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
48
Embed
The U.S. EPA’s Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Solid Waste Management
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Susan ThorneloeNational Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention & Control DivisionResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina
LCA and Integrated Waste ManagementPrague, Czech Republic
April 13, 2004
The U.S. EPA’s Decision Support Tool for Sustainable
Solid Waste Management
What We’ll Cover Today . . .
• Background Waste Management in
the U.S. Decision Support Tool
• Case Studies• Next steps• Summary
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
050
100150200250
Million Metric Tons
1974 1980 1990 Today
U.S. Municipal Waste Management
Recycling
Combustion
Landfilling
Decision Support Tool
Purpose: To assist solid waste managers in determining optimal waste
management strategies that minimize total cost and environmental burdens
Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Solid Waste
Management • 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
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)
System Boundaries
MSW MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
kWh Gas Steam Compost Recyclables
MunicipalSolid Waste
Energy Materials
Collection
Combustion
Compost
MaterialsRecovery
Landfill
WaterReleases
Materials andEnergy Offsets
AirEmissions
SolidWaste
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.
Life-Cycle Analysis of GHG Emissions
MSW Flow
Collection
Material Recovery Facility
Waste-to-Energy Combustor
Landfill
Refuse DerivedFuel
Compost
Remanufacturing
Transfer Station
Transfer Station
Transfer Station
Transfer Station
Transfer Station
Residue
Input site-specific data in Process models
Optimization Module
Alternative Strategies
Requirements: - Mass - Regulations - Targets
USER
Cost & Life-Cycle Inventory Coefficients
MSW-DST Framework
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
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
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
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
St. Paul, Minnesota
• Comparison of composting of biodegradable waste versus waste-to-energy and landfilling
Comparison of Annual Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Million U.S.
Dollars
Landfilling Waste-to-Energy
Composting
Comparison of Annual Energy Usage (MBTU)
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
Landfill WTE Compost
Comparison of Annual Tons of Greenhouse Gases
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Landfill WTE Compost
Carbon
Equivalents
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
Comparison of Annual Cost for Urban-West
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Million U.S.
Dollars
Urban-WestRecycling
Urban-WestLandfilling
Comparison of Energy Conserved versus Energy Used for Recycling