Wake County Solid Waste Management Division &

NC State University

SOLID WASTE
LIFE-CYCLE MODELING
November 1, 2017
MISSION STATEMENT Statement of Purpose
The Solid Waste Division of Environmental
Services protects the public health and safety
of Wake County citizens by providing quality
solid waste and recycling services that are
efficient, cost effective and environmentally
responsible.

Landfill Gas Blower

New Convenience Center Landfill Partial Closure

Under Construction

Solid Waste Management Division |

2
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Scope of Solid Waste
Services
WHAT WE DO
Reduce Waste
 Increase recycling & reduce litter
thru education & outreach
 Provide disposal location via SWLF
and EWTS
 Minimize illegal dumping thru
enforcement & providing convenience
centers for residential use
 Collect banned items from landfills
at MMRFs for business & residential use
 Protect the environment by providing
HHW facilities for residential use and
monitoring and maintaining closed
landfills
Solid Waste Management Division |
3
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Ongoing & Upcoming
Issues
Population Growth
Over 1
million
residents

More People=More Waste

Landfill
Life
Potentially
Shortened

Solid Waste Management Division |

4
www.wakegov.com/recycling
BOARD GOALS Growth & Sustainability
 Current Board of Commissioners established
Board goals during 2016
 GS2.3 - Extend the life of the South
Wake Landfill and development of SW
Comprehensive Plan
 Better Recycling
 Use Technology & Innovation, including modeling
of future waste scenarios and options
 Life of landfill (LOL…) study underway via SCS
with coordination efforts with NCSU modeling
 SW Action Plan reflects ongoing & upcoming
efforts
Solid Waste Management Division |
5
www.wakegov.com/recycling
BUSINESS PLAN Wake County Solid Waste
Action Plan

Solid Waste Management Division |

6
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Life-Cycle Modeling
Decision
 Wake County, via our SWLF Partnership,
CYCLE MODELING

provides MSW disposal services for munis &

commercial waste haulers
 Though many years of capacity remain for
the SWLF (2040+), due to timing to consider
new landfill or other waste disposal options,
determined a need to start investigating now
 Prior studies (1995, 2003) looked at specific
technology
 Decision to develop model that could be used
to evaluate all aspects (cost, resource/energy
consumption and environmental
performance) that can be continuously
updated to reflect changing assumptions

Solid Waste Management Division |

7
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 NCSU Partnership
Established contract with NCSU Civil
CYCLE MODELING


Engineering Department to expand

development of SWOLF specifically for
Wake County use
 Work started in 2015 with extensive data
collection
 DEQ Annual Reports
 County Solid Waste Management Plan
 Meetings with munis and county staff

Solid Waste Management Division |

8
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Problem Statement

Evaluate strategies to cost-effectively improve the

sustainability of Wake County’s municipal solid
waste management while considering
changing population, waste generation and

composition,
landfill life,

energy and material recovery, and

environmental emissions and impacts

Solid Waste Management Division |

9
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Research Approach

 Use a tool developed at NC State

 Solid Waste Optimization Lifecycle Framework (SWOLF)

 SWOLF estimates the full system costs and emissions associated with
waste management processes
 collection through final disposal

 considers benefits from recycling and energy recovery

 Modeled Wake County’s solid waste system based on available data and
reports
 waste generation and composition

 existing and potential future waste management facilities

Solid Waste Management Division |

10
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 SWOLF – Solid Waste
Optimization Lifecycle
Framework
Evaluate system performance (i.e., economical, environmental)
while accounting for changes to waste composition and
generation, SWM policy, the U.S. energy system, and potential
future GHG mitigation policies
LCA Model
Impact
Assessment Model
(e.g., Global
Warming, Smog
GHG Policy Formation)

• Cost
Optimizable
• Emissions
Energy SWM Process Integrated
• Energy
System Models SWM System
Use
Model
• Impacts

Waste
SWM Generation
Policy and Solid Waste Management Division |
11
11
Composition www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Benefits of Optimization
Modeling (1/2)

 How can net present cost be minimized over

time?
 While meeting diversion or greenhouse gas

constraints
 Considering existing infrastructure

 How can environmental benefits be maximized?

