b

A National Strategy to Promote

Source Separated Composting:
Proceedings of the National Source Separated
Compost Symposium

ci

c Sponsored by:
National Recycling Coalition
Novon Products
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Hawaii

Printed on recycled paper:

50% total recycled content
15% post-consumerfiber
....
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

. The National Recycling Coalition would like to thank Novon Products, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Hawaii for their
financial assistance and the Source Separated Composting Symposium Steering Committee
members and the symposium attendees for all of their efforts in planning and participating in the
Source Separated Composting Symposium. NRC also would like to thank those individuals who
provided information and comment on various drafts of these proceedings.

The issues and recommendations discussed and expressed in these proceedings are a compilation
of the focus group discussions at the symposium. They do not necessarily represent the views
and/or opinions of the symposium co-sponsors and/or attendees.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the scope or content of the proceedings, please
contact:

The National Recycling Coalition

1101 30th Street N.W., #305
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 625-6406
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Executive Summary i
.
Background and Format for NRC National Source Separated Composting iii
Symposium

Section I: A National Strategy for Source Separated Composting

Determining Source Separated Composting's Position in the Solid 1-1

Waste Hierarchy and Other Issues

Developing National Standards for Compost Operations and End Product 1-4
Quality

Increasing Market Development and Research for Source Separated 1-7

Composting

Improving Public Education and Information on the Uses and Benefits of 1-9
Compost and Source Separated Composting

Improving Infrastructure Development and Financing for Source 1-12

Separated Composting Facilities

Definitions and Labeling Guidelines for Compost and Compostable 1-15

Products

Section 11: Proceedings from National Source Separated Composting

Symposium

"Composting: Setting the National Agenda," Rhonda Brooks, Novon 11- 1

Products Group

"Composting Into the 21st Century," Jim McNelly, The McNelly 11-4
Group

"Status Report of Source Separated Organics Programs in Europe 11-10

and Ontario," Lori Segall, Tellus Institute

"Comparative Analysis of Collection Programs and Costs for Source [I- 18

Separated Organic Composting," Robert Spencer, Environmental
Planning Consultant

"Composting Source Separated Organics Material: Larry's Market's [I-34

Composting Case Study," Brant Rogers, Lany's Markets
 "Removing Obstacles to Source Separated Composting Through 11-37
Dialogue and Partnership," Jan Beyea, National Audubon Society

Section 111: Minutes from the Source-Separated Composting and Organic 111- 1
Recyclers Association (SCOR) Meeting in Minneapolis,
Minnesota

Appendix

Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding between The Composting Council

and the Source-Separated Composting and Organics Recycling Association
(SCOR)

Appendix B: One and Two Issues of The SCOR Curd

Appendix C: List of Symposium Steering Committee Members

Appendix D: List of Symposium Attendees

 Executive Summary
Technical experts in the composting field gathered in St. Louis, Missouri, on February 25-26,
1993, to assess the potential for increasing source separated composting and to develop a
comprehensive national strategy for achieving this potential. Participants identified key issues
in need of resolution and developed recommendations and strategies to address these issues.

To date, there has been a lack of consensus on how to develop composting as a viable organics
management alternative. This has been compounded by the lack of national leadership and
coordination on and technical support for developing composting.

As of the end of 1992, there were nearly 3,000composting facilities in the U.S. that composted
at a minimum leaves. Many also composted grass clippings and other yard trimmings.
Substantial effort currently has been focused on promoting mixed municipal solid waste (MSW)
composting, but recent experience with this method has indicated a greater need to examine the
full potential for source separated composting. Mixed MSW composting involves collecting
mixed MSW, processing the material to remove varying quantities of the recyclables and
unwanted inorganic materials, then composting the remaining organic fraction. Source separated
composting involves collecting organic material from specific sources of generation separate from
MSW and composting the material, often using technologies similar to, but simpler than, MSW
composting. Source separated composting also generally includes on-site composting of
institutional, commercial and agricultural materials, as well as backyard or home composting.

Based on concerns about the quality and marketability of the end products produced from mixed
MSW composting, the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) organized the National Source
Separated Compost Symposium to develop a national strategy to promote this method of
composting in order to ensure the production of a high quality, value-added marketable end
product. Symposium participants agreed that if a national strategy is implemented, source
separated composting has the potential to recover half of the municipal solid waste stream. In
addition, participants suggested that collecting source separated materials for composting can be
complementary to recycling collection programs. The key components of a successful national
strategy to increase source separated composting developed at the symposium include:

. Establishing a national task force to develop regulatory guidelines for source separated
. compost products and operations based on feedstock and end use considerations.
Developing a national clearinghouse to collect and disseminate information on compost
markets, technology, model facilities, case studies, compost "recipes," educational
. materials and other data on source separated composting.
Increasing funding to conduct research and development, especially in the areas of market
identification, product testing, appropriate end uses, long-term effects of compost
. applications, technology transfer and collection and processing methods.
Developing a national education plan to increase public awareness about the benefits and
uses of source separated compost and revise definitions to more accurately reflect the
benefits of composting.

i
The symposium participants discussed the need to establish a new organization to promote the
use of compost and source separated composting and appointed a steering committee to examine
various organizational options. The steering committee agreed to meet in conjunction with the
BioCycle Conference, May 11-12, 1993, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Participants agreed that a
major role of this organization would be advocating source separated composting on the I cal,
state and national level based on the strategies and recommendations developed at the
symposium.

Source separated composting, which involves collecting and processing source separated organic
materials to form soil amendment products, can be done by residents, farmers, local govemments,
private facilities and others. According to a study done by the National Audubon Society and
Procter & Gamble on composting programs in Greenwich and Fairfield, Connecticut, source
separated composting, when combined with a traditional recycling collection program, has the
potential to help communities divert up to 70 percent of their discards from the municipal solid
waste stream and at the same time create a valuable end product. Source separated composting
can be compatible with the goals of traditional recycling programs.

For the short term, the source separated composting rate in the U.S. should be determined and
goals should be set to double that rate every two years. The long term diversion goal of
recovering over 50 percent of municipal solid waste through source separated composting should
be phased in over time as collection programs, composting technologies and markets are
developed.

ii
 NRC National Source Separated Composting Symposium
February 25-26,1993
St. Louis, Missouri

Background

The National Recycling Coalition (NRC), in conjunction with Novon Products, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the University of Hawaii and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, sponsored a two-day symposium to develop a national strategy to increase source
separated composting. Over 75 technical experts from across the country gathered in St. Louis
on February 25-26, 1993, to define the issues and develop consensus recommendations on
policies, end products and infrastructure development to promote source separated composting.

In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored its Municipal Solid Waste,
Source Reduction and Recycling Meeting to shape the direction of source reduction and recycling
policy in the United States. Since then, many communities have had difficulties in meeting their
waste reduction and recycling goals and are experiencing a renewed interest in composting as a
viable solid waste management option. In its Characterization ofMunicipa1 Solid Waste in the
United States (1990 Update), EPA projected that yard trimmings and food scraps combined will
make up almost 25 percent of the municipal solid waste generated by 1995. A composting
demonstration project sponsored by the National Audubon Society and Procter & Gamble in
Greenwich and Fairfield, Connecticut illustrates that composting alone has the potential to recover
up to 30 percent of the residential solid waste stream. M C and the other co-sponsors organized
this meeting to address policy issues affecting the current role and growth potential of source
separated composting and its relationship with source reduction and recycling programs.

The steering committee planning the symposium chose to focus on source separated composting
rather than mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting because separating clean organic
materials such as leaves and other yard trimmings, food scraps and non-recyclable paper from
recyclables and solid waste at the source of generation (e.g., at individual households) is the most
effective way of reducing the amount of contaminants (e.g., lead from lead acid batteries, copper,
etc.) in the final product. A study of various composting programs in the US., Canadian
provinces and European countries by the Come11 Waste Management Institute found that source
separated compost was four to twenty times less likely to exceed contaminant levels than
compost that was screened and separated at a mixed MSW composting facility.

Format

The two-day symposium began with a variety of presentations from several participants, including
an analysis of the current status, potential and collection costs for source separated composting;
a panel discussion on issues and barriers facing source separated composting; and case studies
on composting source separated residentially and commercially generated organic material and
commercial composting operations.

iii
During the remainder of the symposium, the attendees discussed and developed recommendations
in the following three topic areas: policy development, end products and infrastructure
development for source separated composting. The steering committee organized the topic areas
into four to five focus groups to address various issues within each topic area. Each focus group
was led by a facilitator who directed discussion among 15 to 20 symposium participants. The
focus groups for each topic area included:

Policy Develooment

Definitional and Vocabulary Issues

Composting and the Waste Management Hierarchy
Regulation of Compost Products and Operations
Labeling Compost &d Compostable Products

End Products

Market Development and Marketing

Quality Standards for Compost Products
Public Education on Uses and Benefits
Waste Characterization and Feedstocks

Infrastructure Develooment

Collection Methods and Costs

Site Design, Processing and Operation
Home and On-site Composting
Financing Composting Facilities
Siting and Permitting

Charts depicting the results from each focus group are available from the NRC office.

In the final plenary session of the symposium, the participants regrouped for presentations by
each facilitator on the recommendations developed by each focus group and discussed a follow-
up implementation strategy for the outputs of the symposium. The strategy developed to promote
source separated composting is broken down into six broad areas of recommendations:

Determining source separated composting’s position on the solid waste hierarchy.

Developing national standards for compost operation and end product quality.
Increasing market development and research for source separated composting.
Improving public education and information on the uses and benefits of composted
materials and source separated composting.
Improving infrastructure development and financing for source separated composting
facilities.
Definitions and labeling guidelines for source separated compost and compostable
products.

iv
The symposium participants formed an ad hoc committee, chaired by Craig Benton, an
environmental consultant in Seattle, Washington, and Jim McNelly, president of The McNelly
Group in St. Cloud, Minnesota, to develop a plan for implementing the recommendations and to
examine options for developing an organization whose sole purpose would be to advocate source
separated composting and organics recycling.

V
 Section I:
A National Strategy for Source
Separated Composting
RECOMMENDATIONS ON DETERMINING SOURCE SEPARATED
COMPOSTING'S POSITION ON THE SOLID WASTE HIERARCHY AND
OTHER ISSUES

Currently, source separated composting is not independently and widely recognized as part of
the solid waste hierarchy. The traditional solid waste hierarchy emphasizes "reduce, reuse,
recycle," and ofien does not take into account the role that source separated composting plays
in diverting materials from incinerators and landfills. This section addresses ways to accentuate
the status of source separated composting through the hierarchy and other measures.

Recommendation #1: Generate and submit for approval a new hierarchy highlighting the
position of source separated composting as well as recycling.

Because many existing solid waste and resource recovery hierarchies fail to adequately address
source separated composting, the symposium participants developed a hierarchy for source
separated composting that is equivalent to the existing hierarchy. The recommended new
hierarchy is as follows:

Solid Waste Organics

Reduce Grasscycling
Landscape Design
Reuse Home Composting
On site Composting
On farm
Parks
CommerciallInstitutional
Recycle Source Separated
Drop off/Curbside Collection
Processing
Marketing

Compostinn Non-recyclable Paper

Mixed Waste Processing: MSW Composting
*Incineration
*Energy Recovery I
Landfill I Landfill cover
The group recommends that state and local governments and environmental organizations take

I- 1
the lead in encouraging EPA to develop a new hierarchy that demonstrates the importance and
role that composting plays throughout the solid waste hierarchy.

Recommendation #2: In the case of paper, promote a preference for recycling, and
recommend composting only if the paper cannot be recycled.

The debate over whether paper should be composted or recycled is a potential conflict among
recyclers and composters interested in promoting source separated composting. The symposium
participants determined that recycling should be preferred for materials for which markets exist
or are likely to develop within a reasonable timeframe. Paper which is contaminated by food
waste or is otherwise unsuitable for recycling should be composted. The National Audubon
Society, Environmental Defense Fund, American Forest & Paper Association, NRC, Recycling
Advisory Council (RAC) and The Composting Council should work together to recommend
guidelines for determining under what circumstances paper should be recycled or composted.
The guidelines should be developed for implementation by 1994.

Recommendation #3: Develop reduction goals for source separated compost.

A major barrier to increased source separated composting is semantic; because composting is not
always considered to be equivalent to recycling, composting is not always counted towards state
recycling goals or eligible for tax credits and other such benefits. The symposium participants
recommend that states specify a certain amount of materials to be recovered by source separated
composting when mandating reduction and recovery goals. For example, a state can mandate that
50% of its solid waste stream be recovered, reused or recycled, including provisions for source
separated composting to count towards at least 20 to 30% of the reductioddiversion goals.
Source separated composting can be an effective tool to help states reach and surpass their
reduction and diversion goals.

Recommendation# 4 Make the creation of a valuable soil amendment and humus recovery
the main goal of source separated composting.

Many localities compost their organic materials solely as a waste treatment method but not to
create a useful or marketable end product. In addition, many recovery plants also emphasize
waste diversion potential rather than end product quality. This focus on waste management rather
than materials management has resulted in a poor quality compost that was not properly separated
from contaminants before processing. Environmental groups, in conjunction with the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, should work to promote the concept that making a quality soil amendment
product is the primary goal of source separated composting.

Recommendation#5: Prepare a white paper on the value of humus and the role of compost
and mulch in reducing the loss of topsoil.

There is a lack of public awareness of the value of organic humus to soils, farmers and
agriculture. Three billion tons of topsoil erode from cropland each year in America and 25

1-2
billion tons are lost worldwide, yet topsoil is taken for granted and its loss accepted as a cost of
farming. Compost and mulch can be used to conserve, replenish and protect this vital resource.
The single most important indicator of a soil’s fertility is its organic matter content. To this end,
a recent study by the Battelle Institute projected a potential demand for compost in agriculture
of 400 million tons per year. To date, there has been approximately zero market penetration.
A definitive white paper on the value of humus, published by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service, perhaps in conjunction with a national composting organization, could help to stimulate
the demand for source separated organic compost in basic agriculture. This paper should be
finished within one year.

1-3
 RECOMMENDATIONS ON NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR COMPOST
OPERATION AND END PRODUCT QUALITY

Quality standards and guidelines for source separated compost are vital to the growth of source
separated composting. Poor quality compost products that contain metals, plastics and other
contaminants limit the end uses of compost. Composting should not be done just for the sake of
reducing the amount of discards in landfills; it must result in a high quality, usable end product.
The implementation of operational and quality standards can help material recovery and
processing plants shift their emphasis from waste management issues to end product quality and
start to produce a product that is marketable to consumers.

Recommendation#1: Establish guidelines for quality standards and develop regulations for
source separated compost.

The lack of quality guidelines for source separated compost can lead to haphazard production
methods and contamination of the final product, which results in a negative perception towards
composting operations and compost products in general. It is important to ensure that a high
level of quality is standard for all compost that is produced. When establishing guidelines for
quality standards for source separated compost, two sets of issues should be addressed; namely,
end product quality standards and marketing standards. In developing regulations for source
separated compost, the challenge is to assure adequate protection of human health and the
environment and the marketability of the product by encouraging high standards while allowing
for flexibility to account for variations in the feedstock.

The debate over an approach for developing regulations and quality standards for source
separated compost has broken down into two primary approaches: the design approach, which
specifies exactly how the facility should be set up and the technology to be used, versus the
performance approach, which is based on establishing quality standards for marketing the final
compost product. The symposium participants recommend using a combination of the two
approaches. The design approach should be utilized to specify a baseline for protection of public
health and the environment. The performance-based approach could be used in developing
process and product parameters and for marketing the final product. Regulations that are related
to public health have to do with regulating the site on which composting is undertaken to
minimize and/or eliminate the adverse impacts that leachate, odors and pathogens have on public
health and the environment. These regulations should include experimentation for composting
new feedstocks, using different types of facilities and processing methods. These regulations
should be included in the clearinghouse to be developed for source separated composting. (Cross
Reference: Recommendation to compile a national database and/or establish an information
clearinghouse on source separated composting, page 1-9.) The symposium participants
recommend that a national organization work with The Composting Council to develop complete
model source separated organics composting standards as a part of its immediate scope of work.
The national organization also should establish enforcement guidelines to ensure a level playing

1-4
 field within the industry.

Recommendation # 2 Develop clear criteria by which to determine an apprcpriate feedstock

for source separated composting.

Lack of information on the appropriate feedstocks for use in source separated compost has
limited the development of source separated composting programs. There are numerous materials
that can be composted, but care must be taken to ensure that the materials are not contaminated
with excessive amounts of lead or other contaminants, which would make a useless or even toxic
final product.

The first step is to define the characteristics of compostable feedstocks. Then, it is necessary to
identify potential contaminants and set levels as to how much of those contaminants would create
a public health or marketing problem. In some states, regulatory thresholds serve to cap the
number of contaminants that are permissible in the final compost product. For example, in
Delaware and Minnesota, the maximum allowable concentration for both copper and lead in Class
I composts is 500 parts per million. This criteria can serve to protect public health and the
environment and ensure a quality end product by limiting Contaminants in the composting
process. The symposium participants recommend that a national composting organization should
identify various sources for the feedstocks and any characteristics of those organic materials for
which composting is preferable.

Recommendation #3: Develop market-based standards that address physical parameters

that are not necessary for protecting the environment or public health.

Market-based standards should address physical parameters that are not necessary for protecting
the environment or public health, such as nutrients, fertilizer value, color, performance, pH,
maturity, particle size and percent moisture, among others. These standards are designed to
provide guidance to industry and procurement specifications to promote the successful marketing
of composted products. The symposium participants recommend that these standards be
developed by the National Bark and Soil Association in conjunction with other industry trade
associations.

Recommendation #4: Address end product quality standards that protect public health and
the environment.

The end product quality must be regulated to protect public health and the environment and
should include a list of parameters to test for, including metals, organic pathogens and physical
contaminants; the frequency of testing based on feedstock and end use considerations; sampling
protocol to provide quality assurance; standardized testing methods such as methods utilized by
ASTM and reference standards. The number of parameters to test for and the frequency of
testing should depend on the feedstocks composted and end use in order to promote source
separation. The federal government, including EPA and USDA, should convene a task force
comprised of industry and environmental groups, state govemments and advocacy groups to

1-5
develop end product quality guidelines for the regulation of source separated compost with a goal
of distributing final end product quality guidelines to states by July 1994.

Recommendation #6: Promote continued regulation of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW)
composting as a solid waste management technique and create a more favorable regulatory
atmosphere for source separated composting.

Most compostables are currently in the waste stream and, in states with regulations, are being
regulated with mixed MSW compost. In addition, because environmental regulators do not
distinguish between source separated and mixed MSW compost, compost program development
has been hindered. State environmental regulators should continue to strictly monitor the
compost material that is produced through mixed MSW technologies for contamination that
damages the value of the end product and the reputation of composting in general. The goal is
for source separated composting to be in a more favorable and appropriate regulatory atmosphere.

1-6
 RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND
RESEARCH FOR SOURCE SEPARATED COMPOSTING

Markets for source separated compost are diverse. The finished compost product can be used
for organic lawn care, sports turf applications, landscaping municipal and state parks, sod farms8
crop agriculture. floriculture, etc. (See attached flow chart: "oadmap to Success: The Compost
Marketing Pathway to Achieve the Highest Return on Investment," courtesy of Kurtz Bros., Inc.)
The following recommendations are intended to indicate how to expand markets for source
separated compost through research and education, increased procurement, model programs,
uniform standards and improved regulatory control.

Recommendation #1: Define the current level of source separated composting, track
increases and set goals.

In general, there is a lack of clear data on current source separated composting rates. In addition,
market development programs must keep pace with increasing compost production. Novon
Products, in cooperation with The Composting Council, has developed a directory that tracks the
compost processing facilities that are operational and the volume of materials that is processed
at these facilities. EPA, USDA, NRC and other national organizations that may assume the
recommendations of the Compost Symposium should work with Novon Products and The
Composting Council to continually determine and update the current composting rate and
feedstocks volumes, assess the market potential and set a goal to increase the percentage of
materials composted each year until the goal of 50 percent is attained.

Recommendation #2: Identify appropriate areas for research, existing technological needs
and funding sources.

Additional information is needed on composting technologies, markets, performance and long

term application. Symposium participants agreed that EPA, USDA and other funding
organizations should provide more money to research participants in these areas. A consortium
of key organizations, made up of NRC, EPA, USDA, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and many
others, could be consulted to develop a national research agenda and to disseminate information
about research findings and activities. These organizations should identify appropriate user
groups, vendors and information sources to identify research priorities and recognize the variety
of needs for new technology for compost utilization. Possible areas for research include: the
effects of uncontrollable variables such as soil, rainfall, regional variations, etc.; end markets;
collection methods and costs; application methods and utilization technologies; and public habits
and attitudes towards composting.

