Technical and Economic Feasibility of Using Composting

to Prepare Organic Wastes for Land Application

Humboldt State University
ENGR 492
Enrique Diaz, Chetco Jamgochian, Aaron Perez, Paul Sereno
Team A
July 15, 2015

Contents
List of Figures

iv

List of Tables

1 Executive Summary

viii

2 Background
2.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Landfill Siting Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
1

3 Project Criteria and Constraints

4 Literature Review
4.1 Composting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Thermophilic Phase . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Mesophilic Phase . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.3 Collection and Separation . . . . . .
4.1.4 Composting Procedure . . . . . . . .
4.2 Applications of Compost . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Potential Challenges of Composting . . . . .
4.3.1 Odor Management . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 Physical Contaminants . . . . . . . .
4.3.4 Pathogen Reduction . . . . . . . . .
4.3.5 Heavy Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Characterization of Feedstocks . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Green Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Food Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Determination of Feedstock Characteristics .
4.6 Characterization of Humboldt Waste Stream
4.7 Composting Technologies . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.1 Windrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.2 Aerated Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.3 In-Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9.1 Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9.2 Heavy Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10.1 Carbon Dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10.2 Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10.3 Nitrous Oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10.4 Volatile Organic Compounds . . . . .
4.10.5 Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5
5
5
6
7
9
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
18
18
19
19
20
23
23
24
25
25
25
26
26
27

4.10.6 Ammonia . . . . .
4.10.7 Particulate Matter
4.11 Compost Final Standards
4.12 Potential Applications . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

5 Alternatives
5.1 Assumptions Common to All Alternatives .
5.1.1 Pre-Processing . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Post-Screening, Curing, and Storage
5.2 Windrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Required Equipment . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Cost Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Aerated Turned Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Required Equipment . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 Cost Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Ag-Bag System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2 Required Equipment . . . . . . . . .
5.4.3 Cost Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 XACT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1 Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.2 Required Equipment . . . . . . . . .
5.5.3 Cost Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 The No Compost Alternative . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

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

.
.
.
.

27
27
28
29

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

31
31
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
37
37
37
38
41
41
42
44
44
44
45
45

6 Alternative Selection

46

7 Selected Alternative - XACT System Design

7.1 Feedstock Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 CalRecycle Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant & Loan
7.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48
51
52
54
56

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Programs
. . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

8 Conclusions
59
8.1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
References

60

Appendix A: Compost Quality Standards

68

Appendix B: Alternative Criteria Rankings

69

Appendix C: Land Siting and Costs

73

Appendix D: Regulations

75
ii

Appendix E: HC Potential Compost Market

77

Appendix F: Homogeneous Costs

78

iii

List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Possible vacant parcel in Hydesville, CA with an approximate area of 3.4 acres

and zoned industrial heavy (Planning & Department, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . xii
General composting process diagram (Reproduced from (Bohn, 2010)). . . . . . 11
Compost application for stormwater runo BMPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Flowchart comparison for all alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Aerated Earth Pad (Picture from (GMT, 2012)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Ag-Bag system diagram depicting air flow, odor, temperature and moisture controls (Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
CT-5 compost processor with already made Eco-Pods. The CT-5 requires a 50
horse power tractor to move the encapsulator (Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008). . 40
XACT rotating drum vessel that can decompose organic matter in 4-7 days plus
an additional 21 days of curing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Temperature profile for an XACT system in Brazil that composts bovine waste
(courtesy of McConkey 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
XACT facility layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
XACT drum array. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Sensitivity analysis of the tipping fee with respect to various parameters. . . . . 57
Two optimal site locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

iv

List of Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Delphi matrix showing the optimal composting alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . x

XACT facility financed NPV of costs over a 30-year life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Sensitivity analysis of the projects economics to the selling price of compost. . . xi
Criteria for HC facility project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Constraints for HC facility project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Reasonable and preferred characteristics for composting (Reproduced from Sher5
man 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A comparison of heavy metal concentrations in mixed and source separated (SS
municipal solid waste (MSW) and maximum recommended heavy metal concentrations in compost for large applications (Reproduced from Brinton 2000). . . .
8
Separation Process (Reproduced from Richard 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Temperatures and active periods required for pathogen reduction (Adapted from
(CalRecycle, 2014c)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Maximum contaminant levels on a percent weight basis for a variety of contaminants in commercial food waste in HC (Produced from HWMA 2013). . . . . . 16
Expected types of feedstock to be processed by the composting facility with their
respective sources (Compiled from HWMA 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Characterization of the feedstock properties (Compiled from HWMA 2012). . . . 17
Comparison of Composting Methods (Adapted from BCMA, 1996 and EPA,
2012b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Percentage of material types found in municipal food waste (Adapted from Zhang
et al. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Properties of food waste and green waste in Modesto, CA (Adapted from B
uy
uksonmez
2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Typical end characteristics of municipal organic waste composting from turned
windrow (Adapted from Tognetti et al. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Maximum allowable metal concentrations (Reproduced from CalRecycle 2014c). 24
Frequency of compost sampling for biosolids composting facilities (Reproduced
from CalRecycle 2014c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Methane emission factors for turned and forced aeration systems (Adapted from
(Climate Action Reserve, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Composting process particulate matter emission factors (Adapted from (SJVAPCD, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A comparison of acceptable heavy metal loading rates between Europe and the
USA (Brinton, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Compost end use applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Approximate food waste and bulking agent quantities for the HC compost facility
optimized using the Cornell University Compost Calculator Spreadsheet ((2014)). 33
Preliminary capital costs of windrow alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Annual costs associated with O&M of the windrow alternative. . . . . . . . . . . 36
ATP space requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Unfinanced capital costs of ATP alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Annual costs associated with O&M of the ATP alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Land space requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
v

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

Ag-Bag system costs (Inman, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unfinanced capital costs of Ag-Bag alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Costs associated with O&M of the Ag-Bag alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unfinanced capital costs of the XACT alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific costs associated with O&M of the XACT in-vessel alternative. . . . . .
Final weights for the project based on the clients feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of each alternatives rankings with the unfinanced PV capital and
lifetime O&M cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delphi matrix showing the optimal composting alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivity to sawdust C:N ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weekly feedstock mix calculated using the Cornell University compost calculator
using a 50 week work year (Richard, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XACT system initial costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific costs associated with operation and maintenance of the XACT in-vessel
alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Financing schedule for the XACT system alternative, with a 4% interest rate
and monthly payments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scoring criteria for Organics Grant program (Reproduced from (CalRecycle,
2014e)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of GHG emissions from the selected XACT alternative design facility.
Summary of estimated GHG reduction from the benefits of composting (Reproduced from CEPA 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivity of tipping fee to the price of bulking agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivity of tipping fee to the price of diesel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivity of tipping fee to the number of employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compost selling price sensitivity analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quality standards for finished compost (Reproduced from CalRecycle 2014b) .
ATP Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Windrow Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criteria of the project met by the Ag-Bag system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XACT Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential sites for composting facility with estimated prices . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some selected farms and nurseries in HC (Generated from N.C. Growers Assoc.
2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Homogeneous capital cost for a composting facility in Humboldt County . . . .
Homogeneous annual O&M costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

42
43
43
45
45
46
47
48
52
52
53
53
54
55
55
56
57
58
58
59
68
69
70
71
72
73
77
78
79

Abbreviations
AD anaerobic digestion/digester
AEP Aerated Earth Pad
ASP Aerated Static Pile
ATP Aerated Turned Pile
BMP best management practices
CAR Climate Action Reserve
CCR California Code of Regulations
CFU colony forming units
C:N carbon-to-nitrogen
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geospatial Informational System
HC Humboldt County
HWMA Humboldt Waste Management Authority
MC moisture content
MCO microorganisms
MSW municipal solid waste
MT metric ton
MTCO2 e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
NPV net present value
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PV present value
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SS source separated
TS total solids
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VS volatile solids

vii

Executive Summary

This report investigates the feasibility of implementing a composting facility in Humboldt

County (HC) capable of processing 5,000 tons of industrial and commercial food waste per
year. Currently all of HCs food waste is sent to landfills. California legislation (AB 341) was
passed with the aim of diverting 75% of solid waste from landfills by either recycling or composting eorts by 2020 (CalRecycle, 2013). Currently HCs solid waste stream is composed of
approximately 34% food waste by mass. The diversion of food waste from the waste stream
would result in significant reductions in disposal costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
generated from the transportation and decomposition of waste in landfills.
A key element of achieving a feasible and successful alternative to landfilling is to minimize the
tipping fee associated with the composting facility. The composting tipping fee must be less
than the current landfill tipping fee ($120/ton for food waste drop o to Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA)) to be considered the preferred waste disposal method. The need
to divert food waste and green waste from landfills emanates from both California regulations
(AB 939, 341) and economic opportunities from selling the compost (Bohn, 2010).
The selected criteria and constraints selected to address the concerns associated with a compost
facility are:
1. Tipping fee

5. Flexibility

2. Facility footprint

6. Market availability

3. Odor and pest control

7. Process time

4. Leachate and GHG emissions

8. Regulations

This study examined four composting alternatives: windrows, aerated turned piles (ATP),
Ag-Bag (in-vessel) and XACT (in-vessel).
The windrow alternative would require five windrows to compost the food waste. Each pile
would be approximately 2 m wide and 75 m in length, with a total volume of 255 m3 . The
piles would be spaced 3 m apart and have a 4 m buer zone around the edges. The windrow
alternative would require approximately 3 to 4 acres depending on the layout of the windrows.
The time required for composting and curing in windrows would be variable depending on the
weather, season, feedstock characteristics, size of the pile, and target end use but should range
from 9-15 weeks.

viii

The windrow alternative was not selected for the following reasons:
(a) High potential for pest and odor issues

(d) Lower quality end product

(b) Longing process time

(e) High potential for leachate issues

(c) Large facility footprint

(f) More dicult to obtain permits

The aerated turned pile (ATP) alternative would incorporate several piles to compost the
5,000 tons/year of food waste in an indoor environment. After pre-processing, the feedstock
would be arranged in six aerated piles. The piles would be sorted atop an Aerated Earth
Pad (AEP). A piping and blower system would be embedded within the AEP to to drive the
aerobic decomposition of the feedstock. In addition, the AEP would serve to collect any leachate
produced by the piles. Biofilters would be contained in the AEP to remediate odors. Timers and
gate valves would be used to regulate air delivery frequency and magnitude. Turning during the
active phase would be conducted every five to seven days to promote faster decomposition by
homogenizing the compost mix. The processing time for the ATP alternative is 5-7 weeks.
The ATP alternative was not selected for the following reasons:
(a) Labor intensive operation

(d) High O&M cost

(b) Sophisticated aeration system

(e) High fuel consumption

(c) High energy demand

(f) High GHG emissions

The Ag-Bag alternative would utilize non-reusable 5x200 LDPE plastic bags (Eco-Pods) to
process the incoming 5,000 tons of food waste in HC. Annually, 100 Eco-Pods would be required
for the entire operation. After the feedstock has been preprocessed, a CT-5 encapsulator would
be used to input the shredded feedstock into the Eco-Pods. The temperature, moisture and
oxygen levels would be continually monitored within the Eco-Pods to ensure adequate conditions
exist for microorganisms (MCO) to decompose the feedstock. Two air blowers would be used
to regulate the air flow within the Eco-Pods. Processing time for the Ag-Bag Alternative is 4-8
weeks.
The Ag-Bag alternative was not selected for the following reasons:
(a) Disposal cost of 100 bags per year

(c) Low environmental benefit due to the disposal of the bags

(b) Longer total composting time than XACT

system

ix

The XACT system would consist of a rotating drum, made of carbon steel walls, mounted on
heavy duty mounting frames. Foam insulation would provide temperature control. The vessel
measures 10 feet in diameter by 60 feet in length, and could contain approximately 120-140
cubic yards. Four drums would be used for HCs facility. Three drums could handle the yearly
compost mixture, a fourth drum provides redundancy.The total process time from start to finish
is 15-28 days.
A Delphi matrix was used to evaluate each alternative. This study found that the XACT
method was the preferred method to compost HCs food waste. The XACT system was selected
because it has a small footprint, has minimal odor and pest issues, produces a high quality
compost, has a low processing time, and has a reasonable tipping fee (Table 1).
Table 1: Delphi matrix showing the optimal composting alternative.
Criterion
Environ. Benefit
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Flexibility
Market Availability
Process Time
Safety
Aesthetics

(Weight Rank)

ATP Windrow

Ag-Bag

XACT

70
60
100
72
63
72
42
48

50
80
90
72
63
48
49
42

60
100
70
81
81
64
56
48

90
70
70
81
81
80
56
48

527

494

560

576

A significant issue associated with composting food waste is managing odors and pests. The
XACT method was chosen specifically to minimize odor and pest issues. Compared to the
other alternatives, the XACT system has methods in place to mitigate issues from odors and
pests. The system is entirely enclosed, minimizing exposure to the outside environment and the
potential to attract pests or emit odors. Additionally, all contaminated air from the vessel can
be scrubbed through a biofilter strip to reduce noxious compounds. The biofilter consists of an
aeration system that draws ambient air into the vessel, and pulls air from the reactor through
sawdust or finished compost to minimize odors and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
The net present value (NPV) of the system prior to incorporating a tipping fee is estimated to
be -$7.2 million for the 30-year life of the project. This cost includes financing and assumes
a compost selling price of $25/yd3 (Table 2). The tipping fee required to oset this cost is
$84/ton.

Table 2: XACT facility financed NPV of costs over a 30-year life.

Facility Cost
Capital Investment
O&M (NPV)
10-yr equipment replac.(NPV)
15-yr vessel replac. (NPV)
20-yr equipment replac. (NPV)
Compost revenue @ $25/yd3 (NPV)

($4,575,000)
($7,268,000)
($302,000)
($1,041,000)
($204,000)
$6,156,000

Total (NPV)

($7,235,000)

The NPV and the tipping fee of the project are sensitive to the selling price of compost (Table 3).
The economic analysis assumed a low-end cost of $25 per yd3 . Local green waste compost is
sold for $45 per yd3 by Wes Green Landscape Materials in Arcata, CA (Green, 2013). The
compost produced from food waste would likely be of a higher quality and could potentially be
sold for a price greater than or equal to $45 per yd3 .
Table 3: Sensitivity analysis of the projects economics to the selling price of compost.
Compost Price $25 Compost Price $35
Compost revenue (NPV)
Total facility cost (NPV)
Required tipping fee
Change in tipping fee

$6,156,000
($7,235,000)
$84/ton
0%

$8,611,000
($4,779,000)
$55/ton
-34%

Compost Price $45

$11,084,000
($2,306,000)
$27/ton
-68%

A preliminary analysis was conducted to locate land for the facility. An available space in Hydesville, CA zoned as heavy industrial, parcel number 20132217, could be the optimal location
for the composting facility. This lot has an approximate land cost of $894,000 for 3.4 acres,
assuming a price of $65 per m2 . The lot is located between a farm and another industrial
operation (Figure 1). This lot is not situated on the coastal zone, 100-year flood zone, and
Alquist-Priolo fault hazard zone. The slope classification of the parcel is C meaning that
there is a gradient (Planning & Department, 2013). One drawback of this parcel its proximity
(within 1000 feet) to the Rohnerville airport (Planning & Department, 2013).

xi

Figure 1: Possible vacant parcel in Hydesville, CA with an approximate area of 3.4 acres and
zoned industrial heavy (Planning & Department, 2013).

The implementation of the XACT alternative will help HC meet the diversion goals of AB
341 by converting 5,000 tons per year of food waste into a stabilized solid that can be used
for economic gain. If the finished compost is sold for $25/yd3 the food waste tipping fee will
be reduced from $120/ton to $84/ton, a 43% reduction in the current tipping fee. Further
benefits include reductions in GHG emissions. A total of 5,400 MTCO2 e could be avoided from
transporting the food waste to the landfills and an additional 3,325 MTCO2 e could be oset
by using the finished compost.

xii

Background

Legislation has been passed in California with the goal of diverting 75% of solid waste from
landfills by recycling, composting, or other food diversion methods (CalRecycle, 2013). In
Humboldt County (HC), food waste comprises up to 34% of the waste stream (Bohn, 2010).
The removal of food waste from the waste stream may reduce disposal costs and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions generated from the transportation and decomposition of waste in landfills.
In addition to the savings from diverting food waste from landfills, composting would generate
revenue by producing a fertile soil amendment that could be sold to oset costs.

2.1

Objectives

The objective of this project is to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of a composting facility in HC that can process approximately 5,000 tons of industrial and commercial
food waste per year. A key element of achieving an economically feasible facility is to minimize
the tipping fee associated with the composting facility. The composting tipping fee must be
less than the current landfill tipping fee to be considered the preferred waste disposal method.
The need to divert food waste and green waste from landfills emanates from both California regulations (AB 939, 341) and economic possibilities from reselling the compost (Bohn,
2010).
In addition to the compost project, there are six additional concurrent projects examining the
feasibility of anaerobic digestion of food waste and the utilization of biogas. Composting is a
more established technology than anaerobic digestion (AD) for processing food waste; therefore
this study would be the baseline to which all other bio-digester projects in the capstone class
would be compared to. The feasibility of various alternatives would be compared by their
life-cycle costs over a thirty-year lifetime.
The client for this project is Juliette Bohn in conjunction with the American Biogas Council.
Juliette Bohn would be consulted throughout the project to ensure that the project meets the
established criteria.

2.2

Landfill Siting Constraints

Siting a composting facility is similar to siting a landfill. The site location, which is regulated
by the Code of Federal Regulations 40 Part 258, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Title 27 of the CCR, and HC regulations, should not include (Winkler-Prins, 2013):
Wetland areas and areas in the 100 year floodplain
Areas within 5,000 feet of a runway end used by piston-type aircraft, public lands, and

areas greater than 3 miles from existing roads

Federally designated sensitive and critical habitats
Areas at risk of snow-related obstruction (i.e., areas at elevations greater than 1,500 feet)
Seismic impact zones within 200 feet of the Holocene fault and unstable areas.
Visually inspect the remaining areas for appropriate landfill sites, searching for sites that:
a. Have a smaller distance to major population centers (e.g., Eureka, Arcata)
b. Have milder slopes and are less likely to contain a municipalitys water supply
c. Have relatively easy access (i.e., do not require many miles on remote roads)
d. Are of sucient size (i.e. 175 acres) and not of an irregular shape

Project Criteria and Constraints

The criteria and constraints in Table 4 and Table 5 were developed by working with the client
as to what was most important in designing the project.
Table 4: Criteria for HC facility project.
Criterion

Description

Method of Comparison

Weight

Environmental
Benefit

Reduced GHG emissions by

processing waste and using the end
product.

