A look at electric horizontal grinders

By Ken McEntee

This look at electric horizontal grinders, courtesy of Composting News, is not intended to endorse or promote any particular product or manufacturer. Attempts were made to include input from all known North American manufacturers of horizontal grinders.

Increasing government regulations – particularly federal emission standards – and a lower operating cost compared to diesel powered machines, are driving demand for electric horizontal grinders, manufacturers say.

“We are definitely seeing an increase in the popularity in electric machines, and most of that is driven by cost of operation and cost of ownership,” said Jay Van Roekel, strategic business unit manager at Vermeer Corp., of Pella, Iowa.

Jason Morey, sales and marketing manager for Bandit Industries Inc., Remus, Mich., said he has seen a consistent demand for electric grinders in recent years.

“There hasn’t necessarily been a large increase, but that may change a little with this being the last year that we can do Tier 2 diesel engines above 750 horsepower,” Morey said. “Once the Tier 4 final rules go into effect, I think electric is an option that more people are going to consider.”

Machines that are not Tier 4 Final must be in production by December 31 in order to be sold in the U.S.

“Anything relating to biomass is going electric pretty much,” said Tim Griffing, sales manager, stationary line, for Continental Biomass Industries (CBI), of Newton, N.H. “With emissions regulations changing, if you don’t have to move the grinder, electric is the direction that everybody is aiming at. In my business it is increasing 5 to 10 percent a year.”

Manufacturers say electric horizontal grinders provide myriad benefits in stationary applications, but most see no potential for making the machines mobile for off-site work using portable generators in the near future. Hauling an electric generator that can power a grinder, they say, defeats the purpose of eliminating a diesel engine on the machine.

Electric grinding equipment, according to Art de St. Aubin, president and CEO of Rotochopper Inc., of St, Martin, Minn., is one of the most dramatic and under-utilized means of minimizing costs of mulch production.

“Electric grinders have many advantages over diesel grinders, some of them obvious – such as cost of electricity vs. diesel fuel and some of them subtle and more complex – such as uptime vs. downtime,” de St. Aubin said. “Costs for operating and electric grinder for 2,000 hours in a year can be as much as $50,000 less than operating a diesel processing the same product due to less expensive energy costs and lower maintenance costs.”

According to Paul Clark, electric systems engineer at Peterson Pacific Corp., Eugene, Ore., the relative consistent cost of electricity, compared to fluctuating diesel fuel prices, is a main reason why operators consider electric grinders.

“In some cases overseas, where diesel costs are really high, they will only consider electric,” Clark said.

Grinder manufacturers generally agree that an electric horizontal is likely to provide a lower production cost per ton than a diesel powered machine if you process material in a fixed location and have access to a three-phase power supply.

“It’s important for people to know that this technology has existed for some time,” said Pat Crawford, vice president of products at Diamond Z Manufacturing, Caldwell, Idaho. “It’s not some mysterious application. We did our first electric tub grinder back in 1990. It has been around and proven for a long time.”

Either electric or diesel grinders and shredders will do the same job on the material, said Todd Dunderdale, senior area sales manager for Komptech Americas, Westminster, Colo.

“The real question is customer requirements, such as space, permit needs or energy costs,” Dunderdale said. “Typically if a customer plans on running inside a building they go with an electric unit. For customers who desire to be mobile, then a track diesel unit is the best.”

Following is a look at what manufacturers of horizontal grinders for organic materials processing are saying about the electric option.

Ideal for stationary operation

Tim Wenger, vice president of CW Mill Equipment Co., Sabetha, Kan., said electric grinders are ideal for stationery grinding operations.

“Municipal operations, for example, are typically more centrally located in that wood waste is dropped off at a certain location,” Wenger said. “An electric machine is a big pro in that aspect.”

“If your work requires you to move the grinder to the product, a diesel is the correct choice,” said de St. Aubin. “Electrics are often chosen for facilities that wish to place a grinder in line with a conveyor that handles wood waste. You will often see them at the end of sorting lines in construction and demolition waste applications or in consumer waste applications. They are popular for processing green waste for compost, pallets for mulch, waste wood for animal bedding, among many other uses.”

Electric powered grinders, Van Roekel said, “will do all the same things that our diesel powered machines will do. It is basically the same machine. It is used for pre-processing and product sizing, it can be initial grind or a regrind or even a final grind. They can be inside or outside, at a plant or a regional yard where material like green waste comes in. We see electrics used for more of a 24/7 type of an operation where they are working the same job and the same material day after day as opposed to a diesel that is going to go to a site for four to five hours for a day or two and then move to the next site.”

Originally, Van Roekel said, the market for electric machines was driven by efficiency of operation compared to diesel engines.

“Over time, we’re seeing regulations pushing more people toward electric power,” he said.

Operating a stationery electric grinder offers convenience and efficiency of maintenance, said John Snodgrass, who is in technical sales at West Salem Machinery, Salem, Ore.

“All of your parts and tools are centralized on site,” Snodgrass said. “That’s one of the big advantages of having the stationery horizontal grinder.”

According to Morey, “If you don’t need to move around, electric makes a lot of sense as long as you have the infrastructure to support it. Bandit is known for making mobile equipment, but out horizontal grinders can be put into a stationery electric application at any time.”

Cost savings

“Even at today’s diesel prices, an electric machine can be about $30 an hour cheaper to run,” said Clark, citing in part a recent analysis done by one of Peterson’s customers. “You have to take into account that there is an initial up-front capital cost because you’re adding more controllers and you may have to get more power capacity installed to your site. At today’s lower diesel prices, the electric machines will, in a reasonable time, break even, then you will start to see a gain in payback.”

