S WOLF. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collection Process Model Overview.

Similar documents
S WOLF. Life-Cycle Modeling of Solid Waste Processes and Systems.

Material Recovery Facilities Process Modeling. Phillip Pressley PhD Student Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering

S WOLF. Landfill Process Modeling.

SWOLF Overview and Illustrative Analyses. Jim Levis, PhD Research Assistant Professor Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering

Figure -1 Functional Elements of the Life Cycle Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives.

*Corresponding author. Phone: (919) ; fax: (919) ;

S WOLF. Remanufacturing and systems interaction. Sardinia Symposium Solid Waste Life-Cycle Modeling Workshop

S WOLF. Landfill Process Modeling. Sardinia Symposium Solid Waste Life-Cycle Modeling Workshop. Morton Barlaz, PhD, PE Professor and Head

Sardinia Symposium Solid Waste Life-Cycle Modeling Workshop. Anaerobic Digestion. Anders Damgaard, Ph.D. Senior Researcher S WOLF

From Waste Management to Resource Management

How Durham s Integrated Waste Management System Supports New Provincial Climate Change Initiatives. Peter Veiga

RECYCLING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Project #562 FINAL REPORT

Inefficient collection and scheduling procedures negatively affect residential curbside collection

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment. University of Florida 2/10/2017 1

FOOD WASTE TO LOW CARBON ENERGY CONFERENCE APRIL 27-28, 2016 DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FOR MSW ORGANICS

Chapter 9&12. Separation and Processing of Solid Waste. Recovery of Materials in MSW

Recycling System Op0ons

Developing a Zero Waste Implementation Plan, Montgomery County, MD MRN/SWANA-MidAtlantic Annual Conference Maryland Recycling Network

The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Solid Waste Management: Applications, Challenges and Modeling Techniques

1 / Consultant s Perspective & Role

Step by Step Instructions for the Using Sustainable Jersey Spreadsheet Tool to Calculate a Municipal Carbon Footprint

ADAPTING TO THE EVOLVING TON Accordant s Competitive Approach

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Organics Recovery grows Green Energy, Jobs and Agriculture

GBB Quality Value Ethics Results

Exploring Hub and Spoke Recycling

RECYCLING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Project #548 FINAL REPORT

Processing Options to Achieve Florida s 75% Recycling Target Recycle Florida Today

Life Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste:

2015 SOLID WASTE ANNUAL REPORT

Municipal Solid Waste To Energy Project Overview

Climate and Materials Management. SERDC November 3, 2009 Jennifer Brady USEPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

RECOLOGY 2017 RATE APPLICATION TECHNICAL WORKSHOP. February 2017

CITY OF TORONTO Solid Waste Management Services 2012 Recommended Operating & Capital Budget & Capital Plan

Phase 2 MRF Report. Request for Information - Key Findings. Chippewa Falls, Wis. SEH No June 9, 2015

CE 326 Principles of Environmental Engineering INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Using Sustainable Materials Management to Prioritize, Strategically Plan, and Measure Solid Waste Systems

Waste to Energy Assessment Results and Recommendations. Comox Strathcona Waste Management Select Committee Meeting November 28, 2017

Anaerobic digestion = biogas process

PERSPECTIVE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF KIGALI

How EPA s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Quantifies the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Organics Management

Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station Progress Report. November 15, 2016

MSW management in Europe

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 75% RECYCLING GOAL? 2015 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Baseline Carbon Footprint

Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan

Do we have the right goals? Applying lifecycle thinking to materials management goals. Presented to The Evergreen Chapter of SWANA April 27, 2017

Will the Waste Industry Morph Into the Resource Management Industry? A Paradigm Shift May be Upon Us

Potential Future Changes in Waste Collection and Disposal Practices

Leveraging An Agency s Assets. Anaerobic Co-Digestion FOG, Food Waste and More

SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION OF FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Introduction. Andrew Clinton Supply Chain and Manufacturing Operations Specialist Leader Deloitte Consulting LLP

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

Chapter 8 solved problems

Calculating PPP Recovery Rates

ecomaine Organics Recycling Feasibility Study

Getting at the last 25% SWANA Evergreen Chapter Workshop February 24, Tracie Bills SCS Engineers

