A Decision Support Tool For The Life Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste InLCA-LCM 2002 Keith A. Weitz RTI, EHSD 3040 Cornwallis Road RTP, NC Ph:

What is the MSW-DST? A computer-based tool developed to analyze cost and life-cycle environmental aspects of municipal solid waste management. Components of the MSW-DST include: –Process models (MS Excel) –Mass flow model –Optimization routine (Cplex) –User interface (MS Visual Basic)

Types of Questions Answered Using the MSW-DST What are the cost and environmental benefits of a municipality’s recycling programs? Which strategy best minimizes GHG emissions for a given budget? What is the difference in cost and environmental tradeoffs using a landfill bioreactor (or other technology) versus what is currently used? What are the cost and environmental aspects of recycling versus composting corrugated containers?

How do we ensure Cost efficient waste management? Meeting state mandated recycling goals? Continued improvement of the environment? Fast, objective analysis of options? Best privatization bids? Environmental Aspects Local air quality impacts Energy consumption and offsets Greenhouse gas emissions Benefits from materials recycling Economic/Social Aspects Municipal budgets Need for new facilities Household convenience Complex Solid Waste Decisions Being Evaluated

Sound Science + State of the Art Computing Technology Day-to-Day Waste Management Decisions MSW Decision Support Tool

This screen displays the solution for a model run. The arrows show the origin and destination of waste. The quantity of waste flowing from one process to another is shown in the yellow boxes Main Model Interface

A summary of cost and life cycle environmental results for a model run can be viewed by clicking the “Strategy Summary” button on the previous screen. A graphical display of results is also provided. Solution Summary

Detailed information is also made easily available. Detailed Information

* Many other studies are under consideration and are being funded through participating organizations. Communities Benefiting from the MSW-DST Anderson County, South Carolina Atlanta, Georgia Great River Regional Waste Authority, Iowa Lucas County, Ohio Madison, Wisconsin Minneapolis, Minnesota Portland, Oregon Seattle, Washington Spokane, Washington State of California State of Georgia State of Washington State of Wisconsin Subbor – ETV GHG Center U.S. Conference of Mayors – U.S. GHG Study U.S. Navy Region Northwest

Recent Examples of MSW-DST Applications National Greenhouse Gas Study St. Paul, Minnesota Sound Resource Management (Washington State) EPA’s New Facility in RTP, NC

National Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Solid Waste Management Examine Effect on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in United States Resulting from Local Decisions to Manage Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Study Participants U.S. Conference of Mayors Integrated Waste Services Association Research Triangle Institute U.S. EPA ICF Consulting Solid Waste Association of North America Environmental Industry Associations Waste Management, Inc.

Principal Findings American cities have taken actions that have significantly reduced GHG emissions even though quantity of MSW has doubled. –GHG Emissions levels from mid-1970s to current levels have been reduced from 36 to 8 MMTCE per year. –If 1970s technologies were still in use, annual GHG emissions would be approximately 60 MMTCE. –More than 52 MMTCE per year are being avoided through advances in MSW management.

Methodology Used Decision Support Tool and Life-Cycle Inventory Database to analyze GHG emissions from: –MSW management during the 1970s (earliest available data was for 1974). –MSW management in the subsequent years of 1980, 1990, and 1997 (most recent data available). National trends used to quantify: –Waste quantities and composition. –GHG emissions from waste management practices.

