Composting Options at Trent University

Exploring Environmental Impact Prevention & Monitoring Systems

Report Prepared for Trent University’s Office of Sustainability and

ERST-3080: Waste Management, Trent University

Report Prepared by: Chris Ferguson-Martin

 March 22, 2010
Introduction

Several years ago, Trent University identified its waste management and waste diversion
programs as areas that needed to be vastly expanded and improved. In addition to a
significant expansion of its recycling program, Trent began a composting program to
collect compostable materials from locations on campus, primarily in the school’s
cafeteria. Because Peterborough does not have a municipal composting program, Trent
elected to manage, process and store the compost on site.

Despite having stored the compost on site for a few years, Ontario’s Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) only recently came to evaluate the site. Based on the visit from the
MOE, Trent was asked to develop a system that prevents and/or monitors potential
impacts.

The purpose of this report is to outline in detail the options available to Trent
University’s composting site. It looks at the financial, environmental, regulatory and
pragmatic factors that are taken into consideration with each option. The report also
provides a general review of the composting program at Trent University.

This report serves a purpose for three separate organizations. First, it is a coursework
project in ERST-3080, an undergraduate waste management course at Trent University. It
is also designed specifically for Trent University’s Sustainability Co-ordinator, Shelly
Strain and indirectly for the MOE.

Trent’s Composting Program

In 2005, the City of Peterborough proposed a pilot composting program that would
primarily involve the creation of a major commercial composting site (EAB, 2005).
Theoretically, compostable material (organic material) would eventually be collected
from commercial businesses, institutions and residences and processed in a centralized

2
facility and later sold to consumers of high quality compost. More importantly, the
program would divert huge sums of compostable material out of the traditional waste
stream.

Trent University, seeing its own student-run compostable waste program from food
services capturing the relatively small amount of 1000 kg of compostable material each
year contacted the City of Peterborough to be a significant part of its new pilot compost
program (EAB, 2005). But because the program was still in its infancy, Trent’s immense
size prevented it from being included in the early stages of the program. Indeed, the City
of Peterborough’s curbside compost collection program has been faced with numerous
delays. Approval for the construction of a composting facility is not expected until 2011,
indicating a considerable length of time will come to pass until a major composting
program is put into place (City of Peterborough, 2010).

Figure 1: Birdseye view of Trent University’s Compost Facility

While Trent was not able to align itself with the city’s program, it elected to increase the
scope of its own composting program. In 2005 a central composting site was established
on the south end of the campus in the Commoner parking lot, a 2,500 m2 unpaved space
situated just west of Nassau Mills Road. The site is accessible by a small unpaved road

3
and nestled in behind a slightly forested area. Importantly, the site is also adjacent to the
nearby Trent-Severn Waterway, a large navigable waterway.

Trent’s composting program has grown considerably since its relatively humble
beginnings in 2005 when only 1000 kg of compostable material was collected. Compost
collection bins were introduced first throughout Trent’s food facilities and cafeterias in
2006 and throughout much of the campus in later years. The effects were felt remarkably
quickly. During the 2006-2007 school year, 15,000 kg of compostable waste was
collected, a 15 fold increase (Arthur and Shah, 2009). The composting program was
further extended when in 2007, Trent hired a full-time Sustainability Coordinator –
whose mandate included improvements to waste management – and comprehensive
Resource Recovery Stations (RRS) were built throughout campus. An RRS contains one
or more composting bins, several recycling bins and a waste bin.

The implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator, along with the assistance of on-

campus student groups certainly helped to catalyze Trent’s composting program. In the
2007-2008 school year, compost collection amounted to 56,000 kg, a 273% increase in
one year (Arthur and Shah, 2009).

A campus wide survey completed in early 2009 found that while the composting program
was growing rapidly, the level of awareness at the school was seriously lacking among
students, staff and faculty (Arthur and Shah, 2009). However, it is expected that this
deficiency is primarily a result of the program’s relative infancy and infancy of
composting in general. The university has continued to implement and is continually
working on strategies to increase the participation of people on campus in composting.