Recommendation #3: Encourage government procurement of compost products.

There is currently a lack of demand for compost products. Government procurement

1-7
requirements can be effective in increasing markets for compost products. Federal government
procurement standards already exist for paper, used oil, retread tires and insulation. Local, state
and federal governments purchase substantial quantities of soil amendments, mulch, top soil,
fertilizers, etc.; therefore, they also could purchase considerable amounts of compost. To fil.ther
develop markets for source separated compost, specifications need to be developed regardi the
soil amendment materials that are purchased for use on state and federal property su the
application rates of these products. Recommendations from EPA, USDA and na onal
composting organizations could be used to develop a guide for public agencies on how to
increase utilization of compost materials.

1-8
 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION ON THE USES AND BENEFITS OF COMPOST AND
COMPOSTING

Increasing and improving public awareness on the uses and benefits of compost and source
separated composting is deterred by the current diverse and inconsistent messages about
composting, which confuses the public's understanding of the end product. The following
recommendations on public education are intended to increase public awareness and
participation in composting programs and to promote understanding of composting issues. These
recommendations are intended to affect attitude and behavioral changes, which will lead to
increased public and consumer acceptance of composting operations and compost products.
These recommendations correlate with the recommendations on definitions and labeling
guidelines.

Recommendation#1: Compile a national database and public education information and/or

establish an information clearinghouse on source separated composting.

The data generated and the information available about composting is incomplete and
inconsistent. In addition, the lack of an organized information clearinghouse stifles public
education efforts and regulatory development and implementation. A consortium of
organizations, including EPA, USDA, NRC, the Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA), and The Compost Council, among others, could develop a database that includes
information gleaned from existing composting programs, pilot projects and a clearinghouse on
regulations, markets, feedstocks, collection methods, etc. for source separated composting. The
manager of the database would have to develop standard reporting procedures so the data could
be utilized by other organizations. For the short term, the symposium participants recommended
exploring the status of other database development efforts, such as the electronic bulletin board
developed by SWANA for recycling and composting information or the database of centralized
U.S. composting programs developed by The Compost Council.

Recommendation#2: Establish a network of key organizations involved in source separated

composting to educate and disseminate information.

Education on the benefits and uses of composting and compost has not focused on specific target
groups, and therefore educators have missed the opportunity to develop and provide the
information needed to convince the public to buy and use compost. By supporting extension
agencies, targeting information to specific consumer groups, such as landscapers, general
contractors, engineers and government staff and forming coalitions with local, county and state
gardening associations, EPA, USDA, local and state governments and environmental
organizations can make information on source separated composting available to a wide range
of professionals and individuals.

1-9
Recommendation #3: Develop and promote public service announcements on compost
education.

There is a lack of general public information on the uses and benefits of compost, which stifles
composting awareness. Through public service announcements developed for local television
network affiliates and public access cable TV stations, composting educators can effectively
communicate positive messages on source separated composting to a widespread audience at a
relatively low cost. PSAs can also be developed for local radio stations. With guidance from
national organizations, PSAs can be produced by local environmental groups in conjunction with
schools and universities, libraries, associations and clubs and other community organizations.
Information collected through recommendations One and Two could be used to develop the
PSAs.

Recommendation #4: Integrate composting into elementary and secondary school

educational programs.

Young people are concerned about the state of the environment. This can be seen in their
interest in recycling and conservation issues and the development of environmental curricula in
elementary and secondary schools, as well as at the university level. Symposium participants
encouraged the inclusion of composting education in environmental education programs. Local
and state governments, EPA, USDA Soil Conservation Service and 4H Extension Services could
work with the schools to develop a composting education curriculum, identify classroom activities
and experiments and engage in classroom teacher training. These organizations could also assist
in the development of local government workshops on the university and/or professional level.

Recommendation #5: Identify and promote high visibility source separated composting
programs.

The lack of national awareness about composting’s potential is partially attributable to the failure
to publicize effective, high profile programs for home and on-site composting and composting
success stories. Identifying state and national leaders who are supporting and/or participating in
source separated composting programs can enhance source separated composting in the public’s
eye. For example, the governor of Georgia and other govemors use compost bins at their
governor’s mansions. U.S. Representative George Hockbrueckner (D-NY) recently introduced
H.R. 2292, the Executive Composting Act of 1993, a bill encouraging all state govemors and the
president of the United States to utilize compost bins at their official residences. Effectively
publicizing examples such as this and promoting composting by the White House, state governors
mansions, national representatives, USDA, the American Horticultural Society, Rodale Press,
BioCycle and NRC, among many others, can lead to the increase in the number of composting
programs. The symposium participants identified a long-term goal to be the appointment of a
“composting czar” at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

1-10
Recommendation #6: Organize a local or national "Compost Week" campaign and
encourage government officials to get involved.

The cost of educating professionals and consumers about the uses and benefits of compost is high
while the funding for such programs is extremely limited. A local or national "Compost Week"
campaign, sponsored by government officials and/or local businesses, schools and universities,
churches, libraries and individuals, which emphasizes the various uses of the end product, could
help to promote public understanding of source separated compost. (Cross reference previous
recommendation: "Recommendation to identify the existing leaders of source separated
composting program. ")

Recommendation #7: Promote backyard source separated composting of organic materials.

Large scale composting programs can be expensive and difficult to implement. Too often,
backyard composting programs are overlooked as solid waste management options, although they
can be an effective way to reduce the amount of organic materials in municipal solid waste.
There are three components that need to be addressed when implementing a home composting
program: information dissemination in the form of brochures or informational packets; public
outreach, such as a compost hotline or master composter programs; and bin distribution.
Currently, there are several hundred municipally sponsored home composting programs on-line
across the country. Several cities have successfully implemented source separated collection
programs with a home composting bin distribution program. The symposium participants
recommend that a national organization take the lead to increase the number of community
backyard composting programs and advance awareness of the compatibility of home composting
with source separated composting collection programs.

Recommendation #8: Promote the use of compost on championship athletic fjelds.

Educating individuals about the uses and benefits of source separated compost and composting
is difficult if there is limited awareness of various applications for the final end product. Using
compost on a highly visible public arena will send a message to the public that compost has a
variety of practical end uses. It will also indicate that there are high quality standards for final
compost products and would serve to make composting and source separated compost more
attractive to the public. Another demonstration project could be to develop a compost float for
the Rose Bowl, Macy's Thanksgiving Day and other parades.

1-1 1
 RECOMMENDATIONSTO IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
AND FINANCING FOR SOURCE SEPARATED COMPOSTING FACILITIES

Infrastructure development and financing are key to increasing the number and effectiveness of
source separated compostingfacilities. Compostingfacilities are saddled with the negative views
that lending institutions have of them as being unprofitable enterprises and therefore risky
investments. Undercapitalizedfacilities may be improperly managed and encounter regulatory
and public concerns. Educating lending institutions about the long term profitability of
composting facilities, as well as identihing other sources of funding, are ways for compost
facility operators to increasefinancing opportunities. Providing adequate funding for composting
facilities will promote properly managed facilities and increase regulatory compliance and public
acceptance.

Recommendation #1: Approve loan applications from private industry composters based on
demonstrated success.

Financial lending institutions are not well-versed on composting technologies and cannot make
educated decisions on million dollar loans without knowing the potential risks and barriers. In
order to determine whether a composting facility will be successful, lending institutions need to
know the characteristics of operations that are not only environmentally sound, but also those
which operate within a reasonable budget if they are publicly owned or making a profit if
privately owned. This material could be inventoried in a library of case histories. Banks may
be more willing to finance new facilities if they know the traits of successful programs. Facility
owner and operators should be encouraged to develop a library of financing case studies.

Recommendation #2: Promote, expand and publicize existing financing opportunities,such

as grants, tax exempt bonds, SBA loans and environmental funds.

Government budgeting for compost and composting facilities is difficult in today’s weakened
economic climate. Facility operators are often unaware of financing opportunities that are
available to them beyond bank loans, which can be hard to obtain if the lending institution is
unfamiliar with the benefits of composting programs. A mechanism to disseminate information
regarding alternative financing opportunities for composting facilities needs to be developed and
circulated throughout the industry. Tax exempt bonds, SBA loans and environmental funds may
be available to composting facility operators as financing mechanisms. Potential financing
sources and govemment financial assistance programs should be identified and publicized through
a national organization such as NRC or The Compost Council. The Composting Council is in
the process of creating a guide to help processors finance their investments.

In addition, if composting is defined as a form of recycling, any legislation passed that makes
recycling facilities eligible for tax exempt financing should also apply to composting facilities.
(Cross Reference: Recommendation to define composting as recycling and on-site composting

1-12
 us reuse, page I-15.) Legislation could be passed to provide economic incentives for composting,
including grant and loan programs. Model legislation should be developed for composting
incentive programs.

Recommendation #3: Create economic incentives to compost through volume based pricing.

One of the barriers to increased composting by the public is that homeowners generally do not
pay for the true cost of waste disposal. In states with relatively low tipping fees ($10 per ton
and lower), centralized home composting cannot easily compete as a viable waste management
option. Disposal rate discounts are not offered to citizens who practice source reduction, so
individuals and companies have no financial incentive to reduce the amount of materials of which
they dispose through on-site or backyard composting. Local governments can implement volume-
based pricing through variable can rates, resulting in lowered garbage bills for home composters.
Local governments also could offer citizens a home composting bin and/or a clean green
collection bin, with pricing incentives to choose home composting or curbside collection of
source separated compostables over municipal solid waste collection services. Studies show that
compost markets are especially strong in the Seattle area, where disposal costs are higher and
home composting programs have been effectively promoted. Pilot projects should be completed
to assess the relationship between unit-based pricing and backyard composting.

Recommendation #4: Research and implement cost effective and compatible source
separated collection strategies.

The lack of available information on collection methods and costs applicable to various localities
impedes public acceptance of composting and, as a result, deters development of a full range of
source separated organics programs. The symposium participants recommend researching cost
effective source separated compost collection strategies and implementing at least one full scale
source separated organics diversion and collection program in each U.S. EPA region and, where,
possible, expand the existing programs. Developing model local ordinances for siting and
disseminating educational materials would help to build community acceptance for source
separated composting programs. These demonstration projects should be implemented by public
and/or private partnerships within two to three years.

Recommendation #5: Develop a standards manual and a set of model source separated
composting programs which provide a basic set of design and operation guidelines.

The absence of composting as a common practice can be partially attributed to the fact that there
is no information transfer structure whereby to exchange data on compost facility operations.
The symposium participants recommend that composting professionals, in conjunction with
federal and state regulatory authorities, develop a standards manual for source separated
composting that provides facility operators and communities with a basic understanding of how
to operate a composting facility. In addition, they should develop a set of model programs which
provide a basic set of design and operation requirements that will enhance the chance of success
for a composting facility operation. The Composting Council is in the process of developing a

1-13
model operating guide.

Recommendation# 6 Develop a trainingkertification program, a set of model programs and

a standards manual for source separated facility operators.

Aside from some courses that offer certification credits, there are few programs available to train
compost facility operators. Certification programs do exist for waste water treatment plant
operators, which could serve as a model for compost facility operator certification programs.
Certification programs could target three different audiences: designers and engineers, facility
operators and compost material marketers.

Operator certification is crucial to the long term success of composting. Odor and nuisance
problems caused by poorly managed facilities result in public opposition to composting facilities.
National organizations could work in coordination with existing training efforts, such as The
Better Composting School at the University of Maryland School of Horticulture and programs
offered at Cornell University to develop a model certification program that other universities and
compost facilities could use in training programs.

Recommendation #7: Develop model local ordinances for siting and educational
information materials to build community support of and acceptance for composting
facilities.

Before composting facility operators can set up a source separated composting facility, they must
address the negative images that communities may hold regarding the presence of a composting
facility in their area. A facility operator can combat the inherent prejudice against local
placement of composting facilities by developing and disseminating educational information
materials and involving the public in decisions affecting the siting of compost facilities. In
addition, local siting ordinances are needed to provide a framework for locating and permitting
composting facilities which address local concerns. The symposium attendees recommend the
establishment of model local ordinances for siting facilities, based on the Composting Council’s
facility planning and facility operation guide.

*** The symposium participants concluded that all of the recommendations for financing
composting facilities, with the exception of Recommendation #4, should be implemented
immediately, with progress reports published every 12 to 18 months.

1-14
 RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFINITIONS AND LABELING GUIDELINES
FOR COMPOST AND COMPOSTABLE PRODUCTS

Composting accelerates nature's way of recycling organic matter. Therefore, the symposium
participants recommend that source separated compost and composting be included in the
definition of recycling. In addition, national labeling standards for finished compost to educate
manufacturers and consumers can improve the marketing of compost.

Recommendation #1: Define composting as recycling and on-site composting as reuse.

Public perception is increasingly important to composting's future. Citizens must realize that
source separated composting is recycling and that these terms should be used synonymously.
Under the revised solid waste management hierarchy recommended by the symposium
participants (see page I-1), source separated composting is parallel to recycling and on-site
composting is comparable to reuse. Using these terms interchangeably will strengthen the role
of composting in the solid waste hierarchy in the public's mind. The Composting Council, NRC
and other environmental groups should take the lead by voluntarily revising their definitions of
recycling and reuse to reflect the role of source separated and on-site composting in the solid
waste management hierarchy.

Recommendation #2: Remove the word "waste" from the source separated organics
composting definition and distinguish source separated composting from mixed municipal
solid waste (MSW) composting.

The use of the word "waste" is an unfortunate habit in industry, govemment and society in that
it indicates products that have no value. There is no "waste" until the product is actually
disposed of, and composting prevents waste by using otherwise discarded materials as feedstocks,
or ingredients, to produce a usable product. NRC, state recycling officials, The Composting
Council and other proponents of composting could take the lead by removing the word "waste"
from the definition of source separated compost and defining source separated compost as the
agricultural commodity that it is. This will more accurately reflect the true nature of the product
while raising the value of compost in the eye of the public. Efforts also are needed to further
distinguish source separated composting from mixed MSW composting. This will involve
defining the point of separation, appropriate technologies and best management practices.

Recommendation #3: Promote the concept that centralized source separated composting is
separate, equal and complementary to recycling and on-site composting is a cornerstone of
source reduction.

The general public has a limited understanding of composting. The public has a tendency to
embrace recycling but fear and/or misunderstand composting or categorize source separated
composting with mixed MSW composting. NRC should revise its composting resolution to

1-15
 indicate that source separated composting is separate, equal and complementary to recycling.
EPA, USDA, local government and environmental organizations should be encouraged to do the
same to raise the value of compost in the public's mind. A national organization is needed to
develop composting goals that are separate from, but compatible with, the goals of recycling.
This should be done immediately as achieving these goals requires continuous promotion.

Recommendation # 4 Survey eldsting state labeling regulations.

The lack of national labeling standards for finished compost and the lack of an enforcement
vehicle is a deterrent Lo developing meaningful labeling programs for compost products.
Symposium participants supported the need to develop a nationally uniform state labeling
program for compost products. EPA, USDA, and individual states could offer their input on
current labeling programs for recycled or composted materials to help construct a basis upon
which state labeling guidelines can be fashioned.

Recommendation #5: Develop a model label for composted and compostable materials.

One possible deterrent to wide spread use of compost products is that individuals may be wary
of using a product if they are not sure what exactly went into it. A model label which includes
the unit of measure, directions for use, the categorylgrade of compost material, the feedstock
ingredients listed by order of volume, standards, authority and cautionary notes, could work to
assuage these trepidations. The label could be developed by US. EPA, USDA, and individual
states if it is mandatory or by the National Bark & Soil Producers Association or industry trade
associations such as The Composting Council.

Recommendation #6: Develop a logo for source separated compost.

The "chasing arrows" logo used to indicate recycled content and recyclability in a particular
product is a major source of education and recognition of recycling capability for the public. A
logo that indicates that a specific brand of organic fertilizer or soil amendment is made out of
composted materials would serve to raise public awareness of composting in the same way. This
logo should be developed by composting organizations and could be voluntarily implemented in
the near term.

Recommendation #7: Develop a standard definition of "compostability" for industry to

follow.

Manufacturers need to consider the ultimate fate of their products and design with compostability
in mind. A consensus definition of "compostable" would help manufacturers, consumers and
composters identify and manage compostable materials, thus making better use of their limited
resources. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) held a symposium on this topic in
November 1992. Their report would be a useful starting point for developing a standardized
definition. A national composting organization should work with ILSR, food and grocery
associations, the corn and biopolymers industry and CONEG to promote this issue.

1-16
 Section II:
Proceedings from the National
Source Separated Composting
Symposium
Composting: Setting the National Agenda
Rhonda L. Brooks, Vice President of Marketing and Sales, Novon Products Group

............................................... We are NOT here to debate the benefits of

Composting Infrastructure Development compostingsource separated organics vs. mixed
municipal solid waste. We here to identify
the key issues facing source separated
composting and to work with our peers to de-
velop recommendations in the following areas:
quality and markets for compost, infrastructure
development, and the policies and guidelines
required to drive these. Without recommenda-
tions in all three areas, the picture is incomplete.
m.
The potential for composting is not lost on U.S. waste management experts and U.S. government
officials and people like yourselves in the composting community. A Roper Survey perfomed in
1992 asked what form of solid waste management will grow the fastest in the near future'? They
responded by saying that composting and recycling wouldgrow at afargreaterrate than other waste
management methods, such as landfilling and incineration.

At Novon Products. we believe that in order for ...............................................

source separated composting to be maximized ~ Issues
beyond the efforts of entrepreneurs, there are i Policy
Markeb for Compost Inhasbuchue Development
many concerns which must be addressed.
Compost Qualily ln-Plant Separauon Le@slahon
Experts who answered the Roper Poll identified
Contamation Collection k lakiling
key issues -- all of these fall into the categories Capital Cosk
Lack of Dpvelopment Defirutions
we need to address during the next two days. Pwrlv DPsiped Plants

Under the category of Markets For Compost, A National Strategy 1

Should Address These Issues i
~

they highlighted compost quality standards,

compost contamination, and the basic lack of
markets for comoost. Under the category - . of
Infrastructure Development, they raised issues of difficulty with in-plant separation, collection and
capital costs, and poorly designed plants. Finally, the experts saw the need for policy development
- definitions, legislation and labeling - to drive the other areas.
From a Novon perspective, it would also be helpful to agree on what is compostable. To be most
effective, it clearly should include more than leaf and yard trimmings and manure. Compostables
can be broadened to include items such as soiled and wet paper, sewage sludge, paper mill residues,
supermarket food and paper scrap, fast food wastes and other organic materials. To be compostable,
these materials should biodegrade completely and safely at a rate comparable to soil organics.

Where we compost is also important. Backyard and farm composting must be recognized since it
saves energy and costs for collection. Centralized operations are needed to supplement on-site
efforts to convert a greater percentage of our organic resources back into useful soil conditioner.
Therefore, we must also focus on how to accomplish both on-site and centralized source separated
collection and composting. Many communities already recycle: now it is time to develop ways to
augment these efforts with the collection of organics.

In our focus group sessions, we must also agree on a labeling scheme for compostable products so
that businesses and consumers can understand how to separate their compostables and recyclables
from other wastes. We must also recommend synergistic collection methods which demonstrate
that collecting both the organic and recyclable streams are. mutually supportive and cost effective.

II-2
And our recommendations must also cover the financing of collection and facilities, regulation of
end products and operations. compost quality. labeling of finished compost. and of course, public
relations and education.

To accomplish our task, we are fortunate to have individuals whose expertise covers every aspect
of composting. We share a common goal of making source separated composting an effective way
of recovering organic materials. I understand that our views may differ on
occasion, and that we each approach the task with varying perspectives. We must put our
knowledge to use in an objective and cooperative fashion during the next two days to develop an
action plan for the future. If we, who share a common goal, cannot agree among ourselves, how
can we expect a much larger audience to support
................................................
I our efforts?

We are grateful that all of you are here, for only

through our collective efforts to set a national
agenda will source separated composting ever
reach its full potential. Discussion, debate,
RECYCLLUG & COMPOSWG
WORKING TOGETHER
followed by agreement is the only waycompost-
TO KEEP MATERIALS ing will attain its rightful place in our nation's
OW OF LANDFILLS AND INCINERATORS integrated waste management policy. Thank
m. you, and I look forward to working with you
during the symposium.

I(-3
 Jim McNelly
1930 9th Ave SE
Saint cloud, MN 56304
612-253-6255
"Composting into the 21st Century"
Presented at the Source Separated Composting Symposium
Saint Louis February 28, 1993

Most of the persons in this room have been involved with the environmental
field for many years and have gone to numerous composting conferences. Why a
symposium on source separated composting? Other conferences deal with case
histories and scientific research. This symposium is trying to address the
underlying, and more difficult to define questions of "why composting", and
"what exactly is compost".

