|
Landscapers 'are the rr.,fni..r,4res~aa,e~ecrm.~rrmr
<br />priman~ market,
<br />foll0{~'ed by
<br />municipal ruse and
<br />residential
<br />purchases. Other
<br />end markets
<br />include soil
<br />blenders, nurseries,
<br />land reclamation,
<br />golf coursed and
<br />farmers.
<br />I
<br />
<br />51f Ovi fk!lad NumtY! O!
<br />COmmundic5 Prl[M7 01,
<br />Cammumbts
<br />' >9 ,~
<br />xnrt a+oer tugs 7z s:
<br />Ooea conwrcn ~ 30 ~ 72
<br />ar,r t~ am za n
<br />Rat-ds urns 16 17
<br />t~ amwr nps u i ~
<br />. t~dtn curb t7 to
<br />RihV an street 7 8
<br />~aae0rritdeDUYr tops ~ ~
<br />/Cusea tan;iners 7 7
<br />.Me Wps t i
<br />Set out methods van- greatly among the
<br />sun•eyed rommuniticsand the ma/ority use
<br />more than one option. The material type is
<br />the key factor: Branches require bundles,
<br />whereas leaves can be plamd in bags/con-
<br />tainers or swap! loose to the curb. Of the
<br />communities sun•eyed, the most popular
<br />methods include: bundles. kraR paper hag<,
<br />open containers and clear plastic bags tTablr
<br />3~: Boise, Columbus, and Peterborough all
<br />promote [he use of bun- -
<br />dles, kraR paper bags and
<br />open containers. lifaz
<br />and Salem utilire only
<br />roll-out carts. Lcss'com-
<br />mon~ methods involve
<br />biodegradable plastic bags
<br />and jute bags. Augusta.
<br />Surrey, Portland, end
<br />\l'hilehorse use the for•
<br />wry, while Guelph has im-
<br />plemented the latter as
<br />one option.
<br />DROMEF COLLECTION
<br />Serenty•siz percent of
<br />the cdmmunities sur-
<br />veyed have established
<br />dropoff collection. The
<br />majority of communities
<br />developed programs during the I990s: hnsv
<br />ever. Sladison was the first in 19A0. -
<br />FiRy percent of the sun•es•ed communi-
<br />ties have year-round dropolTsites, while''?3
<br />perxrnt oRer seasonal 1«aiions during the
<br />peak growing period. Commuhities with
<br />seasonal collection ofrer more dropoR de-
<br />pots then rear-round sites. Bismarck and
<br />Calgary have by far the most seasonal
<br />dropoff 1«ations with 25 and 27, respec-
<br />tively. Filly-three percent of the communi-
<br />ties that collect yard trimmings have
<br />dropoRs with full-time supen•ision during
<br />operating hour to prevent illegal dumping.
<br />\inrteen percent do not stag full-time su-
<br />pervisbrs. ~4•hen residents hying yard trim~
<br />wings to [hex sites, most place the materi-
<br />al in piles es opposed to bins. Sixtc-one
<br />percent of respondents who divert yard
<br />trimmings do not ecrept plastic bags and 12
<br />pr event do. Of the Si communities accept-
<br />ing plastic bags, 19 133 percen{) request
<br />that residents debag their own yd rd trim-
<br />mings. Brantford, Milwaukee and Seattle
<br />all require msident_s (o debag and plate ma•
<br />trrials in bins.'
<br />Standard equipment used to transport
<br />yard trimmings to'the composting facility in•
<br />eludes front-end loaders, mar/side loader
<br />compactors, roll-on trucks, dump trucks,
<br />trailers and vacuums. Eight communities
<br />have their dropoR'site I«ated at the com-
<br />posting facility, thus requiring no feedstock
<br />transfers-Dropofl-depots arc generally fi•
<br />.named through tipping fees, residential
<br />property taxes, Rat entrance rates, and/or per
<br />container charges on o rrsidenlial utility- bill.
<br />coMrosr EAaurr cxaeACTERISncs,
<br />END MARKETS
<br />Eighty-six percent of the sun•cyed com•
<br />munities compost ymrd trimmings, while 9
<br />percent use them for direct land applica-
<br />tion. Columbus and Sacramento mulch part
<br />of their yard trimmings. Three main op-
<br />tions exist for compost facilin- ownership
<br />and operation: 37 permnt are public, 33 per•
<br />cent am pri s•ate,ond 14 permnt am publicly
<br />owned but privately operated. Tht remain-
<br />ing composting facilities arc described as
<br />publidprivate partnerships, cooperatively
<br />developed and municipal-
<br />ly operated, or a partner-
<br />ship between a private
<br />nonprofit foundation and
<br />the public.
<br />\Vindrosvs are the pri•
<br />miry composting method
<br />. t71 percent t, followed by
<br />static piles t20 percent[.
<br />channel comporting ltw~o
<br />perxrnu and in-vessel sys-'
<br />toms [two percent), rr•
<br />sp«tivrly. Tweh•e percent
<br />of the communities cocom-
<br />post yard trimmings with
<br />other organic feeds[«ks.
<br />Charlottetown and. Hali-
<br />fax cocompost with
<br />kitchen scraps. Daven•
<br />port, Fort R'avne, Provo
<br />.and Rapid Citc all cocompost with biosolids,
<br />while Qucbcc City c«omposLS with manure
<br />and pulp and paper residue.
<br />Tipping fees al these composting fatili•
<br />tics range from nothing~to 57A/ton 1resi=
<br />dential and/or commercial yard trim-
<br />mingsi. Annual facility design capacities
<br />vary from 2,000 tons to an estimated
<br />'?00,000 tons, while the minimum quantit
<br />processed by a community in 1997 wa
<br />tons and the maximum was IAI,-0OO,tons.
<br />The most commonly used equipment at
<br />composting facilities include front-end
<br />loaders, screens, temperature probes;
<br />ganders, windrow turners, chippers and
<br />shredders. Other equipment options in•
<br />elude debaggen, dump trucks, ezrnvators,
<br />manure spreader, moisture probes and
<br />watering Lrucks:~Tipping Cees and end
<br />product sales play ah important role in fi•
<br />nnnting composting tatilitie-t Residential
<br />:u Hs {'nv ~ ~ Srm:rerw 1999
<br />Ten perzeM d wrvrrsd
<br />cemmunrties in Corwda and She
<br />norrhern U.S. uwd billboards ro
<br />publkiu yard himmirpt
<br />diversion programs.
<br />
|