Comparing Life-Cycle

Impacts of Solid Waste

Management Strategies

S. Thorneloe, U.S. EPA

Thorneloe.Susan@epa.gov

Office of Research and Development

National Risk Management Research Laboratory June 5, 2013
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
 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
1
 Three Pillars of Sustainability

Social

Desirable Equitable
Sustainable

Environment Viable Economic

2
 250 million tons of MSW as of
2008 (EPA, 2009)

Food scaps
Other 13%
3% Recovery for
Paper
recyling
31%
Yard trimmings 24%
13% Discards to
landfill
54% Recovery for
Wood
7% composting
9%
Glass Rubber, leather,
Plastics Combustion with
5% and textiles
12% energy recovery
8%
Metals 13%
8%

3
Composition Management
Illustration of boundaries for integrated
waste management system

Landfill

Collection Transfer

Materials Waste-
recovery for to-energy
recycling and
composting

Ash Landfill
 Comparison of product & waste LCA

Raw Materials Acquisition

Manufacturing Boundary for
Use/Reuse/Maintenance Product LCA
Integrated Waste Management

Raw Materials Acquisition

Manufacturing
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
Integrated Waste Management

Boundary for Boundary for

Integrated MSW LCA of MSW
Management
Source: Modified from White et al, 1995.
 Flow diagram for materials
and waste management
Energy Materials

Air
MSW MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Emissions
Municipal Materials
Solid Recovery Combustion Water
Waste Releases
Collection Compost Landfill
Solid
Waste

Electricity Gas Heat Compost Recyclables

Materials Offset Analysis =

Recycle process energy & emissions - Materials and
Virgin process energy & emissions Energy Offsets
Energy Offset Analysis =
6 Purchased energy & emissions
Generated energy & emissions offset
 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
7 inputs
 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)

8
 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 regions 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
9
 Illustration Comparing Carbon
Emissions and Energy Consumption
for Plastics Management

40,000 500,000

30,000
Net Carbon 0
20,000 Emissions
(MTCE)
-500,000
10,000

0 -1,000,000 Net Energy

Consumption
(MBTU)
-10,000
-1,500,000
-20,000
-2,000,000
-30,000

-2,500,000
-40,000
Plastics- Plastics- Plastics-
Plastics-Landfill Plastics-Combustion Plastics-Recycling
Landfill Combustion Recycling
 Illustration Comparing Carbon Emissions
and Energy Consumption for Cardboard
Management

20,000 0

15,000 -200,000
Net Carbon
10,000 Emissions -400,000
(MTCE)
5,000
-600,000 Net Energy
Consumption
0
-800,000 (MBTU)
-5,000
-1,000,000
-10,000
-1,200,000
-15,000

-1,400,000
-20,000
Cardboard-Landfill Cardboard-Combustion Cardboard-Recycling
Cardboard- Cardboard- Cardboard-
Landfill Combustion Recycling
 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
12
 Example Studies
Community Regional
Anderson County, S.C. Great River Regional Waste
Atlanta, Georgia Authority, Iowa
Edmonton, Alberta California
Lucas County, Ohio Delaware
Madison, Wisconsin Georgia
Minneapolis, Minnesota Hawaii
Portland, Oregon New York
Seattle, Washington Virgin Islands
Spokane, Washington Washington
Tacoma, Washington Wisconsin
Wake County, N.C. U.S. Navy Region Northwest
U.S. EPAs RTP Facility 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.
 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.

14
 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
15
ence/earth/13trash.html?hp
 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.

16
 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 )
17
 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
18 Uncertainty. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004, 8, 155-172.