Clark said the additional up-front costs to power a new site could range between $150,000 and $200,000, including costs from the local power utility and an electrical contractor.

“If you already have power, it’s relatively inexpensive,” Clark said.

Van Roekel said depending on hours of operation and maintenance practices, the operating costs of an electric grinder can be about half the costs of running a diesel machine.

“The machines themselves are comparably priced,” he said. “The extra costs come with your drive panel that controls the electric power to the motor. It could be a soft start panel or a variable frequency drive (VFD) panel with which the motor acts more like a diesel engine. Then you have the electric power lines that go to the grinder and the panel, so those are the additional install costs, but that it is soon made up for in the lower operating costs.”

Electric grinders offer cost savings associated with routine maintenance as well, de St. Aubin said.

“Besides savings on diesel fuel, electric grinders eliminate the costs and downtime associated with maintaining a diesel engine, radiator and clutch, including oil and filter replacement, coolant exchange, air filter replacement and clutch fluid and filter replacement where applicable,” he said.

Wenger agreed.

“The nice thing about an electric motor is not having to maintain the diesel engine,” he said. “You don’t have gas tanks and turbos and air filters and radiators and head gaskets. That’s one of the biggest reasons most of our customers have gone electric initially, and then years ago we had the fluctuating diesel prices.”

According to Snodgrass, the absence of road hauling equipment also reduces the cost of an electric machine.

“You need to have the brakes, the chassis and all of that other stuff to move a mobile unit,” he said. “You don’t have that on a grinder that is staying in one place.”

“As long as the (electrical) power is at a decent rate, then the electric machines are definitely cheaper to run,” Morey said. “You’re eliminating filters and diesel fuel and you’re going to have all the Tier Four emission components on these (diesel) engines, so there is going to be an even greater savings when it comes to the Tier Four compared to electric.”

Kollin Moore, electrical engineer with Morbark LLC, Winn, Mich., cautions, however, that the resale market for electric horizontals could be a limited compared to diesel machines.

Another disadvantages of an electric machine, Dunderdale said, is the need to have a mechanic who is proficient on electrics, “which is often hard to find.”

Longer life

“Far and away the biggest difference between diesel customers and electric customers is the quantity of hours that they put on the machine in a year,” Van Roekel said. “The electric powered machines run way more hours than diesel powered machines. It comes down to maintenance, but electric motor will last longer. We see an excess of 30,000 hours on many electric machines. We don’t assume that diesel will go more than 10,000 hours.”

de St. Aubin agreed.

“Besides reduced routine maintenance and downtime, electric grinders offer considerable savings on long-term maintenance and operation,” he said. “Electric motors also tend to have a longer life span. Electrics provide constant dependable performance with reliable uptime. They are extremely reliable machines with some still in service with more than 30,000 hours on them.”

Moore said electric motors typically last up to two or three times longer than diesel engines.

“If somebody has had a diesel machine for years and then they go electric one of the things they radically notice is that there are no longer any oil changes to do, you don’t have to change filters,” Clark said. “There is a lot of mechanical maintenance involved with diesel. With electric, once you get them set up right, you’re not touching those motors for maintenance for 10,000 to 15,000 hours depending on how much you’re grinding, so there is a tremendous reduction in overall maintenance cost when you go with an electric machine. I think the life span of an electric machine is longer, as the diesel has clutches and things that wear out pretty quick. With the electric machine, belts and consumables will wear out, but the drive train itself is fairly robust and maintenance free.”

Better performance?

Moore cited the following advantages of an electric horizontal grinder compared to a diesel powered machine: Cleaner, more efficient power source with no emission regulations to meet, quieter operation, less maintenance, less expensive to operate, lower capital cost and less chance of catastrophic fire.

“A more consistent end product is the result of the more consistent RPMs the unit runs at,” Moore said. “Diesel powered machines have a bigger variance in engine RPMs.”

Comparing the relative grinding power of comparably sized diesel and electric motors is one area where some manufacturers disagree. Most sources interviewed suggested that electric motors can provide more power directly to the rotor than a comparably sized diesel. Pat Crawford, vice president of products for Diamond Z, Caldwell, Idaho, disagreed.

“I disagree 110 percent,” he said. “Electric grinders do not perform exactly the same way as combustion engines with the horsepower and torque curves. A lot of people think that if you run a 1,000 horsepower diesel you can get away with 700 horsepower electric, but we go the other way. The reason is the fixed RPM with an electric motor. If you run a variable frequency drive (VFD), that would help the situation a little bit, but you still wouldn’t have the range of RPM utilization that you would have on diesel.”

Clark, however, said electric motors can deliver more power than their diesel counterparts.

“In some applications we can provide more grinding power with electric motors compared to our largest diesel motors,” Clark said. “An electric motor puts more direct horsepower on the rotor instead of losing efficiency through the clutch. Sometimes you need that extra power directed directly to the rotor. The other piece of it depends on the type of motor controller you have. You can, for short bursts of time, can deliver up to another 50 percent of the power of that motor. For example, you can turn a 600 horsepower electric motor into a 900 horsepower motor for short bursts of time if the rotor demands it without compromising the integrity of the motor.”

Morey agreed.

“With electric you can run a lower horsepower and get high horsepower capabilities,” he said. “In our experience it’s almost two to one from the feedback we get.”

