Composting Feasibility Report
.
.
Introduction
. Composting assessment to consider City's
progressive environmental values
. City interested in compostjng because:
. Offers opportunity to recycle multiple organic
materials (feedstocks)
. Creates material for:
- Residential use
-Landfilldailycover
Feedstocks Considered
~
~_., - :-;~~i~
:\J'..~VL~lI
. Yard waste
. From City collection programs
. Includes twigs, grass clippings, leaves
. Seasonal variation
. Biosolids
. Class B solids from City wastewater treatment
plant
. Wood waste
. From City's drop-off site
. Food waste
. Food processing byprodllcls from pizza
company
Overview
"
. Purpose
. Determine:
- Does Salina have the appropriate
balance and quantity of feedstocks to
justify a composting program?
- Are there affordable technologies and
space available to support a
composting facility?
- What are the approximate costs for
composting facilities?
- What are the quantitative and
qualitative benefits to the community?
Feedstock Characterization
. Feedstock selection goal: "ideal" compost mix
. Moisture content (40%)
. Nutrients (Carbon:Nitrogen" 30:1)
. Characterization considered:
. Availability of materials
- QlJanlity
-Seasonality
. Feedstock quality
. Used information gathered to determine facility
size needed
1
Process Needs Based on Feedstocks
. Yard Waste Facility Only
. Facility sizing need only consider summer
yard waste quantities, as fall (leaves) delivery
is "off peak" .
. 3,800 cubic yard {month
. Biosolids Facility
. Facility will require wood wastes from
sources other than the following;
- City's carland bagcoHection
- Cilyfreedrop-offdays
. 2,200 cubic yard {month (combined biosolids
and woody material)
Technology Screening
Recommendation
. Windrow composting for yard waste
. Aerated Static Pile and windrow considered
for biosolids
~ ..........
~~,I ,..,~.IC:~'~~~
'_'1~
Alternative Development
CompostihgAlte,rn.atives Summary
Alternalive Descdplion
" Windrow Composting olYa,d Waste at Landfill
" Windrow Compos!ing 01 Yard Waste a' Marymounl
" Wind,owCompostingofYa,dWaste, Biosolids, and
AdditionJIWoodJllJndtill
" Windrow Composting of YardWJste, Biosolids, and
AddilionalWoodatMarymoul11
'^ Ya,dWaste to Kal1zJ;Ae,aled$laticPileCompostingof
Biosolidsat lal1dfill
" YJrdWastetoKJl1za;Ae,atedSlaticPileCompos!il1gof
Bio50lidsJtMJ,ymounl
2
>
~
Alternative Evaluation
Capital Cost Items Considered (Cont.)
.....
.~
Installed Equipment
ComposlingBlowers
BiofillerBlower
CunngBlowers
Biofiller
Blower and Odor Equipment Controls
Piping for ASP
Pull-out Pipe (60')
Pull-out Pipe (40')
Manifolding
OdorConlrol Piping
Non-Potable Water Reuse Pipeline
Rolling Equipment
Windrow Turner
Front End loader
Water Truck
DeckScreerJ
Mobile Mixer
Alternative Economic Comparison
D,ff".rt'..<lw,,~
Tot" A"<r"ot..oAMO",
AM",I """".' Co",,,,,Co,,,rt'
^" Ooso,' "~on '" ".,eo" 0'. Co,t111 O,,'''''~".<li
" '.';''''''0'' C~mpo"~~ >~.zo,.~oo $1Z8.00Q $:;,.,000 \2e.l70.l
Y"dW",Lo.Ll.ooI,It
" -t,;o"o" Compo"~~ $5.173.500 $186,000 $"a.GOO s"""nn
V"dWa>Lo."",,,mouo'
N,^"owCo",pO'L~O
::,A ,,,,.,,,,,",,B,,,,o''''< $".'6,.~OO $~J7.000 $6'J.OOQ \CJ 0",0
,"""ad".",.IWood"
L,,,,,,,'
'1;""'ONComoWm~
'" y"dW..to.S"MI>d' ,6.21'5.~OO $56l.00Q ~9nOOO 16<;.;00
,,,,,Aao,"o",,'WQod.L
M"""",,,",
Y."OW",,"'Q".=
'^ ASP Compo"'"9 01 ,3."'.000 $.'7.ilM $6110M \3;~ 2.;0
8,,>o';I,"L.001,1t
y,.oW""."K,=
" ASP CO"",O<l,og of \'9g,OOO ~>n~oo ,agaD" \""'00
B",,",',
"M,,,,,,,,",,
:;;'f:",~,,,,,;d;"';;=';:;':;_";";""'.~k~'~'_
," ._""....",,,., ,.., ..., m....._"' ''''' ,"'",;.,...., ~,.,~, ""' ,. ~"""';,;~,";.~_,_";;i"',.~
,.O"....."'"......n~."-"""'.."'"~""."",,.."."''''';,,..''"...,..,.".,~..,,~,
~
Alternative Evaluation
Capital Cost Items Considered
.~
..".
~
Site Work and Construction
Pavmg of rvlarymounl Rd WaterNVaslewaterservices
Clear and Grub, Rough Grading Drainage Management
Excavation Multipurpose Melal Building
Flex Base Covered SlorageShed
Finished Grading Fencing
RCC for composting pad SecurilyEquipment
Asphalt for road on site Electrical service
Concrete Back-S!op
~
Alternative Evaluation
O&M Cost Items Considered
.....
~
O&M Costs
Tree Grinding" Contract Basis
Kanzayardwaslecontracl
Hauling Biosolids from WWTP to site
Hauling Composl from site to landfill
Maintenance
Personnel
Power
3
Alternative Evaluation Summary
. Composting is feasible
. Site is available
. Suitable technologies have been identified
. Lifecycle costs to construct and operate a
composting facility are higher than current
practices
. The City needs to decide whether qualitative
factors warrant the development of a new facility
. If City pursues composting, CDM recommends
Alternative 2A (Windrow Composting of Yard
Waste and Biosolids at the Landfill).
Further Considerations
. Focus - Look for opportunities to reduce facility
costs so that benefits of composting to
community can be realized
. Phase 1 - Pilot Testing, partial stream evaluation
. Pilot test food waste composting
. Consider compostiog operation for partial stream
of yard waste and biosolids
. Define partnering opportunities with Kanza
. Develop a refjned multi waste stream alternative
thai optimizes facilities based on partial waste
streams and partnering opportunities
. Develop funding mechanism
. Phase 2 - Design and Construction
Alternative Evaluation
Potential Contract Services
. Contract Kanza to Assist the City in
Operations
. Renting the Kanza Windrow Turner
(Allowing Kanza to Continue to Sell
Landscape Materials)
. Buying Kanza's Windrow Turner
(Allowing Kanza to Continue to Sell
Landscape Materials)
. Contracting Kanza for Chipping Operations
and/or Receipt of Additional Wood Waste
for Biosolids Composting
4