We are also here to improve relationships between recyclers, source separated

composters, mixed waste composters, and the environmental community. Over the
next two days, it is the hope of this symposium's steering committee we can
draft a policy document and a memorandum of understanding on the proper role
of composting and the definition of compost. We believe that a clear policy
statement is essential before we can focus on diverting materials from
landfills on a larger scale only imagined before.
Those in the environmental field sense an extraordinary awakening throughout
North America. The "green" movement is at last emerging and in the area of
increased solid waste tipping fees, the public is ready to "do. the right
thing" for conservation and environmental protection. 1993 is a year of
environmental possibilities in Washington, our nation, and the world. If we
send a clear message to the White House and to legislators, we may see
environmental initiatives not seen since the 201 Wastewater construction
grants program following the Clean Water Act. The public is prepared to pay
for these new programs through local resource processing fees rather than new
federal spending initiatives.
On any given day, we might find the following headlines on the front page of
our national newspapers.
Landfills Filling, Officials Seek Alternatives
Drought and Desertification Risk Food Production
Topsoil Erosion Crisis Reaching Global Proportions
Unemployed and Homeless Seek Refuge, Food, and Work
State Legislators Call for Rural Economic Development Program
Scientists Seek Ways to Slow Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Buildup
Governors Call for Infrastructure Capital Program
Community Garden Project Feeds Hundreds
Horticulture Therapy and Rehabilitation Project Rebuilds Lost Lives
Composting Facility Seeks Markets for Compost
Congress Re-authorizes Sustainable Agriculture Program
Non-point Pollution Discharge Becoming Top Water Quality Issue
High Tech Composting or Incineration Facility in Trouble
President Calls for Environmental Businesses to Create Jobs
Arkansas Governor Seeks Solution to Poultry Manure Disposal
Composting offers solutions for these political, economic, and environ-
mental problems. Decisions motivated by short term economics or crisis
conditions rather than a long range value system are missing the true value
and significance of composting. Our culture needs to develop a resource
conservation -ethic that recognizes the primacy of fundamental biological
realities. There must first be an awakening of the social consciousness
toward a favorable perception of organic matter utilization, and this is a
formidable task. Composting needs a massive public relations campaign.

II-4
Why composting? The jury has returned and found landfills guilty. of the
first ten thousand sites listed for Superfund cleanup in the ERRIS list,
approximately six thousand are old municipal landfills. The Federal
Government has already Sent out warnings through "Subtitle D" legislation that
it is only a matter of time when communities and states will be responsible
for their own landfill problems. The Federal Government does not have the
money to clean up mismanaged landfills.
Those communities that are developing responsible solid waste management plans
paid for with realistic local tipping fees will no longer tolerate subsidiz-
ing, through federal taxes, those shortsighted communities who choose only
short term, low garbage disposal costs with the supposed future federal
bail-out.
Why composting? Organic matter represents 7 0 % of the nation's municipal
resource disposal volume. Approximately 200 million tons of valuable organic
matter is wasted annually. Not only is this material lost, decomposition in
landfills results in leachate, settling, fracturing of the clay cap seal, and
release of methane. Methane is ten to forty times the greenhouse gas thar
carbon dioxide is and would be prevented by composting organics first. A
stored carbon credit, like the sulphur dioxide reduction credit for energy
companies, would be a strong financial incentive to promote composting on a
wider scale.
If 3 0 % of the solid waste stream is source separated organics, perhaps 80
million tons is a reasonable goal to compost or divert by the year 2000. At
400 lbs of carbon per ton, that means 16 million tons of carbon would be
recycled. AS a methane reduction credit, this would result in an equivalent
reduction up to 640 million tons of atmospheric carbon!
In the course of these few days, I would like each person and task force to
compile a list of ideas and programs that we will submit to President Clinton
for implementation in his "revitalize America" campaign. If the President
were here today, I would ask him to implement grasscycling, onsite composting,
at teh White house and start worm boxes outside the White House kitchen. I
believe that the public will be at least as interested in the executive worm
boxes as they are Chelsea's cat.
One topic where we may reach consensus is an effort to revitalize the USDA by
putting it through a twelve step program to help agriculture kick its chemical
dependency. With positive leadership, Washington could transfer existing
funds from outmoded, environmentally unsound practices into sustainable and
renewable agricultural practices.
AS congress tackles the National Debt, we might ask that they consider also
our national "Topsoil Debt". Modern civilization has built itself upon the
practice of slash and burn agriculture and topsoil depletion. Our nation's
3 5 0 million acres of farmland have eroded or oxidized approximately 200 tons
of organic matter per acre through poor land stewardship and the voodoo
agrinomics of chemically dependent agriculture. Americans alone owe our
descendants 70 billion tons of organic matter!
There is a vast reservoir of underutilized talent, young and old, who would
quickly mobilize to help develop recycling operations, composting facilities,
community gardens, and food service industries. Federal work incentives
should begin with environmental businesses. As Washington considers public
works programs, even a new community service program for repaying student
loans, we ask that Congress think not just of rust belt construction projects
and road rebuilding, but 21st century industries of the future. The Sea and
Land grant colleges are well positioned to champion the cause of sustainable
communities and sustainable agriculture.

II-5
 Our education system needs a new environmental curriculum, with attention to
adult education on the issues of organic resources and local self reliance.
Mulching, back yard composting, and municipal composting are programs that do
not spring up overnight. Citizens have shown themselves ready to change their
yard management habits, but they typically want information and time to make
a gradual transition over to the new reyulations. Yard trimming reduction
education is the most cost effective form of landfill diversion with ongoing
results and capital return in less than two years.
Our children must be taught that food comes from topsoil, not the supermarket.
Topsoil, we must teach those who follow us, is provided to us as an inheri-
tance that must be increased for future generations rather than depleted for
our own short term gain. O u r culture must learn that the sewer is not a black
hole where wastewater somehow disappears.
Householders should be convinced that the supposed high cost of recycling and
composting is the fair price of the reduction of pollution. Few complain
about the cost of wastewater treatment because they know that it means safe
drinking water, healthy fish, and a high quality of life. There has been
great effort in educating the public about air and water pollution. It is
time to launch a campaign about the hazards of land pollution.
What is Compost? A clear definition of compost grades and quality is
essential if composting is to offer the public a viable resource management
option. The composting industry must take responsibility for removing the
mystery that too often characterizes composting, eliminating the "black box"
and "magic elixir" approaches. Through self-regulation and industry
. certification, the composting industry can provide process definitions and
performance standards that will help weed out unsound proposals and ecologi-
tally indifferent companies. The industry needs a quality standards and
definitions that both source separated and mixed waste composters can agree
upon, an agreement that means compromise and inclusion from both sectors.
By establishing clear specifications and appropriate compost uses, the
composting industry will be able provide assurance to both compost users and
regulatory officials that the particular compost product is what it claims to
be and that its quality is suitable for the intended use. There is a
difference between health standards and plant growth requirements. The two
issues should be kept in focus, the one never substituted for the other. Too
often regulatory officials are led to believe that composting itself is an
environmental problem. Regulators need to be educated that composting is a
solution to environmental degradation that needs assistance, not opposition.
We need to differentiate composting the process, from compost the product.
There is a fundamental scientific base that does not vary from one composting
process to another. These next few days are not the time to discuss
composting theory, there are other conferences to debate process control. We
are here to state that there IS a difference between qualities of compost, the
roduct, and that the public should be aware of the difference between various
gompost commodities. The definition of those differences is the essence of
why we are here today.
There are many environmental activists who have yet to embrace composting as
a welcome member of the environmental community. Composting needs the help Of
environmentalists if is to have a role in the resource management hierarchy.
All of us share the burden caused from a legacy of closed facilities, process
failure, and compost that was "supposed" to be suitable, but was sent to
landfills. Some in the mixed waste composting industry have demeaned the good
name of compost through unrestricted sales of unstable material full of glass,
plastic, and metals. The fears of residents and environmental activists
should be addressed with tact and understanding, not swept aside as NIMBY
nonsense.

II-6
 Composting began as a coalition of organic gardeners and farmers, later
becoming a part of sludge management and landfill diversion. Composting has
to renew its connection with organic gardening and farming if it is going ts
be embraced by the new sustainable Community movement. Composting is an
important means to reduce civilization's dependence on petrochemicals.
Composting costs subsidized by landfill diversion fees is an oovortunitv to
facilitate the new relationship betwen resource conservation and the sustain-
able agriculture forces.

On the fundamental issue of quality, the source separated faction will be slow
to compromise. We are here to say "enough" to ground garbage schemes. We are
not here to call for a ban on mixed waste composting, but to help define
standards, to implement monitoring protocols, provide for independent
certification criteria, and establish "acceptable" levels of particulates and
contaminants according to the appropriate uses for various grades of compost.
As a person who managed a mixed waste composting plant, I know first hand how
unethical and cost conscious owners can circumvent critical environmental
standards if there were no industry credibility and environmental oversight to
keep testing procedures above board. Regulatory agencies provide regular
monitoring of wastewater quality by public officials, we need comparable
independent certification of the compost quality as well.
Our steering committee asks the composting industry to affirm three principles
of waste reduction, and to establish industry certification for those that
meet these standards:
1. Mulching and home composting through education
2 . Source separation of clean organics PRIOR to mixed waste composting
or other disposal options.
3. Maximum recycling of recoverable commodities
Our mission is to protect the good name of compost and its positive acceptance
by the general public as a safe product for home gardens. New standards and
classification of compost should enable new generations of compost users to
have a positive experience with the product, rather than the repulsion that
comes from seeing glass, plastic, metals, and household batteries in a compost
bag. If we alienate our new consumers with low quality products, we may never
gain their confidence back. Tough compost quality standards will improve the
credibility of all compost products and should reduce the apprehension on the
part of the environmental community.
We are not so naive to say that source separated composting is without its
problems. Plastics from bags, arsenic from CCA pressure treated wood, and
odors can plague source separated composting facilities. The point is that
the failure of 3 composting operation reflects poorly upon the industry as
a whole. But silence regarding our real and serious problems and has to
cease. There will opportunity for everyone if we learn to cooperate and learn
from each other's mistakes. Painting a rosy picture while hundreds of
millions of dollars are lost from closed facilities serves no one. Let us
frankly admit our problems and end the secrecy and mystery concerning compost
facility problems. Likewise, when a facility is being unfairly resisted, let
us rally together to defend our associates.
We address our concerns not only to the mixed waste interests, but to the
environmental community as well. The term "recycling" has usually meant only
newspaper, corrugated boxes, container plastics, aluminum, motor oil, glass,
mixed metals, and steel. Rarely is there a recycling program that places
composting in the same category with recycling. It is a stated goal of the
National Recycling Coalition assist to change public perception to include
source separated composting as an equal to recycling. A major part of our
message today is to the environmental and recycling movements. Composting and
recycling belong together.

II-7
New generations of material recovery facilities must be designed that provide
for optimized composting and recycling. Innovative solid waste planners are
warning us about the high cost of multiple collection programs and processing
facilities. It is time that we help foster a new generation of material
recovery facilities that maximize recycling, provide for source separation of
organics, and sends the rest to mixed waste composting. Source separation
does not automatically equate to separate collection and separate processing
facilities. Composters in particular should take the lead in designing
collection, sorting, and composting technologies that maximize recyclables,
provide for source separation of organics, while still enabling mixed waste
options for the residuals.
The truck manufacturing and material processing industries will respond to
unified technologies, like software vendors following computer hardware. But
first, the recyclers and composters need to work together under the same roof.
If composting and recycling become fully integrated, we can put the limited
resource conservation dollars into processing, not transportation, and better
serve the general public through increased cost effectiveness and quality
control.
We in this room represent the coalitions who are in a unique position to send
a clear message to the legislators, and to our constituencies that the diverse
components of the resource conservation industry stand ready to work together
in implementing environmentally acceptable solutions. The Composting Council
or the National Recycling Coalition, or any other single faction will be able
to provide a national agenda that can remove barriers to wider spread of the
resource conservation industry. Only in unity will we be able to relieve the
environmental community from its mistrust of the emerging composting industry.
Once this apprehension is addressed, there should be no obstacles toward
moving ahead with community programs that provide the best of reduction,
recycling, and composting.
Barriers that can be overcome through unification include:
1. Public misinformation, which can be overcome by education
2 . Political opposition, which can be overcome by a united industry
3 . Regulatory obstacles, which can be overcome by operating standards
4. process difficulties, which can be overcome by technology transfer
5. Compost quality fear, which can be overcome by quality control
6 Compost use resistance, which can be overcome by market incentives
7. scientific uncertainty, which can be overcome by research
8. Economic risk, which can be overcome by stable contracts

The social barriers to organic recycling include a cultural "ick factor''

toward organic matter in general and the nearly complete public ignorance Of
the role of humus in soil ecology. Political opposition will gradually fade
away as more and more composting facilities are operating and have a prov@n
track record of reliable operations that manufacture a quality Compost.
Regulatory obstacles can be resolved more easily if state and local environ-
mental protection agencies rely on existing scientific data regarding
composting as a process and compost as a product. Operating and use
restrictions based on subjective fears or imagined problems can often do more
harm than good, even to the point of creating the nuisances they are trying to
regulate.
For many, these few days may seem like just another environmental COnferenC@.
But for many in the organic farming, sustainable agriculture, and composting
industry, this conference is seen as a critical turning point for the future
of our farms, food, economic well being, and quality of life. Compost quality
and rebuilding topsoil are intrinsically linked together.

II-8
If I may make a prediction, it is that renewable carbon, humus, will become
the dominant resource of the twenty-first century just as fossil carbon was to
the twentieth. In answer to the question "what are we going to do with all
that compost, it is only good for gardens?" let me give an analogy to an
oilfield wildcatter in the year 1893, who might have answered the question
"what are you going to do with all that oil, it is only good for axle grease
and paraffin?"
To which he may have replied, "In the next century, I envision a world where
oil will be converted into dozens, even hundreds of new products that we can
only imagine. There is a new invention called the automobile, and oil will be
refined into gasoline that will clean up the horse manure problem in our
cities, why there will be so many automobiles that nearly everyone will have
one, and gasoline stations will be on every corner..." Some people scoffed.
AS a composting wildcatter, I envision composting facilities in every
community and on-site at our homes and organic processing industries. There
will emerge biomass farms on a massive scale, with food, fiber, fuel, and
fertilizers produced locally, vitalizing both the cities and the country
alike. People will be able to grow their own vehicle fuel, co-generate
electricity with greenhouses, and feed mega-tons of earthworms to poultry and
fish. Chemically raised food will be in an isolated section of the grocery
with organic produce everywhere up and down the aisles... Some pecplo rcoff.
Only this time, let us trust that we have the environmental sense to usher in
this new energy, humus energy, in a way that is supportive of life and the
biosphere. The living soil is a trust that we are obligated to pass on to our
children in a condition better than we received it. How the compoating
industry regulates itself, and the position statements that arise from this
gathering, will affect the course of all resource conservation projects for
generations to come. I am confident that we are ready for this challenge and
will make wise choices that are best for the soil and the environment.

11-9
TELLUS INSTITUTE
89 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110
(617) 426-5844 fax (617) 426-1692

STATUS REPORT OF SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS PROGRAMS

IN EUROPE AND ONTARIO

by Lori Segall
Solid Waste Group

for the Source Separated Organics Symposium

February 25-26, 1993
St. Louis, MO

Driven by the severe lack of landfill space and the goal of no net contamination
increase of agricultural soil, many European countries and the province of Ontario are
actively promoting source separated organics or biowarte programs. Their objective is to
keep separate all organic solid waste, such as food and yard waste to produce a high quality
compost acceptable for unrestricted use. Many of the countries that have practiced mixed
waste composting in the past are shifting toward biowaste programs as they have seen
consistently higher quality compost produced in their biowaste programs. Some existing
mixed waste composting facilities are being converted to handle source separated waste by
removing some of the costly pre-processing steps. Other facilities, including anaerobic
digesters, are being built to accept only biowaste.

Each country has a slightly different strategy for encouraging biowaste programs.
Some have national regulations and offer financial assistance and others use a more
decentralized approach. These programs didn’t happen overnight; they are the result of
years of research and public education combined with strict waste management regulations.
Each program has had its share of implementation problems during the early phases.
Problems with each system are worked out over time and resident participants have grown
accustomed to a new lifestyle. Just as now, where millions of Americans could not dream
of disposing of recyclables, millions of Europeans from the Netherlands, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland and Denmark would not return to the old ways of mixing organic waste with the
rest of their trash. In these countries, the question is not whether biowaste programs are
the way to go, but how to most effectively implement them.

This paper summarizes information gathered by Tellus through interviews with key
employees of environmental agencies and consulting companies from the following
countries:

II-10
 NETHERLANDS

Results of compost quality studies in the 1980's revealed that biowaste compo<+was
virtually always of superior quality to mixed waste compost. The Environmental M ,try
funded numerous pilot biowaste programs to gather data on collection methods, logist md
associated costs, feedback from residents, composting methods and end-product quai In
1989, a national environmental policy plan was developed that encouraged biowaste
programs. A biowaste program handbook based on results of pilot studies was compiled and
distributed to interested municipalities. Compost quality standards were tightened to
exclude mixed waste compost.

A Biowaste Action Program was started in 1990 to stimulate and coordinate research
activities, expand processing capacity and promote use of high quality compost. A national
law requiring all communities to provide their residents with biowaste collection programs
by 1994 was passed, but the responsibility for implementation was left to the municipality.
Although the Ministry does not fund implementation of individual programs, they have set
up an information center to collect research data and act as a clearinghouse to assist
municipalities.

Most municipalities chose to distribute standard size rolling carts for biowaste
collection to fit their automated collection vehicles. Some opted for dual compartment
packers to maintain a weekly collection service for both biowaste and trash. Others chose
to alternate biowaste and trash collection to control costs (biowaste constitutes almost 50
percent of the Dutch residential waste stream). Implementation has not been entirely
smooth. Many urban residents have felt they don't have the space for two waste containers.
Other residents have voiced complaints about the alternating week biowaste collection, but
when faced with the option of paying more for increased level of service, they have quieted
down.

Curbside collection of recyclables is considered less important than collection of

biowaste. Most glass beverage bottles have a deposit and are taken back to stores. Igloos
or other unattended drop-off containers are placed throughout most cities to collect glass
and paper. However, some cities sponsor periodic rounds of a household hazardous waste
collection truck.

As of December 1992, 53 percent of all communities provide biowaste collection

programs for their residents. Many communities are extending this service to the
commercial sector, although they are not required to by law. There are several pilot
projects under way for the collection of biowaste from restaurants and hotels. The collected
biowaste is processed in centralized enclosed composting facilities. There is currently
insufficient processing capacity to handle the biowaste that will be collected when all
communities are receiving collection services.

Although the level of contamination in the biowaste compost is extremely low, well

II-11
 below the strict Dutch standards that will take effect in 1994, the compost market is
temporarily saturated. The majority of compost is used in agriculture; bulb production and
other farming, then municipal parks and sports fields, nurseries and home use. There is
some concern about how all the compost will be marketed once all households have
curbside collection service.

The Biowaste Action Program is an on-going program with a mission to identify

obstacles to full national participation and facilitate solutions. Areas of focus are: facilities
and logistics, regulations, quality guarantee, certification and marketing, financial aspects,
management and organization, technology and information transfer. The most immediate
concerns are coordination of collection systems with processing capacity. Other areas of
study include inner city programs, disposition of industrial organic waste and research on
anaerobic compost.

GERMANY

The national waste management law passed in 1986 establishes a hierarchy with
source reduction a t the top, followed by recycling and composting. A separate ordinance
on solid waste management which includes limiting organic materials allowed in landfills to
five percent and requiring all communities to use organic waste beneficially either by
producing clean aerobic or anaerobic compost is in the process of becoming law. Deadlines
for compliance will be set when this ordinance is signed into law. A national law requiring
separate collection of institutional food waste for animal feed has been in effect for many
years.

Although no national source separation law has existed up until now, many states
have taken the initiative. These states require provision of biowaste collection for ail
residences, but leave the specifics on implementation up to the municipality. The state
governments sponsor research projects and receive the associated results and data. The
research arm of the Environment Ministry can provide information on biowaste programs
but is not set u p as a clearinghouse. A national foundation for waste management
information, to be housed in Witzenhausen has recently been proposed.

In the state of Hessen, for example, almost all households are included in a biowaste
program. Most municipalities provide biowaste collection every two weeks, alternating with
trash collection. In some communities, dry recyclables such as metals and plastics are
collected curbside on a monthly basis. These programs were not started without their share
of protest from the municipal governments and residents. Extensive public education
programs were necessary to change people’s ways of thinking and behavior patterns. At this
point, however, biowaste separation is considered standard practice. However, there are
often complaints during the warmer months because of the infrequent biowaste collection,
I
In this state, material destined for a landfill must not contain more than five percent
organics. Because siting new landfills is practically impossible, trash is often composted to
reduce the volume of organics prior to landfilling.

