DOCSLIB.ORG

End-Of-Waste Criteria for Biodegradable Waste Subjected to Biological Treatment (Compost & Digestate)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
End-Of-Waste Criteria for Biodegradable Waste Subjected to Biological Treatment (Compost & Digestate) End-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste subjected to biological treatment (compost & digestate): Technical proposals Hans Saveyn & Peter Eder 2014 Report EUR 26425 EN European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Contact information Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488318 Fax: +34 954488300 http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/. JRC87124 EUR 26425 EN ISBN 978-92-79-35062-7 (pdf) ISSN 1831-9424 (online) doi:10.2791/6295 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Spain End-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste subjected to biological treatment (compost & digestate): Technical proposals Final Report December 2013 IPTS Sevilla, Spain 1 Table of contents Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Working scope definition ................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Structure of this document .............................................................................................. 7 1.5 Overview of major changes to consecutive documents .................................................. 8 2 Background information on compost and digestate ...................................................... 11 2.1 Types of biodegradable waste ....................................................................................... 11 2.2 Treatment options.......................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Developments in the treatment of biodegradable waste ............................................... 16 2.4 Compost and digestate applications .............................................................................. 21 2.5 Economic and market aspects ....................................................................................... 26 2.6 Standards and technical specifications .......................................................................... 42 2.7 Legislative aspects ........................................................................................................ 52 2.8 Environmental and health issues ................................................................................... 63 3 Pollutant occurrence in compost and digestate ............................................................. 75 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 75 3.2 Objectives of the JRC Sampling and Analysis Campaign (JSAC) ............................... 76 3.3 Organisation of the JSAC ............................................................................................. 76 3.4 Sample distribution ....................................................................................................... 78 3.5 Analytical results and discussion .................................................................................. 80 3.6 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................. 104 4 Proposed Scope and End-of-waste criteria ................................................................. 106 4.1 Scope options and proposed definition ....................................................................... 106 4.2 Background considerations on end-of-waste criteria .................................................. 117 4.3 Outline of end-of-waste criteria .................................................................................. 125 4.4 Product quality requirements for compost and digestate ............................................ 125 4.5 Requirements on input materials ................................................................................. 154 4.6 Requirements on treatment processes and techniques ................................................ 165 4.7 Requirements on the provision of information ........................................................... 170 4.8 Requirements on quality assurance procedures (quality management) ...................... 176 4.9 Application of end-of-waste criteria ........................................................................... 180 5 Description of impacts ................................................................................................ 183 5.1 Environmental and health impact................................................................................ 183 5.2 Economic impact ......................................................................................................... 186 5.3 Market impact ............................................................................................................. 192 5.4 Legislative impact ....................................................................................................... 198 6 References ................................................................................................................... 202 7 Glossary, abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................ 208 Annex 1: Biodegradable waste management in the EU ............................................................ 212 Annex 2: Waste and product approaches for compost .............................................................. 219 Annex 3: Heavy metal limits for compost/digestate ................................................................. 225 Annex 4: Impurities limits for compost .................................................................................... 228 Annex 5: Hygienisation provisions for compost ....................................................................... 230 2 Annex 6: Compost use regulation ............................................................................................. 233 Annex 7: Metal dosage limits .................................................................................................... 236 Annex 8: Compost quality assurance schemes ......................................................................... 238 Annex 9: Time-temperature profiles for compost ..................................................................... 242 Annex 10: Possible compost product property parameters ....................................................... 244 Annex 11: Initial proposal product quality requirements compost ........................................... 