According to Snodgrass, “With a 1,000 horsepower diesel, that is not 1,000 horsepower available to grind with compared to an electric where you get the full 1.000 horsepower.”

Griffing said electric grinders offer a better torque curve than diesel powered machines.

“I would say comparing a 600 horsepower CAT diesel engine with a 600 horse electric motor, the electric will increase your power at the rotor by a minimum of 25 percent,” Griffing said.

Dunderdale said the available grinding power is the most important question to consider.

“Buyers should be aware that an electric high speed grinder requires the same amount of horsepower that its diesel counterpart has,” Dunderdale said. “Typically a 1,000 horsepower grinder needs a 1,000 horsepower electric motor to run it since it is direct drive. However for our Crambo, for example, the 500 horsepower mobile unit is only 240 horsepower in the electric version because you don’t have the loss of power as you do with the diesel to run the hydraulics. There is far less electrical consumption from a 250 horssepower motor than from a 1,000 horsepower. Also when considering a 1,000 HP electric grinder, you must also have to purchase expensive soft starts in order to not overload the power supplier. This can be very expensive.”

Beefier machine

Engine comparisons aside, Griffing said because stationary electric grinders aren’t governed by Department of Transportation specifications like mobile units, the machines can be configured to meet the needs of an operation. That means they can have larger hoppers and longer discharge conveyors.

Wenger echoed that.

“Because they aren’t restricted by road hauling regulations, stationary grinders can be built to larger capacities,” he said. “When you install a 150,000 pound machine it’s going to last forever. When you take away the transportation aspects, it frees you up to build a grinder for more strength instead of transportation.”

Snodgrass agreed.

“Grinders that are going over the road have some limits on things like width and weight,” he said. “If you don’t have to take your grinder on the road, a stationery machine can be much wider with a larger diameter rotor. You can get into tremendous capacities,”

Operating requirements

“Electric driven grinders can be used anywhere there is enough power to drve them,” Griffing said.

Manufacturers generally said minimum requirements generally include three-phase power with a minimum of 460-480 volts at 60 hertz. Having adequate electrical power at the installation site is important, and not always simple to achieve, some manufacturers noted.

“A lot of people assume that because they have a lot of power or voltage coming to their facility that they are set,” Crawford said. “But they may already be using most of their capacity. You can have three phase, 480-volt power available, but you also need to have sufficient amperage. Everybody has the voltage, but not everybody has the amperage.”

Required amperage, Crawford said depends in the horsepower of the motor.

“Lower horsepower machines don’t need that much amperage,” Crawford said. “But you have to consider that in-rush – what it takes to start the motor - can be eight times what it takes to operate the motor.”

Power to electric grinder motors is controlled using one of two types of controller: a soft starter or a variable frequency drive (VDF). A soft starter helps to protect a motor

“With soft start panels you tend to lose a little bit of power, but they are less expensive,” Van Roekel said. “If you’re regrinding it really doesn’t require the full horsepower anyway. It depends on the application. So soft-start is good for some jobs. If you’re doing more taxing work, you may want to look at the VFD panel. The VFD panel is something we believe is the secret to good productivity.”

Clark said Peterson’s machines required between 1,000 and 2,500 amps depending on the size the motor.

“If you’re going to use an electric machine, you need to be sure that you have a power supply that can handle it,” Morey said. “If you don’t have a big enough power supply then there is going to be a problem running the machine.”

Wenger said power drops can damage motors.

“Most problems we’ve had with the electric tubs, particularly on starting, have been from power drops, especially in the summertime,” he said. “People generally say 460 volts is the requirement, but sometimes the voltage in that system can fall to 440. When voltage drops, amperage goes up and that can trip out the power. I tell people to have the utility top the power up into the 505-volt range to protect against drops in voltage, and that usually takes care of the problem. It’s not a big deal – they just adjust it at the transformer.”

Clark said Peterson recently had a customer who was experiencing low voltage.

“It looks like the power company didn’t plan fully for situation,” he said. “It causes the motors to work a little harder and they get hotter. The way you handle that is to work directly with your electric utility company and tell them what you are planning to do so they can plan accordingly.”

Michael Spreadbury, Peterson’s marketing manager, added, “That is a conversation you need to have very early on the purchasing process. You need to get the utility involved and you need to talk to your local electrical contractor.”

Having access to sufficient power, Spreadbury said, is not always a given.

“If the infrastructure isn’t there it isn’t going to happen,” he said. “A customer in the Midwest would die to have electric. But the power company just will not put in the infrastructure.”

According to Griffing, “One downfall of the electric driven grinders is having enough power available to your site. Not all sites are close enough for the amperage required to operate large horsepower motors.”

Wenger agreed.

“Location and proximity to power is a consideration,” he said. “Some of these mulching operations can be in remote locations, so the ability to get adequate power can be a hindrance. It might cost a couple hundred thousand dollars to get lines run to you if you are a distance away.”

Market trends

“The shredder/grinder market has grown over the last couple of years and is forecasted to continue to grow,” Dunderdale said. “We have seen an increase in the number of stationary machines typically because larger facilities are now being planned because of industry consolidation.”
Tightened regulations in engine air emissions will increase the cost of diesel machines, making electric motors more attractive for the appropriate applications, manufacturers agree.
“Due to emissions standards becoming more strict, electric drive is becoming more popular,” Griffing said.
“The increased costs for Tier 4 diesel powered machines will be substantial,” Crawford said. “I think you’ll see machines that are not Tier 4 Final on the market through the first quarter to the first half of next year, but we’re already seeing a pickup in demand for electrics.”