II-12
 Biowaste processing facilities range from small decentralized windrow operations to
large enclosed facilities. Less stringent siting and operational regulations apply to small
operations, making it possible for a community to compost their own biowaste. Several
biowaste anaerobic digestion facilities are in stages of planning or design.

To this date, German compost standards are not law, but are considered desirpable
guidelines. Biowaste compost can earn the nationally recognized " R Usymbol if it hiis the
required characteristics, including low pathogen and heavy metal levels and documented
maturity. The largest market for compost is agriculture and most farmers prefer using
compost they feel will have the least negative impact on their land. The Environment and
Agricultural Ministries have been pushing for making these standards the law. The RAL
standards are different from sewage sludge utilization regulations passed in August 1992.

AUSTRIA

Consciousness about the importance of biowaste separation has been very high in
Austria. Collection programs have been operating for years in several regions and others
will be starting soon. Concurrently, home composting has been heavily promoted. Some
communities with variable user fees charge less to residents who compost at home and
slightly more if biowaste collection services are used. In 1994, a national law will require
that landfilled waste contain less than five percent organic waste. Communities will be
required to provide separate collection of biowaste for residents who do not compost at
home. Commercial generators will also have to separate biowaste for animal feed,
composting or anaerobic digestion.

Many cities, such as Vienna, use a communal container system for biowaste
collection. These lidded containers are placed on every street corner next to containers for
glass and metal (paper is collected curbside). Biowaste containers are collected on a weekly
basis. Odor is considered less of a problem than bees! Vienna has 54 household hazardous
waste collection stations. The biowaste collected has been quite clean, the compost
produced is of very high quality.

Financial and technical assistance is not as centralized in Austria as in some other

countries. Although there is a "compost phone line," it is used mainly for reserving a
traveling educational display and for informational referral. Regional governments gave
significant financial assistance to communities for several years for purchase of biowaste
containers and other equipment.

Mixed waste composting still exists in Austria, but it is mainly used for volume
reduction. Mixed waste compost is only used as landfill cover; it is considered too
contaminated even to use to prevent erosion of ski slopes. Some mixed waste composting
facilities are being converted to accept biowaste only.

Source separation is even spreading to the tourist industry. Many hotels are asking

II-13
their guests to separate waste. Hotels that have not provided separate waste containers
have received complaints from ecologically minded guests. Many tourist areas have quickly
learned to provide their customers with this option rather than get the reputation of being
unconcerned with the environment.

SWITZERLAND

A national waste management law requires that waste be separated at the source,
although there is no deadline for compliance. The national Office of Environment gives
money and technical assistance to the cantons who must implement biowaste collection
programs. Landfilling of organic waste is being phased out, as only inert material will be
allowed. Approximately 80 percent of all municipal solid waste is incinerated in Switzerland
a t a very high cost per ton. Under these conditions, separate collection of biowaste does
not seem that expensive.

Only a limited number of communities have curbside collection of biowaste. Other

systems include blockwide home composting, where a committed group of residents take
responsibility for turning a communal composting pile for the block or apartment complex.
This model started in Zurich and has had varying degrees of success, depending on the level
of commitment of the residents. Other cities have biowaste containers on the street. Some
cities are implementing quantity based user fees for trash to encourage source separation.
Commercial and institutional generators of food waste are not required by law to separate
biowaste. This waste is handled either by separating for animal feed, composting or
incineration.

There is currently a shortage of biowaste composting or anaerobic digestion capacity

in Switzerland. There are only two operating composting facilities and one anaerobic
digester. Biowaste collection has not begun in areas where there is no processing capacity.

DENMARK

Denmark has established a waste reduction and recycling goal of 50 percent over the
next few years. Biowaste programs are accepted as necessary to achieve this waste diversion
goal, although home composting is strongly encouraged. As with all other countries
surveyed, municipal governments are responsible for implementation of waste management
programs. The focus is on residential and to a lesser extent small business waste because
that is in the domain of the municipality. A national law requiring all large kitchens,
commercial and institutional, to separate food waste for animal feed has been in effect for
years. Food waste generated in large quantities is considered a resource.

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency is currently funding numerous pilot

projects to gather data on biowaste collection methods. The collection methods include
rigid containers, bags, dual compartment packer trucks and others. Curbside collection of
recyclables is encouraged in Denmark so urban areas are likely to use dual compartment

II-14
packer trucks to collect three and four streams separately. Home composting bin
distribution programs and quantity based user fees are common in Denmark.

Anaerobic digestion is a processing method of choice in Denmark. Many facilities

designed to handle agricultural waste are accepting small amounts of biowaste. A full scale
biowaste anaerobic digester has been operating for over one year in the town of Elsinore.

FRANCE

Although several biowaste collection pilot projects are in various stages of planning
or implementation, these are the initiative of individual municipalities and are not sponsored
by the National Agency of Energy and the Environment (ADEME). This agency does not
promote biowaste programs, but rather maintains that technology will overcome the
problems of pre-processing and end-product contamination. The ADEME is funding
research on pre-processing technology. b i e n s , France is the location of the first
full scale solid waste anaerobic digester and it accepts mixed solid waste.

SPAIN

The pilot biowaste collection program first initiated in December 1990 at the Ciudad
de 10s Periodistas apartment complex still remains an 8,000 resident pilot program.
Although some politicians would like to see the program expand, no funds have been
allocated. The pilot program has not been used effectively as a model. A full scale
biowaste collection program in Madrid is seen to be too expensive due to the fact that
crowded conditions dictate daily waste collection. Reducing collection frequency is
considered unthinkable.

The lack of political will from the City to promote biowaste programs seems to be
consistent with the attitudes expressed by national government officials. The Minister of
Public Works has publically stated that Spain must develop first and deal with the
environment second. The Minister of Agriculture has done little or nothing to promote
composting.

Nevertheless, a biowaste collection program for 40,000 residents outside of Barcelona

will be starting funded by the Catalunian (regional) government. Their landfill space is
much more limited than the rest of the country. They chose a decentralized biowaste
composting system after having a bad experience with an mixed waste composting facility.
In addition, a biowaste program has been operating for over a year in a rural area in
another region of Spain. They have been successful collecting biowaste on a weekly basis.

A mixed waste composting facility in the region of Galicia was shut down after two
months of operation due to lack of markets for the compost.

II-15
ONTARIO

Agricultural researchers led the fight to tighten compost quality standards to reflect
rural area soil quality while also considering the phytotoxicity of certain metals. These
compost standards are not questioned at this point. The only way to achieve this level of
quality is through source separated composting. Mixed waste compost is considered
acceptable for nothing other than landfill cover. Hence, no mixed waste composting
facilities exist or are in the planning phases in Ontario.

Ontario law requires source separation of waste, targeting recyclables first and then
expanding to biowaste. The waste management hierarchy of source reduction before
recycling and composting is respected. The Ministry of Environment is heavily promoting
home composting and is spending millions of dollars on subsidizing bin purchases. The
Ministry has provided large grants for four large pilot biowaste programs, including the well
known Guelph and Mississauga projects to gather data on collection systems. Although
participation rates are not as high as for curbside recycling programs there seems to be little
question that some sort of biowaste collection will happen in the future. More research will
establish the most cost effective collection and processing techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear trend away from mixed waste composting toward biowaste programs
in many European countries and Ontario. A pattern emerges when looking at the degree
of advancement of biowaste programs in each country. Where there is commitment from
the top, either central or regional government, biowaste programs are flourishing. In
particular, the Netherlands has a National Biowaste Action Program to coordinate research
and information dissemination on this issue. The Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland have
national laws requiring provision of residential biowaste collection. Biowaste research in
Denmark and Ontario is being coordinated and funded from the national (provincial) level.
Germany can be considered a front runner in the field of biowaste programs, although up
until now, promotion has occured primarily at the state level.

Living conditions and political realities in the U.S. and Europe are not identical,
although there are more similarities between the U.S. and Ontario. The composting
community in the US.can benefit from European experience. To facilitate progress on this
issue, we should promote action at the federal, state and local levels. For example, the
federal level initiatives should include:

Collection of research data from Europe and Ontario;

Development of a research agenda for source separated organics programs;
Setting up of a centralized database and information clearinghouse for
communities, institutions and commercial enterprises that wish to perform
research or start programs;
Coordination of research on collection methods so information gathered can

II-16
 be cumulative rather than reinventing the wheel;
Raising funds for research and to provide technical assistance for start-up
programs.

State level initiatives should include modification of existing regulations to allow for
innovative collection and processing approaches. Since all implementation will happen on
a local level, either through municipal or private sector initiative, we should promote a
variety of biowaste programs to serve as models for others. With commitment from those
of us that are in a position to make it happen, promotion of source separated organics
programs can be effective.

II-17
 Comparative Analysis of Collection Programs and Costs
for Source Separated Organic Composting
Presentation to NRC's Source Separated Composting Symposium
February 25, 1993
St. Louis, MO
By Robert Spencer
Environmental Planning Consultant
Source separated composting of organic waste is becoming well
established in Europe, with pilot and full scale biowaste collection
programs in at least eight countries in 1992. In Germany, 148
communities, with a total population of 11.66 million are served by
separate biowaste collection. Switzerland has 2.3 million persons served
by separate collection, and the Netherlands 1.18 million persons in 186
communities. Denmark has almost 72,000 households connected to a green
system, and Austria at least 9 communities with programs. The United
Kingdom has at least one pilot project, with others planned, and Italy
with at least one program serving 5,000 persons.
In the U.S. there are only two full-scale projects in operation as of
February 1993, although several pilot projects have been conducted or
are planned. In order to learn from the experiences of existing
programs, it is important that the various components of source
separated organic composting programs be studied and documented,
something this research has attempted to accomplish for the collection
portion of the total system.
THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLECTION
One of the most important components of a source separated composting
program is the collection system. Depending on how the collection
program is integrated with collection of landfill and recyclable
materials, collection costs do not necessarily add substantially to
total waste management costs. At the same time, some communities have
experienced a doubling of collection costs. a major concern where
collection accounts for 4 8 % of total system costs as in much of Europe.
Collection is a vital link in a composting system since it impacts on
recycling program participation rates, landfill diversion rates, public
health and nuisance, compost facility capital and operating costs, and
compost quality.
This research identifies the costs of collection in for four full-scale
composting facilities in Minnesota, and presents collection cost
information from two 1992 European studies of composting systems.
Information is also presenteu on types or coiiecrion syscems, as well as
advantages and disadvantages of various organic collection programs.
Like much of the composting industry, collection systems for source
separated food scraps, non-recyclable paper, and other compostable
materials are in developmental stages. Considering the debate over mixed
waste vs. source separated solid waste composting, and the significant
proportion of total waste management costs which stem from collection,

II-18
 there is a need for data about source separated collection costs, as
well as comparisons of the two approaches.

Part I - European Case Studies

The status of source separated organics collection and composting in
Europe is presented in two 1992 reports from Europe. One is by the
Organic Reclamation and Composting Association, ORCA. an European
organization whose mission is to “promote integrated waste management by
building acceptance of the reclamation and re-use of organic waste
materials through the processes of composting and anaerobic digestion.”
In its September 1992 report, entitled Information on Compostina and
Anaerobic Diaestion, (ORCA Technical Publication No. 1). ORCA recognizes
an existing waste disposal crisis, particularly in the more densely
populated areas of mid-Europe (Germany, Holland, Belgium), as evidenced
by the increasing exports of household waste to neighboring countries.
The report states that this situation will not be sustainable due to
political and legislative pressure for wastes to be treated and disposed
of in close proximity to their point of origin. In addition, a new
hierarchy of waste treatment/disposal has been established at European
Community level, resulting in requirements for national authorities to
translate the waste directive into national plans that set targets for
landfill diversion. These targets “will have to be achieved by a major
recovery/recycling effort on a large fraction of the household waste.“
ORCA estimates that 55% of the household waste stream can be recycled
through material recycling and composting.
The purpose of the ORCA technical publication is to provide local
decision-makers with information on the potential of a key treatment
process for the major household waste fraction, the biodegradable
materials, which on their own represent between 40-70% of total
household waste mass. A portion of the report presents information on
collection systems and costs, as discussed in this presentation.
The other report from Europe is entitled ComDostinq, and was prepared by
Helmot Kaiser Consultancy in April 1992 for Novon, a division of Warner
Lambert, manufacturers of biodegradable polymers. The report identifies
the status of source separated organics composting programs in nine
European countries.
COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND FREQUENCY
There are three primary classifications of solid waste and recyclable
materials collection systems in Europe, of which there are many hybrids.
They are classified as:
1. integrated systems- collection of recyclable, compostable,
and residual materials is carried out by the same organization
in one procedural step using the same vehicle. A single
partitioned bin, or several bins may be used.
2. additive systems- recyclable materials are collected in
addition to normal household refuse pick-up by means of
separate vehicles and separate bins.

n-19
 3. drop-off depots- recyclable materials are deposited at
central locations by the waste generator.
All three of these basic approaches are in use for collection of
recyclables and organics. Combinations of materials are varied such that
single substances or mixed substances are collected, which obviously
calls for varying degrees of pre-sorting at the household. Some
variations also include separate household hazardous waste collection,
as with the so-called KGA box in Belgium.
The Kaiser report characterizes the situation as "a confusingly great
number of pick-up and drop-off systems for the collection of these
materials." Some are limited to food waste, some also combine yard and
garden waste, and others include paper.
ORCA estimates that 50-60% of the weight of the total waste stream is
comprised of waste food, vegetables, garden debris, and soiled paper,
and that 25-30% of that organic material can be reclaimed if the
biowaste diversion program is 50% efficient. The Dutch Ministry of
Environment has estimated that the actual yield of biodegradable
materials on a country-wide basis is 50%, a figure which is limited by
"problems with poor comfort level, combined with the near impossibility
of installing two bins in the inner city."
"Comfort level" is the term ORCA uses to refer to nuisance conditions at
the household, particularly odors and flies in the summer, and freezing
of the organic material in winter, which may result from the separation
of organics. In the report, comfort level is one criteria for evaluating
performance of the collection system at the household, and is rated as
either poor, average or high. Poor comfort level may result when
households perceive that keeping the organic material in the household
for up to two weeks between collections will create nuisance conditions.
This impacts directly on separation behavior of the household, and
consequently, putrescible materials are disposed of in the bin
designated for inorganic materials.
Quantities of organic waste collected in biobins range from 41 to 150 kg
per capita per year, based on data from 14 German cities. The smaller
amounts are generally associated with urban areas, with higher amounts
in the suburbs, largely due to greater quantities of garden and yard
trimmings, as well as what Kaiser terms "social structure."
One of the problems identified by ORCA with including garden waste in
the biowaste collection program, is the significant increase of total
waste collected and treated by the municipality. On an annual basis an
increase of 30-5096 of total waste handled can result, with peaks up to
80%. "This increase results in increased composting plant capacity
needed and increased collection costs which must be covered by the
totality of the population, while only those people that possess a
garden benefit." To address this problem the Belgium - Flanders Region
' has recommended switching to smaller 120 liter bins instead of 240 liter
bins, and promotion of backyard and centralized yard waste composting.
The frequency of collection varies greatly from daily in Paris due to
health regulations and lack of space, to every two weeks for many other

n-20
 programs. In some countries public health legislation dictates the
frequency of collection, with almost daily collections required.
ORCA reports that in more than 80% of the cases, biowaste is collected
on alternate weeks in order to not increase collection costs.
The major problem with such bi-weekly collection, as discussed in both
reports, is the creation of nuisance conditions by biobins during warm
weather, specifically "noxious odors and infestation by small
organisms." Both reports conclude that it may be necessary
to pick up bins containing food waste on a weekly basis in some
communities. particularly high-rise areas.
Due to the low comfort level of households where the biobin is collected
bi-weekly, ORCA has found that putrescible materials are disposed of in
the inorganics bin on the weeks when the biobin is not collected. "This
explains the high percentage of kitchen waste that is found in the rest
(inorganic) bin. almost identical to the quantity found in the biobin,
as experienced in many test results in Belgium. Germany, and the
Netherlands."
Kaiser recommends that biowaste be collected only in special pick-up
systems due to "the danger of infection, especially when collecting
kitchen waste. Solutions must be found permitting biowaste bins to be
handled without danger. Large outside biowaste bins are still a problem
insofar as they can create annoying odor when warm, attract insects, and
may pose a danger to playing children. Frequent emptying must be
guaranteed.*'
Some communities use a single bin with a separation baffle which allows
for weekly collection by special trucks that can keep biodegradable
materials separated from the other fraction. Kaiser recommends rotary-
drum garbage trucks for collection of compostables so that mixing and
homogenization of the waste can begin in the collection vehicle.
THE PAPER ADVANTAGE
ORCA describes the optimum biowaste collection system as one which
includes waste papers since some of the problems associated with
biowaste collection can be reduced by optimizing the addition of waste
papers that cannot be reclaimed by the waste paper industry. Recognizing
that comfort level at the household is "key to motivation of the
household", ORCA recommends that putrescible materials be wrapped in
paper, or special biodegradable bags, to prevent odor generation and
make the food waste less accessible to insects and other vermin. A major
advantage of including paper is that malodorous liquids are absorbed to
some extent by paper. A further benefit is a cleaner bin, which should
reduce the "current practice that is emerging where bins are sprayed
with pesticides and deodorants in order to control the problem."
Another advantage of combining waste paper and bio-polymer bags with
food waste is the overall increase in amount of material collected and
diverted from landfills. In the case studies presented by ORCA, total
diversion from landfill was increased by approximately lo%, from 45% to
55%, when non-recyclable paper was included in the biobins.

II-21
 Acknowledging the sometimes conflicting goals of minimizing commingling
of recyclable materials and maximizing household participation, ORCA
concludes that "year-round collection of biodegradables will only be
achievable if due attention is given to the comfort level of the
household. This is achievable on condition that a certain dogmatic
approach to the purity of biowaste is relinquished in favor of the
realities of the household situation."
FEEDSTOCK QUALITY
Both Kaiser and ORCA report that the biobin system results in an
improved feedstock quality for composting comparedto a single bin mixed
waste system. The most common contaminants are plastic bags which are
used in the household to prepack wet kitchen waste in order to keep the
kitchen bucket and biobin clean. In rural and low density suburban areas
with single family housing, such physical contamination levels are as
low as 2 % of total material. In the cities the level of contamination
can be 10-12%, "mainly due to lack of motivation of certain households
and lack of peer pressure in the anonymous living conditions associated
with high rise apartment blocks."
Kaiser reports that the degree of contamination in 15 German community
programs averaged only 2% foreign matter, with less than 4 % in Munich
metro during a 9 month trial. The report strongly recommends that source
separated biowaste collection programs emphasize public education and
public relations to get optimal pre-sorting in order to minimize foreign
matter.
Acknowledging that contamination is a fact of life in source separated
programs, ORCA calls attention to the type of technology necessary for
removing the inorganic contaminants at the composting facility.
For source separated composting programs, it is sometimes advocated that
the capital cost of the compost plant can be reduced by omitting
mechanical separation equipment. The ORCA report points out that since
capital costs for mechanical equipment at composting plants constitute
18-20% of total system costs, to omit some equipment based on
expectations that minimal amounts of inorganic contaminants will be
found in the biobins may only reduce total system costs by 6-7%. The
report cautions that not including separation equipment "can have a
drastic negative impact on the plant operation and the quality of the
end product and should be avoided."
Therefore, ORCA makes a case for a well-designed composting plant that
can eliminate nuisance material in the refining stage.
COLLECTION COSTS
ORCA reports all costs in ECU dollars and Kaiser reports costs in Deutch
Marks (DM).
The ORCA study looked at collection and hauling costs, as well as
treatment and disposal costs, with these costs further subdivided into
fixed and variable costs. Their basis for collection system cost
comparisons is a wheeled bin of mixed waste, coll@cted weekly.

