Food-Waste-Business-Plan

Business Plan for Recycling Food Waste
on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts

Prepared For
Island-Wide Organics Waste Management Study Oversight Committee
Martha’s Vineyard, MA
Prepared By:
Coker Composting and Consulting

Troutville, VA
In association with:
Robert L. Spencer, Environmental Consultant
June 2018
This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and
recommendations contained herein attributed to Coker Composting and Consulting (CC&C) constitute the opinions of CC&C. To the extent
that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, CC&C has relied
upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended, and no representations or warranties are made. CC&C makes no
certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report.
Copyright 2018, Coker Composting and Consulting. All rights reserved.
www.cokercomposting.com i
Executive Summary _________________________________________________________________ 1
Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 1
About the authors _______________________________________________________________________________ 2
Acknowledgements ______________________________________________________________________________ 3
Compost Facility Sizing _______________________________________________________________ 4

Feedstock Estimates _____________________________________________________________________________ 4
Food Wastes _________________________________________________________________________________ 4
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (I/C/I) sources ________________________________________________ 4
Residential Sources _________________________________________________________________________ 5
Carbon sources _______________________________________________________________________________ 6
Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) _________________________________________________________________ 6
Compost Recipe _________________________________________________________________________________ 7
Facilities Footprint _______________________________________________________________________________ 8
Animal Feed Extrusion Facility ________________________________________________________ 11

Description of Operation _________________________________________________________________________ 11
Cost Estimates ____________________________________________________________________ 14

Cost Factors Used ______________________________________________________________________________ 14
Capital Cost Estimates ___________________________________________________________________________ 14
Composting Facility ___________________________________________________________________________ 14
Food Extrusion Facility ________________________________________________________________________ 15
Operating Cost Estimates ________________________________________________________________________ 15
Composting Facility ___________________________________________________________________________ 15
Food Extrusion Facility ________________________________________________________________________ 17
Financial Pro Formas _______________________________________________________________ 18

Methodology and Assumptions ____________________________________________________________________ 18
Composting _________________________________________________________________________________ 18
Pro Forma Summary ____________________________________________________________________________ 19
Summary and Recommendations _____________________________________________________ 19

Appendices _______________________________________________________________________ 21
Appendix A - Compost recipe _____________________________________________________________________ 22
Appendix B - Footprint Analyses ___________________________________________________________________ 23
Appendix C - Aerated Static Pile information from AgriLabs & Engineered Compost Systems ___________________ 24
Appendix D - Rotary Drum Layout and Quote _________________________________________________________ 46
Appendix E - Cost estimates ______________________________________________________________________ 47
Appendix F- Pro Forma Analyses ___________________________________________________________________ 48
Appendix G - Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises proposal __________________________________________ 49
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of Initial Capital Cost Estimates..................................................................................................................1
Table ES-2. Pro forma assumptions for composting ....................................................................................................................2
Table ES-3. Summary of windrow composting pro forma analysis ...............................................................................................2
Table ES-4. Summary of ASP composting pro forma analysis .......................................................................................................3
Table ES-5. Summary of rotary drum composting pro forma analysis .........................................................................................3
Table ES-6. Factors Affecting Financial Analysis ...........................................................................................................................3
Table 1. Estimated food waste generation ...................................................................................................................................6
Table 2. Daily Compost Recipe Summary ......................................................................................................................................7
Table 3. Summary of Area Needs ............................................................................................................................................... 10
www.cokercomposting.com ii
Table 5. Summary of Initial Capital Cost Estimates.................................................................................................................... 15
Table 6. Annual Composting Operational Expenses ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 7. Pro forma assumptions for composting ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 8. Timing of Sales and Expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 9. Summary of windrow composting pro forma analysis ................................................................................................. 19
Table 9. Summary of ASP composting pro forma analysis ......................................................................................................... 19
Table 11. Summary of rotary drum composting pro forma analysis ......................................................................................... 19
Table 12. Factors Affecting Financial Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Straddle Windrow Turner Composting ...........................................................................................................................8
Figure 2. ASP Composting..............................................................................................................................................................9
Figure 3. Rotary Drum Composting ...............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 3. SAFE pre-processing system ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4. SAFE feed production system ...................................................................................................................................... 12
www.cokercomposting.com iii
Executive Summary
Massachusetts’ food waste ban went into effect October 1, 2014. In response to this ban, the Martha’s
Vineyard Vision Fellowship funded an Island-wide organic waste management feasibility study which
was finalized in May 2017. That study assessed various technologies and approaches to managing food
waste on the Island and made specific recommendations for next steps. This report was commissioned
by the Island-Wide Organics Waste Management Study Oversight Committee in order to begin to
understand the magnitude of the infrastructure investment needed to process food waste on Martha’s
Vineyard, rather than to ship it back to mainland Massachusetts for processing at a landfill or
combustion facility as is currently the practice.
This business plan examines three composting alternatives and a proprietary animal feed production
technology. The composting alternatives are turned windrow, aerated static pile and in-vessel rotary
drum. This plan includes capital, operating and cash flow forecasts for the three composting
alternatives which are summarized below. As the animal feed technology would be provided and
operated by a private company, only estimated capital costs are provided, with their proposal included
in the Appendix.
The economic evaluation in this study is based on a facility sized to process 4,000 tons/year of food
wastes. For the composting alternatives, to meet the desired process design criteria, another 6,000
tons/year of brush, leaves, grass clippings and old corrugated cardboard were included in the compost
recipe (Appendix A). The footprint analysis (Appendix B) was based on total incoming compostables of
10,600 tons/year. The rotary drum composting and animal feed production technologies were sized for
15,600 tons/year due to the inability to scale down the technologies below a certain point 1.
No site has yet been selected for the proposed organics recycling facility. The composting alternatives
will need a site in the range of 6-8 acres. The animal feed alternative will only require 1.5 – 2 acres. The
economic evaluation includes proposed land acquisition, but if the implementing entity is a public-
sector government, that expense may not be needed.
A summary of the capital cost estimates is provided in Table ES-1 and detailed cost estimates are in the
Appendix E.
Table ES-1. Summary of Initial Capital Cost Estimates
Windrow ASP Rotary Drum Animal Feed
Cost Element Composting Composting Composting Extrusion
Site development &
$2,871,500 $2,779,953 $2,856,500 $2,725,000
design
Equipment $1,101,000 $917,444 $3,040,500 $8,700,000
Total $3,972,500 $3,697,397 $5,897,000 $11,425,000
1Rotary drum technology is available in either small (< 60 CY capacity) or large (> 750 CY capacity), if using the smaller
drums, eight units would be required to handle expected daily throughputs.
www.cokercomposting.com 1
Estimated operating costs for the three composting options were prepared by using a “time-and-
motion” prediction of the steps in the volumetric compost production process, which resulted in
estimates of labor needed, and equipment costs for operations. Production in the turned windrow and
rotary drum alternatives would need 2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) while the aerated static pile
alternative would require 2 FTEs and 1 part-time equivalent. The pro forma analysis assumed 2 FTEs
for the windrow and drum composting and 3 FTEs for ASP composting to account for housekeeping,
recordkeeping and process monitoring, along with sales support. Annual operating costs per ton are
estimated to be $32.70/ton for turned windrows, $33.30/ton for rotary drum and $45.10/ton for ASP.
The primary differences between them are higher processing costs for active composting with
straddle-turned windrows and higher processing costs for curing with the rotary drum, along with
mixing and electricity costs for rotary drum and ASP. The operating costs for the animal feed
production alternative were estimated at $87/ton by the technology provider.
Financial pro formas, projections of monthly profit or loss over a three-year period (2019 – 2021), were
prepared. For all composting approaches, the assumptions used are shown in Table ES-2. It was
assumed that operating costs and tip fees would go up 3% per year. Timing of compost sales was based
on experiences from other compost producers and the timing of production expenses was proportional
to the tonnages collected by IGI in 2017. Capital cost recovery factors used were 3.75% per year for
equipment with less than a 12-yr anticipated life and 5.5% per year for site improvements and
infrastructure, assuming a 20-year life. As the implementing entity is not yet known, it is unknown how
financing would be arranged, so the pro forma analysis does not include any cost of capital.
Table ES-2. Pro forma assumptions for composting
Parameter 2019 2020 2021 Notes
Tip fee $50.00 $51.50 $53.00 $ per ton
Tip fee tonnage Tons 2,215 2,900 4,000 No tip fee for carbon materials
Compost sales price Commercial $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $ per CY
Residential $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $ per CY
Annual sales volume 10,500 13,775 19,000 CY
The results of the pro forma analysis are summarized in Tables ES-3, ES-4 and ES-5. Detailed
spreadsheets are in Appendix F. All options are similar in terms of predicted financial performance.
The facility can be profitable within three years if the tonnages go up year-over-year as shown, and all
the compost is sold at the assumed price points. These estimates do not include any collection costs or
revenues, nor any corporate or governmental overhead allocations.
Table ES-3. Summary of windrow composting pro forma analysis
2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $589,500 $579,653 $590,388
Net income ($190,000) ($51,491) $144,112
Table ES-4. Summary of ASP composting pro forma analysis
2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $687,111 $701,484 $716,287
Net income ($287,612) ($173,322) $18,213
Table ES-5. Summary of rotary drum composting pro forma analysis
2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $659,908 $643,650 $654,826
Net income ($260,408) ($115,488) $79,674
Of the four alternatives evaluated, the animal feed production is the most expensive, in part because it
is sized for 50 tons/day and would require inputs from off-island for the economics to work out. Rotary
drum composting is well-practiced in Massachusetts (Marlborough and Nantucket) but would also be
sized larger than needed. Windrow composting is the most widely practiced composting approach and
is the least expensive and most flexible to changes in quantities of feedstocks. ASP composting is
becoming more common as it offers better process and odor control but has the least favorable
financial performance projection.
There are a number of factors that could influence these calculations, as outlined in Table ES-6.
Readers should consider these factors before drawing any conclusions.
Table ES-6. Factors Affecting Financial Analysis
Assumptions used in study Value chosen Uncertainties

Feedstocks
Food wastes from residential 1,090 tons/year to 1,816 Will residential diversion
sources tons/year program be implemented?
Carbon sources from MVRD 1,980 CY/yr brush, 1,600 CY/yr Will this be made available
leaves given it is being recycled now?
Processing Alternatives
Rotary drum composting Single drum - 50 ton/day This is more capacity than
capacity needed, will off-island sources
be included?
Animal Feed Extrusion SAFE proposed ~16,000 tons/yr This is more capacity than
be included?
Economic Analysis
Cost factors used Labor - $22.50/hr Is this appropriate?
Cost of land $74,000/acre Could be higher or lower? If
municipal implementation,
could be free.
Construction costs No land clearing needed Is this appropriate?
On-site well, on-site septic, 500’ Are these appropriate?
utility extensions
Equipment costs Equipment costs based largely Will March 2018 steel tariffs
on late 2017 prices raise prices?
Pro Forma Analyses
Capital cost recovery factors 3.75%/yr for equipment; 5.5% Are these appropriate?
for site improvements
Food waste tipping fee $50 - $53/ton Is this appropriate? Better
financial performance at tip fee
= $75/ton
Compost sales prices $25 - $35/CY Is this appropriate?
Animal feed revenues None provided by SAFE
The next steps in the process should be to find one or more candidate sites, identify who the
implementing entity will be, quantify the real market potential for compost sales on the Island, and
refine this preliminary sizing analysis and estimates of costs.
Introduction
Massachusetts’ food waste ban was proposed in July 2013, accepted to update the state’s Solid Waste
Facility Regulations (310 CMR 19.006) in January 2014, and went into effect October 1, 2014. The
regulatory body responsible for enforcing the ban is the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP). Under the ban, generators of food wastes are prohibited from disposing,
transferring for disposal, contracting for the disposal, or transporting commercial organic material.
“Commercial Organic Material” means food material and vegetative material from any entity that
generates more than one ton of those materials for solid waste disposal per week but excludes
material from a residence.
MassDEP’s guidance materials for the Commercial Organics Waste Ban give the following guidelines for
some of the commercial and institutional generators who may be affected by the ban, based on
generic sector-based estimates:
• Residential Colleges or Universities with ≥ 730 students
• Non-residential Colleges or Universities with ≥ 2,750 students
• Secondary Schools with ≥ 4,000 students
• Hospitals with ≥ 80 beds
• Nursing Homes with ≥ 160 beds
• Restaurants with ≥ 70 or more full time employees
• Resort/Conference Properties with ≥ 475 seats
• Supermarkets with ≥ 35 full time employees.
In response to this ban, the Martha’s Vineyard Vision Fellowship funded an Island-wide organic waste
management feasibility study which was finalized in May 2017. The study’s oversight committee
members were chosen for their knowledge of and experience with food waste diversion, waste
management and/or their unique perspectives on how to introduce new projects/programs to the
Island community. The committee members currently are: Don Hatch, Director of the Martha’s
Vineyard Refuse Disposal and Resource Recovery District; Michael Loberg, chairman of the Tisbury
Board of Health; Chris Murphy, Chilmark Conservation Commission and former MV Commission
member; Jon Previant, Agricultural Consultant; Richard Toole, Vineyard Conservation Society board
president; Matt Poole, Edgartown Board of Health Agent and Rebecca Haag, Executive Director at
Island Grown Initiative.
The study assessed various technologies and approaches to managing food waste on the Island and
made specific recommendations for next steps. The Committee applied for and received funding from
the Vision Fellowship for a Phase II, the purpose of which is to lay the groundwork for community and
investor commitments to specific organic waste management for the Island.
The precursor study to this report, “Island-Wide Organics Feasibility Study Final Report”2 concluded
that two composting technologies and one animal feed manufacturing technology should be
considered for implementation to help Island businesses comply with the new rules. The composting
technologies selected were open-air turned windrow and an in-vessel composting system. The project
team has based its analysis in this report on the rotary drum composting technology, due to its years of
experience in recycling organic wastes (particularly in Marlborough and Nantucket, MA) and its proven
capability for handling food wastes. This report also evaluates an aerated static pile (ASP) composting
approach. The animal feed manufacturing technology suggested in that report was based on the use of
a proprietary dry extrusion system.
This report was commissioned by the Island-Wide Organics Waste Management Study Oversight
Committee in order to begin to understand the magnitude of the infrastructure investment needed to
process food waste on Martha’s Vineyard, rather than to ship it back to mainland Massachusetts for
processing at a landfill or combustion facility as is currently the practice. This plan was prepared from
the perspective of a private-sector company opening an organics recycling facility on the Island and
handling all compost sales and marketing. It is possible that a public-sector entity would develop and
operate the facility.
About the authors
This report was prepared by Coker Composting & Consulting, with the assistance of Robert L. Spencer,
Environmental Planning Consultant.
Coker Composting & Consulting is a sole proprietorship consulting operation run by Craig S. Coker. Mr.
Coker has over 40 years’ experience in the planning, permitting, design, construction and operation of
organics recycling facilities processing animal manures, animal mortalities, food wastes, biosolids, yard
trimmings and source-separated organic solid wastes. He has planned, permitted, built and/or
operated twelve ASP facilities in eight states. He is a licensed Waste Management Facility Operator, a
certified Nutrient Management Planner (both Agriculture and Turf/Landscape) and a USCC/SWANA
Certified Compost Systems Manager. He holds an undergraduate degree in Environmental Science
from the University of Virginia and a graduate degree in Environmental Engineering from George
Washington University.
Robert L. Spencer is an Environmental Planner with extensive experience in Massachusetts and in the
previous evaluations of food wastes on Martha’s Vineyard. His experience working with Martha’s
Vineyard started in the fall of 2014 when he was retained by Bruno’s Roll-Off Inc. to assist the company
in identifying options for complying with the Massachusetts Food Waste Ban that took effect in
October 2014. Spencer was then retained by the Martha’s Vineyard Vision Fellowship in December
2015 for a 12-month feasibility study of food waste recycling options. Spencer has also been retained
by the Massachusetts DEP’s RecyclingWorks technical assistance program to assist the following
Martha’s Vineyard farms with composting food waste: Whippoorwill Farm, Beetlebung Farm, and
Thimble Farm.
2S. Abrams and R.L. Spencer, “Island-Wide Organics Feasibility Study”, Martha’s Vineyard Vision Fellowship, May 2017
Acknowledgements
The project team would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance provided by the following
people during this project:
• Rebecca Haag, Executive Director, Martha’s Vineyard Island Grown Initiative
• Jon Previant, Island-Wide Organics Waste Management Oversight Committee
• Sophie Abrams Mazza, Food Equity and Recovery Director, Island Grown Initiative
Compost Facility Sizing
Composting, at any scale, is a biological manufacturing process, where the inputs to the process are
compostable materials (feedstocks), air and water, and the outputs are compost, heat, water vapor
and carbon dioxide. Compost production requires a medium dry enough to provide pore spaces with
free air but wet enough to sustain biological activity (around 50% to 55% moisture). Porosity (around
35% to 50%) typically is provided by mixing organic wastes with a structural bulking agent or
amendment, such as wood chips. The addition of woody materials as amendments also serves to raise
the carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the organic waste materials into the preferred range of 20% to
35%. Other carbon-adjusting amendments include leaves, sawdust and horse manure and bedding.
Composting is also a batch-type volumetric materials handling process. The steps in this process are
feedstock receipt and storage, mixing, active composting, curing (also known as maturation), screening
(needed to recover oversized bulking agent), and product storage. Each of these process steps is sized
individually, then summed to determine the total area needed. For this project, sizing was done for
turned windrow and rotary drum composting methods. For the animal feed alternative, the technology
vendor offered sizing suggestions.
Once estimates of compostable feedstocks are determined, a compost recipe can be prepared.
Compost recipes are developed on a mass, or weight, basis to ensure that the mix conforms to desired
process design criteria, but the feedstocks are commingled on a volumetric basis (i.e. so many cubic
yards [CY] of Feedstock A mixed with so many CY of Feedstock B, etc.). Incoming source-separated
organic materials (SSO) would be processed by grinding/shredding/mixing to achieve a consistent
particle size, and to combine the SSO with fresh bulking agent, oversized bulking agent from the
screening process, and finished compost (used as a microbial inoculum).
Feedstock Estimates
Food Wastes
The 2017 Abrams and Spencer report estimated potential food waste diversion on Martha’s Vineyard
at 6,500 tons per year. That estimate was based on a combination of visual observations by Mr. Don
Hatch of the Martha’s Vineyard Refuse Disposal District of the percentage of food (45%) in the
municipal solid waste stream shipped off-island for disposal (19,000 tons/year), supplemented with
Mr. Spencer riding with a commercial hauler collecting trash in Edgartown in the fall of 2014 to inspect
loads tipped at the Oak Bluffs transfer station.
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (I/C/I) sources
Tables 3 and 4 in the 2017 Abrams and Spencer report list the 26 establishments that are, or might be,
subject to the MassDEP food waste ban which applies to generators of 1 tons per week or more of
food waste. This list included 16 establishments open only 20 weeks per year, one open 40
weeks/year, two open 48 weeks/year and 7 open 52 weeks/year, so it reflects the higher waste
generation of the spring/summer/fall tourist seasons. Estimates of waste generation for those
establishments were developed based on MassDEP Recycling Works methodology, which is a
reasonable method of estimation. Based on the Spencer and Abrams calculations, the total expected
annual waste generation from those MV establishments is approximately 1,006 tons/year. Those
estimates were compared to estimates from a “State List” which consists of a spreadsheet of food
waste sources by community in Massachusetts prepared in 2002 by Draper/Lennon, Inc. It is
reasonable to assume that all 1,006 tons/year will be available to the organics recycling facility.
Abrams and Spencer calculated potential tonnages from another 89 food waste generators on MV, not
necessarily subject to the ban, who might be producing another 740 tons/year. If any of those
establishments produce 1 ton per week for any portion of the year, they are subject to the ban. As
many of these generators are small, it is reasonable to assume that 50% of this tonnage (370
tons/year) will be available to the facility.
As part of this current project, Mr. Spencer confirmed that there have been no major new food waste
generators (i.e. restaurants or grocery stores) built since the previous calculations were done in Nov.
2016, through interviews with health agents in all six towns. Food service establishments must have a
permit from the Board of Health, and that permit lists the number of seats in the establishment, which
can then be used to estimate the amount of food waste per establishment.
Residential Sources
The 2017 report estimated a total yearly residential food waste stream of 4,844 tons, with 1,963 tons
coming from year-round residents and 2,881 tons coming from summer visitors. This was based on an
estimate of year-round population of 16,500 producing 238 lbs. of food waste per year and a summer
population estimate of 98,500 producing 0.65 lbs./day for 90 days. This is a reasonable method of
estimation.
As there is no mandate for residential diversion of food wastes, then any residential diversion program
must be a voluntary participation model, paid for either by usage fees or public funds subsidies. In
either case, voluntary programs are characterized by participation rates (the percentage of households
participating in the program) and setout rates (the percentage of households that actually set their
organics out for collection on their assigned collection day, or who actually take their organics to a
drop-off station weekly). For this study, assumed participation rates were 30% in 2020, rising 10% per
year to 50% by 2022. Of those participating, a setout rate of 75% was assumed (based on data from a
Vermont residential diversion program).
The estimated food waste generation is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated food waste generation
Food waste (tons/year)
Source 2020 2021 2022
I/C/I subject to ban 1,000 1,200 1,500
I/C/I not subject to ban 125 250 370
Residential (year-round) 442 590 736
Residential (visitor) 648 864 1,080
Totals 2,215 2,904 3,686
The economic evaluation in this study is based on a facility sized to process 4,000 tons/year of food
wastes.
Carbon sources
Although food-soiled paper is often included in the food wastes collected in SSO diversion programs (as
they are not recyclable elsewhere), they alone rarely provide enough biodegradable carbon to satisfy
the recipe criteria. Other sources of carbon amendments on Martha’s Vineyard were identified in a
2014 study 3. That study estimated that 5,699 cubic yards (CY) of wood chips, 4,868 CY of leaves, and
117 CY of sawdust could be available to a composting facility. Those estimates were used to develop
the compost recipe.
In addition, the Martha’s Vineyard Refuse District (MVRD) in West Tisbury reports they collect
approximately 1,980 CY of brush and 1,600 CY of leaves annually that is diverted to the Keene
Excavating Compost Facility. Those quantities were included in the recipe.
Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)