245 Annex 12: Compost and digestate sampling and testing methods ............................................ 251 Annex 13: UK PAS 110 for digestate ....................................................................................... 260 Annex 14: Swedish SPCR 120 for digestate ............................................................................. 262 Annex 15: German RAL GZ 245 for digestate ......................................................................... 263 Annex 16: Belgian VLACO QAS for digestate ........................................................................ 264 Annex 17: UK Biofertiliser Scheme ......................................................................................... 268 Annex 18: AD Quality Protocol ................................................................................................ 271 Annex 19: Proposed end-of-waste criteria from 2nd Working Document ................................. 276 Annex 20: Proposed end-of-waste criteria from 3rd Working Document ................................. 289 Annex 21: Calculation of the population in EU border zones .................................................. 305 3 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC, in the following referred to as ‘the Directive’ or WFD) among other amendments introduces a new procedure for defining end-of-waste (EoW) criteria, which are criteria that a given waste stream has to fulfil in order to cease to be waste. Waste streams that are candidates for this procedure must have undergone a recovery operation, and comply with a set of specific criteria. These criteria are yet to be defined for each specific waste stream, but the general conditions that a waste material has to follow are defined by Article 6 of the WFD in the following terms: ‘certain specified waste shall cease to be waste [within the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy from Waste
    Guideline: Energy from waste Publication 1559.1* July 2017. *This publication replaces 1559 released December 2013. Introduction As outlined in Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, (‘Getting Full Value Policy’) the Victorian Government is committed to an integrated, statewide waste and resource recovery system that protects the environment and public health, maximises the productive value of resources, and minimises the long-term costs to households, industry and government. The Victorian Government also outlined that it welcomes investments in energy from waste and other alternative technology that can convert waste into useful products, if it can be demonstrated that investment will deliver strong environmental, public health and economic outcomes. This guideline outlines how the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) and associated statutory policies and regulations are applied to the assessment of proposals that recover energy from waste. The document provides high- level guidance for industry, government and the community on EPA Victoria’s (EPA) expectations and requirements for the siting, design, construction and operation of such facilities. Efficient recovery of energy from the thermal or biological processing of waste is considered a resource recovery as opposed to a waste disposal option. Recovery of energy should not compete with avoidance, reuse or recycling. Legal status of this guideline This guideline provides a summary of the Act’s key principles and environment protection requirements as well as subordinate legislation. The technical details in this guideline describe measures to assist in meeting these requirements. The guideline does not represent a comprehensive statement of the law as it applies to either particular problems or individuals or serves as a substitute for legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Composting and Compost Utilization for Agronomic and Container Crops
    1 COMPOSTING AND COMPOST UTILIZATION FOR AGRONOMIC AND CONTAINER CROPS S. Kuo1, M. E. Ortiz-Escobar2, N. V. Hue2, and R. L. Hummel3 Abstract Stabilization of organic wastes by composting is highly desirable as composting eliminates odor, increases nutrient contents, and prevents the organic wastes from becoming phytotoxic when incorporated into the soil. It is a microbial-mediated process, which breaks down some of the organic N to more readily useable forms, with the release of a sizable portion of organic C as CO2. The viability of composting depends very much on the quality and consistency of compost produced as they affect compost marketability and its end use. The article reviews the composting processes, various techniques used in compost production, and the methods used in the determination of compost maturity and quality. The selection of a technique and a location for composting should consider the availability of feed stocks and the land, and the proximity to urban population. The review also focuses in some detail on nitrogen and the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in various composts and how effective the composts are in promoting crop productivity and soil quality as well as in replacing peat as a growing medium for container crops. Because of a significant impact of compost metals on compost quality and soil metal accumulation, an extensive review was made on the concentrations of various metals in composts using municipal solid waste and/or sewage sludge (or biosolids) as feed stocks. The concentration limits of various metals in the finished composts imposed by different countries around the world and the resulting effect of compost application to soil on plant uptake of metals and the transferability of the added compost metals from soil to plants were discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Good Practice Examples
    SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors PREFACE Population growth, rapid urbanisation, more water intense consumption patterns and climate change are intensifying the pressure on freshwater resources. The increasing scarcity of water, combined with other factors such as energy and fertilizers, is driving millions of farmers and other entrepreneurs to make use of wastewater. Wastewater reuse is an excellent example that naturally explains the importance of integrated management of water, soil and waste, which we define as the Nexus While the information in this book are generally believed to be true and accurate at the approach. The process begins in the waste sector, but the selection of date of publication, the editors and the publisher cannot accept any legal responsibility for the correct management model can make it relevant and important to any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or the water and soil as well. Over 20 million hectares of land are currently implied, with respect to the material contained herein. known to be irrigated with wastewater. This is interesting, but the The opinions expressed in this book are those of the Case Authors. Their inclusion in this alarming fact is that a greater percentage of this practice is not based book does not imply endorsement by the United Nations University. on any scientific criterion that ensures the “safe use” of wastewater. In order to address the technical, institutional, and policy challenges of safe water reuse, developing countries and countries in transition need clear institutional arrangements and more skilled human resources, United Nations University Institute for Integrated with a sound understanding of the opportunities and potential risks of Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources wastewater use.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of Resource Recovery Into Current Waste Management Through
    INTEGRATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY INTO CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT THROUGH (ENHANCED) LANDFILL MINING Juan Carlos Hernández Parrodi 1,2,*, Hugo Lucas 3, Marco Gigantino 4, Giovanna Sauve 5, John Laurence Esguerra 6,7, Paul Einhäupl 5,7, Daniel Vollprecht 2, Roland Pomberger 2, Bernd Friedrich 3, Karel Van Acker 5, Joakim Krook 6, Niclas Svensson 6 and Steven Van Passel 7 1 Renewi Belgium SA/NV, NEW-MINE project, 3920 Lommel, Belgium 2 Montanuniversität Leoben, Department of Environmental and Energy Process Engineering, 8700 Leoben, Austria 3 RWTH Aachen University, Process Metallurgy and Metal Recycling, 52056 Aachen, Germany 4 ETH Zürich, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 5 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Materials Engineering, 3001 Leuven, Belgium 6 Linköping University, Environmental Technology and Management, 58183 Linköping, Sweden 7 Universiteit Antwerpen, Department of Engineering Management, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium Article Info: ABSTRACT Received: Europe has somewhere between 150,000 and 500,000 landfill sites, with an estimat- 1 November 2019 Accepted: ed 90% of them being “non-sanitary” landfills, predating the EU Landfill Directive of 15 November 2019 1999/31/EC. These older landfills tend to be filled with municipal solid waste and Available online: often lack any environmental protection technology. “Doing nothing”, state-of-the- 23 December 2019 art aftercare or remediating them depends largely on technical, societal and eco- Keywords: nomic conditions which vary between countries. Beside “doing nothing” and land- Landfill mining strategies fill aftercare, there are different scenarios in landfill mining, from re-landfilling the Enhanced landfill mining waste into “sanitary landfills” to seizing the opportunity for a combined resource-re- Resource recovery covery and remediation strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Assurance of Compost and Digestate – Experiences from Germany
    Quality assurance of compost and digestate – Experiences from Germany Quality assurance of compost and digestate Experiences from Germany 1 Quality assurance of compost and digestate – Experiences from Germany Imprint Publisher: German Environment Agency Section III 2.4 Waste Technology, Waste Technology Transfer Section I 1.2 International Sustainability Strategies, Policy and Knowledge Transfer Wörlitzer Platz 1 D-06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Authors: Marie Dollhofer (BiPRO GmbH), Elisabeth Zettl (BiPRO GmbH) In cooperation with: Wolfgang Lausterer (Awiplan-PPD GmbH), Ulrich Hommel (Awiplan-PPD GmbH), Tim Hermann (UBA), Katharina Lenz (UBA) On behalf of the German Environment Agency Design: Atelier Hauer + Dörfler GmbH, Berlin Publications as a pdf: www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen Photo credits: BiPRO GmbH, PLANCO-TEC, Shutterstock, Tim Hermann As at July 2017 ISSN 2363-832X This document is a result of the project “Exchange of expe- riences for establishing a system and an organisation for the quality assurance of compost in Bulgaria”. This project was financed by the German Federal Environment Ministry’s Advisory Assistance Programme (AAP) for environmental protection in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and other countries neigh- bouring the European Union. It was supervised by the Ger- man Environment Agency. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Digestate and the Liquid Fraction of Digestate As Chemical Fertiliser Substitutes Under the RENURE Criteria
    agronomy Article The Potential of Digestate and the Liquid Fraction of Digestate as Chemical Fertiliser Substitutes under the RENURE Criteria Gregory Reuland 1,2,* , Ivona Sigurnjak 1 , Harmen Dekker 2, Evi Michels 1 and Erik Meers 1 1 Department of Green Chemistry and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected] (I.S.); [email protected] (E.M.); [email protected] (E.M.) 2 European Biogas Association, Rue d’Arlon 65, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study assessed how digestate and the liquid fraction (LF) of digestate would perform as candidate RENURE fertilisers (recovered nitrogen from manure) in nitrate vulnerable zones under the proposed criteria of the Joint Research Centre, namely, (i) a mineral nitrogen to total nitrogen ratio ≥ 90% (Nmin:TN ≥ 90%) or a total organic carbon to TN ratio ≤ 3 (TOC:TN ≤ 3); (ii) limits of ≤300 copper (Cu) mg kg−1 and ≤800 Zinc (Zn) mg kg−1. These criteria were applied to unpublished data (n = 2622) on digestate compositional properties, further amended with data from the literature (n = 180); digestate analysis from seven full-scale biogas facilities (n = 14); and biogas industry stakeholders (n = 23). The results showed that Cu and Zn mostly met the criteria, with compliance rates of 94.7% (of 1035 entries) and 95.0% (of 1038 entries), respectively. Just above 5% (of 1856 entries) met the Nmin/TN ≥ 90% criterion, while 36% (of 1583 entries) met the TOC/TN ≤ 3 criterion, while total compliance was 32% (of 1893 entries).
