

Community

Development.

PioneerValleyPlanningCommissionStaff:

DanielleMcKahn,LandUsePlanner

PattyGambarini,SeniorEnvironmentalPlanner

CatherineRatt,PrincipalPlanner

CentralPioneerValleyOrganicWasteManagementWorkingGroup

StuartBeckley,PlanningDirector,CityofEasthampton

VeroniqueBlanchardSmith,RecyclingCoordinator,TownofSouthHadley

KarenBouquillon,SolidWasteManagementSupervisor,CityofNorthampton

EdCauley,HighwayDepartmentDirector,TownofSouthampton

PhilGenovese,DPWDirector,TownofHatfield

RogerGuzowski,RecyclingManager,FiveColleges,Inc.

LorenzoMacaluso,WasteManagementSpecialist,CenterforEcologicalTechnology

ChrisMartin,ExecutiveSecretary,TownofGranby

SumnerMartinson,CompostingDirector,MassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection

DavidNixon,TownAdministrator,TownofHadley

DavidStarr,Principal,GreenNorthampton

SusanWaite,RecyclingCoordinator,TownofAmherst

EricWeiss,Director,HilltownResourcesManagementCooperative


6/95


7/95

RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010

1

TABLEOFCONTENTS

SECTION1:INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3

NeedforRegionalizationEfforts.................................................................................................................3

ProjectOverview ...........................................................................................................................................6

ProjectScopeofWork...................................................................................................................................6

ProjectTimeline .............................................................................................................................................7

SECTION2:ECONOMICFEASIBILITYOFNEWCOMPOSTINGFACILITIES............................10

SummaryofDataAnalysis ........................................................................................................................10

MethodforEstimatingtheMarketforNewCompostingFacilities.....................................................11

TippingFeesandHaulingCosts ...............................................................................................................16

DeterminingLocationsforCompostingFacilities ..................................................................................17

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................17

SECTION3:REVIEWOFORGANICWASTEMANAGEMENTPROGRAMS ...............................19

19912002NorthamptonSourceSeparatedOrganics(SSO)Program..................................................19

IncrementalVersusFullExpansionPrograms........................................................................................20

CreatingIncentivestoParticipate .............................................................................................................21

MaterialsAccepted......................................................................................................................................21

ObtainingtheOptimalMixofWastes......................................................................................................21

SitingFacilities.............................................................................................................................................22

MandatesandBans .....................................................................................................................................22

EducationandOutreach.............................................................................................................................22

ContaminationoftheOrganicsWasteStream ........................................................................................22

CharacteristicsthatContributetoProgramFailureorSuccess ............................................................24

ExamplesforaRegionalPrograminthePioneerValley.......................................................................25

SECTION

4:

ACTION

PLAN

FOR

A

REGIONAL

ORGANIC

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................................29

RoleofaRegionalApproachtoOrganicWasteManagement .............................................................29

EstablishingandSupportingCompostingFacilities ..............................................................................30

FacilitatingSourceSeparation&WasteCollection ................................................................................32

EstablishinganEndMarketingProgram ................................................................................................33

OngoingMonitoringandAssessmenttoIdentifyFutureNeeds .........................................................33

ProjectDevelopmentandRegionalCoordination..................................................................................34

RegionalProgramManagementandFinancingStructure ....................................................................34

SECTION5:CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................37

FinalAssessment .........................................................................................................................................37


8/95


TABLESANDMAPS.........................................................................................................................................

Table1:FoodWasteintheCentralPioneerValley ............................................................................10

Table2:GrossRevenuePotentialofNewCompostingFacilitiesServingtheCentralPioneer

Valley ............................................................................................................................................................11

Table3:WasteGeneratorCategoriesandCollectionEstimates ...................................................14

Table 4: Current Tipping Fees and Potential Composting Savings in the Central Pioneer

ValleyRegion .......................................................................................................................................16

CentralPioneerValleyOrganicWasteGenerationandRecoveryTable....................................38

EstimatedCollectableCommercialandResidentialFoodWasteMap........................................39

APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................

AppendixA:ListofPotentialCompostingSitesforFurtherAssessment ..............................................

AppendixB:ListofPotentialInvestorsandHaulersinaRegionalCompostingProgram..................

Appendix C: Example InterMunicipal Agreements: Memorandum of Agreement for Barnes

Aquifer Protection; Memorandum of Understanding by and between the Hilltown Resource

ManagementCooperativeandtheTownofChester .................................................................................

Appendix D: Example Request for Proposals: Request for Proposal for the Town of Raynham,Massachusetts to Design, Permit, Build, Operate and Manage a Large Scale Commercial Food

WasteCompostingOperation ......................................................................................................................

AppendixE:SourcesConsultedforSection3ReviewofOrganicWasteManagementPrograms .....

Appendix F: Sustainable Materials Recovery Program Regional Initiatives / Pilot Program

GrantApplication ..........................................................................................................................................

AppendixG:ContactListofParticipants ....................................................................................................

2


9/95


SECTION1:INTRODUCTION

Organic wastes originate from plant or animal sources

andare

compostable

that

is,

they

can

be

broken

down

by other living organisms and transformed into usable

finished products for gardening and farming. Most

compostable material in the municipal waste stream

comes from food waste, uneaten food and food

preparation scraps from residences, restaurants, cafes,

grocery stores, and cafeterias. Because these materials

constitute a large portion of the municipal solid waste

stream (1040 percent depending on sector), diverting

organics from final disposal is an important waste

reductionstrategy.

Organicwastemanagementisbecomingacriticalissuein

the Central Pioneer Valley, an area defined here to

include Amherst, Belchertown, Easthampton, Granby,

Hadley, Hatfield, Northampton, South Hadley,

Southampton, and the Hampshire County Hilltowns:

Chesterfield, Goshen, Huntington, Middlefield, Plainfield, Westhampton, Williamsburg and

Worthington. Nearby landfills in Northampton, Granby, and South Hadley are approaching

capacityandarelikelytocloseinthenearfuture.Theselandfillsareusedbyhaulingcompaniesthat

serve theentireregion,so theireventualclosurewill impactasignificantarea.Organicsdiversion

can help extend the useful life of these facilities as communities seek alternative trash disposal

solutions.Inaddition,organicwastediversionisatimelyissueduetotheFoodWasteDisposalBanunder consideration by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. There is

already a Massachusetts disposalban that prevents landfilling or incineration of leaves and yard

waste,materialthatis,asaresult,currentlycompostedatbrushcompostingfacilities.

BenefitsofFoodWasteComposting

Extend the life of our regionslandfills

Save money on waste disposaldue to lower tipping fees at

compostingfacilities

Makeefficientuseofresourcesbycreatingavaluableendproduct

Provide

finished

compost

products that can be used to

reduce the need for water,

fertilizers and pesticides in

agriculturaloperations

Thisstudyfocuseson increasingdiversionoffoodwastes.Todivertfoodwasteforcomposting, it

must be properly separated from recyclable materials and other wastes, stored, hauled to a

processingsite,composted,andfinally,distributedasanendproduct.Ahealthyandeconomically

viablecompostingsystemrequiresasufficientquantityandqualityoforganicwastes,properwaste

separationand storage,densehauling routes,wellrun facilities located inproximity towhere the

wastesarebeinggenerated,andarobustendmarketforthefinishedproducts.

NeedforRegionalizationEfforts

InFebruary2010,thePioneerValleyPlanningCommissionconvenedaworkinggrouptheCentral

PioneerValleyOrganicWasteManagementWorkingGroupconsistingofcommunities,nonprofit

organizationsandotherstakeholdersintheCentralPioneerValleyRegiontodiscussthepossibility

of developing a regional program for recovering and managing organic wastes. Since then, the

WorkingGrouphasbeenmeetingtoassesstheneedfororganicwastemanagementservicesinthe

region.

3


10/95


The current level of food waste composting in the region is largely the result of a patchwork of

efforts undertakenby local farmers who have developed composting facilities, haulers who have

developedfoodwastecollectionroutes,commercialwastegeneratorswhohavebeguntoseparate

theirorganicwastesandtoparticipateinthesenewcollectionroutes,andtheCenterforEcological

Technology (CET), a localnonprofitorganization thathashelped tocoordinatea numberof these

efforts.

In the early 1990s Martins Farm in Greenfield Massachusettsbegan hauling food waste from

generatorsintheregiontoprovideslopforitspigs.Asregulationsbecametighter,requiringfarmers

tocookfoodwasteforpigs,thefarmeratMartinsFarm,BobMartin,realizedthatitwouldbeeasier

tocompostorganicwastesandthenusethiscomposttogrowfoodforhispigs.Withinashorttime,

itbecame apparent that theorganicscomposting operation was more viable than the pig farming

operation.Thecompostingoperationwasthenexpanded,andhaulingrouteswerecontractedoutto

professionalhaulers.

