Comparing the lifecycle of waste management strategues

1. Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
June 5, 2013
S. Thorneloe, U.S. EPA
Thorneloe.Susan@epa.gov
Comparing Life-Cycle
Impacts of Solid Waste
Management Strategies

2. 1
Resource conservation
challenge (RCC)
•Goals
–Prevent pollution and promote recycling and reuse
of materials
–Reduce the use of chemicals at all life-cycle stages
–Increase energy and materials conservation
•2020 Vision
–Reduce wastes and increase the efficient
sustainable use of resources
RCC encourages move from “waste”
management to “materials” management

3. Three Pillars of Sustainability
2
Social
Equitable
Economic
Environment
Sustainable
Desirable
Viable

4. 3
250 million tons of MSW as of
2008 (EPA, 2009)
Composition Management
Yard trimmings
13%
Food scaps
13%
Paper
31%
Wood
7%
Rubber, leather,
and textiles
8%
Metals
8%
Glass
5%
Other
3%
Plastics
12%
Discards to
landfill
54%
Recovery for
recyling
24%
Recovery for
composting
9%
Combustion with
energy recovery
13%

5. Illustration of boundaries for integrated
waste management system
Transfer
Landfill
Waste-
to-energy
Collection
Ash Landfill
Materials
recovery for
recycling and
composting

6. Comparison of product & waste LCA
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
Integrated Waste Management
Manufacturing
Raw Materials Acquisition
Boundary for
Product LCA
Boundary for
LCA of MSW
Boundary for
Integrated MSW
Management
Source: Modified from White et al, 1995.
Integrated Waste Management
Manufacturing
Raw Materials Acquisition
Use/Reuse/Maintenance

7. 6
Flow diagram for materials
and waste management
MSW MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Electricity Gas Heat Compost Recyclables
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Energy Materials
Collection
Combustion
Compost
Materials
Recovery
Landfill
Water
Releases
Materials and
Energy Offsets
Air
Emissions
Solid
Waste
MSW MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Electricity Gas Heat Compost Recyclables
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Energy Materials
Collection
Combustion
Compost
Materials
Recovery
Landfill
Water
Releases
Materials and
Energy Offsets
Air
Emissions
Solid
Waste
Materials Offset Analysis =
Recycle process energy & emissions -
Virgin process energy & emissions
Energy Offset Analysis =
Purchased energy & emissions –
Generated energy & emissions offset

8. 7
Sustainable Materials And Residuals
managemenT decision support tool
(SMART-DST)
• Over ~100 studies conducted for regional, community,
and national assessments of materials and discards
management
• Assists in decision making to compare existing and
new strategies by calculating the full costs, energy,
and life-cycle environmental tradeoffs
–Can tailor defaults to reflect differences in multiple sectors (i.e.,
residential, commercial, suburban)
–Can identify optimal solutions with respect to cost or
environmental emissions such as GHGs, energy, waste
diversion targets
–Can conduct sensitivity and uncertainty analysis on key model
inputs

9. 8
SMART-DST uses LCA
• Life-cycle methodology accounts for:
–Direct emissions such as collection, transport, and
waste management facilities (GHG Scope 1)
–Indirect emissions from electricity consumption
(GHG Scope 2)
–Indirect emissions from fuel (e.g., coal extraction and
processing) and materials (e.g., landfill liner)
production (GHG Scope 3)

10. 9
SMART-DST available to conduct life-
cycle analysis for waste planning
• Computer software provides scientific comparison of options for
materials and discards management that is credible, objective, and
transparent. The SMART-DST
– provides analysis of up to 26 individual materials (i.e., steel, aluminum,
glass, paper, plastics)
– considers differences in a region’s population density, energy offsets,
infrastructure, proximity to facilities and waste composition, collection, and
transport
– calculates change in cost and environmental emissions as additional
materials are included in a recycling program.
• Options can be interrelated:
– Recycling vs waste combustion for paper and plastics
– Composting vs landfill gas to energy for food or yard waste

