Posts

Whatever happened to aiming for the best waste management option? 

If it’s easier to do, then it’s the thing to do.  If the job can be done faster by cutting corners, go for it.  If it’s the cheapest option, buy two.  Somewhere along the path of societal evolution, easiest-fastest-cheapest has become synonymous with best.  This linguistic transmogrification is so pervasive, society no longer takes notice of its shortsighted slide down a spiraling path toward all things inferior.

When did easiest-fastest-cheapest become synonyms for best? When did we stop aiming for the best waste management choices and settle for inferior? 

There are good, affordable options out there that can strengthen/support recycling mandates and result in better waste management systems.  But progress toward zero waste is s-l-o-w and too many communities are still stuck in their comfortable ruts.

Progressive leadership looks to the future, ever-steering its constituency toward that proverbial “brighter tomorrow.”  For waste management, that horizon does not include landfills or incinerators. But it does include high-rate industrial composting … if public and private facility owners aim for the best and not the cheapest.

What are the best options for biodegradable wastes, the best organics collection strategies, the best composting technologies, the best facility designs, the best uses for compost products – who asks these questions before plunging head first into a development project?

Or, if someone asks the questions, do they really mean what’s the cheapest technology, design, and collection strategy? 

As for the resulting compost product, is the real objective to put it to highest and best use or to get rid of the stuff as easy and as fast as possible?

‘Best use’ is hard to achieve with an inferior product

Stormwater management, erosion control, carbon sequestration, turfgrass management, landscaping – these rank among the best uses for compost products.

They represent markets that place high dollar value on stable, quality soil amendments with no odor, high organic matter content, macro and micro nutrients, and other characteristics linked to a high-performance product that can be safely used by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Poor quality compost cannot meet this minimum standard.  For the most part, its sale and distribution is restricted to low-dollar markets like farming and landfill cover.

The catch here is that, when managing mixed organic wastes, it usually requires a combination of the best facility designs, composting technologies, and management protocols to produce a really good compost product.

To achieve top quality, keep product moving out the gate, and ensure the highest possible revenue stream, a facility owner must match those aspirations with a high-quality manufacturing process and competent management that includes a professional sales effort.

Shortsighted strategies won’t meet long-term goals

Many communities are waking up to the fact that their long-range plan needs to include a viable strategy for organic waste management that keeps biodegradable materials – especially, food waste – out of landfills and incinerators.

Composting certainly fits the bill, and it’s often possible to modify an existing yard waste windrow permit to include other organics.

But what happens a few years down the road when that one load of food waste per week turns into a load per day, and then two loads per day, and then 10 loads per day?

When the entire city is source-separating organics curbside, and the vast majority of those garbage trucks are headed for that crowded, outdoor windrow composting facility, what happens then? 

Historically, facility owners (public and private) can struggle through years of banned feedstocks, failed lab reports, public complaints, unsellable product, fines, and/or legal fees before finally facing the facts. Their antiquated composting system simply isn’t up to the challenge of today’s urban waste streams … and their bargain basement facility wasn’t such a bargain after all. 

Successful high-volume processing of urban streams that include highly putrescible materials and biodegradable plastics requires tight environmental control and a high-rate composting process. 

If a facility owner wants to process in the least amount of space, taking the least amount of time, using the most reliable, predictable process, then that owner is going to convert that lesser system to the best system for mixed urban organics.  A covered and/or encapsulated aerated static pile (ASP) system, preferably with computerized control/monitoring and biofiltration, meets those expectations.

But how much might that region or business have saved/earned by investing in an expandable, high-rate facility in the beginning?  Remember, we’re not just talking composting, but all the dollars saved associated with compost use, too.

While Nero fiddled, Rome burned

Fiddling about while the city buries itself under a mountain of garbage is not an example of good governance.  In the private sector, failing to invest in upgrades and new technologies sets a company up for obsolescence.

Both depict outcomes resulting from failure to act when the time is right.

Unlike even 10 or 15 years ago, when most people were clueless about the many benefits of organics recycling on a municipal/industrial scale, today’s taxpayers are aware of composting as a waste management strategy.

Large volume waste generators in the private sector have been using commercial composting services for decades for one reason only – it’s more cost-effective than landfills.  As a bonus, it also gives corporations green points to use in their marketing messages.

Is it right for governing boards to continue to expect taxpayers to pay more simply because those who made the decision failed to be proactive in their decision-making?