The technology chosen will

produce an end product suitable
for many uses while having a
minimal carbon footprint.

10

Capital Cost

Initial costs such as land and

equipment.

Lower capital costs are preferred.

10

O&M Cost

Labor costs, maintenance fees, and

bulking agent costs.

A lower O&M cost is preferred.

10

Flexibility

The compost facility should be

able to produce a consistent
product given a variable feedstock
composition, changing market,
regulations, and climate.

A greater ability to handle a

changing variety or volume of
feedstock materials without a
major change in the final product
is preferred.

Market
Availability

Knowing the potential compost

market in a community is
important for the design of a
compost facility and its end
product quality.

A higher quality and quantity

with low amounts of
contaminant, produced in a
shorter period of time is preferred
to meet a wider variety of
markets.

Process Time

A minimal active and curing phase

is desired to provide the market
with a continuous compost supply.

A shorter processing time is

preferred.

Safety

The compost facility should

minimize potential harm to
workers.

A lower number of worker hours

of exposure to hazardous
materials or heavy machinery is
preferred.

Aesthetics

The compost facility shall not

degrade the current existing visual
character.

Minimal alterations to the site

and minimizing the visual impact
to the landscape are preferred.

Table 5: Constraints for HC facility project.

Constraints

Description

Limits

Footprint and
Location

The facility is limited by the space that it requires. More

land will be required depending on the technology implemented. The site is also limited by proximity to residential
areas, flood plains, and the coastal zone.

Section 2.2

Odor

Depending on the location of the facility and the methods

of composting, odor may be a serious issue. Odor is the
main reason neighbors complain about a facility (Richard,
2007). Prevailing wind and airflow direction are key elements in siting a facility.

NCUAMQD
Public
Nuisances
General
Limitation

Feedstock
quality

The feedstock quality influences the composting process

and the end product quality. Physical contaminants, e.g.
glass, plastic and metal, can significantly increase the cost
of processing and degrade the end product.

The feedstock
must be of a
quality to meet
the project
objectives.

Available
bulking agent

The eciency of the composting process and the end product quality are functions of the amount of bulking agent
used. A composting facility in Northern HC may be limited by the amount green waste available. The HWMA
already composts approximately 5,100 tons of green waste
per year at their Mad River composting facility. Therefore obtaining the required amount of green waste may be
a challenge.

May require
10,000-20,000
tons per year
(Bohn, 2010)

Feedstock
source reliability

The facility is constrained by the consistency of the feedstock components and the reliability of available food
waste. The facility must be able to adapt to changes in
feedstock characteristics and fluctuations in the amount of
incoming food waste.

Be able to treat
5,000 tons of
food waste with
varying
characteristics.

Compliance
with regulations

There are numerous regulations for composting facilities.

These regulations are in relation to: pathogens, heavy metals, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
odor control and end use quality. For more information
see section: Regulations.

The facility
must comply
with local, state,
and federal
regulations.

Literature Review

This section will provide an in-depth discussion of the composting process, various composting
methods, and prominent case studies. It will also discuss the applicable regulations regarding
composting in California.

4.1

Composting Process

The composting process is the controlled or uncontrolled aerobic decomposition of organic matter by MCO at an accelerated rate into a stable, soil-like substance called compost (Sherman,
1999). The rate at which composting occurs and the quality of the final product depends on
several factors, most importantly the molar C:N, the oxygen content, MC, and the temperature.
Table 6 summarizes reasonable and preferred ranges for the desired feedstock characteristics
for composting.
Table 6: Reasonable and preferred characteristics for composting
(Reproduced from Sherman 1999).
Characteristic
Feedstock C:N ratio
MC
Oxygen content
pH
Bulk density
Temperature
Particle size

4.1.1

Reasonable

1
8

20:1 - 40:1
40 - 65%
> 6%
5.5 - 9.0
< 640 mkg3
43-60 C
- 2 inches diameter

Preferred
25:1 - 30:1
50 - 60%
16 - 18.5%
6.5 - 8.5
< 640 mkg3
54-60 C
Variable

Thermophilic Phase

The active stage, or thermophilic stage (54-74C), in which easily digestible material is rapidly
digested, is characterized by high microbial activity from MCO that thrive in high temperatures
(Olds College CTC, 1999). Oxygen and carbon are consumed by MCO to breakdown organic
matter and, as a result, the temperature begins to drop as the process continues. If the active
stage of composting does not reach proper temperatures, carbon and oxygen deficiencies may
be at fault (USDA & NRCS, 2010). Volatile solids (VS) are primarily broken down in this
stage.

High temperatures during the thermophilic stage are crucial for the destruction of pathogens and
weeds. However if the temperatures are too high, the MCO will go dormant and create spores
that will germinate once favorable conditions return. The active stage takes approximately
10-60 days depending on the type of composting process implemented. Once temperatures go
below 40 C, dierent organisms begin to dominate the composting process.
4.1.2

Mesophilic Phase

In the curing or mesophilic stage (10-40C) the compost stabilizes and complex materials (acids
and decay resistant materials) are slowly broken down. This stage is characterized by the
formation of humic compounds and nitrate from the decomposition of complex materials. Fungi,
such as mold and yeast, that develop during the mesophilic phase can metabolize tough debris
from complex plant polymers. The fungi in compost are organisms that act as decomposers
and can be categorized as saprophytes (Trautmann & Olynciw, 1996).
Monitoring the moisture, temperature, and oxygen levels during the curing stage is beneficial
for producing a high quality product. The final product depends on the characteristics of the
compost (Table 6) and the final use of the compost. Curing requires one to four months or
longer depending on the planned end use of the compost (Sherman, 1999).
Testing the properties listed in Table 6 can determine the maturity and stability of the compost.
Other tests to verify the compost maturity include: germination tests, reheating tests, a humic
substances analysis, cation exchange capacity tests, and microbial bioassays ([CCQC] California
Compost Quality Council, 2001). Qualitatively, the cured compost should be unrecognizable
from its input feedstock and should have a dark black color and an earthy smell. Covering
curing piles should be practiced to avoid cross contamination of active piles during the curing
stage. This could also be achieved by relocating the curing process to a dierent sector of
the facility and storing the stabilized product in an enclosed environment (USDA & NRCS,
2010).
Compost is considered finished when it is biologically and chemically stable, and the raw feedstock is no longer actively decomposing (Cooperband, 2002). Usually the curing process is
complete when the compost stays near ambient temperatures (USDA & NRCS, 2010). The end
product could be targeted for multiple markets depending on its final chemical and physical
characteristics. Used as a soil amendment or additive, compost can prevent diseases in crops,
fertilize soil and stabilize soil structure (EPA, 1995). The quality of compost is sensitive to
contaminants in its feedstock.

4.1.3

Collection and Separation

The type of collection system in place weighs heavily on the final quality of compost. There
are two types of collection methods (Richard, 2007):
Source Separated (SS)/Bio-Waste - This method relies on homes or businesses to separate
compostable material from items destined for recycling or disposal. The separation can be
as simple as wet/dry or may be more strictly regulated. This method could be municipally
funded and can reduce the amount of heavy metals in compost by 75% (Brinton, 2000)
(Table 7). Further separation of contaminants is recommended.
Centralized - Centralized separation systems sort waste at a facility after it has been collected from the community. Manual picking, metal recovery with magnetic eddy-currents,
air separation, screening, and other mechanical methods may be used individually or in
conjunction with one another to remove contaminants from the feedstock or compost
(Richard, 2007). Centralized separation is usually done before composting but can occur
afterwards to remove missed contaminants. The separation process begins with screening
via a bag opener combined with a screen or by using a trommel. The trommel is a drum
shaped screen of dierent sizes that sorts contaminants by size, which aids further separation processes (Table 8). The most eective method of removing chemical contaminants
like heavy metals and household hazards is via hand removal (Richard, 2007).
Quality compost can be achieved by the implementation of eective collection and separation
methods. An educational program to promote public cooperation and compost process is
recommended to attain quality compost.

Table 7: A comparison of heavy metal concentrations in mixed and source separated (SS
municipal solid waste (MSW) and maximum recommended heavy metal concentrations in
compost for large applications (Reproduced from Brinton 2000).

1
2

Trace
metal

Mixed MSW
Compost1
(mg/kg)

SS MSW
Compost2
(mg/kg)

Max.
conc.3
(mg/kg)

Typical metal
levels in
European soils
(mg/kg)

Pb

420

83

75

12 - 100

Cu

222

41

50

3 - 20

Zn

919

224

200

14 - 125

Cr

107

61

75

5 - 100

Ni

84

26

30

4 - 50

Cd

2.8

0.4

0.75

0.3 - 0.7

Hg

1.9

< 0.2

0.5

0.05 - 0.40

Averaged values reported.

Adapted from (Brinton, 2000) originally from (Kraus & Grammel,1992).

Table 8: Separation Process (Reproduced from Richard 2007).

Technology
Screening

Hand Removal
Magnetic Separation
Eddy Current Separation
Air Classification
Wet Separation
Ballistic Separation

Material removed
Large: Film plastics, large paper, cardboard, misc.
Mid-sized : Recyclables, organics, misc.
Fines : Organics, metal fragments, misc.
Recyclables, plastic glass, and chemical contaminants
Ferrous materials plus their contaminants
Non-ferrous metals
Lights: paper, plastic
Heavies: metals, glass, organics
Floats: organics, misc.
Sinks: metals, glass, gravel, misc.
Light : plastic, undecomposed paper
Medium: compost
Heavy: metals, glass, gravel, misc.

4.1.4

Composting Procedure

Municipal composting facilities apply a simple yet ecient process to decompose organic matter
(Figure 2). The composting process includes the following processes to make an end product
that is fit for resale and land application (Bohn, 2010) (EPA, 1995):
Receiving - This stage involves having a large enough area to store, move and inspect the
feedstock. The contaminants in MSW will decrease the value of the product and limit
its end uses. Some examples of contaminants include: automotive products, electronics,
plastics, glass, and metal (EPA, 1995). Compost produced from SS MSW has approximately 25% as much contamination from heavy metals compared to that produced from
mixed MSW (Section 4.9.2).
Pre-screening - Most waste, even SS MSW, will contain plastics and undesirables. Using
a coarse screen will help to remove larger foreign material before shredding. Items that
cannot be used in the process or recycled are directed to the landfill. A moisture content
(MC) of less than 50% facilitates screening with an optimum moisture level of 40%.
Adding water to the mixture before shredding may be necessary (EPA, 1995).
Shredding - This step reduces the particle size of the feedstock such that the material can
support aerobic degradation. Shredding in theory increases the surface area of the waste
thereby increasing biological decomposition (Richard, 2007).
Mixing - The feedstock is mixed with amendments or bulking agents to achieve a desirable
MC, pH, and C:N ratio before processing. Wood chips, green waste, cardboard, and
unprinted newspaper are examples of commonly used mixing agents (Haug, 1993).
Loading - Once the feedstock blend is ready, the materials are laid out into windrows,
piles, or placed inside of a vessel to begin the composting process. The machinery used
in this stage could be front/back loaders (Bohn, 2010).
Processing - This is the active phase of composting where thermophilic MCO decompose
the organic material. This stage requires constant monitoring of the MC and aeration rate
in order maintain temperatures above 55 C, which is required for reducing pathogenic
bacteria. Processing times vary by composting methods and are summarized in Table 9.
Temperatures are regulated by controlling aeration in the piles or vessel, forced aeration
and compost turning are common methods to influence oxygen levels in the piles. The
MC should stay within 40-60% during the active phase of composting.
Leachate control - Leachate is runo from composting piles that could contaminate
surface and ground water resources. Several methods exist for controlling leachate.
Proper grading and siting of the main composting area is key. For exposed methods,
9

managing runo is the primary concern. MC in the pile should remain below 65%,
windrows should be oriented in the direction of the slope, and the composting pad
should be composed of an impermeable material (Compost Council of Canada, 2010).
Contained systems may be designed to safely collect leachate.
Odor control - Odors often arise when the conditions in Table 6 are not met. The
proper management of these properties will reduce odors emitted from the decomposing feedstock. A biofilter layer composed of moist organic material may be placed
on top of piles or windrows, and frequent turning or aeration can also eliminate
unpleasant odors (Compost Council of Canada, 2010).
Table 9: Temperatures and active periods required for pathogen reduction (Adapted from
(CalRecycle, 2014c)).

Temperature
Period (Days)
1
2

Windrows1

Aerated Static Pile

In-Vessel2

55C
15

55C
3

55C
3

Forced aeration is not used for windrows, processing time is longer due to oxygen limitations.
Must submit a system-specific temperature monitoring plan with the permit application.

Post-screening - Foreign matter and non-compostable materials are removed from the
compost to meet market specifications. The screening process can be conducted either
before or after the curing process. During screening, the composts MC should be maintained under 50% to facilitate successful screening (EPA, 1995).
Curing - The curing process involves aging compost in order to further decompose and
biologically stabilize organic material. Uncured compost may contain high C:N ratios or
high levels of nitrates, salts, or organic acids, which are often harmful to growing plants
(Cooperband, 2002). The curing process can often last up to a year.
Storage - This stage involves relocating the stabilized humus-like product into an enclosed
environment. This is done to prevent cross-contamination of seeds and pathogens from
active piles. The item is then ready to be bagged or hauled in containers to dierent
markets.

10

Figure 2: General composting process diagram (Reproduced from (Bohn, 2010)).

4.2

Applications of Compost

Composting on a municipal scale has the potential to produce local jobs and revenue for HC.
Additional revenue may be generated by selling compost for a variety of uses. Some of the
many applications of compost are (EPA, 1995):
Agricultural fertilizer

Forestry applications

Erosion control for highways

Landscaping

Potting soil

Silviculture

Soil amendment

Bagged for retail

11

Potential large scale users include (EPA, 1995):

Golf courses

Parks

Cemeteries

Landscaping contractors

Caltrans

Farms

Nurseries

Construction site stormwater management

Manufacturers of topsoil

4.3

Potential Challenges of Composting

There are numerous challenges associated with the implementation of a composting facility.
Meeting these challenges often determines whether a facility is successful or not.
4.3.1

Odor Management

Depending on the composting technique that is implemented odor may be an issue. For instance,
windrow systems and stack piles (non-aerated) are subject to odor issues (Risse & Faucette,
2012). Odor issues occur when proper MC and C:N ratios are not maintained. If C:N ratios are
below 25:1, unwanted odors may develop because elevated nitrogen levels accelerate the growth
of MCO and the decomposition of compost. As the MC increases, anaerobic conditions occur
and odors would develop during decomposition. The MC should be maintained below 60% to
prevent unwanted odors (Richard, 2007).
The North Coast Unified Air Quality District (NCUAMQD) enforces air quality control rules
in HC. Currently, no odor regulations exist for composting facilities; however, the rules and
regulations for air quality control specify a Public Nuisances General Limitation. Under the
Public Nuisances General Limitation any facilities producing odors that cause discomfort or
harm to any considerable number of persons are subject to a fine if reported by the public
(NCUAQMD, 2014).
4.3.2

Leachate

Compost leachate is comprised of the dissolved and particulate matter that is removed from
compost by the infiltration of water (Chatterjee et al., 2013). In the early stages of the compost
process, leachate contains high concentrations of nutrients and organic compounds which can
be toxic to plants. These compounds include nitrogen, heavy metals, and fulvic and humic
acids (Chatterjee et al., 2013). As the compost ages, nutrient concentrations decrease in the
resulting runo. Leachate composition can be highly dependent on the feedstock composition.

12

Older compost produces a more stable and nutritionally correct leachate that may be used or
sold as a fertilizer.
Leachate can be managed in several ways. For outdoor piles, impermeable pads should be used
and located away from shallow aquifers, waterways, and areas prone to flooding (Andrews,
2011). The surface area exposed to precipitation should be minimized and covered if possible.
If pile runo cannot be directly collected, the use of biofilters or bioswales can be used to filter
leachate before it leaves the composting area. Thermophilic conditions in a pile can cause water
to evaporate rather than leach through the pile.
4.3.3

Physical Contaminants

Physical contaminants occupy approximately six percent of the HC food waste stream (HWMA,
2013). These physical contaminants vary greatly in their composition, but may be broken up
in to metals, plastics, glass, and other contaminants. The largest contaminant in HC by weight
is metal, but plastic items can be more numerous and can take up more volume (Juliette Bohn,
personal communication, February 11, 2014).
Physical contaminants present several issues to compost production. Contaminants may be
caught in machinery or moving parts throughout the composting process, slowing down or
damaging equipment. Toxic chemicals may leach from contaminants, creating environmental
and human health risks. Sharp contaminants, including glass, needles, and can lids, can pose
a risk to workers and end users.
The removal of physical contaminants may be accomplished with several methods and technologies. In source-separated collection systems, proper public education as to what should be
placed in the compost collection bin is key (Richard, 2007). In centralized collection systems,
manual picking, magnetic eddy-currents, air or fluid separation, and other mechanical methods may be used before or after composting to remove contaminants (Richard, 2007). Source
removal of heavy metal and chemical contaminants is generally more eective than centralized
separation, as most centrally separated systems are optimized for the recovery of materials for
recycling.
4.3.4

Pathogen Reduction

Pathogens in the end product compost must be reduced to the required levels as defined by
California law. During the composting process, the feedstock must be maintained at a set
temperature for a minimum period of time. The required temperature and process time varies
depending on the composting technology implemented (CalRecycle, 2014c). Specific details
may be found in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Chapter 3.1 17868.3(a).