There are old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and waxed cardboard materials in the waste stream that
could potentially be captured and diverted to the composting facility. The 2017 Abrams and Spencer
study estimated that 19,000 tons/year of mixed solid waste were shipped off-island for disposal
annually. A 2011 Waste Characterization Analysis by MassDEP estimates that compostable paper
comprises 6.2% of solid waste disposed, that OCC comprises 8.7% and that waxed cardboard comprises
1%4. The compostable paper will likely be collected with the food waste, but a separate OCC collection
effort would have to be initiated. OCC/waxed cardboard were estimated to potentially add another
468 tons/year of divertable SSO assuming 25% of OCC/waxed cardboard waste stream could be
captured by 2022.
3 Abrams, S., “Closing the Loop on the Thimble Farm Slaughterhouse: A Waste Composting Feasibility Study”, Marlboro
Graduate School, July 2014
4 Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, “Massachusetts Waste Characterization Data, Material Category
Profiles”, March 2011

Compost Recipe
A mass-based compost recipe was developed for the estimated quantities above. The recipe was
based on the food waste plus leaves, sawdust, wood chips, OCC, yard waste, compost inoculant and
overs from the product screen. The recipe is based on the four key process design criteria for good
composting:
• Carbon:Nitrogen (C:N) ratio of more than 20:1
• Mix moisture content of 50% - 65%
• Volatile solids content greater than 80%
• Predicted (based on bulk density) free air space content of 40%-60%
Compost recipes should be adjusted to reflect the fact that not all carbon in compostable materials is
available to the bacteria responsible for primary decomposition in active composting. This is because
some carbon is contained within lignin molecules in wood, carbonaceous and paper products.
Lignaceous carbon is biodegraded by fungi in curing/maturation. Carbon content is adjusted for the
lignin content using a methodology by Chandler (1980)5:
Biodegradable Fraction (B.F.) = 0.83 – (0.028 x Lignin Content of Volatile Solids)

Biodegradable-C = Total Carbon x B.F. x Volatile Solids
A summary of the recipe is in Table 2 and the detailed recipe and calculations are in the Appendix.
Table 2. Daily Compost Recipe Summary
Parameter Targets Values
Average Daily Compostables Volumes (CY/day) 121
Carbon:Nitrogen Ratio > 20:1 20
Moisture Content 50%-65% 53%
Volatile Solids > 80% 85%
Predicted Free Air Space 40% - 60% 70%
The only recipe model parameter outside the recommended range is predicted free air space (FAS).
FAS is defined as pore space minus the pore space volume occupied by water. The equation predicting
FAS is based on Alburquerque (2008)6 and is a function of bulk density. So, materials with low bulk
densities have higher predicted FAS and vice-versa. Compost piles with high FAS may have difficulty
retaining heat during active composting and can be mitigated by covering piles with finished compost
or a fabric cover. This will be monitored by the facility’s operating staff, so is not considered
problematic at this early stage.
5 Chandler, J.A., “Predicting Methane Fermentation Biodegradability”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium, 10,
93, 1980
6 Alburquerque, J.A., et. al., "Air Space in Composting Research: A Literature Review", Compost Science and Utilization, Vol.
16, No. 3, 2008, p. 159-170

Facilities Footprint
The technologies initially under consideration by the Oversight Committee include three composting
approaches and a dry extrusion animal feed facility. The three composting approaches modeled were
turned windrow composting and curing, aerated static pile (ASP) composting with windrow curing and
rotary drum composting followed by windrow curing.
The sizing models used are based on the volumes determined by the recipe model due to the
volumetric materials handling nature of composting. Windrow systems are more flexible in terms of
changing quantities of feedstocks (to be expected on Martha’s Vineyard given seasonal tourism) where
in-vessel systems have fixed volumetric capacities.
For the windrow alternative, the sizing analysis was based on the use of a straddle windrow turner with
a 6’ H x 12’ W drum (Figure 1). The ASP alternative was based on the use of concrete block bunkers
and Fuji ring compressors (Figure 2). For the rotary drum alternative (Figure 3), the sizing was based on
the use of a single 12’ diameter, 185’ long rotary drum with mixer 7.
Figure 1. Straddle Windrow Turner Composting
7Rotary drum technology is available in either small (< 60 CY capacity) or large (> 750 CY capacity), if using the smaller
drums, eight units would be required to handle expected daily throughputs.
Figure 2. ASP Composting
Figure 3. Rotary Drum Composting
A summary of area needs is shown in Table 3. Detailed calculations are in the Appendix.
Table 3. Summary of Area Needs
Windrow Composting ASP Composting Rotary Drum Composting
Area Summary Area Area Area
(sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.)
Feedstock Receipt 1,600 1,600 1,600
Feedstock Storage
Food wastes 400 400 400
OCC 400 400 400
Leaves 19,900 19,900 19,900
Wood chips 8,400 8,400 8,400
Yard wastes 6,000 6,000 6,000
Overs from Screen 750 750 750
Composting Area 87,500 26,250 24,000
Curing Area 75,000 95,625 115,500
Screening Area 4,500 4,500 4,500
Product Storage Area 24,000 24,000 24,000
Retail sales area 6,400 6,400 6,400
Subtotal 234,850 194,225 216,650
Equip storage, etc. @ 25% 58,713 48,556 54,163
Total square feet needed 293,563 242,781 270,812
Total acreage needed 6.7 5.8 6.2
As much of the space needs are taken up by non-composting/curing activities, the key differences are
in the composting and curing footprints. While rotary drum composting takes up the least space, it
requires the largest curing (maturation) footprint. Essentially, all alternatives will require a 6-8 acre
site.
Animal Feed Extrusion Facility
The animal feed manufacturing process recommended for further evaluation in the 2017 study is a dry
extrusion process, patented by Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises (www.forktofeed.com) which
has a 100 ton/day facility operating in Santa Clara, CA.
Description of Operation
The Santa Clara facility operated by S.A.F.E. consists of a pre-processing step to remove contaminants
and make the food waste compatible with the feed production system, which consists of a dehydrator,
a sterilizer, and an extruder press to recover oils from grease trap wastes.
The pre-processing system Is shown in Figure 3 and consists of a shredder, a screw press, a filtering
screen, and mash storage tanks. The screw press is the primary contaminant removal mechanism,
producing a high-solids thick liquid, called mash.
Figure 3. SAFE pre-processing system
The feed production system is shown in Figure 4. Company officials have indicated that, in future
installations, they plan to move the Fats/Oils/Greases (FOG) press between the mash storage tanks and
the dehydration system. The extruder technology (labeled Sterilization in Figure 4) is based on Insta-
Pro International dry extruders, which generate heat through friction to accomplish numerous
processes including: cooking, expanding, sterilizing, stabilizing, dehydrating and texturizing. The
extruders can be either high or medium shear which create various pressures and temperatures.
Figure 4. SAFE feed production system
The output from the extruder is a

dry pelleted product, which can be fed to non-ruminant animals. The Santa Clara facility has
experimented with making treats for domestic dogs from the process, which was apparently
successful.
A key advantage to a SAFE system on Martha’s Vineyard is that it is a compact processing system. The
Santa Clara plant takes up about 15,000 square feet of processing area. However, as the 2017 study
noted, “Only food waste would be processed. The technology does not process other organics like leaf
and yard waste, cardboard or soiled paper, meaning either a missed opportunity to recycle those
materials locally, or the need for a separate composting facility.” Company officials have estimated the
facility will need approximately 11,000 SF of processing area, and this study assumes this to be done
inside a building on a 0.5 acre site
Company officials have indicated that it may be difficult to downsize some of the system components
to meet the projected 12.8 ton/day food waste diversion rate (based on 4,000 tons/year over a 312-
day year), so there may be interest in bringing in other material off-island for processing.
Neither the 2017 study or this evaluation has assessed the on-island market(s) for animal feed
produced by a SAFE system.
SAFE provided a preliminary budgetary design-build proposal for their technology, consisting of a pre-
processing system to produce the food mash and an animal food production system consisting of a
dryer, decanting centrifuge, pumps, tanks, the extrusion system, and a suspended air flotation system
for pretreating the decanted wastewater prior to sewer discharge. Their proposal is included in the
Appendix.
As a site has not been selected yet for any organics recycling facility, it is not known whether adequate
3-phase power is available nearby, nor if any one of the island’s five wastewater treatment plants can
accept the pretreated wastewater.
Cost Estimates
Cost Factors Used
In the absence of any island-specific construction cost factors, this analysis used cost factors from two
sources: a general contractor’s Schedule of Values for a composting facility under construction in the
northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and from construction estimating software I use
(Craftsman National Construction Cost Estimator), adjusted for costs in Zip Code 02575 (materials +4%,
labor +36%, equipment +1%).
For windrow composting operating costs, we assumed a labor rate of $22.50/hour, a machine rate for
loaders/trucks of $55/hr, for grinder at $110/hr, and for a windrow turner at $450/hour. The rotary
drum vendor (Waste Options) and SAFE provided estimates of equipment and operating costs for
those equipment alternatives. We assumed all alternatives to be open 6 days/week.
Capital Cost Estimates

Composting Facility
For all composting approaches, a greenfields development was assumed on a site with minimal tree
cover requiring clearing, fine grading only (i.e. a reasonably flat site), 6” stone base, 6” asphalt paving
(recommended to protect island groundwater resources), concrete slab for waste receipt and
feedstock storage bunkers (food and OCC only; other feedstocks stored in open trapezoidal piles),
concrete block walls for bunkers, a portable construction trailer office (8’ x 24’) with minimal
landscaping, 500’ extension of 3-phase power from the road (for the ASP and rotary drum alternatives
only), an on-site 4” well for water (60’ deep), an on-site septic tank for sewage (and maybe leachate),
sediment and erosion control (construction entrance, silt fence and erosion control blankets), storm
water runoff management using run-on berms, runoff swales, solids separator, and closed (i.e. lined)
bioretention pond, and a 50’ wide planted vegetative buffer (tree/shrub density 1,000 plants/acre).
Site development costs also included a 7.5% design fee and a 25% contingency.
The ASP alternative was based on the generic positive (forced) aeration design, with one blower per
bunker. The capital cost estimate assumed a concrete bunker floor with aeration trenches and
aeration pipe covered with galvanized steel trench covers, concrete block bunker walls, and a sliding
timber panel end wall (so that bunkers could be filled to capacity). During this project, two technology
providers (AgriLabs in VT and Engineered Compost Systems in WA) offered possible ASP facilities based
on their technologies. This information has been included in Appendix C. If ASP composting is the
selected alternative, these vendor offerings should be investigated in more detail.
The rotary drum capital cost estimate also included two buildings, one for waste receipt and drum
loading and one for product discharge and screening, a mechanical mixer and a biofilter. The estimate
was based on a March 2017 preliminary layout prepared for the Martha’s Vineyard Refuse District by
Structor Engineering.
The equipment included in the cost estimates was a well pump and pressure tank, a horizontal grinder
(Morbark 2600 wood hog), a straddle windrow turner (Scarab 612) or a rotary drum (Citic 12’ x 165’)
with a Luck mechanical mixer, Vortron TX 714 fabric windrow covers with punched tire hold-downs,
Fuji ring compressor blowers with Intermatic timers, a yard truck (10 CY dump) for moving materials
through the production process, a rubber-tired front-end loader (John Deere 524K with 2 – 3CY
buckets, one for waste and one for product), and a TROM 406 trommel screen.
Food Extrusion Facility

SAFE provided estimates for facility design, pre-processing equipment, animal food production
equipment, and wastewater pretreatment equipment8. They estimated about 11,000 square feet (SF)
would be needed in a building somewhere. This study used the same site development cost factors
used for composting site development and added estimated cost for a 11,000 SF pre-engineered metal
building.
A summary of the capital cost estimates is provided in Table 5 and detailed cost estimates are in the
Appendix E.
Table 5. Summary of Initial Capital Cost Estimates
Windrow ASP Rotary Drum Animal Feed
Cost Element Composting Composting Composting Extrusion
Site development &
$2,871,500 $2,779,953 $2,856,500 $2,725,000
design
Equipment $1,101,000 $917,444 $3,040,500 $8,700,000
Total $3,972,500 $3,697,397 $5,897,000 $11,425,000
Operating Cost Estimates

Composting Facility
Estimated operating costs for the three composting options are shown in Table 6 and detailed cost
estimates are in the Appendix. The estimates were prepared by using a “time-and-motion” prediction
of the steps in the volumetric compost production process, which resulted in estimates of labor
needed, and equipment costs for operations.
Production in the turned windrow and rotary drum alternatives would need 2 full-time equivalents
(FTEs) while the aerated static pile alternative would require 2 FTEs and 1 part-time equivalent. The
pro forma analysis assumed 2 FTEs for the windrow and drum composting and 3 FTEs for ASP
composting to account for housekeeping, recordkeeping and process monitoring, along with sales
support. Annual operating costs per ton are estimated to be $32.70/ton for turned windrows,
$33.30/ton for rotary drum and $45.10/ton for ASP. The primary differences between them are higher
8SAFE based their estimates on late 2017 materials prices but noted that pending tariffs on Chinese steel would require
that the estimates be revisited before placing an equipment order.
processing costs for active composting with straddle-turned windrows and higher processing costs for
curing with the rotary drum, along with mixing and electricity costs for rotary drum and ASP.
Table 6. Annual Composting Operational Expenses
Turned Windrow
Process Hours per day Labor Cost Machine Cost
Waste Receipt 0.7 $4,734 $11,572
Grinding/shredding 0.7 $7,020 $34,320
Transport to Pad 2.4 $16,569 $40,503
Building Windrows 2.0 $14,202 $34,717
Windrow Mixing/Turning 1.1 $7,898 $19,305
Moving Compost to Curing 1.4 $9,942 $24,302
Managing Curing Piles 1.3 $9,042 $22,103
Screening Compost 1.5 $11,504 $28,121
Moving Compost to Storage 1.0 $7,158 $17,497
Moving Overs to Storage 0.3 $2,193 $5,360
Product Marketing & Sales 0.8 $5,616 $13,728
Total Workhours 13.2 Totals $347,406
FTEs needed* 1.93 Annual Tonnage 10,623
Cost per ton $32.70
Rotary Drum
Waste Receipt 0.7 $4,734 $11,572
Transport to Pad 2.4 $16,569 $40,503
Loading Rotary Drum 0.4 $5,616 $13,728
Electricity for Rotary Drum -- -- $28,852
Moving Overs to Storage 0.3 $2,244 $5,485
Cost per ton $33.30
Aerated Static Pile
Waste Receipt 0.7 $4,734 $11,572
Mixing 4.2 $18,937 $72,029
Transport to Pad 2.1 $14,913 $36,453
Building ASPs 2.4 $17,043 $41,660
Electricity for blowers -- -- $78,122
Move Overs to Storage 0.3 $1,879 $4,593
Cost per ton $45.10
*Assumes 85% productivity of on-site staff
Food Extrusion Facility

SAFE provided the following operating cost estimate for feed production:
• Energy $25/ton
• Labor $25/ton
• Maintenance $ 4/ton
• G&A9 $ 8/ton
Total $62/ton
They estimated the pre-processing system would add another $25/ton to the operating cost, for a
grand total of $87/ton. This is based on processing 15,600 – 16,800 tons/year, which is considerably
more than is available on Martha’s Vineyard. Generally speaking, lower-capacity systems have higher
operational costs due to a lack of economies of scale.
9G&A – General and Administrative costs

Financial Pro Formas
As noted previously, this study is based on the assumption that a private- or public-sector entity will
develop an organics recycling facility based on composting. As the implementing entity is not yet
known, it is unknown how financing would be arranged, so the pro forma analysis does not include any
cost of capital. For the animal feed extrusion alternative, SAFE, a private company, has offered to
design/build a new facility on Martha’s Vineyard, so no pro forma analysis was performed. These pro
formas are, in essence, projections of monthly profit or loss over a three-year period (2019 – 2021).
Methodology and Assumptions

Composting
For all composting approaches, the assumptions used are shown in Table 7. Compost sales prices were
set lower than current Vineyard prices in order to capture market share. It was assumed that operating
costs and tip fees would go up 3% per year. Timing of compost sales was based on experiences from
other compost producers and the timing of production expenses was proportional to the tonnages
collected by IGI in 2017 (as delineated in Table 8).
Capital cost recovery factors used were 3.75% per year for equipment with less than a 12-yr
anticipated life and 5.5% per year for site improvements and infrastructure, assuming a 20-year life.
Table 7. Pro forma assumptions for composting
Parameter 2019 2020 2021 Notes
Tip fee $50.00 $51.50 $53.00 $ per ton
Tip fee tonnage Tons 2,215 2,900 4,000 No tip fee for carbon materials
Compost sales price Commercial $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $ per CY
Residential $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $ per CY
Annual sales volume 10,500 13,775 19,000 CY
Table 8. Timing of Sales and Expenses

Month Percent of Sales Percent of incoming tonnages
January 0.2% 1.5%
February 4.4% 1.8%
March 12.8% 1.6%
April 15.3% 2.2%
May 9.5% 7.4%
June 9.1% 11.5%
July 2.1% 19.5%
August 4.2% 24.5%
September 16.2% 10.2%
October 14.0% 8.4%
November 5.5% 5.7%
December 6.7% 5.8%
Pro Forma Summary
The results of the pro forma analysis are summarized in Tables 9, 10 and 11. Detailed spreadsheets are
in Appendix F.
All options are similar in terms of predicted financial performance. The facility can be profitable within
three years if the tonnages go up year-over-year as shown, and all the compost is sold at the assumed
price points. These estimates do not include any collection costs or revenues, nor any corporate or
governmental overhead allocations.
Table 9. Summary of windrow composting pro forma analysis
2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $589,500 $579,653 $590,388
Net income ($190,000) ($51,491) $144,112
Table 9. Summary of ASP composting pro forma analysis
2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $687,111 $701,484 $716,287
Net income ($287,612) ($173,322) $18,213
Table 11. Summary of rotary drum composting pro forma analysis

