2014 ANALYSIS

BIOCYCLE JULY 2014 19

THE benefits of composting are welldocumented. Compost is a valuablesoil conditioner. It adds needed or-ganic matter, sequesters carbon,

improves plant growth, conserves water,reduces reliance on chemical pesticidesand fertilizers, and helps prevent nutri-ent runoff and erosion. Composting alsoreduces the volume of materials thatmight otherwise be disposed in landfillsor trash incinerators, and repurposesthese materials through recycling. It is aplace-based industry, which cannot beoutsourced abroad. Thus, advancingcomposting and compost use in the U.S.is a key sustainability strategy to createjobs, protect watersheds, reduce climateimpacts, improve soil vitality, and buildresilient local economies.

With all these benefits, why aren’t wecomposting more? How can we generateand use more compost to sequester car-bon in soil and improve soil structureand fertility? Where can the compostcome from? What kinds of systems arethe most effective? What types shouldbe promoted? What are the threats toexpanding composting? What are itslimitations? What infrastructure andpolicies are needed to advance compost-

ing? How do we do implement these? To answer these questions, the Insti-

tute for Local Self-Reliance has coau-thored a new report, State of Compostingin the U.S.: What, Why, Where & How,with Nora Goldstein (BioCycle), CraigCoker (Coker Composting & Consulting)and Sally Brown (University of Wash-ington). The report, available for down-

load at ilsr.org/initiatives/composting,explains what composting is and why itis important; summarizes model pro-grams, technologies and systems; andprovides a national and state-by-statesnapshot of activities, infrastructureneeded, and policy opportunities. It con-cludes with recommendations on how togrow composting in the U.S.

This article provides highlights fromState of Composting in the U.S., specifi-cally new data on job creation benefits ofcomposting and compost use, updatedinformation on state infrastructure andprograms, and key policies for advanc-ing composting.

New report reviews composting basics, providesnational and state-by-state statistics and job generationdata, summarizes model programs, technologies andsystems, and concludes with recommendations onhow to grow composting in the U.S.

Brenda Platt and Nora Goldstein

Community farms and composting sitescan house job training programs, suchas this one at Red Hook CommunityFarm in Brooklyn, New York.

FOR THE SOILImproving soil and protecting water-

sheds are two key drivers of why weneed more composting. One-third of theworld’s arable land has been lost to soilerosion and continues to be lost at analarming rate (Zang and Wang, 2006).In the U.S., 99 million acres (28% of allcropland) are eroding above soil toler-ance rates, meaning the long-term pro-ductivity of the soil cannot be main-tained and new soil is not adequatelyreplacing lost soil (NRCS, 2007). Ero-sion reduces the ability of soil to storewater and support plant growth.Amending soil with compost improves

soil quality and structure, increases wa-ter retention, reduces chemical needs,and cuts nonpoint source pollution.

FOR JOBSLike reuse and recycling, composting

offers direct development opportunitiesfor communities. Whether on a per-tonbasis or on a per-dollar-capital invest-ment basis, composting sustains morejobs than other waste handling optionssuch as landfilling and incineration. Butunlike linear disposal systems, com-posting is ultimately a manufacturingenterprise that produces a value-addedproduct for multiple end markets where

Why Compost?P

hoto

cou

rtes

y of

Red

Hoo

k C

omm

unity

Far

m

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

of N

RC

S

20 BIOCYCLE JULY 2014

jobs are sustained in each phase of theorganics recovery cycle. In addition tothe direct jobs at composting facilities,use of compost supports new green en-terprises and additional jobs. Most ofthe end markets for compost tend to beregional, if not local. Each recycling stepa community takes locally means morejobs, more business expenditures onsupplies and services, and more moneycirculating in the local economy throughspending and tax payments.

More than 15 years ago, ILSR con-ducted extensive research on the jobssustained by reuse, recycling and com-posting. On a per-ton basis, the researchfound that composting sustains fourtimes the number of jobs as landfill or in-cinerator disposal (Platt and Seldman,2000). While a few studies have sincebeen released evaluating jobs and recy-cling, ILSR’s per-ton job factors have notbeen updated and little data exists docu-menting the jobs through composting. In2013, ILSR evaluated the current andpotential composting-related jobs in

Maryland. This study, Pay Dirt: Com-posting in Maryland to Reduce Waste,Create Jobs & Protect the Bay, found:

• Composting (including mulchingand natural wood waste recycling) oper-ations in Maryland already sustainmore total jobs than the state’s threetrash incinerators, which handle almosttwice as much tonnage.

• On a per-ton basis, composting inMaryland employs two times moreworkers than landfilling, and four timesmore than the state’s trash incinerators.

• On a per-dollar-capital investmentbasis, for every $10 million invested,composting facilities in Maryland sup-port twice as many jobs as landfills and17 more jobs than incinerators.