Around this same time, CET received grants from the United States Environmental Protection

Agency,UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculturesSustainableAgricultureResearchandEducationprogram, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Department of

Agricultural Resources (DAR) to work with farmers, waste generators, and haulers to augment

composting in the region. This work involved a collaboration with the City of Northampton to

developaSourceSeparatedOrganics(SSO)Program.Thebackboneofthisprogramwasformedby

connectinglocalsupermarketswithhaulersandfarmers.Overtime,andwiththehelpofadditional

grant funding, the program evolved in response to market forces, and smallerbusinesses were

brought into the fold. At its height, the Northampton program included 70 commercial waste

generators, 10 waste haulers and 20 farms. Much of the waste was diverted to a composting site

operatedbytheSmithVocationalHighSchoolFarmaswellasseveralareafarms.WhentheSmith

Vocational High School Farm decided to stop its composting operation in 2004, however, the

Northamptonprogramlargelyfellapart.

Today,diversionofinstitutionalandcommercialorganicsisdoneprimarilyviadestinationfacilities

outside the study region along a northsouth axis.Thoseprimary destination sites for the largest

numberofcommercialandinstitutionalgeneratorsincludeMartinsFarminGreenfieldandShadow

Valley Farm in Hampden. Some of these routes predate or were created after the Northampton

Source Separated Organics (SSO) Program went defunct, while a few are remnants from the

Northampton program.Within the study region,the newly established New England Small Farm

Institute in Belchertown hasbeen growing as a destination site, especially for generators in the

easternsideofthestudyregion.IncomparisontotheMartinsFarmandShadowValleyFarmsites,

this facility still receives waste from a much smaller number of generators, but is growing

considerably in the amount of tonnage that is receives. Recently, this facility began accepting

between30and40tonsofwasteeachweekfromtheUniversityofMassachusettsandtheroutesof

AlternativeRecyclingSystems,alocalhaulingcompany.

Thereisalsoatleastoneexampleofasmallinstitutionalgeneratorthathaspartneredinanexclusive

relationshipwithanearbyfarmtocompostsourceseparatedfoodwastesfromtheinstitution,and

there are several small farms in and near the region that take small amounts of organic waste.

Further, CET continues to play a role in helping individual companies, schools and other

4


11/95


organizations to establish systems for food waste separation and tojoin existing hauling routes.

Meanwhile,thevastmajorityofresidentialorganicsdiversionwithinthestudyregion isdonevia

backyard composting, though there is some developing dropoff organics diversion at some

municipaltransferstations.

Although there are many aspects of the composting system that canbe improved, the WorkingGrouphasidentifiedthelackofcompostingcapacity(i.e.compostingfacilities)asthemostpressing

shorttermneedfortheregion.ExistingcompostingfacilitiesthatservetheCentralPioneerValley

regionareeitheratornearpermittedcapacity,acceptlimitedquantitiesoforganicmaterials,orare

toodistantfromthegeneratorsfortransporttobeeconomicallyviable.Theregionisoverrelianton

the two farm facilities in Greenfield and Hampden, so there is concern that losing either of these

wouldsignificantlyimpactcurrentorganicsdiversionprograms.

Inadditiontotheneedfornewfacilities,compostingintheregioncanbeaugmentedthroughefforts

toincreaseorganicwastediversionfromresidentialandcommercialwastestreams,toensureproper

wasteseparationandstorage,toestablishdensehaulingroutes,tosupporttheoperationsofexisting

composting facilities, and to develop new and stronger endmarkets for finished compost. TheWorking Group noted that there are many small to medium sized commercial and institutional

generators interested in diverting their organic waste. Restaurants likeJudies, Amherst Brewing

Company, and Bueno Y Sano diverted food waste for composting in the previous (now defunct)

Northamptonbasedcompostingprogramandwouldliketoresumecomposting,andotherslikethe

HotelNorthampton,CupandTop,WoodstarCaf,andAmherstCoffee(tonamejustafew)have

inquiredaboutstartinganewprogram.

Organicwastecompostingreliesontheactionsofmanyindependentplayers,includingcomposting

facilities, haulers, municipalities, and residential, commercial, and institutional waste generators,

among others. However, in order to augment composting in the region, there maybe utility in a

regional approach that views the independent parts of this system as a whole, that helps to

coordinate the independent efforts of the various players, and that provides continuity.

Establishmentofaregionalprogramcouldensurethatorganicwastediversionisanongoingeffort,

rather than a series of loosely connected projects taken upby different players only when grant

fundingopportunitiesariseorwhenindividualmunicipalitiesallocatefundingtolaunchnewpilot

programs. Inaddition, aregionalprogram couldhelp avoidduplication ofeffort,consolidateand

strengthenthevoiceforcomposting,andimprovethelevelofservice.

Overall,thegoalofaregionalprogramwouldbetoensurethatthevariouscomponentsoforganic

wastemanagementintheregionarecoordinatedandsupported.Somepossiblerolesinclude:

Ongoingmonitoringandassessmentofcompostingintheregion Evaluationofpotentialcompostingsitesandtechnologies Amatchmakingservicethatcouplessuitablesiteswithinvestorswhoareinterestedin

establishingandoperatingcompostingfacilitiesatthesesites

Initialandongoingtechnicalassistancetofacilities,generators,haulers,andmunipalities Developmentofcooperativeagreementstoshareequipment(e.g.screening,debagging)

5


12/95


Preparationofbiddocumentstoprocureservices,equipment,andmaterials Developmentofrecruitmentstrategiesandmaterialsforhaulers/municipalitiesestablishing

residentialprograms

Developmentofeducationalandoutreachmaterials Assistanceintheestablishmentofnewhaulingroutes Establishmentofaregionalendmarketingprogramforthefinishedcompost Developmentandexecutionofnewprojectsthatincreaseorganicwastediversionand

compostingintheregion

ProjectOverview

TheCommonwealthprovidedfundingin2010tothePioneerValleyPlanningCommission(PVPC)

throughthestatesDistrictLocalTechnicalAssistance(DLTA)Programto:

1. AssesstheneedforandeconomicviabilityofadditionalorganicwastecompostingcapacityintheCentralPioneerValley;and2. DevelopanActionPlanforaregionalprogramtomeettheregionsunmetneeds.

The City of Northampton initiated this project by inviting PVPC to a meeting to discuss

establishment of new composting facilities to serve the region. Following this, a large group of

townsandcitiesexpressedaninterestintheproject,andlettersrequestingtechnicalassistancefrom

thePVPCunder the DLTAProgramwere received fromAmherst, Easthampton,Granby,Hadley,

Hatfield,Northampton,SouthHadley,andtheHilltownResourcesManagementCooperative.

The

Commonwealth

awarded

the

Pioneer

Valley

Planning

Commission

$20,000

to

assess

the

need

for regional composting services and to develop a plan to establish a Regional Organic Waste

Management Program for the Central Pioneer Valley. If established, this program would help

coordinateandaugmentorganicwastediversionandcompostingintheregion,andwouldprovide

amodelforotherregions.

ThisreportisthefinalproductofthisplanningprocessandincludesanexampleMemorandumof

Agreementforaregionalprogram(AppendixC),aswellasamexampleRequestforProposalsthat

couldbeusedasatemplateforservicesthatassistwithfacilitydevelopment(AppendixD).

ProjectScopeofWork

ThefollowingisasummaryofthetasksthatthePioneerValleyPlanningCommissionundertooktocompletethisplanningproject:

Task1:AssesstheEconomicFeasibilityofEstablishingNewCompostingFacilitiesintheRegion

PVPC established a Central Pioneer Valley Organic Waste Management Working Group that

consisted of member communities and officials from the Massachusetts Department of

EnvironmentalProtection.TheWorkingGrouphelpedthePVPCtoassesstheeconomicbenefitsof

establishing new composting facilities in the region. This work included quantifying and

6


13/95


characterizingwastesbeinggenerated,determiningtheportionoforganicwastescurrentlycollected

forcomposting,andidentifyingcostsandpotentialsourcesofrevenue.

Task2:DevelopanActionPlanforaRegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgram

PVPCreviewedorganicwastemanagementprogramsinordertodeterminedesirablecharacteristics

of a regional program, characteristics that contribute to program failure or instability, and thepotentialutilityofandrolesforaregionalapproachtoorganicwastemanagementservices.PVPC

andtheWorkingGroupdiscussedtheappropriatescaleandlocationsofnewcompostingfacilities

intheregion,andidentifiedpotentialsitesforprocessingfacilities.Therewasalsodiscussionabout

howaregionalprogrammightbestructuredandfunded,andpossiblerolesforaregionalprogram.