2019 2020 2021
Revenues $399,500 $528,163 $734,500
Expenses $659,908 $643,650 $654,826
Net income ($260,408) ($115,488) $79,674
Summary and Recommendations

Of the four alternatives evaluated, the animal feed production is the most expensive, in part because it
is sized for 50 tons/day and would require inputs from off-island for the economics to work out. Rotary
drum composting is well-practiced in Massachusetts (Marlborough and Nantucket) but would also be
sized larger than needed. Windrow composting is the most widely practiced composting approach and
is the least expensive and most flexible to changes in quantities of feedstocks. ASP composting is
becoming more common as it offers better process and odor control but has the least favorable
financial performance projection.
There are a number of factors that could influence these calculations, as outlined in Table 12. Readers
should consider these factors before drawing any conclusions.
Table 12. Factors Affecting Financial Analysis
Assumptions used in study Value chosen Uncertainties

Feedstocks
Food wastes from residential 1,090 tons/year to 1,816 Will residential diversion
sources tons/year program be implemented?
Carbon sources from MVRD 1,980 CY/yr brush, 1,600 CY/yr Will this be made available
leaves given it is being recycled now?
Processing Alternatives
Rotary drum composting Single drum - 50 ton/day This is more capacity than
be included?
Animal Feed Extrusion SAFE proposed ~16,000 tons/yr This is more capacity than
be included?
Economic Analysis
Cost factors used Labor - $22.50/hr Is this appropriate?
Cost of land $74,000/acre Could be higher or lower? If
municipal implementation,
could be free.
Construction costs No land clearing needed Is this appropriate?
On-site well, on-site septic, 500’ Are these appropriate?
utility extensions
Equipment costs Equipment costs based largely Will March 2018 steel tariffs
on late 2017 prices raise prices?
Pro Forma Analyses
Capital cost recovery factors 3.75%/yr for equipment; 5.5% Are these appropriate?
for site improvements
Food waste tipping fee $50 - $53/ton Is this appropriate? Better
financial performance at tip fee
= $75/ton
Compost sales prices $25 - $35/CY Is this appropriate?
Animal feed revenues None provided by SAFE
The next steps in the process should be to find one or more candidate sites, identify who the
implementing entity will be, quantify the real market potential for compost sales on the Island, and
refine this preliminary sizing analysis and estimates of costs.
Appendices
A. Compost Recipe
B. Footprint Analysis
Windrow composting
Aerated Static Pile composting
Drum composting
C. Aerated static pile system information from AgriLabs and Engineered Compost Systems
D. Rotary drum layout and quote
E. Cost Estimates
Capital costs
Operating costs
F. Pro Forma Analyses
Windrow composting
Aerated static pile composting
Rotary drum composting
G. SAFE proposal
Appendix A - Compost recipe
Martha's Vineyard Organics Composting Business Plan
Assumptions:
Composting facility open 6 days/week (312 days/yr)
Food waste tonnage based on 4K ton/year; 50% comm'l, 50% residential
Carbon amendments based on 2014 Abrams study: Wood chips - 5,699 cy, Leaves - 4,868 cy, Sawdust - 117 cy
Additional carbon amendments from MVRD: 1,980 CY brush & 1,600 CY leaves & grass
OCC & Waxed = 9.7% (Source: MassDEP, 2011) of 19,000 tons/year sent off-island, assume 25% captured
Compost recycle added at 10% by volume
MIX RATIO CALCULATIONS- AVERAGE DAILY CONDITIONS

Residential
I/C/I Food Food MVRD Yard OCC & Compost Overs from
INGREDIENTS Wastes Wastes Leaves Sawdusts Wood Chips waste waxed Recycle Screen TOTAL MIX TARGET
C (% DWB) 31.4 36.6 30.4 41.0 33.2 34.4 34.1 34.0 30.3
N (% DWB) 5.5 0.68 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.05 1.7 0.29
MOISTURE% 71.2 38.2 59.5 39.8 61.6 40.1 8 47.5 61.6
UNITS IN MIX BY WGT (T) 6.41 6.41 2.7 0.1 5.2 3 1.5 4.0 4.8 34
UNITS IN MIX BY WGT (LB) 12,821 12,821 5,461 103 10,468 5,995 2,954 7,933 9,540 68,095
UNITS IN MIX BY VOL (CY) 16.0 25.6 15.6 0.4 18.3 11 11.4 6.7 15.9 121
DENSITY (LBS/CY) 800 500 350 275 573 523 259 1184 600 561.0
POUNDS OF BIODEG. CARBON 4,026 4,692 1,660 42 3,475 2,062 1,007 2,697 2,891 22,553
POUNDS OF NITROGEN 705 87 44 0.2 84 54 1 135 28 1,138
BIODEGRADABLE C:N RATIO 6 54 38 205 42 38 682 20 104 20 20 TO 30
POUNDS OF MOISTURE 9,128 4,897 3,249 41 6,448 2,404 236 3,768 5,877 36,050
NUMBER OF UNITS 12,821 12,821 5,461 103 10,468 5,995 2,954 7,933 9,540 68,095
PERCENT MOISTURE 53 50 TO 65%
VOLATILE SOLIDS (%) 96.2 91.7 98 99.6 89.5 98.3 94 57.1 59

VOLATILE SOLIDS (LBS) 12333 11756 5352 103 9369 5893 2776 4530 5629 57,741
NUMBER OF UNITS 12821 12821 5461 103 10468 5995 2954 7933 9540 68,095
MIX VS (%) 85 > 80%
DENSITY (LBS/CY) 800 500 350 275 573 523 259 1184 573
DENSITY (KG/M3) 474.6 296.6 207.6 163.2 340.0 310.0 153.7 702.4 340.0
% AIR SPACE 57.28 73.30 81.31 85.32 69.40 72.10 86.17 36.78 69.40
FEEDSTOCK VOLUME (CY) 16.03 25.64 15.60 0.38 18.27 11.47 11.40 6.70 15.90 121.4
AIR VOLUME (CY) 9.2 18.8 12.7 0.3 12.7 8.3 9.8 2.5 11.0 85.3
PREDICTED FREE AIR SPACE 70% 40-60%
Data Sources:
I/C/I food wastes - March 2012 lab analysis of dining hall pre-consumer food wastes, Culver, IN
Residential food wastes - Jan. 2012 lab analysis of cafeteria post-consumer food wastes, Smyrna, TN
Bulk densities for food wastes from Brattleboro (VT) comm'l and curbside collection programs
Leaves - March 2012 analysis of fallen leaves, City of Richmond, VA
Sawdust - April 2012 analysis of hardwood sawmill sawdust, Smith Mountain Lake, VA
Wood chips - Jan. 2014 analysis of wood chips, Royal Oak Farm, Evington VA
Yard waste - June 2011 lab analysis of mixed yard waste, Prince William Co., VA
OCC - On-Farm Composting Handbook, NRAES-54, 1992
Compost recycle - April 2017 analysis of 3/8" screened yard waste compost, Prince William Co., VA
Overs C,N, Moisture - Jan. 2014 lab analysis from Royal Oak Farm in VA; other from literature
Predicted Free Air Space equation from Alburquerque, J.A., et. al. , "Air Space in Composting Research: A Literature Review"
Compost Science and Utilization , Vol. 16, No. 3, 2008, p. 159-170
Adjusting for Biodegradable Carbon:

Biodegradable Fraction (B.F.) = 0.83 – (0.028) x Lignin Content of Volatile Solids (L.C. VS )
Biodegradable-C = Total C x B.F. x Volatile Solids (VS)
Biodegradabl
Lignin e Fraction Volatile Biodegradabl
Feedstock Carbon (%) Content (%) (B.F.) Solids (%) e Carbon (%)
Example: Yard Trimmings 49.2% 4.1% 82.89% 98.3% 40.1%
Sawdust 49.8 12.7 47.44% 99.6 41.0
I/C/I food waste 39.3 0.4 81.88% 96.2 31.4
Residential food waste 45.9 0.4 81.88% 96.2 36.6
Leaves 37.6 18.1 32.32% 98.0 30.4
Wood chips 44.8 12.7 47.44% 89.6 33.2
Yard waste 49.2 4.1 71.52% 84.2 34.4
OCC 44.0 17.4 34.28% 94.0 34.1
Cleaned overs 38.6 12.7 47.44% 95.0 30.3
Biodegradable Fraction & Carbon equations from Chandler, J.A., et.al., "Predicting Methane
Fermentation Biodegradability", Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium, 10,93, 1980
Lignin content data sources:
Sawdusts- Richards, T. "Effect of Lignin on Biodegradability", Cornell University, 1996
Food waste - Das, K.C., "Odor Related Issues in Commercial Composting", University of Georgia, 2000
Leaves- Quarles, R.G., "Long-term decomposition rates of forest floor litter", Forests 2016, 7, 231
Wood chips- Richards, T. "Effect of Lignin on Biodegradability", Cornell University, 1996
Yard waste - Das, K.C., "Odor Related Issues in Commercial Composting", University of Georgia, 2000
OCC - Gonzalez-Estrella, J., et.al., “A review of anaerobic digestion of paper and paper board waste”, Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 16.3 (2017): 569-590.
Cleaned overs - assumed the same as woodchips
5/26/18 Coker Composting Consulting

Appendix B - Footprint Analyses
MV Food Waste Composting - windrows - straddle turners
Assumptions:
1. Facility is open 6 days/week (312 days/year)
2. Facility will use open-air turned windrows turned with straddle turner
Waste Volumes (in cubic yards)

Average Daily Volume
I/C/I food wastes 16.0 CY/day
Residential food wastes 25.6
Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
MVRD yard waste 11.5
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Overs from screen 15.9
Totals 121.4 CY/day
Composting Materials Flows

Residence times for windrow composting (wintertime conditions)
Composting Curing Total
Windrow 45 days 60 days 105 days
Daily Volumes going to composting
Daily volumes of mixed feedstocks = 121.4 CY/day
Volume of material in Primary Composting
Residence Mixed
Days feedstocks
Windrow 45 5,462 CY
Daily Volumes going to curing (assume 30% volume shrink in composting)
Daily volumes of composted feedstocks = 85.0 CY/day
Volume of material in Curing:
Residence Composted
Days Feedstocks
Windrow 60 5,098 CY
Daily Volumes going to screening (assume 10% volume shrink in curing):
Daily volumes of cured feedstocks = 76.5 CY/day
Screening a. Assume approx. 80% finished compost capture rate and 20% going to overs
b. Finished compost production (daily):
Daily volumes of screened compost = 61.2 CY/day
c. Daily volumes of overs = 15.3 CY/day
d. Finished compost production (annually, based on 312-day year)
Annual volume of screened compost = 19,088 CY/year
Feedstocks Receipt
Assume landscape/carbon delivery once/week (except leaves)
Assume food wastes delivery daily
Size receipts area for 2.0x average daily volume = 242.8 CY/day
to allow equipment to move feedstocks into storage = 6,555 CF/day
Assumed pile height = 6 ft
Pile footprint = 1092 SF
Plus equipment access/movement = 546 SF
Receipt area needed = 1639 SF
Proposed dimensions = 40 ft. W
40 ft. L
Feedstocks Storage
Assume storage of food wastes, OCC in rectangular concrete block bunkers, rest in open piles
Food Wastes
Food wastes in recipe daily = 42 CY
Assume a maximum storage period prior to use = 2 days
Storage volume needed for food wastes = 90 CY
= 2,430 CF
Assume bunker depth = 4 ft
Bunker footprint = 608 SF
Proposed dimensions = 20 ft W
= 30 ft L
OCC
OCC in recipe daily (on average) = 11.4 CY
Assume a storage capacity = 7 days
Storage volume needed for paper/OCC = 80 CY
= 2,160 CF
= 20 ft L
Leaves Assume stored in trapezoidal piles outdoors
Annual volumes of leaves to be handled = 4,868 CY/yr
Assume all come in Nov - Jan. = 131,436 CF
Assume maximum storage pile height = 10 ft
Assume pile base width = 30 ft
Volume per linear foot (trapezoidal - V=1/2(B1+B2)*H*L) = 7.41 CY/LF
Total linear footage of storage piles needed = 660 LF
Assume pile length = 200 ft.
Number of storage piles needed = 3
1
Space allowance around piles for equipment, etc. = 25 ft
Needed storage area footprint = 19900 SF
Proposed dimensions = 250 ft L
= 80 ft W
Wood chips Assume stored in trapezoidal piles outdoors
Wood chips in recipe daily (on average) = 18 CY/day
Assume a storage period prior to use = 30 days
Storage volume needed for wood chips = 550 CY
= 14,850 CF
= 80 ft W
Yard waste Assume stored in trapezoidal piles outdoors
Yard waste in recipe daily (on average) = 11 CY/day
Storage volume needed for yard waste = 350 CY
= 9,450 CF
= 80 ft W
Overs from screening Assume stored in trapezoidal piles outdoors
Screen overs in recipe daily (on average) = 16 CY/day
Storage volume needed for screen overs = 120 CY
= 3,240 CF
= 25 ft W
Feedstock Mixing
Assume all feedstock mixing done by windrow turner on pad
Active Composting
Assume use of a straddle turner with a 6' x 12' tunnel
Assume trapezoidal windrow shape
a. Volume per linear foot of windrow:
A = (H x (B-H)), where H = height, B = width at base
Height = 6 ft
Base = 12 ft
Cross-sectional area per linear foot = 36 SF
Volume per linear foot = 1.3 CY/ LF
Average linear footage of new windrows daily
Daily volume from mixing / volume per linear foot = 91.0 LF / day
Total volume of material in windrows during 45-day active composting = 5,462 CY
Total linear footage of material in windrows = 4,097 LF
Total area occupied by windrows = 49,162 SF
Assume each windrow holds 2 days worth of mixed material/3 built per week
94 LF / day x 2 days = 182 LF
Volume of material in each windrow = 243 CY
Number of windrows in active composting = 23 windrows
Assume 3' spacing between windrows and 25' turning radius at each end
Each windrow is
Length 189 ft + 25 ft + 25 ft = 232 ft
Width 12 ft + 3 ft = 15 ft
Area of each windrow (gross) = 3,481 SF Avg Month Rain
Area of all windrows (gross) = 78,328 SF 0.25
Assume pad length is equal to gross windrow length = 250 ft. L
Pad width is 23 windrows @ 15' ea = 338 ft. W
Composting Pad = 350 ft. W
250 ft. L
Curing
Assume same size windrows as in active composting
2
Assume 30% volume shrink during composting
Avg. daily volume to composting = 121 CY/day
Avg. daily volume to curing = 85 CY/day
Average linear footage of new windrows daily
Avg. daily volume from composting / volume per linear foot = 64 LF / day
Total volume of material in windrows during 60-day curing period = 5,098 CY
Assume each curing windrow holds 1.5 composting windrows
1.5 x 755 CY/windrow x 30% shrinkage = 255 CY
Number of windrows in curing = 20 windrows
Length of each windrow = 191 ft
Assume 3' spacing between windrows and 25' turning radius at each end
Each windrow is
Length 595 ft + 25 ft + 25 ft = 241 ft
Area of each windrow (gross) = 3,618 SF
Area of all windrows (gross) = 72,356 SF
Assume pad length is equal to gross windrow length = 241 ft
Pad width is = 300 ft
Curing Pad = 300 ft. W
250 ft. L
Screening & Product Storage Sizing and Layout Calculations

Assume use of trommel screener with 3/8" screen
Assume approximately 80%/20% fines/overs split
Plan on four months finished compost storage
Daily volume going to screening = 76 CY/day
Daily volume going to storage = 61 CY/day
Daily volume of overs recycled as bulking agent = 15 CY/day
Screen size Length 24.5 ft
Width 6 ft
Allow 25 ft all sides for equipment movement
Screening Area = 60 ft. W
75 ft. L
Total Volume in Storage Pile
Daily volume x 6 days/week operation x 4 months capacity 5,873 CY
= 158,578 CF
Total linear footage of storage piles needed 800 LF
Assume pile length 200 ft.
Space allowance between piles for equipment, etc. = 25 ft
Assume open storage pile with 30' access in front for equipment/trucks
Width (depth) of storage area = 120 ft
Length of storage pile = 201 ft
Product Storage Area = 120 ft. W
200 ft. L
Retail Sales Area
Assume 90% of production goes out in transfer trailers, 10% is small truck retail sales
Truck loading area:
Dump trailer dimensions with 30' on either side for loading: = 68.5 ft W
53 ft L
Retail sales:
Pick up truck dimensions with 30' on either side for loading: = 64 ft W
20 ft L
Area needed = 4911 SF
Add another 25% for vehicle queuing = 1228 SF
Total 6138 SF
Dimensions: = 80 ft. W
= 80 ft. L
Area Summary Width Length Area Area

(ft.) (ft.) (sq. ft.) (acres)
Feedstock Receipt 40 40 1,600 0.04
Feedstocks Storage
Food wastes 20 20 400 0.01
OCC 20 20 400 0.01
Leaves 80 250 19,900 0.46
Wood chips 80 105 8,400 0.19
Yard waste 75 80 6,000 0.14
Overs from screen 25 30 750 0.02
Composting Pad 350 250 87,500 2.01
Curing Pad 300 250 75,000 1.72
Screening Area 60 75 4,500 0.10
Product Storage Area 120 200 24,000 0.55
Retail Sales Area 80 80 6,400 0.15
234,850 5.39
Allowance for equipment storage, movement, etc. @ 25% Totals 293,563 6.74
3
MV Food Waste Composting - Aerated Static Piles
Assumptions:
2. Facility will use aerated static piles (positive air) with loader-turned curing piles

Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Totals 121.4 CY/day

Residence times for ASP composting (wintertime conditions)
ASP 28 days 60 days 88 days
Daily Volumes going to composting (assume 10% volume shrink in mixing)
Residence Mixed
Days feedstocks
ASP 28 3,059 CY
Residence Composted
Days Feedstocks
Windrow 60 4,588 CY
Feedstocks Receipt
40 ft. L
1
Feedstocks Storage
Assume storage of food wastes, OCC in rectangular concrete block bunkers, rest in open piles
Food Wastes
= 2,430 CF
= 30 ft L
OCC
= 2,160 CF
= 20 ft L
= 80 ft W
= 14,850 CF
= 80 ft W
= 9,450 CF
2
= 80 ft W
= 3,240 CF
= 25 ft W
Feedstock Mixing
Assume all feedstock mixing done by mechanical mixer
Assumed mixer dimensions: 20.4' L x 9.2' W
Allow 20' on long axis sides for tractor/equip access
Assumed dimensions = 30 ft. W
= 22 ft. L
Total Feedstock Mixing Area = 660 SF
Active Composting
Composting residence time = 28 days/cycle
ASP sizing = 4.0 weeks/cycle
a. Total volume each cycle = 3,059.0 CY
b. Assume ASP height (w/o 6" compost cap) = 8.0 ft. H
c. Assume ASP width = 21 ft. W
d. Assume maximum ASP length = 36 ft. L
6" Compost Cap
End boards
channel
8'
in U-
6" mulch layer