13

4.3.5

Heavy Metals

Heavy metal concentrations depend on the feedstock and the amount of sorting the feedstock
has undergone. Better separation techniques can reduce the concentrations of heavy metals
measured in the finished compost (Lopez et al., 2004). The accumulation of heavy metals in
compost is a potential problem due the health concerns and environmental issues associated
with toxic metals. California composted products cannot exceed heavy metal concentrations
specified in CCR Title 14 Chapter 3.1 17868.2(a). Any product that exceeds the maximum
allowable metal concentrations must be reprocessed or disposed of in a landfill.

4.4

Characterization of Feedstocks

Selecting the proper composting method is dependent on the type of available feedstock and
its characteristics. By knowing the characteristics of the feedstock, an appropriate ratio of
amendments and/or bulking agents can be added to achieve proper initial moisture levels, C:N
ratio, and pH (USDA & NRCS, 2010).
The optimal moisture range for composting is between 40-65% and must not drop below 15%,
where microbial activity comes to a halt. Levels above 65% will inhibit the ability of the
microorganisms to uptake oxygen, and in certain locations of the pile anaerobic conditions
may occur. Anaerobic conditions slow down the composting process and produce objectionable
odors. The total solids (TS) content of a mix is equivalent to the dierence between one and
the MC.
The initial feedstock is mixed with amendments and bulking agents to decrease the MC. Amendments are also used to bring the pH and C:N ratio to desired initial levels and to improve
compost stability. Examples of amendments include: bark, cardboard, food scraps, saw dust,
straw, green waste, wood ash and wood chips. A bulking agent is a decay resistant material
that helps to increase the porosity of the soil and its structure and is usually removed from
the final product via screening methods and subsequently re-introduced into the composting
process. Bulking agents such as wood chips can also be considered amendments. Finished
compost and bulking agent hauling should be within a 50 mile radius of the facility in order to
improve the economics of the system (USDA & NRCS, 2010).
4.4.1

Green Waste

Yard waste is legally defined as any wastes generated from the maintenance or alteration of
public, commercial or residential landscapes (CalRecycle, 2014c). The HWMA defines green
waste as: brush, tree branches, leaves, lawn clippings and untreated scrap lumber (HWMA,
2014b). Green waste is used in the composting process as a bulking agent and/or as an additive
to create a feedstock with the optimal desirable characteristics. The amount of green waste
14

needed for mixing purposes could be as high as 20,000 tons per year for a facility that cocomposts 5,000 tons of industrial/commercial food waste (Bohn, 2010). Typical C:N ratio
for yard trimmings and wood chips are 20-80:1 and 400-700:1, respectively (North Country
Organics, 2013).
4.4.2

Food Waste

The state of California defines food material as any material that was acquired for animal or
human consumption, is separated from the municipal solid waste stream, and that does not meet
the definition of agricultural material (CalRecycle, 2014c). Agricultural material is defined
as any material of plant or animal origin, resulting from the production and processing of
farm, ranch, agricultural, horticultural, aquacultural, silvicultural, floricultural, vermicultural,
or viticultural products, including manures, orchard and vineyard prunings, and crop residues
(CalRecycle, 2014c).

4.5

Determination of Feedstock Characteristics

An essential component in designing a composting facility is optimizing the the feedstock characteristics. This process can be challenging as the number of ingredients increases. As the
feedstock becomes more complex, computer programming may be necessary for the data analysis (USDA & NRCS, 2010).
Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
A key element of the optimization process is calculating the C:N of the materials available.
Equations commonly used to calculate the C:N are (Richard & Trautmann, 1996):
K
i
C:N = K
i

Qi Ci (100% M Ci )
Qi Ni (100% M Ci )

)
K (

Qi
1=
Qtotal
i
(
M Ci =

Qwet Qdry
Qwet

15

(1)

(2)

)
100%

(3)

where:
C:N
Qi
Qtotal
Ci
Ni
M Ci
K

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Carbon to nitrogen ratio

[1]
Mass of feedstock i
[M]

Total feedstock mass ( i Qi i) [M]

Carbon fraction of material i
[%]
Nitrogen content of material i
[%]
Moisture content of material i
[%]
Number of feedstocks to compost [1]

The MC and carbon and nitrogen fractions of all feedstocks are required for the calculation.
Using Eq. (1), an iterative approach or optimization can be used to determine the mass of each
feedstock necessary to achieve a desired carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N ). Mass continuity for
each constituent must be maintained for the calculation Eq. (2). These calculations are used
in the Cornell University Composting Spreadsheet (Richard, 2014).

4.6

Characterization of Humboldt Waste Stream

The character of the food waste stream in HC is relatively unknown. The characteristics of
the waste stream are important to define because the facility parameters are designed based on
particular feedstock parameters. The HWMA conducted a pilot study to audit contamination
in commercial food waste. The initial results for the maximum contamination levels for a
variety of contaminants are presented in Table 10 (HWMA, 2013). The primary contaminants
on a mass basis are metals, and plastics are a primary contaminant based on volume.
Table 10: Maximum contaminant levels on a percent weight basis for a variety of
contaminants in commercial food waste in HC (Produced from HWMA 2013).
Contaminant

Maximum Percent
Contamination (by weight)

Plastic

4.14

Metal

4.97

Glass

2.86

Bioplastic

0.59

Other

0.78

Total Contamination

6.11

16

The HWMA accepts approximately 6,000 tons of green waste per year at their Hawthorne
Street Transfer Station, of which 85% is then taken to HWMAs Mad River composting facility,
and the remaining 15% is used as fuel for energy generation. There is a lack of green waste
material available from HWMA for co-composting purposes. Therefore obtaining enough green
waste to eectively compost the available feedstock may be a challenge for a HC co-composting
facility (Bohn, 2010).
Food Waste Characteristics
Expected feedstock data for this study and their characteristics were obtained from the HWMA
AD pilot study and are provided in tables 11 & 12.
Table 11: Expected types of feedstock to be processed by the composting facility
with their respective sources (Compiled from HWMA 2012).
Food Waste Type

Source

Amount (Tons/year)

Food scraps
Cheese whey
Shrimp fat cake

Commercial
Cypress Grove
Pacific Choice Seafoods

2,033
1,600
1,400

Table 12: Characterization of the feedstock properties (Compiled from HWMA 2012).
Food Waste
Type

TS(%) VS(%) C:N

pH

MC (%)

Bulk Density
(kg/m3 )

Food scraps

25-30

27

15:11

4.7-6.1

70-75

14001

Cheese whey

4.8

20:12

4.7

94

10042

Shrimp fat cake

14

NA

3.5:1

3.8-8.13

86

2173

1
2
3

North Country Organics 2013

Landmark 1999
Coastal Research & Extension Center 1998

The available food waste is broken into three sources: post-process food scraps from commercial
sources, cheese whey from Cypress Grove, and shrimp fat cake from Pacific Choice Seafoods
(Table 11). Literature values for C:N ratios of the available HC feedstocks range from 3.5:1-20:1.
The pH ranges from 3.8-8.1 if the shrimp fat cake waste is in its early processing stages (Table
12). Both the pH and the C:N ratios of the HC feedstocks fall outside of the initial optimal
range for composting (Table 6). An analysis of the chemical properties of the HC feedstocks
may be required in order to obtain proper initial C:N ratio, pH, and MC because the literature
values may not be representative, due to local variations.
17

Due to the low TS content of the available primary substrate, the MC of the cheese whey
and shrimp cake to is expected to be higher than optimal (Table 12). The initial MC of the
feedstock ranges from 70-94% (Table 12). A higher than optimal MC can exacerbate leachate
runo from compost piles.

4.7

Composting Technologies

The three composting methods commonly used to dispose of food waste are: windrows, aerated static piles, and in-vessel systems. The required parameters are highly dependent on the
technology used (Table 13). The choice of a composting technology relies on many of these
characteristics.
Table 13: Comparison of Composting Methods
(Adapted from BCMA, 1996 and EPA, 2012b).

General
Operational Costs1
Capital Costs
Labor
Land2
Bulking Agent
Active period
Curing
H, W, L (Meters)
Aeration System
Odor Factor
1
2

Turned Windrow

Aerated Static Pile

In-Vessel System

Active systems
$15-40/ton
Low
Low/Med
1-2 acres
Flexible
21-40 days
30+ Days
1-2.8, 3-6, Variable
Turning and nat. convection
High

Eective for municipal use

$25-60/ton
Med
Med
0.75-1.5 acres
Must be porous
21-40 days
30+ Days
3-4.5, Variable, Variable
Forced positive/negative
Low/Med (can control)

Commercial applications
$80-110/ton
High
High
0.5-1 acres
Flexible
21-35 days
30+ Days
Dependent on design
Turning and aeration
Low/Med (can control)

Based on 40,000 ton annual load

Scaled to 5,000 ton annual load from a 40,000 ton study

4.7.1

Windrows

Windrow or aerated windrow composting systems involve organizing organic food waste in
rows that can periodically be aerated by mechanically turning the pile (Risse & Faucette,
2012). Windrow systems can accommodate food waste streams from large communities. One
advantage of windrow systems are their robustness in rainy and cold climates. If a windrows
exterior freezes the windrow core may still be stable at 60 C (BCMA, 1996). During rain
storms, windrows can be shaped so water does not infiltrate within the pile. Diverse waste,
such as yard trimmings, grease, animal byproducts, and liquids can be composted in a windrow
18

so long as the pile is frequently turned (EPA, 2014). Windrow composting facilities have low
capital costs and medium to high operational costs (EPA, 2012b).
Two major concerns with windrow composting facilities are contamination of storm water runo
and significant odorous emissions. Runo can leach contaminants from the compost and pollute
receiving waters. One mitigation technique is to capture the runo in detention ponds and treat
it prior to discharge (Wilson et al., 2004). The leachate could also be incorporated back into the
beginning of the composting process to raise moisture levels. Odors may be controlled through
frequent turning, or a biofilter layer may be constructed on top of the windrows (Compost
Council of Canada, 2010).
4.7.2

Aerated Piles

Aerated piles may be either static (ASP) or turned (ATP). Both ASP and ATP methods use
air distribution systems to move air through the piles to drive the aerobic decomposition of the
feedstock. ASP compost is usually ready in 5-10 weeks (Sherman, 1999). ATP compost typically decomposes faster because turning promotes a more homogenized mix with ideal oxygen
content, processing requires approximately 5-7 weeks (GMT, 2012). Aerated pile composting
produces less noxious odors than windrow composting as there is more oxygen present during the composting process and therefore a reduction in the formation of odorous compounds
created during anaerobic activities (Rosenfeld et al., 2004).
4.7.3

In-Vessel

In-vessel systems enclose the compost in a reactor where the temperature, moisture content,
aeration, and other characteristics may be monitored and controlled (Haug, 1993). Individual
reactor designs are often proprietary and are sized to each individual facility. Reactor technologies are classified as either vertical or horizontal systems depending on the process flow.
Vertical systems consist of the loading the feedstock on to a bed, which then moves throughout
the system. The feedstock may be added continuously, intermittently, or in batches. Vertical
systems are further classified as to whether or not the bed is agitated as it moves through the
reactor. Moving packed bed reactors have been frequently used to compost sludge, due to a
lower cost per unit of working volume (Haug, 1993).
Horizontal in-vessel systems are classified as either rotating drums, agitated bins, or static bins
(Haug, 1993). Rotating drum designs are further divided based upon the flow inside the reactor. In a dispersed flow drum, feedstock is fed in one end of the drum and out of the opposite
end. The conditions in the reactor are predominantly plug flow, with some dispersion produced
by tumbling (Haug, 1993). A drum reactor may also be divided into cells to prevent short
circuiting. Generally, the discharge from each compartment enters the next, and a long deten19

tion time may be achieved. Compartmented reactors are usually fed intermittently. Finally,
complete mixing along the length of the reactor can be attempted. This design usually requires
feeding and discharging along the entire length of the reactor, and is not commonly used as
more processing would be required to ensure proper pathogen reduction (Haug, 1993).
Agitated horizontal vessels are agitated either mechanically or with forced aeration, or a combination of the two. Circular and rectangular reactor designs have both been used to compost
a variety of waste streams, including MSW, sludge, and green waste (Haug, 1993). Circular
reactors utilize augers on a rotating arm to agitate the compost. One full revolution around the
reactor is completed in 1-3 hours (Haug, 1993). Rectangular agitated bins have many methods
for agitation, and agitation is used to move the feedstock along the length of the reactor.
Static horizontal vessels slowly move a static pile from one end of the reactor to the other,
and air, emissions, water, and temperature may be added or removed along the length of the
reactor. The compost may move through the reactor on a slow conveyor belt, a walking floor,
or with a push plate (Haug, 1993). Plug flow conditions are maintained in the reactor. The
feedstock can be supplied continuously or intermittently.
For any version of an in-vessel system, a temperature monitoring program will be required. Invessel systems are required to maintain a temperature greater than 55 C or greater for three
days. Maintaining this temperature will reduce pathogens in the final product.
Vessels can be more prone to equipment failure and system limitations than other methods
(BCMA, 1996) (Cekmecelioglu et al., 2005). When not operated properly, the end products of
in-vessel composting are often less than optimal when compared to alternative methods such as
windrow composting (Cekmecelioglu et al., 2005). However, composting in vessels gives more
control over leaching, odor emissions, and structural instability compared to windrow and ASP
methods (Cekmecelioglu et al., 2005).
Costs for in-vessel composting can vary significantly based on the technology used, capacity,
odor control, and required maintenance (Regenstein et al., 1999). In-vessel methods typically
has higher capital and operational costs than other methods due to the equipment and skilled
labor necessary for operation (BCMA, 1996).

4.8

Case Studies

The percentage of material types found in municipal food waste can vary in components. A
composting facility in the UK, processing approximately 750 tonnes/year, found that on average
92% of their food material feedstock was organic matter (Table 14).

20

Table 14: Percentage of material types found in municipal food waste

(Adapted from Zhang et al. 2012).
Glass

Metal Plastic

3.08%

0.16%

4.34%

Non-combustibles Biodegradable Organic Matter

0.46%

92%

Chikae et al. (2006) compared compost parameters measured from a static aerated reactor and
a turning pile system. Using the parameters collected, multiple regression equations were developed and dierent parameters were used to compute the germination index (GI), an indicator of
compost maturity. The independent variables of the regression equation included pH, NH+ concentration, acidic phosphate activity, and esterase activity of water extract. Good correlations
between the measured GI and regression equations were observed for both systems; however,
the static aerated reactor was revealed to be more ecient than the turning pile system.
The eects of food composition on the evolution of carbon dioxide, temperature, pH, composting time, and other parameters were studied by Chang J. I. and Hsu T. (2008) using synthetic
waste. Multi-regression equations were developed from synthetic waste data to estimate different compost parameters. In addition, compost parameters were collected for actual kitchen
waste. The actual kitchen waste parameters were compared to the multi-regression estimates,
with a fair agreement between experimental and predicted results (Chang J. I. and Hsu T.,
2008).
The Modesto composting facility in California receives 500 tons per day, about 183,000 tons
uy
uksonmez, 2012). The facility composts green and food
per year, on a 0.12 km2 area (B
waste using windrows. A study performed in 2012 characterized the properties of the feedstock
and dierences in VOC emission rates by using two test windrows. One contained 103 tons
of source separated green waste, and the other was comprised of 20 tons of food waste mixed
with 113 tons of source separated green waste. The food waste came from local industrial food
processing plants and the green waste came from large scale landscaping companies. The initial
characteristics of the green waste and food waste were extremely similar (Table 15). In either
case, more material would need to be added to reach a C:N ratio of 25:1 recommended by the
EPA (1994).
Composting food waste was found to increase the rate of VOC emissions in windrow composting
(B
uy
uksonmez, 2012). The VOC emission factors for green waste and food waste were 1.4 g/kg
(dry weight (dw)) and 2.2 g/kg (dw) respectively. The bulk density of both green waste and
food waste increased as the moisture decreased by 22 percent and 43 percent respectively as
expected from mature compost (B
uy
uksonmez, 2012).

21

Table 15: Properties of food waste and green waste in Modesto, CA

(Adapted from B
uy
uksonmez 2012).
Moisture
(%)

Organic
matter
(%)

Carbon
Content
(%)

Nitrogen
Content
(%)

C:N ratio

Wet Bulk
Density
(kg/m3 )

Food waste

48.7

54.9

29.6

1.78

16.7

401.5

Green waste

46.3

56.2

30.3

1.74

17.4

360

Food waste

28.1

45.1

24.4

2.29

10.6

485.6

Green waste

36.2

34.5

34.5

1.63

11.4

502.5

Initial

Final

The Intervale composting facility in Burlington, Vermont processed liquid and solid waste by
using windrows (Richard, 2007). Their feedstocks included: manure, food, food grade grease,
cheese, ice cream waste, and green waste. Intervale used two dedicated windrows to compost
liquid materials with the following requirements (Richard, 2007):
Large amounts of bulking agents such as leaves, bedding material, woody waste required
for both carbon content and pore space.
Windrows 8-10 feet wide by 5-8 feet high by 175 feet long built with trenches down the
middle, creating dams that slow down liquid waste from moving. The windrows are on
an asphalt surface which provides structural integrity for the windrows. The runo from
the windrows is directed to a collection tank (Richard, 2007).
A windrow turner mixes the material when the temperature fall below 43C (Richard,
2007).
The characteristics of compost products vary depending on the feedstock and which process
is employed. A facility in northwest Patagonia (Argentina) processes municipal organic waste,
which is manually separated at the facility. In a study performed in 2006 four static piles
were prepared with varying feedstock properties. The end product was tested for various
characteristics to determine the quality of the compost (Table 16). The study concluded that
the end products were greatly influenced by the initial feedstock characteristics (Tognetti et al.,
2007).