ProjectTimeline

February2010 ProjectInitiation

February23,2010 FirstMeetingoftheCentralPioneerValleyRegionalOrganicWasteManagementWorkingGroup

Review of past efforts and current composting capacity inregion

Reviewofprojectscope Discussion of community needs for organic waste

managementservices

Discussionofneedsforeconomicfeasibilityanalysis

MarchOctober2010 Research,DataAnalysisandMappingbyPVPC Assessment of organic waste generation by residential

householdsandcommercialgeneratorsintheregion

Assessment of recoverable wastes that canbe reasonablydivertedforcomposting

CreationofaCompositeDensityMapshowingorganicwastegenerationratesbylocation

Estimation

of

current

composting

capacity

in

region,

and

the

needfornewfacilitiesinregion

Developmentofamethodtorefineorganicwastegenerationestimates

Researchandanalysisofregionalorganicwastemanagementprograms, and potential services, structure and financing

mechanisms

7


14/95


May6,2010 WorkingGroupMeeting Reviewofresearchanddataanalysis Reviewoforganicwastemanagementprograms Discussion of a grant application to fund a Regional Pilot

Program under the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (MASSDEP) Sustainable Materials

RecoveryProgram(SMRP)

May11,2010 WorkingGroupMeeting DiscussionoftheMASSDEPSMRPgrantapplication

June2,

2010

Submission

of

Sustainable

Materials

Recovery

Program

Regional

Initiatives

/PilotProgramGrantApplication

Regionalmatchmakingservice tocouplesitessuitableforcompostfacilitieswithinvestor/operators

Implementation of the Action Plan for a Regional OrganicWasteManagementProgram

September2,2010 WorkingGroupMeeting Review of refined data analysis method and preliminary

results

Discussionofpossiblecomponentsofaregionalprogram Discussionofpotentialcompostingsites Discussion of new composting facilities under development

in largerregion, includingsites inNewHampshire,Hadley,

Granville,Colrain,Rutland,andSouthDeerfield

October19,2010 WorkingGroupMeeting Reviewoffinaldataanalysisresults Discussiontoidentifymostpromisingcompostingsites Discussion of the possible structure and financing of a

regionalprogram

8


15/95


November30,2010 WorkingGroupMeeting Discussion of whether a program canbe developed around

new anaerobic digestion facilities to be constructed by

AGreen Energy, LLC. in the region, particularly the Hadley

andGranville

facilities

Discussion of the MassDEP Sustainable Materials RecoveryProgramGrantandnextsteps

ReviewofdraftActionPlan

December15,2010 CompletionofFinalReport

9


16/95


SECTION2:ECONOMICFEASIBILITYOFNEW

COMPOSTINGFACILITIES

SummaryofDataAnalysisThisstudyestimatesthat theCentralPioneerValleyregionproducesover51tonsoforganicfood

wasteeachday,andthatofthis,nearly36tonsperdayarerecoverable(seeTable1belowandthe

CentralPioneerValleyOrganicWasteGenerationandRecoveryTableattheendofthisreport).The

studyestimatesthatthecurrentcompostingcapacityofexistingfacilitieswithintheregionis15tons

perday.Therefore,thereare21 tonsperdayoforganic foodwastematerialsavailable tosupport

newcompostingfacilitiesintheregion.

Table1:FoodWasteintheCentralPioneerValley

Tons/Day

FoodWasteGenerated 51

FoodWasteRecoverable 36

CurrentFoodWasteCompostingCapacity 15

NeededFoodWasteCompostingCapacity 21

Basedonadensitymappinganalysis(seeEstimatedCollectableCommercialandResidentialFood

WasteMapattheendofthisreport),therearehighgenerationareas(morethan.5tonsperday,or

182tonsperyear)in:

Amherst Belchertown Hadley Northampton Easthampton SouthHadleyThere

are

also

significant

generation

areas

(more

than

.2

tons

per

day,

or

73

tons

per

year)

in

a

numberofothercommunities.Muchofthewasteisbeinggeneratedalongmajorroadcorridors,in

particularRoute9,butalsoincludingRoutes10,116,andothers.

Basedon these figures,theneededcompostingcapacity intheregion isabout21 tonsperday,or

7,517 tons per year. Given a tipping fee of $45 per ton for food waste and sales revenues of

approximately$30pertonoffinishedcompost($20percubicyard),thegrossrevenuepotentialfor

new composting facilities in the region is estimated tobe $388,265 per year in tipping fees, plus

$225,510 insalesrevenue,totaling$613,775peryear(Table2).Itisunclearwhethersuchalimited

10


17/95


revenuestreamcouldsupportasinglecentralizedcompostingfacility.Forthisreason,theWorking

Groupbegan to coalesce around a more decentralized approach involving relatively inexpensive,

wellknowncompostingtechnologiesoperatedonanumberofsmallercompostingsites.However,

because several large anaerobic digestion facilities (which are intended to serve the Boston

Metropolitanregion)areplannedtobebuiltinthePioneerValleyregion,itmaybepossibletodivert

wastesfromthePioneerValleyregiontothesenewfacilities.

Table2:GrossRevenuePotentialofNewCompostingFacilities

ServingtheCentralPioneerValley

EstimatedAnnualRevenue

TippingFeeRevenue $388,265

FinishedCompostSalesRevenue $225,510

TotalEstimatedRevenue $613,775

In reviewing the results of this analysis, the Central Pioneer Valley Regional Organic Waste

Management Working group identifiedaneed toexpand thestudy area toconsider wastesbeing

generatedtothesouthalongtheRouteI91corridorinHampdenCounty.Theseadditions,aswell

as consideration of geographicbarriers such as the Connecticut River and the Holyoke Range,

would help to develop a more complete picture of how organic waste shouldbe managed and

wheretositeeconomicallyviablefacilitieswithintheregion.

MethodforEstimatingtheMarketforNewCompostingFacilities

ResidentialGenerators

Organic waste generation from residential sources was calculated on a percapitabasis using a

multiple of .32 lbsof organicwaste generated dailyby each person. Census 2000 populationdata

were used, and the .32 lbs/person/day multiple wasborrowed from the results of the Eastern

Hampshire Regional Refuse Management District Study (1995), which included Amherst, Hadley,

SouthHadley,Leverett,Shutesbury,andPelham.Itisworthnotingthatmorerecentresultsinother

studies outside the region have indicated that per capita generation rates maybe significantly

higher.Forexample,theTownofHamilton,whichhasaresidentialcurbsidecollectionprogram,has

reportedgenerationratesashighas15lbsperweekperhousehold.Becausethestudyparticipants

were selfselected, these numbers are likely to be higher than if the entire community had

participated.However,usingHamiltons2.87AverageHouseholdSizeof2.87personperhousehold

(U.S.Census2000),thistranslatesto.8lbsperpersonperday,morethandoublethegenerationrate

usedforthisstudy.

Organic waste from college and university campuses was considered under commercial

generators.Therefore,itwasnecessarytosubtractthestudentslivingonacollegecampusfromthe

municipal population estimates. The number of students subtracted was the number of students

estimatedtoliveoncampusinthe2000Censuspopulationcount.

11


18/95


To estimate a feasible recovery rate for residential wastes, PVPC researched the recovery rates of

existing programs. For example, the City of Ottawa established a Green Bin program that

achieveddiversionratesof36percent1.Priortoestablishmentofthatprogram,Ottawawasableto

achieve diversion rates of 27.5 percent. Meanwhile, a recent study of Intensive Source Separated

Organics Programs in Italy2 published average recovery rates of 53 percent. These intensive

programs employ two to three curbside pickups each week and cover the costsby reducing the

frequencyoftrashcollection.Usingtheserecentfigures,aresidentialrecoveryrateof53percentwas

assumedforthepurposesofthisanalysis.

CommercialGenerators

Initial estimates of commercial generation of organic wastes in the Central Pioneer Valley Region

were obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protections Identification,

CharacterizationandMappingofFoodWasteandFoodWasteGeneratorsinMassachusetts(2002).

Tobeincludedinthisdatabase,foodmanufacturersorprocessorshadtohaveatleast5employees;

grocery stores had to have more than 15 employees or at least $1.5 million in annual sales; and

restaurants

had

to

have

at

least

10

employees

and

at

least

$200,000

in

annual

sales.

This

analysis

estimatedthatcommercialgeneratorsintheregionproduceover27tonsoffoodwasteeachday.

However,afterreviewingthedata,theWorkingGroupdeterminedthatamorerefinedanalysisof

commercial generators was needed. The method for this refined analysis is describedbelow. This

method uses estimates of actual observed collection rates providedby the Center for Ecological

Technology (CET). Based on CETs experience, it is assumed that the estimated collectable food

wastequantitiesrepresentapproximately80percentofthecommercialtotalfoodwasteproduced.

DataSourceandCleaning

The primary data source for commercial generators in this analysis was an employment list

purchasedfrom

aprivate

vendor

(InfoUSA,

Inc.)

in

January

2008.

This

list

contains

all

employers

in

the targetregionalongwiththeaddressandnumberofemployees.Whilethedata from InfoUSA

wasgenerallyofgoodquality,itisacknowledgedthattherearelikelytobesomeinaccuraciesinthe

employer database due to changes over time (i.e. the opening and closing ofbusinesses since

January 2008) as well as occasional reporting errorsby thebusinesses themselves. It was decided

that given the goal of providing an educated but general estimate of the waste produced by

commercialgeneratorsintheregion,forthepurposeofthisanalysisitcanbeassumedthatthenew

businessesthataremissingfromthelistareroughlyequaltothebusinessesonthelistthatnolonger

exist.

This study also used the list of large organic waste generators provided by the state DEPs

Identification, Characterization and Mapping of Food Waste and Food Waste Generators inMassachusetts(2002).ThelistoflargegeneratorsfromtheMassDEPdatabasewascrossreferenced

with the InfoUSA employer list and when generators were on the state DEPs listbut not on the

InfoUSAemployerlist,theywereadded.