36'
V = (36' x 18' x 8') + (0.5' x 18' x 36') = = 6426 ft3
= 238 CY
e. ASP Volume = 238 CY
f. No. of days to fill one bunker = 2
Number of ASP bunkers needed = 13
3
Assume two rows of 7 bunkers each separated by 50' wide access aisle
and 20' wide utility aisle behind each row
● ASP # 1 ASP # 8 ●
● ASP # 2 ASP # 9 ●
● ASP # 3 18' ASP # 10 ●
● ASP # 4 ASP # 11 ●
● ASP # 5 ASP # 12 ●
● ASP # 6 ASP # 13 ●
● ASP # 7 50' ASP # 14 ●
36' 36'
Width = (7 ASPs x 21' / ASP) + (8 walls x 2' each) = 163 ft
Length = (2 rows x 36' / ASP) + ( 1 aisle x 50' ea) + (2 utility x 20' ea) = 162 ft
Composting Area Dimensions = = 150 ft W
175 ft L
Composting Aeration System
Volume of each pile = 238 CY/bunker
Assumed bulk density of each pile = 900 lbs/CY
Wet tonnage in each pile = 107.1 wet tons
Assumed pile moisture content at beginning = 62 %
Dry tonnage in each pile = 66.4 dry tons
Aeration rate = 600 CFH / dry ton
Aeration needed for each pile = 39,841 CFH
Fan Air Flow needed = 664 CFM
Assume one blower for each ASP bunker
Maximum Air Flow @ 6" W.C. = 600 CFM
Curing System
Assume curing is windrows turned with front end loader
Total volume of material in piles during 60-day curing period = 4,588 CY
Assume high parabolic windrow shape (NRAES-114, p. 13)
Volume per linear foot of windrow:
A = 0.667 x (b) x (h), where h = height, b = width at base
Height of loader reach without driving up on pile = 9 ft
Base of parabolic pile = 18 ft
Cross-sectional area per linear foot = 108 SF
Volume per linear foot = 4.0 CY/ LF
Linear footage of new windrows weekly
Avg. weekly volume from composting / volume per linear foot= 115 LF / week
Assume each windrow holds 3 ASP bunker volumes
204 CY/bunker x 30% shrink
Volume of material in each windrow = 500 CY
Assume each windrow is 225' long 225 ft
Assume 20' spacing between windrows and 15' at each end (turning radii + pile displacement)
Each windrow is
Length 225 ft + 15 ft + 15 ft = 255 ft
Assume curing area length is equal to gross windrow length = 255 ft. L
Curing area width is = 349 ft W
Curing area = 225 ft. W
425 ft. L
4
Width 6 ft
75 ft. L
= 142,720 CF
Space allowance between piles for equipment, etc. = 25 ft
200 ft. L
Retail Sales Area
Truck loading area:
53 ft L
Retail sales:
20 ft L
Total 6138 SF
= 80 ft. L

Feedstocks Storage
Food wastes 20 20 400 0.01
OCC 20 20 400 0.01
Leaves 80 250 19,900 0.46
Wood chips 80 105 8,400 0.19
Yard waste 75 80 6,000 0.14
Composting Pad 150 175 26,250 0.60
Curing Pad 225 425 95,625 2.20
194,225 4.46
Allowance for equipment storage, movement, etc. @ 25% 242,781 5.57
5
MV Food Waste Composting - rotary drum composting
Assumptions:
2. Facility will use rotary drum for active composting, turned windrow curing (turned with loader)

Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
MVRD yard wastes 11.5
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Totals 121.4 CY/day

Residence times for rotary drum composting (wintertime conditions)
Rotary Drum 5 days 90 days 95 days
Daily Volumes going to composting
Residence Mixed
Days feedstocks
Windrow 5 607 CY
Residence Composted
Days Feedstocks
Windrow 90 7,647 CY
Feedstocks Receipt
40 ft. L
Feedstocks Storage
Assume storage of food wastes, paper & OCC in rectangular concrete block bunkers, rest in open piles
Food Wastes
= 2,430 CF
= 30 ft L
OCC
= 2,160 CF
= 20 ft L
1
= 80 ft W
= 14,850 CF
= 80 ft W
= 9,450 CF
= 80 ft W
= 3,240 CF
= 30 ft W
Feedstock Mixing
Assume all feedstock mixing done by windrow turner on pad
Active Composting
Assumed dimensions of rotary drum = 12 ft diameter
= 165 ft long
Volume of drum at 60% full (V= π x2r x L) = 44,787 CF
= 1,659 CY
Assumed residence time in drum = 5 days
Total volume to be composted during residence time = 607 CY
Number of drums needed = 3
Dimensions of drum = 12 ft. W
= 165 ft. L
Mixing building (per Hall's layout) 50' x 35'
Discharge building (per layout) 35' x 40'
Biofilter (per layout) 35' x 110'
Composting Area = 100 ft. W
240 ft. L
Curing
Assume curing in loader-turned windrows
Windrow dimensions: = 8 ft H
= 16 ft W
Assume high parabolic windrows (NRAES-114, p. 11): A= 2/3 x b x h
Cross-sectional area of windrow = 85 SF
Volume per linear foot of windrow = 3.2 CY/LF
Avg. daily volume to composting = 121 CY/day
Avg. daily volume to curing = 85 CY/day
2
Average linear footage of new curing piles daily
Avg. daily volume from composting / volume per linear foot = 27 LF / day
Total volume of material in windrows during 90-day curing period = 7,647 CY
Assume each curing windrow holds 6 days (1 built/week)
6 days x 88 CY/day coming in = 510 CY
Length of each windrow = 161 ft
Assume 20' spacing between windrows and 20' working space at each end
Each windrow is
Length 167 ft + 20 ft + 20 ft = 201 ft
Assume pad length is equal to gross windrow length = 201 ft
Pad width is = 540 ft
Curing Pad = 550 ft. W
210 ft. L

Width 6 ft
75 ft. L
= 158,578 CF
240 ft. L
Retail Sales Area
Truck loading area:
53 ft L
Retail sales:
20 ft L
Total 6138 SF
= 80 ft. L

Feedstocks Storage
Food wastes 20 20 400 0.01
OCC 20 20 400 0.01
Leaves 80 250 19,900 0.46
Wood chips 80 105 8,400 0.19
Yard waste 75 80 6,000 0.14
Composting Pad 100 240 24,000 0.55
Curing Pad 550 210 115,500 2.65
216,650 4.97
Allowance for equipment storage, movement, etc. @ 25% Totals 270,813 6.22
3
Appendix C - Aerated Static Pile information from AgriLabs & Engineered Compost Systems
The Compost Hot Box 250R™
The Compost Hot Box 250R™ is a mobile plug and play compost aeration and heat recovery system with recirculation
capability, featuring Agrilab InsideTM technology designed for negatively aerated or enclosed composting systems on medium to
large scale farms and commercial/municipal compost operations.
Aerated Static Pile processing means minimal mechanical tumbling of material is required to aerate and break down the
material into stable compost.
It includes remote data monitoring, computerized controls, hot water, and condensate recirculation systems. Aeration exhaust
can be automatically vented back into the compost for moisture and heat retention, or directly into a bio-filter for odor control.
Everything is assembled in a standard 20ft intermodal cargo container for easy setup alongside existing structures or other
enclosures. Data captured is used to optimize compost production efficiency and quality. System documents temperature and
oxygen level tracking to meet Process for Further Reduction of Pathogens (PFRP) quality standards, and maximize renewable
thermal energy captured.
Annual Maximum Compost Volume Processing Capacity: 700 CY/month or 8,400 CY/year
Annual Maximum Energy ROI when heating water to 120F based on $15 per million Btu energy prices: $30,000+
Modified 20’
shipping container
Flow, O2 sensors
Clamp-together stainless
ducting with 6” flex-hose
connections
Specialized heat exchange

core efficiently extracts heat
On board controls with
touch screen HMI, data 2 HP VFD speed-
logging, internet enabled controlled aeration fan
What is Agrilab Inside™?

• The patented Agrilab Inside™ process takes aerated compost systems to the most advanced level with the ability to
modulate air flow rates relative to oxygen and temperature levels, capturing useful heat and moisture, and recirculating
compost vapor or fresh air into the compost to optimize heat and moisture levels.
• Renewable thermal energy captured as moist hot compost vapor is run through specialized heat exchangers where water
is heated and condensate water is reclaimed. Aeration exhaust can be automatically sent back into the compost for
moisture and energy optimization. Cooled aeration vapor can be vented directly into a bio-filter for odor control.
• This process is the first and most advanced compost heat recovery system available and saves time and money compared
to turned windrow composting. Agrilab Inside™ optimizes the overall composting process and enables effective bio-filter
odor control, fast compost production and predictable heat and water recovery.
Compost Hot Box 250R™
The Compost Hot Box 250RTM is an integrated, plug and play system that contains the core mechanical and control equipment for
aerated composting with heat recovery - the “brains, lungs and heart” of the system. The Hot Box 250RTM is designed for aeration
flow of 100 to 350 cubic feet per minute, with 4 compost batch zones and the ability to recirculate into any zone for additional heat
recovery. All pumps, blowers and valves are controlled by an on board SCADA system with touch screen interface, data logging
and remote monitoring software.
Specifications:
Dimensions, Customized metal shipping container; 8’ wide by 20’ long by 8’ high, ~6,000 lbs.
Installation: 6” hoses for compost aeration and exhaust connections.
3 Horsepower blower, speed controlled, 100 to 350 CFM range adjusted manually or with feedback controls.
Aeration: Four compost and exhaust zones with fresh air intake.
Exhaust from any compost zone can be injected into another zone. This conserves heat and moisture, and can
Recirculation: jump-start cold or frozen material.
With 250 CFM of saturated 140F compost exhaust:
• 124,000 Btu heating loop: 9 GPM heated from 100F to 128 F
Sample Heating • 160,000 Btu water pre-heating: 5 GPM heated from 55 to 120 F
Output: With 350 CFM of saturated 140F compost exhaust:
• 151,000 Btu heating loop: 12 GPM heated from 100 to 125 F
• 237,000 Btu water pre-heating: 8.75 GPM heated from 55 to 110 F
Parameters can be used to optimize composting and heat recovery, linked to SCADA system:
• Oxygen level of compost vapor
Monitoring: • Temperatures at all critical points
• Air and water flow rates
• Touch screen with web server for intuitive operator control

Control: • Full control and monitoring via internet. Remote support available by contract.
• Expandable to control auxiliary systems (i.e. greenhouse climate control)
Delivery/shipping to be paid for directly by buyer with logistics support from AGT. Purchase includes 8 hours of
Delivery, Purchase or
remote startup support during the first week of operation. Site preparation, Hot Box installation and on going
Lease: technical support packages available under separate agreement. No $ down lease-to-own financing is available.
6” Exhaust may be sent to

bio-filter
Actuated dampers
modulate air flow
(4) 6” Compost zone

connections
“Plug and play” hydronic
system including pump
and expansion tank
50 Gal. condensate tank with
pumped & gravity outflows
From: Brian Jerose [email protected]
Subject: Re: ASP for MV
Date: April 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM
To: Bob Spencer [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Jaime Tibbits [email protected]
Hi Craig and Bob-
Here are some responses to your questions above.
At full build-out of 121 cy/day, assuming 600 cy/week inputs, 3 modular units would provide 3-4 weeks capacity. Depending on the
bulk density and oxygen demand of the "standard recipe", each modular system could have 4 aeration bays of 150 cy each. Actual
capacity could be up to 200 cy per bay but this provides some margin of safety. 3 modular systems would then have a total 12
aeration bays of 1800 cy aeration capacity (and up to 2400 cy with more porous/lower bulk density blends). Typical batches would
have a 3 week aeration retention time before being moved to windrows for further composting and curing.
As the facility would likely take months or years to achieve full capacity, the modular systems could be built out in phases, spreading
out capital costs for the operator.
Oxygen levels are targeted for 5-15% and are achieved through adjusting fan speed, and length of aeration cycle. On-board oxygen
sensors provide the operator and remote support staff trending graphs to adjust settings to achieve desired oxygen and temperature
levels.
We have primarily used NY Blowers and would expect a project of this scale to use 2 to 3hp fans. Actual sizing would depend both on
targeted batch size and length (and diameter) of pipe runs.
Biofilter sizing matches the "neighbor sensitivity" of the site, but generally with typical operation of a system of this size having 3 bays
under aeration at one time, in a rotating schedule, a biofilter would need roughly 500-600 cy of carbon-rich media to match the
vapor/air handling on the incoming aeration side. A secondary booster fan can be evaluated based on predicted resistance. Leaving
space to expand biofilter cells is recommended if observed odors exceed desired levels.
We do not typically specify number of air exchanges per hour as we recommend composting building have ample passive ventilation
through exaggerated ridge vents in metal-sided pole barn structures or mesh gable end vents in coverall type buildings. We do not
recommend insulated buildings for several reasons - initial cost and need to included active ventilation. We have seen systems in
operation up to 12 years without moisture condensation and rusting issues on hardware, trusses and roofs using these passive
ventilation approaches. With primarily negative aeration, less vapor is released into the building head space versus positive aeration.
If active ventilation was absolutely necessary at a facility, we would consult with other building professionals. We see the primary
benefits of enclosures to be stormwater management, and avoiding direct wind on windrows wicking away heat.
While I am unfamiliar with your proposed location and possible heating loads I can share applications of recovered compost thermal
energy that have been implemented or considered. Product drying to reduce screening costs could likely justify the investment. A
quick economic assessment can be completed for one or more of these energy off-takes:
Building heating - office, shop (radiant floor, baseboard or hydronic modine-style heaters)
Greenhouse heating - in floor or under-bench, or modine-style heaters for product testing or diversification of plant/crop sales
Wash water - food scrap totes, trucks and equipment
Product drying - used for drying down finished compost prior to screening (can significantly increase screening yields/hour) and
bagging. Also applied to some feedstocks such a green (non-kiln dried) sawdust, short paper fiber or wood chips to increase
absorbency.
Recovered thermal energy is also applied to the composting process via recirculated hot vapor to new batches of cold feedstocks or
reheating overcooled compost batches. This capability also acts to accelerate decomposition rates, given it achieves reversing
aeration, primarily negative but also positive.
We can add more detail to several of these responses as needed for this phase to rough in estimated costs. We would not complete
detailed engineering calculations until engaged in a technical services agreement or other design contract.
Thanks again for the interest.I have a site visit this afternoon but can follow up on additional details as needed tomorrow. I've copied
Jason and Jaime on our team in case they can also respond while I'm out of the office.
Thanks
Brian
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Bob Spencer <[email protected]> wrote:
Craig:
Brian should be able to address your questions by early next week.
Bob Spencer
Environmental Planning Consultant
15 Christine Court
Vernon, Vermont 05354
978-479-1450
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Coker <[email protected]>
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Brian Jerose <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2018 8:43 am
Subject: Re: ASP for MV
Bob/Brian - enclosed is the recipe for MV; at build-out, it projects daily incoming compostables at 121
CY/day. Please modify your concept design below to reflect this incoming volume. What is the
oxygen loading rate for your proposed aeration system, what blowers are you recommending, what
size biofilter are you recommending, how many building air exchanges per hour are you
recommending?
As there is no identified market for the recovered heat at this time, what would the cost be without
heat recovery?
Craig
Craig Coker
Coker Composting & Consulting
www.cokercompost.com
[email protected]
540.874.5168
On Mar 29, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Bob Spencer <[email protected]> wrote:
Craig:
I met with Brian Jerose, President of Agrilab Technologies yesterday to discuss ASP/heat recovery for our MV
project.
See current issue of BioCycle for my article on the Agrilab system at Vermont Natural Ag Products.
Based on the design at VNAP, Brian proposes the following modular ASP approach for MV:
3,000 sf asphalt pad

Four 12' X 60' windrows with dual 8" diameter recessed HDPE aeration pipes,
sloped for leachate drainage to retention pond
Each windrow contains 200 cy, for a total of 800 cy on ASP
14 day retention time on ASP
Hot Box heat exchanger and computer controls for heat capture and accelerated
composting/product drying (spec sheet attached)
50' X 80' Coverall building
biofilter
Estimated capital cost $200,000.
Agrilab would charge $6,000 - $10,000 for construction plans (no PE stamp), and provide construction oversight
for $5,000.
Additional pad, ASP, Hot Box at $200,000 each.
Larger pads can be designed.
For MV, the Agrilab system qualifies for funding from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center as renewable
energy, and was recently awarded feasibility study funding, and construction funding at Dave Smith's Black Gold
Compost facility which you designed with Andrew Carpenter.
We can set up a time to talk with Brian on Friday this week. He's hosting an open house at a new installation in
CT today (see attached).
Bob Spencer
Environmental Planning Consultant
15 Christine Court
978-479-1450
<Compost-Hot-Box-250R-SpecSheet-March2017.pdf><Collins Powder Hill Dairy Farm-
Compost Aeration and Heat Recovery Open House.pdf>
--
Brian Jerose, President/Co-founder
Agrilab Technologies Inc.
(802) 933-8336 office
(802) 370-4774 mobile
[email protected]
www.agrilabtech.com
www.facebook.com/agrilabtech
ECS Multi-Use ASP Pilot System
ECS ASP pilot systems allow operators to run
simultaneous batches with different control settings,
aeration types (positive, negative, and reversing),
retention times, pile geometries and
configurations. The ECS Pilot System mechanical
components and skid-mounted controls are pre-tested
at our shop. They typically have 4 compost
piles/zones each holding around 200 yd3. The zones
can be configured as three sided bunkers, in a mass-
bed or as individual piles. The pilot can also be
placed within a fabric building with building air
capture and scrubbing through a biofilter to best
simulate an in-vessel facility. Each zone is individually and automatically monitored and
controlled and can be run in a specific way to test a design hypothesis prior to investing in a
major infrastructure project. The pilot system can include a controlled and monitored biofilter to
scrub the air from piles when zones are in negative mode or when building air above the piles
needs to be filtered.
ECS ASP Pilot Equipment Description

The ECS ASP Pilot System has two aeration fans; one
to provide positively pressured air to the composting
zones and one to provide negatively pressured air by
drawing from each zone and exhausting to a biofilter.
The speed of each fan is controlled by a variable
frequency drive (VFD) located on the Control Skid
which determines how much air is being provided to
each compost pile. The Supply Fan (for positive
aeration) and Exhaust fans are mounted on the
Control Skid that is pre-wired to the VFDs.
The Control Skid houses most of the pre-mounted

and pre-wired electronics of the pilot system. The
skid requires a 480VAC, 3 phase power connection.
The CompTroller™ Server has an industrial
embedded computer, with UPS, that runs the pilot
system and provides an operator interface webpage
for managing the system. The Control Server
requires access to the internet, and is provided with a
wireless interface and antenna so that it can be
connected to a wi-fi network provided by the site.
ECS Pilot Description
The four individual compost zones are approximately 21’ wide by 57’ long (see attached
drawing 261-M01). Each zone or pile requires two 6” HDPE aeration sparger pipes that are
approximately 60’ long. ECS supplied sparger pipes include specially reinforced ends with pull
cables so they can be removed with a FEL prior to breaking the pile down. In addition to the
zone sparger pipes, the pilot system uses pipe on grade sparger pipes for the 30’ x 40’ odor
scrubbing biofilter.
The negative aeration plenum (suction), and the biofilter plenum, are made of 304 stainless-steel
since it handles wet corrosive compost exhaust air. The exhaust fan is made of corrosion
resistant aluminum for this same reason. The positive aeration plenum is made of standard
galvanized steel duct since it handles ambient air. Both plenums are connected to the zone
spargers via motorized dampers. The CompTroller™ system controls the motorized dampers to
automatically match the air flow to the ever-changing process conditions, and can alternate
between positive and negative aeration modes without operator input.
ECS Supplied Equipment & Services

A. Aeration System
1. Supply and Exhaust Fans
2. Zones to Fan Ductwork (Plenums, branches, transitions)
3. Duct Supports
4. Motorized Zone Dampers
5. Cooling Air Inlet Damper for Biofilter Exhaust
6. Fan to Biofilter Ductwork
B. (Optional) Pipe-on-Grade Aeration System

1. HDPE Zone Sparger Pipes
2. HDPE Biofilter Sparger Pipes
C. Control System
1. CompTroller™ Software
2. Control Server
3. Zone Controller in J-Box (1 per zone)
4. Aeration Panel
5. Compost Temp Probes
6. Ambient Temp Probe
7. Pressure Sensor
D. Technical Services included with the Pilot:

1. Pre-project on-site planning meeting
2. Process, mechanical and electrical drawings
(ECS drawings do not carry local engineering stamps)
3. Technical support of construction and installation of ECS provided equipment
4. Operations and maintenance manual for ECS provided equipment
5. System start-up and training for site personnel
6. Remote technical support (ongoing during rental period)
E. Technical Services NOT included with the Pilot and available on a Time and Expenses
Basis
1. Pilot trial planning
2. Data collection planning
3. Data collection
a. Odor concentration and flux rate
b. Stability
c. Oxygen
d. pH
4. Odor dispersion modelling
5. Data analysis and report writing
Equipment & Services NOT Included and Supplied by Others:

1. Site permits, stamped construction drawings if required.
2. Site preparation, construction, electrical power, electrical and mechanical installation
and commodity parts
3. Ecology blocks for push walls
4. Compost leachate drain line, pumped sump, leachate/condensate tanks or other means
of disposal
5. Pile and biofilter irrigation components (can be sourced and specified by ECS)
6. Biofilter media (can be sourced and specified by ECS)
System Layout Diagram

Pilot System Rental or Purchase Quotation
For Craig Coker
Project Martha's Vineyard - Research ASP Pilot System
By Steve Diddy
Date 5/18/2018
Basis of Design: Four (4) zone pilot system. Each zone capable of Positive, Negative, or
Reversing aeration. Compatible with in-floor aeration or pipe-on-grade aeration floor.
ECS Pilot System Design Data
Nominal Throughput tpy 5,000 - 6,000
Total Number of Zones # 4
Zone Length ft 56
Zone Width ft 21
Standard Initial Pile Depth ft 8
Zone Capacity cy 220
Standard Bio-cover Layer Depth ft 1
Installed Fan Power Hp 22.5
Nominal Biofilter Size ft2 1,300
Rental Terms
Down Payment with order $25,000
Monthly Rental Payment month $6,000
Minimum Rental Duration months 9
Rental Months to Ownership months 18
Purchase Terms - Optional
List Price $155,000
Discount (some components used previously) 19%
Purchase Price (instead of rental) $125,000
Pilot System Description
Includes: Installation drawings and technical support; Pre-Assembled aeration and control
skid; CompTroller automated controls; Aeration system; Biofilter mechanical components;
Start up; Operator training; O&M Manual; and Allowances for freight FOB site & ECS staff
travel expenses.
Does not include: Permits, civil engineering, ECS equipment installation, construction,
utilities, electrical connections, biofilter media, HDPE pipe on grade aeration with pulling ends
and drilled holes, specialized transition pipes to use existing in-floor aeration; HDPE biofilter
pipes with drilled holes, surface water & leachate storage and treatment, access roads and
storage pads, lights, utilities, buildings, pre-processing design, taxes -- Post rental equipment
cleaning, demobilization, crating and shipping back to Seattle.
4220 24th Ave West www.compostsystems.com 206-634-2625

Appendix D - Rotary Drum Layout and Quote
From: CITIC HIC Engineering & Technology CO., LTD.
206 JIANSHE ROAD, LUOYANG, CHINA
Phone: +86 0379 64087625
Fax: +86 0379 64086016
To: Mr. Pearse Okane
Subject: Quotation for supply of one 12×185 feet Digester
April. 11th, 2018
We are very happy to receive your enquiry for the digester; we hereby take great
pleasure to quote one digester according to your requirement by email as follows:
1. Scope of supply of each digester:

Shell, two casting tyres, girth gear , pinion, supporting system, motor and gearbox .
2. Price of one digester:
Description Price (USD) Remarks
Design 120,000
Equipment (FOB Shanghai) 1,579,000
Total 1,699,000
Remarks:
1) The quotation is based on the following materials.
Description Material
Shell ASTM A-36
Tyre ZG42CrMo
Girth Gear GS42CrMo
Pinion 34CrNiMoA
Pinion shaft 35CrMo
Supporting roller 42CrMo
Supporting roller shaft 35CrMo
2) Remarks for all above prices:

a. The price will be adjusted accordingly if the material is changed.
b. All prices above are subject to bulk cargo ship to be used. In case of container ship,
the Client shall bear any extra charge arising from it.
c. The above prices are based on the exchange rate of USD/RMB=1/6.28.
3. Payment:
- 30% within 7 days of the date of the Contract (to be paid by the Client to the Supplier
by telegraphic transfer).
-35% shall be paid within 10 days after receipt of all the shell plates for the digester by
Supplier at its manufacturing facility and finishing the casting work of the tyre.
-35% shall be paid at ex-work before delivery
4. Delivery
240 consecutive calendar days after drawing confirmation.
5. Warranty:
The warranty period for Products amounts to 18 months from FOB Shanghai shipping
date or twelve (12) months from the date of commissioning, whichever comes first.
6. Validity
The above quotation is valid for 30 days from the date hereof.
If any question, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards ,
Guo Tingting
CITIC HIC Engineering & Technology Co., Ltd
Appendix E - Cost estimates
Martha's Vineyard Composting Facility
Cost Estimates - Site Development
Straddle Turner ASP Rotary Drum Animal Feed
Item Unit Price Units Quantity Costs Quantity Costs Quantity Costs Quantity Costs
Land acquisition
Site purchase $ 75,000 Ac 7 $525,000 5.6 $418,012 7 $525,000 0.5 $37,500
Permits and Approvals

Local- zoning, S&EC, bldg permits Ea Allowance $10,000 Allowance $10,000 Allowance $10,000 Allowance $10,000
MADEP Permitting - solid waste compost Ea Allowance $12,000 Allowance $12,000 Allowance $12,000 Allowance $12,000
EPA Permitting - storm water Ea Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000
Clearing and Grading

Assume no tree/stump clearing needed
Fine grading of site for drainage $ 2.00 SY 33,880 $67,760 26,976 $53,951 33,880 $67,760 2,420 $4,840
Erosion and Sediment Control

Construction entrance $ 1,000 Ea. 1 $1,000 $1 $1,000 1 $1,000 1 $1,000
Silt fence $ 1.47 L.F. 1,500 $2,205 $1,500 $2,205 1,500 $2,205 1,500 $2,205
Erosion control fabric $ 1.71 SY 2,500 $4,275 $2,500 $4,275 2,500 $4,275 2,500 $4,275
Hardscape construction
Fine grading and subbase compaction $ 5.88 SY 33,880 $199,220 26,976 $158,620 33,880 $199,220 2,420 $14,230
Asphalt access roads (4" paving over 4" base) $ 44.60 SY 1,000 $44,600 1,000 $44,600 1,000 $44,600 1,000 $44,600
Assume 15' W x 600' L
Asphalt working surface (6" paving over 6" base) $ 58.45 SY 22,017 $1,286,880 17,419 $1,018,170 19,772 $1,155,690 -- --
Assume under composting, curing, screening, storage, retail sales
Concrete slab for recpt & storage (6" reinf.) $ 6.45 SF 1,600 $10,320 1,600 $10,320 1,600 $10,320 -- --
Area = 1,600 SF for receipt, FW/OCC storage bunkers
Concrete block bunkers for feedstock storage $ 148.76 Ea 90 $13,388 90 $13,388 90 $13,388 -- --
Assume 8' H walls, 2' x 2' x 6' tongue & groove concrete blocks
$74.38 ea in Oak Bluffs, assume 2x for shipping and installing
Concrete block ASP bunkers
Formwork for aeration trenches $ 17.01 SF -- -- 667 $11,346 -- -- -- --
Concrete aeration floors (6" thick reinf slab) $ 3.83 SF -- -- 11,000 $42,130 -- -- -- --
Galvanized steel slotted trench covers (5"x 20") $ 37.95 Ea -- -- 1,120 $42,504 -- -- -- --
Concrete block bunker walls, installed $ 148.76 Ea -- -- 735 $109,339 -- -- -- --
End wall U-channel, 2" x 12" blocking boards $ 40.00 Ea -- -- 112 $4,480 -- -- -- --
Pre-engineered metal building on 6" concrete slab $ 75.00 SF -- -- -- -- -- -- 11,000 $825,000
Asphalt parking lot (4" paving over 4" base) $ 44.60 SY -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,500 $111,500
Water management
Run-on berm (8" high compacted earth) $ 2.00 LF 300 $600 300 $600 300 $600 300 $600
Runoff swales (24" W x 24" D) $ 3.00 LF 300 $900 300 $900 300 $900 300 $900
Solids separator $ 5,000 Ea Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000 Allowance $5,000
Closed bioretention ponds $ 6.80 SF 40,910 $279,000 32,573 $222,000 40,910 $279,000 3,757 $26,000
Pond liner - 60 mil HDPE $ 1.19 SF 40,910 $48,683 32,573 $38,762 40,910 $48,683 417 $497
Utilities
Extend 3-phase power $ 200 LF -- -- 500 $100,000 500 $100,000 500 $100,000
On-site well - assume 4" well, 60' deep $ 39.28 LF 60 $2,357 60 $2,357 60 $2,357 60 $2,357
On-site septic tank - assume 1K gpd capacity $ 2.75 gal 1,000 $2,750 1,000 $2,750 1,000 $2,750 1,000 $2,750
on-site drainfield - assume 1 gpd/sf of trench $ 13.77 SF 1,000 $13,770 1,000 $13,770 1,000 $13,770 1,000 $13,770
Site items
Construction trailer (8' x 24') $ 68.50 SF 192 $13,152 192 $13,152 192 $13,152 -- --
Landscaping inside facility Ea Allowance $500 Allowance $500 Allowance $500 Allowance $500
Perimeter vegetative screen (1000 units/acre) $ 250 Ea 620 $154,959 620 $154,959 597 $149,219
Assume 50' wide perimeter plantings
Subtotals $2,178,319 $2,098,078 $2,141,390 $1,187,024
Design Fee 7.5% Ea $163,374 $157,356 $160,604 $89,027

Contingency 25% Ea $544,580 $524,519 $535,347 $296,756
Totals $2,886,273 $2,779,953 $2,837,341 $1,572,806
Notes
Site development costs based on greenfield site
Compost cost factors from Contractor Schedule of Values, Freestate Farm Composting Facility, Manassas, VA, Oct 2017
Other cost factors from National Construction Cost Estimator software (Craftsman, 2018) adjusted for Zip Code 02575 (mat'ls +4%, labor +36%, equipment +1%)
Bioretention Pond - assume handling whole site

Average runoff coefficient 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9
Assumed precipitation (P, ft.) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Contributing drainage area (A, ft2) 304,920 242,781 304,920 21,780
Runoff volume (V, cubic feet) 40,910 32,573 40,910 3,757
Depth of bioretention pond (D, in.) 12 12 12 12
Pond Surface Area (SA, sq ft) 40,910 32,573 40,910 3,757
Cost adjusted to 2018 ($) $ 278,189 $ 221,497 $ 278,189 $ 25,548
Rounded $ 279,000 $ 222,000 $ 279,000 $ 26,000
Notes:
Assume precipitation = 1-hr, 10-yr storm = 2.3"
Cost based on $4.00/SF for rain garden in Piedmont soils
Source: NCSU Cooperative Extension, "Designing Rain Gardens", 2001
Costs adjusted to 2018 with ENR Construction Cost Index
March, 2018 10889
2001 6343
Multiplier 1.7
Straddle Turner ASP Rotary Drum Animal Feed
Item Specifications Unit Price Units Quantity Costs Quantity Costs Quantity Costs Quantity Costs
Well pump & pressure tank 18 gpm @ 400' TDH $ 22,600 Ea 1 $ 22,600 1 $ 22,600 1 $ 22,600 1 $ 22,600
Horizontal grinder Morbark 2600 horizontal electric grinder $ 320,000 Ea 1 $ 320,000 1 $ 320,000 1 $ 320,000 -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Included
Straddle windrow turner Diesel-powered 6' H x 12' W tunnel $ 308,450 Ea 1 $ 308,450 -- -- -- -- -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Allowance $ 12,500 -- -- -- -- -- --
Windrow covers Vortron TX 714 fabric covers $ 3,520 Ea 46 $ 161,920 -- -- -- -- -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Included
Cover hold-downs Punched tire sidewalls $ 3.00 Ea 1,015 $ 3,045 -- -- -- -- -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Allowance $ 2,750 -- -- -- -- -- --
Yard truck 10CY dump truck $ 25,000 Ea 1 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Allowance $ 2,000 -- -- $ 2,000 -- --
ASP equipment Mixer $ 273,000 Ea -- -- 1 $ 273,000 -- -- -- --
Blowers - Fuji VFZ901A-7W $ 4,215 Ea -- -- 14 $ 59,010 -- -- -- --
Piping - 3" HDPE perforated $ 5.00 LF -- -- 1800 $ 9,000 -- -- -- --
T-fittings and other fittings for piping Allowance -- -- $ 3,500 -- -- -- --
Timers - Intermatic C8835 Cycle timer $ 164.50 Ea -- -- 14 $ 2,303 -- -- -- --
Rotary Drum & mixer CITIC 11 x 65 rotary drum $ 1,699,000 Ea -- -- -- -- 1 $1,699,000 -- --
Mechanical mixer $ 273,000 Ea -- -- -- -- 1 $ 273,000 -- --
Shipping, on-island transport, installation Allowance -- -- -- -- -- $ 600,000 -- --
Buildings/equip for mixing, discharge $ 80 SF -- -- -- -- 3,150 $ 252,000 -- --
Biofilter $ 38 SF -- -- -- -- 2,750 $ 103,950 -- --
Trommel screen Screen USA Trom 406 $ 50,000 Ea 1 $ 50,000 1 $ 1 1 $ 50,000 -- --
Shipping, on-island transport, installation Allowance $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 -- --
Rubber-tired front-end loaders 140 hp FEL with 2.5 CY bucket $ 175,000 Ea 1 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 -- --
2nd bucket for handling product $ 8,000 Ea 1 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 -- --
Shipping, on-island transport Allowance $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 -- --
Animal Feed extruder system SAFE system like Santa Clara CA SAFE quote -- -- -- -- 1 $ 10,000,000
Totals Totals $1,111,265 $ 917,414 $3,550,550 $ 10,022,600
Data Sources:
Loader John Deere 524K with 3 CY bucket
James River Equipment, Salem VA
Straddle turner Scarab 612, Scarab Int'l White Deer, TX
ships on low-boy trailer
Shipping $7-$10K
Rotary drum CITIC quote 4/11/18
Mixer for ASP, rotary drum Freestate Farms quote from ECS 8/2016
Biofilter for rotary drum Freestate Farms quote from ECS 8/2016
Trommel screen TROM 406 quote from ScreenUSA
Dump truck Commercialtrucktrader.com
Grinder Quote from Schmidt Equipment, Plymouth MA
Windrow covers CompostTex quote 3/15/18
Cover holders F&B Rubberized quote 3/15/18
ASP blowers W.W. Grainger online quote 5/22/18
ASP timers W.W. Grainger online quote 5/22/18
Piping W.W. Grainger online quote 5/22/18
Martha's Vineyard Food Waste Diversion Program
Windrow Composting Operating Cost Estimate
5/25/18
Assumptions
Labor rate (loaded) per hour $22.50 per hour
Loader/yard truck machine rate (fuel + insurance + maintenance) $55.00 per hour
Grinder machine rate $110.00 per hour
Turner machine rate $450.00 per hour
Facility is open 6 days/week, 52 weeks/yr 312 days/yr
Operating cost estimate based on peak summer waste generation at full build out
Neglects any overlap of labor functions between tasks
Processing Volumes
Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Totals 109.9 CY/day
Materials Handling Assumptions
Assume wastes & products handled by two separate loaders
Bucket capacity of each loader 3 CY/loader
Grinding done by site staff
Mixing done by straddle or pull-behind turner
Materials moved to composting and curing with yard truck
Materials moved to storage (overs and compost) by loaders
Materials Handling - Waste Receipt & Storage
Daily volumes coming into facility 109.9 CY/day
Number of loader "bucket-movements" to keep bunkers & piles managed
Daily volume / capacity of loader bucket 37 buckets/day
Assume time spent per loader movement 1.1 minutes
Time spent handling feedstocks 40 minutes/day
Convert to hours 0.7 hours/day
Labor cost/year $ 4,734
Machine cost/year $ 11,572
Materials Handling - Grinding/shredding
Assume wood chips/OCC go through grinder 19 CY/day
Assume use of Morbark 2600 200 hp electric grinder
Assume grinder used one hour per day 1 hr/day
Materials Handling - Transport To Composting Pad
Avg. daily volume going to composting 110 CY/day
Number of loader bucket movements 37 buckets/day
Time to tear down, pick up, transport and load truck 2 min/bucket
Total time needed to move compost to transport truck 86.8 minutes/day
Assume volume capacity of transport truck 10 CY
Number of truck trips/day 11 trips/day
Transport time to curing area 5 minutes/trip
Total time needed to move compost by truck 55 minutes/day
Total time needed to load and move 142 minutes/day
Coker Composting Consulting 1 5/26/18

Building Composting Windrows
Assume all windrows built with loader 3.0 CY/bucket
Daily volume coming to composting pad 109.9 CY/day
Number of buckets per day 37 buckets/day
Time needed to move feedstocks from unload site to windrow 3.3 minutes/bucket
Time needed to build windrows 121.4 minutes/day
Materials Handling - Windrow Mixing & Turning - Straddle Turner
Number of turner passes to mix 1 pass/windrow
Number of turner passes while composting 2 passes/week/windrow
Total number of windrow passes 3 passes/windrow
Number of windrows 23 windrows
Windrow length = 0 linear ft/ windrow
Turner speed = 0.25 mph = 22 ft/min.
Time to make one windrow pass = 0.0 minutes/windrow
Time to turn around = 2.0 minutes/turn
Time to travel down pad to another windrow = 2.0 minutes
Total time needed per windrow 6.0 minutes
Time needed to mix windrows 135.0 minutes
Time needed to turn windrows per week 270.0 minutes/week
Total time spent mixing/turning windrows 405.0 minutes
Convert to hours 6.8 hours
Convert to per day equiv 1.1 hours/dayequiv
Windrow Irrigation
Formula Units Value
Windrow Dimensions
Length Ft. 182
Width Ft. 12
Height Ft. 6
Volume per linear foot A = h x (b - h) CY/LF 1.33
Volume of material in windrow Vol/LF x linear feet CY 243
Bulk density of mix assumed lbs/CY 800
Weight of windrow bulk density x volume lbs 194,221
Moisture content of sample assumed % 40%
Desired moisture content % 50%
Weight of water in windrow weight x moisture % lbs 77,688
Desired weight of water weight x 50% lbs 97,111
Shortfall Desired - actual lbs 19,422
Gallons to be added Shortfall / 8.34 lbs/gal gal 2,329
Average monthly rainfall on Martha's Vineyard = 3.9 inches/month

Area of windrows in composting = 50,994 SF
Monthly volume of rain falling on windrows = 16,616 CF
= 2,221 gallons/month
Assume rainfall adequate to supply moisture if turned in at every rain event
Labor cost/year $ -
Materials Handling - Moving Compost to Curing
Avg. daily volume going to curing (assume 40% shrink) 66 CY/day

Managing Curing Piles

Assume curing windrows built with loader 3 CY/bucket
Daily volume coming to curing 65.9 CY/day
Time needed to move feedstocks from unload site to windrow 2 minutes/bucket
Assume turner used to turn windrows once/ every 2 weeks 0.5 pass/week
Total time spent building/turning windrows 386.4 minutes
Screening Compost
Avg. daily volume going to screening (assume 10% shrink in curing) 59 CY/day
Assume screen hopper volume = loader bucket volume 3 CY/hr
Number of loader bucket movements daily 20 buckets/day
Time to move compost from curing to screening 5 min/bucket
Total time needed to move compost 98 min/day
Convert to hours 1.6 hrs/day
Assume screen througput rate 40 CY/hr
Screen run time per day (assume no add'l labor needed) 1.6 hrs/day
Materials Handling - Screened Compost to Storage
Avg. daily volume going to storage (assume 10% shrink in curing) 47 CY/day
Time to tear down, pick up, transport and load truck 2 minutes/bucket
Transport time to storage area, dump, return 5 minutes/trip
Total time needed to move compost by truck 23.7 minutes/day
Materials Handling - Overs to Storage
Avg. daily volume going to storage 12 CY/day