II-22
 For source separation programs which collect 2 bins per household on
alternate weeks, the costs are comparable to the weekly collection costs
for one bin of mixed waste, for an average collection cost of $59 per
ton. Both scenarios attribute 4 8 % of total system costs to collection,
the largest share of system costs. This large potion of costs
illustrates why the issue of collection is so important in Europe.
The base average cost per year for a household using landfill disposal
and no recycling is $106 per year, with obviously no diversion from
landfill.
ORCA presents 10 case studies of different waste handling and disposal
systems in Europe. Each case study is based on information from a number
of communities with that particular type of waste handling system. All
of the case studies are compared to the base system where all household
waste is collected weekly and goes to a landfill. The ORCA case studies
looked at alternate week collection of organics, with a variety of
arrangements for including yard trimmings and non-recyclable paper.
Recyclables are taken by households to centralized drop-off centers so
there is no curbside collection of these materials in the ORCA analysis.
As shown on Table 1, the highest diversion rate, 9 0 % , was accomplished
with an integrated composting and incineration system using one bin. In
that scenario, glass and paper is dropped off at central collection
depots, household hazardous waste is periodically collected at curbside
(no frequency given), and all other waste is collected weekly in one bin
for sorting at a centralized mixed waste composting plant. The screened
materials are sent to an incinerator where heat recovery is credited
with adding 30% to the landfill diversion rate. This one bin system
costs the average household $145 per year. This one bin scenario assumed
that a marketable compost would be produced, something which has not
been widely demonstrated in Europe.
The second highest diversion rate, as shown on Table 1. is with two
bins: an organic bin for non-recyclable paper, food and vegetable waste,
and a bin for non-recyclable inorganic materials. Grass clippings and
shrubs are not permitted in the biobin, but are to be composted in
backyards or at a green waste composting plant. The inorganic bin is not
sorted and goes directly to the incinerator. This two bin system results
in an 8 9 % diversion rate compared to the one bin system at PO%, but
costs the household one dollar more at $146 per year, the 2nd highest
cost of all ten systems.
The highest cost was where all waste went to incineration for energy
recovery, at $153 per year, with a diversion rate of 70%.
ORCA's comments on collection programs for mixed waste composting
systems are that one bin collected weekly is most comfortable for the
household, and might be the only system applicable in densely populated
areas. As for comfort level of households with the two bin system, it is
not as good as one bin, but can be substantially improved where paper is
included in the biobin.
A 60% diversion rate was attained with a one bin mixed waste composting
system, with screened material going to landfill. The total cost was

II-23
 TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ORCA ORGANIC COLLECTION CASE STUDIES
Diversion Rates From Landfill and Costs
(Recyclable Materials Taken to Centralized Drop-off Centers)

One bin to mixed waste $145 90%

composting plant; screened
material to incinerator.
Two bins: one bin with food/ $146 89%
non-recyclable paper; one
bin with non-recyclable
inorganic materials.
One bin to incinerator. $153 70%

One bin to mixed waste $127 60%

composting plant; screened
material to landfill.
Two bins: one bin with all $144 54%
biodegradable materials to
compost plant: one bin with
other material to landfill.
Two bins: one bin for food $123 41%
and garden waste (no paper);
one bin with other material
to landfill.
Two bins: one bin for food, $142 45%
garden and yard waste; one
bin with other material to
landfill.

II-24
 $ 1 2 7 per year, with collection costs contributing between $39 and $50
per year. In many cases this is a volume reduction strategy producing
little marketable humus.
The diversion rates for the two bin source separation program taking all
biodegradable waste in the biobin was 54%, at a cost of $144 per ear.
Collection costs for an average household were higher becaure of
allowing all yard trimmings to be included in the biobin, at a c ~ s tof
$49 to $63 per year.
The other two source separated composting case studies used two bins,
but did not allow paper. Their diversion rates were about 46%. The
program which allowed garden waste and yard trimmings had a cost of $142
per year, compared to $123 per year where the yard trimmings were not
allowed in the biobin.
The cost studies in the Raiser report are based on programs in 15 cities
in Germany. On an average the report found that with weekly pick-up of
a 240 liter bin which would serve 8 inhabitants, the collection cost is
92 DM/ton. With alternate week collection the cost is 81 DM/ton. Total
costs are 202 DM/ton for weekly collection, and 190 DM/ton for
alternating weeks. To provide those bins costs 14,000 DM for every 1000
inhabitants, or about 112 DM per bin.
DISCUSSION
The biobin system cost the average household $144 per year, comparable
to $ 1 4 5 per year for a single bin. In those cases the cases, biobins
were collected on alternate weeks in order to not increase collection
costs. Some cases used a single bin with a separation baffle which
allows for weekly collection by special trucks that can keep
biodegradable materials separated from the rest of the fraction. As the
numbers showed, by including yard and garden trimmings there is a
significant increase in total waste collected, amount diverted from
landfiils, and costs as well.
On the negative side, alternate week collection may create nuisance and
hygienic problems at the household and for the collection crews. ks a
result, the German Agency for Public Health has issued a recommendation
to return to weekly collection of putrescible materials. The health and
nuisance problem can be significantly reduced by commingling ncz-
recyclable paper with food waste. The advantages are an increase in
overall quantities of waste reclaimed, and increased comfort level for
the household.
Kaiser concludes that the most favorable system is collection of the two
waste fractions with a single dumping procedure using a two chamber
vehicle on a weekly basis. However, they report that capital costs for
such a system are high, although no costs are given. However, these
costs must be balanced against the cost of an extra collection.
The report compared organic drop off systems with collection programs,
and found that collection was 3-4 times more costly than drop off
programs. An extra collection for biowaste and recyclables can double
collection costs.

11-25
 Part 2 - Minnesota Case Studies
The author of this presentation published a report on collection costs
at four Minnesota composting facilities in the December 1992 issue of
BioCycle. Entitled, "Collection Options for Mixed and Source Separated
Organics", that article compares two and three bin solid waste
collection and disposal costs at two source separated facilities, and
:wo mixed waste facilities. Portions of that article are presented
below, but for more detailed information the reader should review the
original article.
For the purpose of this presentation, a two bin collection system
consists of separating recyclables from MSW at the source, while three
bin separation adds a third container for organics.
SIMILAR COMMUNITIES
The costs of collection and disposal were identified for three bin
collection of source separated organics, recyclables, and landfill items
at both the Fillmore County and Swift County composting facilities. In
addition, collection and disposal costs were identified for the t w o bin
collection of mixed waste and recyclables at both the East Central and
Prairieland composting facilities.
As shown on Table 2 , the Fillmore and Swift facilities have
significantly smaller capacities at 11 and 40 tons per day,
respectively, compared to 250 tpd at the East Central facility and 100
tpd at Prairieland. Reflecting the smaller capacity, the capital costs
of the Fillmore and Swift plants are $1.5 and $1.8 million compared to
$11.2 and $8.6 for East Central and Prairieland.

The fact that these four, rural MSW compost facilities are located in
the same state afforded a measure of comparability t o the research
considering the numerous variables associated with each facility and its
waste collection. Some of the commonalities among the four regional
composting facilities and their collection systems include, public
ownership, state subsidies of capital costs, annual state recycling
subsidies, state composting and recycling regulations, and state motor
vehicle regulations.
A comparison of the demographic characteristics of the four regions
revealed comparable average family income, poverty, education,
population and population density for the nine counties served by the
four composting facilities. This indicates that the service areas for
the four composting facilities are fairly similar in that these are
rural counties with small cities and towns, with most under 1,000
persons.
Although these are rural communities, the density of development in the
cities and towns is typical of many suburban areas throughout North
America, with a mix of commercial and residential development. Most of
the population in these small Minnesota communities are served by
curbside collection of garbage and recyclables, with outlying residents
relying on either curbside collection or drop-off centers.

II-26
 TABLE 2

COMPOST FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Filmore 11 11 $40 $1.5 $586,682** 1987 $186,722

Swift 40 16 $80 $1.8 $820,067 1990 $109,067
E. Central 250 150 $77 $11.2 $2,000,000 1991 $0

Prairieland 100 52 $50 $8.6 $2,000,000 1991 $0

* Tons per day

** Includes a loan of $48,240.

II-27
 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

For each of the four facilities, Table 2 presents the start-up date,
design capacity, average amount of waste received, tip fee, capital
cost, and amount of subsidy. All four facilities are publicly owned, and
three are also publicly operated, with only the East Central facility
privately operated.
Both the Fillmore and Swift county facilities rely on the waste
generator to separate the waste stream into three sorts: recyclables,
compostables, and landfill items.
At Fillmore County the bags of compostables and landfill items are
opened and manually sorted to remove recyclables which were not sorted
out at the point of generation. Sorters also remove inorganic items from
the compostable materials prior to shredding of the material.
Recyclables are manually sorted and processed for markets at the
facility.
Residents of Swift County are instructed to place compostables loose in
"an adequate container such as a box or can." If a plastic bag is used
it is to be a clear plastic bag which is untied and placed in a
container "to allow the contents to be easily removed for composting."
This diverts plastic garbage bags from the shredder, and the compost.
Other than this bag sorting step and a magnet for ferrous recovery,
Swift County does not sort compostables or landfill items. The contents
of the compostables only bags are fed through the shredder. Commingled
recyclables are collected by the county and manually sorted at the
facility.
At the East Central composting facility a combination of mechanical and
hand sorting is employed to remove recyclables from the mixed waste. At
Prairieland the only recyclable material sorted from the waste stream is
ferrous metal pulled off by a magnet. Although both regions have
recycling programs, neither facility processes collected recyclables.
Recycling is mandatory in both Fillmore and Swift counties for residents
and businesses, and haulers are required to collect recyclables. A
mixture of voluntary and mandatory recycling is found in the seven
counties served by the East Central and Prairieland compost facilities.
CREATIVE COLLECTION
Fillmore County - Haulers collect three streams of materials in a
variety of ways. Some communities have their materials collected on
different days, which means that the hauler makes two trips to each
house each week. Compostables are collected weekly, and on another day
of the week either recyclables or landfill items are collected biweekly.
The monthly charge for waste collection includes curbside collection of
commingled recyclables.
The hauler serving the town of Mabel's 350 homes uses a packer truck to
collect compostable materials in white bags. On the same day a one ton
truck collects the landfill items in blue colored bags. When the small
truck is full, the bags are transferred to a roll-off container, and
later loaded onto the rear of the packer truck with the compostables.
This adds an extra weighing step at the composting facility since the
truck is weighed when it arrives, the landfill bags are dumped, the
truck is weighed a second time, the compostables are dumped, and the
empty truck is weighed. This allows for charging the differential tip
fee of $40/ton for compostables, and S7O/ton for landfill materials. For
loads of unsorted waste the county charges S125/ton in order to
discourage delivery of mixed loads.
Another variation on collection in Fillmore county is the hauler who
collects all three materials from 888 homes in Spring Valley on the same
day. A packer truck collects the bags of compostable items, and a
recycling truck towing a custom made trailer dumpster collects
recyclables and landfill items. To distinguish between the two different
bags, the hauler uses a “ballot bag“ on which homeowners mark the
appropriate box next to the word “compost“ or “landfill“. The commingled
recyclables go into the recycling truck and the landfill bags into the
trailer dumpster. Once the trailer dumpster is full, it is dropped off
at a central location where another packer truck picks up the contents
of the trailer dumpster. Sometimes the packer truck meets the recycling
truck with trailer dumpster on the street to transfer the landfill
items. Once all the material is collected the two packer trucks and the
recycling truck drive to the composting facility. The hauler estimates
that compostable materials make up 50 percent of the material collected,
with recyclables and landfill items at 25 percent each.
The town of Lanesboro provides municipal collection of compostables on
Fridays, with landfill bags collected on the first and third Thursday,
and recyclables collected on the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month. The same packer truck is used for compostables and landfill
items, and a pick-up truck with trailer is used to collect recyclables.
Swift County- The major difference in the collection system at Swift
County is that the county collects commingled recyclables in the towns
and cities through a contract with a private company. However, beyond
the boundaries of the cities, haulers collect recyclables from
commercial and residential accounts in a trailer behind the garbage
truck.
In Swift County bags of compostables and bags of landfill materials are
collected weekly in two different colored bags and commingled in the
same packer truck. Trucks are weighed at the composting facility and
charged $80/ton. After dumping on the tipping floor the two types of
bags are manually sorted. There is no differential tip fee at Swift
County for the landfill and compostable materials, although the County
charges $l2O/ton for an unsorted load.
East Central and Prairieland- The collection systems for the East
Central and Prairieland facilities are similar to programs used for
landfills and incinerators in that one vehicle collects the can or bag
of mixed waste. Recyclables are also collected curbside or dropped off
at transfer stations in the 7 counties served by these two compost
facilities.

II-29
 COLLECTION COSTS
In 1991 there were more than 30 public or private MSW haulers operating
in the nine counties served by these four composting facilities. Based
on a telephone survey of 2 2 haulers or communities, information was
obtained about typical collection costs per household in each of the
nine counties.
The average cost per household in the five counties served by the
prairieland composting facility is $10 to $12 per month. For residents
in the service area of the East Central compost plant the costs of
collection are between $18 and $22 per month.
For the two source separation facilities the cost is between $11 and $15
per month in Fillmore County, and about $13 per month in Swift County.
A comparison of the two facilities with the highest tipping fees (East
Central at $ 7 7 per ton and Swift County at $80 per ton) shows that a
household which sets out an average of 3 bags of material per week pays
$21 per month in Swift County, slightly less than the $22 per month in
the East Central region. For an average of 2 bags of garbage per week
the cost is less at Swift County at $13 per month compared to $21 per
month at East Central. Factoring in the county's cost for collection of
recyclables in Swift County increases the cost by only $8.76 per
household per year. This low cost results from a contract with a private
' company for $24,400 per year to collect recyclables from 2,800
households in the cities of the county.
* The similar or lower cost of the three strcam system in Swift County
compared to East Central was not the case when comparing costs at the
two facilities with the lowest tip fees. The Fillmore County tip fee is
$40 per ton for compostables, 2nd Prairieland is $50 per ton. In this
case the collection and dispoc3l costs are somewhat higher for Fillmore
than for Prairieland, with $15 per month for 2 bags per week ($18 for 3
bags) at Fillmore, and $ 9 per month for 2 bags per week ($11 for 3 bags)
at Prairieland.
However, when the monthly cost for an average household in Fillmore
County is compared to the average costs in the East Central counties,
Fillmore County is less costly for either two or three bins per week.
Consequently, both Fillmore and Swift are less costly than East Central,
but more costly than Prairieland.
No attempt was made to compare hauling costs based on differences in
hauling distances to the compost facilities, recycling facilities, and
landfills.
SUBSIDIZED OPERATIONS
When comparing the collection and disposal costs at these facilities it
is important to recognize that all four plants received state grants to
subsidize the capital costs, as shown in Table 2. The percent of total
capital costs which are provided by the state subsidies is greater for
the two source separation facilities since they have smaller capital
costs. This is due to the fact that Minnesota provides grants of 50

II-30
 percent of capital costs of the facilities up to a maximum of $2
million. Therefore, for the East Central and Prairieland facilities with
their much higher capital costs, the relative percentage of the
subsidies is less than at Fillmore and Swift. However, quantifying the
impact of each of the four composting plant's capital cost subsidies on
collection and disposal costs for the average household will have to be
the subject of future research.
On the basis of county population, the state also provides semi-.nnual
"SCORE" grants to each county to support recycling programs. These funds
are used for education, collection, household hazardous waste, yard
waste and administration. Since all counties receive SCORE funds, it is
likely that all of the counties with publicly owned composting
facilities are subsidizing at least some portion of their operation with
these funds.
In addition to the state subsidies, Fillmore County assesses home owners
and businesses a service fee of approximately $15 per year per household
to subsidize the composting/recycling facility operation. Likewise,
Swift County subsidies its composting/recycling facility to the tune of
$110,000 per year for payment of the bond. In addition, the County makes
up any operating c o s t shortfall, which amounted to about $8,000 in 1991.
Swift County estimates that without the county subsidies and the state
SCORE funds the tipping fee at the composting plant would be
approximately $125 per ton.
Like both source separated composting plants, both mixed MSW facilities
depend on operational subsidies from the counties they serve. For the
East Central facility, which completed it first year of operation in
August 1992, all five counties contributed an extra $3.5 million to
support the operations of the East Central Solid Wast. Commission.
Complicating this analysis is the fact that the subsidy is applied not
only to the composting facility, h u t other aspects of the Commission's
operation as well, such as transfer stations, two landfills,
consultants, and staff salaries.
The Prairieland composting facility is also subsidized by service fees
charged in both counties in its service area. The fee is a sliding scale
based on distance to the composting facility, bur averages about $30 per
household per year and $ 5 0 per business. Without the county subsidies
the tip fee would be between $66 and $70 per ton if the facility were
operating at full capaciti. However, since it is operating at about one
half capacity, the tip fee would have to be substantially higher than
$70 per ton if there were no county subsidies.

DISCUSS ION
A three bin source separated organics collection program can have
equivalent or even less cost to an average household than a two bin
mixed MSW collection system. The research also revealed that collection
costs are driven by a variety of factors and that more work needs to be
done to quantify these costs more accurately.
At Swift County the low cost of collecting source separated organics is
partly due to the fact that the county provides for separate collection

II-31
 of recyclables in the cities and towns instead of leaving that task to
waste haulers. By co-collecting the compostable and landfill bags with
the same vehicle, only one trip to each house is required each week, and
therefore the cost of collection is not significantly increased.
The reason a three bin system did not cost more at Fillmore County is
that haulers have adapted their collection systems so that landfill
destined materials are collected at the same time as the recyclables by
pulling a trailer behind the recycling truck. In other communities, an
alternating schedule is used such that compostable materials are picked
up weekly, and recyclables and landfill items biweekly. In this case
there are only two extra trips to each household each month, rather than
four.
Although collection and disposal costs are identified for the Minnesota
projects, the "true" costs of collection and disposal are shrouded in a
maze of state and county grants and subsidies. The picture of total
costs is further clouded by a lack of readily available cost breakdowns
at each facility for the various components of the total waste
management system, which includes landfills, transfer stations, staff
salaries, consultant services, and waste hauling.
Consequently, the costs which are presented are less than the true total
costs for solid waste management and disposal. Nevertheless, the fact
that this research evaluated composting systems in the same state levels
the playing field to some extent. In this light, the reported findings
' are a useful starting point for comparison of two and three bin
collection systems in operation at MSW composting facilities.
A comparison based on facility costs is complicated by the fact that all
of the facilities report they are not getting as much waste as they
should due to diversion to less costly disposal facilities, on-site
burial, or use of illegal burn barrels by rural residents. For East
Central and Prairieland, diversion to other disposal facilities is
causing substantial financial difficulties, and county subsidies are
making up the shortfall.
CONCLUSIONS
The European studies indicate that a biobin and inorganic bin collection
system can have the same cost as a single bin system in those cases
where the biobin is collected bi-weekly, alternating with the "other"
bin. On the other hand, in some communities, collection costs almost
double when biowaste is collected weekly. This is a significant cost
increase considering that collection costs may comprise 4 8 % of the total
waste handling and disposal costs.
Significant problems have been associated with some of the European
source separated collection programs, particularly the occurrence of
odor and vermin in biobins which do not include soiled paper, and which
. are collected every two weeks. As a result, there is a decrease in the
comfort level at the household, accompanied by a decrease in
participation and landfill diversion rates.
So far the European experience has found that it may not be practical to
implement biobin collection programs in densely populated urban areas
due to the lack of space for storing an extra bin, and the health and
nuisance implications.
Despite these problems, biobin collection programs are successfully
operating in many European communities, and when combined with other
recycling programs, accomplishing landfill diversion goals of 50% or
more.
In contrast to the European projects, both Minnesota source separated
organic programs collect organics weekly for comparable costs to
collection programs at a mixed waste collection and composting facility.
Such cost-effective collection of source separated organics is made
possible by integrating the organics collection into existing collection
programs for recyclables and landfill-destined materials.
Hopefully, this preliminary l o o k at collection and disposal costs at
U.S. and European composting facilities will set the stage for more
detailed future evaluation, particularly a total systems approach which
identifies the full impact of source separation and mixed waste
collection, including fuel consumption, air pollution, landfill
diversion, recycling rates, compost quality, and marketing success with
the humus.
NOTE: The author thanks the waste haulers and communities who cooperated
with the study, as well as the following persons for their contributions
to this report: Neil Bremseth (Solid Waste Administrator, Fillmore
County), Scott Collins (Facility Manager, Swift County), Dawn Gorres
(Minnesota Office of Waste Management), Jon Hutchings (Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency), William Greggs, (Proctor & Gamble), Dennis
Hanselman (Director, Prairieland Solid Waste Board), Bert Lemmes
(Executive Director, ORCA), Steven Mojo (Novon), and Patrick Story
(Facility Manager, East Central Solid Waste Commission). This research
was sponsored by Novon Products, Division of Warner Lambert, developers
of NOVON specialty polymers, a biodegradable starch based material.
,oert Spencer is an environmental planning consultant in Dalton,
Massachusetts, and a former contributing editor of BioCycle.