CT Recycling Laws & Regulations Connecticut Department of. Energy and Environmental Protection

Transfer Facility Feasibility Study. Final Report

Assessing the Environmental and Monetary Impacts of Waste Management Practices at the University of Massachusetts Amherst

Expanding Recycling in Michigan: An Update

City of San José Diversion Programs Report Card. SWANA Evergreen Chapter On the Road to Zero Waste

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008

How to Make Biomass to Energy Work in Rural Towns of Alaska

Debra Reinhart Hamid Amini. University of Central Florida

SUSTAINABILITY HIGHLIGHTS REPORT

NATIONAL WASTE STREAM PROFILES

FIBERGLASS INSULATION

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2011

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2011

Duty of Care and the Journey towards Zero Waste to Landfill

Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Calculations

The Environmental Impacts Assessments of landfilling with TRACI modeling technique

ecomaine Organics Recycling Feasibility Study Andrew Carpenter, Northern Tilth Belfast, Maine

Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems for Bank Member Countries

Report. Tri-Municipal Organic Waste Processing Facility Analysis. Submitted by: Alex Hayes Ph.D., P.Eng. November 30, 2017

Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Are They Compatible? Eileen B. Berenyi, Ph.D Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Westport CT

Anaerobic Digestion Post-consumer Food Scraps. NEWMOA Webinar Tom Kraemer and Greg McCarron October 8, 2015

Billy Malone DeKalb County Sanitation - Director SWANA TDIBR-Landfills

Local Authority Recycling in an age of Austerity. Andrew Bird Chair of LARAC Recycling & Waste Services Manager Newcastle under Lyme BC

AMO Durham Region Integrated System Plastics & Municipal Sustainability 2015

Data Collection & Management to Assess Performance

Billy Malone DeKalb County Sanitation SWANA TDIBR-Landfills

Patrick Mathews, General Manager/CAO Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority. CALIFORNIA BIOMASS COLLABORATIVE 7 TH ANNUAL FORUM May 10 11, 2010

Anaerobic Digestion Post-consumer Food Scraps

SOUTH AUSTRALIA S WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Companion Report: Modelling Assumptions

Anaerobic Digestion of Source Separated Organics in America. Nora Goldstein, Editor BioCycle

STAR Annual Conference

Developing an Organics Management Program

Life Cycle Assessment of Two End-of-Life Scenarios for Glass Bottles on a Micro Level: Arizona State University, Tempe Campus

2017 Iowa Statewide Waste Characterization Study

City of Austin. Curbside Organics Collection. Policy Analysis Report

A waste management planning based on substance flow analysis

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Management : The Situation in Greece

Waste Management in a Low Carbon Economy. Jennifer Baron

Climate Change, Biomass and Waste Management Chuck White Director of Regulatory Affairs -- WM West California Biomass Collaborative Sacramento, CA --

Flexible Packaging Association Fall Executive Conference Chicago, October 11, Results of a study for Flexible Packaging Association:

CLOSED LOOP FOUNDATION GLASS RECYCLING RESEARCH & ANALYSIS NEW RESEARCH

A WASTED OPPORTUNITY

Transcription:

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collection Process Model Overview Megan Jaunich, PE PhD Student Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Environmental Research & Education Foundation Lonnie C. Poole Jr./Waste Industries Scholar S WOLF http://go.ncsu.edu/iswm

Overview Introduction Model overview Example equations Data development Illustrative results

INTRODUCTION

Collection process model Estimating cost and energy use Incoming Municipal Solid Waste (Mg in ) User Inputs Waste composition Waste generation Collection schedule and services Collection times and distances Capital, labor, O&M, fuel costs Fuel type and efficiency Garage and office electricity use Waste storage containers, quantity and cost Collection Process Model Direct Emissions (kg/mg in ) Electricity Use (kwh/mg in ) Capital Cost ($/Mg-yr -1 ) Operating Cost ($/Mg in )

Process Flow and System Boundary 1 ton MSW for collection Collection Transit Unloading 1 ton MSW delivered to treatment, disposal, or transfer facility Energy Emissions System Boundary Mixed waste or residual waste collection Single stream recycling Dual stream recycling Pre-sorted recycling, drop-off Pre-sorted recycling, crew-sort Leaf vacuum Yard waste/source-separated organics Wet/Dry (co-collected) Yard waste, drop-off Single Stream Material Recovery Facility Dual stream MRF Pre-sorted MRF Mixed waste MRF Thermal waste to energy (WtE) Anaerobic digestion (AD) Composting Transfer station