Peterson also expects stronger interest in electric machines.

“With onset of Tier 4 and the significant price increases that it is going to entail, we are going to see more and more applications where, of the machine does not have to move, we’re going to be quoting more electric machines,” Spreadbury said.

Wenger said sales and inquiries for electric grinders increased a few years ago when diesel prices bumped upward.

“Now, with the changes in the emissions regulations, people are taking a closer look at electric power,” he said. “We make a lot of electric tub grinders, but any of our diesel horizontals can be made with an electric engine.”

According to Moore, Morbark has seen the demand for electric grinders slowly increasing, especially during times when the price of oil has been elevated.

“Regulatory influences, whether they are about emissions, dust or noise, are definitely switching people over to the electrics,” Van Roekel said. “The bulk of Vermeer’s horizontal grinder sales are diesel powered, but electric machines have been reducing the gap over the past five years.”

Making it mobile?

New technology has made many electric products more mobile. Horizontal grinders are unlikely to be one of them, manufacturers agree.

“To make an electric machine mobile you would need a pretty big diesel generator, which isn’t cheap,” Van Roekel said. “You’re kind of defeating the purpose if you’re running a 1,000 horsepower generator and then you have to move the panel with it to control the motors. You’re still going to have the noise and air emissions from the generator.”

That, Wenger said, is one of the few downsides of an electric grinder.

“They are not mobile at all,” he said. “You would need a 2,000 horsepower generator to power up a 1,000 horsepower grinder. You’re better off just getting a 1,000 horsepower diesel engine. I had a customer who wanted to take an electric grinder from town to town to town to do custom grinding and he pitched the towns to provide the electricity. That would have necessitated each town to set transformers of adequate size to power the machines. It wasn’t going to happen. The economics just aren’t there.”

De St. Aubin said that portable configurations using quick-connects are available, but power availability is essential.

“The site must have adequate three phase power available,” he said.

Griffing said quick-connects at adequately powered sites allows an operator to move an electric to two or three different locations.

“It works great, but you need to have soft starts at each of the facilities,” he said.

Wenger added that one customer has two locations powered up on his site so he can move an electric tub grinder back and forth.

Snodgrass noted a similar situation.

“I have seen yards where they have a semi portable situation,” he said. “They will have a crude pad and the ability to get power to it so they can process X amount of tons and when they are finished they can pack it up. The control panel is a part of the unit, so they can pack it up and move it to another part of the yard. It isn’t something that you would run for a week – you probably would run it for a year at a site. But generally, if you are dragging a generator around you are defeating the purpose.

Converting to electric

Wenger said converting an existing diesel powered horizontal grinder to electric is simple.

“We are quoting a project like that now,” he said. “I customer in California has a diesel grinder and they were not able to get an air quality permit. Our quote is pull off the 1,000 horsepower diesel engine and put on a 500 horsepower electric. It is a pretty simple conversion. It’s not a bad things to do. When a diesel engine goes bad, instead of a new $60,000 diesel engine you can put the money toward a conversion. It is probably going to cost you $100,000 by the time you buy the motors and starters. But you’re going to make that up in lower operating costs.”

Griffing said diesel-to-electric conversions are becoming increasingly popular.

“We’re seeing more and more of it now, especially in California with the regulations getting stricter,” he said. “If you’re not going to be moving it you might as well convert it. To buy a new diesel engine or have one rebuilt, they’re about the same price to convert, so you’re better off going with the electric.”

What to consider

Before making the decision to install a horizontal grinder, you need to know your local codes, Van Roekel said.

“There will be some safety regulations,” he said. “If you are under a roof there will be some kind of rules to prevent an explosion or a fire problem. It is high voltage, so you need to lock-out-tag-out and other proper safety and maintenance practices. Don’t try to eliminate maintenance schedules. A 24/7 operation is not going to want to turn it off very often, but you still need to clean the machine and check the cutters and screens.”

Moore noted that local laws may have restrictions relative to operating hours and start up times.

Before purchasing an electric grinder, Wenger said, be sure to do your homework.

“Talk extensively with everyone involved, be it the contractor who is pouring the concrete where the electric machine is going to set or the local electric company,” he said. “Are there certain times that the grinder should not operate as to not interfere with electric power elsewhere else, and make sure all of the people involved in the preparation for the grinder are in contact. Communication is key.”

Composting human remains: May God rest your soil

By Ken McEntee, Owner

Republished from Composting News

Thirteen years ago, Composting News republished Pushing Up Daisies, compost pioneer Malcolm Beck’s essay about human body composting.
“In nature, all plants and animal bodies are disassembled, consumed, and returned to the