 Minimize greenhouse gas emissions

 Minimize fossil energy use

 Maximize landfill diversion

 Impose a budget constraints

Solid Waste Management Division |

12
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Benefits of Optimization
Modeling (2/2)

 What are the mitigation costs ($/MTCO2E avoided) or

trade-offs associated with adopting a specific
technology or policy?
 WTE combustion, composting, AD, etc.

 Landfill organics bans, diversion targets, combustion

 How do changes to the energy system affect these

decisions?
 Can our system robustly adapt to changes to the
energy system, policy, waste composition, and waste
generation?

Solid Waste Management Division |

13
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Representing Wake County
in SWOLF Existing facility
options
•Composting facilities
Collection (COMP)
Residenti
or drop-off •Landfill (LF)
al waste
•10 single •Recyclables •Single-stream
family •Organics material recovery
sectors (yard, food facility (SSMRF)
•2 multi- waste)
•Residual
•Transfer station (TS)
family Future facility
sectors waste
•Convenience
options
(drop off) •Anaerobic digestion
Centers (AD)
Commerci •Thermal waste-to-
al Private energy (WTE)
waste waste •Mixed waste material
•Sector collection recovery facility
specific Solid Waste Management Division |
(MWMRF) 14 14
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Representing Wake County
Comingled
Recyclable
Collection
Commingled
MRF

in SWOLF
Material
Reprocessing

Comingled
Recyclable Thermal Commingled Ash
MRF
Collection WtE Landfill

Mixed Waste/
Mixed
Residual
Waste MRF
Collection Thermal Ash

Waste WtE Landfill

generation
Mixed Waste/
Mixed
Anaerobic Residual
Waste MRF
Collection
and Digestion

composition Anaerobic
Digestion
Organics Soil
Collection Amendment
Potential Facilities Organics
Collection
Soil
Amendment

Existing FacilitiesComposting Composting

Landfill Landfill

Mixed Waste Recyclables Combustibles Organics Ash

Mixed Waste Recyclables Combustibles Organics
Solid Ash Division |
Waste Management
15
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Scenarios
• Developed several scenarios to explore how new
processes could be added to the existing solid waste
system. Scenarios Description
Model Objective: Least Cost
Separate collection of recyclables going to
(1)Current practice (Base) single-stream MRF and yard waste going to
compost
(2) Current + food waste collection As in case 1 plus food waste co-collected
(+FW) with yard waste
(3) Current + food waste collection
As in case 2 plus AD enabled
+ AD enabled (+FWAD)
As in case 1 plus mixed waste MRF
(4) Case 3 + MWMRF
(MWMRF) and AD enabled
As in case 1 plus WTE combustion and AD
(5) Case 3 + WTE
enabled
As in case 1 plus WTE, MWMRF, and AD
(6) Case 3 + WTE + MWMRF (ALL)
enabled

Solid Waste Management Division |

16
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Adding food waste collection to
current system
 Adding food waste to yard waste collection
has a small impact on the average cost of
collection ($/Mg)

Bas +F +FWA +FWA

e W D D Min
GHG
Solid Waste Management Division |
17
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Adding food waste collection to
current system
 Adding food waste to yard waste collection
has a small impact on the average cost of
collection ($/Mg)
Same; AD not used
if minimizing cost

Bas +F +FWA +FWA

e W D D Min
GHG
Solid Waste Management Division |
18
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Adding food waste collection to
current system
 Adding food waste to yard waste collection
has a small impact on the average cost of
collection ($/Mg)
GHGs Decrease;
AD Utilization

Bas +F +FWA +FWA

e W D D Min
GHG
Solid Waste Management Division |
19
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Adding food waste collection to
current system
 Adding food waste to yard waste collection
has a small impact on the average cost of
collection ($/Mg)

Cost Increases

Bas +F +FWA +FWA

e W D D Min
GHG
Solid Waste Management Division |
20
www.wakegov.com/recycling
_ Cases 1-3: Base case and adding
food waste collection to current
system
 Adding food waste to yard waste collection
has a small impact on the average cost of
collection ($/Mg) • GHG Mitigation cost
for adding food waste
collection is 550
$/MTCO2e