No single option will be right for every community.  But giving serious consideration to organics recycling is always the right thing to do.

Starting at the top and working down is a lot easier than trying to claw one’s way up from the bottom.  So, aim for the best solution first, even if it’s not the easiest, fastest, or cheapest option.  

Then, use easy-er, fast-er, cheap-er tweaks to mold that system into the perfect waste management approach, customized to meet the unique needs and expectations of each community or business. 

Food waste collection: Thinking outside the trash can

Food waste collection can be a major hurdle for communities hoping to recycle curbside.  But might the real problem be not the what, but the how?  Is it time to think outside the trash can?

Let’s ponder this a minute.   

Waste 360 recently spotlighted grassroots recycling as a viable alternative to mainstream systems.  The article pointed out the actions of municipalities that, years ago, may have been too eager to turn successful, local recycling efforts over to “big waste haulers.”

The entrepreneurial efforts and business models of food waste collection outfits like CompostNowNOPE, and Compost Cab seem to be working in their respective service regions.  Instead of disrupting existing “Trash Day” collection systems and practices to include source-segregated food waste, these types of operations bypass the big trash truck with a service built on local-centric collection models that are meeting with success in multiple jurisdictions.   

Commercial composters, both large and small, have already demonstrated profitability in providing direct services to high- and low-volume waste generators, too. This success certainly proves that bypassing conventional collection systems is viable.

Looking at the world’s most successful bottle/container bills, we see return and recovery systems totally divorced from trash collection with capture rates approaching 100 percent.  While bottlers and other manufacturers of containerized products have been known to fight these types of programs, deposit and return systems do work. And they appear to work best when deposit amounts encourage those returns.

So, as the U.S. scrambles to rebuild and reshape its recycling infrastructure in the wake of the China debacle, could the long-abandoned local route to resource recovery of recyclables – residential food waste included – actually offer the better solution?  

Should food waste collection be a local thing?

Maybe, the decades-old struggle to integrate recycling within a system designed for mass disposal indicates the entire approach is flawed. Closely associating food waste, plastics, etcetera with trash as a first step to recovery means recyclables must be rescued from the waste stream before recovery can take place. Is this logical?  Is it efficient?  

Adding methane capture systems to landfills in an attempt to neutralize the damaging impacts of anaerobically-degrading organics just adds complications and expense for managing a material that shouldn’t be landfilled.  Similarly, for plastics and other recyclables, the better solution may lie in diversion at the source, not the transfer station.

Minus putrescibles/recyclables,  curbside collection of the real trash might be reduced to once a month (or less).  This disposal stream would be much, much smaller than current volumes … and clean.   With lower fill rates, existing landfills should last longer and cost less to manage, too.

When recyclables are funneled through and filtered by trash systems, does it make diversion more difficult than it needs to be?   Have we been going about recycling all wrong?

What are your ideas for getting recycling right?

Commercial vs. industrial composting:  are they the same? 

Commercial vs. industrial composting — no, they are not the same, though the terms may be used interchangeably on the web.  But one word has to do with the money trail and the type of organization that owns the facility.  The other is linked to operational scale and/or manufacturing approach. 

A government-owned operation is not commercial, but it could be industrial in scale. It could also be operated like a commercial facility with a similar structure and profitability goals. 

A privately-owned facility would be commercial but might not have any claim to industrial.  A small facility owned by a nonprofit may be neither.   Big, modern compost manufacturing plants may be both. 

What makes a composting operation commercial? 

A “commercial” facility infers ownership by an individual, partnership or corporation, with profits accruing to the benefit of the owners’/shareholders’ bank accounts.  “Commercial” doesn’t have anything to do with the processing method in use, facility design, throughput, technologies, or manufacturing systems. 

Composting operations owned by municipalities, counties, nonprofit organizations and the like are not commercial, because any profits realized go back into communal coffers to subsidize operations or fund other projects related to their respective missions. 

Government-owned plants are “public-sector” operations, while commercial facilities are “private-sector” operations.  Generally, nonprofits or not-for-profit entities are citizen groups and may also be referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Sometimes, an NGO may be established by individuals representing governments or agencies.  Like public-sector projects, composting facilities owned by NGOs could look very much like a commercial operation, complete with a revenue stream. 

How big is industrial scale? 

