While composting organic waste presents many benefits, the actual use of composting systems is quite limited. The business of composting, however, is much more complex, especially at larger scales, and there are several limiting factors, including political, economic, and especially, perceptual issues. Composting and other forms of organic waste recycling are different than the recycling of other materials such as aluminum and glass in that they may become a putrescible nuisance if not handled properly. Therefore, while political and economic hurdles may be more easily overcome, winning the hearts and minds of the general public can be a more significant challenge.
Policy Factors
The New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act (NJSWMA) has provided the framework for the collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste in the state of New Jersey for almost forty years. The act has been amended many times, most recently in 2006, in order to stay current with trends and demands of the federal government, state agencies, and New Jersey municipalities. In New Jersey, counties are responsible for siting and maintaining landfills as well as developing comprehensive waste plans; municipalities are responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste in accordance with those county plans. In addition, municipalities are also responsible for recycling programs and making them available to commercial, institutional and residential generators.
Since 2000, several organic waste recycling initiatives began to take form in New Jersey. While at times they seemed to be gaining momentum, all eventually fizzled in part due to challenging regulations. Many of these regulations are meant to protect the environment and the community, but they can also be prohibitive to organic waste recycling. Previously, Class C permitting was discussed: in addition to the high costs and being difficult to acquire and maintain, the Class C permit grants only conditional use to composting facilities. Even though NJDEP preempts municipal zoning and planning authority, in other words, allowing zoning variances, for these types of composting facilities, many roadblocks to composting can be implemented by municipalities and counties, for example by failing to discuss composting facilities in comprehensive plans (and thus precluding their operation). Furthermore other state regulations can limit the implementation of composting, for instance by requiring facility buffer distances from other land uses or classifying food waste as a hazardous material.
Economic Factors
As mentioned previously, the costs of implementing any large scale composting operations have been extremely prohibitive, with permitting fees ranging in the tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to these fees, there can be significant expenses associated with the installation of equipment necessary for regulatory compliance.
Even at a smaller, institutional or municipal level, the costs for implementing and maintaining composting can high, although the opportunity to recover those costs is probably greater in the long run. For example, in a study conducted by Cornell University, an Earth Tub was installed at an urban hospital in New York was able to produce finished compost with no notable odor or pest problems. The hospital saved an average of $1,500 a year in disposal costs and a potential for revenue up to $2,000. These figures, however, did not include extra labor Organic Wastes in NJ – Neary and Howell 5 required to prepare the feedstock or operate the Earth Tub. Once those numbers were factored in, the Earth Tub was not found to be an economically viable option for the hospital. These types of systems have however, been successful at many universities, institutions, and municipalities who may use volunteers or interns for labor and maintenance. With the initial investment in an in-vessel composting system ranging from ten to two hundred thousand dollars, careful selection of appropriate methods and technology is vital to economic benefit.
Perceptual Issues
Composting facilities, both large and small, are often faced with opposition from communities in which they are sited. While many may agree that composting represents a useful and even desirable service, many residents do not want it in their community due to both real and perceived threats such as odor nuisances and pests. Essentially, the practice of composting must win public favor in order to be successful. In order to change public perception, several things must happen. According to Janet Pellichero, the coordinator for Princeton, NJ’s recycling program and the leader of the only curbside community organic waste recycling program in the state, education is the key. Education must be paramount in all organic recycling programs, public or private. Much of the reason for failure of prior organics programs is contamination, something that can be prevented at the source through education.
But potentially more harmful to composting’s reputation as both health hazard and public nuisance are the several failed attempts of large scale composting operations in New Jersey and surrounding states. The shut down of Peninsula Composting Group in Wilmington, DE is the most recent example of how the trust of a community can be lost by mismanagement of facilities. The closure of the facility, one of the largest on the US East Coast, in 2014 was due to overwhelming complaints of odor from surrounding residents in Wilmington and New Castle, as well as numerous regulatory violations. Since 2009, this facility had been accepting organic material from several surrounding states and many organics recycling programs in the region had relied on it, including New York City. While the long-term impacts of the facility’s operation and subsequent closure on public perception remain to be seen, the incident has most likely damaged the image of composting into the foreseeable future.
More info: compost-turner.net
