The U.S. EPA’s Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Solid Waste Management

1. Susan Thorneloe National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention & Control Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina LCA and Integrated Waste Management Prague, Czech Republic April 13, 2004 The U.S. EPA’s Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Solid Waste Management

2. What We’ll Cover Today . . . • Background • Waste Management in the U.S. • Decision Support Tool • Case Studies • Next steps • Summary

3. Solid Waste Management in the United States • Prior to the 1970s • Sanitary landfills were rare • Wastes were dumped and burned to reduce volume • Incinerators had no pollution control or energy recovery • Today • More integrated and complex approaches • “Waste-to-energy” facilities with minimal environmental burden • “Sanitary” landfills • Requirements for design, operation, and monitoring • Large landfills are required to collect and control landfill gas • Different approaches being evaluated including allowing leachate recirculation and other liquid additions

5. Decision Support Tool Purpose: To assist solid waste managers in determining optimal waste management strategies that minimize total cost and environmental burdens

6. Communities requested planning tool that Considers site-specific factors, data, and concerns Is flexible and can consider different needs for Rural and urban areas Residential and commercial waste Considers costs and environmental tradeoffs Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Solid Waste Management

7. What is the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool? • A computer-based tool to assist solid waste managers in determining optimal waste management strategies that minimize cost and environmental burdens. • Components of the MSW-DST include: • Process models (MS Excel) • Mass flow model • Optimization routine (Cplex) • User interface (MS Visual Basic)

8. System Boundaries Waste is generated by residential, multifamily, and commercial sectors and collected and transported for separation and recycling, combustion, composting, and/or landfilling. These activities consume energy and materials and result in environmental burdens. Any materials or energy that are recovered may create offsets of virgin materials in the manufacturing and energy sectors.

9. Life-Cycle Analysis of GHG Emissions

10. MSW Flow

11. MSW-DST Framework USER Input site-specific data in Process models Cost & Life-Cycle Inventory Coefficients Optimization Module Requirements: - Mass - Regulations - Targets  Alternative Strategies

12. Emphasis • Sound science producing results which are credible and objective • Close interaction with all stakeholders and rigorous review process • Providing more holistic approach consistent with EPA’s emphasis on cleaner, cheaper, and smarter environmental management

13. Complex Solid Waste Decisions Being Evaluated How do we ensure • Cost efficient waste management? • Meeting state mandated recycling goals? • Continued improvement of the environment? • Fast, objective analysis of options? Environmental Aspects • Impact to water sheds and air quality • Energy consumption and offsets • Benefits from materials recycling Economic/Social Aspects • Municipal budgets • Need for new facilities • Household convenience

14. Good Science • Cost Savings • Environmental Improvement • Sustainable Solutions Results = Identified as one of the most important new developments in U.S. waste management for the 21st Century

15. Anderson County, South Carolina Atlanta, Georgia Great River Regional Waste Authority, Iowa Lucas County, Ohio Madison, Wisconsin Minneapolis, Minnesota Portland, Oregon Wake County, North Carolina Seattle, Washington Spokane, Washington State of California State of Georgia State of Washington State of Wisconsin (update) Subbor – ETV GHG Center U.S. Conference of Mayors – U.S. GHG Study U.S. Navy Region Northwest Vancouver, British Columbia MSW DST Case Studies

16. Four Case Studies • St. Paul, Minnesota • State of Washington (Comparing two urban and two rural regions) • EPA’s New Research Facility • U.S. Study on Trends in Greenhouse Gases & Solid Waste Management • Other Studies

17. St. Paul, Minnesota • Comparison of composting of biodegradable waste versus waste-to-energy and landfilling

18. Comparison of Annual Cost

19. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage (MBTU)

20. Comparison of Annual Tons of Greenhouse Gases Carbon Equivalents

21. State of Washington • Goal was to compare residential curbside collection and recycling to landfilling and Waste-to-Energy for two urban and two rural regions