Total time needed to move compost to transport truck 9 minutes/day
Product Marketing & Sales
Annual compost production volume 19,088 CY/yr
Average daily production volume 61 CY/day
Assume 90% wholesale/10% retail
Wholesale (assume delivery outsourced) 55 CY/day
Tractor-trailer volume capacity 30 CY
Number of trailers needed daily 2
Time to load trailers 0.5 hrs/day
Assumed delivery fee $ 150 per load
Retail 6 CY/day
Pick-up truck capacity 2 CY
Number of retail sales needed daily 3 per day
Time needed to deal with each customer 0.3 hrs/day
Totals Labor cost/year $5,616
Machine cost/year $13,728
Operating Expenses Summary
Labor Summary Straddle Turner
Process Hrs/Day Labor Cost Machine Costs Total
Waste Receipt 0.7 $ 4,734 $ 11,572 $ 16,307
Grinding/shredding 0.7 $ 7,020 $ 34,320 $ 41,340
Transport to pad 2.4 $ 16,589 $ 40,552 $ 57,141
Building windrows 2.0 $ 14,202 $ 34,715 $ 48,917
Windrow Mixing & Turning 1.1 $ 7,898 $ 19,305 $ 27,203
Windrow Irrigation 0.0 $ - $ - $ -
Moving Compost to Curing 1.4 $ 9,943 $ 24,306 $ 34,249
Managing Curing Piles 1.3 $ 9,043 $ 22,104 $ 31,147
Screening Compost 1.6 $ 11,504 $ 28,125 $ 39,630
Moving Screened Compost to Storage 1.0 $ 7,157 $ 17,496 $ 24,653
Moving Overs to Storage 0.3 $ 2,193 $ 5,361 $ 7,554
Product Marketing & Sales 0.8 $ 5,616 $ 13,728 $ 19,344
TOTALS 13.3 Subtotals $ 95,899 $ 251,584 $ 347,483
Assume 85% efficiency of site workers Total $ 347,483
Number of work-hours needed 15.7 hrs/day Annual Tons 10,623
FTE's in a 8-hour day 1.96 FTEs Per Ton $ 32.71

ASP Composting Operating Cost Estimate
5/22/18
Assumptions
Loader, mixer, yard truck & screen machine rate (fuel + insurance + maintenance) $55.00 per hour
Processing Volumes
Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
Paper 11.5
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Totals 121.4 CY/day
Assume time spent per loader movement 1 minutes
Assume wood chips/OCC go through grinder 30 CY/day
Materials Handling - Mixing
Daily volumes coming into facility 121 CY/day
Number of loader bucket movements to load mixer 40 buckets/day
Assumed time spent per loading event 2 minutes/bucket
Assumed time to load yard truck 2 minutes/bucket
Mixer run time 1.5 hours/day
Total machine time 4.2 hours/day
Total labor time 2.7 hours/day

Avg. daily volume going to composting (assume 10% shrink in mixing) 109 CY/day
Building ASPs
Assume all windrows built with loader 3.0 CY/bucket
Daily volume coming to composting bunkers 109.2 CY/day
Time needed to install plenum, load bunker, install cap 4 minutes/bucket
Time needed to build ASPs 145.7 minutes/day
Aerated Static Pile Composting Cost
Size of blower 14.7 hp
Assume 10 min on/20 min off; hours running each day 8 hrs/day
Assumed electrical consumption at 1 kW = 1 hp 14.7 kilowatts
kWh per day 118 kWh/day
Cost of electricity Eversource Rate 24 - Medium Gen'l Rate $ 0.13 per kWh
Annual cost of each motor $ 5,580
Annual electricity cost for 14 blowers $ 78,122

Assume turner used to turn windrows once/ every 2 weeks 0.5 pass/week

Total time spent building/turning windrows 398.6 minutes
Screening Compost
Assume screen hopper volume = loader bucket volume 3 CY/loader
Screen run time per day (assume no add'l labor needed) 2 hrs/day
Avg. daily volume coming off screen 55 CY/day
Avg. daily volume coming off screen 13.8 CY/day


Retail 6 CY/day

Labor Summary ASP Composting
Process Hrs/Day Labor Cost Machine CostsConsumables Total
Waste Receipt 0.7 $ 4,734 $ 11,572 $ 16,306
Mixing 4.2 $ 18,937 $ 72,029 $ 90,966
Transport to pad 2.1 $ 14,913 $ 36,453 $ 51,365
Building ASPs 2.4 $ 17,043 $ 41,660 $ 58,703
Electricity for ASPs -- -- -- $ 78,122 $ 78,122
Move Overs to Storage 0.3 $ 1,879 $ 4,593 $ 6,472
TOTALS 16.6 Subtotals $ 109,501 $ 291,453 $ 78,122 $ 479,075

Rotary Drum Composting Operating Cost Estimate
5/25/18
Assumptions
Loader/yard truck machine rate (fuel + insurance + maintenance) $55.00 per hour
Turner machine rate $450.00 per hour
Processing Volumes
Leaves 15.6
Sawdusts 0.4
Wood chips 18.3
OCC 11.4
Compost recycle 6.7
Totals 121.4 CY/day
Assume time spent per loader movement 1 minutes
Assume wood chips/paper/OCC go through grinder 30 CY/day
Avg. daily volume going to composting 109 CY/day

Loading/Unloading Rotary Drum
Time to unload drum 2.0 hrs/cycle
Length of cycle 5 days
Daily equivalent time 0.4 hrs/day
Time to load drum 2.0 hrs/cycle
Length of cycle 5 days
Daily equivalent time 0.4 hrs/day
Total daily equivalent time 0.8 hrs/day
Machine cost based on use of loader to load/unload
Operating Rotary Drum
50 hp motor running 24/7
Electrical voltage 240 volts
Motor Amperage 130 amps
Power consumed W = A x V x SQRT3 54,040 watts
= 54 kilowatts
Hours of operation per year 8,760 hrs/year
Electrical consumption per year 473,390 kWh/year
Electrical power cost Eversource Rate 24 - Large Gen'l Time of Use
Monthly customer charge $930.00 per month
Electric rate $0.03 per kWh
Add high maintenance items like grease $5,000 per year
Labor cost/year $ -

Assume loader used to turn windrows once/ every 2 weeks 6 turns/cycle
Total windrows volume 6883 CY/cure cycle
Bucket movements 14749 buckets/cycle
Time to turn one bucket 1.0 minutes/bucket
Time to turn all windrows/cure cycle 14748.7 minutes/cycle
Screening Compost
Assume screen hopper volume = loader bucket volume 3 CY/hr

Screen run time per day (assume no add'l labor needed) 2 hrs/day
Retail 6 CY/day
Labor Summary Rotary Drum
Process Hrs/Day Labor Cost Machine Costs Totals
Waste Receipt 0.7 $ 4,734 $ 11,572 $ 16,306
Transport to pad 2.1 $ 14,913 $ 36,453 $ 51,365
Loading Rotary Drum 0.4 $ 5,616 $ 13,728 $ 19,344
Operating Rotary Drum - $ - $ 28,852 $ 28,852

Move Overs to Storage 0.3 $ 2,244 $ 5,485 $ 7,728
TOTALS 12.1 Subtotals $ 89,349 $ 264,421 $ 353,771

Appendix F- Pro Forma Analyses
Martha's Vineyard Windrow Composting
Pro Forma Assumptions - 2019

Capacity = 10,000 tons/year
Revenues:
1. Tip fees = $50.00 per ton
Tip fee tons per year = 2,215 tons/year
2. Compost sales price =
Commercial sales $ 25.00 per CY
Residential sales $ 35.00 per CY
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
3. Compost sales distribution:
Annual quantity = 10,500 CY/year
Assume sales timing :
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Cost of Compost Production
1. From spreadsheet "Windrow Opex Estimate"
Annual Costs
Waste Receipt $ 16,306
Grinding/shredding $ 41,340
Transport to pad $ 57,073
Building windrows $ 48,919
Windrow Mixing & Turning $ 27,203
Windrow Irrigation $ -
Moving Compost to Curing $ 39,951
Managing Curing Piles $ 34,406
Screening Compost $ 39,625
Moving Screened Compost to Storage $ 35,956
Moving Overs to Storage $ 7,552
Product Marketing & Sales $ 19,344
2. Assume costs are distributed through the year proportional to incoming loads:
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%
3. Assume production costs increase by 3% annually in 2020 and 2021

Administrative Costs
1. Capital cost recovery factor for equipment = 3.75% per year < 12-yr life
Estimated capex for equipment = $ 1,101,265
2. Capital cost recovery factor for site improvements = 5.5% per year 20 yrs
Estimated capex Phase I = $ 2,905,300
3. Housekeeping, Monitoring & Recordkeeping
Remaining time after materials handling 1.6 hrs/day/FTE
Assume loaded labor rate = $ 22.50 per hour
4,000 ton/year food waste capacity (2019 tip fee tonnage = 2,215 tons; 2019 compost production = 10,500 CY/yr
For the Year Ending 12/31/2019
January February March April May June July August September October November December YTD
Revenue
Tip Fees $1,613 $2,033 $1,729 $2,436 $8,146 $12,760 $21,565 $27,100 $11,327 $9,310 $6,311 $6,421 $110,750
Compost Sales - commercial $394 $8,663 $25,200 $30,122 $18,703 $17,916 $4,134 $8,269 $31,894 $27,563 $10,828 $13,191 $196,875
Compost Sales - residential $184 $4,043 $11,760 $14,057 $8,728 $8,361 $1,929 $3,859 $14,884 $12,863 $5,053 $6,156 $91,875
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $2,191 $14,738 $38,689 $46,614 $35,578 $39,036 $27,629 $39,227 $58,104 $49,735 $22,192 $25,768 $399,500
Waste Receipt $238 $299 $255 $359 $1,199 $1,879 $3,175 $3,990 $1,668 $1,371 $929 $945 $16,306
Grinding/shredding $602 $759 $645 $909 $3,041 $4,763 $8,050 $10,116 $4,228 $3,475 $2,356 $2,397 $41,340
Transport to pad $831 $1,048 $891 $1,255 $4,198 $6,576 $11,113 $13,965 $5,837 $4,798 $3,252 $3,309 $57,073
Building windrows $713 $898 $764 $1,076 $3,598 $5,636 $9,526 $11,970 $5,003 $4,112 $2,787 $2,836 $48,919
Windrow Mixing & Turning $396 $499 $425 $598 $2,001 $3,134 $5,297 $6,656 $2,782 $2,287 $1,550 $1,577 $27,203
Windrow Irrigation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Moving Compost to Curing $582 $733 $624 $879 $2,939 $4,603 $7,779 $9,776 $4,086 $3,358 $2,276 $2,316 $39,951
Managing Curing Piles $501 $632 $537 $757 $2,531 $3,964 $6,700 $8,419 $3,519 $2,892 $1,960 $1,995 $34,406
Screening Compost $577 $727 $619 $871 $2,915 $4,565 $7,716 $9,696 $4,053 $3,331 $2,258 $2,298 $39,625
Moving Screened Compost to Storage $524 $660 $561 $791 $2,645 $4,143 $7,001 $8,798 $3,677 $3,022 $2,049 $2,085 $35,956
Moving Overs to Storage $110 $139 $118 $166 $556 $870 $1,471 $1,848 $772 $635 $430 $438 $7,552
Product Marketing & Sales $282 $355 $302 $425 $1,423 $2,229 $3,767 $4,733 $1,978 $1,626 $1,102 $1,122 $19,344
Cost of Compost Production $5,356 $6,750 $5,740 $8,086 $27,044 $42,361 $71,594 $89,967 $37,603 $30,907 $20,950 $21,318 $367,675
Capital Recovery - equipment $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $3,441 $41,297
Capital Recovery - site improvements $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $13,316 $159,791
Housekeeping, Monitoring & Recordkeeping $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $1,728 $20,736
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Admin Costs $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $18,485 $221,825
Net Income ($21,650) ($10,497) $14,464 $20,043 ($9,952) ($21,810) ($62,450) ($69,225) $2,016 $343 ($17,244) ($14,036) ($190,000)

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $2,175 $2,742 $2,332 $3,284 $10,985 $17,207 $29,081 $36,545 $15,274 $12,554 $8,510 $8,660 $149,350
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $2,933 $19,409 $50,820 $61,243 $46,973 $51,679 $37,037 $52,455 $76,642 $65,588 $29,345 $34,040 $528,163
Waste Receipt $245 $308 $262 $369 $1,235 $1,935 $3,270 $4,110 $1,718 $1,412 $957 $974 $16,796
Transport to pad $856 $1,079 $918 $1,293 $4,324 $6,773 $11,447 $14,384 $6,012 $4,941 $3,350 $3,408 $58,785
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($20,765) ($5,645) $26,748 $34,888 $2,167 ($8,033) ($51,125) ($53,588) $21,561 $17,024 ($9,530) ($5,193) ($51,491)

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $3,088 $3,892 $3,310 $4,662 $15,594 $24,425 $41,281 $51,875 $21,682 $17,821 $12,080 $12,292 $212,000
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $4,133 $26,882 $70,190 $84,605 $65,231 $71,973 $52,253 $73,820 $106,327 $90,971 $40,817 $47,300 $734,500
Waste Receipt $252 $318 $270 $380 $1,272 $1,993 $3,369 $4,233 $1,769 $1,454 $986 $1,003 $17,300
Transport to pad $882 $1,112 $945 $1,332 $4,454 $6,976 $11,790 $14,816 $6,192 $5,090 $3,450 $3,511 $60,548
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($19,721) $1,631 $45,950 $58,014 $19,636 $11,024 ($37,999) ($34,850) $50,148 $41,504 $1,331 $7,444 $144,112
Martha's Vineyard Windrow / ASP Composting

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
Mixing $ 90,966
Building ASPs $ 58,703
Electricity $ 78,122
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Estimated capex for equipment = $ 917,414
Martha's Vineyard ASP Composting
Revenue
Tip Fees $1,613 $2,033 $1,729 $2,436 $8,146 $12,760 $21,565 $27,100 $11,327 $9,310 $6,311 $6,421 $110,750
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $2,191 $14,738 $38,689 $46,614 $35,578 $39,036 $27,629 $39,227 $58,104 $49,735 $22,192 $25,768 $399,500
Waste Receipt $238 $299 $255 $359 $1,199 $1,879 $3,175 $3,990 $1,668 $1,371 $929 $945 $16,306
Mixing $1,325 $1,670 $1,420 $2,000 $6,691 $10,481 $17,713 $22,259 $9,303 $7,647 $5,183 $5,274 $90,966
Transport to pad $748 $943 $802 $1,130 $3,778 $5,918 $10,002 $12,569 $5,253 $4,318 $2,927 $2,978 $51,365
Building ASPs $855 $1,078 $916 $1,291 $4,318 $6,763 $11,431 $14,364 $6,004 $4,935 $3,345 $3,404 $58,703
Electricity $1,138 $1,434 $1,220 $1,718 $5,746 $9,001 $15,212 $19,116 $7,990 $6,567 $4,451 $4,530 $78,122
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($22,124) ($11,393) $13,873 $18,743 ($16,997) ($33,496) ($82,993) ($95,335) ($8,228) ($7,873) ($22,442) ($19,346) ($287,612)

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
Mixing $ 93,695
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $2,175 $2,742 $2,332 $3,284 $10,985 $17,207 $29,081 $36,545 $15,274 $12,554 $8,510 $8,660 $149,350
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $2,933 $19,409 $50,820 $61,243 $46,973 $51,679 $37,037 $52,455 $76,642 $65,588 $29,345 $34,040 $528,163
Waste Receipt $245 $308 $262 $369 $1,235 $1,935 $3,270 $4,110 $1,718 $1,412 $957 $974 $16,796
Mixing $1,365 $1,720 $1,463 $2,060 $6,892 $10,795 $18,244 $22,926 $9,582 $7,876 $5,339 $5,433 $93,695
Transport to pad $771 $971 $826 $1,163 $3,892 $6,096 $10,302 $12,946 $5,411 $4,447 $3,015 $3,068 $52,906
Building ASPs $881 $1,110 $944 $1,330 $4,447 $6,966 $11,774 $14,795 $6,184 $5,083 $3,445 $3,506 $60,464
Electricity $1,172 $1,477 $1,256 $1,770 $5,919 $9,271 $15,668 $19,689 $8,229 $6,764 $4,585 $4,666 $80,465
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($21,591) ($6,985) $25,780 $33,055 ($6,659) ($22,509) ($76,384) ($85,624) $8,840 $6,773 ($16,108) ($11,907) ($173,322)

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
Mixing $ 96,506
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $3,088 $3,892 $3,310 $4,662 $15,594 $24,425 $41,281 $51,875 $21,682 $17,821 $12,080 $12,292 $212,000
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $4,133 $26,882 $70,190 $84,605 $65,231 $71,973 $52,253 $73,820 $106,327 $90,971 $40,817 $47,300 $734,500
Waste Receipt $252 $318 $270 $380 $1,272 $1,993 $3,369 $4,233 $1,769 $1,454 $986 $1,003 $17,300
Mixing $1,406 $1,772 $1,507 $2,122 $7,099 $11,119 $18,792 $23,614 $9,870 $8,112 $5,499 $5,596 $96,506
Transport to pad $794 $1,000 $851 $1,198 $4,008 $6,278 $10,611 $13,334 $5,573 $4,581 $3,105 $3,160 $54,494
Building ASPs $907 $1,143 $972 $1,370 $4,581 $7,175 $12,127 $15,239 $6,369 $5,235 $3,549 $3,611 $62,278
Electricity $1,207 $1,521 $1,294 $1,823 $6,096 $9,549 $16,138 $20,280 $8,476 $6,967 $4,722 $4,805 $82,879
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($20,607) $215 $44,919 $56,091 $10,510 ($3,921) ($64,050) ($67,881) $37,010 $30,911 ($5,479) $494 $18,213
Martha's Vineyard Rotary Drum Composting

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
1. From spreadsheet "Drum Opex Estimate"
Annual Costs
Loading Rotary Drum $ 19,344
Operating Rotary Drum $ 28,852
Moving Cured Compost to Storage $ 35,956
Move Overs to Storage $ 7,728
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $222 $4,873 $14,176 $16,945 $10,521 $10,078 $2,326 $4,652 $17,942 $15,505 $6,091 $7,420 $110,750
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $799 $17,578 $51,136 $61,124 $37,953 $36,355 $8,390 $16,779 $64,719 $55,930 $21,973 $26,767 $399,500
Waste Receipt $238 $299 $255 $359 $1,199 $1,879 $3,175 $3,990 $1,668 $1,371 $929 $945 $16,306
Transport to pad $831 $1,048 $891 $1,255 $4,198 $6,576 $11,113 $13,965 $5,837 $4,798 $3,252 $3,309 $57,073
Loading Rotary Drum $282 $355 $302 $425 $1,423 $2,229 $3,767 $4,733 $1,978 $1,626 $1,102 $1,122 $19,344
Operating Rotary Drum $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $2,404 $28,852
Managing Curing Piles $1,069 $1,347 $1,146 $1,614 $5,397 $8,454 $14,288 $17,955 $7,505 $6,168 $4,181 $4,255 $73,379
Screening Compost $113 $142 $121 $170 $568 $890 $1,505 $1,891 $790 $650 $440 $448 $7,728
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($33,430) ($17,986) $16,539 $24,280 ($17,043) ($33,306) ($89,259) ($98,461) ($385) ($2,763) ($27,188) ($22,746) ($301,748)
Martha's Vineyard Drum Composting

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $299 $6,571 $19,117 $22,851 $14,188 $13,591 $3,136 $6,273 $24,195 $20,909 $8,214 $10,006 $149,350
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $1,056 $23,239 $67,605 $80,809 $50,175 $48,063 $11,091 $22,183 $85,562 $73,943 $29,049 $35,387 $528,163
Waste Receipt $245 $308 $262 $369 $1,235 $1,935 $3,270 $4,110 $1,718 $1,412 $957 $974 $16,796
Transport to pad $771 $971 $826 $1,163 $3,892 $6,096 $10,302 $12,946 $5,411 $4,447 $3,015 $3,068 $52,906
Managing Curing Piles $991 $1,249 $1,062 $1,496 $5,003 $7,837 $13,245 $16,645 $6,957 $5,718 $3,876 $3,944 $68,022
Move Overs to Storage $116 $146 $124 $175 $586 $917 $1,550 $1,948 $814 $669 $454 $462 $7,960
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($33,115) ($12,201) $33,083 $44,152 ($3,738) ($19,792) ($83,372) ($89,004) $22,038 $16,514 ($19,317) ($13,315) ($158,068)
Martha's Vineyard Drum Composting