• Minimizing GHG with

food waste collection
and AD increases cost
by $3.1M with a
Bas +F +FWA +FWA mitigation cost of $920
e W D D Min
GHG MTCO2e
Solid Waste Management Division |
21
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 4: + Mixed Waste MRF
(+MWMRF)
 Current system + food waste collection
with AD enabled (optional) + mixed
waste MRF
 Separate collection of recyclables and
yard/food waste required (3 separate
collections)
 Set increasing diversion targets
 Lowest target = diversion in min-cost
solution
 Highest target = diversion in max-diversion
solution
Solid Waste Management Division |
22
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 4: + Mixed Waste MRF
(+MWMRF)
Mixed waste MRF
use starts with
sectors closet to
MRF; furthest from
LF

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

23
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 4: + Mixed Waste MRF
(+MWMRF)
Diversion, MWMRF Use, and Cost
Increase
GHG Emissions Decrease
Mitigation cost: 50 to 90 $/MTCO2e

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

24
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 5: + WTE Combustion
(+WTE)
 Current system + food waste collection
with AD enable (optional) + WTE
 Separate collection required
 Set increasing diversion targets
 Lowest target = diversion in min-cost
solution
 Highest target = diversion in max-
diversion solution

Solid Waste Management Division |

25
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 5: + WTE Combustion
(+WTE)
WTE (located at LF)
starts with selected
sectors based on
composition

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

26
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 5: + WTE Combustion
(+WTE)
Diversion, WTE Use, and Cost
Increase
GHG Emissions Decrease
Mitigation cost: 160 to 180
$/MTCO2e

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

27
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Case 6: + MWMRF +
WTE (ALL)

 Current system + food waste collection with AD

enabled (optional) + mixed waste MRF + WTE
 Separate collection of recyclables and yard/food
waste required (3 separate collections)
 Set increasing diversion targets
 Lowest target = diversion in min-cost solution
 Highest target = diversion in max-diversion solution

Solid Waste Management Division |

28
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 6: +MWMRF + WTE
(ALL)
MWMRF is only used
to meet maximum
diversion

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

29
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 6: +MWMRF + WTE
(ALL)
Increasing WTE
Use

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

30
www.wakegov.com/recycling
Case 6: +MWMRF + WTE
(ALL)
Mitigation cost is
120 to 180
$/MTCO2e

Base
Percent Diverted

Solid Waste Management Division |

32
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Observations and
Summary
 SWOLF is effective at quantifying the cost and
environmental impacts of new technology
implementation and associated tradeoffs between
cost, diversion and GHGs
 Continuous engagement with the county was very
important in the development of useful results
 The county does not control municipal collection or
commercial waste
 Dialog with municipalities is essential for long-term

facility commitments
 Impact of commercial waste on facility sizing and

life is required

Solid Waste Management Division |

33
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Observations and
Summary
 Collecting residential food waste with yard waste is
predicted to decrease landfill greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 12%, but has a modest effect on diversion
rate and landfill life.
 Increasing residential recycling participation will
decrease GHG emissions and increase landfill diversion.
 Extension of landfill life is limited by
 Current waste composition (what can be diverted)

 Participation in recycling efforts

 Increasing diversion does not necessarily decrease GHG

emissions
 Max diversion with Waste-to-Energy combustion is 81%

 Min GHG emissions occur with 77% diversion

Solid Waste Management Division |

34
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Next Steps
Complete Life-Cycle Study/report
CONCLUSION


 Coordinate with Life of Landfill study

 Update on a regular basis to reflect
system changes and monitor impacts –
changes such as:
 Energy pricing
 System hauling/pick up changes
 Waste generation and composition

Solid Waste Management Division |

35
www.wakegov.com/recycling
 Questions?
John Roberson Morton Barlaz
Wake County Solid Waste Director North Carolina State University
john.roberson@wakegov.com barlaz@ncsu.edu