• An entire new industry of contrac-tors who use compost and compost-based products for green infrastructurehas emerged, presenting an opportunityto establish a new made-in-America in-dustrial sector, creating even more jobs.

• Utilizing 10,000 tons of finishedcompost annually in green infrastruc-ture can sustain one new business. Forevery 10,000 tons of compost used an-nually by these businesses, 18 full-timeequivalent jobs can be sustained.

Table 1 presents employment data for13 companies, spanning Maryland toCalifornia, that specialize in using com-post for green infrastructure (e.g.,bioswales, green roofs, green streets,rain gardens). These 13 companies to-gether employ 70 workers involved withusing approximately 38,000 tons peryear of compost (84,000 cubic yards ofmaterial). In other words, they sustain~18 positions per 10,000 tons of compostthey use each year (or 6 positions per10,000 tons of raw materials composted).

Table 2 compares job creation benefitsof both composting and compost usecompared to disposal options in Mary-land. When taking into account the po-tential jobs that could be sustained byutilizing compost in-state for green in-frastructure, on a per-ton basis, com-posting and compost use would sustainfive times more jobs than landfilling andnine times more jobs than incineration.

Based on ILSR’s research for Mary-land, for every one million tons of organ-ic materials composted (and not dis-posed) at a mix of small, medium andlarge facilities — with the resulting com-post used in-state — almost 1,400 newfull-time equivalent jobs could potential-ly be supported, paying wages ranging

Table 1. Jobs sustained by select companies specializing in compost use for green infrastructure

FTE CY Compost Compost Est. TPY Of FTE/Involved With Used/Year Used Feedstock Material 10,000 TPY

Company, State Compost Use Average TPY1 Composted2 Composted

Filtrexx of Silicon Valley, CA 1.5 2,000 900 2,700 5.6Sustainable Environmental Consultants, KS 5 17,778 8,000 24,000 2.1Gold Leaf Group, MD 6 2,146 966 2,897 20.7Oreg, MD 1 350 158 473 21.2Eco-Constructors, MO 7 5,000 2,250 6,750 10.4Eco-Fx, NC 9 10,000 4,500 13,500 6.7Filtrexx Northeast Systems, NH 6 4,500 2,025 6,075 9.9MCS Inc., NJ 4 6,000 2,700 8,100 4.9River Valley Organics, PA 10 12,500 5,625 16,875 5.9Landscape Contracting and Irrigation Inc., TX 2 2,500 1,125 3,375 5.9Soil Express Ltd., TX 8 4,139 1,863 5,588 14.3USA Erosion Inc., TX 4 10,000 4,500 13,500 3.0Wims Environmental Construction Ltd., TX 7 7,500 3,375 10,125 6.8

Total 70 84,413 37,986 113,958 6.2

CY = cubic yard, FTE = full-time equivalent, TPY = tons per year. 1Based on average compost density of 900 lbs/cubic yard. Personal communication, Craig Coker, CokerComposting & Consulting. Also, see USCC Field Guide to Compost Use (2001), p. 68. http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/plugins/wp-pdfupload/pdf/1330/Field_Guide_to_Compost_Use.pdf. 2On average, feedstock materials are one-third their original volume when composted. Source: Brenda Platt, Bobby Bell, and CameronHarsh, Pay Dirt: Composting in Maryland to Reduce Waste, Create Jobs & Protect the Bay (Washington, DC: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2013) p. 14. Based onpersonal communication with company representatives.

Table 2. Jobs: composting vs. disposal

Jobs/ FTE Jobs/Type of 10,000 $10 MillionOperation TPY Invested

Composting sites1 4.1 21.4Compost use 6.2 n/aTotal composting & compost use 10.3

Disposal FacilitiesLandfilling 2.2 8.4Burning (with energy recovery) 1.2 1.6

TPY = tons per year, FTE = full-time equivalent.1Includes mulching and natural wood waste recyclingsites. Source: Brenda Platt, Bobby Bell, and CameronHarsh, Pay Dirt: Composting in Maryland to ReduceWaste, Create Jobs & Protect the Bay (Washington,DC: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2013) p. 17.Incinerator data based on Eileen Berenyi, GovernmentalAdvisory Assoc. Inc., 2012-2013 Municipal Waste toEnergy in the United States Yearbook & Directory.Westport, Connecticut. 2012.

An entire new industry of contractorswho use compost and compost-basedproducts for green infrastructure (suchas green roofs, above) has emerged,creating job opportunities.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

of M

CS

Inc.

BIOCYCLE JULY 2014 21

from $23 million to $57 million. In con-trast, when disposed in Maryland’s land-fills and incinerators, this tonnage onlysupports 120 to 220 jobs (Table 3).