MODEL OVERVIEW

Collection Sector, Services, and Destinations Three types of collection sectors: Single-family residential (SF) Multi-family residential (MF) Commercial (COM) User creates any number of collection sectors, and defines the following inputs for each sector: Sector type Population and number of stops (e.g. houses, buildings) Waste generation rate and composition Collection services offered Waste destinations (treatment or disposal facility)

Collection process Residual Sample Collection Scheme Single-Family Sector Single Family SS Recyclables Collection service Yard Waste Collection area Commercial Sector Commercial SS MRF Multi-Family Sector Multi Family Compost Residual MW MRF PS Recyclables PS MRF Yard Waste Compost Residual DS Recyclables DS MRF Yard Waste MRF types: SS Single-stream DS Dual-stream PS Pre-sorted

Sample Collection Scheme Collection process Single-Family Sector Single Family Collection service Collection area Collection Sector Residual SS Recyclables Yard Waste Collection Services SS MRF Compost Disposal and treatment facilities Multi-Family Sector Residual Multi Family DS Recyclables DS MRF Yard Waste Commercial Sector Collection process Residual MW MRF PS Recyclables PS MRF Commercial Yard Waste Compost MRF types: SS Single-stream DS Dual-stream PS Pre-sorted

Collection process Residual Sample Collection Scheme Single-Family Sector Single Family SS Recyclables Collection service Yard Waste Collection area Commercial Sector Commercial SS MRF Multi-Family Sector Multi Family Compost Residual MW MRF PS Recyclables PS MRF Yard Waste Compost Residual DS Recyclables DS MRF Yard Waste The waste stream collected by each collection service can be sent to one or more destinations

Sample SWM System Material Reprocessing Comingled Recyclable Collection Commingled MRF Thermal WtE Ash Each collection service can unload at one or more disposal or treatment facilities Mixed Waste/ Residual Collection Organics Collection Mixed Waste MRF Anaerobic Digestion Soil Amendment Mixed waste and recyclables can be sent to transfer station prior to disposal or treatment facility Composting Mixed Waste Recyclables Combustibles Organics Ash

Waste sent to landfill or thermal WtE or mixed-waste MRF Process and waste stream description All materials collected (except hazardous or prohibited items). No other collection services offered (e.g., recyclables) All materials collected after recyclables and/or organics have been separated Sector type Single-family (SF) Multi-family (MF) Commercial (COM) SF, MF, COM Collection Service Mixed waste Residual waste Disposal or Treatment Facility Mixed waste MRF Waste to energy

Waste sent to single-stream, dual-stream, or pre-sorted MRF Process and waste stream description Sector type Collection Service Disposal or Treatment Facility Commingled recyclables collected from same bin(s) Paper, aluminum, plastic, and un-soiled, dry waste collected in one compartment; wet waste in separate compartment SF, MF, COM SF, MF Single-stream recyclables Dry waste Single-stream MRF Pre-sorted recyclables collected in a single truck with multiple compartments SF, MF, COM Dual-stream recyclables Dual-stream MRF Commingled recyclables sorted at the point of collection SF, MF, COM Pre-sorted recyclables Pre-sorted MRF

Waste sent to landfill, AD, thermal WtE, or compost Process and waste stream description Sector type Collection Service Disposal or Treatment Facility Specially-fitted collection vehicle that seasonally vacuums curbside leaves SF, MF, COM Leaf vacuum Yard waste and/or source separated organics (SSO) collected curbside (or dropped off) Food waste, soiled paper, etc. collected in one compartment; dry waste in separate compartment SF, MF, COM (SF) SF, MF Yard waste/ SSO Wet waste Anaerobic digestion Waste to energy Compost facility

Collection process Residual Sample Collection Scheme Single-Family Sector Single Family SS Recyclables Collection service Yard Waste Collection area Commercial Sector Commercial SS MRF Multi-Family Sector Multi Family Compost Residual MW MRF PS Recyclables PS MRF Yard Waste Compost Residual DS Recyclables Yard Waste DS MRF For each collection process, the user defines a set of input parameters