22

Table 16: Typical end characteristics of municipal organic waste composting from turned
windrow (Adapted from Tognetti et al. 2007).
Characteristic

SC1

SWC2

NC3

NWC4

pH
Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm)
Organic Matter %
Total N %
Ammonium Nitrogen (mg/kg)
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/kg)
Extractable Phosphorus (mg/kg)
Water Soluble Carbon (g/kg)
Total Organic C/Total N
Water Soluble C/Total N

8.1
2.4
26
1.1
15
746
151
2.2
14
0.21

7.8
1.9
40
0.9
22
131
126
2.5
24
0.27

8.3
1.7
19
0.7
17
465
128
2.9
15
0.42

7.9
1.6
25
0.7
20
390
102
2.2
19
0.31

Shredded municipal organic waste compost

Shredded municipal organic waste + wood shavings compost
3
Non-shredded municipal organic waste compost
4
Non-shredded municipal organic waste + wood shavings compost
2

4.9

Regulations

In California, there are numerous state regulations governing composting activities. These
regulations are set forth in: CCR Title 14, Chapter 3.1. Compostable Materials Handling
Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements (CalRecycle, 2014c). Composting facilities are also subject to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. California requires a
Compostable Materials Handling Facility Permit for any commercial composting operation
selling more than 1,000 cubic yards per year. There are exceptions to this requirement set forth
in Title 14, Ch. 3.1, Article 2.
4.9.1

Pathogens

The pathogen reduction requirements for fecal coliform and Salmonella sp, are specified in the
CCR 17868.3(b)(1).
Fecal coliform shall not exceed 1000 MPN/g TS on a dry weight basis.
Salmonella sp. shall not exceed 1000 MPN/g TS on a dry weight basis.
All composting facilities must meet the minimum temperature requirements set forth in Title
14 (Table 9). Temperatures must be maintained for a minimum period which varies based on
the technology used (Table 9).
23

4.9.2

Heavy Metals

The accumulation of heavy metals is a safety concern due to the many land applications of
compost. American composted products cannot exceed the heavy metal concentrations set
forth in Table 17. Any product that exceeds the maximum allowable metal concentrations must
be reprocessed or disposed of. American regulations for compost are more lenient compared
to Europe. For most metals, German regulations require an 80% reduction from the American
standard. The European compost standards are more conservative in order to influence the
production of low contamination compost, which has been found to be economically feasible by
separating compostable material from normal waste (Brinton, 2000).
Table 17: Maximum allowable metal concentrations
(Reproduced from CalRecycle 2014c).
Constituent

Concentration (mg/kg)1

German standard2 (mg/kg)

41
39
1200
1500
300
14
420
36
2800

3
150
150
3
50
500

Arsenic (As)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Zinc
1
2

On a dry weight basis

For large application rates

Mandatory sampling frequency standards are also in place. Title 14 of the CCR designates all
biosolids composting facilities must establish a sampling schedule in accordance with (Table
18) to monitor levels of metals and pathogens. A compost facility that needs to process 5,000
tons of waste per year would be required to have a bi-monthly sampling frequency (CalRecycle,
2014c).

24

Table 18: Frequency of compost sampling for biosolids composting facilities

(Reproduced from CalRecycle 2014c).
Amount of Biosolids Compost Feedstock (tonnes per 365 day
period)

Frequency

Greater than zero but annually fewer than 290

annually

Equal to or greater than 290 but fewer than 1,500

quarterly

Equal to or greater than 1,500 but fewer than 15,000

bimonthly

Equal to or greater than 15,000

4.10

monthly

Emissions

The composting process emits a variety of gases and particles in diering amounts compared to
natural, uncontrolled decomposition. These emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane
(CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2 O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ozone (O3 ), ammonia (NH3 ),
and particulate matter (PM) (EPA, 2002). The GHGs include CO2 , CH4 , N2 O, and O3 .
Particulate matter, ammonia, and general odors pose the greatest risk for violating air quality
regulations. The quantity and quality of emissions is highly dependent upon the feedstocks used
and the conditions maintained throughout the process. The Climate Action Reserve (CAR) has
developed a reporting protocol in order to measure reductions in GHG emissions for composting
facilities that divert organic wastes from landfills. The eect of a GHG is often expressed as the
equivalent amount of CO2 , usually as metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2 e).
4.10.1

Carbon Dioxide

CO2 is the most common GHG, and is implicated in global climate change (USCC, 2008). CO2
emissions generated from biogenic sources, including food waste, are not included in emissions
reporting (Climate Action Reserve, 2013). However, anthropogenic CO2 sources should be
accounted for, including emissions resulting from on-site use of equipment that utilizes fossil
fuels or electricity delivered from the grid; potential sources include: sorting and pre-processing
equipment, aeration equipment, rotating drums, heavy machinery used to construct and move
piles, and post-processing equipment (Climate Action Reserve, 2013).
4.10.2

Methane

Methane, as a GHG, has a global warming potential of 21 MTCO2 e /CH4 (Climate Action
Reserve, 2013). Production in composting operations occurs when anaerobic conditions develop
(EPA, 2002). Anaerobic conditions most often exist at the bottom of piles or in excessively
moist areas. Most often, MCO oxidize the methane before it leaves the pile, resulting in
25

minimal methane emissions (EPA, 2002). The CAR has developed emission rates for methane
in composting systems that are to be used for calculating emission credits (Table 19).
Table 19: Methane emission factors for turned and forced aeration systems
(Adapted from (Climate Action Reserve, 2013).
CH4 Emission Factor
(MTCO2 e/MT waste)

4.10.3

Emission Control Method

Turned System

None
Covered with 15 cm or more of finished
compost or carbonaceous material for first
3 weeks
ASP with synthetic cover
Negative aeration with exhaust directed
through a biofilter

0.09

Forced
Aeration
System
0.06

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.03

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide forms in compost piles near the surface, in anaerobic pockets, where atmospheric
nitrogen is plentiful (EPA, 2002). The global warming potential of N2 O is 310 MTCO2 e/MTN2 O
(EPA, 2002). Nitrous oxide formation in piles is not well understood, but the EPA recognizes
that properly operated systems likely emit very little N2 O (2002). The N2 O emission factors
developed by CAR are 0.09 MTCO2 e/MT waste for turned systems and 0.06 MTCO2 e/MT
waste for aerated systems.
4.10.4

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs in compost are created by the decomposition of organic matter. Low-reactivity light
alcohols dominate the VOC emissions from compost piles, comprising 80-95% of total emissions
from green waste (Green, 2010). Ozone formation can result from interactions between oxides
of nitrogen and VOCs, but the ozone-forming potential of the light alcohols produced from
composting green waste are low and approximately the same as other agricultural sources (EPA,
2002). The use of a biofilter can reduce VOC emissions by 27-36% (Green, 2010).The emission
factor for VOCs varies from 3.4-37.1 lb-VOC/wet ton, with a value of 5.71 lb-VOC/wet ton
used by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (Clements et al.,
2010).

26

4.10.5

Ozone

Ground-level ozone is formed in the composting process when VOCs react with oxides of nitrogen and sunlight. Over 80 percent of compost VOC emissions are light alcohols, which are not
expected to form large amounts of ozone (Green, 2010). Furthermore, biofilters reduce ozone
formation by 27-36%, with older piles producing more ozone over a few days (Green, 2010).
The overall emissions rate is higher for younger piles, but older piles may exhibit bursts of
ozone emission(Green, 2010).
4.10.6

Ammonia

Ammonia is generated when high-nitrogen wastes are composted, including amino acids, protein, and urea. The quantity of ammonia produced is dependent upon temperature, and is highest during the thermophilic stage(Pagans et al., 2006). Ammonia emissions range from 0.5-0.7
kg/m3 , with greater emissions resulting from lower C:N ratios (Pagans et al., 2006).
4.10.7

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter of concern from composting consists of two types: bioaerosols and particulate
matter less than 10 m micrometers in diameter (PM10 ). Bioaerosols are airborne organic
particles consisting of fungi, bacteria, allergens, and other biological material generally less
than 1 m in size (Waithes & Cox, 1995). Frequent exposure to bioaerosols can increase the
risk of developing airway or mucus membrane illnesses and may increase allergen sensitivities
(Herr et al., 2004). A cross-sectional study detected bioaerosol concentrations greater than
105 colony forming units (CFU) up to 200 m away from a composting facility, which is one
hundred times greater than the background concentration of less than 103 CFU of total mold
and bacteria (Herr et al., 2004). Researchers determined an association between proximity to
the composting operations and complaints of airway irritation, shivering, and fatigue (Herr
et al., 2004).
PM10 is most often produced during material moving processes, like receiving, mixing, and
loading (SJVAPCD, 2009). The SJVAPCD has developed PM10 emission factors for both uncontrolled and controlled scenarios, where a controlled scenario consists of water use eliminating
70% of emissions (Table 20). Due to a lack of accepted emission factors, the SJVAPCD has
decided to use the AP-42 crushed stone emission factor as a conservative estimate (SJVAPCD,
2009).

27

Table 20: Composting process particulate matter emission factors

(Adapted from (SJVAPCD, 2009).
Emission Factor (lb PM10 /
wet ton waste)

4.11

Operation

Uncontrolled

Controlled

Receiving, storage, and mixing

0.0055

0.00165

Open windrow active & curing phase

0.0022

0.00066

Finished compost storage and loading

0.0022

0.00066

Facility total

0.0099

0.00297

Compost Final Standards

The quality of a compost product is determined by testing for specific characteristics (see: Table
50, Appendix A). There are resources available to compost operators to assess the products of
a composting facility. A standard for many governmental agencies, e.g. Caltrans, is the United
States Composting Councils (USCC) Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) program. The USCC
tests samples for pH, soluble salts (conductivity), nutrient content (N, P, K), organic matter,
MC, particle size, maturity (bioassay), stability (respirometry), inerts, trace metals, and weed
seed and pathogens (USCC, 2010b).
The application of compost to organic crops is governed by CFR 205.203(c), which defines
acceptable compost as:
(2) Composted plant and animal materials produced through a process that:
(i) Established an initial C:N ratio of between 25:1 and 40:1; and
(ii) Maintained a temperature of between 131 F and 170 F for 3 days using an
in-vessel or static aerated pile system; or
(iii) Maintained a temperature between 131 F and 170 F for 15 days using a windrow
composting system, during which period, the materials must be turned a minimum
of five times. (National Organic Program 2014).

Also, CFR 205.203(e)(1) states producers may not apply Any fertilizer or composted plant
and animal material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of
synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production (National Organic Program
2014). Compost or digester feedstock would need to be monitored for synthetic substances not
listed on the National List if the solid products were to be marketed as organic soil amendments.
28

Composts produced from feedstocks containing non-source separated MSW have been shown
to contain higher heavy metal concentrations (Table 7). Mixed MSW can have concentrations
up to four times higher than source separated MSW. The primary concern is the possibility
of accumulation of the heavy metals in soils due to high rate agricultural applications . Some
crops (accumulator crops), like spinach and celery, concentrate high amounts heavy metals.
Thus, controlling heavy metal concentrations in compost is beneficial for both the environment
and consumers. Table 21 shows the American and European recommended limits for land
application of compost.
Table 21: A comparison of acceptable heavy metal loading rates between
Europe and the USA (Brinton, 2000).
Annual Loading Rate (kg/ha/yr)
Region

As

Cd

Cr

Cu

Hg

Ni

Pb

Zn

Europe
USA

0.7
2

0.15 2
1.9 150

12
75

0.1
0.85

3
21

15
15

30
140

Compost application rates are necessary because farmers have been shown to use excessive
amounts of compost as fertilizers (Brinton, 2000). Characteristics of compost products vary
depending on the feedstock and which process is employed. The quality of compost determines
an appropriate end use application.

4.12

Potential Applications

Compost is a versatile resource that can be used for agricultural, stormwater best management
practices (BMP) and water conservation eorts. Typical compost uses are provided in (Table
22).

29

Table 22: Compost end use applications.

Application

Descriptions

Source

Land Fill Cover

Mature compost has been used as a cost-eective (Marion & Peter, 2000)
landfill cover to oxidize methane and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The use of compost
as a landfill gas treatment method demonstrated
complete reduction in emissions, which exceeds
the quantity of landfill gas captured by traditional
capture systems (75-80%).
Stormwater Control Compost can be used to improve stormwater (Glanville et al., 2003)
runo at construction sites. A comparison of
stormwater runo quality from compost and topsoil treated samples revealed levels of nutrients
and metals in treated runo were less in compost
treated samples.
Horticulture
Compost can be used as a nutrient amendment to (Farrell & Jones, 2010)
grow plants. Compost and traditional peat were
used to grow sunflowers. Sunflowers that were
grown in compost possessed larger head diameters and seed dry mass.
Soil Amendment
Applying compost to soil can improve the physical
(EPA, 2012a)
structure of soil and reduce soil erosion. Compost
oers a cost eect slope stabilization method and
has been shown to out perform conventional slope
stabilization methods.

Compost application techniques used to regulate stormwater runo include compost filter
berms, blankets and filter socks (Figure 3). A dike of compost is used to construct a compost filter berm. The compost filter berm is situated perpendicular to sheet flow runo to
regulate erosion. As stormwater percolates through the trapezoidal filter berm, sediment and
pollutants are retained while filtered water is allowed to escape. Compost filter berms should
be situated on the perimeter of a construction site (EPA, 2010).
A compost filter sock is a tube filled with compost. Compost filter socks operate in the same way
a compost filter berm does; however, a compost filter sock provides the flexibility to reposition
the barrier (EPA, 2006). Compost blankets consist of compost distributed over an area of
30

open soil. Compost blankets are typically used to promote revegetation and regulate and treat
stormwater runo.

(a) Filter berm (EPA, 2010).

(b) Filter sock (EPA, 2006).

(c) Blanket (EPA, 2012d).

Figure 3: Compost application for stormwater runo BMPs.

Alternatives

This section discusses the operating principles and 30-year life cycle cost for all the alternatives
investigated. Using the densities of the components of the feedstock and assuming an annual
load of 5,000 tons/year, the daily volumetric load was calculated to be 41.5 m3 /day (Richard,
2014); therefore each alternative was designed to process approximately 41.5 m3 of food waste
per day. The daily volume of waste was calculated using the density of food waste determined
by a past study in HC (Bohn, 2010).

5.1

Assumptions Common to All Alternatives

Each alternative follows a similar processing pathway (Figure 4). The alternatives dier in
regards to active composting technique, decomposition time and storage technique. Each alternative must be able to process the anticipated daily quantities of food and bulking agent
(Table 23). The compost mix (food waste plus bulking agent) estimate was computed on a volume/volume basis. The compost mix was calculated using an Excel spreadsheet from Cornell
University (2014).

31

Figure 4: Flowchart comparison for all alternatives.

32

Table 23: Approximate food waste and bulking agent quantities for the HC compost facility
optimized using the Cornell University Compost Calculator Spreadsheet ((2014)).

5.1.1

Quantity

Value

Wood Chip to Waste Mix Ratio (mass)

Total Mix Mass (tonne/day)
Total Mix Mass (tonne/year)
Total Mix Volume (m3 /day)
Total Mix Volume (m3 /year)
Mix Moisture Content (%)
Mix C:N Ratio

1:2
27.6
6,888
41.5
14,530
65.0
25.5

Pre-Processing

All alternatives will use the same technologies for pre-processing and moving of the compost: a
trommel, shredder, front end loader, mixer, and dump truck. In addition, each alternative will
need to incorporate costs associated with monitoring heavy metals and pathogens (temperature
logs).
A land analysis was conducted using Geospatial Informational System (GIS) data (see Appendix
C). From this analysis, a 3.4 acre parcel in Hydesville, CA was selected for the facility site. The
3.4 acre site was used for all the alternatives.
All alternatives are subject to local, state, and federal regulations (see Appendix D).
Pre-sorting and shredding of the feedstock will be required regardless of the technology used to
compost HC food waste. The food waste must be sorted prior to composting due to an expected
6% physical contamination level. Sorting will require a trommel to remove large contaminants
(e.g. plastic bottles, metal cans, etc.). The feedstock will also require shredding prior to the
composting process. The food waste will be shredded and mixed with dried woody material to
create the appropriate conditions for decomposition. A front end loader and hauling trucks are
necessary for transporting bulk feedstocks and compost around the facility. Preliminary cost
estimates for equipment and operational costs are provided in Table 57 and Table 58.
5.1.2

Post-Screening, Curing, and Storage

Once the compost is deemed suciently processed, the piles would be moved to a curing location
away from the active composting area. The compost is allowed to cure for an additional 216 weeks depending on the final target quality of the end product. Monitoring the moisture,
temperature, and oxygen levels during the curing stage is beneficial for producing a high quality
33

product. The cured product is then tested for metals and pathogens to ensure compliance with
California regulations. If the compost fails to meet minimum requirements, the batch will be
either disposed of in a landfill or mixed back into the incoming feedstock.
The compost is considered finished when the raw feedstock is no longer actively decomposing
and biological and chemical stability is achieved. The maturity and stability of the compost can
be determined by testing the moisture, temperature, and oxygen levels of the material. Once
stable, the compost can be tested to determine the quality (see: Table 50, Appendix A). The
finished compost is then placed in storage away from all active and curing compost to prevent
cross-contamination by seeds and pathogens. The final product is then ready to be sold to the
consumer.