II-33
 Composting Source Separated Organic Material:
Larry's Markets Composting Case Study
by

Brant Rogers
Envimnmental Maim Manager
Larry's Markets
14900 Interurban Ave. s.
Seattle, Washington 98168
206 243-2951

Summary
Lany's Markets began a program of fmd waste composting as a partnership with Iddings. Inc. in Kent,
Washingtoninlate 1991. During 1992 thepmgramwasupandedtaindudeallfivestorrsinthegmowychain
and a m u n t e d for camposting approximately 350 tans of p d u a and floral wastc during the year. New
recycling pmgrams in the stores which included glass, aluminum.steel cans, HDPE plastics, PETE plastics,
LDPE wraps, and mixed paper removed an additional 90 tons fmm the waste svCam. Together with an already
established program ofreqciingconugated cardboard and rendering ofmeat scraps, fish scrapsand cmking
oil Larry's has surpassed the 50% recycling rate set by local and regional govemments as a goal in the near
future. Cost savings from waste reduction programs in 1992 amount to approximately $29,000, abaut a third
from composting and the remaining from sourre reduction and recycling. The program has not had a large
impact on labor in the stores and is generally very well accepted by employees.

Introduction

The Environmental Affairs Program a t Larry's Markets embraces all aspects of

the company's effect on the natural and social environment. The company's policy
with regard to environmental issues is to reduce, reuse, recycle and rethink as
well as to provide educational activities and support environmental programs in
local communities. Since early 1990 Larry's programs have involved a variety of
on-going audits of solid waste, energy, water, toxics, and products, while opera-
tions to address the results of audits have been implemented in many of these
areas since late 199 1. Organic landscaping, organic foods, buying recycled prod-
ucts, a packaging reduction program, and education programs are also being
d-idoped.
Solid waste programs including recycling, composting and source reduction
were the aim of extensive audits in 1991 and the primary focus of implementation
activities in 1992. Audits showed that of nearly 3000 tons of waste produced in
1991 over 2000 tons consisted of garbage that was landfilled, about 800 tons was
recycled corrugated cardboard and over 100 tons was sent to a rendering
plant.(fig. 1) I0-C- I
Audits also revealed
that of the portion
landfilled, about half
could be recovered. l l ~ ~ , " i M " l *
UkCUb",
This included glass, ' 91 ' 92
aluminum, mixed pa-
per, plastics, and food
Figure 1. Characterization of waste stream at all five Larry's Markets
waste. beforewastereductionprogramsin 1991 (Ien)andafter,in1992 (right]

II-34
 Composting and Recycling

Larry's Markets and 1ddings;Inc. worked with Fibers International to begin a

composting pilot in late 1991. Eventually a system of 90 gallon totes and one and
one-half yard steel dumpsters was used to collect the produce and floral waste
which was picked u p once per week by a rear load dump truck.
Produce and floral waste was source separated in the store and in most cases
was put in tubs taken out to the pickup area once or twice a day. The volume of
compostables grew quickly as the program progressed. (fig. 2) 349 tons of food
waste was hauled during 1992 though a number of tons were hauled and not
weighed during the early part of the program.
A comprehensive recycling program began
in the stores a t the same time as the
composting program. Working with Fibers
International, Larry's set u p systems to collect
glass bottles, aluminum, poly coated paper
cartons, steel cans, HDPE plastics, PETE
plastics and mixed paper. Materials were
collected throughout the stores from check , .. , , , , , , , , , , . ,
stands to offices and bakeries. 90 gallon
recycling
- - totes were labeled for either mixed Figure 2. Number of tons of food waste hauled
p r month at all 5 Larry's Markets
paper or cans, bottles, etc.
I An additional program to recover LDPE
pallet wrap was begun with Associated Gro-
cers during the same time period. Approxi-
mately 13 tons of wrap was recovered in this
program. Pallet recycling has also been un-
dertaken through Associated Grocers.
Other new waste reduction programs in
place during the same period include such
activities as polystyrene foam packing, plastic
Figure 3. Number oftons of garbage hauled to
landfrll from all 5 Larry's Markets. January 199 1 bucket donations, and increased food bank
to October 1992 donations.
I Comoort
Recycling and waste reduction have
significantly reduced the amount of waste
going to the landfill in 1992. (fig. 3) A
comparison of waste streams showed that
about 600 tons less waste went to the
landfill in 1992 than in 1991. The major-
ity of this was a result of composting while
the remainder was from recycling and Figure 4. Percentage of reductlon m landfill
other waste reduction measures. (fig. 4) stream ui 1992 by type of waste reductlon
Appmxlamtely 600 tons total

II-35
 costs

The Larry's solid waste management program was very effective in reducing
costs during 1-992 accounting for savings of nearly $29,000. Reductions came
from three general categories of new waste reduction activities; composting, recy-
cling and a miscellaneous category which includes unmeasured activities like
vendor waste avoidance, small volume recycling like polystyrene packkg, pallet
recycling and underestimates of other recycling activities. Composting &counted
for approximately 32% of the savings. (fig. 5)
m
Landfill tipping fees were raised to over Mkelaneou
65 dollars a ton in 1992 making cost avoid-
ance a major incentive to reduce waste.
With hauling fees and local taxes the cost
was over $95 per ton and with compactor
maintenance and cost of electricity the cost 0 Paletwrap
Der ton of landfill waste is about $100 for
Larry's Markets. The average cost for the
ngum 5. Percentage of reduction in iosts to
combined tipping fee and hauling of compost landfd in 1992 by type or duction.
was about $65 per ton and is not subject to APP-W $29,000total.
tax.

Labor and Employee Acceptance

Like many new programs the solid waste reduction program encountered the
resistance of old habits. Virtually every conversation with managers and employ-
ees before the beginning of the program included mild to extreme concern about
additional labor and hastles. Almost without exception the activities of
composting and recycling are now regarded as normal and are accomplished with
littie or none of the extra labor feared before the program began. Many now say
that it would be difficult to go back to the old ways of throwing everything away.
Indeed this program has been a definite source of pride for many of Larry's em-
ployees. They know that virtuaily no other grocery company in our region or in
the country does more in this regard.

Conclusions

Reduction of solid waste through composting, recycling and source reduction

has been a very cost effect and socially profitable activity for Larry's's Markets.
With the cost for waste disposal continuing to rise and with employee and cus-
tomer awareness of environmental issues a t an all time high the program has
been a natural activity for Larry's Markets. Perhaps more to the point is that busi-
ness and for that matter society in general is entering an era where accounting
will involve the responsibility for natural and human resources along with dollars
on th bottom line and Larry's is one of the companies beginning this type of ac-
counting.
II-36
 Removing Obstacles to Source Separated Composting
Through Dialogue and Partnership

Jan Beyea, Chief Scientist

National Audubon Society

Composting is important to the National Audubon Society because composted materials can be
utilized by farms and commercial forests, helping to restore our depleted, eroded soils. If done
correctly, composting fits in naturally with recycling and has the potential to become the next
big step forward for the environmental movement since recycling gained popularity. Audubon
is actively working to promote source separated rather than mixed municipal solid waste
composting. Audubon is opposed to mixed MSW composting because we are concerned that
without increased source reduction of household hazardous waste 0and a very good HHW
separation program, the public may refuse to use the r i a l product, since the compost may be
contaminated with toxic metals and other chemicals, leading to contaminated soils.

In an effort to develop source separated composting, Audubon worked with Procter & Gamble,
other industry partners and the local government in Connecticut to devise a composting
experiment. The experiment looked at integrating source separated composting into a community
recycling program. The experiment involved 500 households and demonstrated that 30 percent
of household waste could be composted. Additional sources of compost for the experiment
included food waste from local McDonald’s restaurants and a representative amount of yard
waste left over from the previous season.

For the residential part of the experiment, compostables included food scraps (including meat),
soiled paper, animal feces in the form of cat litter, human feces in the form of used diapers, yard
waste and dry paper packaging that was estimated by environmental economists to not be
generally recyclable within ten years. The experiment did not include paper that already was,
or might soon be, recyclable in the Connecticut area, including newspapers, magazines, junk mail
and dry cardboard. Audubon wanted a broad range of materials to be included in the experiment,
including plastic coated juice cartons, to determine the full composting potential in the residential
sector. Later, the composters could recommend restrictions on allowable materials if, for
instance, plastic residue could not be screened out.

In future projects, Audubon may experiment with other definitions of residential compostables
and may include a broader group of commercial waste, including food processing waste.
However, the key issue with this experiment, as with any other, is economics. Future projects
will focus on ways to integrate source separated composting with recycling so it is efficient and
cost-effective. These projects will be camed out in partnership with the entire grocery industry
by working with the Food Marketing Institute and/or the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

This symposium offers an unprecedented opportunity to engage in joint fact finding, to learn the
pitfalls seen by various constituencies, and to fertilize thinking on all sides of the source
separated composting spectrum. While engaging in our discussion, we must keep in mind the
environmental uncertainties associated with source separated composting and whether they are

II-37
an obstacle to source separated composting. Issues to consider include questioning whether
contaminant HHW or heavy metals are inadvertently added to compost, if dioxin from paper is
a problem and if there are any other chemical or biological problems that should be considered.

Audubon's approach to these issues is a comparative one. We look at the net change 7 soil
concentration if there is a switch to compost and the long term, steady state of soil and pare
tests on compost with tests on real world soils. The current agricultural soils are rom
perfect. Compost used on agricultural lands may represent an improvement, even if the ipost
itself is not comparable to pre-human soils. Similarly, suburban and urban soils call De so
contaminated that even compost from mixed solid waste would lead to an improvement if mixed
with these soils.

For dioxins, the Audubon research to date suggests that in general, the amount of dioxins in
compost will be less than in US. soil, due to the fact that airborne dioxins are deposited from
the air onto soil. Audubon is still in the process of extending this research to cover all forms of
dioxins. Additionally, toxic heavy metals detected in source separated compost are much lower
than WA's allowable pollutant limit (APL) numbers for sewage sludge. Lead levels in compost
are three times lower than the ALP, and the levels are even lower for mercury and cadmium.
It should be noted that some metal amounts are higher than levels in rural soils. This also raises
some ecological questions. Because compost is actually low in some types of metals,
supplements might have to be added to match natural soils or to satisfy farmers that nutrients
were sufficient to maximize crop production. The amount of mercury in source separated
compost is well below FPA sludge standards but well above concentrations in rural soils.

The following chart provides the lead content in various soils and compost in parts per million
(PPm):

Parts Der million

I - 1
~~

Median US Rural Soil 16 1

Yard Waste 30-70
Source SeDarated c a " s t 70-110

MSW Compost with Metals 200-300

Separation

I
=A's ProDosed Standard 300

I -
MSW Compost, No Metals
Separation
500-900
1
Urban Soils 100-lo00

II-38
Although lead levels from the Connecticut experiment were much lower than those generally
associated with mixed waste composting, Audubon wants to see these levels lowered through
source reduction and source separation of lead-containing materials. We believe that there is a
low risk to human health from lead and other metals, yet there is concern about the long-term
ecological risks of increasing soil levels of lead and mercury. Audubon is particularly concerned
about the long-term ecological risk of possibly increasing lead levels by a factor of 20. However,
Audubon does not see a problem in proceeding with source separated composting at lead levels
found in the Connecticut experiment (80-120 ppm), as long as composting is being developed
on a relatively modest scale and we begin to investigate and reduce sources of lead and mercury
now.

For long term, unrestricted application of compost on a wide scale, Audubon wants to lower the
lead levels, control the application rate or else find out that the steady-state levels of such
contaminants in soil will be less than 100 ppm. As a long term response to lead contamination,
Audubon intends to identify the source of lead in source separated composc see if input
restrictions can help, for example, by restricting big ticket items like wine bottle wraps; look into
the kinds of mechanical separation that might be useful; and research steady-state equilibrium soil
levels. Audubon would advocate taking a similar, problem solving approach when considering
any other possible contaminants effecting human health and the environment. If there is a
problem, we would look for the source of the contaminant and work with the community to keep
it out of the wet bag as well as the manufacturer to keep it out of the product.

In considering other environmental questions about source separated compost, Audubon is in the
process of examining compost for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides and other toxic
organic compounds. We are also examining issues surrounding aspergillus mold blown from
open facilities. In general, Audubon believes that early identification of potential problems will
lead to early identification of solutions. Joint fact finding with industry seems to be the best way
to get the answers and understanding needed. This provides joint ownership of results and
answers, the capability of looking for problems from a broader perspective and offers the ability
to combine efforts to advance solutions. In conclusion, if we deal with potential problems from
the start, then source separated composting can be the next environmental advancement after
recycling by gaining the support of both environmentalists and industry, dramatically increasing
the percentage of waste recovered and aiding in soil recovery.

II-39
 Section 111:
Minutes from the Source-Separated
Composting and Organic Recyclers
Association (SCOR) Meeting in
Minneapolis, Minnesota
 Source Separated Composting and Organics Recycling Association
Meeting Minutes
BioCycle Meeting, Minneapolis, MN
May 11-12,1993

Building on the newly developed national strategy, a steering committee made up of organic
recyclers who attended NRC’s Source Separated Composting Symposium established the Source
Separated Composting and Organics Recycling Association (SCOR). The organization met in
conjunction with the BioCycle meeting on May 11-12, 1993, in Minneapolis, Minnesota to
discuss the follow-up activities.

SCOR’s mission is to achieve maximum conservation, composting and utilization of source

separated organic materials in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. The
group will work in conjunction with other national, state and local organizations to promote
composting in order to achieve its mission.

SCOR discussed the results of the NRC Composting Symposium. The steering committee rated
the following 14 recommendations actions and prioritized them as follows:

Tier One Recommendations:

1st Priority: Distinguish source separated composting from mixed municipal solid waste
composting.
Establish operational and quality standards based on feedstocwend use
considerations. (17 votes each)
2nd Priority: Encourage govemment procurement of compost products. (15 votes)
3rd Priority: Modify the solid waste hierarchy (for environmental and economic reasons) to
include: (14 votes)
1) on-site composting as reuse.
2) source separated composting as recycling.
4th Priority: Regulate feedstock and end product as a resource, not a waste.
Develop information of the benefits and uses of compost.
Collect and disseminate technical and economic data on collection and
processing methods, facility designs and end-use applications. (12 votes each)

Tier Two Recommendations:

5th Priority: Develop end use applications, utilization technologies and market specifications.
(1 1 votes)
6th Priority: Develop model procedures for permitting and siting source separated
composting facilities.
Develop guidelines for labeling compostkompostable products. (9 votes each)
7th Priority: Establish market based goals for organic material recovery through source

III-1
 separated composting. (7 votes)
8th Priority: Develop feedstock criteria and database. (5 votes)
9th Priority: Establish criteria for operator training and certification. (4votes)
10th Priority: Develop financing options for source separated composting facilities (flow
control, put or pay, supply assurance). (3 votes)

The participants addressed the funding needs of the organization. Expenses cited included
funding for a staff person, computer, networks, office space, media communications, answering
phones, as well as expenses incurred by the facilitating group, coordinating and collaborating and
networking. NRC estimated the annual costs of maintaining the organization to be $250,000.

The SCOR members then considered the pros and cons of standing alone as an organization
versus collaborating with an already established group. The positive points to standing alone as
an organization include independence, starting with a clean slate, being more mobile and activist
oriented and being recognized as a leader in the field. Drawbacks to standing alone include the
extra time and effort that must be invested in starting up, the difficulty of raising funds, the
heavy expenses that the group will incur alone, possible redundancy of work outputs, and the
group will be responsible for its mistakes. The positive aspects to collaborating with an existing
organization include the benefits of access to financial resources, existing networks, staff,
programs and members, political clout, and an organizational framework. Negative aspects
include conflict of purpose, goals and agendas, dependency and subservience, the probability that
it may take longer to accomplish anything due to having to adhere to a more complicated
organizational structure, and the chance that the organization will fall prey to the "poor stepchild
syndrome." The attendees decided to affiliate with a larger organization.

The next item on the agenda was determining which organization should serve as the umbrella
organization. The steering committee heard presentations from representatives of the National
Recycling Coalition, The Composting Council, the Agricultural Composting Association, the
National Bark & Soil Producers Association and the Solid Waste Association of North America.
After considering the pros and cons of the different organizations with which to associate, the
attendees voted to affiliate with The Composting Council of Alexandria, Virginia.

At a result of a meeting at the end of July, SCOR and The Composting Council merged in order
to achieve SCOR's goal of promoting source separated composting more rapidly and effectively.
This will assist the newly expanded Composting Council in its goal to promote organics recycling
and the use of organic materials. The agreement to merge SCOR into The Composting Council
is based upon implementation of the following agreements:

The Composting Council mission statement should be revised to give greater emphasis to
environmentally and economically sound resource conservation.
The Composting Council organic research management hierarchy should be revised to reflect
priority to organic material reduction and source separated composting.
The Composting Council board and membership dues structure should be revised to more
accurately reflect the diversity of the membership.

111-2
For more details on the agreement, see the "Memorandum of Understanding between The
Composting Council and the Source-Separated Composting and Organic Recycling Association"
in the Appendix.

Also included in the Appendix are the two published issues of The SCOR Curd, the newsletter
of the Source Separated Composting and Organics Recycling Association.

For more information on SCOR or The Composting Council, please contact Craig Benton, 4218
SW Donovan, Seattle, WA 98136, telephone number 206/932-4621; or Charlie Cannon, The
Composting Council, 114 South Pitt Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, telephone number 703/739-
2401.

111-3
Appendix
 Appendix A

Memorandum of Understanding
To: Members @the Source-SeparatedComposlingand OrganicsRecycling Association (SCOR) Slewing
Commitke and members of The ComposlingCouncUBoardof Direclors

From SCOR Negolialing Team (Craig Ben&, Jim HoUyerJ D. Lindeberg SteveMqo, and Rbonda
Sherman) 0 The ComposlingCouncilEwutive Commitke (ArchieAlbtght, Rod ljh,Charlie
Cannon, and Randy Monk)

Dah: sub s.g,1993

Sdjeci: -
Cmposting Council SCOR Summit

This memorandum records the agreements made onJuly 8-9,1993In discusslons between the SCORNegotiating
Committeeand The Composting Council (CC) Executive Committee. The most critical and fundamental agreement
reached was to merge the Source-SeparatedCompostingand Organics Recycling Association (SCOR) into The
Composting Council, subject to implementation of the further agreements set forth below:
b The CC mission statement should be revised to give greater emphasis to environmentally and economically
sound resource conservation.
* The CC organic resource management hierarchy should be revised to reflect priorlty to organic material
reduction and source separated composting.
The CC board and membership dues structure should be revised to more accurately reflect the diversity of the
membership.
Implementation of the above will necessarily involve changes in communication policy, invigorated research in
source-separated and backyard composting issues, and opportunity to participate in committee and board activities.
These changes are viewed as being consistent with the evolution of The Composting Council and they primarily seek
to reinforce changes thal are already Wngplace.