National SnapshotWhat is the State of Composting in

the U.S.? In a nutshell, municipal andcounty governments, as well as privatefood scrap generators, increasingly rec-ognize the importance of diverting yardtrimmings and food scraps from dispos-al to reach recycling goals and managesolid waste handling costs. However,while recovery of yard trimmings is wellestablished, infrastructure for compost-ing food scraps lags behind.

Data collection methods used by Bio-Cycle are explained in an accompanyingsidebar. Of the 4,914 composting opera-tions identified in the U.S. for thisstudy, about 71 percent compost onlyyard trimmings (based on 44 states re-porting.) The totals are divided as fol-lows (Table 4): Yard trimmings: 3,453;Food waste: 347; Mixed organics (com-binations of various organic wastestreams): 87; Mixed waste composting(unsorted solid waste): 11; Biosolids:

238; Composting on site at institutions:337; Composting on site on farms/agri-cultural operations: 400; Miscellaneous:41. Figure 1 shows a breakdown by type.Food scrap recovery is slowly growing.More than 180 communities have insti-tuted residential food scrap collectionprograms, up from only a handful adecade ago. Countless supermarkets,schools, restaurants and other busi-nesses and institutions are also sourceseparating their food scraps for com-posting. But the current infrastructureremains inadequate.

State organics recycling officials con-tacted as part of this project were askedfor the total tons of organics diverted tocomposting and to tally the number ofcomposting facilities in their state byvolume of material processed. Thirty-three of the 44 responding states wereable to provide a quantity — a total of19,431,687 tons of organics diverted tocomposting (Table 5). The organic wastestreams primarily consist of yard trim-mings, food scraps, biosolids and someagricultural waste streams, includingmanure. Of the states reporting, Cali-

Table 3. Potential new jobs by composting 1 million tons of organics

Option FTE Jobs

Burning 120Landfilling 220Composting 740Compost use 620

Total composting 1,360

Composting jobs based on one-third tonnagecomposted at small facilities, one-third at medium sizedfacilities, and one-third at large facilities. Compost usejobs based on data from 13 companies using compostfor soil erosion control, stormwater management, andother green infrastructure applications. Source: BrendaPlatt, Bobby Bell, and Cameron Harsh, Pay Dirt:Composting in Maryland to Reduce Waste, Create Jobs& Protect the Bay (Washington, DC: Institute for LocalSelf-Reliance, 2013) p. 17.

Kitchen Curbside Backyard

The path to reducing organic waste is full of obstacles.

That’s why we’re here.

As the leader in organic waste recycling,ORBIS understands the challenges municipalities

must overcome to meet waste diversion goals better than anyone. We have the only carts in the

industry designed specifically for organic wasterecycling, and we work with you to ensure

implementation is seamless in your municipality.

With a decade of experience, we’ve already helped major cities across North America

improve diversion rates and decrease tipping fees. Contact us for a free consultation with

one of our implementation experts.

orbiscorporation.com | a shift in thinking

Source: BioCycle

Figure 1. U.S. composting facilities by type

22 BIOCYCLE JULY 2014

fornia had the highest composting ton-nage in 2012 (5.9 million tons); Floridahad the second highest (1.5 milliontons), followed by Iowa (1.3 milliontons), Washington State (1.2 milliontons) and New York (1.0 million tons).

State officials contacted were asked totally the number of composting facilitiesin their state by volume of material pro-cessed (i.e., processing capacity). Threecapacity ranges were provided: <5,000tons/year; 5,000 to <20,000 tons/year;and >20,000 tons/year. A response to

this requested breakdown was providedby 31 states: 72% of the 3,285 compost-ing facilities (2,354) in those 31 statesare composting less than 5,000tons/year of materials (Table 5). Thereare 713 facilities in the 5,000 to 20,000tons/year range. Only 218 facilities arecomposting more than 20,000 tons/year.States responding to this inquiry in-clude heavily populated states such asCalifornia, Florida, Massachusetts,New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginiaand Washington.

As shown in Table 5, 27 of those 31states also reported the total amount oforganics diverted to composting in 2012.In total, those 27 states diverted16,321,000 tons of organics to compost-ing at 3,166 facilities (the total of 3,285less the 119 facilities in the four statesthat did not provide a total amount of or-ganics diverted to composting). That isan average of 5,155 tons/facility/year.This is far too small. To achieve higherlevels of composting in the U.S., moreprocessing capacity will be needed.

Table 4. Composting facilities by feedstock types (all reporting states)

Yard Food Mixed Mixed On-Site On-Site OtherState Trimmings Waste Organics1 MSW Biosolids Institutions Farms/Ag (Misc.)