The compostable material collected – when processed properly at the Commoner site –
will be used by Trent’s Physical Resources Department as high quality, fertile soil in its
landscaping projects throughout campus. However, as the compost levels increase at
Trent, it is becoming increasingly attractive to sell the compost commercially. The report
created out of the aforementioned survey cited this as a current and future challenge for

4
Trent as it has had difficulty finding commercial consumers of its compost. The report
predicted that once the City of Peterborough establishes its city-wide compost program,
the local compost sector will grow considerably in Trent’s favour. However, in
discussions with Trent staff, it is unlikely that Trent will ever produce more compost than
it consumes. Moreover, by selling compost commercially, the compost would be subject
to further regulations.

Considering the infancy and rapid growth of Trent’s compost program, especially in a
time where commercial composting is only beginning to develop, the impediments
regarding awareness of composting on campus should not overshadow the success of
such a program. However, as discussed in the following section, the next challenge for
Trent’s composting program has very little to do with on-campus awareness, but rather it
is regulatory in nature.

MOE Regulations & Problem for Trent University

Compostable material is waste. Although organic and other compostable waste has the
biological properties and potential to be turned into highly fertile compost, it is still
considered waste until being fully converted into compost. This is particularly
problematic of open-air composting sites, where organic waste is placed into systematic
piles in an open space. In these situations, the piles of organic waste placed outside are
generally unprotected, leaving them vulnerable to winds and rains. Some even liken it to
an open-air dump.

Because organic waste can still create biological hazards to the surrounding environment,
they typically require government permits in order to operate legally. Trent has run into
this problem. Its central composting site places the compost in systematic piles
throughout the lot, in open air and without protection. This is known as a windrow
system. Upon visitation from Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in the fall of
2009, Trent’s composting site was evaluated for regulatory reasons. Indeed, the MOE is
given jurisdiction over composting programs through Regulations 101 & 347 from Part V

5
of the Environmental Protection Act. Luckily for Trent – and quite fairly – the MOE,
recognizing that Trent is only processing organic material generated on campus by the
Trent community, determined that Trent was not subject to permit requirements under
these regulations.

While not being subject to the permit requirements, risks related to the leachate from the
composting site still drew concern from the MOE. As a precaution to these risks, the
MOE directed Trent to explore a series of options that would provide protection from any
of the compostable material endangering the surrounding environment, most notably the
nearby water resources of the Trent Severn Waterway.

Given Trent’s inexperience in developing such protective systems, the MOE offered a
few general solutions including a liner system that could be built underneath the site.
Several months later, during another visit to the site, MOE officials also indicated that a
water-well testing system would also be an option Trent could visit.

Below, these options are explored with a variety of criterion in order to provide Trent
with the information required to properly satisfy the concerns presented by the MOE.

Solutions

In this section, several options are proposed Trent’s compost site: simple liner system;
advanced liner system; in-vessel system; a water-well testing system; and a contained
structure add-on. The different options available for Trent are evaluated using the
following criteria: cost, environmental effectiveness, maintainability, durability and
longevity.

6
Simple Liner System (SLS or Compost Pad)

Figure 2: A concrete pad used at Washington State University

The simplicity of an SLS is that it is only made up of one or two materials and has no
working systems within it, such as pipes or pumps. The three most common materials
used for such a system are asphalt, concrete or compacted clay with a thickness of at least
0.5 metres. All three materials are strong and have low permeability levels, although it is
recommended that the material used not have a permeability rate higher than 5x10-8 m/s
(Brent Hansen Environmental, 2004).

Additionally, a combination of filter fabric and gravel or sand can be used. The fabric,
such as a strong, agriculture-grade cloth, is placed over the area of the site and layered
with several feet of crushed gravel. The fabric captures any leachate and prevents the
gravel from sinking into the ground. Moreover, the gravel provides a relatively solid
surface for storing the compost and accommodating equipment (Cornell Waste
Management Institute, 2005).

When implementing an SLS, four important factors must be taken into consideration
(drawn from Brent Hanson Environmental 2004):

7
 1. The base has to provide a barrier to prevent the percolation of leachate and/or
nutrients to the sub-soil and groundwater.