    [Show full text]
  • Upcycling Wastes with Biogas Production: an Exergy and Economic Analysis
    Venice 2012, Fourth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Upcycling wastes with biogas production: An exergy and economic analysis M. Martin*, A. Parsapour* *Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden SUMMARY: The massive consumption of finite resources creates high economical and environmental costs due to material dispersion and waste generation. In order to overcome this, by-products and wastes may be used, to avoid the use of virgin materials and benefit from the useful inherent energy of the material. By adding value to the material, economic and environmental performance can be improve, which is called upcycling. In this paper, an exergy and economic analysis of a biogas process is examined. In order to investigate if biogas production from wastes can upcycle materials, biogas production from a by- product from the brewing process is examined. From the analysis, the process is found to upcycle the by-product with an increase in exergy and economic benefit due to the generation of biomethane and biofertilizer. This analysis thus shows that by using by-products as such, the sustainability of the system may improve. 1. INTRODUCTION Given the concerns for sustainable development, the availability of energy from fossil sources and their environmental effects continues to produce problems for nations worldwide. With the current availability of alternative energy sources, our dependence on fossil sources can thus be questioned. Among these, bioenergy and biofuels have great potential for development and improvement. However, many experts have criticized the environmental performance and energy efficiency of biofuel production (Wibe, 2010; Akinci, 2008; Searchinger, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste
    The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste HALYNA KOSOVSKA KTH Chemical Engineering and Technology Master of Science Thesis Stockholm 2006 KTH Chemical Engineering and Technology Halyna Kosovska THE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF ORGANIC FOOD WASTE Supervisor & Examiner: Monika Ohlsson Master of Science Thesis STOCKHOLM 2006 PRESENTED AT INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TRITA-KET-IM 2006:2 ISSN 1402-7615 Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology www.ima.kth.se Abstract This Master Thesis “The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste” is done in the Master’s Programme in Sustainable Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in co-operation with the company SRV återvinning AB. The report is dedicated to analyze different biological treatment methods (that is composting and fermentation), which are used for the handling of organic food waste. From this analysis I will suggest the best method or methods for the company SRV återvinning AB (the Södertörn Area in Sweden) and for the Yavoriv Region in Ukraine in order to increase the environmental performance and to improve the environmental situation in the regions. To be able to do this, a lot of factors are taking into consideration and are described and discussed in this Thesis Work. General characteristic of the regions, different means of control for organic food waste handling, sorting methods of organic waste, as well as composting and fermentation methods for treatment of organic waste are described and the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, their treatment and investment costs are distinguished in the Thesis. Different treatment methods are discussed from technical and economical points of view for applying them for the SRV and the Södertörn Area in Sweden and for the Yavoriv Region in Ukraine and some solutions for these two regions are suggested.
    [Show full text]
  • A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment
    sustainability Article A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment Alternatives: The Case of Oita City, Japan Micky A. Babalola Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739 8524, Japan; [email protected] Received: 27 January 2020; Accepted: 23 February 2020; Published: 3 March 2020 Abstract: As the generation of food scrap, kitchen, and biodegradable wastes increases, the proper handling of these wastes is becoming an increasingly significant concern for most cities in Japan. A substantial fraction of food and biodegradable waste (FBW) ends up in the incinerator. Therefore, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) benefit–cost analysis technique was employed in this study to compare different FBW treatment technologies and select the most appropriate FBW disposal technology for Oita City. The four FBW treatment options considered were those recommended by the Japanese Food Waste Recycling Law: anaerobic digestion, compost, landfill, and incineration, which is currently in use. The fundamental AHP was separated into two hierarchy structures for benefit analysis and cost analysis. The criteria used in these two analyses were value added, safety, efficiency, and social benefits for benefit analysis, and cost of energy, cost of operation and maintenance, environmental constraints, and disamenity for cost analysis. The results showed that anaerobic digestion had the highest overall benefit while composting had the least cost overall. The benefit–cost ratio result showed that anaerobic digestion is the most suitable treatment alternative, followed by composting and incineration, with landfill being the least favored. The study recommends that composting could be combined with anaerobic digestion as an optimal FBW management option in Oita City.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Waste in Europe — Turning Challenges Into Opportunities
    EEA Report No 04/2020 Bio-waste in Europe — turning challenges into opportunities ISSN 1977-8449 EEA Report No 04/2020 Bio-waste in Europe — turning challenges into opportunities Cover design: EEA Cover photo: © Brendan Killeen Layout: Rosendahls a/s Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. Brexit notice The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union did not affect the production of this report. Data reported by the United Kingdom are included in all analyses and assessments contained herein, unless otherwise indicated. Copyright notice © European Environment Agency, 2020 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 ISBN 978-92-9480-223-1 ISSN 1977-8449 doi:10.2800/630938 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Internet: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries Contents Contents Authors and acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 4 Key messages .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Litter Legislation: a Toolkit for Policymakers
    Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya. Acknowledgments This report was developed by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It was researched, drafted, and produced by Carl Bruch, Kathryn Mengerink, Elana Harrison, Davonne Flanagan, Isabel Carey, Thomas Casey, Meggan Davis, Elizabeth Hessami, Joyce Lombardi, Norka Michel- en, Colin Parts, Lucas Rhodes, Nikita West, and Sofia Yazykova. Within UNEP, Heidi Savelli, Arnold Kreilhuber, and Petter Malvik oversaw the development of the report. The authors express their appreciation to the peer reviewers, including Catherine Ayres, Patricia Beneke, Angela Howe, Ileana Lopez, Lara Ognibene, David Vander Zwaag, and Judith Wehrli. Cover photo: Plastics floating in the ocean The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Environment Programme. © 2016. United Nations Environment Programme. Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits of Composting Digestate
    Zero Waste Energy Turns Waste to Profit Composting of Anaerobically Digested Organics (Digestate) is the actively managed process of further decomposing the organic residuals from the Anaerobic Digestion process. A range of composting systems are designed to manage this decomposition process to yield a high quality compost product without creating negative public or environmental impacts. Benefits of Composting Digestate Characteristics Operational Savings & Benefits High moisture content Reduced water commodity charges, less water application time, lower labor cost Low odor generation Reduction in impacts to surrounding receptors Homogeneous Consistent compost pile structure Easy to blend with bulking agent Reduced loader and labor time High anaerobic microbial activity Reaches temperature quickly Reaches thermophilic temperatures swiftly Reduced resident time for more efficient use of space High weight to volume ratios Higher revenue to footprint ratios Produces higher nitrogen values in compost than Enhanced value to end user markets green waste compost Consistent residual ratios Predictable cost to manage residual The following are three composting methodologies used in North America. Historically, windrow, static pile and in-vessel composting have been viewed as the most simplistic and least costly approaches to processing municipal organics. Each has tradeoffs in terms of overall costs (e.g., a windrow system may have less upfront investment in equipment and structures. This can create higher operating and management costs to address environmental impact and public nuisance factor considerations). Therefore, each methodology must be evaluated considering the following factors: • Maximizing control of public health/nuisance factors • Optimizing throughput to yield positive project economics • Producing a high quality compost product From Waste, Nothing is Wasted.
    [Show full text]