1 Green Bin Boosts City of Ottawa Diversion Rate 30 Percent. Ottawa Start, December 13, 2010.http://ottawastart.com/story/10873.php

2Giavini,Michele,andChristianGaraffa.IntensiveSourceSeparatedOrganics.Biocycle,April2010.

12
http://ottawastart.com/story/10873.phphttp://ottawastart.com/story/10873.php


19/95


TheInfoUSAlistwasfirstreducedtoincludeonlythebusinesscategorieswithsomeformoffood

generationorsales.Aftercompilingalistofgeneratorsinthedesignatedregion,somecategoriesof

businesses were eliminated due to the assumption that they are not significant organic waste

generatorsorthattheyalreadyhaveabuiltinsystemfororganicwastemanagement.Thecategories

eliminated were: soft drink manufacturers with more than five employees, liquor stores,

miscellaneous crop farming, grain and field bean merchant wholesalers, and food, health and

supplementstores.Thelistwasthencleanedtoeliminateduplicateentriesandtocorrectsomemis

categorizationsofbusinesses.

Along the way, there was a temptation to use local knowledge of the researchers and other

individualsinvolvedinthisprojectinordertoaddoreliminateentriesfromthelist.Howeverthis

piecemeal localknowledgewasnotusedbecause itcouldnotbeguaranteed thatallcities, towns,

andneighborhoodswouldbeupdatedwiththesamelevelofaccuracy,andagainPVPCfellbackto

theassumptionthattheincorrectormissingentrieswouldbalanceeachotheroutandcontinueto

providearelativelyaccurateestimate.

GeneratorCategoriesandEstimates

WiththeexpertiseofprojectconsultantLorenzoMacalusofromCET,thegeneratorsremainingon

the listwererecategorizedtofit intogroups thatwouldhavesimilaraveragegenerationrates.In

somecasesthisinvolvedcombiningsomecategoriestogether,whileinothersitinvolvedseparating

onecategory into twoor three.Forexample,pizzashops tend to havea muchsmalleramountof

waste than other restaurants, so Pizza was created as a new category. Table 3 shows the final

generator categories as well as the collection rate estimates applied to each establishment in each

category.

13


20/95


Table3:WasteGeneratorCategoriesandCollectionEstimates

CategoryofGenerator CollectionEstimate(lbs/week)

CoffeeRoasters 100

Coffee,Snack&NonalcoholicBeverageBars 875

Confectionary&NutStores 100

DrinkingEstablishments 500

FastFood 100

Florists 450

NursingCareFacilities 6.3lbsperbed

Pizza 150

Restaurants&Catering 650

RetailBakeries 200

Schools 1.04lbsperstudent

SmallGroceryStores 500

SmallRestaurants&Catering 300

Supermarkets&OtherGroceryStores 4,000

Thecollectionestimatenumbersforeachsectorintheabovechartarebasedonfieldobservationsof

actual food waste collection for composting. In the early 2000s, CET worked with area haulers,

restaurants and supermarkets to weigh toters and dumpsters immediately prior to service by

haulers. Several weights were taken for each generator that was measured to create an average

collection per week. These averages of known collected weights were examined to create the

categoriesabove,andgeneralizedtocreatetheabovecollectionestimates.

Generatorsthatwerenotprimarilycommercialfoodproducersordistributors,suchasschoolsand

nursing homes, were examined in a different manner. Collection rates included for colleges, the

UniversityofMassachusetts, residentialschools, andCooleyDickinsonHospital were determined

individuallybased on an actual observed number from recent food waste collection data. These

estimates were providedby Lorenzo Macaluso at CET and Roger Guzowski, the Five Colleges

Recycling Coordinator for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Smith College, Holyoke

College, Amherst College and Hampshire College. Generation rates for schools arebased on an

estimateof0.15lbs.perstudentperday,andenrollmentdatawascollectedfromtheMassachusetts

Department of Elementary & Secondary Education for the 200910 academic year. The generation

14


21/95


rate estimated for nursing care facilities is 0.9 lbs. perbed per daybased on observed average

institutionalfoodwastegenerationonapermealservedbasis.Dataregardingthenumberofbedsin

eachnursingcare facilitywascollected,and thegenerationestimatewasapplied toeachHospital

andResidentialFacilitybasedonthisdata.

The Miscellaneous category was given a generation rate of zero. Zero was used in order tobeconservative,andalsobecausemanyoftheremaininggeneratorsinthiscategoryarelikelytohave

littlewasteortobeunlikelytoparticipateinacompostingprogram,makingtheirwasteessentially

unrecoverable.

The data obtained from this analysis indicates the actual amount that could be collected, or

recovered. To determine total generation, it was assumed that for commercial generators, this

amountthatcanberecoveredisapproximately80percentofthetotalamountgenerated.

ExistingCompostingCapacity

Inordertodeterminetheneedfornewcompostingfacilities,thisassessmentcomparestheorganic

wastesthatcanberecoveredforcompostingintheregiontothequantityoforganicwastesthatcan

becompostedbyexistingfacilities(i.e.theprocessingcapacityofexistingcompostingfacilities).The

differencebetweentheserepresentstheneedfornewcompostingfacilities.

None of the regional composting operations in the MassDEP database of Active Commercial and

MunicipalCompostSites inMassachusetts (July2010)accept foodwaste (these facilitiesallaccept

yard and leaf waste). However, the New England Small Farm Institute in Belchertown is a new

agriculturalcompostingsitethatcanacceptasignificantquantityoffoodwaste.Inaddition,there

arethreesmallagriculturalcompostingfacilitiesnearbyinSunderland,WesthamptonandWhately,

butthesefacilitiesacceptminimalamountsofwasteandthereforehavenotbeenincluded.

CompositeFoodWasteDensityMap

Once the data analysiswascompleted (see Central Pioneer ValleyOrganicWaste Generation and

Recovery table at the end of this report), a composite food waste density map (see Estimated

CollectableCommercialandResidentialFoodWasteMapatthisendofthisreport)wasdeveloped

toviewhowtheserecoverablewastesarespatiallydistributed.Thiscompositeanalysisshowstotal

recoverablefoodwastetonsperdayindifferentlocations(basedon2000CensusBlockGroup).This

analysiscanbeusedtohelpdetermineappropriatelocationsforcompostingfacilities.

EconomicFeasibility

Based on the figures developed in this analysis, the needed composting capacity in the region is

about21

tons

per

day,

or

7,517

tons

per

year.

Currently,

compost

tipping

fees

in

the

region

are

about

$45perton.Giventheseestimates,andassumingafinishedcompostpriceofabout$30perton($20

percubicyard),thegrossrevenuepotentialfornewcompostingfacilitiesintheregionisestimated

tobe:

TippingFeeRevenue:$388,265peryear SalesRevenue:$225,510peryear TotalRevenue:$613,775peryear

15


22/95


Startup and operating costs will vary for each site and investor. Estimated startup costs for

equipmentwouldbeabout$50,000 forbucket loader,grinder,screener,andturningequipmentat

eachsite.Additionalcostitemscouldincludesitepreparation(e.g.clearingandgrading),permitting

and localapprovals,laborforoperationsandequipmentmaintenance,siterentalorpurchase,and

interestpaymentsonborrowedfunds.

TippingFeesandHaulingCosts

A marketbased composting system will require that the compost facility tipping fees plus the

haulingcostsarealowercosttothewastegeneratorsthanthetippingfeesplusthehaulingcostsfor

landfilling the material. Tipping fees are the waste processing fees collected at the gate of waste

disposalfacilities.Theyaresetbasedonthecostofprocessingthewastes,plusfixedcosts(e.g.rent

ormortgagecosts)andprofit,lessrevenuesgeneratedbysellingthefinishedproduct.Thesefeesare

alsoaffectedbythetotalquantityofwastesprocessedatthefacility.Tippingfeesforcompostingare

generally setby facilitiesbased on costs, as well as the revenue that canbe generatedby selling

finishedcompost.

Insuccessfulcompostingsystems,composttippingfeesaresubstantiallylowerthanlandfillorother

alternative waste tipping fees. On average, tipping fees at the Northampton, South Hadley and

Granby landfills are approximately $74 / per ton, and are expected to rise with the closing of the

Northamptonlandfillin2012(Table4).Incontrast,composttippingfeesintheregionareabout$45

per ton. This margin of approximately $29 per ton presents sufficient savings and economic

incentive for haulers to add organic waste collection to their services, provided they have a

destination for delivery of the material. Haulers can pass on some of this savings to encourage

customers to separate organics. Lower tipping fees for organics have the addedbenefit that they

increasethedistance that it iseconomicallyfeasibletotransportwastes to thecompostingfacility,

allowingmoreorganicstoberecoveredfromthewastestream.

Haulingcosts,ofcourse,willvarybygeneratorandareafactorofhaulingdistancetothefacility,as

well as route and waste generator characteristics. A hauling route that consists of a few large

generatorsalongmajorroadspresentsacertaineconomyofscale,whileahaulingroutethatmust

stoptopickupfrommanysmallgeneratorsandthattravelsalongslowerdowntownstreetswillbe

morecostly.