5.2

Windrows

The windrow alternative incorporates five windrows to compost the food waste. After preprocessing the mixture would be laid out in windrows and turned a minimum of once a week.
Temperature measurements would be taken daily to ensure that the piles reach temperatures
over 55C for a minimum of 15 days as required by California regulations.
The time required for composting and curing in windrows would depend on the weather, season,
feedstock characteristics, size of the pile, and target end use but should range from two to four
months. Windrow composting typically completes the active stage in three to five weeks. An
additional 9-15 weeks are required for curing. Monitoring the temperature and moisture of the
windrows would ensure the feedstock decomposes into a quality end product.
5.2.1

Sizing

The windrows should be designed to allow airflow throughout the material while still maintaining the optimal range of temperatures. The optimal size varies with the feedstock characteristics
and the seasons. If the pile is too large, oxygen will not be able to fully penetrate the pile. If the
pile is too small, the windrows will not reach temperatures necessary for proper decomposition
of the feedstock.
The pile sizes are approximated by assuming a hemicylindrical shape and a constant supply
of food waste and wood chips. One pile would be built per week. Each active pile would be
approximately 2 m wide and 80 m in length, with a total volume of 290 m3 . The piles would
be spaced 3 m apart and have a 4 m buer zone around the edges. The spacing is contingent
on the space necessary for the front end loader to build and turn the piles.
Five piles would be active at one time, cycling through weekly with a new pile built to replace a
finished pile. Once finished, the pile would be moved to a curing location away from the active

34

piles. The curing piles would have the same shape and width as the active piles, but they would
be 60 m in length to account for the volume reduction during the composting process. Piles
are cured for an additional 9-15 weeks, requiring an additional 9-15 curing piles at any given
time. The curing piles are smaller in volume due to a more dense end product.
The land required based on these dimensions would be approximately 1.7 acres for the windrow
and curing process. Additional land would be required for the runo detention pond as well as
the necessary buildings. In total, the windrow alternative would require approximately three
to four acres depending on the layout of the windrows. The exact layout would be contingent
on the location of the facility and the parameters of the property. The site would be designed
to retain runo (e.g. slope of the land), as well as minimize the exposure of neighbors to odors
(e.g, using wind blocks and/or avoiding proximity to neighbors).
5.2.2

Required Equipment

The equipment required for windrow composting is a main component of the capital cost.
Turning the windrows would require a small front loader. The front loader can be the same
loader required to move compost as mentioned in section 5.1.
5.2.3

Cost Overview

The total approximate unfinanced capital cost of the windrow system would be $2.6 million
(Table 24). The approximate annual operation and maintenance is $353,200 (Table 25). The
total lifetime O&M with equipment replacement is $7.7 million. The preliminary estimate for
the present value (PV) cost of a windrow system with a lifetime of 30 years, an annual discount
rate of 4%, and including an equipment replacement every 10 years, is approximately $10.3
million dollars. Assuming a market value of the compost of $25/yd3 , a 4% discount rate, and a
30 year lifetime, the tipping fee required for the system to achieve a NPV of $0.00 is $48.
Table 24: Preliminary capital costs of windrow alternative.
Component
Homogeneous Capital
Land Prep
Compost pad
Water Truck
Retention Pond
Cover

Unit Cost
$1,849,000
$48,000
$5/ft2
$55,000
$10/ft2
$300,000

Quantity
1
1
72,100 ft2
1
1,000
1

Total Cost
Source
$1,849,000 (Table 57, Appendix F)
$48,000 (Concrete-Network, 2014)
$360,500
(Homewyse, 2014)
$55,000
(Rock & Dirt, 2014)
$10,000
(Homewyse, 2014)
$300,000
(Green, 2014)
$2,622,500

Total

35

Table 25: Annual costs associated with O&M of the windrow alternative.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Unit Cost
Homogeneous O&M1
Fuel (Diesel)

$325,700
$4.15/gal

Quantity
1
7,4002

5.3

$322,500
$30,700
$356,400

Total
1

Total

See Table 58, Appendix F

(DEC, 2007), (CEC, 2014), (PG&E, 2014b)

Aerated Turned Piles

The ATP alternative would incorporate several piles to compost the 5,000 tons/year of food
waste in an indoor environment. After pre-processing, the feedstock would be arranged in multiple aerated piles. The piles are sorted atop an Aerated Earth Pad (AEP) (Figure 5). A piping
and blower system would be embedded within the AEP to to drive the aerobic decomposition
of the feedstock. In addition, the AEP serves to collect any leachate produced by the piles.
Biofilters are also contained in the AEP to remediate odors. Perforations in the AEP are used
to create a vacuum and draw air through the static piles. Timers and gate valves are used to
regulate air delivery frequency and magnitude over the three week active composting period.
Turning during the active phase would be conducted every five to seven days to promote faster
decomposition by homogenizing the compost mix.

Figure 5: Aerated Earth Pad (Picture from (GMT, 2012)).

Daily monitoring of the temperature would be required and the airflow would be adjusted
appropriately to optimize the composting process. Temperature measurements would be taken
daily to ensure that the piles reach temperatures over 55C for a minimum of three days as
required by California regulations. If the temperature approaches 55C, the aeration system
would be shut o to allow the pile to reheat. The ATP composting process could complete the
active stage in three weeks and the curing phase in five weeks (Hopkins, 2014).
36

5.3.1

Sizing

The incoming weekly load of compost mix would be divided into two piles. The aerated piles
would be semicylinders on prisms, with dimensions of 40 m x 2 m (length x diameter) during
the active phase, and dimensions of (30 m x 2 m) during the curing phase. Six active piles and
ten curing piles would be the standard for the operation of the facility (Table 26).
Table 26: ATP space requirements.
Piles Diameter (m)
Active Piles
Curing Piles

5.3.2

6
10

2
2

Length (m)

Pad Area (m2 )

Pad Area (acres)

40
30

2,600
4,400

0.64
1.09

Total

8,000

1.73

Required Equipment

The front loader mentioned in Section 5.1 would be required to move the compost and construct
the piles. The ATP alternative also requires six active piles and therefore six perforated columns
in the AEP.
5.3.3

Cost Overview

The total approximate unfinanced capital cost of an ATP system is $5.3 million. The approximate present value of annual O&M for the lifetime of the project is $7.0 million, including 10and 20-year replacement costs. The preliminary estimate for the unfinanced net present cost
of an ATP system with a lifetime of 30 years and annual discount rate of 4% is approximately
$12.3 million. The NPV, assuming compost is sold for $25/yd3 , is approximately -$6.1 million,
requiring a tipping fee of approximately $70 per ton. Table 27 and Table 28 provide a summary
of this systems costs.

37

Table 27: Unfinanced capital costs of ATP alternative.

Capital

Unit Cost

Quantity

Homogeneous Capital
Land Prep
Active Compost Pad1
Facility Warehouse
Aerator System
Aeration Software

$1,849,000
$72,000
$269/m2
$214/m2
$4,200
$1,500

1
1
7,000
7,000
1
1

Total

Source

$1,849,000 (Table 57, Appendix F)

$72,000 (Concrete-Network, 2014)
$1,870,000
(Hopkins, 2014)
$1,500,000
(Hopkins, 2014)
$4,200
(Hopkins, 2014)
$1,500
(Hopkins, 2014)
$5,296,700

Total

1.Includes the cost of aeration system, piping and biofilter installation for AEP.

Table 28: Annual costs associated with O&M of the ATP alternative.
Annual Operation and Maintenance

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total

Homogeneous O&M
Diesel
Electricity

$325,700
$4.15/gallon
$0.14/kWh

1
9,400
1,755

$325,700
$39,0001
$13,000 2
$377,700

Total
1. Values based on (EIA, 2014) rates.
2. Based on continuous operation of two 7 hp pumps (PG&E, 2014b).

5.4

Ag-Bag System

The Ag-Bag system is distributed by Ag-Bag Forage Solutions based in Astoria, Oregon. The
Ag-Bag composting solution is classified as an in-vessel system that uses blowers to inject air
through custom piping into sealed plastic bags, thereby eliminating the need for turning active
piles to distribute oxygen,heat, and moisture. Injecting air maintains aerobic conditions and
reduces the production of foul odors. The aeration rate is a function of the vessels temperature,
which is controlled by timers. If the temperature gets too hot, the timers decrease the air flow
to reduce the pods temperature. Conversely, the aeration rate is increased if the vessels temperature is below optimal. Air exits only through vents that have bio-filters, which guarantees
foul odor containment and reduction. The Ag-Bag system also creates condensation within the
vessel as the temperature rises, which reduced the need for re-watering (Figure 6). Another advantage of this in-vessel system is its capability to maintain the leachate within the bag. Once

38

the active the phase is complete the bag is cut open and the leachate can be transferred to a
detention pond. Using the Ag-Bag system also minimizes possible vermin issues (gulls, rats)
that are attracted to food, fugitive dust emission from strong winds, cross contamination from
active piles to cured piles, labor costs, land costs, processing time, and precipitation and ambient temperature problems. Electricity is required to power the timers and blowers that control
the aeration rate of the system. The pods that contain the compost mixture are built on-site
by a proprietary machine and sealed once finished (Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008).

Figure 6: Ag-Bag system diagram depicting air flow, odor, temperature and moisture controls
(Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008).
The CT-5 compost encapsulator processes the material into a 5-foot diameter by 200-foot LDPE
plastic bag called the Eco-Pod (Preferred Organic Digester). The CT-5 encapsulator can handle
up to 25,000 short tons of compost per year and requires one operator to drive the tractor and
another to feed the hopper (receptacle), which has a capacity of 3 yd3 (Figure 7). One Eco-Pod
can take between 1-2 hours to load, and has a capacity of 76 short tons of material, assuming a
mixture bulk density of 800 lbs/yd3 . The active phase cycle time is between 8-12 weeks which
allows for 3-5 composting cycles per year. Static compost piles can be used as the method of
curing, requiring 4-8 additional weeks. Therefore, the total composting time ranges between
12-20 weeks depending on consistency of the compost of mixture, initial moisture and C:N
ratio, and the Eco-Pod site slope and surface (Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008). This system
will require a yearly purchase of the Eco-Pods plus an initial capital cost for the encapsulator
(Inman, 2014).
39

Figure 7: CT-5 compost processor with already made Eco-Pods.

The CT-5 requires a 50 horse power tractor to move the encapsulator (Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008).

The Ag-Bag system quote includes all the appurtenances, proprietary machines required to
build the Eco-Pods. A 5 feet by 200 feet Eco-Pod costs $580 and includes the following (Inman,
2014):
5 x 200 LDPE plastic bag ( Recyclable, but not re-usable)
1-4 x 200 roll aeration piping ( This item could be re-used and would decrease the
recurring annual cost by $100 per Eco-pod) (Inman, 2014)
4 solid pipe ( Could be re-used)
3 pouches of Ag-Bag Plus compost inoculum
12 vent valves ( Could be re-used)
1 roll of green tape
2 ea master seal sealing strip

40

5.4.1

Sizing

Composting an approximate total of 7,600 short tons of compost mix per year would require
100 Eco-Pods assuming a target bulk density 800 lbs/yd3 . One hundred Eco-Pods per year is
twenty Eco-Pods per cycle, assuming five cycles per year. This equals a recurring yearly cost
of $58,000 for the Eco-Pods for the lifetime of the project. However, some of the materials
could be recycled, which could reduce the Eco-Pod cost (Table 30). Twenty Eco-Pods per
cycle would require approximately 1.5 acres of space, including extra space in between and at
the ends of the pods, and a 5% safety factor (Table 29). Including receiving, screening and
mixing, curing, and storage space needs this system may require approximately three acres of
land. After the bags are opened the stabilized material will be cured using static piles (Ag-Bag
Forage Solutions, 2008).
Table 29: Land space requirements.
Spacing consideration
Pod Diameter (ft)
Spacing between Pods (ft)
Length of Pods (ft)
Number of pods
Area (acres)
5.4.2

Value
5
10
220
20
1.5

Required Equipment

The CT-5 compost processor requires a capital cost of $48,500 with an estimated O&M cost of
$3,100. The company would set up and train employees for a fee of $3,000, assuming that the
training takes only one day (Table 30). The CT-5 compost encapsulator includes the following
(Inman, 2014):
5tunnel , 3-stage 48 ram
13 hp Honda engine with pump
Remote control unit
Self contained hydraulics
Aeration system
Adjustable hitch
Bag pan assembly
2 micro disk brakes per wheel
27 gallon inoculum tank with applicator
41

 Compaction control wheel brakes and control valve

Master seal and vent valve tools
Temperature probe
Each blower can supply sucient airflow for two Eco-Pods and will require an initial capital
investment of $14,000 (Table 30). This composting system would still require a grinder (depends
on feedstock), mixer, screening system, loader, and a tractor (Inman, 2014). A composting pad
is not required but may increase the end product quality by providing a stable surface that
retains heat for a longer period of time (Ag-Bag Forage Solutions, 2008). Logistics in the facility
would also be improved with paved surfaces.
Table 30: Ag-Bag system costs (Inman, 2014).
Equipment

Quantity Price ($)

CT-5
EcoPods
Aeration blower
Set-up/Training
Travel expense
CT-5 fuel, O&M per year

5.4.3

1
100
10
1
1
1

48,500
580
1,400
2,500
500
3,100

Total
48,500
58,000
14,000
2,500
500
3,100

Cost Overview

The total approximate unfinanced capital cost of the Ag-Bag system would be $1.9 million
(Table 31). The most expensive capital cost is the CT-5 encapsulator, assumed to be replaced
every 10 years. Homogeneous capital costs are listed in Appendix F Table 58. The approximate unfinanced present value of annual O&M is $8.2 million for the project lifetime. The
preliminary estimate for the unfinanced net present cost of the Ag-Bag system with a lifetime
of 30 years and annual discount rate of 4% is approximately $10.1 million, yielding a tipping
fee of approximately $46 per ton. Yearly additional O&M costs for the Ag-Bag system are
presented in Table 32. Electricity is required to run the blowers and is approximately $700 per
year. Diesel costs include the fuel necessary to run the tractor, front loader, trommel, dump
truck, and the encapsulator. The fuel delivery costs are paid for by the customer.

42

Table 31: Unfinanced capital costs of Ag-Bag alternative.

Capital

Unit Cost

Quantity

Homogeneous Capital
Land Prep
Training & Set-Up1
CT-5 Encapsulator
Blowers

$1,849,000
$12,000
$3,000
$48,500
$1,400

1
1
1
1
10

Total

Source

$1,849,000 (Table 57, Appendix F)

$12,000 (Concrete-Network, 2014)
$3,000
(Inman, 2014)
$48,500
(Inman, 2014)
$14,000
(Inman, 2014)
$1,926,500

Total

1. Training & Set-Up is a one time costs. However, an additional $500 per day could be added if the
process takes longer than one day.

Table 32: Costs associated with O&M of the Ag-Bag alternative.

Annual Operation and Maintenance

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total

Homogeneous O&M

$322,500

$322,500

Diesel

$4.15/gallon

9,780

$40,6001

Electricity

$0.14/kWh

5,000

$7002

EcoPod Disposal

$2/lbs

100

$22,5003

EcoPod Bags

$580/bag

100

$58,000
$444,300

Total
1. Values based on (EIA, 2014) rates.
2. Based on continuous operation of 10 0.5 hp pumps (PG&E, 2014b).
3. Each EcoPod weighs 125 lbs. Recycling price for #4 plastic is from (HWMA, 2014a).

This system has the capability of limiting odors, leachate, land space, labor, and processing
time and meets the project criteria set forth by the client (Table 53). The Ag-bag composting
method may be easily permitted as an in-vessel system. The City of Redding uses the Ag-Bag
composting system to process 18,000 short tons of green waste (Inman, 2014). Edwards Air
Force Base, the Oakland Zoo, Fort Irwin, and Napa Sanitation are other California facilities
that have implemented the Ag-Bag composting solution (Inman, 2014). The Ag-Bag system
could be an established and robust alternative to help HC meet the requirements of AB 341 by
the year 2020.

43

5.5

XACT System

The XACT BioReactor in-vessel alternative is developed by XACT Systems Composting. The
XACT vessel is a rotating drum, made of carbon steel walls, mounted on heavy duty mounting
frames. XACT BioReactors are used at dairies, to compost food waste, and to create bedding
from manure (Westall, 2014).
5.5.1

Sizing

In order to handle a weekly volume of approximately 291 m3 , three 10-foot diameter, 60-foot
long reactors will be required (Westall, 2014; XACT Systems, 2014), with an additional reactor
included for times of maintenance or adverse conditions. Depending on the rate at which food
waste is received at the facility, the reactors may be fed twice weekly, weekly, or continuously.
The reactor output would also be collected with the same frequency, or continuously. The average retention time for the XACT BioReactor is 4-7 days (EPA, 1994). The commercial tipping
fee for in-vessel systems generally ranges from $80-$115 per annual ton (EPA, 2012b). Two
employees would likely be needed, with one person to run the system and one administrative
employee (Westall, 2014).
5.5.2

Required Equipment

Four BioReactors will be operated in parallel to process the incoming food waste generated
by HC (Figure 8). Conveyor belts are used to feed the mixed feedstock into the drums and
are also used to collect finished compost from the output. In-vessel systems require the same
pre-processing and post-processing equipment as the windrow or ATP methods.