Technologies Employed % 9% 81% % 21% 71% % 68% % 17% 56% recycling combustion landfill

0.00E E E E E E E Year Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) 1974 Technology path Net GHG Emissions in the U.S. 52 million MTCE avoided Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path

Recycling (including composting) -8.00E E E E E E E E E Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) Year 1974 Technology path 3.2 million MTCE avoided Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path

-6.00E E E E E E E Year 1974 Technology path Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path 5.5 million MTCE avoided GHG Emissions From MWC Note: Negative emissions indicate “savings” in emissions due to energy recovery Municipal Waste Combustion

0.00E E E E E E E Year Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) 1974 Technology path Landfills Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path 44 million MTCE avoided

Increasing Recycling Increasing MWC Increasing Landfill Gas Controls TOTAL AVOIDED 3.2 MMTCE 5.5 MMTCE 44 MMTCE 52 MMTCE U.S. GHG Emissions Avoided (Year 2000)

Waste Management ActivityLandfillMWCCompost Collection (residential mixed waste)21,353 WTE Combustion21,300 Compost21,300 Landfill21,353531,118 Ash Landfill1,458 Scenario St. Paul, Minnesota Goals –Develop an environmental profile of unrecovered paper and food waste composting. –Compare composting to other options ( i.e., municipal waste combustion and landfilling). Mass Flow (tons/year)

ParameterUnitsLandfillMWCCompost

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 Landfill MWCCompost Annual Dollar Cost

Annual Energy Use (MBTU) -80, , , , ,000 40,000 LandfillMWCCompost

Annual Tons Carbon Equivalents -3,000 -2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1, ,000 1,500 2,000 LandfillMWCCompost

Waste Management ActivityRecyclingLandfillRecyclingMWC Collection (residential mixed waste)210,00016,600 Collection (residential commingled recyclables)210,00016,600 Commingled MRF210,00016,600 WTE Combustion16,600 Landfill210,00042 Ash Landfill1,135 Urban WestUrban East Department of Ecology, Washington State) Goals –Develop an environmental profile of residential curbside recycling for four regions (two urban, two rural) –Compare recycling to land disposal and MWC (when available in the regions). Washington State Urban Regions Mass Flow (tons/year)

ParameterUnits RecyclingLandfillRecyclingMWC Cost$/year44,341,96350,026,03610,954,15212,430,411 Energy ConsumptionMBTU/year-2,749,080288, , ,938 Air Emissions Total Particulate Matterlbs Total PM/year-17,86215,810-16,757-19,908 Nitrogen Oxideslbs NOx/year-660,638331,865-67,23921,238 Sulfur Oxideslbs SOx/year-1,924,03643, , ,208 Carbon Monoxidelbs CO/year-1,306,292471, ,39010,800 Carbon Dioxide Biomasslbs CO2 Bio/year300,968,506424,900,48041,212,45935,920,137 Carbon Dioxide Fossillbs CO2 Fossil/year-194,652,3229,597,341-22,208,012-15,838,770 Green House Equivalentstons GHE/year-27,92111,954-3,185-2,204 Hydrocarbons (non CH4)lbs HC/year-500,69047,601-53,461-12,704 Lead (Air)lbs Pb (Air)/year Ammonia (Air)lbs NH4 (Air)/year-2, Methane (CH4)lbs CH4/year-481,0063,717,419-54,528-15,258 Hydrochloric Acidlbs HCl/year-13,0655,598-1,6614,231 Total Solid Wastelbs SWTotal/year-31,989,139776,033-4,115,331-3,329,292 Waterborne Pollutants Dissolved Solidslbs DS/year-1,181,55144, ,828-71,714 Suspended Solidslbs SS/year310,6531,44134,217-12,383 BODlbs BOD/year404,928122,25252, CODlbs COD/year658,847340,76536,1361,812 Oillbs Oil/year-16,35740,844-1, Sulfuric Acidlbs H2SO4/year-1, Ironlbs Fe/year Ammonia (Water)lbs NH4 (Water)/year-1,3573, Copperlbs Cu/year0000 Cadiummlbs Cd/year Arseniclbs As/year0000 Mercury (Water)lbs Hg (Water)/year0000 Phosphatelbs P/year Seleniumlbs Se/year0000 Chromiumlbs Cr/year Lead (Water)lbs Pb (Water)/year0000 Zinclbs Zn/year35111 Urban WestUrban East