Revenues:
Commercial = 75%
Residential = 25%
January 0.2%
February 4.4%
March 12.8%
April 15.3%
May 9.5%
June 9.1%
July 2.1%
August 4.2%
September 16.2%
October 14.0%
November 5.5%
December 6.7%
100.0%
Annual Costs
January 1.5%
February 1.8%
March 1.6%
April 2.2%
May 7.4%
June 11.5%
July 19.5%
August 24.5%
September 10.2%
October 8.4%
November 5.7%
December 5.8%

Revenue
Tip Fees $424 $9,328 $27,136 $32,436 $20,140 $19,292 $4,452 $8,904 $34,344 $29,680 $11,660 $14,204 $212,000
<Other Revenue> $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Sales $1,469 $32,318 $94,016 $112,379 $69,778 $66,840 $15,425 $30,849 $118,989 $102,830 $40,398 $49,212 $734,500
Waste Receipt $252 $318 $270 $380 $1,272 $1,993 $3,369 $4,233 $1,769 $1,454 $986 $1,003 $17,300
Transport to pad $794 $1,000 $851 $1,198 $4,008 $6,278 $10,611 $13,334 $5,573 $4,581 $3,105 $3,160 $54,494
Managing Curing Piles $1,021 $1,286 $1,094 $1,541 $5,154 $8,072 $13,643 $17,144 $7,166 $5,889 $3,992 $4,062 $70,063
Move Overs to Storage $119 $151 $128 $180 $603 $945 $1,597 $2,006 $839 $689 $467 $475 $8,199
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Income ($33,050) ($3,508) $59,137 $75,300 $14,924 ($2,373) ($81,195) ($82,996) $54,237 $44,356 ($8,742) ($273) $35,816
Appendix G - Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises proposal
April 10, 2018
MARTHA’S VINEYARD – FOOD RECOVERY SYSTEM
Proposal Number: 2018xxxx‐SAFE
Proposal Date: mmm dd yyyy
Prepared For: Bob Spencer, Environmental Planning Consultant / Martha’s Vineyard –

Food Recovery Project ‐ Budgetary consideration only.
The following is not a formal proposal, but budgetary data and explanation of
project work required to construct a food recovery facility capable of handling
approximately 300 tons per day of post‐consumer food scraps from commercial
establishments. The flow of material, yield of recovered product, mass balance and
flow of material is based on this assumption.
The cost data is representative of a system that is capable of handling the throughput you describe,
however no analysis for your specific site, your processing needs, operational constraints have been taken
into account. As such your costs could be significantly different. Also, equipment deliver lead times are
based on end of year 2017 estimates and may be longer now. Raw material costs are also expected to rise
based on steel tariffs not anticipated when this was generated.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY OF SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE FEED ENTERPRISES, INC (SAFE). THE
CONTENT PROVIDED IS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY IN
NATURE. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR CIRCULATED TO ANY
SECONDARY PARTIES OR UNINTENDED SOURCES WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED
WRITTEN CONSENT OF S.A.F.E.
The following is for budgetary and planning considerations only. Any work, service, or sale shall be
initiated and executed under the terms of a separate Purchase Agreement or Service Contract NOT
contained herein.
Page 1
Martha’s Vineyard
SAFE FOOD RECOVERY SYSTEM
April 11, 2018
April 09, 2018
Mr. Bob Spencer
Dear Bob,
SAFE is pleased to offer this budgetary estimate for Martha’s Vineyard for a food recovery facility. We
appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with you and your team to design and implement what we
believe is the complete solution to food waste recovery.
This information is based on generic information from our experience building and operating our facility
in Santa Clara, CA as well as design work and research we have collected from engineers, contractors,
and vendors on constructing a facility to process up to 300 tons per day of raw food waste from post
consumer commercial entities, source separated to achieve less than 25% contamination. Our
operational projections are based on our experience processing food waste, processing logs, lab tests, at
our Santa Clara plant.
If asked to submit a proposal, we anticipate it would look similar to the following where we would map
out a design phase to get the project off on the right foot. This thorough exercise can focus on fully
developing detailed equipment specification first and expediting purchase agreements with suppliers to
secure our place in their supply chain.
The intent of the following is to establish a starting place from which to engage on this project, to provide
budgetary guidance, and get detailed information in your hands about the specific pieces of equipment
that make up the system. We envision a collaborative process with your team to dial in operational
parameters, equipment specifications, and pricing to meet your needs. Don’t hesitate to reach out with
any questions. We are excited by the prospect of working with you on this project and we look forward
to doing what we can to best serve you in this endeavor.
Creg Shaffer
President / CEO
Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises, Inc.
Page 2
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
PROJECT PROPOSAL ‐DRAFT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SAFE suggests a project to design, plan, build, and commission a food‐scraps recovery and processing
facility. The facility will house a system and processes designed and patented by Sustainable Alternative
Feed Enterprises, Inc. (SAFE) to accept source separated food scraps. Generate produced by SAFE pre‐
processing facilities (budgetary numbers for pre‐processing in separate document). The project
proposed is based on SAFE’s development, testing and experience building and operating similar
systems in Santa Clara, California.
Due to the complexity and the cost of such a project, SAFE encourages a two‐phase design approach that
begins with a rigorous planning and design phase conducted by experienced industrial contractors and
experts in plant design, The SAFE system, and the waste industry engaged by SAFE to work
collaboratively with knowledgeable staff in operational requirements.
PROJECT PLAN – SUMMARY
PROJECT PHASE DELIVERABLES
PHASE IA: SITE SELECTION / VALIDATION a. Capacity / Throughput modeling

AND DESIGN b. Preliminary equipment specs / costs
‐ Conceptual Design / Drafting c. System Requirements Document
‐ Cost analysis
a. Complete bid package, RFQ
PHASE IB: SITE SELECTION / VALIDATION b. Complete supply list, P&IDs
AND DESIGN c. Plant design specs, equipment layout,
‐ Engineering architectural rendering
‐ Architectural Drafting
‐ Site permitting analysis
a. Industrial contractor signed to project
PHASE II: CONSTRUCTION PLANNING & b. Final process map
AQUISITION c. Initial operating plan and estimated
‐ Product characterization capital, startup, and operating costs
‐ Finalize equipment specs d. Final mechanical requirements
‐ Finalize equipment quotes e. Equipment Purchase Orders
f. Equipment delivery plan
END PLANNING AND DESIGN PROJECT
Page 3
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
At the conclusion of the Planning and Design Phase, outlined above, stakeholders will have detailed
information regarding the overall project, plant construction, equipment delivery and installation,
expected operating schedules, associated timelines, and finalized costs based on specific selections
relative to non‐required/ancillary equipment.
PROJECT PHASE DELIVERABLES
PHASE III: SITE PREPARATION – TENANT

IMPROVEMENTS
‐ Building modifications per structural and a. Local regulatory approvals
mechanical plans b. Local certificate of occupancy
‐ Building inspections, process regulatory c. SAFE sign‐off for equipment placement
reviews and process flow.
PHASE IV: EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

a. Equipment install
‐ Equipment delivery, placement,
b. Piping and Plumbing in place
anchorage.
c. Electrical hookups to equipment
‐ System mechanical integration
d. Low voltage control wiring, and control
‐ System electrical hookups
panel wiring complete
‐ System controls integration
e. Operator interfaces installed and sign‐off
‐ Operator interface (HMI) testing
f. Complete Alarm and Safety shut‐offs
PHASE V: SYSTEM COMMISSIONING /

TURNOVER
‐ Equipment Unit Testing a. Isolated process Sign‐off
‐ System Integration Testing b. Integrated, full process sign‐off
‐ Process rework, bug fix c. System Turn‐over
‐ Operator training
Page 4
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
PHASE I AND II TIMELINE AND COSTS
To ensure the highest degree of success we propose a preliminary engagement to complete the first two
phases. This level of effort and due diligence will produce significant and required insight into every detail
of the buildout and system implementation project. It will provide the complete design and budget for
the site improvements, the complete equipment and supply lists, and the budget for capital expenditures.
Phase One (Site Design & Planning) is expected to take approximately six weeks and achieve the major
milestones required for site selection, forecasting project costs, and stakeholder buy‐in for site prep &
acquisition.
Weeks
Phase I: Site Design & Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Activity 1 Conceptual Design
Task 1.a Validate Site and Throughput Requirements
Milestone Site and Throughput Requirements:
Milestone Conceptual Design Complete: Required Payment for Phase I:
Task 1.b Analysis and Planning ‐ Project Specific
Task 1.c Refine Design
Task 1.d Refine Estimated Costs ‐ Corresponde to Updated Design
Milestone Updated Design & Costs: Stakeholder Sigh‐Off
Activity 2 Engineering
Task 2.a Document site specific engineering requirements
Task 2.b Draft Architectural Plans
Activity 3 Finalize Build Plan
Task 3.a Develop bid package
Milestone Final Bid Package: Stakeholder Sign‐Off
Phase Two, Construction Planning & Equipment Acquisition, will focus on selecting the general
contractor and industrial contractors for the site tenant improvements and the system implementation,
as well as generating the precise equipment specifications and generating purchase orders.
Phase II: Construction Planning & Acquisition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Activity 4 Building Contractor Selection
Task 4.a Select / Contract with Building Contractor (Customer)
Activity 5 Validate product characteristics
Task 5.a Analyze Local Product
Activity 6 Finalize Equipment Order
Task 6.a Finalize equipment specs
Task 6.b Finalize all costs and timelines
Milestone: Approve project budget, Order Equipment, Required Payment Phase II
Activity 7 Equip Delivery & Install Planning
Task 7.a Set plan and timelines for equipment delivery, rigging, and setup.
Timelines and milestones are heavily dependent on factors that are often beyond the control of the
project team. Our timelines, milestones, and costs assume typical turnaround times for site selection,
local enforcement agency approvals and availability of TDI staff. Activities will be completed by team
members assigned to project tasks as needed for hours required to meet deliverables and milestones.
PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM
To Be Determined – SAFE Team including Creg V Shaffer

Page 5
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
SAFE CEO and Project Director
Mike Holman – MRH Enterprises

SAFE System Design Partner – Industrial Contractor
Owner of AWD industrial contractors, Mikes experience covers nearly all aspects of the design, planning,
and implementation of complex processing systems relevant to this project.
Page 6
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
John Pastusek
SAFE Chief Engineer
JDP Manufacturing specializes in vacuum vessels along with full extrusion line design and manufacturing.
His expertise has focused on the process planning and production design for D&J Technologies
engineering and manufacturing. John understands the full technical specifications of the SAFE system and
will guide the project team’s technical design efforts and system specifications.
Innovative Food Specialists, LLC

SAFE Partner for Animal Feed
IFS understands the system process requirements for manufacturing marketable feed products from
various food and feed by‐products and waste streams. On this project, IFS will analyze and monitor food
scrap samples from the generators covered by this project to ensure the sydstem and processes deliver a
product suitable for feed markets.
Bill Freeman
SAFE Partner for Finance, Accounting and Tax Matters
Nicole Rinauro
SAFE Project Process Manager
Nicole brings life‐long waste industry and project management experience to SAFE. Growing up in a family
business that included hauling, transfer, and landfill operations; she will assist with RFQ, RFI and bid
package assembly. She will ensure that effective training and operational hand‐offs are accomplished
including clear and relevant documentation.
Page 7
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
TOTAL COSTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The planning and design project will start immediately with verification of the project location for system
compatibility and continue through complete conceptual design, layout and construction project planning.
The design phase is expected to run approximately 12 to 16 weeks.
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
1. Project goal is to design a food recovery facility capable of taking food scrap mash from a SAFE
pre‐processing facility and delivered to the processing site via tanker truck or direct piping. Note:
this project is designed for food scraps processing only.
2. Mash delivered to the plant will be a pumpable consistency.
3. Project team members will have access to the site / area as needed for on‐site research, planning
and design activities.
4. Customer staff will be available to provide information about food scrap volumes available, and
ramp‐up estimates.
5. Documents and deliverables will be the property of Customer, but used only for the construction,
commissioning and operation documents for this site.
6. Buyerl will assign a project lead from the company to be the principal contact for the project.
ASSUMPTIONS ON SCOPE OF SUPPLY
The following is a conceptual layout based on a working floor plan for a system with similar required
through‐put. The system cost estimate detailed below is for budgetary planning based on this concept.
NOTE: The cost projections are as of year end 2017 and will need to be revised based on
manufacturing supply chain bottlenecks and effects of higher raw material costs specifically steel.
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT (TBD):
INITIAL PRODUCT FLOW ASSUMPTION ()

The estimates below assume a throughput of up to 50 tons per day.
The SAFE dryer system is built and mounted on several equipment skids built by SAFE’s suppliers and
manufacturing affiliates. Each equipment skid will be integrated mechanically and operationally under
the supervision of SAFE’s technicians. Integrating product and thermal fluid piping, utilities, exhausting,
and discharge are all required to support the system. A cost estimate of on‐site installation and
integration of the system skids and components is provided, for budgetary planning. Actionable cost
quotes will be dependent on the design customized to meet the actual documented requirements, the
specific site’s constraints, and the safe and sustainable operation of the system. The Planning and Design
phase will detail all install and integration materials, structures and parts. Specifications of supply and
Page 8
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
returns, required parts will be supplied by SAFE as well as startup, testing, commissioning, maintenance
instruction and training.
Page 9
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 1: DRYER SYSTEM (OBJECT 5 ON LAYOUT)
Designed to dry food waste mash produced by the SAFE pre‐processing system after passing through
the separation process where free water and FOG has been removed to a target moisture level near 75%.
Output moisture requirement is 12%. Dwell time, temperature, pressures are set and monitored by the
system control and user interface. Alarms and programmed system shut‐offs are programmed in to
protect the equipment in the case of operating parameters outside established thresholds.
Item QTY Description Net

Price
USD
1-A 2 Product Feed System
Type - Progressing Cavity Pump – 1 ea.
Scraped surface heat exchanger

Product and thermal fluid valves and instruments
Product divert valve and inlet valve including orifices
Mass flow transmitter
Double orifice inlet plate and manual bypass valves
Automated orifice plug bypass loop
Duplicate orifices
1-B 4 Twin Screw Vacuum Drying Conveyors
Twin screw vacuum drying conveyors, including the following
features:
15’ long with dual 24” diameter, hollow flight screws
Constructed of 2205 duplex stainless steel
ASME “U” stamped for 90 psi @ 350 degrees Fahrenheit
Rotation safety sensors
Housing sight glasses with wipers 6” diameter – 4 per
conveyor section
Housing product temperature transmitters – 2 per
conveyor section
Outlet vapor transitions with insulated blankets – 3 per
conveyor section.
Flexible hoses included for connection to vapor header
Rotary unions – 2 per conveyor section
Hot oil supply and return manifolds (insulated) including all
valves and gauges, temperature/pressure
Flexible braided SS hoses with fire sleeves connecting the
manifolds to each zone
Teflon insulation blankets covering each conveyor
Material for 2205 duplex SS on augers and troughs product
contact zones
Skid interconnecting piping, valves, instrumentation (see
exclusions)
Independent control and safety system panel (remote
control included)
Page 10
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
List 1: Dryer System – Continued

Item QTY Description Net Price USD
1-C 1 Conveyor Discharge, Lump Breaker, Conveyor
9” Dia. (was 6”) Discharge Incline Auger w/
Rotation Sensors – 1 ea.
Airlock, Hopper Style w/ 2 sections – 1 ea.
Pneumatic Valves and Level Switches, Airlock – Lot
Lump Breaker after the Airlock VFD w/integrated
control
Product Removal Inclined Belt Conveyor after the
Airlock Lump Breaker VFD w/integrated control
1-D 1 Utility System Skid
Utility Skid, 304 SS Framework w/ mounted Main
Control Cabinet – 1 ea.
Vapor Condenser, Horizontal U-Tube Style – 1 ea.
Surge Tank mounted under the Condenser w/
Level Switches
Vapor Condenser, Horizontal U-Tube Style – 1 ea.
Vacuum Pump, Liquid Ring – 1 ea.
Seal Water System including Outlet Collection
Tank
Condensate Pump – 1 ea.
Seal Water Discharge Pump – 1 ea.
Water Recirculation Pump, Cooling Tower – 1 ea.
Valves and Instrumentation, Utility Skid – Lot
Interconnecting Piping and Pre-wired, Utility Skid –
Lot
1-E 1 Cooling Tower System
Evapco, ESWB Closed Circuit Cooler, 3.6 MMBTUHR
(location based) – 1 ea.
Lift Pump, Cooling Tower – 1 ea.
Air Circulation Fan, Cooling Tower – 1 ea.
Water Supply and Level System – Lot
Instrumentation and Valves – Lot
1-F 1 Thermal Fluid Heater System – TBD, Must be electric or

propane.
Page 11
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
List 1: Dryer System – Continued
1-G 1 Automated Control System

Electrical Engineering Design and Programming
Main Electrical Control Panel
Remote Skid Enclosures
Panel View Display mounted on Main Panel
I/O, Power Supply, Ethernet Connection
VFD’s, Starters, Breakers
I/O for Remote Control of Thermal Fluid System
Remote Viewing and Firewall Equipment
Utility Skid pre-wired to Main Panel
System Transmitters and Switches
Catwalks for Drying Chambers

OSHA compliant conveyor catwalk
Progressive stepped catwalk to follow conveyor
incline
304L SS construction; frame, kickplates, and
handrails
Interior connection to frame plates
Exterior legs to floor
Stairwell with landing to the first level platform
Handrail around ends and exterior of platforms
Chemgrate deck and tread plates
Dryer System Total $3,094,000
Page 12
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 2: DECANTING SYSTEM ()

This system uses g‐force to separate liquid materials based on mass using two machines; a 2 phase
decanter and a high speed centrifuge. The first (decanting step) separates mash into 2 outputs, centrate
(free water & FOG) and solids (wet cake). It is not a complete dewatering but it gives us the ability to take
food scraps mash of various moisture levels and pull off free water to the specified 72% moisture. The
free water pulled off is called centrate and contains FOG at this stage. The second step runs the centrate
through a higher g‐force Centrifuge. The centrifuge separates the FOG from the water as well as removing
much of the suspended solids. FOG is pulled off into the oil tanks. The solids out of the centrifuge are
called sludge and that material is pumped to and mixed with the wet cake coming off the decanter. The
separation system below is also doubled up entirely, for maximum redundancy and capacity. Based on
information provided, the flow rates to decanting are assumed to be 24 GPM. For the centrifuge, 18 GPM
is assumed.
Item QTY Description Net Price
USD
872-A 1 Decanter Centrifuge System:
2-Phase Decanter Centrifuge
20 HP main motor
TM21 hard-surfaced conveyor
All 316 stainless steel 14” bowl
All stainless steel vessel
Vibration sensor with auto shut-off
Air actuated 3-way valve for feed/circulate
2-B 1 Decanter Centrifuge System: Decanter Control System
NEMA4 enclosure(s)
Main power disconnect
VFD drive for man motor
VFD drive for back-drive motor
VFD drive for feed pump
Vibration alarm with shut-down
Over-torque alarm with feed interlock
Fully automatic control system with PLC and HMI
Touch screen control with graphic interface
Subtotal 2-Phase Decanter $ 367,510
2-C 1 Skid Accessories
Approximately 5’ x 10’ welded steel base
Control panel mounted and wired
1.5” all steel welded flanged piping
Stainless steel wafer check valves
1 ½ ” steel control valves (feed control)
Decanter inlet/outlet connectors with flexible
hoses
Vibration dampers
Vibration isolating pipe supports
Heavy phase sight-glass
¼” sample ports with valves
56 gal/minute progressive cavity feed pump
2-D 1 Separated Fluid Collection Tank
Approximately 250 gal capacity
Level sensor for automatic pump cycling
1 ½ ” all steel welded flanged piping
Integrated into above skid and controls
56 gal/minute progressive cavity discharge pump
VFD for pump speed control
Subtotal decanter skid $ 221,650
Page 13
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
List 2: Decanting System - Continued