Figure 8: XACT rotating drum vessel that can decompose organic matter in 4-7 days plus an
additional 21 days of curing.
44

5.5.3

Cost Overview

The total initial unfinanced capital cost for an XACT in-vessel system is approximately $3.5
million (Table 33). This total cost includes the homogeneous capital cost from Table 57 and
the cost of the BioReactors. Table 34 lists the estimated yearly operating costs for an invessel facility. The total unfinanced net present cost of the XACT alternative is approximately
$11.8 million, which includes the capital cost, the present value of O&M costs, 10- and 20year heavy equipment replacement, and replacing the BioReactors after 15 years. This results
in a unfinanced tipping fee of $66 per ton, if the compost produced is sold at $25 per cubic
yard.
Table 33: Unfinanced capital costs of the XACT alternative.
Capital

Unit Cost

Quantity

Homogeneous Capital
Land Prep
XACT Rotating Drum
Drum Shipping
Biofilter
Conveyors
Conveyor Shipping

$1,849,000
$39,000
$350,000
$30,000
$60,000
$32,000
$5,000

1
1
4
4
1
1

Total

Source

$1,849,000
(Table 57, Appendix F)
$39,000 (Concrete-Network, 2014)
$1,400,000
(Westall, 2014)
$120,000
(Westall, 2014)
$60,000 (Don Mathsen P.E., 2014)
$32,000
(Gluth, 2014)
$5,000
(Gluth, 2014)
$3,505,000

Total

Table 34: Specific costs associated with O&M of the XACT in-vessel alternative.
Annual Operation and Maintenance

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total

Homogeneous 0&M
Fuel (Diesel)
Electricity

1
$4.15/gallon
$0.14/kWh

$322,500
9,000
289,400

$325,700
$37,500
$40,500
$403,700

Total

5.6

The No Compost Alternative

The last alternative is to not build a composting facility in HC. Food waste will continue being
disposed of via landfill. No additional developments or permitting will be required. However,
a demand for the disposal of food waste in a landfill will continue to exist and the county will
work towards meeting the regulation set forth by AB 341.
45

Alternative Selection

The optimal composting alternative was selected by using a weighted ranking, which is the
product of the final project criteria weights and rankings of each alternative. Initially the
group did not include an environmental benefit criteria, hence a null weight. The clients
feedback was used to determine the final criteria weights, which were used to construct the
delphi matrix for the system alternatives: windrows, ATP, and in-vessel technologies (AgBag
and XACT) (Table 35).
Table 35: Final weights for the project based on the clients feedback.
Criterion
Environ. Benefit
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Flexibility
Market Availability
Process Time
Safety
Aesthetics

Client Weight Group Weight Final Weight

10
10
10
9
9
8
7
6

10
10
7
7.5
8
9
6

10
10
10
9
9
8
7
6

The heaviest weight of 10 was given to the environmental benefit, capital cost and O&M criteria.
The client expressed the importance of the environmental benefit of compost, which is often
considered solely a soil stabilizer. Compost can reduce the dependence on chemical fertilizer
(osetting its production and shipping carbon footprints), improve the overall health of soil,
and composting food waste can increase the life landfills and reduce the number of trips that
HWMA trucks need to make to Medford, Oregon and Anderson Valley, CA.
To create an improved distinction of system costs, the client recommended dividing the costs
into capital costs and O&M costs and assign each a weight of 10. The flexibility criterion summarizes the ability of a composting technology to adapt to changing regulation and feedstocks
and was given a weight of 9. Having the ability to sell the compost, or determining if there is
a market for the finished product, is an important aspect for the composting facility, therefore
market availability was assigned a weight of 9. The latter criterion determines the facilitys size
and method to meet the markets demand for compost. The process time of the composting
method needed to be relatively fast (5-20 weeks) to meet the demand for compost and treat
the incoming feedstock, therefore it was assigned a weight of 8. The safety criterion for the
workers was given a weight of 7. The selected alternative would ideally expose workers to the
46

minimum amount of fugitive dust emissions of particulate matter, foul odors, and try minimize
accidents by reducing the hours of intensive heavy machinery use. Lastly, the aesthetics of the
composting method need to match the aesthetics of the surrounding environment for ease of
permitting. The latter criterion was give a weight of 6.
Each alternative was ranked from 1-10 to show how well the alternative met each criterion
(Appendix B, Tables 51-54). The rankings were used to determine the preferred alternative
and include: expected tipping fees, unfinanced PV capital and O&M costs, environmental
benefits, aesthetics, flexibility, process time, safety, and market availability (Table 36).
Table 36: Comparison of each alternatives rankings with the unfinanced PV capital and
lifetime O&M cost.
Criteria
Environmental Benefit
Capital Cost
O&M Cost1
Flexibility
Market Availability
Process Time
Safety
Aesthetics
Tipping Fee2
1

ATP

Windrow

Ag-Bag

XACT

7
5
6
9
6 ( $5.3 M) 8 ( $2.6 M) 10 ( $1.9 M) 7 ( $3.5 M)
10 ( $7.0 M) 9 ( $7.7 M) 7 ( $8.3 M) 7 ( $8.3 M)
8
8
9
9
7
7
9
9
9
6
8
10
6
7
8
8
8
7
8
8
$71
$48
$47
$66

The O&M cost includes 10- and 20-year equipment replacement costs and the 15-year vessel replacement

cost.
2

The tipping fee was not a criteria but was as an indicator to determine the preferred alternative as it is a
direct function of the capital and O&M costs.

Each criterion weight was multiplied by the alternative ranking and was added to find the
preferred composting method (Table 37). The XACT composting method was found to be
highest scoring composting method in the delphi matrix and the preferred alternative. The
unfinanced PV capital cost and lifetime O&M cost of this method was estimated at to be $3.5
million dollars and $8.1 million dollars (including 10- and 20-year equipment replacement costs
and a 15-year vessel replacement) respectively, for a total unfinanced NPV cost of $11.6 million
dollars over the 30-year project horizon. The decision in favor of the XACT was due to the
short overall processing time of approximately five weeks from feedstock to end product and
excellent odor and pest control.

47

Table 37: Delphi matrix showing the optimal composting alternative.

Criterion

ATP Windrow Ag-Bag

XACT

Environ. Benefit
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Flexibility
Market Availability
Process Time
Safety
Aesthetics

(Weight Rank)

70
60
100
72
63
72
42
48

50
80
90
72
63
48
49
42

60
100
70
81
81
64
56
48

90
70
70
81
81
80
56
48

527

494

560

576

The XACT system minimizes odors, VOC, and fugitive dust emissions, which increases the
chance for this system to be permitted. Odor reduction by biofilters also allows this system to
be located near urban centers. The following types of feedstocks are preferred: wood chips; fish
waste; paper; foodwaste; poultry waste; yard waste; municipal solid waste; poultry, horse, and
dairy manure; and biosolids. The drum can be painted to match its surroundings. The XACT
alternative also minimizes feedstock piles due to its fast turn around rate. Weather conditions
will not aect the composting process as all parameters are controlled.
The XACT BioReactors tipping fee is $63 dollars per ton. The tipping fee for all alternatives
was found to be sensitive to the bulk selling of price of compost. A 45 percent change was
observed as one parameterizes on the tipping fee by $10. The percent change is relative to
a base compost selling price of $25 per cubic yard (Inman, 2014).
A cost analysis for the XACT system can be found in Section 7.2. The XACT system consists
of a rotating drum vessel that minimizes the space and time required for composting organic
materials (Figure 8). The simple payback period for the XACT system is 7 years, using a $25
per cubic yard compost sale price and $63 per ton tipping fee.

Selected Alternative - XACT System Design

The XACT method scored the highest using the Delphi method. The XACT system is the
selected alternative because it generates a small footprint, minimal odor and pest issues; produces a high quality compost, and has a low processing time and a reasonable tipping fee, all of
which result in high scores amongst the criterion. The XACT vessel is a rotating drum, made
of carbon steel walls, mounted on heavy duty mounting frames. Foam insulation facilitates
48

temperature control. The vessel measures 10 feet in diameter by 60 feet in length, and will
be able to contain approximately 120-140 cubic yards, assuming that the maximum loading
capacity is 70% of the total volume of the reactor.
The retention time for the unit to convert the feedstock to Class A compost is 4-7 days,
which equals approximately 65 cycles per year. The vessel itself can rotate at a rate of 510 revolutions per hour, which accelerates the rate of decomposition. In-vessel systems are
required to maintain the mixture above 131F (55C) for three consecutive days to ensure the
destruction of pathogens. Temperatures within the vessel can reach 150 F (66 C) (Figure 9),
with a four day average residence time for compost that is pathogen-free and 75% mature. An
additional 11-21 days of curing outside of the reactor are required to stabilize the compost to
a market ready product (XACT Systems, 2014). The total process time from start to finish is
15-28 days.

Figure 9: Temperature profile for an XACT system in Brazil that composts bovine waste
(courtesy of McConkey 2014).

A key concern with composting food waste is odor and pest issues. The XACT method was
chosen specifically to minimize odor and pest issues. The system will receive the waste indoors
and uses negative pressure ventilation to draw odors from the vessel. The contaminated air can
be scrubbed through a biofilter strip (45 feet x 30 feet X 1 feet) to reduce noxious odors. The
biofilter media would consist of sawdust or finished compost material. Unlike the other alternatives, the XACT system is completely enclosed and minimizes pest attraction and reduces
leachate runo (Figure 10).

49

Figure 10: XACT facility layout.

Feedstock and bulking agents enter the processing/receiving building (1) where processing of
materials are conducted. Processing of the feedstock involves screening with a trommel, shredding (depends on feedstock), and mixing the feedstock with either wet sawdust (40% moisture
content) or a dry carbonaceous material. Recycled cardboard and newspaper can be used to
reach optimal total solids percentage and C:N ratio prior to composting in the vessel. The MC
should be between 60-65% with a C:N ratio of 20-30:1 (XACT Systems, 2014). The food and
green waste mix is allocated to the XACT Drum array (2) via conveyor belts where the active
phase takes place. After the active phase the compost is moved to the curing area (3).
The processing/receiving building will connect to the 4-drum vessel setup with inclined conveyor
belts (Figure 11).

50

Figure 11: XACT drum array.

7.1

Feedstock Analysis

Proper compost processing parameters were achieved by using wet sawdust 40% MC as a bulking
agent. Using 2,600 tons of sawdust per year yields a C:N ratio of 25.5:1 with a moisture content
of 65.3% and a bulk density of 800 lbs/yd3 (Richard, 2014). The USDA reports an acceptable
bulk density range is 800-1000 lbs/yd3 , to ensure pore space in the material for air to move
during the active phase of composting (2010).
The C:N ratio of sawdust varies with how weathered the sawdust is, from a ratio of 625:1 for
three months of weathering to 142:1 for three years of weathering (WSU:WCE, 2009). The
selected alternative requires a sawdust C:N ratio of 200:1. Table 38 displays how sensitive the
mix and tipping fee are to the sawdust C:N ratio. A mix of cardboard and sawdust are required
with younger sawdust, and no sawdust is needed if only very weathered sawdust is available.
Both scenarios increase the tipping fee by $14-$17 per ton.

51

Table 38: Sensitivity to sawdust C:N ratio.

Sawdust C:N ratio

142:1

200:1

625:1

Sawdust (tons)

2600

410

1180

1000

Volume of Compost Produced (yd )

11,600

14,250

12,000

Tipping Fee

$98

$84

$100

Cardboard (tons)
3

With the added bulking agent, the total amount of compost that needs to be processed per
year is 7,600 short tons or 19,000 cubic yards (Table 39). Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of
compost can be sold per year, assuming a 25% reduction factor in volume (Inman, 2014).
Table 39: Weekly feedstock mix calculated using the Cornell University compost calculator
using a 50 week work year (Richard, 2014).
Feedstock Input1

% TS

%C

%N

Mass (lbs/week)

Mass (Tons/year)

Garbage (food waste)

31

36.0

2.4

100,000

2,500

Cheese Whey

0.2

0.0

36,000

900

Shrimp Fat

14

33.3

9.5

64,000

1,600

Sawdust

61

48.0

0.2

100,000

2600

Total

300,000

7,600

7.2

The facility operates 50 weeks per year.

Cost Analysis

The total unfinanced initial capital cost for an XACT in-vessel system is approximately $3.5
million. This total cost includes the homogeneous capital cost from Table 57 (Appendix F)
and the cost of the BioReactors (Table 40). Each BioReactor costs $350,000 and will be able
to process approximately 120 cubic yards per week. Three vessels are necessary to compost
380 cubic yards per week, accounting for daily feeding and a 25% reduction in volume during
composting. This leaves one reactor that could be used to redistribute the load, handle an
increase in the yearly feedstock, or be put online when maintenance is required on another
drum. XACT Systems is based in Ontario, Canada and will incur a shipping cost of $30,000
per drum.
Table 41 lists the estimated yearly operating costs for an in-vessel facility. The largest O&M
costs include : $101,000 for 2,600 tons of wet sawdust (40% moisture content), $120,000 for two

52

Table 40: XACT system initial costs.

In-Vessel

Cost ($)

Four XACT drums

XACT Shipping
Biofilter
Conveyor Belts
Conveyor Shipping

1,400,000
120,000
60,000
32,000
5,000

Total

1,617,000

facility operators, $40,000 of yearly maintenance costs, and $37,000 of diesel fuel. The total
unfinanced net present cost of the XACT alternative is approximately $11.8 million, which
includes the capital cost, the O&M NPV ($7.2 million), 10- and 20-year heavy equipment
replacement, and replacing the entire XACT system (drums, conveyors, and biofilter) after 15
years. This results in a tipping fee of $66 per ton, if the compost produced is sold at $25 per
cubic yard.
Table 41: Specific costs associated with operation and maintenance of the XACT in-vessel
alternative.
Annual Operation and Maintenance

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total

Homogeneous O&M
Fuel (Diesel)
Vessel Electricity

$325,700
$4.15/gallon
$0.14/kWh

1
9,030
289,400

$325,700
$37,000
$40,500
$403,200

Total

Financing the project adds approximately $18/ton to the tipping fee for a total of $84/ton. The
financing schedule is displayed in Table 42. Each loan has an interest rate of 4% with monthly
payments. Each loan is to be paid o in half the life of the expenditure, e.g., 5 years for the
heavy machinery and 7.5 years for the 15-year for vessel replacements. The O&M costs for the
first year are also covered with a loan, which is paid o over two years.

53

Table 42: Financing schedule for the XACT system alternative,

with a 4% interest rate and monthly payments.
Expenditure

Loan Principal

Initial Capital
Machinery, Year 1
Machinery, Year 10
Machinery, Year 20
System Replacement, Year 15
Year 1 O&M Costs

$3,100,000
$405,000
$405,000
$405,000
$1,617,000
$403,000

15
5
5
5
7.5
2

$4,128,000
$448,000
$448,000
$448,000
$1,874,000
$420,000
$7,766,000

Total

7.3

Loan Life (years) Total Loan Cost

CalRecycle Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant & Loan Programs

CalRecycle is currently developing several programs to reduce GHG emissions in California.

The programs are designed to facilitate the expansion or construction of composting, anaerobic
digestion, and recycling projects in California that would divert waste from landfills. The
expected budget of this grant is $30 million per year, with half of the budget allocated to green
and food waste reduction projects (CalRecycle, 2014e). The composting project could qualify
for two of the programs, the Organics Grant program and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Revolving Loan Program.
The objective of the Organics Grant program is to reduce GHG emissions by funding the
construction of new food waste facilities or the improvement of existing facilities (CalRecycle,
2014a). Reducing the amount of food and green materials sent to landfills will reduce GHG
emissions. The Organics Grant monetary award cap is $3 million per project and the application release date is May 2014 (CalRecycle, 2014a). California local governments, Joint Power
Authorities, non-profits, public universities, waste agencies, state agencies, qualified Indian
Tribes, and for-profit organizations are eligible to apply (see full draft of Organics program
overview (CalRecycle, 2014e)). The grant program is competitive and will be scored based
on the criteria outlined in Table 43. In regards to this project, the grant funding would not
be able to fund the purchase or lease of lands or buildings, feedstock purchases, or salaries or
permitting fees greater than 5% of the requested amount.

54

Table 43: Scoring criteria for Organics Grant program

(Reproduced from (CalRecycle, 2014e)).
Scoring Criteria

Points

Metric

GHG Reductions

25

MTCO2 e

Avoided disposal

15

Tons of material

Environmentally Burdened and

Economically Vulnerable Communities
Benefit

10

Oce of
Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Enviroscreen

Other environmental benefits

10

Air, water protection

Project readiness

10

Permits, site

Budget & fiscal strength

15

Match, $ in bank

Work plan & complete application

15

Competence, support

The compost project must calculate GHG emissions using custom methods (Table 44) or the
California emission reduction factor (CERF) method developed by the Planning and Technical
Support Division of the CA Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) and Air Resources
Board. The CERF takes into account the GHG reductions of composting from decreased
pesticide, herbicide, and water use, decreased soil erosion, and increased soil carbon storage
and assigns an emission reduction value in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2 e)
(CEPA, 2011) (Table 45). A more in-depth analysis is recommended on estimating emissions
once the client decides on the final project alternative.
Table 44: Summary of GHG emissions from the selected XACT alternative design facility.
Emission Type

Project Emissions
(MTCO2 e/year)

Source

Equipment Diesel Fuel Use

92.3

(EPA, 2012c)

Electricity Use

58.9

(Pacific Gas & Electric, 2014a)

Fugitive CH4 emissions

207.1

(Climate Action Reserve, 2013)

Fugitive N2 0 emissions

414.1

(Climate Action Reserve, 2013)

Total

772.4

55

Table 45: Summary of estimated GHG reduction from the benefits of composting
(Reproduced from CEPA 2011).

Emission reduction
(MTCO2 E/ton of compost)

Conversion
factor

Final emission
reduction
(MTCO2 E/ton
of feedstock)

Increased Soil Carbon

Storage

0.26

Decreased Water Use (Wb )

0.04

0.5

0.02

Decreased Soil Erosion (Eb )

0.25

0.5

0.13

Decreased Fertilizer Use (Fb )

0.26

0.5

0.13

Decreased Herbicide Use

(Hb )

0.5

Emission reduction type

0.54

Eligible funds for this composting project total approximately $2.1 million dollars and would
oset the entire cost of the XACT system and the necessary machinery for the facility, which
would include: four vessels and shipping, the biofilter, conveyor belts with shipping, a front
loader, a dump truck, a trommel, a shredder, a scale, a mixer, and monitoring costs. Applying
for and receiving CalRecycles grant could decrease the tipping fee of this project to $50/ton,
selling compost at $25 per yd3 .

7.4

Sensitivity Analysis

The tipping fee of was found to be sensitive to the number of employees and the selling price
of finished compost. There were minimal changes in the tipping fee with respect to changes in
the price of diesel and bulking agent cost (Figure 12).

56

Figure 12: Sensitivity analysis of the tipping fee with respect to various
parameters.

The NPV of the XACT alternative can be influenced by O&M costs and the selling price of
compost. Adjusting the bulking agent cost/ton by $10 (15%) changes the tipping fee by 4%,
thus the tipping fee is sensitive to changes in the bulking agent cost (Table 46). The bulking
agent used is sawdust, but the XACT system can utilize wood shavings, cardboard, or newsprint
as long as the particle size does not exceed 0.5 inches (Westall, 2014). HC has enough recycled
cardboard and newsprint available ($90-100/ton), if there is shortage in sawdust (Humboldt
Recycling, 2014).
Table 46: Sensitivity of tipping fee to the price of bulking agent.
Cost of sawdust/dry ton

Tipping fee

Percent change

$55
$65
$75

$80
$84
$87

-4%
0%
+4%

The cost of diesel was varied to examine how the tipping fee responded (Table 47). The price
of diesel was increased by 12% and 24% and the tipping fee was observed to increase by 1.2%
and 2.4%, respectively. Changing the price of diesel resulted in minimal changes in the tipping
fee.
57

Table 47: Sensitivity of tipping fee to the price of diesel.

