Composting Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction Table 1-1. Summary of operating MSW plants. 4 Current Amount of Proprietary Year MSW Composted Technolgy or Plant Name started (tons/day) System(1) Ownership/Operation Lakeside, AZ New Castle, DE Escambia County, FL Pembroke Pines, Ft. Sumter County, FL Buena vista County, IA Coffeyville, KS Mackinac Island, Ml Fillmore County, MN Mora, MN (East Central SWC) Lake of the woods County, MN Bennington County, MN St Cloud, MN Swift County, MN Truman, MN (Prairieland SWB) Wright County, MN Sevierville, TN Hidalgo County, TX Ferndale, WA Columbia County, WI Portage, WI 1991 1984 1991 1991 1988 1991 1991 1992 1987 1991 1989 1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1992 1991 1991 1992 1986 10-12 bedminster Bioconversion 200-225 Fairfield digesters 200 200 Buhler 50 4000/yr. Lundell (for processing) 50 8 (inc. MSW, — Sludge, manure) (2) 12 250 Daneco 5 12 Lundell (for processing) 60 Eweson digester w/Royer ag. bed 12 55 OTVD 165 Buhler 150 (design) Bedminster Bioconversion 70 100 Royer ag. bed 40-45 — 20 Joint Venture Public/Private Public/Public Private/Private Public/Private Private/Private Private/Private Public/Public Public/Pubic Public/Private Public/Public Public/Private Private/Private Public/Public Public/Public Public/Private Public/Private Public/Public Private/Private Public/Public Public/Public (1) This category is limited to compost system vendors and not other proptietary technologies/equipment in use at these facilities. (2) Amount for Mackinac island indicates average daily flow due to park population during the summer months, Source: Goldstien and Glenn, 1992.
Table 1-2. Nationwide listing of MSW composting facilities. Facility Status ARIZONA 1. Pinetop-Lakeside Operational ARKANSAS 1. Madison Pilot KANSAS LOUISIANA MAINE Landfill) Proposal review Pilot planning(1) Operatiional Operational Consideration of pilot (Cocomposting) (Source sep. organics) Construction System Windrow CALIFORNIA 1. Chowchilia Planning Windrow (enclosed) (Madera County) 2. San Diego (City) Vendor negotiation A-SP (Daneco) 3. Tulare County Proposal review Windrow or in-vessel 4. Ventura County Proposal review for solid waste management CONNECTICUT 1. Northeastern Conn. Proposal review Res. Rec. Auth. (Brooklyn) DELAWARE 1. Del. Reclamation Project Operational (New Castle) FLORIDA 1.Cape Coral 2. Charlotte County 3. Escambia County 4. Manatee County 5. Monroe County 6. Palm Beach County 7. Pembroke Pines 8.Sumter County IOWA 1. Buenvista County 2.Cedar Rapids 3. Council Bluffs 4. Harden County (w/Butler,Wright counties) 1.Coffeyville 1. Tri-Parrish SWC (St. Martin, Iberia Lafayette) 1. Bowdoinham 2. Machias MARYLAND 1. Baltimore 2. Brandywine 3. Salisbury (wicomico Cty. In-Vessel/ Enclosed vendor negotiation Windrow Amerrecycle) Proposal review Operational Windrow Vendor negotiation Windrow (Amerecycle) Agitated bed (IPS) (RDF, RDF rejects, mixed paper) Operational wet/dry separation) Enc.aerated Windrow windrow Consideration of pilot In-Vessel (Seerdrum) (by American Materials Recyc.) Tons/Day (Unless noted) Digester (Bedminster) 12-14 (w/6 wet tpd 500-800 w/sludge) 1/month sluge) 40(100-150 at full scale 300,000/year 900-1,000(w/sludge) 3,000 (total Stream) 200 In-vessel (Fairfield) 200-225 (w/150-200 wet tpd sludge) (Buhler) Windrow (Amerecycle) Windrow (w/ Lundell processing line 200 400 (w/sludge) 200 (400 design) 1,000 (total Stream) 75,600yr. (total Stream) 550 (650 design)) 50 4,000/yr. Consideration 75-80 (Source sep. Orangnics (FERST Co.) 2.Brandywine Windrow (w/ Lundell processing line A-SP In-vessel (A-S-H) (2) Enc. A-SP (Rader Co.) 60 50 700 (total Stream) 2,500 pop. 520(700 design) 340 20(300 design) Introduction 5
Page 1 and 2: United States Solid Waste and EPA53
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgments . . ii EPA would li
Page 5 and 6: Contents Introduction . . . . . . .
