Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
-
Upload
adam-rabb-cohen -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
2/95
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
3/95
CONSTRUCTINGA
REGIONALORGANICWASTE
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
FOR
THECENTRALPIONEERVALLEY
FINALREPORT
PreparedbythePioneerValleyPlanningCommission
underagrantprovidedthroughthe
MassachusettsDistrictLocalTechnicalAssistanceFund
December2010
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
4/95
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
6/95
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
8/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
9/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
10/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
11/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
12/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
13/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
14/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
15/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
16/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
17/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
18/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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 -
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
19/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
20/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
21/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
22/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
23/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
24/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
25/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
26/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
27/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
28/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
29/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
30/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
31/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
32/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
33/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
34/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
35/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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
-
8/7/2019 Organic Waste Management for Central Pioneer Valley
36/95
RegionalOrganicWasteManagementProgramFinalReport 12/15/2010
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