Alaska 0 0 0 2 0 0AlabamaArizona 4 3Arkansas 20 1 4 1 1California 48 26 2 15 197 50 222

Colorado 2 2 0 11 4 39Connecticut 109 3 0 1 26Delaware 0 2 0 1Florida 257 2 8 29 1 (manure)Georgia 1 1 0 4 4 13HawaiiIdaho 7 4 0 2 2 0 2 (mortalities)Illinois 42 21Indiana 119 11 3Iowa 86 7 7 2 7Kansas 103 11 13 2 12 31 5 (paunch, sludges)Kentucky 35 2 2 1LouisianaMaine 52 10 0 18 2 25Maryland 7 4 0 1 0 1Massachusetts 221 27 2 13 70Michigan 119 7Minnesota 129 9 1 0 5Mississippi 9 3 4 0 0 0Missouri 18 6 2Montana 30 1 1 7 10Nebraska 10 0 2 6 0 1NevadaNew Hampshire 9 0 4New Jersey 295 1 0 5 9 1New Mexico 16 10 9 2 3 (offal)New York 329 45 1 23 50 42North Carolina 16 7 4 9 2North Dakota 43 0 0 0 exempt exempt 3 (manure, oily waste)Ohio 299 20 1 3 59 5 animal mort; 3 industrialOklahomaOregon 44 10 0 5 25Pennsylvania 350 25 8 9 19 13Rhode Island 22 3 0 2 0South Carolina 107 1 1 3 exempt exemptSouth Dakota 146 0 1Tennessee 3 2 1 1 exempt exemptTexas 33 4 10Utah 18 4 0 1 1Vermont 1 13 7 3 naVirginia 8 1 7 1 1 exemptWashington 45 29 25West VirginiaWisconsin 225 14 1 exemptWyoming 25 1 18 2 2 exempt

Totals: All reporting states 3,453 347 87 11 238 337 400 41

1Mixed organics = Includes facilities handling multiple organics streams beyond yard trimmings and food waste. 2Manure, manure and yard trimmings not compostedon farms.

BIOCYCLE JULY 2014 23

Aside from some grant funds avail-able from the U.S. Department ofAgriculture/Natural Resources Con-servation Service for on-farm com-posting sites for equipment and someinfrastructure via its EQIP program(Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/ia/programs/finan-cial/eqip/), there are no federal grantor loan programs for composting facil-ities. About 25 years ago, in anticipa-tion of closure of substandard landfillsunder the then new Subtitle D regula-tions, states started getting proactiveabout establishing composting infras-tructure, especially for yard trim-mings. This is the timeframe when

over 20 states adopted some type ofdisposal ban on yard trimmings (most-ly between 1988 and 1996). As part ofbeing proactive, state legislaturespassed recycling goals, and state solidwaste management agencies estab-lished grant and educational pro-grams, and hired staff to service thoseprograms and offer technical assis-tance. In many states, grants werefunded by a per ton surcharge on mu-nicipal solid waste disposed.

Fast forward to today, and the pic-ture is much different. That push tobuild composting and recycling infras-tructure lasted through most of the1990s, but then started to wane —especially as large, regional Subtitle D-

compliant landfills replaced local land-fills. Trash began flowing long dis-tances by rail and truck, a scenario thatstill exists today. The U.S. has no short-age of landfill capacity, although someindividual states, e.g., Massachusetts,are running out. While some states stillhave recycling or waste diversion goalsor mandates, only California actuallyhas a mechanism to fine noncompliantjurisdictions.

BioCycle’s snapshot questionnaireasked states to provide an update ontheir programs to support compost-ing. As can be seen in Table 6, stateswere asked to provide yes/no answers(i.e., if these programs exist) to thefollowing categories: Grants; Loans;

Table 5. Organics diversion and number of facilities by volume of organics received

Total Organics Diverted Organics Number Of Facilities By Volume Received [tons per year]Diverted To As Percent Of 5,000 to Over All

State Composting (tons) Total MSW1 <5,000 <20,000 20,000 Facilities

Arkansas 227,044 19 6 3 28California 5,900,000 8.6 50 44 68 162Colorado 263,549 3.2 10 11 9 30Connecticut 270,163 8.4 82 45 12 139Delaware 66,111 6.5 1 0 2 3Florida 1,450,757 5.0 131 58 40 229Indiana 272,364 3.4 87 8 3 98Iowa 1,281,201 47.0 103 3 6 112Kansas 191,596 5.9 141 5 2 148Kentucky na na 40 1 0 41Maine 27,944 1.6 82 3 2 87Maryland 941,261 13.8 na na na naMassachusetts 660,000 9.0 130 18 3 151Minnesota 249,949 4.4 na na na naMississippi 13,414 0.2 13 3 0 16Missouri 530,000 na na na na naMontana 52,764 3.3 40 4 2 46Nebraska 150,000 na na na na naNew Hampshire na na 7 2 0 9New Jersey 535,176 4.2 324 324New Mexico 74,021 4.0 32 6 0 38New York 1,006,706 5.5 459 22 9 490North Dakota na na 47 4 0 51Ohio 987,694 na 279 47 10 336Oregon 224,275 9.2 20 23 11 54Pennsylvania 857,739 9.5 na na na naRhode Island 111,000 14.0 20 5 2 27South Carolina 246,624 5.5 99 22 5 126South Dakota 73,216 11.4 144 2 1 147Tennessee 500,000 1.5 10 1 1 12Texas 381,827 1.8 na na na naUtah 221,374 10.6 10 10 4 24Vermont 52,411 9.0 11 5 0 16Virginia 184,702 1.5 7 7 4 18Washington 1,211,805 13.7 39 12 14 65Wisconsin 215,000 5.0 231 9 0 240Wyoming na 10 3 5 18