Table4:CurrentTippingFeesandPotentialCompostingSavings

intheCentralPioneerValleyRegion

DollarsperTon

AverageLandfillTippingFee $74

AverageCompostTippingFee $45

PotentialTippingFeeSavingsfor

SourceSeparatedFoodWastes$29

16


23/95


DeterminingLocationsforCompostingFacilities

Determining suitable locations for composting facilities is an important part of creating an

economically viable composting system. The facility location determines the distance of the

generators to the site, affecting hauling costs. In addition, the facility location and other site

characteristics affect the technology that can be employed at the site, as well as the types ofgenerators that canbe served by the facility. As described above, economically feasible travel

distances for hauling organic wastes to composting facilities will varybased on a host of factors,

fromthetippingfeestothecharacteristicsofthewastegeneratorsandthehaulingroutes.

Rather than considering only the estimated total recoverable organic wastes in the region, the

WorkingGroupdeterminedthatselectingsuitablelocationsforcompostingfacilitiesmayrequirea

more nuancedapproach that considersa varietyofsiteand locationcharacteristics,aswell as the

needsofdifferentgeneratingsectors.Forexample,restaurantshavedifferentcollectionneedsthan

supermarkets,whichaffectshaulingroutesandinturnaffectstheeconomicallyviablelocationsof

futurecompostingfacilities.Asanotherexample,schoolsgenerateavastlydifferentmixofmaterials

than most other generators, which affects decisions about which composting technologies to use,and which in turn affects viable facility locations and site characteristics. This study includes a

preliminarylistofpotentialcompostfacilitysitesinAppendixA:ListofPotentialCompostingSites

forFurtherAssessment.BasedonaninitialWorkingGroupdiscussionofthislist,idealsiteswould

be at least five acres large, and some of the most promising sites from the list include Barstows

Longview Farmland Dairy, the Hampshire College Site, the Northampton Landfill, and the Food

BankFarm.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this analysis, the Working Group determined that further study is still

neededtoassesstheeconomicfeasibilityofnewcompostingfacilitiesintheregion.Toanswerthis

question more definitively, it wouldbe helpful to analyze this databy sector (i.e.based on the

characteristics of different types of waste generators) to determine composting facility

characteristics, collection strategies, and hauling routes that would meet the needs of different

generatorsectors.Inaddition, theoriginalstudyarea,which includes the17communitiesdefined

within the Central Pioneer Valley, does not generate enough waste to support a large centralized

facility, but this conclusion could change if the rest of the Pioneer Valley (the remainder of

HampshireCountyandallofHampdenCounty)weretobeconsidered.Further,lookingatthese17

communitiesinisolationdoesnotmakelogisticalsense,asmanyoftheeconomicallyviablehauling

routesthathavealreadybeenestablishedtravelfromnorthtosouth(andviceversa)alongtheRoute

I91 and Connecticut River corridor, while the Central Pioneer Valley Region has an eastwest

orientation.To

address

this,

the

study

could

be

expanded

to

consider

wastes

being

generated

to

the

southalongtheRouteI91corridor,inHampdenCounty.Further,ananalysisofgeographicbarriers

andtransitroutescouldhelptodeterminepossiblehaulingroutestosupportnewfacilities.

For theregion as a whole, therearesomeclear, though difficult to quantify,economicbenefits to

establishingnewcompostingfacilities.Tobegin,wastewillbedivertedfromtheregionslandfills,

which are approaching capacity. This willexpand the useful life of these facilities and potentially

deferpublicinvestments(andtheassociateddebt)tosupportnewlandfillorincinerationfacilities.

In addition, for the companies, institutions, municipalities and residents of the region, new

17


24/95


compostingfacilitiescansavemoneyby:offeringawastedisposaloptionwith lowertippingfees;

andshortertransportroutesifcompostingfacilitiesarelocatedclosertowastegeneratorsthanthe

areas current landfills or, once local landfills close, possibly landfills located outside the region.

However, these cost savings cannotbe quantifiedat present, as they will depend on the location,

compostingtechnologyandothercharacteristicsofthenewfacilities,aswellasthetippingfeesthat

areset.Inaddition,thesesavingswillvaryforeachwastegeneratorbasedonitslocation,thetypes

andquantitiesofwasteitproduces,andtheavailabilityandcharacteristicsofthehaulingroutesthat

areeventuallyestablished.

Basedon thisstudy,however, theWorkingGroupbelievesthat theregioncansupportadditional

smallandmediumscalecompostingfacilities,andthatthesefacilitieswillbeeconomicallyviableif

they are able to operate with tipping fees of $40 to $45 per ton. In addition, the Working Group

believesthatnewfacilitieswouldlowerthecostsofwastedisposalforbothmunicipalitiesandthe

privatesector,sotheregionasawholecouldrealizecostbenefitsfromnewfacilities.

18


25/95


SECTION3:REVIEWOFORGANICWASTEMANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS

WhileanumberofmunicipalitiesinMassachusettshavebackyardcompostbinprograms,thereare

currently very few organic waste collection programs in the state. Those in existence include a

subscription curbside collection program in Hamilton and Wenham, and dropoff programs in

Cambridge,NewSalem,WhatelyandNorthfield.Northamptonrecentlybeganasmalltrialdropoff

programaswell.

Tobetter understand desirable characteristics of organic waste management programs and those

characteristicsthatcontributetoprogramfailureorinstability,thisstudylookedtotheexampleof

otherprogramswithinMassachusetts,NewEngland,otherregionsinthecountry,andCanada.This

section summarizes the findings from that exploration and turns to the former organics waste

managementprograminNorthamptonforoneofthemostinstructiveexamples.Sourcesconsulted

forthissectionarelistedinAppendixE.

LessonsfromNorthamptonsSourceSeparatedOrganics(SSO)Program

The City of Northampton was once recognized as a leader in establishing food waste diversion

programs for commercial Source Separated Organics (SSOs). From 1991 to 1997, the Smith

Vocational High School Farm in Northampton maintained a food waste composting site at the

schoolfarmonLocustStreet.Thisfacilityacceptedfoodwastesfromarearestaurantsandprovided

a finished compost product. The diversion of sourceseparated organics in Northampton was

formally expanded in 199899. At that time, a grant provided to the Center for Ecological

Technology (CET) funded apilot program thatsuccessfully coordinateddiversion of compostable

wastesfrom70areagenerators,10wastehaulers,and20farmsinWesternMassachusetts.Muchof

thewastewasdivertedtothesiteoperatedbytheSmithVocationalHighSchoolFarm,thoughCETalso worked with several other area farmers to accept this food waste for composting. Over time,

mostoftheotherfarmersdroppedoutoftheprogramastheissuesofgettingcompostingmixtures

rightandmanagingcontaminationinthefoodwastestreamprovedtobetoochallenging.

Atitspeakin2002,dozensoffoodwastecollectionrouteswereoperatingthroughoutthecity,and

the composting site at the Smith Vocational High School Farm was receiving 2530 tons of food

waste per week. The Board of Health and Parking Division worked together to establish three

cooperatives to serve restaurants in the downtown area. Program participants included large

supermarkets (Stop & Shop and Big Y), food processors (e.g. Hot Mamas), small markets (e.g.

Serios and Coopers), restaurants (e.g. La Cazuela and Northampton Brewery), institutions (e.g.

Smith College and the Hampshire County Jail), health care facilities (e.g. Cooley DickinsonHospital),andpublicschools(e.g.JFKMiddleSchool).

In2004,alloperationsattheSmithVocationalHighSchoolFarmcompostsiteceasedduetochanges

inadministrationand internaldisputesabout theprogram.Nearlyallof the foodwastediversion

from smaller generatorssuchas schools and restaurants thatbeen established under the program

disappearedwithinmonths.Effortstoresuscitatetheprogrambyrestartingthecompostingfacility

atSmithVocationalandworkingmoreintensivelywithotherareafarmerswereunsuccessful.

19


26/95


WhiletheNorthamptonprogramwassuccessfulinmanyrespects,itsdemiseprovidesseveralkey

lessons:

Organics programs must have the support of local decision makers, including politiciansand administrators. Though they may seem far removed from the programs functioning,

theyarecriticaltodecisionsthatwillkeepprogramsontrack.

Itisriskytorelyheavilyononefarmforcompostingorganicwaste.IfthereisachangeinownershiporadministrationasinthecaseoftheSmithVocationalHighSchoolFarm,much

goodworkcanbelost.

Contamination of the waste stream and getting the waste mixture right create significantlearningcurvesforanycompostingoperation.

For most of the small generators that participated in this program, there were no otheravailablecosteffectiveoptionsforfoodwastecomposting.Largegeneratorsgotpickedup

byCETssubsequentworkwithhaulersdeliveringtoeitherMartinsFarminGreenfieldorShadowValleyFarminHampden.

The stakeholders (haulers, schools, restaurants, etc) are still interested in composting andseveralhavefoundawaytogetbackintocompostingovertime.Someprivatehaulershave

foundothercompostingoutletsinresponsetocustomerdemands.Whiletheinfrastructure

isnotasrobustasitwas,privateeffortshavefoundawaytokeepsomeleveloftheoriginal

programgoing.