“Industrial” is a relative term, most often associated with factories and manufacturing.  In the 21st century, manufacturing infers mass production, big equipment, automation, systems, and uniformity.  Ergo, industrial scale infers a facility size that would require these things to improve efficiencies and revenues. 

When it comes to commercial and industrial composting, how big does the operation have to be to earn the designation of industrial scale?  How big is big? 

Again, it’s a relative term.  When doing research for this post, one of the findings was this article written in the mid-1990s that classified a 100-tons-per-year operation as industrial.   

Compared to the backyard compost pile, 100 tons is a big number.  But the average throughput of a composting operation in the U.S. is now approaching 4,500 tons per year.  There are 194 facilities processing more than 30,000 tons per year, some in the 100,000-plus category.   

It may be time to add one or two more zeros to the “industrial scale” definition of 1996. 

Still, size is only one indicator of an industrial facility.  But other adjectives that might be used to provide clarity are also quite subjective. 

Commercial vs. industrial composting — is “manufacturing” the key? 

The original definition of manufacturing (manu factum in Latin) literally translates to “made by hand.”  Today’s dictionaries typically describe manufacturing as making something manually or using machines.  But for most folks, the word conjures images of big buildings, lots of machinery, and cookie cutter output. 

Yet, no matter the variations in definition, one thing is clear — when applied to the manufacture of goods in the modern era, making something in an industrial setting requires production through a system that typically includes assembly lines, division of labor, a quality control program, and a sales network to move products out into the marketplace. 

Potato, Potahto 

Does it really matter whether a composting facility is commercial or not?  Industrial or not? 

The important thing is for composting operations of every description to make good compost.  How they do it or where the money goes is secondary and may not even be on a customer’s radar. 

A “commercial” facility may still imply private-sector ownership, but if public-sector owners are serious about their responsibilities to taxpayers, they’ll design, operate, and generate revenue from compost sales like the privately-owned. 

Protecting the integrity of the process and quality of the finished compost matters.  Hiring experienced, qualified compost facility operators matters.  Practicing preemption when it comes to the environment and preventing deterioration of the quality of life for the host community matters.  Providing stellar service to both intake and compost sales customers matters. 

These are the indicators of a successful composting operation, whether commercial or not, industrial scale or not.  At the end of the day, professional and profitable are among the most important descriptors for any composting facility. 

LEARN MORE: 

Noel Lyons

Noel

Sean Fallon

Sean

Gary Gittere

Gary

Kate Sullivan

Kate

Members of Team McGill are packing up for next week’s 2018 Carolinas Recycling Association (CRA) Conference, March 19-22 in Cherokee, NC.  Representing McGill Environmental Systems will be Noel Lyons, president; Sean Fallon, business development manager for intake;  Gary Gittere, sales and marketing manager for compost sales, and Kate Sullivan, compost sales rep.  Come meet some of the folks known as The Compost People®.  Flag ’em down in the hall, tag someone after a session or simply visit the McGill booth and say “Howdy!”

Read it.  Amended attitude: a new commitment to soil health using compost, written by Gary Gittere and recently published by SportsTurf Magazine.

ICAW – May 7-13, 2017

The International Compost Awareness Week poster for 2017 has been revealed.  Congratulations to the 2017 ICAW winning designer Ursula Gutowski from Niles, IL.

This year, the event runs May 7-13.

Green industry resellers and retailers can take advantage of Earth Day momentum by extending special compost-related promotions and educational events through mid-May.

Customers can contact their McGill sales reps for information about ordering copies of the poster for Earth Day or ICAW promotions.  We will consider requests for other types of promotional support (speakers, display materials, etc.), as well.

Not in a region served by a McGill composting facility? Keep up with the latest on the U.S. Composting Council’s  website or this Facebook page.

 

Cre recognizes McGill's 25 yearsOur thanks and warmest regards go out to Cre, the Composting Association of Ireland, for recognizing McGill for its 25 years in the composting industry.

A brief history of the company is featured in Cre’s December 2016 issue. McGill’s “cover guys” are Noel Lyons (left),  company co-founder and chairman of McGill-Ireland, and Niall Carroll, partner and manager of the McGill companies in Ireland.

In Ireland, McGill owns and operates the McGill-Glenville facility in County Cork and Molaisin Compost in County Waterford, plus 3 other composting facilities in the U.S.

All are indoor, industrial-scale operations.  McGill has also designed similar facilities for other composting companies.

Read the article