All Reporting States 19,431,687 7.8 2,354 713 218 3,285

National organics diversion rate (based only on 6.1%data from states reporting a diversion estimate)

1MSW = municipal solid waste

State Programs To Support Composting

Technical assistance; Diversion man-dates; Disposal bans; Outreach andeducation; and Operator trainingcourses. Only 14 of the 39 states re-porting have a grant program, andonly 7 have a loan program. Mostof the states reporting (34 of 39) pro-vide technical assistance. Only 9states have diversion mandates, and18 of the 39 indicate their state has adisposal ban. Thirty-one states haveoutreach and education programs,and 15 states offer operator trainingcourses.

This lack of funding via grants andloans to help establish or expand com-posting infrastructure is discouragingin light of the critical need for moreorganics processing capacity in theU.S. In addition, many states havecut the number of full-time employeesdedicated to composting, i.e., state or-

ganics recycling specialists often aregiven other programs to manage thatare unrelated to composting and or-ganics management. The Ohio Envi-ronmental Protection Agency and theCalifornia Department of ResourcesRecycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

stand out as two exceptions to thistrend. Massachusetts, which is get-ting ready to enforce its commercialorganics disposal ban in fall 2014, hascontracted out much of its technicalassistance for composting, so has notadded staff at the agency level.

24 BIOCYCLE JULY 2014

Table 6. Programs to support composting: state-by-state summary

OperatorTechnical Diversion Disposal Outreach & Training

State Grants Loans Assistance Mandates Bans Education Courses

Alaska No No Yes No No Yes NoArizona No No No No No No NoArkansas No Yes No Yes Yes NoCalifornia No Yes Yes Yes No Yes NoColorado Yes No Yes No No Yes NoConnecticut No No Yes Yes Yes Yes NoDelaware No No Yes No Yes Yes NoFlorida No No Yes No No Yes NoIdaho No No Yes No No Yes YesIndiana No No No No Yes No NoIowa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesKansas Yes na Yes No No Yes YesKentucky No No Yes No No No YesMaine No Yes Yes No No Yes YesMaryland No No No Yes Yes No NoMassachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NoMinnesota Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes YesMississippi Yes No Yes No No Yes NoMontana No No Yes No No Yes YesNebraska Yes No Yes No Yes Yes NoNew Hampshire No No Yes No Yes Yes YesNew Jersey No No Yes Yes Yes No YesNew Mexico Yes Yes Yes No No Yes YesNew York Yes No Yes No No Yes NoNorth Carolina Yes No Yes No Yes Yes YesNorth Dakota No No Yes No No Yes YesOhio Yes No Yes No Yes Yes NoOregon No No Yes No No Yes NoPennsylvania No No Yes No Yes No NoRhode Island No No No No No No NoSouth Carolina No No Yes No Yes Yes NoSouth Dakota Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes NoTennessee Yes No Yes Yes No Yes NoUtah No No No No No No NoVermont No No Yes Yes Yes Yes YesVirginia No No Yes No No Yes NoWashington Yes No Yes No No Yes YesWisconsin No No Yes No Yes Yes YesWyoming No No Yes No No Yes No

States Reporting Programs(total of 39 states responding) 14 7 34 8 18 31 15

At the state level, policies havebeen enacted to encourage or requirediversion of source separated organ-ics. Over 20 states enacted bans ondisposal of yard trimmings in land-fills many years ago. More recently, ahandful of states have establishedfood waste disposal bans. How effec-tive are bans at driving diversion tocomposting? In general, it is widely

accepted that state yard trimmingsdisposal bans have reduced theamount of yard trimmings flowing tolandfills, especially the strongerbans. But disposal bans are certainlynot the only mechanism for drivingcomposting. Of the top five states interms of diversion of organics to com-posting, only Iowa has a ban on dis-posal of yard trimmings in landfills.

Yard Trimmings And Food Scraps

BIOCYCLE JULY 2014 25

California’s waste diversion goal hasbeen effective at establishing local or-ganics diversion programs — for bothyard trimmings and food scraps.