Revlsed CC Mlsslon Statement and Objecrives

The policy objectives set forth in the CC membership application form and described in the annual report will be
revised to begin with the following mission statement:
To achieve maximum conservation, wmposting, and utilization of o@c matefkdsin an
environmentally and economically sustainable manner.
Revlsed Hierarchy
Acommon organics resource management hierarchy will also be adopted This structure slightly modifies the
hierarchy adopted by the CC by giving greater emphasis to grasscycling, appropriate landscape design, and similar
management practices as a form of waste reduction, as follows:
 Organics Resource Management Hierarchy

Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
11) Grasscyclingand Appropriate Landscape Design
12) On-Site and Home Comoostine
3 ) Source-SeparatedOrganics Composting*
Counts for source reduction

Counts for recycling and diversion

I
- 4) Mixed Waste Composting*

*paper should only be composted when recovery of fiber is not feasible

It ws also agreed that this hierarchy should be reflected in CC documents and public statements. While there is a
place for all four management strategies within organic streams and MSW management systems, preference should be
given to the above hierarchy.
Revised Board Structure
Successful implementation of the changes implicitly addressed by the organic resource management hierarchy is
heavily dependent on the ability to effect change at the CC boani of directors level. In order to provide more opportunity
to source-separation constituencies, an additional three seats on the board of directors will be authorized by the CC.
Two of these seats will be allocated to the Small Business category and one seat will be allocated to the Nonprofit
category. These additions will create a total of 24 seats, 12 of which will continue to be filled by Regular Members, 3 of
which will be filled by Affiliate Members, 5 of which will be filled by Small Business Members, and 4 of which will be
filled by Nonprofit Members.
Revislon of Dues Structure
In order to promote greater participation by the Small Business, Academic, Nonproflt, and Public Sector Members
the dues structure for these groups have been revised as follows:
Composting Membership Classification and Dues Structure

IMembershir, Cateeorv bnnud Dues IGrouD Descriotion I

Regular Member* $7500 Generators, composters, users, marketers, et. al.
Small Business Member $250 to $2500 $250 for every $1 million ingross annual revenue up
to $10 million. Companies held by. lwer " parent
_
lcompanies are ineligible.
lAffiliateMember IS2500 I~onsuItants.Iawvers. architects. eneineers. et. a ~ . I
Nonprofit Member 1$250 (Nonprofit,academic and public officials.
Individual Member (nonvoting) $45 For those not interested in participating in
committees. Information and education materials are
available.
 Newsletter of the Sourceseparated Compost and Organlc Recycllng Asociatlon I Voi.1, No. 1 I M a y 25,1993
S.C.O.R. is Born!
.A
fter months of hard work by a
number of people, on May 12.
1993theeffasof so-sep-
med composters and organic recycling'
supponers across Noah America pro-
ducedtheSource-separatedCmptand
OrganicRecyclingAssociation4.C.O.R.
Thonks 10 011 those who have connibuted
to tiuse florfi!
Theoccasion wasthesecondSourcc-
separated Compost suategic planning
meeting. heldconcmtwith BioCycle's
~
, NationalConfereminMinneapolis,May
(11) 12-14.1993. The~uo-daymeeting
was attended off-and-on by some 50
, people. many of whom were present at
the St Louis meeting February 25-26.
1993, or had been working with the fml
steering' committee. There were a h
wme fmt timers to the debate which
made the meetings even more prcduc-
tive.
Notonly wasanassociation formed.
but the group also came up .with this
thoughtful, dynamic and far reaching
mission statement:
II
The mission of S.C.OR. is io achieve
mnrimwn conservation.composiing.ond
uiilizotion of source-seporaied organic
maieriolsin an environmentollyondeco-
II
nomicolly sustainable manner.
Following are some other items
which'weredecidedupon at themeeting,
they include: a S.C.O.R.negotiating
'
team to begin discussionswith The Com-
post Council;next steps for S.C.O.R.:
some goals and priorities; thank you to
sponsors (see box IO the righi): a flow
chart of events of the Minneapolismeet-
ing. and more. so please read on.....
S.C.0.R & The Compost Council
One Of thc isrucs to bt decjded dariog Cooperati~ely(vote: 16-8-1); and b) to
them&gwasthewnceptofS.C.O.R. approach The Compost Council (11-9
starring their own orgaaization h t n vs NRC on second ballot) as the f i t
scratch (with its own by-law, office, - p o ~ c o ~ r a t oBecausethevote
r.
wccutivedircctorandolhcrappopriale was so dose it was decided that if a
s ) )for
a c c o ~ o r ~ n ~ tQ . S.C.O.R. to CX- satisfactory m g m e n t Could not be
piorethepossibiityofcollaboratingwith reached WithTheCompostCouncil that
an existing compost-oriented group. thc negotiating team would then i"e
Each option was dimmed in turn with diatclybegin discussionswith the NRC
fairlyurensivepb5ngreviewed (whowu-evcryopeninffldedaboutthk
fium the National Recycling Coalition, Zndplaccanangment). AlS0,thegroup
TheCompostCouncil,TheSolidWastc decidedthatregardleofwhichofthese
AssociationofNonhAmeriwn,theAg- organizations they were to ally wth.
ricultural composring Associah'on. and that S.C.O.R. would work with each of
Executives Consultants Inc. (Bob La- thefourpotentialwUaborators(andoth-
Gasse of the National Bark & Soil Ro- ersaswell)inordertoget"um use
d u m Association). After much dis- outofallresourcesputintothempost
zussion, the group voted uc a) work and organic recycling area.
Meeting Leader: Craig Benton
Facilitators:
Recorder: Rhond. Shennan
Minutes:
Treasured
Logistlcs Coordinator:
Temp. Finances Mgr:
Financial Support: UNv of HawaiiJUSDA
John Roulac
J.D.L i n d h g
Clark Gregory
Other Support: BioCycle
Net Profit (approx): s&.cg-?
I
Pre-Minneapolis Steering Cm"ltee: Craig Bentoh J i i McNelly. Dan Krivit
Jeff Edektein. Lee Fox, Clark Gregory.Richard K a h a n i a n . Paaick Kennedy,Nanci
Koerdng. S m u Maninson. Steve Mojo. Richard Mourhar. John Roulac. Frank
shields. Steve Titlro. J i Hollyer.3
1
Next Steps 4) M a y solid waste hierarchy (for en- If you have any questions about the pro-
vironmental and economic reasons) wss or want more information, contact
Believe i t or not a third (and fd?)
to inelude: (14) Jim Hollyer at the number below.
steering commitlee was spawn9 as a on-site as reuse
resultoftheformationofS.C.0.R Craig -sourmeparated as recyding
Senton (H&H Wood Recyclers. Inc.) 5) Regulatefeedstodtand end product Intoductions Around the Table
headsthiscommittee(whichhas changed as a resour-. not a waste (12) c
a Eule since then) and in:lu?ez: JD. 5) Develo? infornztion on benefitsand Brainstorm why &e We Here?
uses of compost (12)
c
Lmdeberg (Resources Recycling Sys- Review St Louis SSC Prbrities
tems, Inc.); Steve Mojo (Novon prod- 5) Colledanddisseminatetechnicaland c
uus); Jim McNelly (McNelly Group); emnomicdataoncolledion and pro- Prioritize Priorities
cessing methods.facilitydesigns and c
RhcmdaShm(N. CarolinaS t Univ.);
end& applications (12) Develop a Unified Mission Statement
Dave Loveland (CargiU): S u " Mar- Top ?Above
tinson (M.A Dept of Environmental 8) Develop end use applications, utili- (see Page 1)
c
Quality Eng.); BNCCFulford WioTher- zation technologies. and market BrainstormPro vs Con of Alone
mal Associates) and Jim Hollyer [ma- specifications (11) or ~llaborativeGroup Sbuclure
SUN and secrecuyl (UNv. of Hawaii). 9) Develop model procedures for per- 6
mitting and siting xrurca-separated Brainslon 6 VoIe on Gmup Name
Group tasks included: amposting facilities (9) (Source-separated Compcst
a) making a letterhead 9) Devebpguidelinesfor labeling com- and eganic Raqding Assn.-
b) establishing a bank aaount post/composlable products (9) S.C.O.R.is chosen)
c) writing up a Minnesotareport 11) Establish market based goals for or- c
(i.e. this newsletter) ganic material recovery through Review Summary Infoon
d) writing and distributinga source-separated composting (7) Potential Collaborafors
press release (ECI. SWAN4 NRC. CC. ACA)
12) Developfeedstock criteria and data c
e) writing a prospedus on S.C.O.R. base (5)
1) sendingoutthankyou lenerstomeet- 13) Establishcriteriaforoperatortraining Brainstorm Pro vs Con of
Potential Collaborators
ing plannersand implementers. and and certification (4) c
to financial supporters 14) Devebpfianangoptionsforsource- Vote on Alone vs Collaborative
g) sending aletter(onpotentialcoI1abo. separated composting facilities (flow (Cullaboratioo is chosen)
ration) of intent to The Compost control. put or pay, or supply assur- e
council an-) (3) late on Choics of Potential Collaborator
h) devebpinganegotiatingstrategy(f0r ( M e r 2 votes. The Compost Councii
discussions on collaborations with is chosen 11.9 over NRC. yetgroup
The Compost Council and others) S.C.O.R.'s Considerations also decides to keep options open)
i) negotiating withThe Compost Coun- for Collaboration c
cil on the idea of collaboration Choose a Steering ComrMlee
While the negotiating team is still
putting together a package of proposals We Promise We'll Write
S.C.O.R.'s Goals for a June meeting with The Compost One of the hallmarks o f this group
During the meeting we had an op- Council, issues to be addressed are: has to be. action. action, action. and in
pomnity to hear an update of the Na- I ) Clearguidefinesonfunding and fund keeping with that theme we'll keep in
tionalSnategicPlanonSourre-separated raising.
2) The establishment of a 'pre-nuptial touch either through this newsletter or
Compostaswasbeingasmbled by NRC. agreement' which will albw for con- someotherform. Thenexttimewillbeto
F e p l a n s h o u l d b e a M i l s ~ n ]The
. tingencies. report on the Compost Council negotia-
following isasummaryofEdgar Miller's 3) The need for autonomyldemocracy tions. One ofother the things you will be
discussion of the results from the S t and the 'equal" say of all in the deci- receiving in the future i s arequest to put
Louis symposium. There were 14 gen- sion making process. your time and money where. your inter-
eral goals, of which the top 7 were vole4 4) The need lo work openly with other estS are. So until then:
to be the most pressing (votes in paren- groups in the composting and or-
thesis): ganic recycling area. KeepyourorgMicstoyourself-compost!
1) Distinguish source-separated from
mixed MSW camposting (17)
1) Establish operational and quality Decision Making Process
C p AREC-Gilmore Hall 115
standards based on feedstoctdend at Minneapolis
university of Hawaii
use considerations (17)
hlieuofsendingout multiplepages Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
3) EncouragegovernmentprocuremeM
ofminutes(which wouldnotberesource ph (808) 956-8800 9 rx (808) 956-9458
of compost products (15) Am: Jim Hollycr/Rhmda Shaman. eds
wise!) we've decided to give you a flow
of the meetinn in the following drawing.
@ PRIMED ON REoaw,RK~CUBLE ANDCOMPMTABLE PMOI 2 The S.C.0R. Card Vol. 1. No. 1 May25.1993
 Newsletter of the Source-separated Composting and Organics Recycling Ass ciation IVol.1. No. 2IAuaust 1.1993
_ _ _ ~ ~ ~

TURF WAR OVER COMPOST AVERTED! The Composting Council's

Annual Meeting
ALlXANDRIb.,VA-Inacommend;ible through a union with The Composling
display of common sense and compost Council and its established organization Get ready tomove compostingat light
c;rmaraderie,negotiatingmmmimmem- andoutreacb." Archie Albrighl, Resident speed(orat1eastfasterthanademyingcak
bers from the Source-separated of the &mpscing & u n d noted hat lea!?) at The Compsting Council's an-
Compsting and Organics Recycling As- ' m e merger between the Composting nual meeting in Washington, E€. llis
sociation (S.C.0.R) and The Compsting CouncilandS.C.0.R. is a funht7manife.s- gathering is oued a Marketing S m ' t
Council met for two days of tation of the Council's and so product sDecifiers from all sectors
talksJuly 7 & 8,1993. The commitment to e m W of the industry are beimg asked OI speak
meetings resulted in and promote all Iypes of about their needs for and experience with
organics recycling and compost.Yousource-sepamkdguyshave

tef
S.C.O.R. merging w i t h y L .-xu..:/:
TheCompsting Council. / / ..!,,;~?z~s4=q& beneficialreuseoforganic a lot to offer here, so please give Charlie
materials in an environ- Cannon a call and volunteer to put in your
Thus. S.C.O.R. an M-
ganizationandthe famous
S.C.O.R. Card will cease
z7
exist in their present form,
mentallyresponsibleman-
ner. In addition. we wel-
come the exprience, ex-
two cents of compost knowledge! The
meetings will be held November 17-19
and are open to all. Call The Composting
but wiU c ~ n t i n U e an inte- pertise and resources Council at (703)739-2401formore infor-
gralpartofanewly energized which the S.C.O.R. con- mation on the agenda and suggested ac-
and refocused Cmnostine I
stituents will bring to the C0"OdatiOnS.
Council. Council."
Higblightsofthenegotiationsinclude To get the full play-by-play on the The Comporting
the adoption of S.C.O.R's mission state- MemorandumofLJnderstandingsee pages Council's Committees
mentandhierarchy(much0fthelatterwas 3&4 of the Card. Major high-fives all "Nowisthetimeforallgoodprsons
already part of the revised Council's aroundandmnhrrlostotheS.C.O.R.nego- tocometo theaidof themselves,"orsome-
agenda); 2 more seats on the board of tiating team and members of the various thing like that! Yes, this is your chance to
djrectorsfor small businesses and 1 more S&ng committees and volunleers for putyourcompst dreams(andp~tfmsm-
inthea"idnon-profitar~are-cali- their help and their commitment of time tions?) to good use. The Composting
brarionofmembershi~feesandamenuof andfinancialresources.Thanksalsotothe Council has five committees and they are
projects that should move composing ef- USDA and the National Assocration of looking for a few hard working individu-
forts farther, faster. Wheat Growers Foundatim for their sup- ais. These mmmimare: 1)Maiketing,
Craig Benton, S.C.O.R. spkesman, port. And finally, thanks to The 2)Govemmen~'3)Stdards,4)Research,
stated that 'We believe the goals and ob- Composcing Councilforhostingusand for and 5) Pubic Education & Information.
jectives of tbe S.C.O.R. constituency will thegreatpreparatoryandsupponefforcsof The meetings are open to anyone so let's
be achieved more rapidly and efficiently the executive committee and the staff! get on with this fantastic opportunity to
makethingshappen! ContactCharlieCan-
The Composting Council where we can get a hold of them,and then non at (703)739-2401for more infoma-
Speaker's Bureau mail or fax back the form to Rhonda tion. Seerhe CalendarSectionfortimesof
Sherman inNonh Carolinafm (919)515- upcoming meetings.
Along with thisnewsletteryou'llfmd
6772,phone (919)515-6770.We'll then
a memo asking you to " m e n d speak- follow-upwith them andgettheirresumes.
ers for a Compsting Council Speaker's Council Board Seats
OnceRhondaisfinishedbuillingthecL?ra- Up for Grabs
B m u tbatisbeimg formed. It'simporrant
base it will be sent up to The Composting
to have interesting,knowledgeablespeak- This item, though pafl of the above,
Council forinformation disseminationand
ers for a variety of topics. and ones who deserves its own paragmph. At the No-
updates. Thanks to the University of Ha-
live in differentregions of North Ameaica. vember meeting, all Composting Council
waii and the USDA for providing some
Think back IO the conferences you've at- members will havean opportunity to forge
suppon for this project!
tendedandtooutstandigp~ters you've a suong working group ( r e d : get in lhere
listened IO. Jot down their names and

1 The S.C.O.R.
Card Vol. 1, No. 2 August 1. 1993
and nu& rlie source-separated aclivilies ~

THE COhWOSTING COUNCU'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS

happen!) hy voting-in Uieir choice (or
running themse1ves)ofboxdmembers for Member Tvw F ~ UName
D Year Elected
the 11 seals that are now becoming avail- Regular "Inleinational Process Systems 1990
able. There are 24 seals in total including "Buhler. tnc. 1990
"Proctor& Gamble 1990
the 3 new seats; they are shown in the box 1990
"Compost Management, Inc.
to tlie right. *+Resouw Systems Cop. 1990
Bedminster Bioconversion Cop. 1991
Putting Your I'.esources BmwinpFems IndustriesRCS 1991
Where Your interests Are Sweelheart Cup Company 1991
Weyerhaeuser Carp. 1991
Now that the c6mpost community is James River Cap. 1992
trying to be one big happy and effective Burger King Cap. 1992
Cargiil. Inc. 1992
family,it is now time foreveryoneof those
St. Louis Meeting "checkbook wavers" lo Afiliate "E 8 A Environmental 1990
pny-up. Craig Benton has decided that Wade Management. Inc. 1991
he is going to 5e the oze to get the ball Roy F. Wedon. Inc. 1992

rolling and to collect on those commit- Small Business "New a open

ments (yes, we have them on tape!) and
will be calling everyone on the S.C.O.R.
mailing list-please give generously!
Also,forrlwseafyou who hawnoryer
paidwliar you owe ro S.C.O.R.we will be
following up in the next few weeks, so
pleaqe get your money ro Jim Hollyer
A.S.A.P.
National Home
Composting Park
Just a stone's throw away from "lie
Composting Council's office in Alexan-
dria, VA, and just off the r o d to MI.
Vernon, is the American Horticultural
Society's National Home Composting
Park. On the site of one of George
Washington's formerproperties is :L h u -
tiful farm and garden. WiUiin that garden
mi is a composting demonstration site
with numerous t y p s of compost bins.
These bins and a number of pieces of
equipment have been donated by some 70
coprations, many of which are members
of The Composting Council and S.C.O.R.
While the site needs work. it does hold a
greatdealofpromiseforhelping toeducate
popleabout composting. Checkthemout
at7931 Lxst BoulevanlDrive,Alexan&ia,
VA 22308-1300. Phone 1-800-777-7931
or703-768-5700,€latsoffloJosephKeyser
of the AHS, for his outstanding work and
Uie work of the volunteers.
Source-separated
Composting Video
In an effort to spread the word ahout
uwnmunit y and w m p n y source-%pant ed
"New a open
- "PRSM. Inc. 1990
Organic Waste N.V 1991
Kurtz Bros, Inc. 1992
Non-Profit *'New a open
"University of Wisconsin 1990
MinnesotaOffice of Waste Mgt 1991
Rodale Institute 1992
** Seats up lor election in November, 1993.
commstinr. -. the video. "Clean f"the Oh, one more thing. You mifihl ask
Stu;",byBer~~ire~Lm&Videoisbeing what is so spcial about this video. Bob
re-edited to hicoprate two new success- says, "It confmls tough issues such a5
ful compsting v e n t m : Walt Disney odors and sile placement by interviewing
World of Orlando (rhanks Kafy Moss- local officials and state regulators. Fea-
Warner & J m Adwi~v)and L a ' s Mar- wed facilities are also dealing with the
ket(rha~BrntRogers)ofS~tUe. Other more challenging food.maps and residu-
sourceseparntedcompsting projectsfea- als, notjust yard trimmings. All sites alm
tured on this video are the Frost Valley haveawlid trackreconl of success as well
YMCA Conference Cenler, the NY Sk%e as established use^ markeki for their high
prison System, BrickEndsFarm, Town of quality compst LasUy, the tape faturetures
Ipswich, MassNattunlFertilizer. ENlhgro compsting in light of geographicaldiver-
and the RCS Hawk Ridge facility. The sity;fromthewinteroftheNonhensttothe
new work is being funded by Uie Univer- cool wetness of Seattle to the hot humid
sity of Hawaii under a gmit f" Uie regions of Florida'' Warm up your VCR
USDA, <andis headed up by Bob Spencer and stay tuned!
of Dalton, MA. (Fist edition of the tape
was funded by Novon and other great Source-separated
sponsors). It is envisioned thit this video Composting Strategy
will be coupled with a short home The s m g y document that was for-
compsting video to give the individual mulatedattheSt.Louismeeting~nearing
viewer and community leaders a more completion. The work done in St. Louis .
comprehensive look at campsting in an and the draft suategy from that meeting
efficient cost-effective manner, i t . two was the blueprint for the currenl negotia-
programs on one tape. Lmk for word on tions with the Composting Council, so
the how the video is going and how it will those efforts proved very valuable. ?he
he distrihuted in magazines such as CompostingCouncil will be working with
BicCycle 'and the next CompostingCoun- the National Recycling Coalition and the
cil Newsletter.
Tlie S.C.O.R. Card Vol. 1, No. 2 August 1, 1993
2
 Steering committee to get the work fin-
ished up. As we feel chat sending the entire
dmment to 250 people will be an ineffi-
cient use of resources, we are. going to
work OUI a way to print and mail out a
nominal amount of the document We'll
let you know. Thanks to Jenny Heumann
and Edgar Miller of the NRC for their hard
work!
Compost in the Capitals
Clark Gregory sent us a bunch of
Bedminster composting facility in
Seviwille, Tenn. will be available. The
date is not set as of pres time. For more
information call Rhonda Sheman (919)
5156770 or Jim Shelton (704) 684-3562
in North Carolina.
Calendar of Activities
This is your chance to jump in feet
fwwith these upcoming activities:
August 19:ComposlngCouncillnfomation(L
Education Coinmitteemeeting,Alexandria, VA.
October 11-14:NationalRecyding Congress.
Nashville. TN
October 27-29: Better Composting School,
Hanover, MD
November &lo: BioCycle Soum Central Con-
ference. Austin, TX
November 17-19: Composfing Cound 4lh
Annual Conference. Washington, D.C.
Saying Aloha, Ya'll
Thisisthesemndandlastissueoflhe
',

