AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING

Revision Date: 9/03
Process Code: Navy/Marines: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marines: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: Landfilling
Compliance Impact: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents and CAS Numbers: N/A

Overview: Aerated static pile composting is a process that biodegrades organic material and destroys pathogens, producing a stabilized compost product that can be used as mulch, soil conditioner, or a soil amendment. Aerated static pile composting can be used to compost yard waste, food, paper, municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge. Composting operations can be performed both indoors as well as outdoors.

The process for composting begins with collecting, processing, and storing feedstock materials, followed by mixing and pile construction. The compostable materials must be screened for non-biodegradable contaminants and then chipped or shredded into uniform particles that will decompose quickly. A balanced compost mixture should contain approximately 25 to 30 parts carbon-rich materials and 1 part nitrogen-rich materials. The mixed feedstock materials are then formed into piles to decompose.

Pile sizes are typically 3 to 4 meters high, 6 to 8 meters wide, and 30 to 40 meters in length. Perforated pipes are laid under each compost pile. Each pipe in the aeration system is connected to blowers that blow air through the pipes. The use of negative air allows air to be biofiltered to eliminate unpleasant odors. The aeration pipes are typically covered with a layer of wood chips that facilitates the distribution of air, providing uniform aeration. The compost mix is placed on top of the wood chip layer forming the piles. The piles are then covered with a layer of material, usually recycled cured compost, for insulation. Pile temperature is controlled by increasing aeration to vent the excess heat. However, if positive pressure is used to vent the heat by blowing air up through the pile, it may be difficult to meet the temperature requirements near the aeration pipes.

Oxygen, temperature, and moisture are key environmental parameters that must be maintained within a specific range to provide optimum conditions for the microorganisms. Enough oxygen must penetrate the pile to maintain aerobic decomposition. If anaerobic decomposition occurs, odors will result. The temperature generated from decomposition must be high enough to kill pathogens and weed seeds but not the microorganisms, or approximately 140-150 degrees F. Composting materials should be moist but not wet. Moisture may be added after turning, since turning releases moisture.

Following the composting period (typically 21 days for biosolids), the piles are broken down and reconstructed into curing piles for additional aging and drying of the material. Curing compost stabilizes it to prevent odors or other nuisances from developing while the material is stored. After curing, the compost can be screened to improve the quality of the final compost product.


Compliance Benefit: Composting will help facilities to meet the directives of Executive Order (EO) 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., Department of Defense) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into their daily operations. This composting process may also help facilities to meet the environmentally beneficial landscaping requirements outlined in EO 13148.

States and/or localities may have additional regulations regarding composting that should be followed. The use of a front-end loader will increase fuels on site which may increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355, 370) and EO 13148 reporting requirements as well as spill plan requirements under 40 CFR 112. In addition, the fans used to aerate the piles will increase electricity consumption. Under EO 13123, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.

The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as general guidelines and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g., the amount of workload involved.


Materials Compatibility:


No materials compatibility issues were identified.


Safety and Health: As long as no meat or animal products are included, compost does not pose health risks and can be touched with bare hands. Some people may wish to use a mask when turning compost to prevent inhaling bacteria or particles.

Consult the base safety office and your local industrial health specialist to determine the proper personal protection equipment and the necessary training prior to using this screening and shredding equipment.

Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.


Benefits:
  • Complete composting of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed by an average of 12%, while the addition of food waste will divert another 11.2% (U.S. EPA, 2000).
  • The aerated static pile method requires less land than other methods.
  • The aerated static pile can produce compost in about three weeks.
  • A negative air system with a biofilter can contain odors.
  • Indoor operation reduces access to scavengers.
  • Controlled conditions can produce a high-quality, marketable compost.


Disadvantages:
  • Higher capital cost, and requires more resources to operate than outdoor methods.
  • Requires maintenance to keep perforated pipes from clogging. Clogged pipes will reduce the efficiently of the systems.


Economic Analysis: Capital costs for an enclosed facility processing approximately 5,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste is approximately $2 to $5 million. The capital cost, not including land, for an open facility will be decreased by building costs (approximately $75/sq. ft.). Estimated annual operating costs may run $10 to $70/ton (including labor, benefits, amendment grinding, maintenance, etc.). In addition, depending on the design, the aeration pipe may have to be disposed or recycled. This economic analysis is based on an industry survey of yard waste composting facilities using the median values from the survey.

Assumptions:

  • Process 25,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste.
  • Produce 15,000 tons/yr of finished compost.
  • Capital costs: $3 million
  • Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
  • Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $25/ton
  • Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
  • Hauling to landfill: $5/ton
  • Hauling to composting facility: $2/ton

Table 1. Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Diversion and Disposal Using a Composting Facility

 
Diversion
Disposal
Operational Costs:    
Labor & maintenance: $625,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $325,000
Hauling costs: $50,000 $125,000
Total Operational Costs: $675,000 $450,000
Total Recovered Income: $750,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $75,000 -$450,000

Economic Analysis Summary:

  • Annual Savings for Composting Facility: $525,000
  • Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3 million
  • Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 years

Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar.


NSN/MSDS: None identified.


Approving Authority: Appropriate authority for making process changes should always be sought prior to procuring or implementing any of the technologies identified herein.


Points of Contact: For more information

Vendors: This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.

Valley Compost & Topsoil
P.O. Box 1013
Buellton,  CA   83427
Phone: (805) 965-6617 
FAX: (805) 733-7319
Contact: Mr. Don Landry

Compost Systems Company/Fairfield Service Company
240 Boone Avenue
P.O. Box 354
Marion,  OH   43302
Phone: (740) 387-3335 
FAX: (740) 387-4685
E-mail: webmaster@fairfieldengineering.com


Related Links:

Composting -- June 2002, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Environmental Quality (AFCEE/EQ)


Sources: U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures.
Mr. Joel Thompson, Montgomery Regional Composting Facility, March 1999.
Mr. Bruce Zimmerman, Public Works Director, Mackinac Island Department of Public Works, Mackinac Island, MI, May 1996.
Martin E. Simson and C.M. Connelly. September 1994.
"Composting and Costs: The Bigger, The Better:" Waste Age.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. August 1994. Feasibility Study for a Full-Scale Composting Facility.