The ability of a ban to drive furtherestablishment of composting (andanaerobic digestion) infrastructurewill be put to the test over the nextseveral years, especially in Mas-sachusetts where the state’s commer-cial organics disposal ban did not set a“proximity rule” for compliance, i.e.,where food waste generators onlyneed to comply if there is a permitted(or exempt for permitting) composting

ASTATE-BY-STATE survey wasconducted for this project toquantify composting activity in

al l 50 states, and est imate theamount of organic material discardscurrently diverted to composting.The survey was conducted by theeditors of BioCycle due to theirmany years of experience collectingdata on all facets of solid wastemanagement and organics recyclingin the U.S. All but 6 states — Alaba-ma, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, Ok-lahoma and West Virginia — re-sponded with some or all of therequested information. States wereasked to only report facilities thatare permitted and/or exempt frompermitting by their state.

The questionnaire was emailed tostate organics recycling officials orsolid waste management depart-ment staff in fall 2013. States wereasked to provide data for calendar

year 2012. Followup by either emailor telephone was required to clarifydata provided or request additionalinformation. States not replyingwere contacted numerous times toprovide data. An extra effort wasmade to quantify the number of yardtrimmings composting operations inthe U.S. BioCycle magazine begantracking yard trimmings compostingin the late 1980s as part of its annu-al survey, The State of Garbage InAmerica. The last year that BioCyclewas able to estimate a national num-ber was in its 2006 State of GarbageIn America Report, which was basedon 2004 state data. (Simmons et al.,2006) In order to estimate a nationalnumber of yard trimmings compost-ing facilities in this report, BioCyclealso culled data from state solidwaste management reports. Thiswas done for Illinois, North Carolinaand Texas.

Data Collection Methods

Features include

• diesel hydraulic drive• modular quick change screen decks• low loading height• self cleaning stars • high stockpiling capacity conveyors

FeFeFeFeFeFeFeFeFee tatatatatatatatatatururururururururureseseseseseseseses iiiiincncncncncncncnclulululululululuudedededededededededeFeatures include The Neuenhauser range of screening technologies includes

• 2 or 3 way product starscreens• trommel screens • new flip flow screen

ThThThThThThThThTheeeeeeeee NeNeNeNeNeNeNeNeNeNeN ueueueueueueueueuee hnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhauauauauauauauauauauseseseseseseseseseserrrrr r rr rararararararaaaangngngngngngngngngeeeeeee ee ofofofofofofofofofsscscscscscscscscrerererererereeeenenenenenenenenenininininininingggggggg teteteteteteeeechchchchcchchchc nononononononolololoololololologigigigiggigigigieseseseseseseses iiiincncncncncncncnclululululululuudedededededededededesssssssss

22 333 dddddddd ttttt tttttt

The Neuenhauser range of screening technologies includes

For Further Information, contact us:

Telephone • 315 466 8330Email • sales@neuenhauserna.comWebsite • www.neuenhauserna.com

Neuenhauserstar screens

are a simple costeffective solution for

screening wet andsticky organic material

at a high throughput.A New Star has arrived!A New Star has arrived! at a

The Neuenhauser range of innovative mobile screening plants…

MAI NTE NAN C E F R I E N D LY C O ST E F F E CT IVE H I G H P R O D U CT I O N

One opportunity to create moreinfrastructure for food scrap compostingis to utilize existing yard trimmingscomposting facilities.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

ofIn

stitu

te fo

r Lo

cal S

elf-

Rel

ianc

e

facility within 20 miles of their estab-lishment(s) as is the case in Connecti-cut and Vermont (at this juncture).

One opportunity to create more in-frastructure for food scrap compost-ing is to utilize existing yard trim-mings composting facilities. However,many of the 3,453 yard trimmingscomposting operations in the U.S. arenot staffed or equipped to comply withrequirements for receiving food

scraps, nor are the materials receiv-ing and composting pads adequate tomanage incoming feedstocks withhigher moisture content. And many ofthese operations are municipally-owned and operated, with con-strained budgets and staff to alter op-erations to process food scraps. Assuch, the expectation, at least for theforeseeable future, is that any signif-icant expansion of composting capaci-

ty for source separated food scrapswill be done by privately operatedcomposting facilities. Some stateshave been proactive in revising theircomposting regulatory structure tostreamline permitting of existingyard trimmings composting facilitiesthat want to start processing foodscraps. For example, Ohio revised itscomposting rules several years ago toaid in this transition.

26 BIOCYCLE JULY 2014

Diversion Goals with Teeth: Cali-fornia’s AB 939 not only mandated lo-cal jurisdictions to meet numerical di-version goals of 25% by 1995 and50% by 2000, but also established anintegrated framework for program im-plementation, solid waste planning,and solid waste facility and landfillcompliance.