Diesel Cost ($/gal)

Tipping fee

Percent change

$4.15
$4.65
$5.15
$7.15
$10.15

$84
$85
$86
$90
$95

0%
+1.6%
+2.8%
+7.6%
+13.5%

In addition, the number of employees were changed to investigate the percent change in the
tipping fee (Table 48). The employees at the compost facility will receive a $60,000 per year
salary and benefits. Increasing the number of employees from two to three results in a 15.1%
increase in the tipping fee, while increasing the number of employees to four results in a 30.5%
increase in the tipping fee. The sensitivity analysis on the number of employees demonstrated
the tipping fee is very sensitive to changes in the number of employees.
Table 48: Sensitivity of tipping fee to the number of employees.
# of employees Tipping fee
2
3
4

$84
$96
$109

Percent change
0%
+15%
+30%

The NPV and the tipping fee of the project are very sensitive to the selling price of compost.
More revenue from the sales of compost equals a lower NPV and lower tipping fee. The tipping
fee and NPV change by 36% as the selling price of compost changes by $10 (Table 49).
The current HWMA drop o tipping fee is $90/ton which is more expensive than the tipping
fee determined with the XACT System by $9 to $66. The economic analysis assumed a low-end
cost of $25 per yd3 because the quality of the end product is unknown and therefore the selling
price unknown. Local green waste compost is sold for $45 per yd3 by Wes Green Landscape
Materials in Arcata, CA (Green, 2014). The compost produced from food waste would likely
be of a higher quality and could be sold for a price greater than or equal to $45 per yd3 .

58

Table 49: Compost selling price sensitivity analysis.

Compost Price $25 Compost Price $35
Compost revenue (NPV)
Total facility cost (NPV)
Required tipping fee
Change in tipping fee

$6,156,000
($7,235,000)
$84/ton
0%

$8,611,000
($4,779,000)
$55/ton
-34%

Compost Price $45

$11,084,000
($2,306,000)
$27/ton
-68%

Conclusions

The XACT system is a feasible solution to processing Humboldt Countys food waste. The
following were concluded from the feasibility study:
The XACT system financed tipping was $84 assuming a $25/yd3 compost selling price.
The XACT system financed tipping was $27 assuming a $45/yd3 compost selling price.
The tipping fee is sensitive to the selling price of finished compost and the number of
employees.
The project could potentially be eligible for $2.2 million from CalRecycle Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Grant.
No tipping fee would be required if the project is accepted for the grant and compost is
sold for $45/yd3 .

8.1

Recommendations

A pilot study should be conducted with the recommended composting mix to ensure the mix
produces an acceptable compost. Further analysis to determine the actual pH and C:N ratio
of the feedstocks is also recommended. Additionally, a more precise quote can be obtained
from XACT Systems if the project continues forward. Finally, an on-site generator should be
supplied for power outages. A 100-kW generator is recommended to supply the facilitys power
needs, including a twenty percent safety factor.

59

References
Ag-Bag Forage Solutions (2008). Ag-Bag CT-5. Ag-Bag Forage Solutions. Accessed March 11,
2014.
URL http://www.ag-bagfs.com/
Andrews, N. (2011). Protecting Water Quality at Agricultural Composting Facilities. Small
Farms Program, Oregon State University, VI (3).
URL http://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/sfn/su11waterqual
Bagley, Z. (2014). Interview with Olam Tomatoes Industry compost manager.
[BCMA] British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture (1996). BC Agricultural Composting Handbook. URL http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/300Series/382500-0.pdf.
Bohn, J. P. (2010). Food Waste Diversion and Utilization in Humboldt County. Thesis, Humboldt State University.
URL http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/637/Bohn JP%202010.
pdf?sequence=1
Brinton, W. F. (2000). Compost Quality Standards & Guidelines. Woods End Research Laboratory, Final Report.
Building-Cost (2013). Calculate Building Costs. URL http://www.building-cost.net.
BuildingsGuide (2014). What is an average commercial building cost per square foot?
Http://www.buildingsguide.com/faq/what-average-commercial-building-cost-square-foot.
B
uy
uksonmez, F. (2012). Full-scale voc emissions from green and food waste windrow composting. Compost Science & Utilization , 20(1), 57 .
CalRecycle (2013). Mandatory Commercial Recycling.
URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/
CalRecycle (2014a). Organics Grant Program Overview and Criteria. CalRecycle.
URL
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents%5C77%5C20142014%5C1039%
5COrganics%20Grant%20Program%20Overview.pdf
CalRecycle (2014b). Quality Standards for Finished Compost. URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.
gov/organics/products/quality/CQStandards.htm.
CalRecycle (2014c). Regulations: Title 14, Natural ResourcesDivision 7, CIWMB, Chapter
3.1. Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements.
URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/ch31.htm.

60

CalRecycle (2014d). Title 14 Chapter 3.1, Natural Resource Division 7, CIWMB.

URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/ch31.htm
CalRecycle (2014e). Workshop on Proposed CalRecycle Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant &
Loan Programs. Presentation.
URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents/77/20142014/1039/Presentation%
20-%20Grant%20and%20Loan%20Program%20for%20GHG%20reductions.pdf
Caterpillar Inc. (2008).
Cat Government Construction Bids.
Spreadsheet.
Https://govbidspec.cat.com/cda/files/331933/7/WL+Excel+Maintenance+Sheet.xls.
[CCQC] California Compost Quality Council (2001). Compost Maturity Index. California
Compost Quality Council .
[CCWS] Contra Costa Waste Services (2014). Now Selling Compost & Bark (Ground Cover).
Contra Costa Waste Services. Accessed March 13, 2014.
URL http://www.contracostawaste.com/Compost.aspx
[CEC] California Energy Commission (2014). California Gasoline Statistics & Data.
URL http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/
Cekmecelioglu, D., Demirci, A., Graves, R. E., & Davitt, N. H. (2005). Applicability of Optimised In-vessel Food Waste Composting for Windrow Systems. Biosystems
Engineering, 91 (4), 479 486. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1537511005000796.
CEPA (2011). Method for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Compost
from Commercial Organic Waste. Tech. rep., Planning and Technical Support Division,
California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA).
Chang J. I. and Hsu T. (2008). Eects of compositions on food waste composting. Bioresource
Technology, 99 (6), 8068 8074.
Chatterjee, N., Flury, M., Hinman, C., & Cogger, C. G. (2013). Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Compost Leachates - A Review. Washington State Department of Transportation,
(p. 54). WA-RD 819.1.
Chikae, M., Ikeda, R., Kerman, K., Morita, Y., & Tamiya, E. (2006). Estimation of maturity
of compost from food waste and agro-residues by multiple regression analysis. Bioresource
Technology, 99 (97), 1979 1985.
Clements, B., Norman, R., & Chan, K. (2010). Compost VOC Emission Factors. Tech. rep.,
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

61

URL
http://valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2010/9-22-10-rule4566/SJVAPCD%
20Compost%20VOC%20EF%20Report%209-15-10.pdf
Climate Action Reserve (2013). Organic Waste Composting Project Protocol, Version 1.1.
Tech. rep., Climate Action Reserve.
URL http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Organic Waste
Composting Project Protocol V1.1.pdf
Coastal Research & Extension Center (1998). Waste Management Options for Mississippi
Shrimp Processors. Tech. rep., Mississippi State University, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Commercial Truck Trader (2014). International dump trucks. Search parameters: Year 20002014, Price $40,000-$100,000.
Compost Council of Canada (2010). The Composting Process.
URL http://www.compost.org/pdf/sheet 6.PDF
Concrete-Network (2014). Components of a Concrete Price Analysis.
concretenetwork.com/concrete-prices.html.

URL http://www.

Cooperband, L. (2002). The Art and Science of Composting. Center for Integrated Agricultural
Systems (CIAS).
[DEC] Department of Environment and Conservation (2007). Life Cycle Inventory and Life
Cycle Assessment for Windrow Composting Systems.
URL http://www.recycledorganics.com/infosheets/lca/LCIA.pdf
DHE Inc. (2014). Trommel Dirt and Compost. DHE Inc. Concrete Equipment. Sales Representative Scott Humphrey.
Diaz, E. (2014). Capstone Available Land GIS Analysis. Student analysis.
Don Mathsen P.E. (2014). Email Quote of Biofilter System. Chief Engineer Bactee System,
Inc..
URL http://www.bactee.com/
[EIA] U.S. Energy Information Agency (2014). California Gasoline and Diesel Retail Prices.
U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed March 13, 2014.
URL http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet pri gnd dcus sca w.htm
EPA (1994). Composting Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. EPA.
URL http://www.epa.gov/composting/pubs/cytmsw.pdf
EPA (1995). Decision Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. Wisconsin Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center, volume ii
62

ed. Chapter 7.
URL http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/dmg2/
EPA (2002). Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: a Life-cycle Assessment of
Emission and Sinks. Tech. Rep. EPA530-R-02-006, Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
URL http://www.epa.gov
EPA (2006).
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Compost Filter Sock. URL http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=
factsheet results&view=specific&bmp=120.
EPA (2010).
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Compost Filter
Berms.
URL http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=
factsheet results&view=specific&bmp=119.
EPA (2012a). Compost use on state highway applications. Tech. rep., Environmental Protection
Agency. URL http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/composting/highway/index.htm.
EPA (2012b). Food Scrap Recycling: A Primer for Understanding Large-Scale Food Scrap
Recycling Technologies for Urban Areas. (p. 45).
URL http://www.epa.gov/region1/composting/pdfs/FoodScrapRecycling.pdf
EPA (2012c). P2 Greenhouse Gas Calculator. Pollution Prevention (P2). Spreadsheet.
URL http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/resources/GHGConversion.xls
EPA (2012d).
Stormwater Best Management Practice Compost Blankets.
URL
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min measure&
min measure id=4.
EPA (2014). Composting for Facilities Basics. URL http://www.epa.gov/compost/basic.htm.
Equipment Trader (2014). Wheel loaders. Search parameters: Year 2000-2014, Price $40,000$100,000.
Farrell, M., & Jones, D. (2010). Food waste composting: Its use as a peat replacement. Waste
Management, 30 , 14951501.
Glanville, T. D., Richard, T. L., & Persyn, R. A. (2003). Impacts of compost blankets on
erosion control, revegetation, and water quality at highway construction sites in iowa. Tech.
rep., Iowa State University.
Gluth, G. (2014). Patz Corporation Conveyor Inquiry. E-mail quote, April 11, 2014, garygluth@patzcorp.com.

63

GMT (2012). Green Mountain Technology- Aerated Compost Systems.

compostingtechnology.com/aerated-earth-pad/.

URL http://

Green, P. G. (2010). An Investigation of the Potential for Ground-Level Ozone Formation

Resulting from Compost Facility Emissions. Tech. Rep. DRRR-2011-0006, CalRecycle.
URL http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Organics%5C2011006.pdf
Green, W. (2013). Landscape Materials. URL
urlhttp://www.wesgreenlm.com/landscaping-materials.
Green, W. (2014). Interview at west green compost facility.
Haug, R. H. (1993). The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Lewis Publishers.
[HCTTC] Humboldt County Treasurer-Tax Collector (2013). Property Tax FAQ. Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collectors Oce. Accessed March 13, 2014.
URL http://co.humboldt.ca.us/taxcollt/property-tax-faq.html
Herr, C. E., zur Nieden, A., Stilianakis, N. I., & Eikmann, T. F. (2004). Health Eects
Associated With Exposure to Residential Organic Dust. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, 46 , 381385.
URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20073/pdf
Homewyse (2014). Cost to Install a Concrete Pad. URL http://www.homewyse.com/services/
cost to install concrete pad.html.
Hopkins, E. (2014). Interview with Green Mountain Technology Composting Company.
Humboldt Recycling (2014). Phone conversion with Brian, 707-839-3285.
URL http://www.humboldtrecycling.info/
HWMA (2012). Request for Proposals for Professional Design Services for the Development,
Installation, Start-up and Commissioning of an Anaerobic Digestion System. Confidential
document.
HWMA (2013). Fw2w pilot food waste bin audits raw data. Unpublished Data.
HWMA (2014a). Eureka recycling center.
URL http://www.hwma.net/hawthorne-street/recycling-center
HWMA (2014b). Greenwaste.
URL http://www.hwma.net/green-waste
Inman, D. (2014). Ag-Bag Forage Solutions quote. Phone conversion with quotes from email.

64

Landmark, A. (1999). Soil degradation and the use of agricultural and organic industrial by
products as soil amendments. Restoration and Reclamation Review , 5 (3).
Lopez, M., Huerta, O., Valero, J., & Soliva, M. (2004). Raw Organic Material Origin and
Compost Heavy Metal Contents. 11th International Conference of the FAO ESCORENA.
URL
http://mie.esab.upc.es/ms/recerca experimentacio/articles ESAB/Origin%
20compost%20and%20heavy%20metals.pdf
Marion, H., & Peter, L. (2000). Methane oxidation in optimised landfill cover layers under
dierent seasonal conditions. University of Agriculture Science, Vienna.
URL http://lst.sb.ltu.se/iclrs/documents/symp2000/papers/Humer-Lechner 2000-09-28.doc
McConkey, G. (2014). XACT Compost Inquiry. Glen@xactcompostingsystems.com.
Nationwide Scale LLC (2013). Truck scales.
URL http://www.truck-scales.org/
N.C. Growers Assoc. (2014). Farmers Markets. URL http://www.humfarm.org/index.php?
option=com content&view=category&layout=blog&id=23&Itemid=53.
NCUAQMD (2005). Regulation I General Provisions, Permits and Prohibitions.
URL http://www.ncuaqmd.org/files/rules/reg%201/Regulation%20I.pdf
NCUAQMD (2014). Phone conversation with Allan D.
URL http://www.ncuaqmd.org/
North Country Organics (2013). C:N Ratio of Various Waste Materials. North Country Organics.
URL http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf
Novack, J. (2014). Estimated Land Costs. Coldwell Banker Sellers Realty.
Olds College Composting Technology Centre (1999). Mid-scale Composting Manual. Alberta Environment. URL http://www.oldscollege.ca/Assets/OldsCollege/shared/OCCI/
Media-Resources/Factsheets-Reports/Composting and Waste Management 2014.pdf.
Pacific Gas & Electric (2014a). Carbon footprint calculator assumptions. PG&E Website.
URL http://www.pge.com/about/environment/calculator/assumptions.shtml
Pacific Gas & Electric (2014b).
Current Residential
Http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/taris/ResElecCurrent.xls.

Electric

Rates.

Pagans, E., Barrena, R., Font, X., & Sanchez, A. (2006). Ammonia emissions from the composting of dierent organic wastes. dependency on process temperature. Chemosphere, 62 (9),

65

15341542.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.06.044
Planning, & Department, B. (2013). Humboldt GIS Portal.
URL http://gis.co.humboldt.ca.us/
Regenstein, J. M., Kay, D., Turci, P., & Outerbridge, T. (1999). Small To Medium Scale
Composting Of Food Wastes In New York City. Cornell University. URL http://compost.
css.cornell.edu/NYCComposting.pdf.
Richard, T. (2014). Moisture and Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio Calculation Spreadsheet. Cornell
University.
URL http://compost.css.cornell.edu/download.html
Richard, T., & Trautmann, N. (1996). C/N Ratio. Cornell Composting. URL http://compost.
css.cornell.edu/calc/cn ratio.html.
Richard, T. L. (2007). Composting Fact Sheet 8 & MSW Composting Fact Sheet 1 . Waste
Management Institute, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Cornell University, Bradfield
Hall Ithaca, NY 14853.
URL http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/factsheets.htm
Risse, M., & Faucette, B. (2012). Food Waste Composting: Institutional and Industrial Applications. URL http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk id=6288.
Rock & Dirt (2014). 2014 Mack Pinnacle CHU613 & 2005 Peterbilt 330.
URL http://www.rockanddirt.com/search?l0=trucks&l1=ALL-dump-trucks
Rosenfeld, P., Grey, M., & Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of biosolids compost odor emissions
from a windrow, static pile, and biofilter. Water Environment Research, 76 (4), pp. 310315.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/25045788.
[SCCHCP] Santa Cruz County Home Composting Program (2006). Soil Amendments for Agriculture and Landscaping. Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works.
URL compostsantacruzcounty.org/PDF/Soil Products.pdf
Sherman, R. (1999). Large-scale Organic Materials Composting. N.C. Cooperative Extension
Service., AG-593 .
SJVAPCD (2009). Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 199 Composting Waste
Disposal. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
URL
https://www.valleyair.org/Air Quality Plans/EmissionsMethods/MethodForms/
Current/Composting2006.pdf

66

Tognetti, C., Mazzarino, M., & Laos, F. (2007). Improving the quality of municipal organic
waste compost. Bioresource Technology, 98 (5), 1067 1076. URL http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0960852406001805.
Trautmann, N., & Olynciw, E. (1996). Compost microorganisms. Cornell Composting. URL
urlhttp://compost.css.cornell.edu/microorg.html.
Truman, P. (2009). Rapid Pre-feasibility Assessment of Wood Biomass Heating of Northern
California Public Buildings. US. Forest Service Department of Agriculture. URL http:
//ucanr.edu/sites/WoodyBiomass/newsletters/CARC-D Grants Information37549.pdf.
USCC (2008). Greenhouse Gases and the Role of Composting: A Primer for Compost Producers. URL http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/
Greenhouse-Gases-and-the-Role-of-Composting.pdf.
USCC (2010a). Sta fees. URL http://compostingcouncil.org/sta-fees/.
USCC (2010b).
Test Methods & Parameters.
test-methods-parameters/.