2. The surface has to accommodate equipment movement during wet weather and
working conditions.

3. The surface area has to accommodate the maximum annual volume of feedstock
received with sufficient room for equipment to manoeuvre and an area to establish
a static pile for curing compost.

4. The surface area has to drain to a leachate collection system that can provide a
source of moisture to be re-introduced into the processing windrows. In order to
ensure proper draining, the surface should have a minimum slope of 2%.

Cost: The costs for such a system can vary depending on the material used. For poured
materials such as concrete or asphalt, costs are estimated at approximately $150-$200/m3
and assuming a thickness of 0.2 metres, the total cost of building on the current site
would be between $78,000 and $100,000 (Brent Hansen Environmental, 2004). Costs for
a thicker (~0.4 m) compacted clay pad are very similar. This report does recognize,
however, that Trent already has significant experience building such projects and may
have more accurate figures.

The costs of a fabric and gravel system are considerably lower at approximately half the
cost of a poured project. For assurance on cost estimates, please contact your local
contractor.

Environmental Effectiveness: SLSs can be very effective in preventing soil or

groundwater prevention, but because they are simple and usually quite inflexible,
managing runoff can be difficult, which is especially important in Trent’s case because of
the site’s proximity to the river. They also do not prevent wind or rain impacts.

8
Maintainability: Poured systems can be easy to maintain because they are so simple.
Moreover, repairs done to concrete or asphalt can generally be made simply by displacing
compost piles and repairing the pad from the surface. Fabric and gravel systems can more
difficult to maintain because the liner is buried under several inches of gravel.

Durability & Longevity: Poured systems are extremely durable and long-lasting. They
can accommodate a considerably high amount of weight. A concern frequently
mentioned by experts in the waste management sector is the use of the site after the
compost system ceases to function. Poured systems are very difficult and expensive to
remove completely from a site, so the permanency of the site as a compost facility should
be considered. However, a poured system can be later used as the foundation for any later
projects, including parking lots or buildings.

A fabric and gravel system is not as durable or smooth as a poured system. But since
Trent does not use huge amounts of heavy equipment, it might be suitable. With such a
system you also need not worry about the permanency mentioned above.

9
Advanced Liner System (ALS)

Figure 3: Cross Section of an ALS

Advanced liner systems are predominantly used for very large and complex compost
projects and are commonly used in engineered landfills. The scope of Trent’s site is
likely well short of requiring such a complex system, so it will only be explored in a basic
fashion.

As opposed to an SLS, an ALS contains several layers of materials, including synthetic

geomembranes and highly compacted clay. Moreover, leachate collection pipes are often
installed as part of the layers. Similar considerations to an SLS should be taken, although
the weight held by such systems would be much greater in the case of an ALS.

Cost: Such systems can vary in cost depending on the complexity of the system, but an
estimate for the size of Trent’s site would be ~ $143,000 (Munie, 2003).

10
Environmental Effectiveness: An ALS system is one of the most effective forms of
environmental protection in waste management. Indeed, they are designed to deal with
traditional waste streams from landfills. Since Trent’s site primarily deals with relatively
low levels of organic waste, an ALS is likely more effective than it needs to be.

Maintainability: Such a complex system is also very difficult and expensive to maintain.
Multiple layers make it extremely difficult to repair any tears or cracks. Moreover, the
piping system, which is likely to erode faster than other materials, is extremely difficult
to access because of the immense weight over top of it.

Durability & Longevity: Because of its complexity, different parts of the system last
longer than others. However, as a whole, the system is more durable than other systems
because of the added layers of protection. Of course, the effectiveness of the system
degrades quickly as parts of the system fall apart.

11
In-Vessel (IV) or Containerization

Figure 4: In-vessel composting system, University of British Columbia

An alternative approach to dealing with Trent’s compost issue is to implement an in-

vessel system. An IV system involves placing the collected material in a container as
opposed to the lying it on the ground. This reduces the risk of leachate contaminating the
surrounding area and reduces the time required for high quality compost to be created.

Although several forms of IV systems exist, the most common and most applicable to
Trent’s situation is a rotating drum system. The collected material is placed into a large
drum – made from corrosion-resistant metal or high grade plastic – that is rotated very
slowly (~1 rpm) by a small motor. The container has holes for proper ventilation and any
leachate is collected and drained from the drum. After composting inside the container,
the material is placed outside to cure for several days, weeks or months depending on the
need (R. W. Beck, 2006).

It is important to note that in order to introduce an IV system at Trent, some of the

aspects of an SLS would also need to be implemented. First, a concrete or asphalt pad of

12
some kind would need to be built for the drum to sit on. Moreover, an SLS of some kind
would have to be built to store the curing compost. However, despite these needs, the size
of the SLS would be considerably smaller because less land would be required as much
of the compost would be stored in the container.

IV rotating drum systems come in a variety of sizes and from several manufacturers.
Rotating drum systems are classified as either mobile or stationary units. Typically,
stationary units are considerably larger and permanent, while mobile units are smaller
and can be moved around a site very easily. Mobile units are particularly popular in
agricultural settings where sites are extremely large but total collected material is
relatively small (R. W. Beck, 2006). An appropriate size and type of system for Trent
would very much depend on expected compost collection levels and a market to sell or
use the more quickly generated compost.

Compared to Trent’s current system, an IV system carries several benefits. The process is
more controlled and allows for greater control over odours, gases and leachate. The
system requires a much smaller area and the compost turnover time can be drastically
shorter – some manufacturers claim a turnover period of only one week. Moreover,
because a motor runs the system, there are less operational obligations on the part of staff
(R. W. Beck, 2006).

Cost: The cost of such a system largely depends on the size of the drum used. For drums
appropriate to the size of Trent’s site, the upfront capital cost of a rotating drum can
range from as low as $80,000 to as high as $250,000 (R. W. Beck, 2006). An SLS will
also need to be built, which could range in cost from $30,000 - $60,000. It is important to
note that because the compost can be processed considerably faster, more of it can be
sold or used by Trent for landscaping purposes.

Environmental Effectiveness: Because the system is contained, leachate and other

environmental concerns are much easier for operators to control. Moreover, by placing

13
the compost in the container, it removes much of the leachate risk as compared to the
typical windrow system.

Maintainability: An IV system is easily maintainable because it is above ground, easily

accessible and contains relatively few parts. The container is large enough to work with
and the small motor is like any other small motor. However, because it does use
machinery, it may require maintenance more often than an SLS system.

Durability & Longevity: A major concern with storing compostable material indoors is its
tendency to corrode the surface containing it. Almost all IV systems are made from
specially coated, corrosion-resistant materials that can handle significant weight.
Moreover, the IV drums tend to last at least twenty years, although the electric motors
might need to be replaced in lesser time in order to ensure efficiency.

Roof Structure (add-on)

Figure 5: Compost storage building, British Columbia

One factor that contributes to leachate and runoff is rain. Open windrow systems, like
Trent’s, are particularly susceptible to rain because they are uncovered. Without any

14
other protective systems like an SLS, rain poses a significant risk of soil contamination
and contamination of nearby water resources from runoff. A strategy to mitigate such risk
would be to build a canopy structure that places a roof over the composting material.

The complexity of such a system can range from a simple fabric roof – which is no more
than $5,000 – to a steel containment structure that could cost as much as $50,000 (WRS
Cover-All, 2010). Building a roof structure might limit expansion of the site and would
require an additional diversion system to guide the rainwater away from the composting
material.

A roof structure is also used by some IV systems as a means to protect it from the
elements. If one is built with walls, wind erosion could also be mitigated, which is
important as wind can shift around piles of compost.

As noted above, such a structure would simply be an add-on to the aforementioned

systems. It by itself would not suffice to meet the MOE’s criteria, but could have a
significantly beneficial environmental impact.

15
Water Well Testing

Figure 6: Test water well, Oklahoma

One of the options put forward by the MOE was to build test water wells as a means to
monitor the impact of the compost site on the water resources located nearby. While this
option is much easier to implement than any of the above systems, it does little to prevent
leachate or any other contaminants from getting into the water system. The main problem
is that if it does detect contaminants, a preventative system might have to be built anyway
after some damage has already been done to the environment.

Although by itself this strategy might satisfy MOE concerns, this report recommends that
if water well testing is implemented, it be implemented as a complement to a preventative
system. Indeed, the risk of contamination from the current system – especially if
compostable material collection is expected to grow – is too great to simply monitor the
risk but do nothing to prevent it. However, even when preventative measures are put in
place it is extremely important to monitor the impact of those measures to ensure their
effectiveness.

Cost: The inclusive cost of digging and building the wells, in addition to having them
tested would be no more than a few thousand dollars. Indeed, Trent has the resources to
test the wells on its own and water well testing is a fairly standard practice.

16
 Environmental Effectiveness: Water well testing is effective at measuring the impact of
the site on the surrounding environment, but does nothing to prevent or mitigate that
impact.

Maintainability: Test water wells are very easy to maintain as they are not as complex as
drinking water wells and are generally made from simple but strong materials. Moreover,
they are so common that many people can easily maintain them.

Durability & Longevity: Test water wells are made from extremely durable materials and
can last several decades.

Options Evaluation by Criteria

Criteria
Environmental
Cost Effectiveness Maintainability Durability Longevity
Poured
SLS High Medium Medium High High

Option Fabric SLS Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Very
ALS High High Low Medium Low
Very
In-Vessel High Medium High High Medium
Test Water Very
Well Low Low High High High

Figure 7: Options Evaluation by Criteria

Comparison to other Universities

17
Because Trent is a university, it has characteristics that differentiate it from a typical
composting program, such as one run by a municipality: its source of funding is different;
collection is primarily on-site; and universities often have a wealth of enthusiastic,
energetic volunteers and student groups to help run the program. Throughout this project,
several universities were contacted that have composting programs in order to compare
their strategies, particularly relating to the implementation of an environmental control
system like those explored above.

The majority of schools contacted have placed their composting operations on a concrete
pad. According to a member of McGill University’s staff, a concrete pad is fairly
standard practice. It should be noted that Trent is among the smallest of universities in
Canada and is certainly one of the smallest implementing an on-site campus facility. This
is a particularly important point because the resources available and the scope of the
composting programs are considerably different at other schools. For example, many
schools, particularly the University of British Columbia and McGill, have not
encountered the same problem Trent has because they invested in in-vessel systems and
did not place additional compost on unpaved lots. Moreover, when implementing their
programs, several of the schools placed the facility on otherwise unused, paved lots.

A list of schools with links to their composting sites can be found at:
http://gorilla.mcgill.ca/resources.htm

Conclusion

I should first be clear that in no way does this report set out to define Trent’s priorities,
but rather to provide Trent with the necessary information to make an informed decision.

Trent’s situation with the MOE appears to be one that very few other universities have
encountered, but it is one that is easily repairable. Because the implied standards given to
Trent by the MOE might require only as much as a water well testing system, this might
suffice depending on Trent’s own inclinations. However, it is in the opinion of this report

18
that given the strategies of other schools and the non-preventative nature of a water well
testing system, Trent should implement a system in addition to water well testing.

Because a concrete pad is fairly standard practice and the location will likely be used for
many years to come, it might be the most appropriate option. However, a fabric and
gravel liner system might also prove appropriate to Trent’s situation. An in-vessel
system, depending on the size, might prove financially prohibitive given the amount of
compost collected on a daily basis and an ALS seems far too complex for the nature of
Trent’s site.

Regardless of the prevention tool of choice, I strongly recommend that a preventative

system be put in place, especially before the composting program (and site) at Trent
grows.

References

Visual Resources

19
Figure 1: Google Maps

Figure 2: http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/compost/Other%20management/Rynk
%2088mid.jpg

Figure 3: http://seccra.org/storage/thumbnails/3521091-4017070-thumbnail.jpg

Figure 4: www.recycle.ubc.ca/compostmain.htm

Figure 5:
http://www.wrscoverall.com/CustomerProfilePix/CompostStorage/Compost2.jpg

Figure 6: http://www.ok.gov/mines/images/Water%20Well%20on%20Ash%20Site.jpg

20