Statewide Disposal Bans: Sincethe flurry of statewide disposal banson yard trimmings adopted in the1990s, there has been little to no ac-tivity in terms of bans on organicwaste disposal. Recently, however,several New England states — Ver-mont, Connecticut and Mas-sachusetts — have adopted bans onsource separated organics. Ver-mont’s law applies to all municipal or-ganic waste streams, including resi-dential ; Connecticut andMassachusett’s laws only apply to thecommercial and institutional sectors.

Composting Regulations: Statesare starting to modify their regulationsto facilitate composting of sourceseparated organics. The permitting

and site approval process in this tier isdesigned to be more streamlined andless costly. In 2013, the US Compost-ing Council released a Model StateCompost Rule Template to guidestates on developing or revising com-posting rules for source separated or-ganic waste streams.

Grants & Loans: Fewer states offerfinancial assistance in the form ofgrants or loans to composting pro-grams than in the 1990s. It’s time toreverse this trend.

Support for Community-ScaleComposting: Support for locallybased composting can come in manyforms: funding to start pilot programsand purchase equipment, access toland, operator training, developmentof small-scale equipment, permittingregulations to facilitate small-scalesites, appropriate guidelines, quantifi-cation of benefits, and marketing as-sistance.

Variable Rate Fees for CollectionService: Variable rate trash fees,known as Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)or SMART (Save Money and Reduce

Trash) systems, can encourage par-ticipation in residential recycling andcomposting programs. Trash collec-tion is typically priced at a higher feethan recyclables and source separat-ed organics.

Compost Markets: Compost com-petes in the marketplace with tradi-tional soil amendment and fertilizerproducts. A rapidly growing marketfor compost-based products is ingreen infrastructure applications suchas bioretention swales, green roofmedia, and erosion and sedimentcontrol. Purchasing incentives andspecifications can help drive markets.

Moratorium on Building NewTrash Incinerators: Incineratorsneed waste to make good on bondobligations. They drain financial re-sources, pollute, undermine waste re-duction and economic developmentefforts, and compete with the intro-duction of comprehensive food scrapcomposting systems. Massachusettshad a moratorium on new incineratorsfor 20 years while it developed poli-cies to promote non-burn systems.

Select Public Policy Tools To Increase Composting and Compost Use

Every state in the union can increasethe recovery of yard trimmings, foodscraps and other organic materials.Many are actively doing so. Almost 20states have or are in the process of re-vising their permitting regulations forcomposting facilities. Every state inthe union can also increase its use ofcompost and, through purchasing poli-cies and specifying best managementpractices, can encourage the produc-tion and utilization of high-qualitycompost for high-quality applications.We can also do better at monetizing thebenefits of compost, such as its abilityto sequester carbon in soils, in order toincentivize the industry.

New rules and policies are very ef-fective means for growing compost-ing. State of Composting in the U.S.outlines a menu of local and statepolicies that could be implemented tofurther composting and compost pro-duction. Also needed is financial mod-eling to provide valid data for in-vestors and other interested parties.Training is critical to the success ofcomposting, regardless of the facilitysize. The development of professionalcompost science, engineering and us-age programs at state land-grant col-leges in the U.S. could be funded toboth raise the professionalism of theindustry and to create a cadre of grad-

uates that can help run and expandcomposting facilities.

POLICY OPPORTUNITIESLocal and state government policies

are needed to overcome lack of infra-structure and other obstacles to di-verting organic materials from dispos-al. What is currently missing in manyexisting policies is adequate recogni-tion of the benefits of a decentralizedand diversified infrastructure.

Composting can take place at manylevels — backyard, block, neighbor-hood, schoolyard, community and re-gional — and in urban, suburban andrural areas. There are many methods

How To Grow Composting In The U.S.

and sizes. Large-scale centralized fa-cilities can serve wide geographic ar-eas and divert significant quantitiesof organic materials from disposal fa-cilities. Composting locally at theneighborhood or community-scaleyields many other benefits: improvedlocal soils, more local jobs, greenerspaces, enhanced food security andfewer food deserts, less truck traffichauling garbage, and increased com-posting know-how and skills withinthe local workforce and reinforced inthe next generation. When compost-ing is small-scale and locally based,community participation and educa-tion can flourish.

ILSR recommends development of acomposting strategy that promoteshome composting and small-scalefarm and community sites as a prior-ity, followed by onsite institutionalsystems (particularly at schools) andthen development of commercial ca-pacity for remaining organics. Thereare countless farmers who could po-tentially start composting if theywere trained and could navigate zon-ing and other regulations. Expansionof backyard composting would reducemunicipal government costs to collectand handle material and retainvaluable organic matter in neighbor-hood soils.

At the state level, some critical poli-cies include those that establishminimum recycling goals, adopt high-est and best use hierarchies, imple-ment per-ton surcharges on disposalfacilities, create moratoriums onbuilding new trash incinerators, andban yard trimmings and/or commer-cial organics from landfills and incin-erators. Other important categoriesinclude state composting infrastruc-ture development policies, state com-post usage encouragement policies,and statewide economic incentivepolicies.