22. Comparison of Annual Cost for Urban-West

23. Comparison of Energy Conserved versus Energy Used for Recycling

24. Urban West Region – Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

25. Urban West Region – SOx Emissions (kg/yr)

26. Urban East Region - Annual Cost

27. Urban East Region – Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

28. Urban East Region – SOx Emissions (kg/yr)

29. Application to EPA’s New Facility in the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina • Comparison of composting versus landfilling of non-recycled biodegradable waste • Facility houses 2,200 people, 400 labs, conference center, cafeteria, national computer center, and childcare center

30. Scenarios: 1. Collection, transfer station, and long haul to regional landfill ~145 km from EPA 2. Collection/transport to compost facility ~ 96 km from EPA 3. Collection/transport to site ~2 km from EPA Organic Waste Generated: ~160 tonnes of organic waste including food and yard waste, mixed paper, and animal bedding Scenarios Evaluated

31. Annual Dollar Cost 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Landfill Compost - Onsite Compost - Offsite

32. Carbon Equivalents (tons/yr)

33. Annual Energy Use (MBTU)

34. Particulate Matter (kg/yr)

35. Findings from MSW-DST • Scenario 1 (landfill option) is highest emitter of greenhouse gases due to • fugitive landfill methane and • collected gas is flared (no energy recovery; no offsets for fossil fuel conservation) • Scenario 2 (composting off-site) is least energy efficient due to • long hauling distance and • Inefficient transport of waste • Scenario 3 (compost on-site) is most desirable option and discussions are underway to identify/develop near-by facility for future use

36. Evaluation of GHG Emissions Over Time from Solid Waste Management in the U.S. • Study conducted for U.S. Conference of Mayors to determine trends in GHG emissions comparing waste management practices over time • Compared actual GHG emissions today versus what would be emitted if 1970s waste management practices still existed

37. Analysis of Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions for U.S. Solid Waste Management

38. Net GHG Emissions in the U.S. Net GHG Emissions 6.00E+07 5.00E+07 1974 Technology path 4.00E+07 Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) 3.00E+07 41 MMTCE avoided 2.00E+07 Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year

39. Recycling GHG Emissions from Recycling Year 0.00E+00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 -1.00E+06 1974 Technology path -2.00E+06 -3.00E+06 Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) -4.00E+06 4 MMCE -5.00E+06 avoided Actual Integrated Waste -6.00E+06 Management Technology path -7.00E+06 -8.00E+06

40. Landfills GHG Emissions from Landfills 6.00E+07 1974 Technology path 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 32 MMTCE avoided Metric Tons Carbon Equivalents (MTCE) 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 Actual Integrated Waste Management Technology path 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year

41. Waste-To-Energy

42. U.S. GHG Emissions Avoided (Year 2000) Increasing Recycling Increasing Waste-to-EnergyIncreasing Landfill Gas Controls and Waste Diversion TOTAL AVOIDED 4 MMTCE 5 MMTCE 32 MMTCE 41 MMTCE

43. Other Ongoing Studies • RTI is conducting study for State of California comparing “waste conversion” technologies to recycling, landfilling and waste-to-energy

44. Waste Conversion for BioenergyRenewable Syngas from Biomass Residuals Autoclave Mixed MSW Recyclables Recovery Tipping Floor Electrical Generation Gasifier Organic Pulp

45. Other Ongoing Studies Understanding benefits and impacts of • Expanding or cutting back recycling programs (including curbside recycling program and identification of what to include) • Long haul of waste to large regional landfills • Existing programs and opportunities for reducing costs and environmental burdens

46. Next Steps • Developing web-accessible version of the MSW-DST • Updating emission factors for landfills • Finalizing partnerships in ensuring he integrity of MSW-DST is maintained over time • Providing training and technical support to user community • Release of final project report and journal articles providing results of case studies

47. Contacts Project Web Site – www.rti.org (Search under Municipal Solid Waste) Keith WeitzResearch Triangle Institute kaw@rti.org Susan ThorneloeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Thorneloe.Susan@epa.gov

48. Summary • Computer-based version of the tool is available for use through RTI • Work underway to develop web-accessible version of the tool • Over 30 studies conducted to date and this number will significantly increase once web-accessible version of the tool is available • We think that significant costs and environmental improvements can be found through taking a holistic approach to environmental management