Earth by the decomposing microbes, which maintains soil fertility,” Beck wrote. “Wouldn't this also be a more respectful way to handle our deceased?”
Now, the Seattle-based Urban Death Project, is developing a new model of death care that it says “honors both our loved ones and the planet earth.” At the heart of this model is a composting system – called recomposition - that transforms human remains into soil.
“It occurred to me that I didn’t want the last thing I did on this planet to be polluting,” said Katrina Spade, founder and executive director of the project.
Spade has never heard of Beck, the founder and former owner of Garden-ville, a San Antonio-based compost producer. But she shares his view that traditional methods of cremation and burial are undesirable to the body and to the environment.
“The funeral industry gouges families,” she said. “They have to make them feel like they need a fancy coffin so they can make money. It is horrible.”
The Urban Death Project is working with Washington State University to develop a prototype composting facility using animal carcasses
“As far as I know we are the first to do a project like this,” Spade said.
Spade’s interest in composting human remains developed while she was in graduate school for architecture.
“I had an interest in decomposition that goes beyond the average architecture student,” she said. “I grew up in New Hampshire and we always raised and composted our own animals, so I developed a good knowledge of composing and permaculture design.”
She also became interested in the funeral industry.
“Today’s funerals don’t support the grieving as well as they could, and I also found out through research that cremation and convention burial pollute and are wasteful in different ways. We need to create new spaces in our cities where we can do death better, and incorporating the technology of livestock composting made sense.”
In the recomposition process, the deceased body would be lowered down into a tall composting bay with a small footprint, where it would be composted with a bulking agent like wood chips. Aeration would be provided by ports in the side of the structure.
“It’s based on livestock composting principles, but we actually invented our own process,” Spade said. “We took the aerated windrow concept and turned it on its side so that it is vertically designed. The reason it is vertical is because it is meant to be for the city, so we need to minimize land use, so the obvious thing to do is to go up. The system we designed is vertically stacked, which I don’t think has ever been done before because there really hasn’t been a need for it. Most composting is done in rural spaces, where there is land.”
Gradually, the body move downward through the bay as it decomposed. The end product would be about a yard of compost, including the composted bulking materials.
“We think the process will take four to six weeks, but we really don’t know until we build the prototype,” she said. “This is not like cremation where you give the ashes of the body to the family. This is a corrective system in the end. The bodies are put in and composted individually, but when we get to the second stage there will be a mixing and curing and finishing of the compost, because at that point we are no longer human. Families will be encouraged to take some of that compost, but it won’t just be from a single body at that point.”
Spade expects that about six bodies could be moving down through the bay at the same time, each of which would be in a different stage of decomposition. The bays would be modularly designed, so a site could have one or more.
Last winter, Spade and Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, a soil scientist at Washington State worked with Western Carolina University to determine the most efficient way of composting human bodies. Donated bodies were placed in beds of wood chips, To vary the conditions, alfalfa pellets and water were later added to one of the bodies.
Human composting, Spade said is not legal in any state in the U.S.
“Our legal team thinks that if we really want to we could probably do it now in Colorado,” she said. “How we care for deceased bodies is a state by state decision. Most states are the same generally, with three options: bury, cremate or donate to science. In Washington we are working on a strategy to bring it to the legislature to offer another option for consumers.”
The Urban Death Project, a non-profit organization is now seeking donations toward building a prototype. The current fundraising campaign seeks $20,000 by the end of November. The overall cost of the prototype is expected to be around $75,000, with a final project cost of around $300,000.
“Once we make money we can start to involve Washington State,” she said. “Once we have a prototype, which will only take a couple months to build, we can run a pilot program. We have to have a successful pilot program before we can take it to the legislature. Hopefully we can take this to the legislature within a year and a half to two years.”
Spade said she took her idea to Carpenter-Boggs after learning of Washington State’s work in composting livestock moralities.
“We will start by insuring that the system works by using some human sized animals, then maybe we will find some human donors,” she said. “We’re already getting inquiries about this.”
Ultimately, she said, the process would include on-site memorial services.
“By composting the body, the laws of nature are not violated and the cycles of life will be completed,” Beck wrote.
Through the end of November, donations to the project can be made at https://recomposition.causevox.com.

Local media duped: Apple maggot interrupts yard waste movement

By Ken McEntee

Composting News
 
The Washington State Department of Agriculture is continuing to work with composters in the eastern part of the state to ensure that apple maggots don’t threaten the state’s $2 billion apple industry, said Steve Fuller, policy assistant to the state director of agriculture.

Fuller said the department has hired three consultants to assist in a pest-risk analysis, which is expected to be completed in March 2016.

He said a quarantine on food waste being transported from western Washington to composting facilities in eastern Washington remains in effect.

Meanwhile, the Washington Organic Recycling Council (WORC) said local media falsely reported that the department shut down two composting facilities in Eastern Washington for operating without a permit to accept organic material. Specifically, television station KIMA, in Yakima, Wash., reported the shutdowns based on unchecked press releases from what WORC said were fictitious organizations using the names Western Washington Compost Alliance and the Washington State Composting News. Neither of those organizations appear to exist.

“All of our member compost facilities in eastern Washington are still open for business and have been operating legally,” WORC said.

Apple maggots deposit eggs in apples. The larvae eat the fruit and eventually emerge as flies during the spring. The maggots are common west of the Cascade Mountains, where 60 to 80 percent of the apple trees are thought to be infested, Fuller said. The bulk of the state’s apple industry is located east of the Cascades.

Fuller said apple growers became concerned about potential infestation of their orchards after PacifiClean Environmental LLC signed a contract to haul yard waste from Seattle, in western Washington, to its composting facility in Quincy, in the east. 

“That was the trigger that caused the concern,” Fuller said. “There are apples in the backyard green waste bins and that is a potential pathway for apple maggots to move across the state.”

Along with PacifiClean, three other composters, he said, were receiving yard waste from the state’s quarantined area. The agriculture department asked those facilities to stop processing municipal green waste delivered from the quarantined area of the state. Besides PacifiClean, the others were Royal Organic Products, of Royal City, Barr-Tech Composting, in Spokane, and Natural Selection Farms, of Sunnyside.

Fuller said those facilities are operating, but are not taking yard waste from the quarantined area.  He said the facilities are cooperating with the state and could be able to process the material once research shows that there is no danger of apple maggot infestation.