URL http://compostingcouncil.org/

USDA, & NRCS (2010). Chapter 2 Part 637: Environmental Engineering National Engineering
Handbook .
URL http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/default.aspx
Waithes, C. M., & Cox, C. S. (1995). Bioaerosols Handbook . Lewis Publishers.
Westall, D. R. (2014). XACT Compost Inquiry. E-mail.
Wilson, B. G., Haralampides, K., & Levesque, S. (2004). Stormwater runo from open
windrow composting facilities. Journal of Environmental Engineering & Science, 3 (6), 537
540. URL http://ezproxy.humboldt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=15851296&site=ehost-live.
Winkler-Prins, L. (2013). Humboldt county landfill gis study.
WSU:WCE (2009). Compost Fundamentals: Compost Needs - Carbon Nitrogen Relationships.
Washington State University: Whatcom County Extension.
URL http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/fundamentals/needs carbon nitrogen.htm
XACT Systems (2014). In-Vessel Rotating Drum for Solid Organic Waste Conversion. URL
http://xactsystemscomposting.com/.
Zhang, Y., Banks, C. J., & Heaven, S. (2012). Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable
municipal waste streams. Journal of Environmental Management, 104 (0), 166174. URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712001624.
67

Appendix A: Compost Quality Standards

Table 50: Quality standards for finished compost (Reproduced from CalRecycle 2014b)
Indicator

Quality Standard for Finished Compost

Physical

Moisture: 30-40%, Fine Texture (all below 1/8 mesh)

Odor

Smells like rich humus from the forest floor; no ammonia

or anaerobic odor.

Nutrient

Carbon:Nitrogen Ratio <17:1

Total Organic Matter

20-35%

Total Nitrogen

1.0-2.0%

Nitrate Nitrogen

250-350 ppm

Nitrite Nitrogen

0 ppm

Sulfide

0 ppm

Ammonium

0 or trace

pH

6.5-8.5

Cation Exchange Capacity > 60 meq/100g

Humic Acid Content

5-15%

ERGS Reading

5,000-15,000 mS/cm

Microbiological

Heterotrophic Plate Count 1.0x108 - 1.0x1010 CFU/g dw

Anaerobic Plate Count

Aerobes: Anaerobes at 10:1 or greater

Yeasts and Molds

1.0x103 - 1.0x105 CFU/g dw

Actinomycetes

1.0x106 - 1.0x108 CFU/g dw

Pseudomonads

1.0x103 - 1.0x106 CFU/g dw

Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria

1.0x103 - 1.0x 106 CFU/g dw

Compost Maturity
Compost Stability

>50% on Maturity Index t dilution rate appropriate for

compost application.
<100 mg O2 /kg compost dry solids-hour

E. coli

< 3 E. coli/g

Fecal Coliforms

< 1000 MPN/g of dry solids

Salmonella

< 3 MPN/4 g total solids

68

Appendix B: Alternative Criteria Rankings

Table 51: ATP Criteria
Criterion

Description

Rank

Sources

Environmental
Benefit

Yearly CH4 emissions would amount to approximately

250 MTCO2 e and N2 O emissions to approximately 450
MTCO2 e. VOC and PM emissions would be lower than
windrows and slightly higher than in-vessel systems.
Emissions and fertilizer use would also be avoided with
the use of the final compost.

(EPA, 2002),
(Climate Action Reserve,
2013)

Capital Cost

The estimated capital cost would be $5.3M. This would

include the construction of the pad, the purchase of the
homogeneous equipment, and the blowers. A tipping fee
of $70 per ton would be required to break even, assuming
a compost revenue of $25 per cubic yard.

(Table 36)

Present Value
O&M Cost

A preliminary lifetime O&M cost would be $7.0M, including annual expenses and equipment replacements.

10

(Table 36)

Flexibility

The ATP systems would be a rapid processing alternative. The finished compost would be consistent provided
the feedstock input would be always maintained at the
same C:N and moisture content.

(Bagley, 2014)

Market
Availability

The compost created by ATP systems would likely be

of a similar quality to that produced by windrows. Bulk
compost prices in Northern California range from $25$50 per ton, and ATP-produced compost would likely
sell towards the lower to middle portion of this range.

(SCCHCP,
2006),
(CCWS, 2014)

Process Time

The ATP method would have a total processing time

of 56-70 days. Rapid processing of compost arises from
aeration and occasional turning.

10

(Hopkins,
2014)

Safety

The ATP would require weekly operation of heavy machinery, aeration systems, and trucks. Employees would
be exposed to heavy machinery.

(Hopkins,
2014)

Aesthetics

Aesthetics would be obstructed. The indoor facility

would be designed to minimize the impact on scenic
vista of the site.

(Hopkins,
2014)

69

Table 52: Windrow Criteria

Criterion

Description

Rank

Sources

Environmental
Benefit

Yearly CH4 emissions would amount to approximately 700 MTCO2 e and N2 O emissions to approximately the same. VOC and PM emissions
would be higher than the other composting methods. Emissions and fertilizer use would also be
avoided with the use of the final compost.

(EPA, 2002),
(Climate Action
Reserve, 2013)

Capital Cost

The preliminary estimate of the capital cost would

be $2.6 million. A tipping fee of $48 per ton would
be required to break even, assuming a compost
revenue of $25 per cubic yard.

(Table 36)

Present Value
O&M Cost

The required lifetime O&M cost for the entire

project lifetime would be $7.7 million, based on
annual expenses and equipment replacements.

(Table 36)

Flexibility

A windrow system would be fairly flexible if given

enough room to adjust to fluctuations in pile sizes
and required time to compost. Piles can be added
or made longer if necessary.

(EPA, 2014)

Market
Availability

The windrow alternative would produce a consistent 12,500 yd3 /year of mid-level quality compost.

(Cekmecelioglu
et al., 2005),
(Tognetti et al.,
2007)

Process Time

The time required would be 15 weeks from start

to finish for the windrow composting alternative.

(EPA, 2014),
(EPA, 2012b)

Safety

Windrows would require a significant amount of

employee exposure to heavy equipment.

(EPA, 2012b)

Aesthetics

The windrow alternative would not by itself aesthetically beneficial. However the impacts to aesthetics could be mitigated by landscaping around
the site.

(EPA, 2012b)

70

Table 53: Criteria of the project met by the Ag-Bag system.

Criterion

Description

Rank

Sources

Environmental
Benefit

CH4 emissions would amount to approximately

250 MTCO2 e and N2 O emissions to 450 MTCO2 e.
VOC and PM emissions would be the lowest of the
alternatives. Emissions and fertilizer use would
also be avoided with the use of the final compost.
Recycling eorts and shipping 100 bags per yer
results in a lower score.

(EPA, 2002),
(Climate Action
Reserve, 2013)

Capital Cost

The present value of the capital cost would be approximately $1.9 million for the Ag-Bag system.
A tipping fee of $47 per ton would be required to
break even, assuming a compost revenue of $25 per
cubic yard.

10

(Inman, 2014)

Present Value
O&M Cost

Over the 30-year project horizon, the present value

cost would be approximately $8.3 million, assuming major replacement costs at 10 and 20 years.

(Inman, 2014)
(DEC, 2007),
(EIA, 2014)

Flexibility

The Ag-Bag system could handle a variety of feedstocks and could be easily permitted near urban
centers, and would have minimize potential for
contamination of groundwater sources by containing leachate within the bag.

(Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008)

Market
Availability

This system would produce a high quality product

because of its ability to control process parameters
eectively. A low estimate of the compost value
would be $25 per yd3 .

(Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008)
(Inman, 2014)

Process Time

The Ag-Bag system has an 8-12 week active composting time with 4-8 weeks for curing.

(Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008)

Safety

The system reduces fugitive dust emissions of PM,

vermin, and foul odors that workers could be exposed to during working hours.

(Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008)

Aesthetics

The Eco-Pods are green and would blend with

the surrounding site area. The receiving and mixing area would be performed in-doors to minimize
odors.

(Ag-Bag Forage
Solutions, 2008)

71

Table 54: XACT Criteria

Criterion

Description

Rank

Sources

Environmental
Benefit

Yearly CH4 emissions would amount to approximately 250 MTCO2 e and N2 O emissions to 450
MTCO2 e. VOC and PM emissions would be the
lowest of the alternatives. Emissions and fertilizer
use would also be avoided with the use of the final
compost.

(EPA, 2002),
(Climate Action
Reserve, 2013)

Capital Cost

The initial capital cost of the XACT system would

be approximately $3.5 million. A tipping fee of $63
per ton would be required to break even, assuming
a compost revenue of $25 per cubic yard.

(Westall, 2014)

O&M Cost

The net PV of the O&M for XACT system would

be approximately $8.3 million.

(Westall, 2014)

Flexibility

The XACT system would be able to compost a

wide range and volume of feedstocks. Adjustments
can be made in the retention time and the feedstock mix in order to accept a change in inputs.

(Haug, 1993)

Market
Availability

The compost created by in-vessel systems would

be often of a higher quality than that produced by
other methods. Bulk compost prices in Northern
California range from $25-$50 per ton.

(Cekmecelioglu
et al., 2005),
(SCCHCP,
2006), (CCWS,
2014)

Process Time

The XACT system would be able to compost the

feedstock in 4-7 days.

10

(Westall, 2014)

Safety

One or two employees would be required to load

the feedstock and store the completed compost.
The estimated time spent near or operating heavy
equipment would be approximately eight hours per
day, with two pieces of heavy equipment (front
loader, dump truck) operated for four hours each.

(Westall, 2014),
(DEC, 2007)

Aesthetics

In-vessel systems are designed to contain the compost during the composting process. The initial
feedstock, curing compost, and final compost can
be stored indoors or under a covered facility.

(Haug, 1993)

72

Appendix C: Land Siting and Costs

Available parcels for a composting facility were found using the HC planning and development
GIS data. The following constraints were used to find potential sites:
The coastal zone layer was removed from available parcels per clients advice.
Acceptable slopes are 1-5% to avoid slope instability.
South-facing aspect to ensure compost piles are aligned towards the sun, to promote active
and curing phases of the composting process.
Parcels in the 100-year flood plain (Zone A) were removed.
The sites were validated using the HC GIS portal, which oers information on the proximity of
parcels to fault zones. The zoning of the available parcels are light industrial, heavy industrial,
and commercial. One foreseeable problem is the proximity to residential zones, which could be a
source of complaints. Installing a windsock in the facility is recommended, in order avoid turning
or moving compost piles when winds are blowing towards residential areas. Therefore, the
selected composting alternative needs to minimize the odor and particulate matter emissions.
An estimated price of $65 per square meter was used as the baseline price for purchasing land
(Novack, 2014) (Table 55).
Table 55: Potential sites for composting facility with estimated prices
APN

Zoning

20610124 heavy industrial - vacant

20132201 heavy industrial - vacant
20431106
commercial - vacant
1624154
commercial - vacant
20132217 heavy industrial - vacant
20036350
commercial - vacant
20408103 heavy industrial - vacant
22023130
commercial - vacant
51034139
commercial - vacant
51146108 light industrial - vacant
20036356
commercial - vacant

Acres

Estimated Price ($)

14.4
5.3
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.2
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.0

3,822,914
1,407,102
1,044,341
997,540
894,355
839,295
511,926
404,559
391,932
338,857
259,338

Two optimal locations adjacent to each other were found in Hydesville, CA for the compost
handling facility (Figure 13a & Figure 13b (Planning & Department, 2013)). If an in-vessel
composting method is selected, then Figure 13a will be pursued for purchase. The aerated
turned piles and windrow composting systems require more land therefore the larger parcel
(Figure 13a) would be pursued.
73

(a) Hydesville parcel 3.4 acres zone HI, parcel

#20132217 (Diaz, 2014).

(b) Hydesville parcel 5.3 acres zoned HI,

parcel# 20132201 (Diaz, 2014).

Figure 13: Two optimal site locations

74

Appendix D: Regulations
A composting facility will require permits from the local enforcement agency (LEA) (to ensure
compliance with Title 14 CCR), from the regional water and/or air quality boards, and from the
fire department. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH), a branch of HCs department
of health and human services, is the LEA responsible for enforcing Title 14 and Title 27 CA
compost regulations (CalRecycle, 2014d):
Title 14 CCR Ch.3.1, Natural Resource Division 7, CIWMB
Article 2 Section 17854- Compostable Handling Operation/Facility Permit Requirements
The permit must comply with the requirements of Title 27 CCR, Division 2,
Subdivision 1, Chapter 4, Sub-chapter 1 & 3, Articles 1, 2, 3, and 3.1 (commencing with section 21450) before operations begin at a composting handling
facility
Article 2 Section 17855.2- Prohibitions
Composting mammalian tissue
Composting medical waste
Composting hazardous waste
Article 3 Section 17863 - Report of Composting Site Information (RCSI)
Compost handling facility operator must file a RCSI with the LEA
Article 3 Section 17863.4 - Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP)
A) Prepare, implement, maintain, and submit to LEA a site specific OIMP
B) The OIMP must provide guidance to on-site personnel describing at a minimum the following components:
1) Odor monitoring protocol describing proximity of possible odor receptors
and methods of assessing odor at receptors site
2) Description of climatic conditions that influence the movement of the
odors, such as seasonal variation in wind direction and velocity.
3) Complaint response protocol
4) Description of design considerations and projected ranges of optimal operations in minimizing odor: aeration rate, moisture content, C:N ratio,
75

site specific processes, pond and site drainage, feedstock characteristics and
more.
5) Description of operating procedure to minimize odor, such as storage time,
active phase time, curing time, geometry of piles, aeration rate, feedstock
characteristics and more.
C) Provide copy of changes to OIMP to LEA within 30 days.
D) The OIMP needs to be renewed annually
E) The LEA has the power to make sure that the OIMP is being followed at
anytime
F) Implementation of additional reasonable measures to minimize odor if OIMP
is being followed and has been validated by LEA and odor problems still persist
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (NCUAQMD)
Compost handling facilities fall under nuisance regulations in HC. This means that
there are no set design criteria or permits required besides those specified in Title 14
CCR, until complaints are received. After complaints are received, the compost handling facility will be fined and possibly mandated to move indoors. The NCUAQMD
recommends looking at seasonal variation of wind patterns of the area for implementing a successful OIMP (NCUAQMD, 2014). For example, one could use a windsock
at the compost handling facility and only turn active piles when the wind patterns
move the odor emission away from nearby receptors that may complain.
Particulate matter class II thresholds must not exceeded. The arithmetic mean and
24 hour average of PM10 emissions (less than 10 microns in size) are 19 micrograms
per cubic meter and 37 micrograms per cubic meter respectively (NCUAQMD, 2005).
Facilitating the release of particulate matter to become airborne by means of fugitive
dust emissions from non-combustion sources is not allowed. Reasonable methods
for mitigating fugitive dust emissions are watering material stockpiles and covering
open-bodied trucks transporting materials that could emit dust (NCUAQMD, 2005).

76

Appendix E: HC Potential Compost Market

Each alternative will generate a stabilized solid that can be used for an array of purposes.
Selling the finished compost will help to oset operational costs. A potential market does exist
in HC, and the North Coast Growers Assoc. lists 84 farms and nurseries in HC (N.C. Growers
Assoc., 2014). A sample of these farms can be seen in Table 56. The prices of the finished
compost is anticipated to be governed by the current regional prices in the market (Bagley,
2014). The quality of the compost and competition prices will dictate the compost sale price.
In HC, Wes Green Landscape Materials is the primary producer of green waste compost. The
selling price is currently $45/yd3 (Green, 2013).
Table 56: Some selected farms and nurseries in HC (Generated from N.C. Growers Assoc.
2014).
Farm/ Company

Mailing Address

Angora Bunny Lady

3385 Middlefield Lane Eureka, CA 95501
Aqua Rodeo Farms
PO Box 371 Eureka CA. 95502
Arcata Bay Llamas
PO Box 412 Arcata, CA, 95518
Bear River Valley Beef
PO Box 342 Ferndale, CA 95536
BIGFOOT
PO Box 1025 Blue Lake, CA, 95525
Blue Jay Nursery (organic)
118 Wilder Rd. Carlotta, CA, 95528
Blue Lake Lightning Farm
1202 Chester Ct. Arcata, CA 95521
Buck and Daisy
1469 Walker Point Rd. Bayside, CA 95524
Claudias Organic Herbs (organic) PO Box 233 Orleans, CA 95556
Corn Crib (organic)
441 Dilion Rd Ferndale, CA 95536
DeepSeeded Community Farm
PO Box 4380 Arcata CA 95518
Earth N Hands Farm (organic)
3555 Thorpe Ln. Kneeland, CA 95549

77

Appendix F: Homogeneous Costs

This section itemizes the potential start-up and operation costs shared by all alternatives of
the feasibility project (Table 57 & 58).
Table 57: Homogeneous capital cost for a composting facility in Humboldt County
Capital

Unit Cost

Land
$263,000/acre
Admin Building
$143/ft2
Sorting Building
$25/ft2
Storage Building
$25/ft2
Design & Permitting
$50,000
Monitoring
$5,000
Front Loader
$100,000
Dump Truck
$100,000
Trommel
$50,000
Shredder
$60,000
Mixer
$60,000
Scale
$30,000

Quantity
3.4
700
8,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Total

$894,000
(Novack, 2014)
$100,000
(Building-Cost, 2013)
$200,000
(BuildingsGuide, 2014)
$200,000
(BuildingsGuide, 2014)
$50,000
(GMT, 2012)
$5,000
(GMT, 2012)
$100,000
(Equipment Trader, 2014)
$100,000 (Commercial Truck Trader, 2014)
$50,000
(DHE Inc., 2014)
$60,000
(McConkey, 2014)
$60,000
(McConkey, 2014)
$30,000
(Nationwide Scale LLC, 2013)
$1,849,000

Total

78

Source

Table 58: Homogeneous annual O&M costs.

Description
Sawdust
Electrical
Quality Testing
General Liability Insurance
Vehicle Maintenance 3
Sta (Loaded Wage) 4
Contaminant Disposal 5
Property Tax 6
Annual Total Homogeneous O&M

Cost

Source

$101,000 1
(Truman, 2009)
(PG&E, 2014b)
$8,700 2
$2,000
(USCC, 2010a)
$20,000
$10,000/vehicle (Caterpillar Inc., 2008)
$121,000
(McConkey, 2014)
$18,000
(Bohn, 2010)
$15,000
(HCTTC, 2013)
$325,700

1,555 bone dry tons at $65/bone dry ton, with transportation

Electrical energy consumption for the administrative building and lighting of processing/receiving building
3
Assuming four vehicles per alternative
4
Two employees at $60,500/employee
5
Value based on a 6% contamination fee and disposal tipping fee provided by Juliette Bohn
6
Based on 1% of land value
2

79