Withamorestable infrastructureandanentity(s) likeCETthatcanbringthestakeholderstogether to facilitate a large scale diversion program, the Pioneer Valley area could very

easilyhavealargescalefoodwastediversionprogramagain,andarguablyonethatwouldgreatlysurpassthediversiontonnagesofnearlyadecadeago.

IncrementalVersusFullExpansionPrograms

Manycommunitiesthroughoutthenationandallofthosewithprogramsinthenortheast,develop

theircompostingprogramsincrementally.InSanFrancisco,California,forexample,apilotprogram

serving thecommercialwholesale produce districtbegan in1996 and thengradually expanded to

serve other commercial operations in the city. A residential program was later established after

severalpilotprograms.Overfouryears,theresidentialprogramwasestablishedandexpandedto

serveallthecityssinglefamilyresidentialhouseholds.Now,servicesareagainbeingexpandedto

serve apartments where 60 percent of the citys population resides, and the city reports that it is

achieving70percentorganicwastediversion.

Programsdonotalwaysbeginwithcommercialwastediversion,followedbyresidentialdiversion.

In Alameda County, California, for example, a residential program was established prior to the

development of a commercial program. However, informal commercial waste diversion hadbeen

takingplacepriortothedevelopmentofaformalprogram manyfarmershadalreadyestablished

workingrelationshipswithlargecommercialorganicwastegenerators.

20


27/95


Full expansion programs offer an alternative to incremental development. However, evidence

suggeststhattheseprogramsareriskierandmoredifficulttomanage.InToronto,Ontario,thecity

established a program that wasdesigned from its inception to accept nearlya thirdmoreorganic

wastetypesthanprogramsintheU.S.,includingdiapersandpetwastes.Thecityinvestedheavily

inarelativelynewanaerobicdigestiontechnology,andhasemployedmanycollectionstrategiesto

increase resident participation. For example, instead of charging for waste collection through

propertytaxes,thecitynowhasasolidwastefeethatvariesbasedonlandfillwastecartsizethata

householdselects.However,thecityhasstruggledtocovershortfallsinfinancingtheprogram,and

it has not yet achieved the high diversion rate of 70 percent that it had hoped for. Currently, the

diversionrateisat45percent.

CreatingIncentivestoParticipate

Successful programs offer a costeffective disposal option for organic wastes. For example, there

must be an appreciable difference between tipping fees at landfills and fees at composting

operations.Thisdifferencecreatesanincentiveforhaulersandfororganicwastegeneratorstodivert

their organic wastes. In Needham, Massachusetts, the main motivation for establishing acompostingprogramwastoavoidhighlandfilldisposalcosts.InAlamedaCounty,California,the

successoftheresidentialandcommercialprogramshasbeenattributedtothehugepricedifference

betweenlandfillingandcomposting,resultinginasavingsof25percentto50percent.InAlameda

County,landfilltippingfeesare$135perton,whilecompostfacilitytippingfeesare$55perton.

Onestrategyemployedtoincreaseparticipationinresidentialcompostingprogramsistoreducethe

frequencyoftrashcollection,forexampletoonceeveryotherweek,whilecollectingrecyclingand

organicsweekly.Thisstrategycansignificantlyreducethecostsofcollectingtrashandcanoffsetthe

additionalcostofprocessingextracategoriesoforganicwastes.Less frequent trashcollectionalso

increasesorganicwastediversionbymotivatingresidentstoputorganicwastesintheappropriate

container bydoingthis,residentsavoidhavingorganicwastessitfor longperiodsoftimeinthetrash.

MaterialsAccepted

The types of facilities sited in the region will affect the types of organics that canbe accepted. In

most communities, where aerobic Windrow composting operations are used, the types of organic

wastesthatcanbecollectedwillbelimited.Ontheotherhand,employingmoreexpensiveanaerobic

composting technologiescould allowprograms to acceptawidevarietyofwaste types, including

diapers,kittylitterandpetwaste.

Obtaining

the

Optimal

Mix

of

Wastes

ForaerobicWindrowcompostingfacilities,whicharemostcommon,foodscraps,whicharehighin

nitrogen, mustbe mixed with a carbon source. Soiled paper, cardboard,brush and leaves are all

goodsourcesofcarbon.Recipesforcompostingmixturesvary,butthesurveyconductedbyGary

Liss & Associates of 121 residential organics program in the United States and Canada reported

successwithmixturesinWindrowsthatconsistof75percentleavesandbrushand25percentfood

scraps,alongwithbulkingagents.InNeedham,Massachusetts,leavesandbrushthathadtakenfive

tosixmonthstocompostinWindrowsarenowtakingtwotothreemonthswiththeadditionoffood

scraps.TheLisssurveynotesthatinthefuture,asthenumberofcompostingprogramsincrease,the

21


28/95


competitionforsourcesofcarbonwillexpandandWindrowfacilitieswillbeevermorechallenged

to manage nitrogen rich streams. This could eventually lead to greater investment in anaerobic

compostingtechnologies.

SitingFacilities

Sitingacompostingfacilityalwayspresentssignificanthurdles.InMassachusetts,theDepartmentof

EnvironmentalProtection(DEP)recommendsthatnewcompostingfacilitiesbeestablishedonactive

orinactivelandfillortransferstationsites,asthesefacilitiesalreadyhaveasiteassignmentpermit.

InNeedham,forexample,thefoodwastecompostingfacilityislocatedonaclosedlandfillsite.Itis

worth noting thatbrush composting facilities do not have a site assignment, so a full permitting

process is required to accept food wastes at these sites. In some circumstances, an agricultural

compostingfacilitycanobtainasiteassignmenttooperateasafullcompostingoperation,allowing

ittoprocessagreaterquantityofwastes.MartinsFarminGreenfield,Massachusetts,forexample,

beganasanagriculturalcompostingsiteandeventuallyobtainedasiteassignmentfromMassDEP

tooperateasacommercialcompostingfacility.

In addition to site assigned facilities, farms that are permittedby the Department of Agricultural

Resourcescanacceptupto15tonsoffoodwasteperday,andthiswastecanbecomprisedoffive

tons of post consumer food waste and 10 tons of vegetative food waste (including waste from

supermarkets, etc.). In some circumstances, an agricultural composting operation can obtain a

determinationofneedfromMassDEPtoacceptmorethanthis.Aspreviouslymentioned,theNew

England Small Farm Institute in Belchertown is the only large agricultural composting operation

withintheCentralPioneerValleyRegion.

MandatesandBans

Mandatesandbansareusedinsomeorganicwastecompostingprograms.SanFrancisco,California

and some communities in Canadarequire residential source separation of organics. San Francisco

recentlymade itsprogrammandatory througharequirement thatorganicwastesacceptedwithin

the residential organics program not be placed in residential trash containers or otherwise

inappropriatelydisposed.

Inothercommunities,citieshavebannedtheuseofplasticbagsinordertopreventcontaminationof

thewastestream.InSanFrancisco,thecityinstructsresidentstouseonlybiodegradablelinerssuch

aspaperbagsorcompostableplasticbags,whicharewidelysoldinfood,hardwareanddrugstores

in thecity.However, inAlamedaCounty,California,resultssuggest thatrequiringbiodegradable

linerscanbeconfusing,astheyarenoteasilydistinguishedfromregularplasticbags.

EducationandOutreach

Education is a major contributor to successful composting programs. Particularly in residential

programs, the degree of education has directbearing on levels of participation. Education and

outreachprogramsshouldincludemarketingmaterialsandconsistentmessaging.Postcards,flyers,

or other printed materials can explain thebasics of the program. Some programs also provide a

kitchenpailforcollectingfoodscrapsthatdescribedosanddonts.StopWaste,thepublicagency

for waste management in Alameda County, conducted abroad regional education campaign on

22


29/95


organicsthatdeliveredradiopublicserviceannouncements(PSAs)andposted informationonthe

sideoftrucks,busshelters,andmasstransitvehicles.

Inadditiontoresidentialoutreach,theAlamedaCountyprogramconductedsignificantoutreachto

recruitbusinesses,traintheirstaff,changetheirwastedisposalservice,redesigntheirwastestorage

area to include newbins, and conduct followup activities. These commercial outreach activitiestypicallyrequired$1,000perbusiness.Locally,theCenterforEcologicalTechnologyhasprovided

composting assistance to businesses at a similar cost. Finally, one interesting example of a

commercial education program can be found in Cambridge, where the city initially hired a

consultant to recruit and train program participants,but now the areas haulers do their own

recruiting and training ofbusiness customers. This suggests that technical assistance mightbe

providedmoreefficientlytohaulers,whocaninturntraintheircommercialclientsthemselves.

ContaminationoftheOrganicsWasteStream

Education is also critically important to reduce contamination of the organics stream in both

residentialand

commercial

collection

programs.