“We have been working to identify the right set of operating conditions that would allow composters to control the risk of spreading apple maggots,” Fuller said. “We want them to be successful in the composting business while affording the apple industry the protection that it needs.”

Presently, he said, it is believed that the heat generated during the composting process is sufficient to kill the apple maggot larvae and pupae, but that needs to be confirmed in a “scientifically rigorous way.”

Fuller said two consultants from the U.S. and an international consultant have been hired to conduct the pest-risk analysis.

Officials from PacifiClean and Natural Selection Farms did not returned calls to Composting News prior to publication.

Dan Corum, president of WORC, commenting on the media reports, which were based on information from apparently phony organizations, said, “It is puzzling and unfortunate that someone would perceive a need to issue false information anonymously. Eastern Washington compost facilities are and have been open and operating legally within their permits and in cooperation with state and local regulators. WORC member compost facilities have been cooperative and working with regulators to find beneficial solutions to issues that impact both agriculture and composters.”

He said WORC members have been active in the recent developments regarding special permits to be issued by the department of agriculture for the transportation and composting of food and yard trimmings from quarantine areas for apple maggot to compost facilities located within pest-free areas of the state.

Oakland reduces food compostable collection rates

By Ken McEntee

October 7, 2015

Following angry protests from restaurant owners in Oakland, the city has lowered its commercial compost collection rates to 30 percent below the cost of picking up trash through July 2016. After that, the organics collection rate will increase to 25 percent below the waste collection rate. (See related article.)

The move reversed a situation in which the city, in July, while declaring that it wants to keep organics out of landfills, set commercial organics collection rates higher than the rate for waste collection (see Composting News, July 2015).

The new rates were part of a new 10-year contract that gives Waste Management of Alameda County a monopoly on the commercial collection of trash and compostables in the city of Oakland. The new rates coincided with the city’s launch of “Oakland Recycles,” a new zero waste program of trash, compost and recycling services with a goal to divert all compostable and recyclable material away from landfills.

Independent restaurant owners uniting under the name the name Oakland Indie Alliance, trashed the arrangement, protesting in front of City Hall.

“We are shocked by the massive compost fee increases in the contract,” Gail Lillian, owner of Liba Falafel, said at the time. “Additionally, the composting fees are set higher than trash fees, serving as a deterrent for composting.”

Lillian said, her monthly charge for organics collection more than doubled, from $225 per month to $460 per month – an increase of almost $3,000 per year. Trash collection rates increased, she said, but not nearly as much as her composting bill.

Prior to a special City Council meeting to consider revising the rates, almost 40 restaurant owners sent a letter to council that said the proposal revisions were not good enough.

“We hope that you agree that the protracted and convoluted process of writing and approving the original contract will stand as an example of how not to write a city contract for many years to come,” the letter said. “We understand this is biggest contract Oakland has ever written, and that council and city staff spent many hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to write it. Much of this effort and money was clearly wasted. Instead of writing a contract that serves the citizens and businesses of Oakland – either by providing us services we needed, or by keeping rates sustainable for services we already had – council approved a contract which has been referred to as the ‘Rolls Royce’ of contracts, with vastly increased costs being borne primarily on the backs of restaurants and multi-tenant buildings through exorbitant rates. Many of us invested in Oakland during challenging times, and hope to benefit from its resurgence. Terrible deals like this pull the rug out from under us. Oakland's independent business community will wither like it did during the early 2000 dot-com boom if you continue to ignore our needs.”

The organics collection rate adjustment to 30 percent of the waste collection rate through July 1, 2016, and 25 percent of the trash rate thereafter, the restaurateurs said, because:

• Landfill and compost rates are still the highest in the region, by far.  
• Regional compost rates for most surrounding cities are at 50 percent of landfill rates.
• Twenty-five percent is far below the norm.“We need you to do more,” the letter said. 

 “Please take the time to make this contract right.”
 
The restaurateurs called for the removal of unnecessary services from the contract with Waste Management; the re-examination of the balance of rate adjustments between the various entity types; examining the disposition of the $28 million annual franchise fee paid to the city; and bringing commercial rates in line with others in the region.
The city, however, approved its proposed rate adjustment.

Under the new program, the city admitted, commercial composting service rates charged by Waste Management “upside down – higher, in most cases, than the comparable rates for trash service, creating a disincentive for businesses to compost.”

For example, the monthly rate for collecting a 20-gallon cart of trash once a week was initially set at $27.97. The rate for the same sized cart and frequency of collection for compostables was set at $33.84 per month. Weekly collection of a seven-yard trash bin was $968.10 per month, compared to $1,109.75 for compostables.

Oakland restaurants protest food waste collection hikes

(Originally published in Composting News, July 2015)

By Ken McEntee

July 20, 2015

The city of Oakland this month began its Zero Waste initiative to keep recyclable and compostable materials out of landfills. Local restaurant owners, meanwhile, were hit with a big surprise when they got their new trash bills, which took effect on July 1.

“We are shocked by the massive compost fee increases in the contract,” said Gail Lillian, owner of Liba Falafel. “Additionally, the composting fees are set higher than trash fees, serving as a deterrent for composting.”

For example, the monthly rate for collecting a 20-gallon cart of trash once a week is $27.97. The rate for the same sized cart and frequency of collection for compostables is $33.84 per month. Weekly collection of a seven-yard trash bin is $968.10 per month, compared to $1,109.75 for compostables.