Sample Collection Input Parameters Description Unit Participation rate % Collection frequency at each stop Times/week Number of working days per week Days/week Distance between garage, collection route, and destination Miles Travel time between garage, collection route, and destination Minutes Distance between collection stops Miles Loading time at one service stop Seconds Time to unload Minutes Break time Minutes Collection vehicle volume yd 3 Waste density by waste stream lbs/yd 3 Utilization factor % Fuel efficiency MPG Vehicle capital and O&M costs $ Labor cost $

Collection Model Outputs User reviews default input parameters and changes values as appropriate for each collection scheme (collection sector-process-destination) Model computes four primary outputs: Number of collection vehicles, Nt Cost per waste mass collected, C ($/Mg) Fuel use by collection vehicles per quantity MSW, Fuel (L/Mg) Support facility electricity per quantity MSW, Elec (kwh/mg) Sample calculations

EXAMPLE EQUATIONS

Number of Trucks Nt = stops F r ( Cd Ht Rd Calculated values: Ht stops per trip Rd trips per day per vehicle stops number of participating collection stops per sector Inputs: Fr Cd collection frequency (1/week) number of working days per week

Number of Trucks Nt = stops F r ( Cd Ht Rd Calculated values: stops number of participating collection stops per sector Inputs: Pr stops total stops = Pr stops total participation rate (% stops setting out waste per collection day) total collection stops per sector

Number of Trucks Nt = stops F r ( Cd Ht Rd Calculated values: Rd trips per day per vehicle WV F + Tgr + Tfg 0.5 (Trf + S Rd = Tc Inputs: Trf travel time between collection route and facility Tgr travel time from garage to first collection route Tfg travel time from disposal facility to garage Tc time per trip (time to fill truck + Trf + S) F total break time S time to unload at transfer, treatment, or disposal facility WV working hours per day

Calculated values: Ht Inputs: gen stop Number of Trucks Nt = stops F r ( Cd Ht Rd stops per trip Ht = waste generation per stop per week (ton/stop-collection) cap total truck capacity (yd 3 ) Ut truck utilization factor (%) den waste density (ton/yd 3 ) 1 gen stop cap Ut den

Energy Consumption Fuel used per ton of waste collected Fuel = Fuel D Ref D Ref D is the total mass waste collected per collection vehicle-day Ref D = Ht Rd gen stop where: Ht Rd gen stop houses per trip trips per day/vehicle waste per stop (tons/stop) Fuel D is the total fuel used per vehicle per day

Energy Consumption Fuel used per ton of waste collected Fuel = Fuel D Ref D Fuel D is the total fuel used per vehicle-day Fuel D = where: Ref D Drf Dgr Dfg Db Drf MPG Drf + Dgr MPG Drgr + Dfg MPG Dfg + total tons waste collected per collection vehicle-day distance between collection route and facility distance from garage to first collection route distance from disposal facility to garage total distance between collection stops Db MPG Db + T idle gal/hr idle

DATA DEVELOPMENT

MSW Collection Data Study Data obtained from several municipalities and private waste management organizations transit times time/distance between each collection stop time at each collection stop unloading time at processing/disposal/transfer facility fuel consumption (mpg and gallons/ton waste) Local collection activities observed

City Type(s) of Disposal Facility Location and Data Summary Appx. Area mi 2 Population Density cap./mi 2 City A, MRF <100 2500 Data Provided or Observed Fuel consumption and tonnages; collection route data (distances, times, tonnages) City B, Transfer Station 400-500 2900 GPS tracking data (distances, times, tonnages) City C N/A <100 9900 Fuel consumption and tonnages City D N/A 400-500 2900 Engine control module records for collection vehicles (e.g. fuel efficiency, total distance travelled) City E Private MRF 100-200 2900 Tip times City E Municipality landfill and transfer station 100-200 2900 Tip times

Time (sec) Collection route time inputs 80 Stop Duration (sec) 70 60 2.7σ ( 99%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 City A Residual City B Residual City A Recycling City B Recycling City A Yard Waste A, Residual Waste B, Residual Waste A, Recycling B, Recycling A, Yard Waste Automated Automated Municipality Automated and Route Automated Semi-Auto/Manual 75 th percentile Median 25 th %ile 2.7σ