Large

quantities

of

plastics

and

other

non

organic

materialscanmakeitdifficultforcompostingoperationstomanagecontamination.InNeedhamthe

residentialprogramfailedduetocontamination,thoughthetowndoesnowhaveasourceseparated

organicsprogramwithgrocerystores.IntheearlyeffortsbytheCenterforEcologicalTechnology

(CET) to work with farms in Western Massachusetts, contamination was a contributing factor to

farmsdroppingoutoftheprogram.Intheirsubsequentwork,CEThasemphasizedthatorganicsin

a food service operationbe collected at theback of the house where there is relatively little

contaminationratherthanatthefrontofthehouse,wherethereisfarmorecontamination.Inthe

Cambridgeprogram,there is lesscontaminationbecausethehaulerusesarearloaderandcansee

whatisbeingdumpedintothetruck.Ifaproblemwithwhatisbeingputintheorganicsbinbya

business isspotted, thehaulercan immediatelytalk to thebusinessaboutcorrecting theproblem.

For residential programs, Alameda County has worked to ensure that information about what isaccepted and what is not accepted is printed on the food scrapbins distributedby participating

municipalities. The program also conducts participation audits twice each year with a consultant,

reviewingrepresentativedemographicsand flipping lids toreviewbincontents. In theresidential

programsinHamiltonandWenham,Massachusetts,todatetherehasbeenverylittlecontamination

intheorganicwastestream.

23


30/95


CharacteristicsthatContributetoProgramFailureorSuccess

Based on this review, it is clear that successful organic

wastecompostingprogramsaredevelopedincrementally,

aswas

the

case

for

all

of

the

programs

in

the

Northeast,

as

well as San Francisco, California and Alameda County,

California. In contrast, the full expansion program in

Toronto, Ontario has encountered many problems,

especially financial instability. Although a successful

phased approach can take many forms, earlier pilot

programsfocusedonconcentratedcommercialsourcesof

food scraps, while many contemporary pilot programs

haveinsteadbegunwiththeresidentialsector,oftenwith

single family homes, and then have expanded to multi

familyunitsandthentothecommercialsector.

Tobegin a collection program, it is important to ensure

that sufficient composting capacity is in place. Within

collection programs, strategies that require mandatory

separation of organics or that institute a local wasteban

can improve program success, as can educational

campaigns that offer significant outreach and training to

residents and commercial generators. Finally, and

perhapsmost importantly,successfulprogramsrequirea

significantdifferencebetweentrashandorganics tipping

fees.

On the other hand, there are a number of characteristics

that contribute to program failure. These include over

reliance on a single privatelyowned facility

(Northampton, Massachusetts), problems with waste

contamination that lead haulers or compost facilities to

reject wastes or to cease offering composting services

(Needham, Massachusetts residential program), and

problemswithgettingthemixtureright,pileturning,and

otherodorcontrolissuesthatleadneighborstocomplain

(variousfarmbasedcompostingfacilitiesinMassachusetts).

SourceSeparatedOrganics

Composting LessonsLearned

1. Always establish contingency fund

in the upfront financial plan for your

facility.

2. Research the compost markets in

your area prior to finalizing the

designofyourcompostingoperation.

3. Once food residuals arrive on site,

they need to be processed

immediately. Food residuals should

not be stockpiled or allowed to sit.

Haveacarbonsourceready.

4. Buy technology that has been

proven.

5. Composting smells. Plan for it,

buildcapacitytocontainaswellasto

treattheresultantodorousair.

6.Investfundsinpublicoutreachand

education. This investment is asimportant as any capital expense

associatedwiththecompostfacility.

Source: Biocycle, May 1, 2005,

Composting Source Separated

Organics 25 Top Lessons Learned,

bySusanAntler,CompostingCouncil

ofCanada,andNoraGoldstein

Because most change encounters social resistance, lack of sufficient public education can also

contribute toprogram failure through lowparticipationrates,especially inresidentialcomposting

programs. In addition, lack of understanding and support, and sometimes outright oppositionby

electedofficialscanleadtoprogramdecline,makingpoliticalsupportcriticaltoprogramsuccess.

24


31/95


ExamplesforaRegionalPrograminthePioneerValley

Many composting programs havebeen establishedby single municipaljurisdictions. There are

several programs, however, that provide examples from which to draw for a regional model in

termsofoperationalandmanagementstructureandfinancing.

OperationalandManagementStructure

InHamiltonandWenham,Massachusetts,theorganicsprogramoperatesunderanintermunicipal

agreementsignedbytheBoardofSelectmenineachtown.Theagreementsetsupcostsandservices

forresidentialcurbsidepickupoforganicsandatimetableforevaluationofthisnascentprogram.

Hamiltonhasthemunicipalcontractwiththehaulerandthehauler,inturn,hasthecontractwith

thecompostfacilityoperator.

In Franklin County, Massachusetts, 22 member towns came together in 1989 to form the Franklin

County SolidWasteManagementDistrict.While, the District does notcurrentlyhave anorganics

program, it does help member towns manage all other aspects of their solid waste: recyclables,

hazardouswaste,wastewatertreatmentsludge,andtrash.TheDistrictalsoprovidesadministrativesupport,professionalconsultation,trainings,andoutreachtoresidentsandbusinesses.TheDistricts

governingbody is itsBoardofRepresentatives,which includesrepresentativesfromeachmember

municipality.TheDistrictisstaffedbyanexecutivedirector,programdirector,andadministrative

assistant.Wastemanagementdistrictsareestablishedbyspecialactofthestatelegislatureandcan

be designed to generate fees or levy taxes. Districts can also issuebonds and notes and raise

revenuestocarryouttheirstatedpurposes.IntheBerkshires,12townsarealsoorganizedinsucha

way,formingtheNorthernBerkshireSolidWasteManagementDistrict.

Established in 1989, the Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative has 11member towns:

including Ashfield, Chester, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Huntington, Middlefield,

Plainfield,Westhampton,Williamsburg,andWorthington.Membertownssignamemorandumofunderstanding for assistance from the Cooperatives Administrator (see Appendix C). The

Administratormanagessolidwastedisposal,includingrecycling,composting,andlandfilling,and

conductsoutreachandeducationaboutrecyclingandruralsustainability.TheCooperativesboard

iscomposedoftworepresentativesfromeachmembertown.

InSwiftCountyMinnesotaandAlamedaCountyCalifornia,regionalcompostingprogramsoperate

undertheaegisofthecountygovernment.InMinnesotasSwiftCountythereismandatorysource

separation, including organics on a countywide basis involving the 8 very rural municipal

jurisdictions. The county provides regionwide education on organics,but 6 of the municipalities

have their own contracts with a hauler and two municipalities are doing their own hauling. In

AlamedaCounty,California,where17ofthe20municipalitiesparticipateintheorganicsprogram,Stop Waste operates under an agreement forjoint exercise of powers and is governedby a 17

member board composed of elected officials appointed by each member agency. Stop Waste

25


32/95


oversaw municipalities in meeting startup requirements and also provides a range of regional

educationprogramsasdescribedabove.3

Financing

Whilethefavorablemarginsthatexistbetweentippingfeesfortrashversusorganics(discussedin

Section2)offereconomicimpetusforanorganicsprogramintheregion,financingaregional

servicescomponentofanorganicsprogramrequiressomeconsideration.AsdescribedinSection1,

theseregionalservicescouldhelpavoidduplicationofeffort,consolidateandstrengthenthevoice

forcomposting,andimprovethelevelofservice.Servicescouldinclude:initialandongoing

technicalassistancetofacilities,generators,haulers,andmunipalities;developmentofcooperative

agreementstoshareequipment(e.g.screening,debagging);preparationofbiddocumentstoprocure

services,equipment,andmaterials;anddevelopmentofeducationalandoutreachmaterials.

Ratherthanrelyongrants,aregionalprogramwouldrequireasteadyandreliablesourceoffunds

fortheseservices.Otherregionalprogramsdrawonavarietyofstrategiestofundsuchservices,as

describedbelow.

In Franklin County, the work of the Solid Waste Management District is covered by annual

administrative assessments that are paid by each of the member towns. These funds cover

approximately 60 percent of the Districts administrative operating expenses, and remaining

expensesarecoveredthroughafeeforserviceprogramandgrantincome.

TheworkoftheHilltownResourceManagementCooperativeisfundeddirectlybythe11member

townsthroughannualassessments,whicharebasedontonnageandpopulation.Theprogramalso

receivesfundingsupportthroughgrantsandthroughitsvariousdisposalprogramsforthetowns,

includingelectronics,paint,householdhazardouswaste,propanetanks,freonremoval,andtires.

In Hamilton and Wenham, Massachusetts, the organics program received a grant from theDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionforthepurchaseofbinsthatwenttothefirst500families

intheprogram.Aperhouseholdannualflatfeecovershaulingcosts,butotherservicesassociated

withtheprogramwithinthetwotownsarecurrentlyprovidedbyvolunteers.

InSwiftCounty,Minnesota,financingtocovercountyadministrative,planningandeducationwork

isdrawnfromthefacilityfeeongarbageof$80/tonatthecountytransferstations(garbageishauled

tolandfillinNorthDakota)andaspecialassessmentfee,aflatfeeassessedonalllandownersinthe

county,whichgeneratesapproximately$120,000/year.