11. Illustration Comparing Carbon
Emissions and Energy Consumption
for Plastics Management
-2,500,000
-2,000,000
-1,500,000
-1,000,000
-500,000
0
500,000
Plastics-
Landfill
Plastics-
Combustion
Plastics-
Recycling
Net Energy
Consumption
(MBTU)
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Plastics-Landfill Plastics-Combustion Plastics-Recycling
Net Carbon
Emissions
(MTCE)

12. Illustration Comparing Carbon Emissions
and Energy Consumption for Cardboard
Management
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Cardboard-Landfill Cardboard-Combustion Cardboard-Recycling
Net Carbon
Emissions
(MTCE)
-1,400,000
-1,200,000
-1,000,000
-800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0
Net Energy
Consumption
(MBTU)
Cardboard-
Landfill
Cardboard-
Combustion
Cardboard-
Recycling

13. 12
Outline for conducting a study
• Determine goals/objectives for study
– To increase diversion rate? Decrease GHGs? Expand curbside collection?
Determine least cost for discards management?
– Boundary and scope definitions
• Data Collection
– Waste generation and composition
– Facility design and operating parameters
– Transportation modes and distances
– Electricity grid mix
– Wages, energy prices, materials market prices, etc.
• Location-specific strategies
– Residential and commercial waste
– Least-cost and least environmental emissions scenarios
• Combinations of recycling, yard waste composting and combustion
– Alternative strategies to consider “other” factors such as equity, political and
economic feasibility, ability to site facility
• Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis

14. Example Studies
• Community
– Anderson County, S.C.
– Atlanta, Georgia
– Edmonton, Alberta
– Lucas County, Ohio
– Madison, Wisconsin
– Minneapolis, Minnesota
– Portland, Oregon
– Seattle, Washington
– Spokane, Washington
– Tacoma, Washington
– Wake County, N.C.
– U.S. EPA’s RTP Facility
• Regional
– Great River Regional Waste
Authority, Iowa
– California
– Delaware
– Georgia
– Hawaii
– New York
– Virgin Islands
– Washington
– Wisconsin
– U.S. Navy Region Northwest
– Greater Regional Vancouver
National – GHG Study for U.S. Conference of Mayors
Global – Study by the World Bank of 10 different communities
of which 8 are in economically developing countries.

15. 14
Summary
 DST helps support the goals of the RCC moving
us towards materials management
- Identifies more efficient and sustainable options
- Provides data needed to benchmark current operations and to
identify options to improve environmental performance
- Provides data to communicate environmental improvements
 DST has been used in over 100 studies helping
to inform management decisions
 Web-accessible DST is available for use!
 Next portion of webinar is live demonstration.

16. 15
Media Citations
•Science Matters – Research at the U.S.
EPA
–http://epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scienc
e-matters/april2010/scinews_energy-
from-waste.htm
•New York Times –
–http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/sci
ence/earth/13trash.html?hp

17. 16
Selected list of
journal publications
• Kaplan, P. O.; Ranjithan, S. R.; Barlaz, M.A. (2009) Use of Life Cycle Analysis To Support Solid
Waste Management Planning for Delaware. Environmental Science and Technology, 43 (5),
1264-1270.
• Kaplan, P. O.; DeCarolis, J.; Thorneloe, S. (2009) Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste For Clean
Electricity Generation? Environmental Science and Technology, 43, (6), 1711-1717.
• Thorneloe, S. A.; Weitz, K.; Jambeck, J. (2007) Application of the U.S. decision support tool for
materials and waste management. Waste Management, 27, 1006-1020.
• Jambeck, J., Weitz, K.A., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., Thorneloe, S., (2007). CCA-treated
Wood Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-Offs With Waste-to-Energy and MSW Landfill
Disposal, Waste Management , Vol 27, Issue 8, Life-Cycle Assessment in Waste Management.
• Kaplan, P.O., M.A. Barlaz, and S. R. Ranjithan (2004) A Procedure for Life-Cycle-Based Solid
Waste Management with Consideration of Uncertainty. J. of Industrial Ecology. 8(4):155-172.
• Weitz K.A., Thorneloe S.A., Nishtala S.R., Yarkosky S. & Zannes M. (2002) The Impact of
Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States, Journal
of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol 52, 1000-1011.