The City of Austin may perhaps beunique in its official recognition of thebenefits of a decentralized compostinginfrastructure. The Austin ResourceRecovery Department (previously theSolid Waste Services Department)recognizes that, in addition to helpingthe City achieve its Zero Waste goals,composting also addresses the com-munity’s interest in enriching the re-gion’s soil, strengthening sustainablefood production and completing thefood cycle. As a result, the City hasadopted a highest and best use philos-ophy for city collection programs ofresidential food scraps to guide itsplanning (City of Austin, 2011).

Additional public policy tools to in-crease composting and compost use inthe U.S. are described in the accompa-nying sidebar.

NATIONAL SOILS POLICYDespite many compelling drivers,

there are a number of obstacles towidespread implementation of com-posting. Despite best intentions, com-posting and compost use will ulti-mately be limited if disposal feesremain cheap, new trash incineratorsare built (under the false guise of pro-viding renewable energy), persistentherbicides remain on the market, andpolicies are not passed to support de-velopment of adequate infrastructure(small and large and everything in be-tween).

In the absence of strong federal pol-icy, local and state government canset specific food waste recovery goals,and they can tie their composting

goals to soil health, watershed preser-vation, climate protection, waste re-duction goals, and local economic de-velopment.

Perhaps nothing is more importantto advancing composting and compostuse than reinvigorating the movementto promote a national soils policy. In1975, Jerry Goldstein, founder of Bio-Cycle, suggested that a National Hu-mus Program was vital: “As we enterthe Bicentennial Year [1976], let’ssuggest to our politicians and policymakers that we should include in thecelebration the vow to build up the soilhumus content of the nation with allkinds of organic wastes. Perhaps wecan even get our candidates in 1976 toinclude a Humus Plank in their presi-dential platforms.”

Now, more than ever, it’s time tobring back Jerry Goldstein’s cam-paign for a National Soil Fertility Pro-gram. England has adopted a “soilstrategy” that may be a model for theU.S. to emulate. Compost is recog-nized as an important method of in-creasing levels of organic matter insoil, reducing fertilizer requirementsand diverting materials from landfill(DEFRA, 2009).

It is time to adopt a national soilsstrategy that institutionalizes therole of healthy soils — achieved byadding organic matter such as com-post — as a tool to manage the harsheffects of climate change as well as se-quester carbon. The U.S. has millionsof acres of marginalized land starving

for organic matter. Just applying ahalf-inch of compost per year to the 99million acres of cropland erodingabove soil tolerance levels would re-quire about 3 billion tons of compost.There is not enough compost to meetthis need. No organic scrap should bewasted. �

Brenda Platt is Codirector of the Institutefor Local Self-Reliance (www.ilsr.org)and Director of ILSR’s CompostingMakes $en$e project. Nora Goldstein is Editor of BioCycle. State of Compostingin the U.S. can be downloaded atilsr.org/initiatives/composting.

LITERATURE CITATIONSCity of Austin, Resource Recovery De-

partment, The Austin Resource Recov-ery Master Plan, December 11th, 2011.Available online: http://www.austin-texas.gov//sites/default/files/files/Trash_and_Recycling/MasterPlan_Fi-nal_12.30.pdf

Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs (DEFRA), Soils PolicyTeam, Safeguarding Our Soils: AStrategy for England, 2009. Availableonline https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/uploads/system/uploads/attach-ment_data/file/69261/pb13297-soil-strategy-090910.pdf#page=1&zoom=60,0,854.

NRCS. 2007 National Resources Inventory– Soil Erosion on Cropland, NaturalResources Conservation Service, April2010, p. 4. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012269.pdf.

Platt, Brenda and Neil Seldman, Insti-tute for Local Self-Reliance, Wastingand Recycling in the United States2000 (Washington, DC: 2000), p. 27.

Simmons, P., N. Goldstein, S.M. Kauf-man and N.J. Themelis. 2006. TheState of Garbage In America: 15th Na-tionwide Survey. BioCycle, Vol. 47,No. 4, p. 26.

Zhang, Taolin and Xingxiang Wang, In-stitute of Soil Science, Chinese Acade-my of Sciences, Nanjing, “Erosion andGlobal Change,” Encyclopedia of SoilScience, 2006, p. 536.

BIOCYCLE JULY 2014 27

Now, more than ever, it’s time to bring back

Jerry Goldstein’s campaignfor a National Soil Fertility Program.

ILSR collaborated with the HighfieldsCenter for Composting in Hardwick,Vermont, to produce a guidebook oncommunity-scale composting. GrowingLocal Fertility: A Guide to CommunityComposting describes more than 30successful initiatives, their benefits,how these initiatives can be replicated,key start-up steps, and the need for pri-vate, public, and nonprofit sector sup-port. This report is available atilsr.org/initiatives/composting