In Alameda County, California, regional services are funded through three fees. A facility fee of

$4.34 per ton is levied by the county under the state waste compliance mandate on the twooperators.Monieshelp to fundcompliancewith thestatemandateof50percentdiversion.Under

3Communities receiving funding to launch their program had to meet several conditions set by Stop Waste: They had to refer to

the organics as food scraps, they had to provide weekly collection of food scraps, and they had to use 4 pieces of marketing

materials with their residents, including postcards announcing the basics of the program, a kitchen pail for collecting food scraps,

label for their pails describing dos and donts, and a brochure. No community was allowed to start the program as a pilot; it was

all or nothing.

26


33/95


MeasureD(oftheAlamedaCountyWasteReductionandRecyclingInitiativeCharterAmendment),

there isa landfillsurchargecurrentlysetat$8.17perton.Halfofthesemoniesgotoparticipating

municipalities for waste reduction efforts and half are allocated to countywide waste reduction

programs administeredby Stop Waste. There is also a waste importmitigationfee of $4.53 per tonleviedonwastescomingtolandfillsfromoutofcounty.

It is important to note that all of these fees in Alameda County are disposalbased. As waste

prevention and diversion programs are increasingly successful in reducing the need for disposal,

agency revenues are decreasing. The county is currently working to identify alternative means of

fundingfortheregionalservices, including:advancedisposalfees(chargedoncertainproductsat

point of sale); variable user fees (tobebased on volume of service provided for organics and

recycling as currently, recycling and organics services essentially free as they are subsidizedby

garbageoperations);andarateadjustmentwithintheservicepackagesothatcovernotonlylowest

bidfromhauler,butprogramofservicesfrommunicipalitiesandthecounty.Aspartoftheeffortto

identifyalternativemeansofsupportingregionalservices,AlamedaCountyhadSkumatzEconomic

Research Associates conduct a comprehensive analysis of funding options. The report entitled,

FootingtheBillforDiversionPrograms:FundingOptions, identifiessomefourdozenfundingoptionsthat theydivide into threecategories: incentivebased (e.g.,variableuserfeesbasedonamountof

trash disposed), wastestream or service authority dependent (taxes and disposal or tip fee

surcharges),andindependentofwastestream(flatrategeneratorfees).

IndiscussingtheregionalservicesprogramwiththeOrganicWasteManagementWorkingGroup,

several ideas emerged that are worthy of further exploration. One member noted that

matchmakingservices(describedinSection4)wouldentailaonetimecost,whileotherservices

wouldneedtobesupportedoverthelongterm.Theideasoutlinedbelowaregenerallyinkeeping

with existing financing approaches and reflect the tradition within Massachusetts communities of

local home rule. Regional services might involve a combination of the following and additional

ideasyettocome,dependingonwhichservicesareprovidedbywhom.

Aportionofthesavingsrealizedbyhaulers(betweenlandfillandcomposttippingfees)orasmall surcharge on the per ton tipping fee for organics mightbe used for distribution of

containers, technicalassistance,andgeneraleducationwork.Oneworkinggroupmember,

whohasalreadyprovidedmuchtechnicalassistanceonorganicsintheregion,observedthat

educationand technical assistance isof primary importance to thesuccessof theprogram

and said that it willbe important to ensure that this work indeed occurs. A meetingwith

haulerscouldbeworthwhiletodeterminehowtheseservicescouldbestbedelivered.

AnintermunicipalagreementmightincludeaduescomponentfollowingthemodeloftheBarnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee (mentioned earlier) to help cover certain

regional services. One working group member noted that her community might be

interested in paying dues to cover regional services for residential organics programs,but

notforcomparableservicesonthecommercialorinstitutionalside.

Some communities in the region have a meals tax, a portion of which revenues mightbeused to provide regional services to restaurants and other establishments that are paying

intothistax.

27


34/95


Theremightbesomesavingsinwastewatertreatmentoperationsthatcouldbepassedalongif such operations no longer receive and need to treat organic waste, and particularly the

accompanyingoilandgrease,fromrestaurantandhomeownersinkdisposalsystems.Sucha

fundingstrategymightbeappealingtocommunitiesthatdonotalreadyhaveprohibitions

againstoilandgreaseonthebooks.Theoilandgrease,nottheorganicfoodwasteitself,is

themainissue,accordingtothewastewateroperatorinSouthHadley.

28


35/95


SECTION4:ACTIONPLANFORAREGIONALORGANIC

WASTEMANAGEMENTPROGRAM

RoleofaRegionalApproachtoOrganicWasteManagement

Thissectiondiscussesthepotentialrolesandcharacteristicsofaregionalorganicwastemanagement

program in the Central Pioneer Valley. Although thecommunities involved in the Organic Waste

Management Working Group have decided that it is most appropriate for future composting

facilitiestobeprivatelyoperatedonsitesthatareeitherpubliclyorprivatelyowned,therearemany

potential roles that a regional program can play to coordinate and facilitate composting in the

region.

A healthy composting system requires that organic wastesbe properly separated, transported to

facilities, manufactured into finished compost products, and then soldor otherwise distributed to

end users. This results from the individual actions of many entities, including organic waste

generators (residential, commercial and institutional), municipalities, hauling companies,composting facilities, etc. In addition to the need for new facilities, the region canbenefit from

efforts to increase organic waste diversion from residential, commercial and institutional waste

streams,andtodevelopnewandstrongerendmarketsforfinishedcompostproducts.

Overall, PVPCrecommends that thepossibilityofaregionalprogrambeexplored further tohelp

augmentcompostingintheregionthrougheffortsto:

Facilitatethecreationandsupporttheoperationsofcompostingfacilities Maximize the use of the available composting facilitiesby supporting and/or establishing

commercial,residentialandinstitutionalsourceseparationprogramsandassociatedhauling

routes

Strengthen the composting market in the region,both from the supplyside (i.e. efforts tocreategreaterincentivestodivertorganicwastesforcomposting)andfromthedemandside

(i.e.effortstodevelopastrongerendmarketforfinishedcompostproducts)

Theproposedprogramwouldbeastrongregionalassetbecause itwouldestablishasingleentity

that isresponsibleforviewing the independentpartsofthecompostingsystemasawhole,and it

would help to coordinate the independent efforts of the various public, private and institutional

players. It would also provide continuity through an ongoing effort, representing a significant

improvementoverthecurrentadhocapproachinwhichaseriesof looselyconnectedprojectsare

takenupbydifferententities,oftenonlywhengrantfundingcanbeobtained.

Overall,thegoaloftheregionalprogramwouldbetoensurethatthevariouscomponentsoforganic

waste management in the region are coordinated and supported. Some possible specific roles

include:

Ongoingmonitoringandassessmentofcompostingintheregion Evaluationofpotentialcompostingsitesandtechnologies

29


36/95


Amatchmakingservicethatcouplessuitablesiteswithinvestorswhoareinterestedinestablishingandoperatingcompostingfacilitiesatthesesites

Initialandongoingtechnicalassistancetofacilities,generators,haulers,andmunipalities Developmentofcooperativeagreementstoshareequipment(e.g.screening,debagging) Preparationofbiddocumentstoprocureservices,equipment,andmaterials Developmentofrecruitmentstrategiesandmaterialsforhaulers/municipalitiesestablishing

residentialprograms

Developmentofeducationalandoutreachmaterials Assistanceintheestablishmentofnewhaulingroutes Establishmentofaregionalendmarketingprogramforthefinishedcompost Developmentandexecutionofnewprojectsthatincreaseorganicwastediversionand

compostingintheregion

EstablishingandSupportingCompostingFacilities

A major role of a regional program would be to continually assess the need for additional

compostingcapacity,and to facilitatenewcompostingfacilitydevelopment.Aspartof thisstudy,

theCentralPioneerValleyOrganicWasteManagementWorkingGroup identifiedaneed fornew

composting facilities in the region. In turn, development of new composting facilities couldbe

facilitatedby finding suitable sites and establishing a matchmaking service that couples these

suitablesiteswithinvestorswhoareinterestedinestablishingandoperatingcompostingfacilitiesat

thesesites.

Amatchmakingapproachhasmanyadvantages.Bydecouplingsuitablecompostingsitesfrom

suitablefacilityowneroperators, theregionwouldbeable to takeadvantageofpromisingfacility

sitesthatmightnototherwisebeconsidered.Atthesametime,byprofessionalizingtheoperationof

newcompostingfacilitiesandbyselectingindividualsororganizationswiththetime,resourcesand

access to capital,business experience, and technical/site operations expertise to run a successful

compostingbusiness,thecompostingfacilitiesthatareestablishedasaresultofthisprogramwould

have a greater likelihood of success and longevity. Finally, the regional program could further

increasethelikelihoodofsuccessbyworkingtoensurethatselectedsitesaredevelopmentready.

That is, the goal wouldbe to do as much legwork as possible to make the project attractive to

potentialinvestors.Thiscouldincludeobtainingthenecessarylocalapprovalsanddraftingcontract

agreementspriortoselectionofthefacilityowneroperators.

This study identified potential sites, as well as potential facility investoroperators, as described

below. In order to establish a matchmaking service, the data analysis completed for this study

would need some refinement; potential sites would need tobe evaluated and selected; and RFPs

wouldbeissuedtosolicitproposalsandselectamongpotentialinvestoroperators.Theappendices

includea listofpotentialcompostingsites(AppendixA),aswellassomepotential investorswho

maybe interested in resp

Documents

Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley