A Study to Conceptualize and Examine the Feasibility of a Regional Composting Center-1997

O� S9Ur�
,a
C
y so
r -r
City Of (southp ort
A STUDY TO CONCEPTUALIZE
AND EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF A
REGIONAL COMPOSTING CENTER
FOR THE RECYCLING OF
BIOSOLIDS AND YARD WASTE
August 31, 1997
Under Grant from the NC Div. of Coastal Management
Co -Sponsored By:
City of Southport, NC
Brunswick County, NC
Caswell Beach, NC
Long Beach, NC
Yaupon Beach, NC
Prepared by
Mark A. Taylor, P.E.
Donald F. Crego, P.E.
ECOLOGIC
EcoLogic Associates, P.C.
2007 Yanceyville St, Suite 223
Greensboro, NC 27405
[phone]

-�o
C
A STUDY TO CONCEPTUALIZE
AND EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF A
REGIONAL COMPOSTING CENTER
FOR THE RECYCLING OF
BIOSOLIDS AND YARD WASTE
August 31, 1997
Under Grant from the NC Div. of Coastal Management
Co -Sponsored By:
City of Southport, NC
Brunswick County, NC
Caswell Beach, NC
Long Beach, NC
Yaupon Beach, NC
Prepared by
Mark A. Taylor-,P.-E.
Donald F. Crego P.E.
EcoLogic Associates, P.C.
2007 Yanceyville St., Suite 223
Greensboro, NC 27405
[phone]
!t
• Si jf
•i:
ft
Y3.
=F
=z
r 3'.

O TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
4
2.0
SIMILAR PROJECTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
5
3.0
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
5
3.1 Current Demographic Data
5
3.2 Input Quantities, Current Disposition and Costs
- 6
3.3 Projected Growth Relative To Project
9
3.4 Input Design Data
10
4.0
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
11
4.1 NC Solid Waste Management Rules
11
4.2 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
11
4.3 EPA Regulations on State Sludge Management Programs
11
4.4 North Carolina Air Quality Rules - Air Pollution Control Rqmts.
12
4.5 North Carolina Fertilizer Rules
12
4.6 Brunswick County Zoning Ordinance and Partial Development Code
12
4.7 Brunswick County Land Use Plan, 1993 Update
12
5.0
PROJECT CRITERIA
13
5.1 Design And Process Criteria
13
5.2 Siting Criteria
14
5.2.1 NC Solid Waste Management Rules-.
14
5.2.2 Brunswick County Land Use Plan, 1993 Update
15
5.2.3 Brunswick County Zoning Ordinance and Code
15 -
5.2.4 Suggested Socio-Political Criteria
.15
6.0
CURSORY MARKET STUDY
17
8/31/97
i EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Table of Contents
PAGE
7.0
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
19
7.1 General Approach
19
7.2 Selection Of Process
21
7.3 Size Of Facility
23
7.4 Recommended Equipment
25
8.0
CURSORY SITE SCREENING RESULTS
26
9.0
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
28
10.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
29
10.1 Conclusions
29
10.2 Recommendations
30
TABLES
Table 1 Local Government Survey Summary
Attached
Table 2 Current Status Wastewater Plants in Brunswick Co.
8 a
of
Table 3 Input Design Data
10
Table 4 Compost and Mulch Market Trends in the U.S.
18
Table 5 Overall Rating of Common Composting Processes
21
Table 6 Additional Factors in Selecting a Composting Process
22
Table 7 Area Usage in the Facility
24
Table 8 Preliminary Cost Estimate
Attached
FIGURES
Figure 1 Individual Maps, Cursory Site Screening Constraints Attached
Figure 2 Combined "Natural Features", Cursory Site
Screening Constraints Attached
Figure 3 Combined "Man -Made" Features, Cursory Site
Screening Constraints Attached
Figure 4 Tons of Yard Waste Needed per Ton of Sewage
Sludge to Obtain 70% Moisture in the Mix Attached O
M1.197 ii Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Table of Contents
OREFERENCES
Report References
References - Literature Survey
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Local Government Survey Form
Appendix 2 Equivalent Annual Population Calculation
Appendix 3 NCDPPEA Waste Reduction Fact Sheet - Supply and
Demand - Yard Waste Management
Appendix 4 Source Maps for Cursory Site Screening (Small scale only)
Appendix 5 List of Abbreviations and Composting Glossary
Q
8/31/97 iii EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a part of regional waste management planning by Brunswick County and its municipalities,
a means for recycling sewage sludge and yard wastes is desired if economically feasible. This
study examines available relevant data, develops a conceptual facility, examines preliminary
siting constraints and market considerations, and develops a preliminary cost model for such a
solution. It is recognized that the population is rapidly growing and quantities of domestic.
sewage sludge will be increasing. The sponsors of the study consider the current practice of
land applying sewage sludge to agricultural land "inadequate and environmentally
unacceptable" if a reasonable recycling alternative exists. Landfilling of wood and yard wastes
is illegal in North Carolina and storage is. becoming a problem, especially after the hurricanes
of 1996.
Composting is a proven method of recycling sewage sludge and "yard waste", including yard
trash (a regulatory term for landscaping and yard maintenance waste), land clearing debris,
and commercial untreated wood waste. The products of composting are valuable and
beneficial compost and mulch for horticultural and select agricultural use. This report
investigates the present and future sources of sewage sludge and wood waste, conceptualizes
an applicable composting facility and discusses critical state and federal regulations and
applicable process criteria.
The conceptual facility could be located at the Brunswick County landfill or at any relatively
remote site that satisfies siting criteria to be finalized in a subsequent phase of study. It would
initially occupy about 10 to 15 acres of land, and if located at the County landfill, could take
advantage of existing personnel and equipment, utilize established truck routes, and blend in
with the receipt and. management of C&D, scrap tires, and white goods. Since most regional
domestic sewage sludge is wet primary (aerated) sludge, the facility would likely accept the
liquid sludge and process it by dewatering to produce an acceptable material for composting.
The amount of sewage sludge currently disposed relative to the quantity of yard waste
available is low because of the widespread practice of subsurface sewage disposal via septic
tanks. The facility could initially process only yard waste or it could support a small biosolids-
amended composting area which would be planned for expansion in the future as sewage
treatment increases. The remainder of the facility would be used for the production of high
grade compost and mulch from the excess yard waste. With experienced and proactive
organic waste management, the County could realize significant cost avoidance in the future
disposal of the target wastes.
Capital and construction costs for the conceptual facility are projected to be in the range of
$500,000 to $800,000, which, if amortized over 10 years at 8 percent interest, would require a
yearly debt service of about $74,000 to $112,000. Projected operating and maintenance costs
would bring the total annual cost to about $330,000 to $471,000. The projected total unit cost
of the conceptual facility ranges from about $23.00 to $33.00 per ton of input yard waste, or
roughly $7.50 to $11.00 per cubic yard assuming a bulk density of 3 cubic yards per ton. Unit
costs based on facility output could be much higher due to volume reduction from composting
and product loss due to unusable input or "rejects". It is important to note, however, that the
cost estimate does not take into account the avoidance of the current costs of sludge disposal
by some local governments and of yard waste processing and storage by the County.
8/31/97 (Rev.) 1 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
Conclusions
1. The projected yard waste input of 14,400 to 21,600 tons per year, and the projected
potential of receiving 1 to 2.5 million gallons of liquid sewage sludge is sufficient to justify
the serious study of developing a composting facility that will recycle the sludge and the
yard waste to salable mulch and compost products.
2. A regional composting center is believed feasible at the conceptual level provided that it is
well planned and professionally managed and that markets for the recycled compost
products are developed in advance. Although there are lucrative markets in many areas of
the country for mulch and compost, there does not appear to be a sizable market presently
in Brunswick County, particularly in light of recent hurricane damage which has resulted in
a glut of crudely processed debris. A detailed market study is needed to better define
short-term and future markets before proceeding with implementable facility planning.
3. Although a sizable quantity of yard waste can be delivered to the facility, the amount of
sewage sludge which is presently available for composting is very limited due to the fact
that most domestic sewage is handled by on -lot septic systems, and what little domestic
sewage sludge is collected for transport is presently collected and land applied by a private
concern as an ongoing business. As conditions evolve to lessen the acceptability of land
application of sewage sludge and septage, and as the growth of municipal and regional
sewage treatment accelerates, more biosolids will likely be available for composting. In
the interim, a facility could be started as a yard waste composting operation, but be
planned and eventually equipped for composting biosolids with a portion of the available 0
yard waste.
4. For the first few years of operation, an open-air windrow composting process is proposed
for composting the biosolids-amended yard waste and yard waste alone. Sometime in the
future, when there should be much more sewage sludge available and when residential
areas grow closer to the composting site, enclosed or in -vessel processes may have to be
considered for biosolids-amended composting because of odors. For mulch production
from yard waste, static piles are proposed.
5. By examining Figures 2 and 3, it quickly becomes apparent that there is not a lot of land
area in the county that is well -suited to the siting of a waste management facility such as
the compost center. The scale of the map is deceiving, however, since the facility should
only require 20 to 30 acres as conceived, including buffers. Interestingly, the majority of
the white area that remains when the maps are combined lies along or in general proximity
to U.S. Highway 17. That is very desirable in terms of transportation of input wastes and
access without disrupting existing traffic patterns, especially in residential or other limited
access areas.
N
8/31/97 (Rev.) 2 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
E9
C�
EO
Recommendations
1. Because of the very preliminary nature of this study, it is recommended that further studies
be undertaken as the sponsoring governments feel is justified to explore in much greater
depth the potential sources and recycling potential of sewage sludges and other organic
wastes, the market potential for compost and mulch products, the best site or sites for a
compost center, and the feasibility of and optimum schedule for implementing a regional
composting project in the context of solid waste management planning for the County and
region. From all these studies and data, a final feasibility assessment leading to
implementation will be possible.
2. The facility should be owned and managed by an independent public Authority. It is
recognized that private ownership may be available and should be considered in further
studies which can assess in greater depth local political intent and the risks of private
ownership. Although it is recommended that the facility be owned by a public Authority, the
Authority could contract for private operation.
3. Regardless of whether the facility is owned by local govemment(s), an independent public
Authority, or a private entity, waste management strategies should be in place to
encourage and provide incentives for citizens to separate their yard waste along with other
recyclables. Each municipality should be encouraged to centralize their yard waste
collection for transfer to the facility. Further study will be required to determine the best
collection and delivery strategy. A steady stream of wastes will improve facility efficiencies,
and economies of scale will be realized as the facility grows.
4. The County landfill site appears to be a strong contender to host the composting center at
this preliminary stage of the process; however, a comprehensive site selection study
should be undertaken if the project moves forward, including a substantial public
involvement component.
8/31197 (Rev.)
3
EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
In the past, most yard and wood waste was disposed by burning or burying in a landfill.
Today, landfills in North Carolina cannot bury yard waste and may eventually limit other types
of recyclable wastes. The limited demand for crudely processed (shredded) yard waste has
created a glut of these materials, especially on the coast where recent hurricane activity has
magnified the problem, resulting in storage problems and a need to find alternative uses for
the waste organics. To create a more useable end product, yard waste and much commercial
wood and cardboard waste can be sent to a mulch and/or compost facility where carefully
managed processing can produce a more consistent and marketable recycled product.
Similarly, sewage sludge has historically been landfilled or spread on agricultural land.
Landfilling of sewage sludge has been banned, with the exception of "dry" sludge in lined
landfills, and land application is eventually limited by land availability and the accumulation of
heavy metal pollutants in the soil. Moreover, the eventual need for maximum recycling of all
materials is increasingly recognized by the public and by all levels of government. Applying
sewage sludge and septage to agricultural lands might be considered a form of recycling, but it
is clearly a disposal method that causes pollution from metallic, pathogenic, and other
adulterants which attach to the soil and can contaminate groundwater and food chain crops.
The composting of human and animal organic waste with wood waste reduces or eliminates
many of the pollutants and permits their safe application to golf courses, landscaping, and
other horticultural soils, and presents a logical means of safely recycling these material
resources.. In many areas of the country, the use and demand for composting products are
increasing to levels where municipalities can achieve a significant reduction in their cost of O
waste disposal, or, where profits may be obtained by private enterprise.
This study should serve to provide a look at one avenue to achieve an alternative means of
organic waste management in response to the region's surplus of yard waste and the
prediction of increased quantities of biosolids (sewage sludge) that must be managed. As set
forth in our charge from the study sponsors, the term "region" refers to Brunswick County only.
Neighboring counties may or may not have similar problems, and their situations should be
taken into account at some point in the future if the sponsors pursue a regional composting
center further.
The objective of this study is to conceptualize a regional composting facility which would
receive most of the available sewage sludge and yard waste from sources in Brunswick
County and to examine the short and long-term feasibility of such a facility. Since this is a first
and limited consideration of a region -wide facility, only general conclusions can be reached.
Further studies will be needed to refine the concept, better study the market potential of
composted products in the region, and define the economic benefits and risks of a publicly or
privately run regional composting center.
A list of abbreviations and a composting glossary are included in Appendix 5 to aid the reader
in the understanding of the subject and this report.
8/31/97 4 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
2.0 SIMILAR PROJECTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
OFrom a regulatory perspective, there are no identical projects to the one under study for
Southport and its neighbors in Brunswick County. Why? It is simply a matter of definition and,
even more simply, a matter of proportion. In North Carolina, if a. regulated solid waste such as
yard waste is composted, and sewage sludge is included in a much smaller quantity as an
amendment (a source of nutrients), then the process and the facility are permitted under the
NC Solid Waste Management Rules by NCDENR's Division of Waste Management (DWM) (as
is the case in this study). On the other hand, if yard waste is included in limited quantity as a
bulking agent in the composting of sewage sludge (being the primary component), then the
process is permitted under the federal "503 Rules" by NCDENR's Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). Currently, there are no permitted facilities composting yard waste with added sewage
sludge, but there are several composting sewage sludge with added yard waste, or yard waste
alone, or yard waste with other nutrient additives (animal manures, etc.).
One composting facility similar to the one under study was permitted in Craven County, North
Carolina prior to the advent of the "new" (current) composting rules. It is owned by the Coastal
Regional Solid Waste Management Authority (CRSWMA). According to Mr. Bill Rice, the
authority's Executive Director, the facility was conceived to compost yard waste and sewage
sludge, but only mulch has been produced from yard waste so far. A lot of mulch is stockpiled
because there has not been adequate market development to distribute all that has been
produced. Some has been used as landfill cover. Future plans include adding a nitrogen
source (not sewage sludge) to ground yard waste in windrows on an open asphalt -paved area,
according to Mr. Rice. The facility is located at the old County landfill in Tuscarora in a remote
area surrounded by managed forest.
According to the Composting and Land Applications Branch of the Solid Waste Section of
DWM, there are about 20 Type 1 (yard waste only) compost facilities currently operating in
North Carolina, all permitted under the old rules. A couple of those facilities are currently being
reviewed for permit renewal under the new rules. There are also four (4) Type 3 compost
facilities (manure and other agricultural wastes) either permitted or in the process of being
permitted under the new rules. The Composting and Land Applications Branch reports that
only one permit application for a Type 4 compost facility has been received since the new
compost rules took effect. The application was deemed incomplete and was returned to the
applicant.
The Div. of Water Quality reports that there are currently 30 to 35 facilities in the state that are
composting sludge, with most giving away the finished product. Another 200 or so permittees
are land applying the sludge.
3.0 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
3.1 Current Demographic Data
The data presented here and in other sections of this report, and on which certain assumptions
and projections are based, was obtained from a survey of local governments in Brunswick
County (see Table 1 attached), from the publication titled Mini Data Book, Brunswick County,
8/31/97 5 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
NC (Winter 1996-97) prepared by the Brunswick County Planning Department, and from the
Brunswick County Land Use Plan, 1993 Update.
Table 1 summarizes the data submitted by 12 of the 19 local governments solicited for input to
the study by the City of Southport. The survey was limited to Brunswick County. A copy of the
Local Government Survey form as distributed is included in Appendix 1. Because data
submitted by the County includes all other jurisdictions, it forms the basis for most of the
assumptions and projections based on demographics.
The 1995 permanent population of Brunswick County was estimated by the NC Office of State
Planning to be 59,396 persons. Population growth within the six (6) townships during the last
decade has occurred at rates ranging from 12 to 81 percent, with an overall average of 43
percent. The most dramatic growth occurred in the Shallotte Township (81 percent). Per the
1993 Land use Plan, Brunswick County is the second fastest growing county in North Carolina.
Growth is particularly vigorous in the areas which front on the ocean and the intracoastal
waterway. The local governments responding to the survey report annual growth rates of from
2 to 17.5 percent. The projected permanent population for the County by 2010 is 79,644.
The 1995 seasonal population of the County was estimated by the County Planning
Department to be approximately 178,120 persons (peak day). The peak population occurs
during the week of the 4th of July, when beach vacationing is at its peak. The estimate does
not include day or "pass -through" visitors. The local governments responding to the survey
estimate annual growth rates -of seasonal population of from -3 to 10 percent. Obviously, the
greatest concentration of seasonal population is in the beach communities. The duration of
the seasonal population increase is approximately seven (7) months, from April through
October, with the greatest influx occurring between Memorial Day (late May) and Labor Day
(early September).
For the purpose of estimating potential sewage sludge generation, an "equivalent annual
population" was calculated. Rather than estimate percentages of the peak for each month, a
hypothetical population curve was developed based on perceived vacation, and weather
patterns (see Appendix 2). The result is an estimated equivalent annual population of 89,750
persons for 1995. Using the same 50% increase above the permanent population, the
equivalent population for the year 2010 would be 119,637.
3.2 Input Quantities, Current Disposition and Costs
For this study, two input waste streams are of interest, yard waste and domestic sewage
sludge, or "bio-solids". Yard waste is regulated as a solid waste in North Carolina by the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural. Resources (DEHNR), Division of Waste
Management (DWM). "Yard waste" is defined in the North Carolina Solid Waste Management
Rules (15 NCAC 13B) as yard trash (brush, grass, tree limbs, vegetation) and land clearing
debris (stumps, limbs, leaves, grass, and untreated wood).
Domestic sewage sludge is regulated in North Carolina as a wastewater treatment by-product,
not a solid waste, by the DEHNR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The DWQ defers to
federal regulations authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA), codified in 40 CFR Parts 501
and 503. "Sewage sludge" is defined in the 503 rules as a solid, semi -solid, or liquid residue
8131/97 6 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
generated during the treatment of domestic sewage (in a treatment works), but it also includes
domestic septage (septic tank liquid and residue) and material derived from sewage sludge.
For the purposes of this study, however, only the sludge resulting from the treatment of
domestic sewage is considered, hence the term "domestic sewage sludge".
Based on data provided by the Brunswick County Solid Waste and Recycling Department, an
average of about 1,200 tons per month of yard waste is taken to the County landfill for
grinding, screening and stockpiling. This equates to about 14,400 tons per year (tpy) or 40
tons per day (tpd), calculated on a 7-day week basis. This figure is considered by the SWR
Dept. to be representative of a typical year, not including storm debris from hurricanes, etc.. It
is believed that the yard waste currently being managed includes very little land clearing debris
because open burning is allowed on land where the clearing occurs. Because of significant
hurricane activity in 1996, which resulted in roughly 27,000 tons of yard waste being brought to
the landfill for the calendar year, the Solid Waste Dept. estimates that approximately 34,000
cubic yards (cy) of processed yard waste is currently stockpiled at the County landfill. This
estimate may be low, however, because the grinding contractor reported processing roughly
30,000 tons of yard waste in 1996, and at a typical density of 3 cy/ton, this would amount to
about 90,000 cubic yards of surplus.
There is currently no charge for disposal of yard waste at the landfill or at the County's three
transfer stations. The County pays $14.30 per ton for yard waste processing (grinding and
screening) under a contract with Hensons' Inc. of Tryon, NC. In FY 1995-96, the County paid
approximately $250,000, or about $33.00 per ton, to have yard waste hauled to the landfill
from the transfer stations. It is reported that roughly 80 to 90 percent of the incoming yard
O waste is tree limbs, brush, and stumps from the convenience sites and private haulers, with the
remaining 10 to 20 percent being oak pallets and leaves (usually bagged). The processed
yard waste is given away at no charge to anyone who wants it, though the demand is reported
to be low. Some is also used as daily cover under temporary authorization from the state
following last summer's hurricanes.
AN
The majority of Brunswick County's population is dependent on subsurface disposal systems
(septic tanks) for sewage disposal. This means that much of the resulting sewage is managed
as domestic septage rather than domestic sewage. The Composting and Land Applications
Branch of DWM reports that Brunswick County has the largest number of septage land
application sites (10) in the state, but the total quantity of septage being pumped and land
applied is not readily available. Of interest is the fact that New Hanover County has no
permitted septage land application sites, but a lot of the septage generated there is land
applied in Brunswick County.
Domestic sewage, on the other hand, which is regulated by DWQ's Water Quality Section, is
treated by a series of package plants and a few advanced treatment plants located mostly in
the beach communities and in planned residential developments and golf resort communities.
It is reported that most of the sludge is not treated to a high degree nor dewatered, but just
aerated. A brief summary of the current status of wastewater treatment facilities in the County,
as gleaned from the survey and numerous telephone inquiries, is provided in Table 2. Note
that other treatment plants, especially small package plants, may exist within the County that
are not listed.
8/31/97 7 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
TABLE 2
CURRENT STATUS OF WASTEWATER PLANTS IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY
Treatment Plant
Current Flow
(mgd)
Current
Capacity
(mgd)
Permitted
Capacity
(mgd)
Current
Sludge
als/mo
Arboretum/Ocean Greens
0.025+
0.075
N.A.
400
Baldhead Island
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
4,100
Belville
N.A.
-0.400
0.400
0
Brunswick Hospital
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
11,300
Carolina Blythe Utility
0.150
0.530
0.925
5,400
Caswell Dunes
0.060+
0.075
N.A.
500
Claremont Shopping Center
0.080
N.A.
N.A.
7,900
CPBL
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
3,000
Leland Industrial Park
N.A.
0.250
N.A.
7,500
Ocean Isle
N.A.
N.A.
1.000
0
Oyster Bay Sea Trail
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
800
River Run Shopping Center
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
St. James
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1,900
Shallotte
N.A.
0.200
N.A.
0
Southeast Sanitary District
(0.030)3
03
(0.500)3
—3
Southport
0.450
0.800
N.A.
40,000
Yau on Beach
N.A.
0.400
0.400
16,000
TOTALS
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
102,200
NOTES: 1. N.A. = Not Applicable, mgd = million gals. per day
2. Some values are estimates provided by others. Most values have been
rounded. Estimates by Ecologic from related data are followed by ±.
3. Southeast Sanitary District currently delivers its wastewater to the Southport
plant (purchased capacity = 0.100 mgd). Construction of anew 0.500 mgd
plant will start in October, 1997.
Based on the results of the survey and subsequent inquiries to treatment plant operators and
sludge handlers, most of the municipal sewage sludge produced in the County is being land
applied by S&B Maintenance of Bolivia, NC. Their records of land applied sludge in 1996,
combined with other data in Table 2, indicate that about 1,200,000 gallons per year of liquid
sludge (roughly 42 dry tons) is currently being generated and disposed of legally in Brunswick
County. Because most if not all of the wastewater being treated is domestic and not industrial,
the sludge reportedly has heavy metal concentrations well below the federal limits. Generators O
8131/97 8 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
of the sewage sludge pay S&B Maintenance between $0.05 and $0.07 per gallon, depending
on the size of the contract, to haul and dispose the sludge.
Another contractor in Pender County also hauls sludge intermittently from Brunswick County to
a land application site in Pender County, reportedly at a similar price. BioGro of Wilmington
reports that about 65,000 gallons per year of liquid sludge has been hauled to a land
application site near Calabash from the Carolina Blythe facility in recent years. Sludge from
the County -owned treatment plant in the Leland Industrial Park has recently been redirected to
the County landfill, along with occasional loads of dried sludge from Southport and other
generators, for incorporation into daily soil cover.
Sludge generated from domestic sewage accounts for only 3.3 percent of the maximum
sewage sludge that would be expected from a population the size of Brunswick County's. It is
worth noting that, in 1996, 156 dry tons of domestic sewage sludge from Carolina Beach in
New Hanover County was reportedly land applied on 55 acres in Brunswick County, and that
about 18,000 dry tons of industrial sewage sludge from ADM's food -derived chemical facility
was also ladd applied on 7000 acres in the county.
3.3 Projected Growth Relative to Project
For the purpose of projecting future conditions relevant to a co -composting facility, the year
2010 was selected. Unfortunately, neither the quantity of yard waste nor domestic sewage
sludge can be linked directly to population growth. Yard waste, including land clearing debris,
is a highly variable waste stream, related as much to storm activity as to development and
landscape maintenance. The growth in the quantity of domestic sewage sludge produced will
be largely dependent on the County's progress toward regionalization of wastewater treatment,
progress that is limited by financial and political constraints. There are indications, however,
that regionalization of wastewater disposal and treatment is gradually taking hold and may
become a necessity for continued economic development.
The result of this lack of predictability of the growth of the two input waste streams is that
projections must be made somewhat arbitrarily. Also, with yard waste, an increase in quantity
is just as likely in any given year as the result of a hurricane as it is over a 10-year period due
to steady growth. For instance, the amount of yard waste brought to the County landfill in
1996 was nearly double the average because of two damaging hurricanes, Bertha and Fran.
Thus, yard waste is a much more volatile waste stream and contingencies need to be in place
to account for sudden changes in the quantity of yard waste that must be managed.
In this study, the quantity of yard waste considered for the year 2010 is 1,800 tons per month,
a 50 percent increase over the current average (or one damaging hurricane per season). It
should be noted here that the adoption of a waste disposal fee structure by the County could
affect the yard waste quantity. The projected quantity of domestic sewage sludge for the year
2010 is double the current amount, or 2,400,000 gallons per year. This is an educated but
arbitrary estimate, yet one that is considered reasonable in light of the sewer plant capacity
projections and conceptual planning for regional sewer service. It is important to note here
that the current ratio of sludge to yard waste is sufficiently small to allow for greater growth in
the sludge quantity than predicted without exceeding the limit of sludge that can be co-
o composted with even the current amount of yard waste.
8/31/97 9 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
3.4 Input Design Data
The design data used in this study to size a conceptual facility and estimate costs is developed
in Table 3. It is based on the input quantities discussed in Section 3.2 above.
TABLE 3 - INPUT DESIGN DATA
SEWAGE SLUDGE GENERATION
ESTIMATES FOR BRUNSWICK COUNTY
1995
2010
EQUIVALENT POPULATION (APPENDIX 2)
89,750
119,637
DRY SS @ 67.5 LBS/YEAR/PERSON
DTPY
3,030
4,039
DRY SS @ 0.185 LBS/DAY/PERSON
DTPD7
8.30
11.06
WET SS @ 2% SOLIDS
GPD
99,520
132,660
WET SS @ 2% SOLIDS
106 GPY
36.3
48.42
SEWAGE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
ESTIMATES FOR BRUNSWICK COUNTY
1996
2010
WET SS @ 2% SOLIDS'
106 GPY
1.21
2.42 .
WET SS @ 2% SOLIDS
GPD
3,288
6,575
WET SS @ 2% SOLIDS
TPD7
13.7
27.4
DRY SS
DTPD7
0.27
0.55
PERCENT OF SS COLLECTED
%
3.3
5.0
YARD WASTE ESTIMATES FOR BRUNSWICK COUNTY 1996 2010
YARD WASTE COLLECTED'
YARD WASTE COLLECTED
YARD WASTE - COMPOSTABLE4
NOTES:
TONS/MO 1,2003 1,8002
TPD7 40 60
TPD7 35 53
1. From data reported by S&B maintenance and from the Local Government Survey. Percent solids are
reported to range between 1% and 6%. 2% is a rough estimate of the average based on the reported
data.
2. Estimated by EcoLogic Associates from all information collected.
3. From data provided by the Brunswick County Solid Waste and Recycling Department.
4. Assumes 12.5% rejects to landfill after screening (dirt, large stumps, rocks, etc.).
In summary, the "current" (1996) inputs are 0.27 dry tons per day (dtpd) of sewage sludge,
based on 1,200,000 gallons per year of liquid sludge at an assumed 2 percent solids, and 40
tons per day (tpd) of yard waste. Projections for the "future" (2010) condition are 0.55 dtpd of
sewage sludge and 60 tpd of yard waste. All daily tonnages are based on a 7-day week.
Eel
E9
101
8/31/97 10 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
O4.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
The regulatory framework for a composting operation of the sort envisioned for the regional
participants is set forth in Section .1400 of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules.
Several other rules and/or regulations, both state and federal, are incorporated by reference,
most notably the USEPA's Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge ("503 Rules").
All known applicable regulations are -listed below and/or in the attached list of references.
4.1 NC Solid Waste Management Rules (15A NCAC 13B .1400)
The state solid waste rules include a recently revised section on composting of solid waste.
They are comprehensive in scope and incorporate many other state and federal rules by
reference. For the proposed facility, the most stringent requirements would apply because of
the proposed inclusion of sewage sludge, classifying the facility as a "Type 4" facility.
Conversely, the composting of yard waste only would result in the least stringent regulatory
category, classifying the facility as "Type 1 ". The most pertinent design, process and siting
criteria included in the compost rules are listed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 below.
4.2 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR 503
Strictly speaking, the federal sludge rules, known as the "503 rules", apply to the facility and
the process in their entirety since the definition of sewage sludge in the rules includes "...a
v material derived from sewage sludge." The rules are comprehensive regarding the
management of sewage sludge and are authorized under the Clean Water Act, bringing its
permitting requirements, duties, and penalties to bear on the owner/operator. If, however, it is
presumed that 1) sampling and analysis of sewage sludge shall remain the responsibility_ of the
generator (as is required by the subject rules), 2) the sewage sludge accepted by the
composting facility shall always meet the heavy metal pollutant concentrations in 503.13(b)(3)
(a recommended acceptance criterion), and 3) the referenced state composting rules
concerning pathogen reduction satisfy the subject rules' pathogen destruction requirements
(503.32(a)) and vector attraction reduction requirements (503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8)) (the
intent of the state rules); then the general requirements (503.12) and the management
practices (503.14) specified in the 503 rules will not apply to the project (per 503.10(c)(1) or
(f)), a major reduction in the regulatory burden imposed by the sludge rules. The remaining
applicable parts of the 503 rules have mostly to do with compost pollutant concentrations,
sampling and analysis frequency and methods, and record -keeping and other administrative
tasks. Subpart B - Land Application is specifically incorporated by reference in the state
composting rules.
4.3 EPA Regulations on State Sludge Management Programs (40 CFR 501)
These rules are administrative and procedural in nature, but are noteworthy in that they spell
out the potential penalties for non-compliance with the Clean Water Act, the federal statute
under which the 503 rules described above are authorized. Civil penalties of up to $25,000
per day are possible for violating permit conditions. The penalties include possible
8/31/97 11 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
imprisonment for up to 1 year for negligently violating permit conditions, and are increased to O
up to $50,000 per day and/or imprisonment for up to 3 years for knowingly violating them.
4.4 North Carolina Air Quality Rules - Air Pollution Control Rqmts. (15A NCAC 2D)
The only provision of the referenced air rules which seems applicable is in Section .0522,
"Control and Prohibition of Odorous Emissions", which states, in part, "A person shall not
cause, allow, or permit any plant to be operated without employing suitable measures for the
control of odorous emissions including wet scrubbers, incinerators, or other devices approved
by the commission." "Suitable measures" would need to be better defined in the context of
composting, and the state compost rules do already seem to address odor control. It is
possible that dust control provisions of the air rules could come into play as well.
4.5 North Carolina Fertilizer Rules (2 NCAC 48B)
The state fertilizer rules only apply when compost products are marketed in such a way that
beneficial value as a fertilizer or soil amendment is claimed, and then they apply to label or
information sheet design and claims of nutrient value.
4.6 Brunswick County Zoning Ordinance and Partial Development Code
Section 5.405 of the zoning ordinance, "Performance Standards Regulating Odorous Matter", O
appears to be the only local ordinance that is directly applicable to the project, assuming that
the facility would not be located within the territorial boundaries of an incorporated municipality.
Paragraph (B) of the referenced ordinance reads, in part, "the emission into the atmosphere of
odorous matter ... shall be so controlled as not to be detectable at or beyond the boundary of
any residential or commercial District." Officials in the Brunswick County Planning Department .
acknowledge, however, that this requirement is at best ambiguous, is rarely if ever referred to,
has no precedent with regard to enforcement, and would be difficult to enforce.
4.7 Brunswick County Land Use Plan; 1993 Update
Relevant policies from the 1993 County Land Use Plan include the following:
• Policy 2.1.6 on package sewage treatment plants states, "Until such time that district
sewage treatment systems are feasible and available, Brunswick County shall encourage
the use of private, small package sewage treatment plants for appropriately scaled
developments, especially in those areas with soil limitations for septic tank use; and
• Policy 2.3.16(b) on waste management states, "Brunswick County recognizes the need for
a regional solution to the solid waste issue and will support efforts toward that end."
EO
8/31/97 12 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
5.0 PROJECT CRITERIA
5.1 Design and Process Criteria
The design and process criteria for composting yard waste and sewage sludge (Type 4
facility), and for yard waste alone (Type 1 facility), are outlined below. They come from the NC
Solid Waste Mgmt. Rules; no other applicable regulations set forth design and process criteria
directly.
• Must comply with 40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 (Part 503, Subpart B incorporated by
reference), authorized under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act;
• Satisfy criteria for a Large, Type 4 facility (most stringent due to bio-solids), as defined in
.1402 (f). For yard waste alone, Type 1 criteria must be met;
• Shall not discharge or fill materials into waters or wetlands of the state in violation of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
• Shall not discharge pollutants into waters of the state in violation of NPDES requirements
under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act or cause non -point source pollution of waters of
the state in violation of assigned water quality standards (i.e., shall not pollute surface
waters);
O• Shall not contravene groundwater standards under 15A NCAC 2L (i.e., shall not pollute
groundwater);
• A pad having a coefficient of permeability no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec (and a thickness
of at least 18 inches if comprised of natural soils) shall be provided in areas used for waste
receiving and storage, active composting, and curing, but not for receiving and storage of
yard waste or storage of dry finished product if those areas are well drained and the
seasonal high water table is at least 12 inches deep (Type 4 facility only; Type 1 • requires
only a soil texture finer than loamy sand, good drainage, and a low water table);
• Shall not allow uncontrolled public access;
• Shall meet requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Law (15A NCAC 4);
• Shall meet requirements of the Air Pollution Control Requirements (15A NCAC 2D) to
minimize fugitive emissions and odors;
• Shall be designed to "minimize odors" at the property boundary (Note: No objective
criterion or definition of "minimize odors" exists);
• Shall control surface water run-on and run-off and control, collect, treat, and dispose
leachate generated;
O• Provide means for measuring, shredding, mixing, and proportioning input materials;
8/31/97 13 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
• Provide a method of aeration;
• The temperature of all compost produced shall be monitored to ensure pathogen reduction
criteria are met;
• Maintain process at temperature, T, at or above 550C for at least 3 days and aerate to
maintain elevated temperatures (Type 1 only);
• Maintain process at temperature, T>40°C for at least 14 days and an average temperature,
Tav>45°C or meet the vector attraction reduction requirements of CFR 503.33(b) (4) or (7)
(Type 4 facility only);
• Qualify as a "process to further reduce pathogens" (PFRP) (achieve 550C or greater for a
minimum duration based on the process method, e.g., windrows, static aerated pile, in -
vessel) (Type 4 facility only);
• Nitrogen -bearing wastes (e.g., bio-solids, grass clippings, "green wastes") shall be
incorporated as (quickly as) necessary to minimize odor and the migration of nutrients;
• Finished composf shall meet the classification and distribution requirements of Rule .1407
and shall be approved by the Solid Waste Section;
• Shall provide for sampling and analysis of the compost produced at intervals of every
20,000 tons or every 6 months, whichever comes first, as designated in Table 3 of the rule .0
and provide the test data to the Division of Waste Management and test in accordance
with 40 CFR 503, Subpart B;
• Shall meet any applicable requirements of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Fertilizer Section, concerning distribution of the finished product;
• Shall provide instructions to the user via a label or an information sheet; and
• Provide a 25-foot minimum distance between compost areas and swales (ditches,
channels) or berms (surface water diversions) to allow access for fire -fighting equipment.
5.2 Siting Criteria
Siting criteria for a solid waste composting facility are outlined below, organized by regulatory
reference. Additional suggested criteria based on the writers' experience are also listed.
5.2.1 NC Solid Waste Mgmt. Rules (15A NCAC 136.1400)
• If In a floodplain, (the facility) shall not restrict the flow of the 100-year flood, reduce the O temporary storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in the washout of solid waste;
8/31/97 14 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
• Allow for a minimum 100-foot buffer* between compost areas and property lines and wells,
except for monitoring wells. (The buffer for property lines is 50 feet for a Type 1 facility); .
• Allow for a minimum 500-foot buffer* between compost areas and residences or dwellings
not owned and occupied by the permittee. (The buffer is 200 feet for a Type 1 facility);
• Allow for a minimum. 50-foot buffer between compost areas perennial streams and rivers;
• Shall be located in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200, the North Carolina Surface
Water Classifications and Water Quality Standards (See below); and
• The depth to the seasonal high water table shall be at least 12 inches and the site surface
soils shall have a soil texture finer than loamy sand.
5.2.2 Brunswick County Land Use Plan, 1993 Update
• Policy 2.3.16(a) on waste management states, in part, "...facilities shall be located and
designed so as not to adversely impact significant natural or man-made (re)sources."
• Policy 2.1.1(b) on constraints to development states, "Brunswick County supports the
administration and enforcement of all applicable flood plain management regulations and
the national flood insurance program."
5.2.3 Brunswick County Zoning Ordinance and Partial Development Code
• After obtaining clarification from the Director of the Brunswick County Planning
Department, it is understood that a compost facility is permitted in only two Zoning Districts.
The largest of the two in terms of available area is the Rural District (RU), but a Special
Use Permit will be required to site the facility within this District. The other is. Heavy
Manufacturing (H-M).
5.2.4 Suggested Socio-Political Criteria
• Should not cause or contribute to taking of endangered or threatened species of plants,
fish or wildlife, nor destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat;
• Should avoid environmentally or ecologically sensitive areas as designated by local, state
or federal agencies, such as Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's);
O • Should not damage or destroy archaeological or historical sites or other significant cultural
resources;
8/31/97 15 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
• Should avoid wetlands and waters of the state as defined in Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, if possible, to simplify permitting and reduce costs;
• Should be located so as to provide good access to major transportation routes without
disrupting existing traffic patterns or diverting truck traffic into primarily residential
neighborhoods;
• Should be located as far as practical, preferably one mile or more, from existing
residences and residential facilities, public recreation areas, churches, schools and day
care centers, commercial establishments, etc. to minimize the potential for odor problems if
odor controls should achieve less than optimum performance. (With regard to planned
developments, apply this same criterion to all developments that have an application on file
as of the date of local government authorization to proceed with facility siting; and
• Should avoid areas where siting may constitute a pattern of siting or tendency to site local
facilities deemed to be "generally adverse uses" near minority populations.
101
8/31/97 16 . EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
6.0 CURSORY MARKET STUDY
A cursory examination of some of the market factors affecting the sale of 9
com ostin products
P
in the region reveals that the local market is currently limited to commercially bagged mulch
and compost products and some bulk distribution of pine bark or imported hardwood mulch.
The market is considered to be seriously underdeveloped, which bodes well for the future
development of compost product markets (creation of demand); however, the recent flooding
of the market with crudely processed hurricane debris means that demand for anything other
,than high grade products may be delayed.
The County's Cooperative Extension Office is a promoter of the benefits of composted mulch
and fully composted plant and animal wastes as a means of improving the water retention
capacity of the predominant sandy soils and of improving the drainage characteristics of the
occasional clay soils. They characterize the need for soil improvement in the county as great
from an agronomic point of view. Though demand for soil conditioners may be limited in the
smaller communities due to small lot size and a perceived lack of need, the nearby
metropolitan area surrounding Wilmington and the golf resort communities currently being built
in the coastal areas of Brunswick County represent a potentially large demand for high quality
bulk compost products.
High quality, partially composted, "double shredded" hardwood mulches are selling in bulk for
$12 to $15 per cubic yard (excluding delivery) in many metropolitan areas of the state. Lesser
processed mulches are reportedly being sold in bulk for $6 to $9 per cubic yard. Bagged
compost products from yard waste appear to be much less common, perhaps because of the
O higher operational and marketing costs of a bagging operation. The selling price of bagged
mulch, however, should be much higher per unit volume.
In Brunswick County, few_ of the brokers and landscapers interviewed cited any noteworthy
demand for bulk compost or mulch, and most of those who do sell mulch are selling the crude
mulch stockpiled at the County landfill. Based on those interviews, the landfill mulch is selling
for $5 to $7.50 per cubic yard delivered, apparently being only the hauling cost, and it is
reported to sometimes contain contaminants such as _ plastic and metal. Most of the
landscapers interviewed expressed little interest in brokering mulch or compost produced from
yard waste due to perceived lack of demand, but some cited the free mulch at the County
landfill as the reason. It is worth noting that a nearby waste processor, Wilmington Materials,
Inc., reports having over 1 million cubic yards of shredded hurricane debris stockpiled and is
having difficulty giving it away or selling it for hauling cost only.
In contrast, the City of Southport reports that its pilot chipping operation has been successful,
with citizens eagerly taking all of the chipped yard waste that has been produced. The County
landfill also reports that there is steady consumption of the crude mulch stockpiled there, albeit
at a relatively small volume. One landscaper, Champion Resort Maintenance and
Landscaping of Holden Beach, reports selling about 200 cubic yards per year of imported, high
quality hardwood mulch. Their cost varies from $6 to $20 per cubic yard, depending on
volume purchased, and they charge the customer $25 to $30 per cubic yard delivered. Pine
bark mulch sells for about $5 less per cubic yard.
In starting -up a new facility, all products cannot be expected to be produced immediately. The
(� high capital cost for grinders, shredders, magnetic separators, loaders, etc. must be gradually
8/31/97 17 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
absorbed as the facility grows and markets are developed. The first products from the
conceptual facility described below are expected to be biosolids-amended yard waste
compost, ordinary yard waste compost, boiler fuel (large wood chips from the screening
process), and a medium grade mulch. If no market exists for boiler fuel, the coarse material
could be reground and processed as compost and mulch. The biosolids-a mended compost
may have to be given away at first until the quality and odor are refined and negative public
perceptions are overcome. Table 4 summarizes potential markets for the conceptual products
based on our review of the current literature, but it must be used with caution since it is not
based on local conditions and it should be considered very preliminary.
TABLE 4 - COMPOST AND MULCH MARKET TRENDS IN THE U.S.
PRODUCT MARKETS $RETURN*
BIOSOLIDS COMPOST** LANDFILL COVER NILL
HORTICULTURAL _ LOW
YARD WASTE COMPOST** HORTICULTURAL MODERATE
PUBLIC MODERATE
TOPSOIL ENHANCEMENT MODERATE
CUSTOM BLENDED SOILS HIGH
YARD WASTE MULCH GROUND COVER MODERATE
HORTICULTURAL MODERATE
PUBLIC, LANDSCAPING HIGH
WOOD CHIPS PLAYGROUNDS HIGH
SPECIAL APPLICATIONS HIGH
PUBLIC MODERATE
BOILER FUEL LOW
* If markets are developed properly.
Fully composted and stabilized, whereas mulch may be partially composted.
In Akron, Ohio, the city began producing compost derived from sewage sludge in 1988, and by
the second year,. was able to sell all of the 37,000 cubic yards the privately operated facility
produced. In order to develop the market for their compost, they assembled a "focus group",
an informal advisory council comprised of technical experts and potential compost users and
customers. They quickly learned that topsoil blenders were a potentially bigger market than
landscapers. Their customer base developed to be about 50 percent- topsoil blenders, 35
percent nurseries, and 15 percent landscapers and homeowners. The topsoil blenders want
the compost for mixing with soil because it's much less costly than using top grade soil, and
8/31197 18 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
they can customize the blend to satisfy their customers' needs. They discovered that, unlike
Ousing fertilizer, the blended topsoil requires infrequent replenishment of nutrients and reduces
the build-up of heavy metals in the soil. Their experience points out two vital aspects of the
market potential of composted products, one being that proactive and innovative market
development, as exemplified by their focus group, can create market opportunities that might
otherwise have been overlooked, and the other being that the presumptive market of
landscapers and other end users may be far less viable than larger scale users and "middle
men" in the business of soil improvement, land reclamation and/or agriculture and horticulture. -
It is believed that there is a large potential market for high grade mulch and compost, but the
market must be developed proactively. Marketing plans would need to be formulated and
updated at least annually to identify and justify markets requiring capital -intensive changes in
operations. Other small monetary returns may be realized from process by-products, such as
iron (mostly nails) magnetically removed from ground pallets and commercial wood wastes.
Plastics, treated lumber, and other non-compostable materials could constitute as much as
12.5 percent of the input feeds and would have to be sent to a landfill, incurring some added
cost. A thorough market study is needed prior to implementing a regional composting project,
especially if any revenue is counted on to make the project economically feasible.
The North Carolina Compost and Organics Recycling Council, a council of the North Carolina
Recycling Association, publishes a Product Locator Guide that lists recycled products
producers. The contact person is Gigi Wainwright at [phone]. The North Carolina
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance - provides non -regulatory
technical assistance on recycling as well as marketing assistance through their Recycling
Business Assistance Center. Their telephone number is [phone] or [phone].
They also published a Fact Sheet in July, 1996 on the supply and demand of composted yard
waste products in North Carolina (see Appendix 3). In it, they conclude, "...the demand for
composted material should rapidly increase over the next few years" ...", however, ...actual
demand will not change significantly from current levels if the quality and consistency of
compost does not improve." They state further that, "...the creation of more local composting
facilities could reduce the transportation. costs and make compost more economically
competitive with other low-cost alternatives."
7.0 CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
7.1 General Approach
Although this study is focused on a biosolids (sewage sludge) and yard waste composting
facility, it should be recognized that processing yard waste alone (without the addition of
sewage sludge) may attract a larger and potentially more lucrative market than composting
with sewage sludge. At present, there is a relatively large quantity of yard waste input and
only a small amount of biosolids input (by comparison) available for composting. The
sponsoring governments also appear to have no authority to terminate the ongoing practice of
land application of sludge, and the practice seems to be operating smoothly without any
problems, complaints, or violations. It is envisioned, then, that the facility would start out as a
yard waste processing facility only (a Type 1 compost facility) and convert to a Type 4 facility
8/31/97 19 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
at such time as regulatory, economic, or political forces make the continued land application of
sewage sludge impractical or illegal. The facility can be planned and designed for the future
conversion.
The conceptual design assumes that a limited biosolids-amended compost operation will exist
at the facility. Because a goal of the facility would be to recycle all of the sludge, and compost
derived from sludge may not bring as high a price on the market initially as high quality mulch
and other compost products, the process would probably start out using the minimum amount
of yard waste with the available sludge. Figure 4, attached, shows the minimum amount of
ground yard waste required to combine with sewage sludge at varying consistencies to obtain
a maximum 70 percent moisture content of the composting mix.. For example, if the sludge
were dewatered to a 20 percent (0.20 portion) solids content (the minimum recommended for
mixing prior to composting), Figure 4 shows that 1.5 tons of processed yard waste having 35
percent moisture would be used per ton of sludge. The high mix moisture at the start of
composting can be tolerated in dry weather since water evaporates quickly in a warm compost
windrow. The mix would be allowed to dry to a moisture content in the optimum range of 45 to
55 percent, and then maintained at that level for good composting. A 20 percent sludge solids
content can best be obtained by mechanical dewatering using a belt press or centrifuge,
though it is possible with a covered drying bed system.
The conceptual facility, then, would limit the use of yard waste for biosolids-amended
composting to 1.5 to 2 tons per ton of sludge, depending on the moisture content of the yard
waste. At the current average sludge input of 0.27 dry tons per day (dtpd), wet sludge at 20
percent solids would represent a process input of 1.35 tpd. Multiplying this amount by the
target ratios described above results in an average demand for yard waste of 2 to 3 tpd. This
represents 5 to 7.5 percent of the current average daily input of yard waste (40 tpd). The
remainder would be converted to a marketable mulch, preferably a high grade mulch.
Producing mulch, in comparison to compost, requires less facility area. Because mulch is only
partially composted, it also results in a more rapid turn -around from receipt to delivery.
It should be recognized that to develop a successful composting facility, long range planning
must be done prior to project inception and on an ongoing basis, and financing must be
considered and obtained well in advance. Objective and proactive professional management
should be put in place to plan, implement, and maintain a profitable and complete recycling
operation. A major consideration is whether, the facility should be publicly owned and
operated, preferably by an independent public Authority, or privately owned and/or operated.
Such considerations are beyond the scope of this study, but it is recognized that private
enterprise is already in action in the region with land application of sludge, and composting
facilities are being successfully run by private concerns in North Carolina.
Regardless of whether the facility is owned by local govemment(s), an independent public
Authority, or a private entity, waste management strategies should be in place to encourage
and provide incentives for citizens to separate their yard waste along with other recyclables.
Each municipality should be encouraged to centralize their yard waste collection for transfer to
the facility. Further study will be required to determine the best collection and delivery
strategy. A steady stream of wastes will improve facility efficiencies, and economies of scale
will be realized as the facility grows.
8/31/97 20 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
IN
u
7.2 Selection Of Process
Reference 65 in the literature survey included in the attached references offers the following
comparison of common composting processes (Table 5):
TABLE
5
OVERALL RATING OF COMMON COMPOSTING PROCESSES
LEVEL OF
TYPE ODOR
PROCESS
CAPITAL
TECHNOLOGY
CONTROL
PERFORMANCE
COST
Windrow
None
Poor
Very Low
Aerated Windrow
Biofilter
Good
Low
Covered Aer. Win.
Biofilter
Very Good
Moderate
Enclosed Facility
Biof/scrubber
Very Good
High
Source: "Compost: A Windrow of Opportunity", World Wastes, Sept., 1992
Composting processes considered for this project after careful review of the current literature
are described briefly below. Successful composting involves the transformation of biologically
decomposable material, through a controlled process of bio-oxidation, into stabilized organic
matter (compost or humus). Good compost has an earthy, somewhat sweet and pleasant
smell.
Windrows - Windrows are nothing more than elongated piles. Aeration occurs from
mechanically turning the piles. Three methods are commonly used: small windrows, roughly 8
feet high by 8 feet wide at bottom, turned by front-end loader; flat top windrows, roughly 8 feet
high by 14+ feet wide (formed by a compost turner); and large windrows, roughly 12 feet high
by 24 feet wide, turned by front-end loader. Windrows should be acceptable with regard to
odors if properly aerated and located a suitable distance from residential areas.
Static Piles - The simple, 12- to 16-foot high static pile method, which involves minimal
mechanical turning,. is rarely used for composting biosolids because of the need for forced air
aeration through the floor, difficulties in controlling temperature and uncertainty regarding the
killing of pathogens. However, it is commonly used for producing mulch. Mulch requires
some composting to achieve the desired color and to reduce nitrogen content which can
produce ammonia and offensive odors.
8/31/97
21
Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
Partially Enclosed Windrows - This method commonly employs a prefabricated building with
one side open and having filtered, negative ventilation. Capacity is normally provided for three
or more days of retention, after which the compost is transported to outside windrows.
Tube Composting - This is an adaptation of anaerobic farm silage tube composting. Air is
blown into a large plastic tube containing the compostable material for aerobic processing and
temperature control.
In -Vessel Composting, Small Container - A roll -off type container with aeration in its floor is
followed by aerated static pile or windrow curing.
In -Vessel Composting, Large Container - Compost can be processed in enclosed concrete
"bays", where it is turned frequently by an overhead crane -mounted turner, as exemplified by
the proprietary IPS process of Wheelabrator Technologies. It can also be processed in large,
long rotary drums for a few days, then finished in windrows, as exemplified by the Dano and
Bedminster proprietary processes. The method is costly and applicable here only to the
composting of biosolids with yard waste.
Oversimplification of the process methods and their relative benefits and risks can be quite
misleading; therefore, a comparative assessment is needed in future studies where importance
or weight is assigned to capital cost, odor control, and process performance. Moreover, the
selection of the appropriate process depends upon other factors, some of which are listed in
Table 6 and discussed below for this project.
EO
TABLE 6
ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN SELECTING A COMPOSTING PROCESS
a) Source and nature of the input feed(s) including moisture content(s)
4) Amount and rate of input feed(s) throughout year
c) Ratio of the feed inputs
d) Future growth of input feed(s), its future sources and nature
e) Present and future markets
f) Municipal or private ownership
The biosolids feed is assumed to be domestic sewage sludge, not septage as pumped from a
domestic septic tanks or cesspools. It is reported that the solids content of collections range
from less than 1 % to as high as 6%. For this study, the average solids content is assumed to
be 2 percent; that is a pumpable liquid collected by tanker trucks. It is to be dewatered at the
facility to a 20 percent solids content. Septage could be accepted in the future, but it would
need to be screened to remove trash and dewatered at the facility, adding to the cost.
8/31/97 22 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
The yard waste feed is assumed to be brush and stumps, land clearing debris, yard trash
including green waste (grass and plant clippings) and clean commercial wood waste such as
pallets. Leaf waste should be expected in the fall and Christmas trees in January. To make
good quality mulch, adequate green waste is essential to provide nitrogen to the composting
process and to provide the texture and color desired by the public. Large stumps greater than
about 18 inches in diameter can not usually be handled by moderate sized grinders and must
either be hydraulically split prior to grinding or sent to a landfill. A large rotary grinder capable
of chipping up to 8-foot diameter wood may eventually be justified. It should be noted that
stumps contain a large amount of soil which should be screened out before mulching but can
be included in the biosol ids -a mended composting.
Regarding the amount and rate of input feed throughout the year, see Table 3 for annualized
average amounts. The ratio of the input feeds is discussed in Section 7.1. This is a seasonal
vacation region where summer visitors dramatically increase the population and sewage
production accordingly. Seasonal variations in population have little negative effect on
composting. More noticeable is the seasonal nature of markets for compost and mulch.
Usually, a large supply of processed material accumulates over the winter and is ready for
delivery in the spring when demand is high. Delivery -ready storage should be expected to be
minimal by the end of fall.
Regarding future growth of input feeds, there appears to be considerable expectation of a
significant increase in the amount of sewage treated by regional wastewater systems. Most of
the county residences now have on -lot subsurface disposal systems which only contribute
domestic septage. Ideally, septage should be' delivered to a WWTP for screening out large
v plastic, organic, and inorganic solids, and for aeration, thence becoming domestic sewage.
For this study, it is assumed that the future growth of WWTP's will at least result in a doubling
of the available sewage sludge by the year 2010.
For the first few years of operation, an open-air windrow composting process is proposed for
composting the biosolids-amended yard waste and yard waste alone. Sometime in the future,
when there should be much more sewage sludge available and when residential areas grow
closer to the composting site, enclosed or in -vessel processes may have to be considered for
biosolids-amended composting because of odors. For mulch production from yard waste_,
static piles are proposed.
7.3 Size Of Facility
Given the design quantity of yard waste of 1,200 tons per month (40 tpd based on 7 days per
week, or 56 tpd based on a 5-day week), about half (20 tpd) should be in the proper size range
after screening for mulching with the rest available for composting (the finer sizes) and boiler
fuel (the coarser sizes). Up to 5 tpd, or 12.5 percent of the total, may consist of large stumps
and other rejects that would be removed to a landfill. Allowing for inclement weather,
equipment down -time, hurricane debris, and other unknowns, the facility should be sized to
process 150 percent of the design input value. Thus, the facility should be sized for an 1,800
tpm or 60 tpd input.
8/31/97 23 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
The size of the facility should.be large enough, as a rule of thumb, to store up to one year's
input of yard waste. Assuming that, in such an emergency, as -received loose yard waste
would be ground, screened and piled in closely -spaced static piles, then 60 tons/day of loose
input would indicate a total facility area of 48,667 square yards, or about 10 acres. Table 7
lists the major operational area requirements for the facility with approximate acreages. A 15-
acre site should be planned initially to allow for growth and/or unexpected demands for space,
not including buffers.
TABLE 7 - AREA USAGE IN THE FACILITY
Administrative office/lab, storage and maintenance
Storage of unprocessed yard waste
Grinding, screening, and static piling yard waste
Mixing and active composting in windrows
(Paved area for composting biosolids mixture = 0.5 acres)
Compost/Mulch curing and staging area
Lined ponds for stormwater runoff
TOTAL AREA
2.0 acres
2.0 acres
2.5 acres
1.5 acres
1.5 acres
0.5 acres
10 acres
On the 0.5-acre asphalt -paved pad, which is required in the absence of natural clay soils by
the state rules for Type 4 active composting, each windrow at the start of composting would
measure roughly 8 feet high and 14 to 20 feet wide, -with 25+ feet between them for turning
and fire -fighting equipment access. The rows would hold about 1 ton of compost per foot of
length. A process input of 4 tpd held for 120 days (a very conservative estimate) would require
about 400 to 480 feet of total row length, resulting in about 0.5 acre of pad required. Turning
would be by front-end loader. A towed or self-propelled windrow turner may eventually be
justified for use on both biosolids-amended and regular yard waste windrows.
A gravel surface or very firm soil subgrade will be needed throughout most operational areas.
Loose sandy soils should be stabilized and/or paved with gravel. The NC DWM should permit
an unpaved area for the curing area, though this would require that the compost be stable
before it is removed from the pad. The composting pad and other processing areas should be
sloped to drain stormwater runoff into lined holding ponds for evaporation and for reuse in
maintaining windrow moisture content. In the event of heavy rains, some stormwater from
active composting areas may have to be hauled to a WWTP and treated as leachate. At least
three lined ponds having a total area of 0.5 acre are projected. The state's present and future
regulations and policies on this subject will have to be considered.
The facility will need a source of water to maintain the optimum moisture in the composting
piles (about 45 to 55 percent). Daily sampling and testing of the moisture content will likely be
required. Turning the rows should be done immediately after watering. Turning is expected to
be accomplished by large front-end loaders capable of piling to a 12-foot static pile height.
E9
8/31/97 24 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
0
Water would be obtained from the stormwater holding ponds or from wells capable of
supplying 20 to 60 gpm.
A small office and laboratory should be located at the site, and eventually a weighing scale
based on the expectation that the products will eventually be sold by weight. The laboratory
would determine compost moisture content, assess the need for additional moisture, assess
the need for turning, determine the completion of windrow composting, and assess the quality
of finished compost. The periodic chemical analysis of the compost, as required by state rules
prior to distribution, would be expected to be performed in a local analytical laboratory. Other
buildings may include parts and materials storage and an equipment maintenance area. They
would also include space for a belt press for sludge dewatering.
7.4 Recommended Equipment
The following is a tentative list of equipment that will or may be needed:
• Tub grinder such as a Morbark Model 1300; cost with magnetic separator and grapple is
about $250,000, or a DuraTech Model HD10; cost with grapple, screens and magnet is
about $175,000;
• Reciprocating or trommel screens for sizing shredded yard waste and finished products;
• Front-end loader with 3- to 6-cu.yd. bucket;
• Water pumping and spraying equipment for adding pond and/or well water to windrows and
static piles;
• Tandem -axle dump truck;
• Belt press and screen for dewatering liquid sewage sludge;
• Holding tank for equalization and flow control of input liquid sludge (size for 15 to 30 days
of storage based on average input);
• Blower for removing plastics from shredded bagged yard waste (optional as needed);
• Roto-tiller type shredder (optional in future);
• Rotary grinder or chipper for producing high grade mulch and for handling very long feed
stock (optional in future);
• Tree chipper for chipping stumps up to 8 feet in diameter (optional in future); and
• Blower for aerating static piles of mulch (optional in future).
8/31/97 25 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
8.0 CURSORY SITE SCREENING RESULTS
In an effort to take a cursory look at factors affecting siting of a compost facility, some of the
siting criteria outlined in Section 5.2 were applied, where data was readily available, to the
entire county in the form of mapped site screening constraints. Source maps of features
considered limiting, though not necessarily exclusionary, to waste management facility
development were obtained from the Brunswick County Land Use Plan, the Soil Survey of
Brunswick County, the Zoning Map of Brunswick County, and an advisory wetlands map
prepared by the NC Division of Coastal Management (see Appendix 4). In addition to general
soil types, zoning and wetlands, selected mapped features from the Land Use Plan include
existing land use, hazardous areas, fragile areas, and community facilities. The end result is
Figures 1 through 3 attached. Figure 1 shows the individual maps used, while Figure 2 is a
compilation of the "natural" limiting features and Figure 3 is a compilation of the "man-made"
limiting features. Watershed restrictions were also considered, but the Water Supply
Watershed Map from the NC Division of Water Resources shows no watershed designations
in Brunswick County (see Appendix 4).
The source maps were edited, where possible, to leave only features considered limiting to
waste management facility development. Editing and color -coding was done such that white
areas on the edited maps are those areas where no limitation or restriction is indicated.
Because the source maps were not intended to be scaleable or precise, and because further
distortion was introduced in our scanning and compilation, the figures should and can not be
considered accurate for determining the actual boundaries of any given area or feature. They
are useful as a general guide only. In selecting and editing the source maps, the following
information was used from their respective sources:
Soils - The general soil map from the soil survey was used to differentiate the best suited soil
types for a composting facility, in terms of the siting criteria set forth in the state compost rules,
from those less suitable. Of the eight general soil map units included on the map, only one,
Goldsboro -Lynchburg -Rains, is considered to be well suited to siting of the facility based on its
predominant soil types, thus it is shown as the white area on the General Soils map in the
figures. In fact, of the 34 soil series mapped in the county, only eight (8) are considered likely
to be suitable on the basis of their described texture, their tendency to flood, and their
association with shallow groundwater.
It must be noted that the soil survey is generalized and therefore not strictly indicative of soil
conditions on any given site. Therefore the combined soil units considered less suitable,
shown on the figures as color -shaded (yellow), should not be considered unsuitable, but less
likely to be in keeping with the soil characteristics considered most desirable for the facility.
Conversely, areas shown as white on the map may include areas of unsuitable soils and
groundwater occurrence.
Zoning - The zoning districts that allow a waste management facility, Rural (RU) and Heavy
Manufacturing (H-M), are shown as white areas on the Zoning map in the figures. The color -
shaded areas (gray) are considered to be exclusionary in this case without rezoning.
Wetlands - The wetlands taken from the referenced map are advisory in nature, i.e., they have
not been field verified, or "ground-truthed", for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acceptance as
8/31/97 26 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
jurisdictional wetlands. The source of the referenced map is the National Wetlands Inventory,
mapping created using remote sensing techniques (satellites). The areas shown color -shaded
(blue) should be considered suspect with regard to the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, but
not necessarily exclusionary.
Existing Land Use - The existing land uses shown as shaded areas on the source map, and as
color -shaded area on the figures (burnt orange), include municipal, residential, office and
commercial, industrial, and public and semi-public including conservancy lands. Though not
strictly restrictive, these land uses are likely not compatible with a waste management facility.
Hazardous Areas - Hazardous areas, as defined and mapped in the Land Use Plan, include
both natural hazards, principally areas prone to flooding, and man-made, such as the CP&L
nuclear facility, the Sunny Point Ocean Terminal railroad corridor, the ADM chemical facility,
the DuPont chemical facility, and general purpose airstrips. The natural hazards area is shown
color -coded (red) on the attached figures. Arguably, the man-made hazards could be
considered compatible with a waste management facility. They are represented on the maps
by numerals showing their approximate locations.
Fragile Areas - Fragile areas, as defined and mapped in the Land Use _Plan, include estuarine
and freshwater systems, the Green Swamp, wildlife management areas, bear sanctuary, and
ocean hazard areas. They should probably be considered restrictive, though they would need
field verification during a thorough site search. They are color -coded green on the attached
figures.
Community Facilities - The community facilities shown on the source map, and color -coded
(purple) on the attached figures, include sewage service areas, water system trunk lines,
county parks, airstrips, hospitals, and the Brunswick County landfill. These are not strictly
restrictive, but they generally indicate areas of more dense population or public gathering
places. The landfill, of course, is a facility that is perfectly compatible with a compost facility.
By examining Figures 2 and 3, it quickly becomes apparent that there is not a lot of land area
in the county that is well -suited to the siting of a waste management facility such as the
compost center. The scale of the map is deceiving, however, since the facility should only
require 20 to 30 acres as conceived, including buffers. Interestingly, the majority of the white
area that remains when the maps are combined lies along or in general proximity to U.S.
Highway 17. That is very desirable in terms of transportation of input wastes and access
without disrupting existing traffic patterns, especially in residential or other limited access
areas.
It is also interesting to note that the County landfill lies in a white area on the map, suggesting
that the landfill is appropriately located and that it may make a good site for a composting
center, whether publicly or privately run. Based on discussions with County staff, there is not
likely to be enough useable area remaining on the current landfill property to site a composting
operation as envisioned, but siting over a closed portion of the landfill is allowed in the
regulations and should be considered. The purchase of additional land adjacent to or near the
landfill is another possibility. The ownership of a large tract of land adjacent to the landfill by
International Paper is another positive aspect of the landfill site since isolation from population
concentrations is an obvious benefit. The landfill site appears to be a strong contender to host
8/31/97 27 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
the composting center at this preliminary stage of the process; however, a comprehensive site
selection study should be undertaken if the project moves forward, including a substantial
public involvement component.
9.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Review of the literature indicates that composting costs vary widely over existing facilities in
the U.S. and abroad. Capital outlays for yard waste composting facilities of this size (not co -
composting with other organic. wastes) typically range from around $200,000 to $500,000.
Operating costs agree more closely at $5.00 to $6.00 per cubic yard. . Costs for the
conceptualized facility will be higher because of the need for handling and dewatering the
sewage sludge input and the increased environmental protections brought on by the inclusion
of the biosolids.
As shown in Table 8 attached, capital and construction costs are roughly estimated to be
between $500,000 and $800,000, resulting in a yearly debt service of $74,000 to $112,000.
The projected operating and maintenance costs of $256,000 to $359,000 result in a unit
operating cost for an estimated 45,000 cubic yards of input yard waste of $5.70 to $8.00 per
cubic yard of input. The projected total unit cost of the conceptual facility ranges from about
$23.00 to $33.00 per ton of input yard waste, or roughly $7.50 to $11.00 per cubic yard
assuming a bulk density of 3 cubic yards per ton. The unit operating and total costs based on
the volume and weight of finished products could be much higher due to volume and weight
reduction from composting and process rejects. Planning, permitting and other site
predevelopment costs and the cost of bond financing are not included in the estimates. It is
important to note, however, that the cost estimate does not take into account the avoidance of
the current costs of sludge disposal by some local governments and of yard waste processing
and storage by the County.
Table 8 presents a preliminary picture of the pro forma for the conceptual facility. The actual
costs and eventual offsetting revenues will be very dependent upon management expertise,
the nature of the input feeds, market development, and cooperation among all participants and
contractors. Tipping fees which may evolve in the future to help offset operating costs are not
included in the preliminary analysis; however, it is expected that tipping and/or collection fees
on yard waste and biosolids would be levied at some point. The addition of animal wastes,
food processing wastes, and other commercial biosolids as input feeds should not substantially
increase costs since the most stringent regulatory category is already applicable.
191
8/31/97 28 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
101
1 Q
011
10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 Conclusions
1. The projected yard waste input of 14,400. to 21,600 tons per year, and the projected
potential of receiving 1 to 2.5 million gallons of liquid sewage sludge is sufficient to justify
the serious study of developing a composting facility that will recycle the sludge and the
yard waste to salable mulch and compost products.
2. A regional composting center is believed feasible at the conceptual level provided that it is
well planned and professionally managed and that markets for the recycled compost
products are developed in advance. Although there are lucrative markets in many areas of
the country for mulch and compost, there does not appear to be a sizable market presently
in Brunswick County, particularly in light of recent hurricane damage which has resulted in
a glut of crudely processed debris. A detailed market study is needed to better define
short-term and future markets before proceeding with implementable facility planning.
3. Although a sizable quantity of yard waste can be delivered to the facility, the amount of
sewage sludge which is presently available for composting is very limited due to the fact
that most domestic sewage is handled by on -lot septic systems, and what little domestic
sewage sludge is collected for transport is presently collected and land applied by a private
concern as an ongoing business. As conditions evolve to lessen the acceptability of land
application of sewage sludge and septage, and as the growth of municipal and regional
sewage treatment accelerates, more biosolids will likely be available for composting. In
the interim, a facility could be started as a yard waste composting operation, but be
planned and eventually equipped for composting biosolids with a portion of the available
yard waste.
4. For the first few years of operation, an open-air windrow composting process is proposed
for composting the biosolids-amended yard waste and yard waste alone. Sometime in the
future, when there should be much more sewage sludge available and when residential
areas grow closer to the composting site, enclosed or in -vessel processes may have to be
considered for biosolids-amended composting because of odors. For mulch production
from yard waste, static piles are proposed.
5. By examining Figures 2 and 3, it quickly becomes apparent that there is not a lot of land
area in the county that is well -suited to the siting of a waste management facility such as
the compost center. The scale of the map is deceiving, however, since the facility should
only require 20 to 30 acres as conceived, including buffers. Interestingly, the majority of
the white area that remains when the maps are combined lies along or in general proximity
to U.S. Highway 17. That is very desirable in terms of transportation of input wastes and
access without disrupting existing traffic patterns, especially in residential or other limited
access areas.
8131/97 (Rev.)
29
EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
10.2 Recommendations
1. Because of the very preliminary nature of this study, it is recommended that further studies
be undertaken as the sponsoring governments feel is justified to explore in much greater
depth the potential sources and recycling potential of sewage sludges and other organic
wastes, the market potential for compost and mulch products, the best site or sites for a
compost center, and the feasibility of and optimum schedule for implementing a regional
composting project in the context of solid waste management planning for the County and
region. From all these studies and data, a final feasibility assessment leading to
implementation will be possible.
2. The facility should be owned and managed by an independent public Authority. It is
recognized that private ownership may be available and should be considered in further
studies which can assess in greater depth local political intent and the risks of private
ownership. Although it is recommended that the facility be owned by a public Authority, the
Authority could contract for private operation.
3. Regardless of whether the facility is owned by local government(s), an independent public
Authority, or a private entity, waste management strategies should be in place to
encourage and provide incentives for citizens to separate their yard waste along with other
recyclables. Each municipality should be encouraged to centralize their yard waste
collection for transfer to the facility. Further study will be required to determine the best
collection and delivery strategy. A steady stream of wastes will improve facility efficiencies,
and economies of scale will be realized as the facility grows.
4. The County landfill site appears to be a strong contender to host the composting center at
this preliminary stage of the process; however, a comprehensive site selection study
should be undertaken if the project moves forward, including a substantial public
involvement component.
EO
8/31/97 (Rev.) 30 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Tabled "' Local GoverOwnt Survey Summary July, 1997
Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
Po ulatlon
Growth °
Locality
Perm. Pop.
Year of Ct.
Seas. Pop.
Duration Mos.
Steady/O'nite/Day
Permanent
Seasonal
WWTP?
Expansion Planned?
Southport
2,490
1996
1,760
6
33W47
2
3
Yes, 0.8 m d
Yes, 2x in 5.10 Yrs.
Brunswick Co.'
59,396
1995
118,724
7
34/66/N.A.
2.5
2
Yes, 0.25 m d Pkg.
No
Caswell Beach
209
1990
1,435
4
loom
6
10
Yes, Two 0.075 m d Pkg.
No
Long Beach
5,000
1996
20,000 Est.
7
20/40/40
5
3
No
N.A.
Yaupon Beach
850 Est.
1995
3,500
5
10/75/15
3.5
-
Yes, 0.4 m d
No
Leland
2,050
1996
0
N.A.
N.A.
2
0
No
Yes, 0.4 m d
Calabash
1,364
1990
4,500 Est.
5
N.A.
3
5
Yes, 0.530 m d
Permitted for 0.925 m d
Boiling Spg. Lks.
1,976
1995
500 Est.
12
0/75/25
9
9
No
N.A.
Sunset Beach
767
1994
14,543
4
6/75119
17.5
8
No
N.A.
Varnamtown
465
1996
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
No
N.A.
Northwest
727
1996
0
N.A.
N.A.
3
0
No
N.A.
Ocean Isle
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Yes, 1 m d
Not at present
Belville
94
1996
0
N.A.
N.A.
10
0
Yes, 0.4 m d
Poss. 2x in 2+ Yrs.
' Brunswick Co. Includes all
other localities, except for sludge data.
Yard and wood waste are combined In their records; the numbers shown re resent calendar year 1996 and Include substantial hurricane debris.
Approx. 34,000 CY of shredded waste is currently stockpiled at the landfill.
N.A. = Not Available
Est. = Estimated
Pkg. = Package Plant
Page 1 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Table 1 Local Government Survey Summary July, 1997
Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
Was Generation
Sewa
a Slud a
Data
Locality
Yard
Wood
Total
Units
Sludge*
Units
%Solids
Commercial Com ostable Wastes?
Open Burning Permitted?
Land Cost $/AC.
Southport
500
550
1050
CY/Mo.
40,000
Gal./Mo.
4
No
Yes
N.A.
Brunswick Co.'
1123
1123
2246
Tons/Mo.
7,500
Gal./Mo.
2+
Yes, goes to Southport Transfer Sataion
Yes
N.A.
Caswell Beach
«1
«1
0
Tons/Mo.
N.A.
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
Yes
N.A.
Long Beach
15
10
25
Tons/Mo.
0
N.A.
N.A.
No
N.A.
131,600 to 261,400
Yaupon Beach
24
7.5
31.5
Tons/Mo.
15,425
Gal./Mo.
3
No
N.A.
N.A.
Leland
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
0
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
Calabash
90
0
90
CY/Mo.
N.A.
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
Boiling Spg. Lks.
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
0
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
Yes
N.A.
Sunset Beach
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
0
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Vamamtown
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
0
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
Northwest
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
0
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
Ocean Isle
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
N.A.
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Belville
N.A.
N.A.
0
Tons/Mo.
N.A.
Gal./Mo.
N.A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
" Some data from survey; other from S&B Maintenance for 1996; all rounded
Page Ecologic (Associates, P.C.
0 �J

1-0
NJ
V"
TABLE 8 - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
Capital Costs
LOW $
HIGH $
Land Cost ($3000/ac. estimated)
0*
75,000
Tub Grinder
175,000
250.000
Front-end Loader (Used)
85,000
125,000
Screens
15,000
20,000
Belt Press and Screen (Portable)
100,000
110,000
Watering Equipment
9,000
12,000
Sludge Holding Tank
20,000
25,000
Dump Truck (Used)
20,000
35,000
SUBTOTAL
424,000
652,000
* Assumes sited on government -owned land, such as County landfill.
Construction
Asphalt Pad, 2420 sq. yd.
36,000
48,000
Stormwater Ponds (lined), 25,000 sf
50,000
75,000
Buildings
25,000
35,000
SUBTOTAL
111,000
158,000
TOTAL INITIAL COSTS
$ 535,000
$ 810,000
ANNUALIZED COST (8% interest,10 years)
$ 73,800
$111,800
Annual Maintenance
Tub Grinder
20,000
23,000
Front-end Loader, Truck
5,000
10,000
Screens
3,000
3,500
Belt Press
3,500
4,000
Watering Equipment
500
1,000
Asphalt Pad -
500
1,000
Stormwater Ponds
500
1,500
Buildings and Grounds
3,000
10,000
SUBTOTAL 36,000
54,000
Annual Operations
Supplies, Utilities, Fuel, etc.
50,000
75,000
Labor (3 laborers and Mgr.)
150,000
200,000
Insurance, Lab Analysis, Consulting
20,000
30,000
SUBTOTAL
220,000
305,000
TOTAL O&M COST
$ 256,000
$ 359,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 329,800
$ 470,800
COST PER TON OF YARD WASTE INPUT
$ 22.90
$ 32.69
(@14,400 tons per year)

ADVISORY NOTE AND CAUTION:
THESE IMAGES ,','ERE CREATED FROM SCANNED HARD
COPIES OF MAPS FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES:
GENERAL SOILS — Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North
Carolina, Nov., 1986, National Cooperative Soil Survey,
available through Brunswick County Soil and Water
Conservation District, Bolivia, NC.
FRAGILE AREAS, HAZARDOUS AREAS, EXISTING LAND USE,
AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES — Brunswick County, North
Carolina Land Use Plan, 1993 Update, Glenn Harbeck
Associates, Wilmington, NC, available through Brunswick
County Planning Department, Bolivia, NC.
ZONING — "Zoning Map of Brunswick County", Mar. 17,
1997, Scale 1:126,720, Brunswick County G.I.S. Department,
Bolivia, NC.
WETLANDS — Map (Advisory) — "Wetland Types —
Brunswick County, NC", July 14, 1997, Scale 1:124,529, NC
Div. of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC.
THE SOURCE MAPS WERE EDITED, WHERE POSSIBLE, TO
LEAVE ONLY FEATURES CONSIDERED LIMITING TO WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITY DEVELOPMENT — THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY EXCLUSIONARY. THE SCANNED IMAGES WERE
ALTERED FOR DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY BY ALTERING
THEIR ROTATION, HORIZONTAL, AND VERTICAL DIMENSIONS.
THESE MAPS ARE THEREFORE NOT INTENDED FOR SCALING
OR FOR USE TO LOCATE PHYSICAL FEATURES TO ANY
DEGREE OF ACCURACY. THEY ARE GRAPHIC
REPRESENTATIONS OF DATA FOR COMPARATIVE USE ONLY.
ZONING
M
N
N
W
Ln
0
W VI N
1
Q W
0j V
} 2
U W
U Q m
O}Z
00
U'
J Z }
Z0)W=!0
OOZm�
W(A�-
Wg(.5
o CC W
a U
C0
F—
Z
(D
(L W Q
F-�
c C0 CO
Z
Q�U
o (n 0
cc Z
Z)Z
Z V W
W
U
A
i
O
LL
m
cc
a
m
a`
SCALE: NONE
DATE: 8/31/97
SHEET ID
FIGURE 1

9
UUMLSINLU
NATURAL' FEATUR
CURSORY SITE
300KI1 ilill f%nK1Q'rDA
ECOLOGIC ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Lf) (JI -0, (4 IV a Im
m
m
?� 0 Q D x 0 m
z -u K D a- C
—n
F1 En
COMBINED
Project,
m
"MAN-MADE" FEATURES,
REGIONAL
C E
COMPOSTING
CURSORY SITE
CENTER
ECOLOGIC ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2007 YANCEYVILLE S'T. STE. 223
SCREENING CONSTRAINTS
FEASIBILITY
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
wz
`o
STUDY
W
°m
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC
Prepared For. CITY OF SOUTHPORT, NC

AM
• 1 •
iiiii. i�Viiiiiiiiii
icoca==ii�_ ��iiiiiiiii
m

REPORT REFERENCES
1. Mini Data Book, Brunswick County, North Carolina, Winter 1996-97, Brunswick County
Planning Department, Bolivia, NC.
2. North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 15A NCAC 13B .1400, as Amended
through Jan. 1, 1997, North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Div. of Waste Management, Raleigh, NC.
3. EPA Regulations on State Sludge Management Programs, 40 CFR 501, including
Amendments through Dec. 22, 1993, January, 1994, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
pp. 147-160.
4. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR 503, Federal Register, Vol.
58, No. 32, Feb. 19, 1993, pp. 9387-9404, including Amendments in Federal Register, Vol.
60, No. 206, Oct. 25, 1995, pp. 54764-54792.
5. Brunswick County, North Carolina Land Use Plan, 1993 Update, Glenn Harbeck
Associates, Wilmington, NC, available through Brunswick County Planning Department,
Bolivia, NC.
O6. Zoning Ordinance and Partial Development Code, Brunswick County, NC, as Amended
through April 21, 1997, Brunswick County Planning Department, Bolivia, NC.
101
7. Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina, Nov., 1986, National Cooperative Soil
Survey, available through Brunswick County Soil and Water Conservation District, Bolivia,
NC.
8. North Carolina Air Quality Rules - Air Pollution Control Requirements, 15A NCAC 20, as
-Amended through July 1, 1997, North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Div. of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC.
9. North Carolina Fertilizer Rules, 2 NCAC 48B, Jan., 1994, North Carolina Dept. of
Agriculture, Plant Industry Div., Raleigh, NC.
10. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands
of North Carolina, 15A NCAC 213 .0200, as Amended through April 1, 1997, North Carolina
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Div. of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
11. "Zoning Map of Brunswick County", Mar. 17, 1997, Scale 1:126,720, Brunswick County
G.I.S. Department, Bolivia, NC.
8/31/97 1 of 2 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Report References
A*
12. Map (Advisory) - "Wetland Types - Brunswick County, NC", July 14, 1997, Scale
1:124,529, NC Div. of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC.
13. "Water Supply Watershed Map", Aug., 1992, NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis, Raleigh, NC. Also available from NCDENR Div. of Water Resources
14. "Proposal for Yard Waste Processing Services at Brunswick County Landfill," Jan. 31,
1996, Henson's,-Inc., Tryon, NC.
15. 'Grant Application - Local Planning and Management Grant Program, NC Div. of Coastal
Management, "Regional Composting Report", Undated, City of Southport, NC.
EO
0
8/31/97 2 of 2 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

N
LEGEND:
REF AUTHOR
NO. LAST NAME
10
Agricultural
11
Agricultural
12
Bader,
13
BioCycle
14
Block
15
Block,
16
Dampney
17
Fickes
18
Glenn
19
Goldstein
20
Goldstein
21
Katinsky
22
Lehfeldt
23
Magnuson
24
Mitchell
25
Ogle, et.al.
26
Operators'
27
Regional
28
Regional
29
Rosenberg
30
Steuteville
31
Wimberly,
32
34
Ballister-Howells
35
BioCycle
36
Fulmer
37
Garnham
38
Goldstein
39
Hay
REFERENCES - LITERATURE SURVEY FOR SOUTHPORT COMPOSTING FEASIBILITY STUDY
TA&SOC
The Art & Science of Composting, a book by the BioCycle Staff, The JG Press, Inc.
AUTHOR
YEAR
TITLE OF ARTICLE
SOURCE
MONTH
PAGE
FIRST NAME
PUB.
Utilization
1997
Market Demand for Yard Trimmings
BioCycle
Feb
p. 52
Utilization
1997
Interest in Uncomposted Yard Trimmings
BioCycle
Feb
p. 54
Charles D.
1997
The State of the Composting Industry.
MSW Mgt.
Jul/Aug
p. 40
World
1997
Composting Sideline Helps Farm Survive
BioCycle
Mar
p.) 3
David
1997
Processing and marketing Woody Material
BioCycle
Sep
p. 54
Dave.
1997
Crab Composters Get Claws on New Feedstocks.
BioCycle
Aug
p.30
Trelawney
1997
A Composting Company Grown in Britain
BioCycle
Jun
p. 43
Michael
1997
Weigh Up and Pay Up
World Wst.
Aug
p.26
Jim.
1997
Processing Woody Materials for Higher Value Markets
BioCycle
Mar
p. 30
Nora
1997
State Management Update
BioCycle
May
p. 62
Jerome
1997
Monitoring Compost Process and Quality
BioCycle
Jul
p. 48
Barbara
1997
1997 Buyers' Guide
World Wst
Jul
p.75
David S.
1997
Juicing Compost with Liquid Waste
SW Tech
May/Jun
p. 44
Anne
1997
Yardwaste Processing
MSW Mgt.
Mar/Apr
p. 54
Donna
1997
State Transportation Depts. Expand Compost Use
BioCycle
Jul
p. 75
Tom
1997
Finding a Tub Grinder to Fit Your Needs
SW Tech
Mar/Apr
p. 28
Exchange, D.B.
1997
Slow Path to Composting
BioCycle
Aug
p. 60
Roundup
1997
Compost for Erosion Control
BioCycle
Jun
p. 20
Roundup
1997
Second Fire Hits Composting Facility
BioCycle
Feb
p. 21
Darlene
1997
Winter Composting
MSW Mgt.
Jan/Feb
p. 34
Robert J.
1997
Large Scale Wood Processing and Marketing
BioCycle
Jan
p. 50
Jim.
1997
Regionally Coordinated Composting Opportunities
BioCycle
Aug
p. 83
Pegi
1996
Major Waste Management Firms Become Composters.
BioCycle
Jun
p. 35
1996 Directory
1996
Compost Eqpt. and Systems for, SW and Biosolids
BioCycle
Apr
p. 76
Tom
1996
Plain Talk About 120,000 Tons a Year
BioCycle
Nov
p. 58
Peter
1996
Steady Growth in Landfill Diversion Rates
SW Tech
Mar/Apr
P. 19
Nora et.al.
1996
MSW Composting in the United States
BioCycle
Nov
p. 46
Jonathan C.
1996
Pathogen Destruction and Biosolids Composting
BioCycle
Jun
p. 67
Page 1

40
Hentz, Jr. et.al.
Lawrence H.
1996
Understanding Synergy bet. Composting and Air Emissions
BioCycle
Mar
p. 67
41
Kayhanian
Masoud
1996
Compressed Windrow Composting in California
BioCycle
Nov
p. 44
42
Lynch
Stephen
1996
Credit Criteria for Composting Projects
BioCycle
Nov
p. 66
43
Magnuson
Anne
1996
Yardwaste: The Composting Scene
MSW Mgt.
Mar/Apr
p. 42
44
Michael, Jr.
Frederick C.
1996
Abstract: Mechanics of Composting Yard Trimmings
BioCycle
Feb
p. 29
45
Operators'
Exchange, D.B.
1996
Getting Biosolids Compost to Class A
BioCycle
Feb
p. 63
46
Operators'
Exchange, D.B.
1996
Disadvantage to Piling it high
BioCycle
May
p. 64
47
Operators'
Exchange, D.B.
1996
"Having a Windrow" to Call Your Own
BioCycle
Apr
p. 75
48
Operators'
Exchange, D.B.
1996
Mixing feedstocks; guess moisture content, heat vs stability
BioCycle
Jul/Aug
p. 62
49
Regional
Roundup
1996
A Perfect Mix
BioCycle
Feb
p. 20
50
Regional
Roundup
1996
Sippery Rock,PA Grant to compost leaves and Food Residual BioCycle
Jun
p. 22
51
Riggle
David
1996
Controlling and Preventing Fires at Compost facilities
BioCycle
May
p. 58
52
Seekins
Bill
1996
Field Test for Compost Maturity
BioCycle
Aug
p. 72
53
Tardy
Robert J.
1996
Mulch Ado About Composting
World Wst.
Jun
S51p. 25 (ss
54
Titco, et.al.
Steve,
1996
Mixing Ratios in Biosolids Composting
BioCycle
Sep
p. 66
55
58
Barnes
Sharon
1995
What it Takes to Build a Composting Business
BioCycle
Jun
p. 30
59
Byers
Patrick D.
1995
Large-scale Composting of Biosolids and Yard Trimmings
BioCycle
Oct
p. 40
60
DeMuro
Paul E.
1995
Composting Economics for landscapers
BioCycle
Jun
p. 33
61
Oregon
Portland
1995
Compost Certification
BioCycle
Jul/Aug
p. 35
62
Riggle
David
1995
Online Connections for Recyclers and Composters
BioCycle
Jun
p. 33
63
65
Field
Charles R.
1992
Compost: A Windrow of Opportunity
World Wst.
Sep
p. 28
66
68
Bennett, et.al.
Lawrence H.
1991
Operational Efficiences with Extended Static Pile Process
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 134
69
Buckner
Stuart C.
1991
Composting 60,000 TPY of Yard Waste
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 130
70
Golueke
Clarence G.
1991
Low Tech Composting for Small Communities
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 75
71
Golueke
Clarence G.
1991
Section I - Principles of Composting
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 14
72
Hegberg, et.al.
Bruce A.
1991
Specifications for Yard Waste Compost
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 167
73
Kashmanian, et.al.
BioCycle Staff
1991
Evaluating Static Pile and Windrow Composting
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 116
74
TA&SOC
BioCycle Staff
1991
Yard Waste Composting Projects
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 67
75
TA&SOC
BioCycle Staff
1991
Sludge Composting Projects in the United States
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 56
76
TA&SOC
BioCycle Staff
1991
Composting Sludge and Yard Waste
TA&SOC
Dec
p. 124
77
TA&SOC
BioCycle Staff
1991
Where will all the Compost Go?
TA&SOC
Dec
p.148
(�
Pa e 2
0

1070
AUTHOR COMMENTS
LAST NAME
Agricultural
Good market reference
Agricultural
Some farmers would like to do their own compostin; some plough in
Bader,
BioCycle
Could be applicable to SP farmer
Block
Outstanding - fully applicable to SP, 90% recycling to mulch and soil.
Block,
Dampney
22,000 tpy of yard trimmings processed;
Fickes
Scale systems now better - has scale vendor list
Glenn
Applicable to SP; excellent comments on eqpt.
Goldstein
Tables on Regulation and tonnages generated by state
Goldstein
Very general article, for background
Katinsky
Up to date listing
Lehfeldt
Practical article on disposing of unsaleable beer and soft drink liquid
Magnuson
Composting from wind and flood disasters. Use in SP
Mitchell
The road market - good and applicable for SP
Ogle, et.al.
Applicable to SP
Operators'
Regional
Compost good to control erosion on highway shoulders
Regional
Bedminister Cobb Cty. plant - second fire, why the fire?
Rosenberg
Good background material; turn when temp goes down to 1250
Steuteville
Description of processing - yard trim from Virginia Beach, etc.
Wimberly,
Applicable to SP
Ballister-Howells List of Co. emph on yd.trim.
BioCycle
Eqpt. reference
Fulmer
Talks about static pile composting, trommeling out fines.
Garnham
Compost Chem Steds, overall good article on composting
Goldstein
Tabulations of facilities including biosolids composting
Hay
Backgroung reading
Page 3

Hentz, Jr.
Excellent for learning, aeration and "Dilution to Threshold"
Kayhanian
More efficient and saves land.
Lynch
Basics for municipal financing - comment of flow controls
Example of muni disposing of WdW composting; chart on windrow vol
Michael, Jr.
Stable after 60 days, final after 136 days, regardless of turning rates.
Operators'
Solution if temp can not be maintained.
Operators'
Use to consider 8' vs. 12' height
Operators'
Excellent comments on windrows - applicable to Southport
good data
Regional
150 dry cuyds with 800 cuyds per year Yd Wst. open-air windrows.
Regional
Riggle
Seekins
Use in report. It's a kit measuring COZ
Tardy
Basic description of compostin process and requirements
Titco,
Barnes
Byers Good story from pilot to large scale - mixing ratios, eqpt.
DeMuro
Oregon Composition for Portland
Riggle
Comments on processes
Bennett, et.al. w/bios. 18% SS & 60% WdW need mix 2.6:1 ratio - enclosed process
Buckner
Islip, NY, leves, grass, tree brush in windrows - good
Golueke
TA&SOC
Excellent understanding of the fundimentals of composting
TA&SOC
Essential reading
TA&SOC
Good - general conclusions from EPA study of 5 muni SS facilities
TA&SOC
Excellent applicable to SP - lots of usable data
TA&SOC
Excellent - covers all processes
TA&SOC
Excellent - examples applicable to SP.
TA&SOC
Good brief approach and references

APPENDIX 1

C
EO
0
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY
TO OBTAIN DATA FOR THE
REGIONAL COMPOSTING FEASIBILITY STUDY
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC
March, 1997
Sponsored by: City of Southport, Brunswick County, Towns of Caswell
Beach, Long Beach, and Yaupon Beach
RESPONDENT DATA:
Respondent Name: Title:
Affiliation:
Address:
Telephone: ( ) Fax: )
Signature: Date;
PLEASE PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO
IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE STUDY. ESTIMATES OF NUMERIC
DATA ARE ACCEPTABLE WHEN HARD DATA DO NOT EXIST; HOWEVER,
PLEASE INDICATE ESTIMATES WITH "(EST)". THANK YOUI
PLEASE MAIL COMPLETED SURVEY AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
TO THE ADDRESS BELOW FOR RECEIPT BY MARCH 24,1997.
Mail completed survey to
Ecologic Associates, P.C.
2007 Yanceyville St., Suite 223
Greensboro, NC 27405-5004

Local Government Survey
1. Permanent Population (year-round):
a. # Persons:
b. Year of last count or estimate: 19
2. Seasonal Population (excluding permanent):
a. Average Seasonal Population from to (months):
(# Persons)
b. Percentage of "a." who are present throughout the season: %
c. Percentage of "a."who are overnight visitors: %
d. Percentage of "a."who are day visitors: %
(Total of b - d should equal 100%)
Please describe how these numbers were arrived at:
3. Projected Population Growth (or Decline - use minus sign (-)):
a. Permanent Population (Year-round): Persons by
(Year) (Steady growth) or _% per year over the next years
(Steady growth) or
(Other) (Unsteady growth)
b. Anticipated location(s) of permanent population growth (Describe area
both generally (N,S,E,W) and specifically (with reference to major roads,
subdivisions, resort areas, etc.)):
c. Average Seasonal Population (excluding permanent):
Persons by _ (Year) (Steady growth) or % per year over the
next years (Steady growth) or
(Other) (Unsteady growth)
1*1
2 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Local Government Survey
d. Anticipated location(s) of seasonal population growth: O Beachfront
and/or O Other (Describe as in 3.b. above):
4. Domestic Sewage Disposal:
a.
How is your locality's domestic sewage disposed? (Check all that
apply):
O
Individual subsurface systems (Septic tanks)
.0
Community subsurface systems (Septic tanks)
O
Community package treatment plants, Number?
O
Govt. owned advanced treatment plant, Name & location:
O
Privately owned advanced treatment plant, Name & location:
O
Other:
b.
Domestic sewage sludge data, if available: gals/
wet tons/dry tons per day/week/month/year at % solids after
dewatering. Additional information, if available, such as sludge
composition analysis (provide copies if available):
c.
If, answer to a. is other than individual subsurface systems, please
provide name, title, and telephone number of system or plant
operator(s) or manager(s):
d.
Planned expansions of sewage treatment facilities (Location, size, time
frame, etc.)
We
3 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Local Government Survey
5. Current Compostable Waste Generation and Disposal
a. Please provide the following waste veneration data, as available:
TONS OF COMPOSTABLE WASTE GENERATED
Month
Yard
Wood
Sludge
Other
TOTAL
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct. -
Nov.
Dec.
TOTAL
Yard Yard Trash, Land Clearing Debris, Roadside Brush, and Stumps
Wood Untreated Scrap Lumber, Other Wood Waste
Sludge Domestic Sewage Sludge (Landfilled or Land Applied)
Comments:
E*
0
4 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

Local Government Survey
b. How and where is each waste stream disposed and at what cost per
ton (&Ton)? (Check box labeled "TF" if disposal cost is a tipping fee
or other user fee paid by the generator or hauler.)
Waste
Tye
Method of Disposal
Disposal Site
Haul
Cost
Disp.
Cost
TF
Yard
Wood
Sludge
Other
6. Are there any generators of significant quantities of commercial
compostable wastes (e.g., food processing wastes, animal or fish
waste, etc.) in your jurisdiction? O Yes O No (If yes, please provide
name, contact person, and telephone no. if
available.)
7. Do local ordinances exist regarding waste disposal, open burning of
yard trash or land clearing debris, land application of sludge, etc.?
O Yes O No (If yes, please provide a copy.)
5 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

Local Government Survey
8. Are new ordinances of the type described in Question 7, or revisions to
existing ordinances planned? O Yes O No (If yes, when are they
anticipated to go into effect? (Year) Please provide a copy of the draft
ordinance.)
9. Do local or area land use plans contain provisions concerning waste
facility siting and development? O Yes O No (if yes, please provide a
copy.)
10. Is data available on local land cost? O Yes O No (If yes, please provide
a copy along with explanatory text. If no, who or what would be the best
source of land cost data for your locality?)
11. Do you have additional information relevant to the feasibility of a
regional approach to composting organic wastes (principally yard
waste) and bio-solids (principally municipal sewage sludge)?
O Yes O No (If yes, please elaborate and provide copies or summaries.)
12. Is there anyone else whom we should contact for input to the study?
O Yes O No (If yes, please provide name, affiliation, address and/or
telephone no.)
THANK YOUI FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS IMPORTANT SURVEY. A COPY
OF THE SURVEY RESULTS WILL BE MAILED TO YOU AS SOON AS THEY
ARE TABULATED. IF YOU DESIRE THAT YOUR RESPONSES BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL, PLEASE CHECK HERE O
6 EcoLogic Associates, P.C.

APPENDIX 2

0 0 0

APPENDIX 3

WAsTEREducTiONFAcT SHEET Vzv,�..
NC Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
- Supply & Demand -
Yard Waste Management
Based on information contained in The Assessment of the Recycling Industry
and Recyclable Materials in North Carolina -1995 Update, this Fact Sheet
summarizes the data in that report on the current and projected supply and
demand of yard waste in North Carolina.
Definition of Composting
Composting is the controlled decomposition of organic matter by
micro-organisms into a stable humus material that is dark brown or black and
has a earthy smell. Yard waste composting deals with the processing of leaves,
grass clippings, brush and tree prunings. The rate of decomposition depends on
the level of technology used as well as on such physical, chemical, and
biological factors as the number of microorganisms present, oxygen levels,
moisture content, and temperature.
NC Yard Waste Generation
The tons of yard waste managed by local governments and private facilities in
North Carolina as reported in The Assessment are assumed to represent all yard
waste "generated" and potentially available for mulching or composting in the
state. The quantity of yard waste managed by local governments increased
rapidly over the past few years as a result of the January 1993 ban on yard
waste from sanitary landfills. The Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance estimates that the increase will continue by 3 percent
through 2001.
EO
I of 5 9/10/97 8:52 AM

htip:ii2U4.21 1.87.12/hiducs/REF/00122.H"I'M
Recovery of Yard Waste in NC
The Assessment assumes a recovery rate of yard waste in North Carolina for .
1997 and 2001 as the same as the 1994 rate, 343,000 tons. The projected tons
recovered are the recovery rates multiplied by estimated tons managed in each
year. During a composting and mulching process, some weight reduction occurs
which varies with the material mix and the type of process. Because individual
totals of yard waste recovered for mulching, composting, or direct end use were
available only in FY 93-94, those figures were used to calculate an average
value for the amount of compost and mulch produced (supply) relative to the
total tons managed and recovered. Weight reductions of 50 percent and 30
percent were assumed for the materials composted and for the mulching
process, respectively. These weight reduction figures project that finished
compost and mulch are an estimated 58 percent (less by weight) of the yard
waste managed by local governments. The estimates for yard waste managed .
for North Carolina are presented in Exhibit 1. It should be noted that some yard
waste managed by local governments is not composted or mulched and may be
taken directly to end users or to a Land Clearing and Inert Debris facility.
Demand for Compost
Several physical, chemical, and biological properties of compost give it value as
a soil amendment:
0
2 of 5 9/10/97 8:52 AM

IIUP-1U4.—'11.6 12iutUUCbA(h171UUll2.li 1;`L
N
• Compost helps to improve
soil porosity, water
retention, and resistance to
wind and water erosion.
• Nutrient storage and
release and micronutrient
availability are enhanced in
soils to which compost is
added.
• Specific benefits of
compost use related to
plant growth include the
suppression of soil -borne
plant diseases and, as the
composting process
destroys weed seeds,
decreased weed problems.
Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Recovery* of
Yard Waste in North Carolina (tons per year)
:North 1994 '. 1997' 2001
'Carolina
Population 7,023,6631 7,243,4481 7,483,807
i
Yard Waste
407,0001
445,000 j 501,000
Managed '(
i
(Yard Waste
343,000
375,000
422,000
(Recovery
Compost and
) 169,000
185,000
F 208,000
Mulch Supply j
*The actuaVestimated recovery rate for 1994,1997, and 2001 is 84
percent.
Main sectors for expanded applications of compost include agriculture,
landscaping, nurseries, public agencies, residential use, and land
reclamation/landfill cover. During FY 93-94, approximately two-thirds of the
compost and mulch produced at public composting and mulching facilities were
distributed to residents and professional end users. While 33 percent of the
compost and mulch produced was stockpiled, nearly 11 percent of the 66
percent managed was delivered directly to the end user.
3 of 5 9/10/97 8:52 AM

http:i/204.211.87.12/htdocs/REFi00122. HTM
- Agriculture represents the largest potential
demand for compost. Estimates for compost
demand are based on cropland acreage and
varying rates of compost application according
to land use. However, this potential demand
may be unrealistic in view of economic factors,
i.e., farmers may be unwilling to use the
material unless it can be provided at little or no
cost.
- Demand in landscaping is based on compost
replacing three -fourths of current peat and
Exhibit 2. Potential Demand for
Compost by Application
:End User Tons Per
;Market Year
;Agriculture 13.251,400
one-third of current mulch products use. For
nursery applications, the study estimated that ;Landscaping yi 331,100
compost could replace half the bark and one I
quarter of the peat products currently used. ---------
iNurseries 65,400
Residential demand includes the use of I
compost in place of topsoil and bagged soil
amendments and mulches. lResidents 127,900
Exhibit 2 reflects the potential capacity for compost !Landfill Cover 1 5,600
use. It should be noted, however, that actual demand
will not change significantly from current levels if the =;Total 13,4839400
quality and consistency of compost does not !
improve. The theoretical supply and demand '1
P PP Y
relationship for yard waste compost in North
Carolina is presented in Exhibit 3.
Emit & IMoorefted Supply and Demand Reli ffmOV
!fir YQd Wnt+e in Nor& Caeallmi {tans per yew*
1Q8,000
183,IOOa
Conclusion
[Ok
4 of 5 9/10/97 8:52 AM

- .• - ..•,-•••••�......�; 11ll��..:Ut._1l.Ji.1_. ❑[UUCP, tCt;r�UU l�.tt l.�l
As the graph shows, the demand for composted material should rapidly increase
over the next few years. The proposed reasons for increased demand are
(� establishment of standards for different grades of compost to ensure product
`✓ consistency and quality. Also, the creation of more local composting facilities
could reduce the transportation costs and make compost more economically
competitive with other low-cost alternatives.
The North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance
provides free, non -regulatory technical assistance and education on methods to
eliminate, reduce, or recycle wastes before they become pollutants or require disposal
Telephone DPPEA at [phone] or 800-763-0136 or E-mail for assistance with
issues in this Fact Sheet or any of your waste reduction concerns
OWR-96-35. July 1996.
0
0
5 of5 9/10/97 8:52 AM

APPENDIX 4

Each area outlined on this map consists of
more than one kind of soil. The map is thus
meant for general planning rather than a basis
for decisions on the use of specific tracts.
L91
O
34'00'—
m,
6 "4
` Iiic
Cr
78'20'
COLUMBUS
A T L A STIC
78�I
5-r
34'20' —
6/ 4
i
v G C A N
PgNDER
cpt,
STY
LEGEND
I LEON-MURVILLE-MANDARIN: Nearly level, very poorly
drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a weakly
cemented, sandy subsoil; on uplands
GOLDSBORO-LYNCHBURG-RAINS: Nearly level, moderately
well drained to poorly drained soils that have a loamy subsoil;
on uplands
TORHUNTA-CROATAN-PANTEGO: Nearly level, very poorly
drained soils that have a loamy subsoil; on uplands
WOODINGTON-FORESTON: Nearly level, poorly drained
and moderately well drained soils that have a loamy subsoil; on
uplands
BAYMEADE-BLANTON-NORFOLK: Nearly level to gently slop-
ing, well drained and moderately well drained soils that have a
loamy subsoil; on uplands
EDMUCKALEE-DOROVAN-CHOWAN: Nearly level, poorly drained
and very poorly drained soils that have sandy, loamy, or mucky
underlying material; on flood plains
x
Z KUREB-WANDO: Nearly level to sloping, excessively drained
G soils that are sandy throughout; on uplands
87 BOHICKET-NEWHAN-LAFITTE: Nearly level, very poorly
drained soils that have a clayey subsoil or are mucky through-
out, and gently sloping to steep, excessively drained soils that
are sandy throughout; on tidal flats, coastal ridges, and barrier
dunes
COMPILED 1984
0
O
C
z
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GENERAL SOIL MAP
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Scale 1:190,080
1 0 1 2 3 Miles
I,I I I I
1 0 3 6 Km
I, I I I I I 1 1

Water Quality and Stream Classifications
O
TIDAL SALT WATERS
FRESH WATERS
All significant tidal salt waters wrtrnn the geography of Brunswick County
Al; significant fresh water creeks within the geography of Brunswick
have been classified SA by the NC Department of Environment. Health
County have been classified C Sw by the NC Department of Environment.
and Natural Resources. with the exception of the following, which have
Health and Natural Resources. Class C waters are of lessor quality than
been designated SC:
Class B or other higher Duality classifications and are not suitable for
water supplies or for primary recreation The Sw code further identifies
SC Waters
these waters as, swamp waters.
Shallotte River above the Mrl Pond to NC 130 in Shallotte.
SPECIAL WATERS
2 Beaverdam Creex above mc::tn of Polly Gully Creek
3 Dutchman's Creek above the CP&L Canal
All SA waters in the county as well as the following C Sw and SC waters
4 Snow Marsh
have been designated as iOW. meaning that they are rated as excellent
5 Waldon Creek
based on their biological and physicallchemical charactenstics. They are
likely to be either primary nursery areas or critical habitat areas. The
SA waters are high quality waters suitable for shellfishing, primary
names of these streams or stream segments are listed below and their
recreation and other uses. SC waters are of lessor quality than SA or SB
locations are noted on the map by their corresponding numbers:
waters and are not suitable for she dishing or primary recreation The
locations of these streams or stream segments are noted on the map
1A Shallotte River from its source to NC 130 in Shallotte.
below by their corresponding numbers.
2 Dutchman's Creek above the CP&L Canal
5 Waldon Creek d
�+ v
- y
A
i
p
aam•�
0 C E A _ ^�—
2
' Existing Land Use Map
`11. Vacant and Undeveloped
Municipal (Not in Planning Area)
� ® Residential
.�
Office and Commercial
I
i Qp Industrial and Related.
Public and Semi -Public
Including Conservancy Lands
Note: Due to reap scale. this existing land use map is necessarily generalized in
nature, and is intended for general panning purposes only. For more detailed
information and mapping. pease consult with the Brunswick County planning
Department
.r
Brunswick' County
LAND USE PLAN
1993 Update
h Glenn Harbeck Associates
P`- Planning and Public Involvement
SCALEIN WLE3
7LIMML
f4barm e 1 2 3 4

R
Hazardous Areas Map
M", Floodprone Areas'
® Sunny Point Buffer Zone
Ocean Hazard Areas
17-7-7-11
Municipal (Not in PlanningArea)'
)
Notes:
There are two tbodprone areas under the Countys junsdctlon which are classified
as W zones'. meaning that they could be subject to high velocity wind and water
damage during a major starrn event. These two areas are located an either side of
the Lockwood folly Inlet at the mouth of the River. They are identified an the map In
sold Mack.
I Due to map scale, this hazardous areas map is necessarily generalized in nature.
and is intended for general planning purposes only. Within same lard areas, for
example. there may be pockets of land which should be considered floodprone.
Conversely, within the aoodprone areas identified there may be pockets of high and
dry land. In these sduations, more detailed. site specific information will take prece.
dence Over the more generalized map, and me appropriate policlec of the land use
plan document will apply.
Brunswick County
LAND USE PLAN
1993 Update
Glenn Harbeck Associates
Planning and Public Involvement
aCAla IN WILD
FL7wJ
NbSTN 0 f a 3

MW
Fragile Areas Map
M
Estuarine & Freshwater Systems
Green Swamp
®_
WildlifeManagement Areas
Bear Sanctuary
Ocean Hazard Areas
Municipal (Not In Planning Area)
FN.t-9:- Due to map scale,
this map is necessamy generamizeo N nature, armd is intenaed
eneral informational this
onty.
Brunswick County
LAND USE PLAN
1993 Update
Glenn Harbeck Associates
Planning and Public Involvement
SCALE mN MILES
72"L
NORTH p r 2 3

x
Community Facilities Map
Sewage Service Areas
Water System Trunk Lines
Future Water Trunk Lines
County Parks
F+-1
Airstrip
F9-1
Hospital
n
Sanitary Landfill
i�J
MuniciP al (Not in Planning Area)
Brunswick County
LAND USE PLAN
1993 Update
Glenn Harbeck Associates
Planning and Public Involvement
SCALE IN MILES
T 7=
. NORTH S 1 2 3 4

WaO, upply Watershed Map
01 ON
iviap upuawu. oi-,c
(Source: N.C. CGIA)
For numerical information regarding water in North,Carolina, please go to our statistics nape.
Note:
We hope to eventually provide a "hot" map with links to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps and information. What do you think
of this idea? E-mail us at: [e-mail]
Thanks!
[Home] Webmaster 12/6/96
http://pluto.ehnr.state.ne.us/wswp/map-loc l .html 9/5/97

APPENDIX 5

Regional Composting Center Feasibility Study
0
List of Abbreviations
C&D
Construction and Demolition
dtpd
dry tons per day (water content not included in weight)
dtpm
dry tons per month (water content not included in weight)
dtpy
dry tons per year (water content not included in weight)
LF
Landfill
mgd
million gallons per day
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
tpd
tons per day
tpm
tons per month
tpy
tons per year
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
YdW
Yard Waste including yard trash and land clearing debris
8/31/97 Ecologic Associates, P.C.

COMPOSTING GLOSSARY
The following glossary is extracted from a variety of sources or developed by the authors and presented
for the convenience of the reader.
AERATED STATIC PILE: composting system that uses a series of perforated pipes (or equivalent) as an air
distribution system running underneath a compost pile and connected to a blower that either draws
or blows air through the piles. Little or no pile turning is performed.
AERATION (for composting): bringing about contact of air and composting solid organic matter, by means
of turning or ventilating to allow microbial aerobic metabolism (biooxidation).
AEROBIC: occurring in the presence of oxygen.
AEROBIC RESPIRATION: the energy yielding biochemical reaction in which the final electron donor is
oxygen.
AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES: residue materials produced from the raising of plants and animals, including
manures, bedding, plant stalks; hulls, leaves, and vegetable matter.
ANAEROBIC: occurring in the absence of oxygen.
ARTIFICIAL SOIL:. growth medium for plants obtained by mixing soil, or inert soil substitutes, with stabilized
organic matter.
BACTERIA: unicellular or multicellular microscopic organisms. -
BATCH COMPOSTING: all material is processed at the same time, without introducing new feedstock once
composting has begun; windrow systems may be batch systems.
BIOASSAY: a laboratory assay (test) using a living test organism.
BIOAVAMABLE: available for biological uptake and metabolism.
BIODEGRADABLE: a product that can be broken down by microorganisms into natural elements such as
water and carbon dioxide.
BIODEGRADABILrTY: the potential that an organic component can be converted into simpler compounds by.
metabolic processes.
BIOOXIDATION: aerobic microbial metabolism of organic or inorganic compounds.
BIOCHEMICALOXYGENDEMAND(BOD): the amount of oxygenused in the biochemical oxidationoforganic
matter; an indication of compost maturity and a tool for studying the compost process.
BULKING AGENT: material, usually carbonaceous such as sawdust, wood chips, or shredded yard trimmings
added to a compost system to maintain airflow by preventing gettling and compaction of waste.
CARBON To NITROGEN RATIO (C:N RATIO): numerical ratio of the mass of carbon to the mass of nitrogen;
determines the composting potential of a material, and serves as one indicator of product quality.
CoMPosT (synonym of MATURE Composr): the stabilized and sanitized product of composting; compost
is largely decomposed and is in the process of humification (curing). Compost has little resemblance
in physical form to the original wastes from which it was made.
COMPOsTABLE: organic material that can be biologically decomposed under aerobic conditions.
COMPOsTABLES: same as COMPOsTABLE MATERIAL.
COMPOsTABLE MATERIAL: a material which can undergo physical, chemical, thermal and/or biological
degradation under aerobic conditions in a municipal solid waste composting facility, such that it enters
into and is physically indistinguishable from the finished compost (humus), and which ultimately
mineralizes (biodegrades to carbon dioxide, water, and biomass) in the environment at a rate like that
of known compostable materials in municipal solid waste such as paper and yard waste.
CoMPOsT CLASSIFICATION: division into fresh, mature, and cured compost, according to the degree of
stabilization.
CoMPosr(ING)FACILITY: a manufacturing facility that receives discarded material including biodegradable
SOURCE: Compost Facility Planning Guide, Solid Waste Carposting Council, 1991.
1

organic material, that recovers the biodegradable organic material and prepares it to be feedstock
suitable fdi-composting, that transforms the feedstock through a controlled natural biooxidative
(�
process into stabilized compost, and that prepares the compost for use in various agricultural,
J
horticultural, and land reclamation applications in reliable and sustainable end markets, while
protecting the public health, safety, and environment.
CONIPOsT GRADE: designation of compost'according to its physical and chemical characteristics.
COMPOSTING: the transformation of biologically decomposable material through a controlled process of
biooxidation which proceeds through mesophilic and thermophilic phases, and results in the
production of carbon dioxide, water, -minerals and stabilized organic matter (compost or humus).
Composting is a natural process to stabilize mixed decomposable organic material recovered from
... municipal solid waste, yard trimmings; sewage sludge, certain industrial residues, and commercial
residues. -
' COMPOSTING PROCESSES: three basic processes have been developed for composting, as follows:
the windrow method, where compoStable material is formed into elongated piles or rows. Forced
aeration and periodic mechanical turning of the rows using specialized machinery can be included
-in the process.
- the static aerated pile method, wherb"compostable material is formed in large piles and insulated
1 ' : with a layer of mature compost. '=Forced aeration can be applied, but no mechanical turning or
_ agitation is done.
- the enclosed vessel method, where-cZlmpostable material is enclosed in a drum, silo, or similar
structure where the environmental - conditions are closely controlled. Aeration and mechanical
agitation are also included. - -
CONDENSATE: the moisture sometimes found�m aeration pipes that is formed when the temperature falls
-. below the dew point. It often resultVitf systems where air is drawn through a composting pile.
CoNTAMINANT: unwanted material; physical contaminants of compost can include glass, plastic and stones;
chemical contaminants can include trace heavy metals and toxic organic compounds; biological
-. contaminants can include pathogens. '
.,'CONTINUOUS Flow: a system of compostingg in which material is continuously added to the composting
tom:: process and the end product is continuously removed.
CONTROLLED COMPOSTING: a process in which most important operating factors are controlled for the
purpose of achieving maximum efficiency, reducing process time, sanitizing the organic mass, and
_ minimizing .Odors.
CONTROLLED DYNAMIC SYSTEM: a system in which compost piles receive forced aeration and periodic
:. turning.
CURBSIDE PICKUP: the curbside collectionand transport of household solid waste to a centralized waste
handling facility, municipal or private, such as a transfer station, a materials recovery facility (MRF),
an incinerator, or landfill. Waste at curbside may be mixed together in common containers or source
u. -- - .separated by the householder into separate waste fractions such as newspapers, glass, compostables,
=!-or- any variation of waste mix and separation. =.
CURBSIDE RECYCLING: residents separate r:cyclables from their trash and leave the recyclables on their
curbside for pickup.
CURING: the last stage of composting that occurs after much of the readily metabolized material has been
decomposed. Provides for additional Itabilization, reduction of pathogens, and allows further
decomposition of cellulose and lignin.'i
CURED CoMPosT: a highly stabilized product which results from exposing compost to a prolonged period
of humification and mineralization, lasting nominally about six months.
DECOMPOSITION: the breakdown of organic "matter by microbial action.
DENITRMiCATION: the biological reduction ofnitrogentomolecular nitrogen oroxides ofnitrogen,resulting
2 l

in the loss of nitrogen into the atmosphere::
DEWATERED. SEWAGE SLUDGE: municipal sewage sludge with a total solids content of.12% by weight or
greater that can be transported and handled asa semi -solid material.
DROP-OFF: householders take recyclable materials to a recycling center.
DRUM COMPOSTING SYSTEM: enclosed cylindrical vessel which slowly rotates for a set period of time to
break up and initiate the composting process:
DYNAMIC PILE SYSTEM: same as AERATED STATIC PILE.
FEEDSTOCK: decomposable organic material used for the manufacture of compost.
FERMENTATION: an energy yielding chemical reaction in which the final electron acceptor is an organic
compound. .
FINISHED PRODUCT: compost material that meets minimum requirements for public health, safety, and
environmental protection and is suitable for use as defined by finished product standards.
FINISHING: post -processing includingscreening;-air flotation, air classification, grinding, or a combination
of similar processes to size the compost, recycle bulking agents, and/or remove plastics, glass, bones,
leather, and metals remaining after composting.
•
FOOD SCRAPS: residual food from residences, institutions or commercial facilities; unused portions of
fruit, animal or vegetable material resultingtfrom food production.
FOREIGN MATTER: non -biodegradable matter.cgntained in MSW compost such as glass, plastic, metals, etc.
They are permitted only at low levels in market compost. (Soil and sand are non -degradable but can
be very desirable components in some mar3cet composts.)
FRESH COMPOST: organic matter that has gone through the thermophilic stage of composting and achieved
pathogen kill. It has undergone a partial decomposition but it has not yet been stabilized.
FRESH ORGANIC MATTER: raw organic subsg_44.e,for composting before undergoing decomposition.
GREEN MATTER: portion of the municipal solid waste stream consisting of grass clippings, tree trimmings
and other vegetative matter.
HAMMERMILL: powered machine using rotating.or flailing hammers to reduce .the size of material.
HAzARDOUS COMPOUNDS: any organic or inorganic compound that may endanger life or health at a certain
level. Including poisons, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. sometimes found in mixed MSW.
HEAVY METALS; TRACE METALS; trace elemenmvhose concentrations are regulated because of the potential
for toxicity to humans, animals, or plants; :and includes copper, nickel, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
zinc if present in excessive amounts.
HOT -BED: cultivation or rooting bed in which a layer of decomposing (heat producing) organic matter
underlies a layer of cultivated soil or artificial substrate.
HuMIc ACID: the main constituent of humus, composed of proteins and partially degraded lignins; dark
brown to black in color. L;r
HUMIFICATION: the process of making humus.
Humus: a complex amorphous aggregate, formed during the microbial decomposition or alteration of
plant and animal residues and products synthesized by soil organisms; ,principal constituents are
derivatives of lignins, proteins and cellul-Q$.combined with inorganic soil constituents.
INERTs: non -biodegradable products contained�ip compost (glass, plastics, etc).
INOCULA: preconditioned microorganisms or compost added to a raw material to insure that appropriate
microorganisms are present.
INORGANIC: substance in which carbon-to-carbon;bonds are absent; mineral matter.
INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING CENTER: facility to handle already segregated recyclable .materials; associated
with curbside recycling. _
LATENT METABOLISM: metabolic processes that remain to be completed. Latent metabolism may be
measured by the evolution of respiration, heat production, toxicity, etc., under appropriate conditions.
LiACHATE: liquid which has percolated through; or condensed out of mixed municipal -solid wastes and
3

:..� extracted dissolved and suspended materials; liquid that drains from the mix of fresh organic matter.
UGNIN: complex organic component of wood responsible for its rigidity, and that decomposes very
,,slowly by microbial activity.
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILPTY: facilityto recover recyclable materials that may not have been segregated
through curbside recycling.
MATURE CoMposr (synonym of CoMPosT)z ;the stabilized and sanitized product of composting. It has
undergone decomposition and is in the process of humification (stabilization); it is characterized as
containing readily available forms of.p gnt nutrients, poor in phytotoxic acids and phenols, and low
• T,:-,,, in readily available carbon compounds,.,`x. .
;,. MESOP?IILIC_PHASE: phase of compasting,tbat occurs between 20 to 45 degrees Centigrade (68 to 113
degrees F). ;
j, METABOLISM:. sum of the chemical reactions within a cell, including the energy -releasing breakdown of
_Folecu.les..(catabolism), and the synthgsi$:9f new protoplasm (anabolism).
MICROORGANISMS: small living organismstvisible only with a microscope.
,MVMD ORGANics COMPOsr: compost made using a variety of decomposable organic material as feedstock.
Refers to compost manufactured fromdeEomposableorganc material recovered from municipal solid
_,.,.waste.
~ MIXED,ORGANICS COMPOSTING: the process; of making compost with a variety of decomposable organic
._. .:..material as a feedstock. Refers to;,tnanyfacturing compost from decomposable organic material
recovered from,municipal solid waste�.� �r-
- �, r•. MIXED. WAsrE PROCESSING: central facility for inspecting and sorting commingled waste materials generally
for the purpose of,.recovering materi4.s,of value for recycling.
y; jlfols;ruRE;!CoNTENT:�, weight of water.in material divided by weight of solids in material.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW): discarded material from which decomposable organic material is
recpge d for feedstock to make.,comp%t. - Municipal solid waste originates from residential,
commercial, and institutional sources within a community.
Q
Musl�RooM CoMPosr.:,-cellulose-rich or anic ;natter such as manure and straw that has under one the
initial decomposition stage of a controlled composting process; used by mushroom growers.
-ORGANIC: substance which includes carbon -to -carbon bonds.
ORGANIC CONTAMINArgs: synthetic trace organics including pesticides and other synthetic chemicals.
ORGANIC MATTER: any carbonaceous material (exclusive of carbonates), large or small, dead or alive.
ORGANIC SOIL,CONDMONER: stabilized organic matter marketed for conditioning soil structure. It also
improves certain chemical and -biological.properties of the soil.
PATxOGEN: an.organism or;microorganism,-including viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa capable of
producing an infection or disease in a susceptible host.
PERCENT MOISTURE: weight of water in material divided by total weight of material.
PERSISTENCE: refers to a slowly decomposing substance which remains active in the natural cycle for a
long period of time.
PIiYTOTOXIC: detrimental to plant growth.
Pm7crroxN: toxins which may endanger plant viability or functionality.
PLuG FLOW: material entering a composting system and moving through the system with only local or
incidental mixing.
RECYCLABLES: materials that can be recycled for use.
RECYCLE: returning used products that would otherwise be discarded, for processing into new products.
Displaces consumption of non-renewable resources.
REusE: using products more than once.
RESPIRATION: the metabolic function of consuming oxygen.
SANITIZATION: the reduction of disease -producing organisms below the level of health risk.
4

SCREENING: the sifting of compost through au' reen to remove large particles and irri rove consistency
and quality of the end product.
SEPTAGE: liquid and solid material pumped from a septic tank or cesspool'during' cleaning.
SHREDDER:- powered mechanical device used to-break`waste materials into smaller pieces.
SIZE REDUCTION: generic term for separation of the waste aggregate, or of breaking up solid waste or
other materials into smaller pieces, through- abrasion, thermal dissociation, tearing; screening,
tumbling, rolling; crushing, chipping, shredding, -grinding, shearing, etc.; the process snakes waste
easier to separate and can increase surface area-�for- composting.
SLUDGE: solid residue of the wastewater purification -process, a product 'of 'screenmg, sedimentation,
filtering, pressing, bacterial digestion, chemical precipitation and oxidation; primary sludge is
produced by sedimentation process and secondary sludge is the product of microbial digestion.
Solt. AmENDmEw/Sort CoNDmoNER: soil additive'which stabilizes the soil, improves Tesisiance to erosion,
increases permeability to air and water, improves texture and resistance' of the surface to crusting,
eases cultivation or otherwise improves soil quality:
SOLID WASTE: garbage - refuse and other discarded solid materials, including such materials resulting from
industrial, commercial, and agricultural opei'86ft and community activities.-
SOURCE SEPARATION: the practice, by primary waste generators such as households,"ofseparating waste
generated within .the household or commercial 'operation .into separate fractions, such as all
newspapers together, all glass together, etc.•%hd,of placing them in separate containers for pickup
by the waste hauler. Associated with curbside •recycling. The extent of source separation desired
of the waste generators varies with recycled'inaterial markets served by the wasteihaulet or by local
policy regarding recycling, composting, and, solid waste management. -X
STABELrry: the degree to. which the compostedLift terial can be stored or used witboiit-giving rise to
nuisances or can be applied to the soil withdiif�causing problems:''`
STABILIZAMON: second stage of composting (foll`o`wing decompositi_o_ n) characterizdli b-y slow metabolic
processes, lower heat production, and the _fonnaiion of humus. "'"•
STATIC PILE SYSTEM: similar to aerated static pile=ezcept that theair soure­e­may be controlled or may not
be controlled. f �-
THERMOPHILIc PHASE: phase in the composting process that occurs between 45 to 75 degrees•centigrade
(113 to 167 degrees F); it is associated witfi a high rate of'decomposition.
Tomcmr: adverse biological effect due to toxiris-aiid other compounds:
Toxx compounds that cause a reduction of Vrab-ility or -functionality in livingbrganisms,;
VOLATILIZATION: gaseous loss of a substance to'-t`ke atmiosphere.
WINDROw SYSTEM: composting mixture is placed"in elongated piles', called win-&ows =These windrows
are aerated naturally by a chimney effect, by -mechanically t6rhiifk1he piles with a machine such as"
a front-end loader or specially designed equipment, and/or by forced 4'eration. - ,
YARD TRimNuNGs: grass clippings, leaves and weeds, and shrub and tree prunings six inches or less in
diameter, from residences and businesses.
vus C
5