As a result of a new 10-year contract with the city of Oakland that gives Waste Management of Alameda County a monopoly on the commercial collection of trash and compostables, Lillian said, her monthly charge for organics collection more than doubled, from $225 per month to $460 per month – an increase of almost $3,000 per year. Trash collection rates increased, she said, but not nearly as much as her composting bill.

In a letter to Waste Management and to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a group of local restaurant owners said that cost advantages of composting and recycling created strong incentives to reduce landfill use, leading to different choices when shopping for supplies and ingredients to reduce waste. It makes no sense, Lillian says, especially in light of the city’s Zero Waste initiative, to make restaurants may more to separate their compostables.

Following a protest by local restaurant owners – who have formed a new group called the Oakland Indie Alliance - City Council was considering a revised proposal that would reduce rates for organics collection to 90 percent of the trash rate. Lillian called it a short term fix.

Until the new waste contract went into effect, Waste Management controlled commercial trash collection, but companies were free to contract with other vendors for recycling and composting pickups, Lillian said. Lillian and some other restaurant owners hired Recology to take their food waste. The new contact gave Waste Management a monopoly on composting as well. The contract was approved last fall, ending a suit Waste Management filed against Oakland after the city earlier awarded an exclusive collection contract to another company.

“We expected to see a rate increase with the new contract, but we didn’t expect this,” she said.

On June 10, Lillian and about 24 other restaurant owners held a press conference in protest of the new rates on the steps of Oakland City Hall. Some brought their food waste containers with them.

“The restaurants, whom have been big supporters of composting for years, are getting massive increases in this new contract,” she said. “Some of us have seen our composting rates triple. One restaurant is getting an increase of $11,000 from last year and some others say they are being charged $8,000 more.”

A boycott of composting is one response the restaurant owners could consider, Lillian said. Unfortunately, however, they could be fined under a new law that prohibits more than 10 percent recyclables or food waste in their trash bins.

On July 20, City Council held a special meeting to consider the rate revision.

“Even at 90 percent of the trash collection rate, the charge is still 30 to 40 percent of the comparable rates for surrounding cities,” Lillian said. “In addition, the revised contract would allow Waste Management, starting next year, to recoup their losses from lowering their organics collection rates this year.”

Lillian said City Council members were “furious” about the contract and showed support for the restaurant owners. But she acknowledged that council members were negligent in approving a contract that they apparently had not read.

“I do hold them responsible because they should have done their due diligence,” Lillian said. “But I am confident that they will now act on our behalf.”

As part of the contract, she said, the city required Waste Management to switch its truck fleet to use natural gas powered vehicles. To comply, she said, Waste Management had to purchase 86 new trucks for $330,000 each.

“The city should have realizes that Waste Management was going to try to raise rates to cover those costs,” Lillian said. “We expected to get a bit of an increase but this increase isn’t what we thought they signed us up for.”

The Indie Alliance was formed in March after the city passed a minimum wage of $12.25 per hour – a 36 percent increase from the previous minimum wage.

“We’re getting squeezed,” she said. “That’s why we’ve gone from seven to 70 members in the few months. First it was the high wages, then the composting rate hike. And a $15 minimum wage is coming soon.”

Calls to city officials, including Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Sean Mahar of Oakland Environmental Services, were not returned.

WOTUS muddies the waters; may stifle property use

(Published in Composting News, August 2015)

By Ken McEntee

The new “Clean Water Rule” defining the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) purportedly is intended to clarify enforcement of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Instead, many observers say, the new rule, which is set to take effect on August 28, has further muddied the waters, creating new vagaries that can stifle even simple plans of businesses and landowners.
The rule, created by the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, was published in the Federal Register on June 29.

“This rule presents a big problem for anybody who wants to make changes to their property,” said Robert LaGasse, executive director of the Mulch and Soil Council, the national trade association that represents producers of horticultural mulches, consumer potting soils and commercial growing media. 
“Under this rule, making changes to your property is going to require a lot more investigation and engineering to be sure that you’re not going to be in violation of some law. If you have to make corrections to your land in a hurry, you are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The rules are so vague that you might get one answer from one regulator and a completely different answer from another regulator.”
 
And the penalty for a violation – even an ambiguous one - can be severe: As much as $37,500 per day, and/or criminal prosecution, according to M. Reed Hopper, principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a Sacramento, Calif.-based public interest legal organization. In July, PLF, on behalf of a variety of landowners and organizations, filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration to block implementation of the new rule.
 
As of August 18, the PLF suit has been followed by more than 10 more suits challenging WOTUS have been filed, involving more than 70 plaintiffs, including 11 states, filed in 10 different District Courts. The federal government has motioned to consolidate the district court cases in the D.C. District Court.
 
“The rule,” Hopper said, “is illegal and unconstitutional because it sets no limit on the CWA’s reach, while explicitly expanding it to waters that the Supreme Court has already ruled to be off-limits to federal control. This new regulation is an open-ended license for federal bureaucrats to assert control over nearly all of the nation’s water, and much of the property, from coast to coast.”
 
Previously, the CWA provided EPA jurisdiction over navigable waters. The new rule would extend that jurisdiction to such waters as Prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California and Texas coastal prairie wetlands. The presence of those bodies on a property generally could give EPA authority over that land.
 
Fortunately, said Jay Lehr, science director for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based research organization, a barrage of lawsuits, injunctions and acts of Congress is likely to block the new regulations from going into effect.
 
“I think this will be in the courts for years,” said Lehr, the nation’s first Ph.D. in groundwater hydrology who was among the first advocates for the creation of the EPA almost 50 years ago. “With all of the various filers from multiple states and organizations, I can’t imagine that they will have trouble finding judges at the right levels who will place injunctions against the carrying out of this law. If we get lucky and we get a new administration we could put an end to this very quickly. Just about anybody who can get elected on the republican side I think would end it, although Jeb Bush makes me nervous. Even Hillary Clinton may not want to unleash the EPA quite as unreasonably as Barack Obama as a mechanism to reduce the capability of our country.”
 
Despite his optimism that the new rule, as written, will never take effect, Lehr says business owners should stay informed and proactively fight against it.
“Land and business owners should not be too comfortable about this being shot down,” he said. “I think people are better off being nervous and therefore activated. I would like to see people put their nervousness to use by contacting their representatives. We can’t afford to be passive. If everybody sits back and does nothing, we could end up in a world of hurt.”

What’s the problem?

Presently, through the Clean Water Act, EPA may regulate all navigable waters of the nation. The new rule extends that regulatory power to non-navigable waters – some of which are small and often unconnected to navigable water.
 
“The rule expressly excludes puddles,” Hopper said. “But it does include Prairie potholes and vernal pools which have the appearance of puddles. It also provides that water within a 100-year floodplain, or water within 4,000 feet of a tributary may be under EPA jurisdiction.”
Whether or not EPA could regulate such water would be determined on a case-by-case basis under the “significant nexus standard.” Significant nexus refers to whether a body of water has, or reasonably could make a connection to navigable waters.
 
“This is no small thing,” Hopper said. “If this goes into effect, trying to do almost anything on land where any water runs would require you to go through a federal approval process. Basically, if you are within 4,000 feet of a stream and you are going to disturb the land, you will need a federal permit and the cost is prohibitive. On average it would be $170,000 and it would take a couple years to process.”
The vagueness of the 85,000-word rule, Hopper said, is equally problematic.
 
“If you have wet spots on a property within EPA jurisdiction, and you want to know whether you can do anything on that property, a prudent lawyer is going to tell you that if your situation is not expressly excluded in the rule, that you should get a determination from the Corps of Engineers,” he said. “That creates another problem because up to now the courts have said that if you disagree with that determination you have no right to challenge it.”
 
Because EPA doesn’t have the resources to enforce the new rule on everybody, LaGasse said, enforcement would likely become a complaint-driven.
 
“It’s something that could pop up anywhere at anytime, and enforcement would be uneven,” he said.
 
General runoff, Hopper said, is typically excluded from regulation.
“But if it is a point source where they can point to a specific conduit as a discharge then it is questionable,” he said. “This has come up in situations like in manure piles at a dairy. The agency has gone both ways on this, so you’re taking your chances. That’s the problem. There is no clarity.”
Lehr calls the rule “shear insanity.”
 
“I have been involved in this since day one and I have yet to find a single human not connected with an environmental activist organization who thinks this makes sense” he said. “It isn’t about clean water. It’s about the EPA taking over every stitch of land with water on it that they possibly can.”

Impact on compost and mulch

The U.S. Composting Council, the national trade association that represents compost producers, isn’t concerned about the new rule, according to Cary Oshins, director of education for the organization.
 
“I don’t think this will make much of a difference for compost sites,” Oshins said. “This rule really just refines the definition of waters of the U.S. We are already strong proponents of using best management practices for storm water and contact water management. Since the rule encourages the use of green infrastructure, which is a strong and growing market for compost, this is overall a good rule change.”
 
Will Bakx, founder of Sonoma Compost Co., in Petaluma, Calif., disagrees.
 
“I don’t feel so comfortable about it,” said Bakx, vice chair of the California Organic Recycling Council and an executive board member of the California Compost Coalition. “I think neighbors have been provided with another avenue to go after composting facilities.”
 
Bakx has first-hand knowledge about that.
In May, his 22-year-old operation was ordered permanently shut down to settle a federal water quality suit filed by a neighborhood group. The suit, which involved storm water runoff into a nearby creek, cited violations of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the U.S.
 
“Our situation had less to do with water quality than politics,” Bakx said. “The Clean Water Act was used as an excuse to shut us down.”
Which is precisely what concerns WOTUS opponents like Lehr and Hopper.
 
“The worst case scenario is the cost of fighting it legally when the EPA comes at somebody without just cause,” Lehr said.
 
Although Sonoma’s problems preceded the new WOTUS rule, Bakx said the new rule could make it difficult to operate a composting facility. Waste discharge requirements for compost operations, now under consideration by the California Water Boards, he said, are directly impacted by WOTUS.
 
“Although they say otherwise, the state guidelines basically require a zero discharge facility,” Bakx said. “It will present significant costs to operators. It’s ironic, isn’t is, that there is a mandate to divert organics from the landfill, then they make it expensive to do it. If you’re in an area where landfill tipping fees are $25 a ton, how can you set up a composting facility that will cost you $50 a ton to operate?”

Implementation unlikely
 
Lawsuits like the one filed by PLF on behalf of the landowners, state cattlemen’s associations of California, Washington and New Mexico and others, Lehr said, will likely prevent WOTUS from ever going into effect.
 
On August 12, the Southern District Court of Georgia held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion filed by 11 states opposing the rule. Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood said she would rule by the WOTUS implementation date of August 28 on the preliminary injunction motion filed by 11 states opposing the rule.
 
“I am the world’s leading optimist so it is not conceivable to me that this could ever become the law of the land,” Lehr said.
 
This article, by Composting News editor Ken McEntee, was originally published in Mulch & Soil Producer News.