Time (sec) 80 Collection route time inputs Transit Time(sec) 70 60 2.7σ ( 99) 50 40 30 20 10 0 City A, Residual A Residual Waste City B, Residual B Residual Waste City A, A Recycling City B, B Recycling City A, A Yard Yard Waste Automated Automated Municipality Automated and Route Automated Semi-Auto/Manual 75 th percentile Median 25 th %ile 2.7σ

mpg Total average diesel fuel economy 3 2 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.9 2.3 1 0 A, City RWA B, City RWB C, City RWC D, City RWD A, City Rec A B, City Rec B C, City Rec C Residual Waste Recyclables City (A-C) and Collection Type (Residual Waste or Recyclables)

City D: Fraction driving vs. idling Fuel Used Time Driving (>2.8 (>1.8 km/hr) mph) Idling (<2.8 (<1.8 km/hr) mph) 23% 42% 58% 79% Total fuel use: 1,707,973 451,198 gallons L Total time: 112,564 hours

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 7 Material Recovery Facility Tip Durations Tip durations for City E 1 56 10 11 15 16 20 21 2526 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 556 Minutes MRF Tip Durations (Observed) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 25 5 0 Tip Durations 1 56 1011 15 16 20 21 2526 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 Minutes Transfer Station Tip Durations 6 5 4 20 15 3 2 1 10 5 0 1 56 1011 15 16 2021 2526 3031 3536 4041 4546 5051 5556 Minutes 0 1 56 10 11 16 15 21 20 25 26 31 30 36 35 41 40 46 45 51 50 56 55 Minutes

ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS

gallons/ton Sample Results and Model Validation Model-calculated fuel use was compared with operational fuel use value reported by participating municipalities Results demonstrate model functionality; highlight importance of user-defined input parameters 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.2 4.7 4.4 5.4 5.1 City A, RW A B, City RWB A, City Rec A B, City Rec B Residual Waste Recyclables City (A-B) and Collection Type (Residual Waste or Recyclables) Operational, diesel Model-predicted, diesel

Environmental Impacts Sample Analysis The collection process model sums life-cycle emissions resulting from collection vehicle fossil fuel use (diesel or CNG) and from garage electricity use A 15% energy penalty assumed for CNG, i.e. fuel economy in miles per diesel gallon equivalent is 15% lower for CNG* Emissions factors developed from EcoInvent 2.2 database were employed along with IPCC 2007 100-year Direct Global Warming Potential (GWP) values *NREL studies report ~10-30% energy reduction per BTU of CNG with respect to diesel

GWP per ton waste Environmental Impacts Sample Analysis For the representative municipalities (Cities A and B), fuel type was changed to compare emissions from diesel vs. CNG vehicles based on user-defined emissions profiles Model results can be used to determine lifecycle impacts, such as carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A, City RWA B, City RWB A, City Rec A B, City Rec B Residual Waste Operational, diesel Model-precicted, CNG Recyclables City (A-B) and Collection Type (Residual Waste, Recycling) Model-predicted, diesel

Global Warmiing Potential GWP: Illustrative sensitivity to inputs 250 Tons per trip (Mg/trip) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Distance (miles) Time at facility (min) Collection time (sec) Time at facility, (min) Metric tons per trip (Mg/trip) Distance route to facility (miles) Time at stop (sec)

Discussion Bottom-up collection model can predict cost, fuel consumption, energy use, associated emissions, and selected environmental impacts (e.g., global warming potential) Model-predicted fuel use for representative cities within 5-45% of operational values Different collection scenarios can be created to compare environmental implications of changing inputs

Summary A linear process model was developed to compute the total fuel use, electricity use, and cost per Mg waste collected for a defined collection area, and number of trucks required to service each user-defined collection area. Bottom-up analysis allows user to adjust input parameters and enables what if analyses of future collection scenarios, and integrated analyses using SWOLF. Default data set developed from operational data. Collection model results for fuel and electricity use are paired with appropriate emissions coefficients to compute emissions and enable impact assessment.

QUESTIONS? http://go.ncsu.edu/iswm