Page 7 and 8: Chapter Five - Facility Siting and
Page 9 and 10: Chapter Nine - Product Quality and
Page 11 and 12: Introduction composting is a firm o
Page 13: Trimmings MSW in the United States
Page 17 and 18: Table 1-2. (Continued). 7. NewYork
Page 19 and 20: I Operational Plans Facility Owners
Page 21 and 22: Chapter One Planning Communities th
Page 23 and 24: a composting operation (see Chapter
Page 25 and 26: Planning Gehr, W., and M. Brown. 19
Page 27 and 28: Figure 2-1. Temperature and pH vari
Page 29 and 30: Nutrient Levels and Balance For com
Page 31 and 32: Chapter Three Collection Methods Th
Page 33 and 34: Collection Methods Permit # Mo. Day
Page 35 and 36: Table 3-1. A comparison of yard tri
Page 37 and 38: Collection Methods No material othe
Page 39 and 40: Table 3-2. Source separation vs. co
Page 41 and 42: Chapter Four Processing Methods, Te
Page 43 and 44: the tipping floor where the feedsto
Page 45 and 46: Feed Source: Richard, 1992. Figure
Page 47 and 48: Reducing the Particle Size of the F
Page 49 and 50: Finally temperature determines how
Page 51 and 52: Processing Methods, Technologies, a
Page 53 and 54: equirements for the composting proc
Page 55 and 56: programmed timer or a temperature f
Page 57 and 58: otating screws, air infeeds, or air
Page 59 and 60: Table 4-3. Effectiveness of compost
Page 61 and 62: obtain a more suitable biofilter me
Page 63 and 64: carbon dioxde production, C:N ratio
Page 65 and 66:
Processing Methods, Technologies, a
Page 67 and 68:
Site Name Site Location Description
Page 69 and 70:
Odor Evaluation A most important co
Page 71 and 72:
Source: Appelhof and McNelly, 1988.
Page 73 and 74:
least 3 months should be incorporat
Page 75 and 76:
Chapter Six The Composting Process:
Page 77 and 78:
The Composting Process: Environment
Page 79 and 80:
Runof diversion channel Dike Pad le
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
composting, requirements for the co
Page 89 and 90:
institutional, and governmental use
Page 91 and 92:
Summary significant legislative act
Page 93 and 94:
Table 7-1. State legislation to enc
Page 95 and 96:
Table 7-2. Legislation to regulate
Page 97 and 98:
Chapter Eight Potential End Users C
Page 99 and 100:
Table 8-1. Potential users and uses
Page 101 and 102:
Table 8-2. (continual). Potential E
Page 103 and 104:
Table 8-3. (Continued). Potenial Co
Page 105 and 106:
Table 8-4. Examples of compost qual
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter Eight Resources Alexander,
Page 109 and 110:
Compost Product quality depends upo
Page 111 and 112:
Table 9-4. Pesticide analysis of Po
Page 113 and 114:
Average Concentration of Essential
Page 115 and 116:
Product Quality and Marketing 4. If
Page 117 and 118:
product. Some experts warn against
Page 119 and 120:
Cal Recovery Systems (CRS) and M.M.
Page 121 and 122:
Chapter Ten Community Involvement D
Page 123 and 124:
Siting a Co-Composting Facility in
Page 125 and 126:
Chapter Eleven Economics ■ ■
Page 127 and 128:
high-quality compost; these units t
Page 129 and 130:
For example, at a 300- to 400-ton p
Page 131 and 132:
I. START-UP (CAPITAL) COSTS Site Pr
Page 133 and 134:
v. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS: COMPOSTIN
Page 135 and 136:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Page 137 and 138:
Table B-1. A Comparison of yard tri
Page 139 and 140:
Table B-2. A comparison of debaggin
Page 141 and 142:
Table B-3. A comparison of sorting/
Page 143 and 144:
Table B-4. A comparison of size red
Page 145 and 146:
Loaders Manure Spreaders Tractor/Tr
Page 147 and 148:
Type of Equipment Cost Biofilters C
Page 149 and 150:
compostable - Organic material that
Page 151:
ecyclable - Products or materials t
show all

Composting Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?