41,000,000 42,000,000 43,000,000 44,000,000 45,000,000 46,000,000 47,000,000 48,000,000 49,000,000 50,000,000 51,000,000 UW - RecyclingUW - Landfill Urban West Region - Annual Cost

-3,000,000 -2,500,000 -2,000,000 -1,500,000 -1,000, , ,000 UW - RecyclingUW - Landfill Urban West Region – Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

-2,000,000 -1,800,000 -1,600,000 -1,400,000 -1,200,000 -1,000, , , , , ,000 UW - RecyclingUW - Landfill Urban West Region – Annual Pounds SOx Emissions

Urban East Region - Annual Cost 10,000,000 10,500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 12,500,000 UE - RecyclingUE - MWC

-300, , , , , ,000 0 UE - RecyclingUE - MWC Urban East Region – Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

-300, , , , , ,000 0 UE - RecyclingUE - MWC Urban East Region – Annual Pounds SOx Emissions

Waste Management ActivityLandfillCompost - OnsiteCompost - Offsite Collection175 Compost Landfill17575 Scenario EPA’s New Facility in RTP, NC Goals –Develop an environmental profile of yard and food waste composting for EPA’s new facility in RTP, NC. Composting onsite at the EPA facility Composting offsite at a regional facility –Compare composting to land disposal. Mass Flow (tons/year)

Scenario ParameterUnitsLandfillCompost - Onsite Compost - Offsite Cost$/year8,52511,23928,636 Energy ConsumptionMBTU/year Air Emissions Total Particulate Matterlbs Total PM/year12914 Nitrogen Oxideslbs NOx/year Sulfur Oxideslbs SOx/year Carbon Monoxidelbs CO/year Carbon Dioxide Biomasslbs CO2 Bio/year443,320170,558170,569 Carbon Dioxide Fossillbs CO2 Fossil/year2,9076,42714,648 Green House Equivalentstons GHE/year1113 Hydrocarbons (non CH4)lbs HC/year11862 Lead (Air)lbs Pb (Air)/year000 Ammonia (Air)lbs NH4 (Air)/year022 Methane (CH4)lbs CH4/year3, Hydrochloric Acidlbs HCl/year611 Total Solid Wastelbs SWTotal/year ,075 Waterborne Pollutants Dissolved Solidslbs DS/year92861 Suspended Solidslbs SS/year11314 BODlbs BOD/year12713 CODlbs COD/year Oillbs Oil/year1612 Sulfuric Acidlbs H2SO4/year000 Ironlbs Fe/year011 Ammonia (Water)lbs NH4 (Water)/year422 Copperlbs Cu/year000 Cadmiumlbs Cd/year000 Arseniclbs As/year000 Mercury (Water)lbs Hg (Water)/year000 Phosphatelbs P/year011 Seleniumlbs Se/year000 Chromiumlbs Cr/year000 Lead (Water)lbs Pb (Water)/year000 Zinclbs Zn/year00 0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 LandfillCompost - OnsiteCompost - Offsite Annual Dollar Cost

LandfillCompost - OnsiteCompost - Offsite Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

LandfillCompost - OnsiteCompost - Offsite Particulate Matter (lbs/yr)

LandfillCompost - OnsiteCompost - Offsite Carbon Equivalents (tons/yr)

Public Release of Final Outputs MSW-DST is available! –currently through RTI. Weighing options for developing a more easily accessible internet-based version. Expect to release LCI Database this summer (once cleared by EPA review).

Next Steps Completing last stages of: –addressing peer review comments –beta testing and QA/QC –review/verification of defaults –review of supporting documentation and User’s Manuals Finalizing partnerships in the release of the MSW-DST and database –Ensuring the final products are maintained over time –Evaluating options for addressing comments such as Developing web based platform Ensuring maintenance of database and software Providing technical support and training

Please visit the project Internet site at:

Contacts: Keith Weitz Research Triangle Institute or (919) Susan Thorneloe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or (919)