Item QTY Description Net Price USD
2-E 1 Self-Cleaning High Speed Centrifuge System:
Self-Cleaning Centrifuge
460/60 motor (≈15HP)
Clutch drive, horizontal
Nickel plate non-SS bowl parts
2-F 1 Self-Cleaning High Speed Centrifuge System:
Centrifuge Control Panel
NEMA4 enclosure
Main power disconnect
DOL starter for main motor
VFD drive for feed pump
Fully automatic control system with PLC and HMI
Elaborate manual overrides for most functions
PB control with status indicator lights
Touch screen control with graphic interface
2-G 1 Self-Cleaning High Seed Centrifuge System:
Centrifuge Skid Accessories
1 ½” all steel welded flanged piping
1 ½” steel control valves (feed control)
Vibration dampers
Vibration isolating pipe supports
Heavy phase sight glass
¼” sample ports with valves
56 gal/minute progressive cavity feed pump
2-H 1 Self-Cleaning High Speed Centrifuge System:
Product Pre-Heater
60kW low-watt-density electric heater
Digital temperature display (main control panel)
Multi-bank design for incremental loading
Pressure relief valve
Over-heat shut-off
Subtotal High Speed Centrifuge $ 280,280
Decanting System Total $ 869,440
Page 14
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 3: PUMPS AND FILTERS
The items in this section are dependent on final design based on customer requirements. Below the
budgetary quote allows for the most effective flow of material and cleaning solutions to maximize the
useful life of the equipment, the safety of the operation and ability to maintain continual operations
through cleaning and maintenance cycles. The pumps must be able to move high volumes of product at
low pressures. This conceptual design allows for CIP of any tank or supply line without shutting down the
separation and dehydration functions.
Item QTY Description Preliminary

Allowance
USD
3-A 1 Tanker Offload Pump
High capacity low pressure, 200 GPM (type – gear
pump)
3-B 1 Mash Tanks to Process / CIP
PD, VFD to 50 GPM, low shear (type – gear pump)
3-B 1 Wet Cake Tanks to Process / CIP
PD, VFD to 25 GPM, low shear (moyno pump)
3-C Grit/Silica Filters, Traps
Total Pumps and Filtration $258,700
LIST 4: TANKS
The items in this section are dependent on final design based on customer requirements. The proposed
tank set focuses on providing adequate staging and storage capacity for operating 1‐dryer line. It does
not provide for surge capacity beyond the daily requirement. Recommended tanks below will meet safety
requirements for access, cleaning and permitting. Not included below is the valving and piping required
to integrate the various tanks with the processing and CIP equipment. Equipment integration costs are
estimated in the Equipment Install / Fabrication / Hook‐up line item.
Item QTY Description Preliminary

Allowance USD
4-A 1 Mash Tanks () $ 52,000
3,000 gal stainless cone-bottom agitated, CIP
4-B 1 Wet Cake Staging Tanks () 52,000
2,500 gal ss cone-bottom agitated, CIP
4-C 1 Condensate Cooling Tanks 5,200
3,000 gal FRP tanks
4-D 1 Process Water Equalization Tank 29,250
3,000 gal FRP tank, level sensors SAF control
integrated
4-E 1 Clean Oil Storage 16,250
3,000 gal clean oil storage tank, holding prior
to shipping
Total Tanks $ 154,700
Page 15
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 5: EXTRUDER SYSTEM ()

The final processing step of the system is sterilizing the product and achieves the final moisture level to
ensure product stabilization. The flow rate anticipated into the extruder needs to exceed the exit flow
rate out of the two dryers (). This dryer system will generate approximately one (1) ton per hour of hot
dried output (meal) at about 12% moisture. Prior to running through the extruder, the meal will load into
a ribbon blender/mixer to breakup any clumps and make a uniform and consistent feed into the extruder.
Maintaining consistent moisture and uniformity is essential for the extruder to reach and maintain the
required temperature and pressure.
Product exiting the extruder will be hot (about 300 degree F). Out of the extruder, the product will be
conveyed to the cooling drum via a vented conveyor in order to allow steam release and containment.
The cooling drum will manage up to 4,000 lbs per hour of material that is 10% moisture or less.
USD
5-A Extruder with feeder 125 hp drive $ 75,703
1 125 hp (94 kW) main drive motor
Remote mount control panel w/digital readout
and A/C frequency drive
Variable speed feeder motor
5-B Wear Parts Package 6,332
Custom wear parts package of selected parts to
fit specific application
5-C Dry Meal Cooler 38,905
Gear driven main drive motor
1800 CFM fan motor
Cyclone and airlock assembly
Airlock motor
5-D Water Injection System 4,061
Water injection manifold, injector and flow meter
5-E Vendor Startup Service 7,280
A 5 day professional service by technology
specialist for operator use training and
maintenance
5-F Mixer/Blender Pre-Extruder 127,400
304 stainless steel mixer clump breaker
50 cu. ft. capacity
Motor, gear box,
Feeder mechanism to extruder
Total Extruder System $ 259,682
Page 16
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 6: CLEAN IN PLACE (CIP) SYSTEM
SAFE proposes installing and integrating a fully functional cleaning system including a multi‐tank skid
with heat exchangers and solvent injectors to allow for CIP functions critical to maintaining sanitary
conditions, maximizing the longevity of the equipment, and conducive to feed production guidelines,
safety, and maximizing up‐time.

USD
6-A CIP System
1 Skid mounted, integrated with system piping,
tanks, vessels, pre-heaters.
Interior pipe, fitting, tank, vessel, flushing / cleaning
system
Engineered and custom built for specific plant
layout
Pressurized to ensure residue removal with minimal
chemicals, water usage, operating costs.
Custom CIP program designed to optimize cycle
times based on work flow and safety protocol.
Stainless steel tanks (2 tank system)
Circulation pump
Heat exchanger
CIP System $ 162,500
Page 17
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 7: SUSPENDED AIR FLOTATION SYSTEM (SAF) – WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

SAFE is proposing the installation of Heron Innovators Suspended Air Flotation system for treatment of
the mechanically separated free water from the liquid phase of the decanter and the heavy phase of the
high speed centrifuge. The proposed system is capable of removing 90+ percent of the Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), and essentially all the remaining FOG. The proposed and costs below provide for a 30 GPM
influent from the separation system. The proposed skid will also provide for balancing discharge water.
USD
7-A SAF Skid Base
50 gpm self-priming feed pump; VFD control
304 stainless steel flotation cell
Skimmer assembly w/electric motor drive and VFD
Flocculation tank, mixers motor and VFD drive
Maintenance platform
Control Panel
Skid mounted unit (assembled) read to operate
7-B Expand water launder to include SS working tank

Level sensor
Discharge pump
Process and ID loop for automated manual operation.
7-C PH Control
PH Controller
Insertion-style probe
Caustic safety tank
Metering pump
Process and ID loop for automated and manual
operation.
7-D Electric Lobe Solids Pump
2” Borger lobe pump
Gear box/gear reducer
2HP 480V/3P electric motor
Powder coated skid assembly
P&ID loop for automated and manual operation
SAF System $ 351,000
Page 18
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 8: CENTRAL INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEM

Important to the efficient control of the system is the ability of the staff to operate and monitor all
components of the system. Each manufacturer will provide control and I/O interfaces. Given our
experience with the system, SAFE’s technical experts and suppliers will coordinate to custom build and
implement a consolidated control panel specific to this site’s operating parameters. This feature will
provide centralized, user friendly monitoring and control interfaces, including remote monitoring and
control of specific functions. It will eliminate the need for each supplier to provide a complete UI. It will
provide a uniform interface and integrated e‐stop functions across the various system skids, and eliminate
the need for operators to learn multiple and disparate control interfaces.
USD
8-A Integrated Control System
Integrated equipment start/stop
Integrated alarm monitoring
Integrated system shut-off
Electrical engineering design and programming
8-B Main Electrical Control Panel

Panel view display mounted on main panel
I/O, power supply Ethernet connection
I/O for remote control of each system
Remote viewing and firewall equipment
Utility skids wired to main panel
System transmitters and switches
Central Control System $ 520,000
LIST 9: REQUIRED ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT

USD
9-A Air Compressor
Compressor, rotary, 20HP, 120 gal, 150 PSI, 65.6 $ 20,434
cfm, 460vac, 3
9-B N-2 Nitrogen Blanket System 12,968
Hot oil heater, required fire suppression system
9-C Flex Auger/Conveyors 37,082
Estimated 2, type – Model 90 flex auger systems,
100 lbs/minute, at 40 lbs per sf, 18% moisture max
9-D Stainless/Vented Conveyors 69,017
T-304 stainless steel, double flanged troughs,
flanged covers, 1 HP, 3/60/230/460V, electric
motor
9-F Dry Storage Bags / Scales / Racks or Bulk Hopper option 130,000
110 cu yrd, 24 ton capacity
9-G Water Heater / Softer System 13,813
Hot, soft water needed for Centrifuge ops
9-H Bulk Totes 8,409
250 gal poly storage (over flow / temp storage)
9-I Forklift 56,621
4000LB electric, 36V battery with water sys-tank
and charger
9-J Moisture Analyzer 21,198
Required measuring instrument
9-K Tools, testing lab, supplies 63,180
Required product testing equipment and
equipment maintenance tools
Total Ancillary Equipment $ 432,721
Page 19
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
LIST 10: SUGGESTED ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT

USD
10-A System Monitoring Sensors $ 53,625
10-B Office Equipment, Networking and Signage 19,500
10-C Computers, Software and SAFE Data Capture Application 7,313
10-D Shop floor desks, tables, chairs, cabinets 4,063
10-E Floor Scrubber 6,825
10-F Pressure Washer 1,300
10-G Equipment Safety Barriers 4,875
10-H Job Box 3,250
$ 100,750
SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT COSTS
Below is the summary of SAFE’s equipment set for the conceptual layout provided. Included in the
summary below is SAFE’s costs for providing required technical configuration, monitoring equipment
acquisition and delivery, directing and conducting full scale unit, system, integration, and performance
testing. The budget shown allows for 120 man days on‐site.
Description Net Price
USD
Dryer System (2 Lines) $ 3,094,000
Decanting System 869,440
Water Treatment System (SAF) 351,00
Tanks 154,700
Pumps/Filters 258,700
Clean-in-Place Utility Skid 162,500
Integrated Controls 520,000
Extruding System Including Cooling 259,682
Ancillary Equipment 533,471
Technical Configuration, Testing, Commissioning 216,000
Subtotal – Equipment Costs $6,419,492
Page 20
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
ESTIMATE OF SYSTEM EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION AND ENGINEERING COSTS
Description Net Price

USD
Equipment Installation/Fabrication/Hook-up 1,150,000 *
Permitting, Engineering, Architecture 205,000
Subtotal Estimate of Install Costs $ 1,355,000 *

*Implementation costs shown are an estimate to be
determined by the planning and design phase of this
project.
Not Included in this Proposal:

- Fire Protection/Sprinkler System
- Building Modification/Civil Work
- Taxes
- Electrical feed to new MCC panels
- Seismic (SAFE can provide seismic if client prefers)
- Additional training package
- Preventive maintenance package
- Unforeseen local code deviations from national code standards, if any
- ANY ITEM NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH HEREIN, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION SITE WORK OR STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING OR UTILITY PERMITS, SALES TAXES IF
APPLICABLE, OR SHIPPING COSTS
SAFE reserves the right to modify any equipment specification as

new technologies are available, while maintaining the
production capacity and maintaining for improving product
quality.
**This is an estimate only. Any unforeseen increase in raw materials including material import fees, extraordinary costs
or fees beyond our control attributable to a change in law, or increases resulting from customization or a customer-
generated change order, if any, will be assessed at the time a purchase order is issued and will be reflected in final
contract documents. If SAFE does do the work, all work, including parts, will come under the same warranty provided
for other items in this sales order.
Grand Total $USD $ 7,774,492

Sales tax not included
Quote is good for 30 days.
Page 21
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
TBD
Page 22
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
PROJECT PLAN
Proposed Project Plan

Activity Task Work Deliverables
Phase I: Site Design & Planning
Activity 1Conceptual Design
Validate Site and Throughput System requirements document,
Task 1.a
Requirements Site Selected
Milestone Site and Throughput Requirements: Stakeholder Sign‐off
Milestone Conceptual Design Complete: Required Payment for Phase I:
Infrastructure plan: Utility supply,
Analysis and Planning ‐ Project
Task 1.b accessibility, traffic, permitting
Specific
requirements.
Updated design specs, tonnage,
Task 1.c Refine Design storage, utilities, emissions,
discharge
Refine Estimated Costs ‐
Task 1.d Updated Project Costs
Corresponde to Updated Design
Milestone Updated Design & Costs: Stakeholder Sigh‐Off
Activity 2 Engineering
Document site specific engineering Engineering analysis & Prelim
Task 2.a
requirements P&ID
Task 2.b Draft Architectural Plans Final Equipment Layout
Activity 3 Finalize Build Plan
Task 3.a Develop bid package Contractor Bid Pachage
Milestone Final Bid Package: Stakeholder Sign‐Off Bid package illustrations
Phase II: Construction Planning & Acquisition
Activity 4 Building Contractor Selection
Select / Contract with Building
Task 4.a Building Contractor Signed
Contractor (Customer)
Activity 5 Validate product characteristics
Final process map, initial
Task 5.a Analyze Local Product operating plan and estimated
costs.
Activity 6 Finalize Equipment Order
Final mechanical requirements &
Task 6.a Finalize equipment specs
equipment specs
Buildout illustrations, Complete
Task 6.b Finalize all costs and timelines
supply list, P&IDs
Milestone: Approve project budget, Order Equipment, Required Payment Phase II
Activity 7 Equip Delivery & Install Planning
Set plan and timelines for Equipment delivery schedule,
Task 7.a equipment delivery, rigging, and riggers contract, anchor
setup. engineering
Page 23
Martha’s Vineyard
April 11, 2018
PROJECT PLAN (CONTINUED)
Activity Task Work Deliverables
Phase III: Site Preparations / Tenant Improvements

Activity 8 Building / Tenant Improvements
Complete building / T.I.s for
Task 8.a Site Construction / Preparation Work
equipment install
Milestone: Site Inspection Sign‐offs: LEA, SAFE, Stakeholder
Phase IV: Equipment Installation
Activity 9 Equipment delivery, rigging, anchorage
Ship / receive, rig, anchor
Task 9.a Equipment set in place
equipment set
Activity 11 Process mechanical integration
Completed process piping and
Task 11.a Process piping and plumbing work
plumbing
Task 11.b Final Mechanical Docs & Inspection Mechanical Sign‐off / Certification
Activity 12 Process electrical hookups

Process power supply, drops, Completed equipment power
Task 12.a
connection connections
Task 12.b Final Electrical Docs & Inspection Electrical Sign‐off / Certification
Activity 13 Process controls integratoin
Task 13.a Low Voltage Control Integration Completed control panel wiring
Process programming, Alarms, Completed Alarm and Safety Shut‐
Task 13.b
Safety Shutoff Testing off Programs
Task 13.c Controls User Interface testing. Control System & Operator Docs
Milestone: System Installed Sign‐offs: SAFE, Stakeholder
Task 13.c Final User Interface Testing / Docs M & O Documents
Phase V: Commision / Turnover / Training
Activity 14 Commission Equipment
Task 14.a System Unit Testing Isolated Process Sign‐off
Task 14.b System Integration Testing Integrated, full process, Sign‐off
Task 14.c Processing Fixes Fix Testing Failures
Task 14.d Unit Test Fixes Testing Sign‐off
Activity 15 Training / Trunover
Task 15.a Operator training
This estimate is for budgetary and planning considerations only. Any work, service, or sale shall be
initiated and executed under the terms of a separate Purchase Agreement or Service Contract not
contained herein.
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 24
SAFE P P S E
E P M V TPD
M ,
Note: Material cost are rising rapidly, these estimates will need to be formally quoted prior to an order.
C ( USD)
I . D M HP S
S L
CPG - EQUIPMENT LIST

F R
R P
A C T
S P
P P
S P
T P
CP TOTAL E UIPMENT $1,349,430
E P C
WT
W
C ( USD)
I . D M HP S
S L
CPG - OTHERS
ICP E C A MRF UL C
EN E
PE C P E (S C D )
M I N U N P W
I T CP .A
, .P
.
E I N U N P W
NOTE A
P M O PM
.
S T I PM , PM
.A
, .
FRT F T L
N D ,
. S
CP TOTAL OTHERS $265,315

CPG SUBTOTAL: PODS, CONVEYORS, CONTROLS $1,614,744
NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL - CPG

F S
B C
S HVAC
P
T
M
E MCC
All Items Noted As E isting or By thers or any other indicator that infers not provided by CP Mfg
During the course of the project, if CP MF finds that items listed on this sales order as E isting or infered not by CP Mfg need to be replaced, modified, repaired, painted or in any ay
upgraded, e ill provide the customer ith a ritten e planation and quote in order to carry out this ork It ill be up to the customer to approve this ork at the additional cost or
perform the ork itself If CP does do the ork, all ork, including parts, ill come under the same arranty provided for other items in this sales order
C ( USD)
I . D M HP S
S L
AWD - PIPING, PUMP, & VALVE PACKAGE
Note: The following estimate is based on conceptual design and only to be used for
budgetary purposes.
P .
P .
P .
V .
P
H
A .
A
A
P
H
AWD - SUBTOTAL: PIPING, PUMPS, & VALVES $736,340
NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL - AWD

S , , ,
E
C
S ,P F
R
M
F
GRAND TOTAL: $2,351,084
Note: Material cost are rising rapidly, these estimates will need to be formally quoted prior to an order.

Food-Waste-Business-Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food-Waste-Business-Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food-Waste-Business-Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Plan for Recycling Food Waste

on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts

Coker Composting and Consulting

Robert L. Spencer, Environmental Consultant

Copyright 2018, Coker Composting and Consulting. All rights reserved.

Compost Facility Sizing _______________________________________________________________ 4

Animal Feed Extrusion Facility ________________________________________________________ 11

Cost Estimates ____________________________________________________________________ 14

Financial Pro Formas _______________________________________________________________ 18

Summary and Recommendations _____________________________________________________ 19

Assumptions used in study Value chosen Uncertainties

About the authors

The estimated food waste generation is shown in Table 1.

Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)

Profiles”, March 2011

Biodegradable Fraction (B.F.) = 0.83 – (0.028 x Lignin Content of Volatile Solids)

16, No. 3, 2008, p. 159-170

Figure 3. Rotary Drum Composting

The output from the extruder is a

Capital Cost Estimates

Food Extrusion Facility

Operating Cost Estimates

Food Extrusion Facility

9G&A – General and Administrative costs

Methodology and Assumptions

Table 8. Timing of Sales and Expenses

Table 11. Summary of rotary drum composting pro forma analysis

Summary and Recommendations

Assumptions used in study Value chosen Uncertainties

MIX RATIO CALCULATIONS- AVERAGE DAILY CONDITIONS

VOLATILE SOLIDS (%) 96.2 91.7 98 99.6 89.5 98.3 94 57.1 59

Adjusting for Biodegradable Carbon:

5/26/18 Coker Composting Consulting

Waste Volumes (in cubic yards)

Composting Materials Flows

Screening & Product Storage Sizing and Layout Calculations

Area Summary Width Length Area Area

Waste Volumes (in cubic yards)

Composting Materials Flows

6" mulch layer

Area Summary Width Length Area Area

Waste Volumes (in cubic yards)

Composting Materials Flows

Screening & Product Storage Sizing and Layout Calculations

Area Summary Width Length Area Area

Specialized heat exchange

What is Agrilab Inside™?

• Touch screen with web server for intuitive operator control

6” Exhaust may be sent to

(4) 6” Compost zone

Hi Craig and Bob-

Here are some responses to your questions above.

Brian should be able to address your questions by early next week.

On Mar 29, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Bob Spencer <[email protected]> wrote:

3,000 sf asphalt pad

Additional pad, ASP, Hot Box at $200,000 each.

Larger pads can be designed.

ECS ASP Pilot Equipment Description

The Control Skid houses most of the pre-mounted

ECS Supplied Equipment & Services