clippings and other stuff the other day to
announce that Congressman George J.
Hochbrueclmer (D-NY) has intmduced a
hill that wouldrequirethe Resident and all
state Governors to have an active
composing site at their residences. Write
your congress person and urge them to
p a . H.R. 2292!
Hot Off The Press
Ellen Hanison of the Comell Waste
I
Management Institute Sent us a set of 7
very i n f o d v e fact sheets on municipal
wmposting. 'Ihese sheets are mndeusa-
tions of the papers in the November 1992
issue of Biomass and Bioenergy. Authors
includeTom RicbarQ James Gillea Peter
Woodbury and Vincent Breslm. Get your
set bysending$7.00toComellUniversity
Resource Center, 7 Business and Technol-
ogy Park,Ilhaca, NY 14850.
On the Compost Track
Yes,there will be mmposting in the
Colkcfion and Processing Track of the
NRC's National Recycling Congess this
fall. ThiiOcmbex 11-lrleventwillbeheld
in Nashville and will cover not only
compsting but a whole host of recycling
issues and options. Get your registration
fonn by d i n g National Recycling Coali-
tion in Washington at (202) 625-6406.
Southeast Region
Composting Conference
Asheville, in the mountains of Nortb
Camlina,willbethesiteof IhefmrSouth- Revised CC Mission ScPtrment d Objectives
east RegionCompsling C o n n c e , tobe
heldinlaIefall1993. Atleasteleventopics re* will be r e v i . 4 to begin with tlic following mission statement:
will be covered during the 1-1R day con-
ference.m f o l l o w i n g d a y . t ~ o f s o ~ cnvir~u,letudlyond ccomm'couy *w!QinoMc " N I E T .
separated composting rites and the
S.C.O.R. card and we would like to thank
August 19-20 University of Wisconsin, our 250 or so readers for their interest
Competing and Solid Waste Meeting. Madi-
We'd like tosendoulaspecial bit of Aloha
ss"..,w' to oui soggy Mid-Westem fiends-we're
August 20-22: BioEnvironmenlally Degrad- with you and we'll be there if you need us!
able Polymer Society Meeting, Chicago, II. Onalighternote,it isnow h e f o r a l l
September 20-22: BioCycle Northeast Con-
of us to get actively involved with The
ferenm. Portland, ME Compsting Councilandmakecnmpsting
ofall typessuccessful. We'll see yaaround
October 1 4 : Ea, Expo, World Trade Canter. the compst pile ....eds.
Boston, ME
Memorandum of Understanding
TO: Members of die Source-Separated Compa~tingand h g a n i a Recycling k.swirtion
(SCOR)SteeringCommiueeandmembers ofTlieComp4og Council Board ofDlrectors
From: SCOR Ncgaiating Team ( G i g Benton. Jim Hollycr. J. D.lindcberg, Steve Mojo. and
Rlmdr Slaman) % . The Composting Council Exeative Committee ( A r d k Alhriglbt.
Rod Tyler. Cliarlie Cannon. and Randy Monk)
Date: July 8-9. 1993
Sub*: Comparting Council - SCOR Sumnit
T l i r memaandum re-& h e a g r e m c o ~made ~ OD July 8-9. I 9 9 3 in &sousions between die
SCOR Negotiating committee md rite Compostiog Council ( c c ) E~ccutivecommittee. nemost
m i l i d and fundvnental agreement reached was to merge the Source-Separated Composting and
Organin Recycling Association (SCOR) io10 nic Composting Council. suhjea to implementation of
llic fvntier agreements set fortlt below:
9 n i c CC mission i~teme01shouldbe revised to give p a l e r cmplmir IO environmentally sad
-omidly sound ~LIWTCC mmervatioo.
9nrCCagaaicrevxlrcc~oagcmenthierarcliyshouldberev~edtorened pioritytowganic
mstcrial d u d o n and so- s e p a l 4 conposting.
9 rile CC boprd and mmbenhipduu " r e slllould be revised 10 more accurately reflect tlie
diversity of die membership.
Implcmcntltion ofthe above will n-arily involve el~angeqin mmmunication policy. i w i p
rated r-ch in ruuce-scpuated and backyard composting issues, and appatuity to paniciptc in
Eommillec ad board Mivitiw.
These changes are viewul av being eomistent with tlie evolution of n e Compsting Council and
hey primarily seek IO reinface changes tliat arc already laking place.
nbcpdicy objcctivesset fodi intlreCCmenibersldpapplicationf a m a d described in !lie annual
To achieve w ' m m cmenorim. comporring. Md utilim;on of organic m l e r i a L in m

3 The S.C.O.R. Card Vol. 1, No. 2 August 1, IcW3

 I

4) Mixed Wale Compasling'

. - . -
6 u o r s for recycling and diversion

WMC-lO-Energy
L.sdfrtiog

Note: Iplpa should only be compoaed when recovery d fiberis no1 fcasiblc

It wuilro~greedthud~rhiucru~hysharl~lberrflcelulinCCd~rumeou~odpub~cn~temenu. W l e t h r r c b a p l s a e fanllfourmanagcll~~otrnalegle~
rihin cxganic N- a d M S W m a g e m e a t ryncms, pefereoee rliould be grvco IO llic above hueruchy.

Boud SNdUm
Succcssid implrme~utionoltbechmgerrmpliody ddrrcrrcd by ti= orgaolrrwource m a m g m m i l i m x h y ~hcavilydcprodeot
.~ oothc noilily to eiiact
h g e U Ihe CC b u d of ducnas level. I n order to p v i d c mac o p p ~ u w t y
tu source-repuauon c a d t u e a e i u . an vldiuonal lhree sedU on h e board of
dkec~mwillbe.uthmdbytlKCC. Tvoofdiescreau willbealloentedtodrcSnvllBvriocssesegory.odoner~willbesllocatedtotlicSonpofit~cpor).
Tbue ddiliom will WL a t o h l of 24 SL~LI. 12 of wluch will C O O ~ ~ UtoCbe filled by Regulu Mcmberr, 3 d wluch will be filled by Affilmtc Member, 5 of
which will be filled by Small Business Members.and 4 of ulucli w d l be filled by Nonprofit Members.

Re*idoodDuco Sllvdnrr
I m m*r topomme grutcrpmcrpatoo by llic Small Burior~r.Acadermc. N ~ n p o f i fand Public Sector Members die dues s m ~ u r f
ea dtue grdupr have
bao revised as follows:

Cmmpdiq Membership Clwificntiun d Dues Stmccum

Regular M c m W S7.SW ............................................. Gencra~ca.comporten. users. marketers. et. d.

S d l Bwinwr Member 530 to 12,SW .................. $250 for cvcry SI million in graai ~ m u 1 revenue
1
up IO SI0 mltioo. C-niu held by larger
pvent " p a m u arc hcligiblc.
Afliliatc Me&r Consulmu. ~ W ~ C Kuclutuu,S . eogioeerr. et. d.
Noqxofit Member Nonpmfi~scsdemic and public off~nals.
hdividud Member (nonvoting) ............... . F a thmc OM m t u e s t d io panicipting in
c o m l t e c s . lnfomutlon .ad u l " 0 t , " 0
materials me. wailablc.
Note: SUnaining M c m b d l i p s of over $50.0and Suppanjng Memberslip of over SZ.5.ooO are available widlin dlc Regular Membership category.

I"ediale Pmjed P h r i t i u
Anvmbcrofpmjecu=Lrudyplannedorundenv~yattlleCChavebeenidenlilieda< beingimpo~nrtodlesaurce-sepantedcommunity. Thereprojecorlmld
bc aggnsrivcly p d :
O ' l b c r u t m t a n d f d v c r v i c e composting program
9 A C o r p d m g Facility C p r u i n g Guide
9 Model legirlatio~& regulations
9 Rodud quality guideliau and user spe*rtcatianr
+Sundud pdua testing and validation p d u r e s
As pn ofin 0-ll and continuing mmmitment to same-separated c o m p d n g the following will receive additional attention by Ole CC.Rojecu diat can be
%ud"wilhin the existing budget indude:
9 Updue the CC ppcr on the environmntll and emnomic benefiu ofm@ng
0 Dcvclop and plblirh facility financing guide
+ In-d ouuuch and a spukers' bureau
+Hold a Marketing Summit 11 the mnwl meeting
+ -
Revin p b l i u t i o o s a new general brochure, enhanced newslater and an awards p o p m
9 Cdlabmue with ltic A g r i q h r r l Compaqting Awciatioo on projects of inlacst lo the agricultural community

A numbcr d major program initiatives have been ideolifed by die negotiaton. 'These will require the identircation of new funding:
9 Nui& pr&& 10 p0m-e backyard mmpa;ting
9 Expsndul databases wid, electronic access
0 Utitimion-bawl mvkct study
+ Csticcation and mining of opemas. mukaua and duigr.cn CY0 AREC4ilmore Hall 1IS
University d Hawaii
9 Develop M ccowmie d e l for compaqting collection. p-iog. dimitution
Honolulu. Hawaii 96822

@ RINlED ON RECYCLW. RECYCUBLE AND C W O S T A B l E PAPER rile S.C.O.R. Card Vol. 1, No. 2 August 1, 1993
4
 Appendix C

SOURCE SEPARATED COMPOSTING SYMPOSIUM

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Richard Kashmanian Patrick Kennedy

Regulatory Innovations Staff Vice President
U.S. EPA (PM-221) American Soil, Inc.
401 M Street SW P.O. Box 125
Washington, DC 20460 Parlin, NJ 08859
202/260-5363 (0) 908/525-1103 (0)
202/260-2685 (F) 908/525-0488 (F)

Hope Pillsbury Robert LaGasse

U.S. EPA Executive Director
OS-301 National Bark & Soil Producers Assn.
401 M Street SW 10210 Leatherleaf Court
Washington, DC 20460 Manassas, VA 221 11
202/260-2797 (0) 703/257-0111 (0)
202/260-4196 (F) 703/257-0213 (F)

Steven Mojo H. Clark Gregory, PhD.

Director, Market Development The Compost Man
Novon Products 660 Elkmont Drive NE
182 Tabor Road Atlanta, GA 30306-3623
Morris Plains, NJ 07950 404/876-2943 (0)
2OU.540-7255 (0) 404/874-6923 (F)
201/540-4487 (F)
John Roulac
Joe Keyser Harmonious Technologies
American Horticulture Society P.O. Box 1865
793 1 East Boulevard Drive Ojai, CA 91 106
Alexandria, VA 22308 805/646-8030 (0)
703/768-5700 (0) 805/646-7404 (F)
703/765-6032 (F)
Sumner Martinson
Paul Sellew Recycling Program Coordinator
President MA Department of Environmental Quality
Earthgro, Inc. Engineering
Route 207, P.O. Box 143 Division of Solid Waste
Lebanon, CT 06249 One Winter Street, 4th Floor
203/642-7591 (0) Boston, MA 02108
203/642-79 12 (F) 617/292-5969 (0)
617/556-1049 (F)
Lauren DeChant Cary Oshins
National Audubon Society Rodale Institute
Science Department 61 1 Siegfriedale Road
700 Broadway Kutztown, PA 19530
New York, NY 10003 215/683-6383 (0)
212/979-3000 (0) 215/683-8548 (F)
212/832-0242 (F)
Davis Clements
Jackie Prince USDA
Environmental Defense Fund 901 D Street NW
1616 P Street NW, Suite 150 Aerospace Center, Suite 342
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20250-2200
202/387-3500 (0) 202/401-4929 (0)
202/234-6049 (F) 202/401-5179 (F)

Jon Greenberg Coordinator:

Browning Ferris Industries Edgar Miller
1350 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1101 Director of Policy and Programs
Washington, DC 20036 National Recycling Coalition
202/223-8151 (0) 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 305
202/223-0685 (F) Washington, DC 20007
202/625-6410 (0)
Jim McNelly 202/625-6409 (F)
The McNelly Group
1930 9th Avenue SE
St. Cloud, MN 56304
612/253-6255 (0)

Rod Tyler
Kurtz Brothers
P.O. Box 3 1179
Independence, OH 44 131
800/223-7645 (0)
216/341-9331 (F)
 Appendix D

Source Separated Composting Symposium Attendees

Kathy Alexander, State of Connecticut Waste Management Bureau, Planning and Standards, 165
Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, Ph: 203/566-8722

Tom Armer, Warner-Lambert, 182 Tabor Road, Moms Plains, NJ 07950, Ph: 201/540-7256

Craig Benton, H & H Wood Recyclers, 4218 Southwest Donovan, Seattle, WA 98136, Ph:
2061932-462 1

Harvey Berman, Bodman, Longley & Dahling, 10 Miller, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48103,
Ph: 3131761-3780

J. Frank Bernheisel, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, 2735 Hartland Road, Falls Church, VA
22043-3537, Ph: 703/573-5800

Jan Beyea, National Audubon Society, 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, Ph: 2121979-3000

Paul Braasch, SCS Engineers, 2060 Reading Road, Suite 200, Cincinnati, OH 45202-1416, Ph:
5 13/421-5353
I
Rhonda Brooks, Novon Products, 182 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Charles Cannon, The Composting Council, 114 South Pitt Street, Alexandria, VA 223 14,
Ph: 7031739-2401

Lewis Carr, Lower Eastern Shore Research & Education Center, University of Maryland,
Princess Anne, MD 21853, Ph: 410/651-9111

Maria Castro, National 4H Council. 7100 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, Ph:
301/961-2980

Marjorie Chandley, Reed’s Inc., 749 Michael Street NE,Atlanta, GA 30329, Ph: 404/634-7711

Kenneth Cobb, Cornel1 Waste Management Institute, 466 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, Ph:
6071255- 1 185 or 1187

Susan Cobb, City of Denver Public Works, 1390 Decater, Denver, CO 80204, Ph: 303/640-1675

Kitty Coley, Texas Water Commission, Recycling and Waste Management Section, P.O. Box
13087, Austin, TX 7871 1-3087, Ph: 5121908-6771

James Cook, National Audubon Society, Scully Science Center, 5505 Bay Avenue, Islip, NY
11751, Ph: 5 16/224-3730
 Lauren DeChant, National Audubon Society, 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, Ph:
2121979-3079

Steven Diddy, Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, MS 7600, Olympia,
WA 98504-871 1, Ph: 2061438-7482

Jeff Edelstein, Resource Conservation Services, 14 Maine Street, Suite 205, Brunswick, ME
04001, Ph: 207/725-1770

Linda Eggerth, CalRecovery, 725C Alfred Nobel Drive, Hercules, CA 94547, Ph: 510/724-0220

Bill Farrell, Waste Recycling Facilities Inc., 5540 Cypress Road, Plantation, FL 33317, Ph:
3051584-233 1

J. Christopher Field, Earthgro, Inc., P.O. Box 143, Lebanon, CT 06249, Ph: 203/642-7591

Lee Fox, The Fox Group, 12855 Big Bend, St. Louis, MO 63122, Ph: 3141821-1295

Nora Goldstein, BioCycle Magazine, Box 351, Emmaus, PA 18049, Ph: 215/967-4135

William Greggs, Procter & Gamble, 6100 Center Hill Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45224, Ph:
5 131634-6070

H. Clark Gregory, Fulton County Soil & Water Conservation, 660 Elkmont Drive NE,Atlanta,
GA 30306-3623, Ph: 404/876-2943

Jim Hollyer, Dept. of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Hawaii, 3050 Maile
Way, Gilmore Hall 115, Honolulu, HI 96822, Ph: 808/956-8800

Jeff Hunts, California Integrated Waste Management Board, 8800 Cal Center Drive, Sacramento,
CA 95826. Ph: 9161255-2375

Jim Jensen, Sound Resource Management Group, 5025 California Avenue SW, Suite 108,
Seattle, WA 98136, Ph: 206/932-3404

B.J. Jones, Compost Connection, RR #2, Box 73A, Gardiner, ME 04345, Ph: 207/582-5595

Richard Kashmanian, US EPA Regulatory Innovations Staff, PM-221, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, Ph: 202/260-5363

Daniel Kemna, Waste Management of North America, 3003 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook, IL
60521, Ph: 708/572-8800

Patrick Kennedy, American Soil Inc., P.O. Box 125, Parlin, NJ 08859, Ph: 9081525-1103

Carl Kipp, Paygro Inc., P.O. Box W, South Charleston, OH 45368-0823, Ph: 513/462-8358
 Mosi Kitwana, National Composting Program, US Conference of Mayors, 1620 I Street N W ,
Washington, DC 20006, Ph: 202/293-7330

Nanci Koerting, Maryland Environmental Services/Dickerson Compost Facility, 21210

Martinsburg Road, Dickerson, MD 20842, Ph: 301-428-8185 or 8018

Wayne Koser, City Management C o p . , 3400 East Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48207, Ph: 313/567-
4700, ext. 446

Dave Kouchoukos, The Perseco Company, 701 Hargee Road, Oak Brook, IL 60521, Ph:
7081575-4408

Dan Krivit, Dan Krivit & Associates, 1st National Bank Building West 3170, St. Paul, MN
55101, Ph: 612/292-0151

Robert LaGasse, National Bark & Soil Producers Assn., 10210 Leatherleaf Court, Manassas, VA
221 11. Ph: 703/257-0111

Philip Leege, Procter & Gamble, 6100 Center Hill Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45224, Ph: 513/634-
6876

J.D. Lindeberg, Resource Recycling Systems, 310 Miller, Suite 1, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, Ph:
3 13/YY6- 136 1
2

Eric Lombardi, Eco-Cycle, P.O. Box 19006, Boulder, CO 80308, Ph: 303/444-6634
I

George Martin, O.M. Scott, 141 11 Scottslawn Road, Marysville, OH 43041, Ph: 513/644-0011

Sumner Martinson, Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Division,

One Winter Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, Ph: 617/292-5969

John McCabe, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division, P.O. Box
30241, Lansing, MI 48909, Ph: 517/335-4789

Jim McNelly, The McNelly Group, 1930 9th Avenue SE, St. Cloud, MN 56304, Ph: 612/253-
6255

Steven Mojo, Warner-Lambert, 182 Tabor Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950, Ph: 201/540-7255

Richard Morhar, The Worm Concern, 580 Erbes Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 9 1362, Ph:
8051496-2822

Councilwoman Clair Muller, Atlanta City Council, 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, GA 30335,
Ph: 404/330-6051

Cary Oshins, Rodale Institute, 61 1 Siegfriedale Road, Kutztown, PA 19530, Ph: 215/683-6383
 Thomas Outerbridge, New York City Department of Sanitation, Burem of A'3?te Prevention,
Reuse & Recycling, 44 Beaver Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10004, Ph: 212/837-8168

Gordon Owen, Office of Waste Management, 351 Boul. St. Joseph, 12th etage, Hull, Quebec,
CANADA KIA OH3, Ph: 819/953-0616

Hope Pillsbury, US EPA, Recycling Section, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 Ph:
202/260-2797

Marsha Rhea, National Recycling Coalition, 1101 30th Street N W , Suite 305, Washington, DC
20007, Ph: 202/625-6406

Tom Richard, Come11 University, 207 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, N y 14853, Ph: 607/255-2488

Brant Rogers, Lany's Markets, 14900 Inter-Urban Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98168, Ph:
2061243-2957

Bill Roley, Applied Ecological Systems, 357 Osgood Court, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, Ph:
7 14/494-1443

John Roulac, Harmonious Technologies, P.O. Box 1865, Ojai, CA 91106, Ph: 805/646-8030

Robert Rynk, University of Idaho, Agricultural Engineering Department, Moscow, ID 83843,

Ph: 208/885-7626

Gerald Seay, Michigan Peat, Division of Bay-Houston Towing Co., P.O. Box 980129, Houston,
TX 77098, Ph: 713/522-0711

Lon Segall, Tellus Institute, 89 Broad Street, Boston, MA 021 10-35432, Ph: 617/426-5844

Elizabeth Seiler, Grocery Manufacturers of America, 1010 Wisconsin Avenue N W , Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20007, Ph: 202/337-9400

Frank Shields, Soil Control Lab, 42 Hangar Way, Watsonville, CA 95076, Ph: 408/724-4427

Aziz Shiralipour, Community Environmental Council, 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA
93109, Ph: 805/963-0583, ext. 116

Karen Smith, SunShares, 1215 South Briggs Avenue, Suite 100, Durham, NC 27703, Ph:
919/596-1870, ext. 224

Robert Spencer, 122 Sunnyside Drive, Dalton, MA 01226, Ph: 413/684-0420

Jay Stanford, Procter & Redfem, 45 Green Belt Drive, Don Mills, Ontario, CANADA, M3C
3K3. Ph: 416/445-3600

Jack Sutton, Keyes Fibre Co., College Avenue, Waterville, ME 04901, Ph: 207/873-3351
Lon Swain, SWANA, P.O. Box 7219, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Ph: 301/585-2898

Richard Tillinger, OWS Inc., 3155 Research Blvd., Suite 104, Dayton, OH 45420, Ph: 513/253-
6888

Steve Titko, O.M. Scott, 141 11 Scottslawn Road, Marysville, OH 43041, Ph: 513/644-0011

Rod Tyler, Kurtz Bros. Inc., 4700 East 49th Street, Cuyahoga Heights, OH 44131, Ph: 216/641-
7000

Maarten van de Kamp, Massachusetts Dept. of Food & Agriculture, Box 291, Academy Hill,
Conway, MA 01341, Ph: 413/369-4902

Deb Waldman, National Conference of State Legislatures, 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver,
CO 80202, Ph: 303/830-2200

Blll Warren, Mecklenburg County, 700 North Tyrone Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, Ph: 704/336-
3873