18. 17
Available documentation
• Collection Model
– Dumas, R. D. and E. M. Curtis, 1998, “A Spreadsheet Framework for Analysis of Costs and Life-Cycle Inventory
Parameters Associated with Collection of Municipal Solid Waste,” Internal Project Report, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. (https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Collection_Model_OCR.pdf )
• Transfer Stations
– https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Transfer_Station_Model_OCR.pdf
• Separation of recyclables and discards
– Nishtala, S. and E. Solano-Mora, 1997, “Description of the Materials Recovery Facilities Process Model:
Design, Cost and Life-Cycle Inventory,” Project Report, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
(https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/MRF_Model_OCR.pdf )
• Treatment including refuse derived fuel, waste-to-energy, yard- and mixed-waste composting
– Nishtala, S., 1997, “Description of the Refuse Derived Fuel Process Model: Design, Cost and Life-Cycle Inventory,”
Project Report, Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC.
– Composting process model: https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Compost_Model_OCR.pdf
– Harrison, K. W.; Dumas, R. D.; Barlaz, M. A.; Nishtala, S. R., A life-cycle inventory model of municipal solid waste
combustion. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2000, 50, 993-1003.
• Disposal including traditional and wet landfills and ash landfill
– Camobreco, V.; Ham, R; Barlaz, M; Repa, E.; Felker, M.; Rousseau, C. and Rathle, J. Life-cycle inventory of a
modern municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manage. Res. 1999. 394-408.
– Eleazer, W. E.; Odle, W. S.; Wang, Y. S.; Barlaz, M. A., Biodegradability of municipal solid waste components in
laboratory-scale landfills. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31(3), 911-917.
– Sich, B.A. and M. A. Barlaz, 2000, “Calculation of the Cost and Life Cycle Inventory for Waste Disposal in
Traditional, Bioreactor and Ash Landfills,” Project Report, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
(https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Landfill_Model_OCR.pdf )

19. 18
Available documentation (Cont.)
• Background process models to account for energy/electricity consumption and offsets, and
remanufacturing of recyclables
– Dumas, R. D., 1997, “Energy Consumption and Emissions Related to Electricity and Remanufacturing
Processes in a Life-Cycle Inventory of Solid Waste Management,” thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of
the M.S. degree, Dept. of Civil Engineering, NC State University.
– Energy process model: https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Energy_Model_OCR.pdf
– Remanufacturing process model: https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Remfg_OCR.pdf
• Decision Support Tool, Optimization and Alternative Strategy Generation
– Harrison, K.W.; Dumas, R.D.; Solano, E.; Barlaz, M.A.; Brill, E.D.; Ranjithan, S.R. A Decision Support
System for Development of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies with Life-Cycle
Considerations. ASCE J. of Comput. Civ. Eng. 2001, 15, 44-58.
– Solano, E.; Ranjithan, S.; Barlaz, M. A.; Brill, E. D. Life Cycle-Based Solid Waste Management 1. Model
Development. J. Environ. Engr. 2002, 128, 981-992.
– Solano, E.; Dumas, R. D.; Harrison, K. W.; Ranjithan, S.; Barlaz, M. A.; Brill, E. D. Life Cycle-Based Solid
Waste Management 2. Illustrative Applications. J. Environ. Engr. 2002, 128, 993-1005.
– Kaplan, P.O., 2006, “A New Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methodology for Environmental Decision
Support,” Doctoral Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University.
– Manual: https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/DST_Manual_OCR.pdf
– Tool Website: https://webdstmsw.rti.org/resources.htm
• Uncertainty Propagation and Sensitivity Analysis Tools
– Kaplan, P. O., 2001, “Consideration of cost and environmental emissions of solid waste management
under conditions of uncertainty,” MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University.
– Kaplan, P. O.; Barlaz, M. A.; Ranjithan, S. R. Life-Cycle-Based Solid Waste Management under
Uncertainty. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004, 8, 155-172.