Environ. Sci. Technol.

2009, 43, 12641270

Use of Life-Cycle Analysis To

Support Solid Waste Management
Planning for Delaware
P. OZGE KAPLAN,* S. RANJI RANJITHAN,
AND MORTON A. BARLAZ
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695

Received July 3, 2008. Revised manuscript received

November 29, 2008. Accepted December 2, 2008.

Mathematical models of integrated solid waste management

(SWM) are useful planning tools given the complexity of the solid
waste system and the interactions among the numerous
components that constitute the system. An optimization model
was used in this study to identify and evaluate alternative
plans for integrated SWM for the State of Delaware in
consideration of cost and environmental performance, including
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The three counties in
Delaware were modeled individually to identify efficient SWM
plans in consideration of constraints on cost, landfill diversion
requirements, GHG emissions, and the availability of alternate
treatment processes (e.g., recycling, composting, and
combustion). The results show that implementing a landfill
diversion strategy (e.g., curbside recycling) for only a portion
of the population is most cost-effective for meeting a countyspecific landfill diversion target. Implementation of waste-toenergyoffersthemostcost-effectiveopportunityforGHGemissions
reductions.

Introduction
The cost and environmental implications (e.g., energy
consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) of solid
waste management (SWM) are important societal issues.
SWM costs are borne by the public, either through use fees
or taxes. SWM also has environmental impacts resulting from
waste collection, separation, treatment processes such as
composting and combustion, and landfill disposal (1). The
beneficial use of waste, for either energy recovery or material
recovery, can result in both revenue and avoided emissions
(2, 3). An integrated analysis must be conducted to assess
the net cost and net environmental effects of (1) an SWM
program constituted of a set of municipal solid waste (MSW)
process choices that interactively affect system-wide waste
flow and (2) SWM policies that constrain the system (e.g.,
banning items such as yard waste from landfills and banning
waste processing options such as waste combustion). Thus,
policymakers face the challenge of developing and implementing integrated SWM programs that represent an appropriate use of public funds while considering emissions
and energy consumption.
* Corresponding author present address: Research Fellow, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Drop E305-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
phone: (919) 541-5069; fax: (919) 541-7885; e-mail: Kaplan.Ozge@
epa.gov.
1264

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009

Mathematical models of integrated SWM can serve as

planning tools given the complexity of the system, the
interactions among the numerous components that constitute the system, and the number of potential SWM
alternatives. While numerous models have been described
(4-9), and several case studies have been conducted in
Europe (10-14), the number of case studies applying SWM
planning models in the United States is limited (15).
The objective of this study was to evaluate alternative
plans for integrated SWM in the State of Delaware considering
cost and environmental performance, particularly GHG
emissions. This study was conducted to assist the Delaware
Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) conduct its periodic (every 10
years) evaluation of the statewide SWM program and
development of a long-term plan. The next section summarizes the integrated solid waste management decision
support tool (ISWM-DST), a life-cycle model that was utilized
to analyze potential SWM programs considering combinations of curbside recycling, yard waste composting, and
combustion with energy recovery, i.e., waste-to-energy
(WTE), to divert waste from landfills (16-18). The subsequent
section describes the modeling approach tailored for urban
and rural counties in Delaware and input data development.
Analyses are then presented in which system cost and
environmental performance are explored at increasing
diversion constraints. Initially cost and then GHG emissions
are used as the model objective. Finally, we describe how the
model results can be applied to advance SWM planning for
Delaware.

Model Description
The ISWM-DST is a steady-state deterministic optimization
model that represents the flow of individual MSW components from generation through collection, separation for
recycling at materials recovery facilities (MRFs), treatment
(e.g., yard waste composting and WTE), and landfill disposal
as described previously (16-18). A summary is provided here,
and Table S1 of the Supporting Information (SI) gives
additional resources. The ISWM-DST includes (1) process
models for estimating cost (including revenue from recyclables and energy recovery), energy consumption, and lifecycle emissions associated with each SWM unit operation,
(2) a mathematical programming-based integrated system
model that embeds the waste mass flow equations, and (3)
a linear programming (LP) model solver (CPLEX) (Figure S1,
SI). The process models compute a set of cost and life-cycle
emission coefficients per mass of waste item handled in a
process using a combination of default and site-specific data.
There are process models for waste collection, separation,
treatment, and disposal. In addition, there are process models
for electrical energy production and the conversion of
recyclables into new products (i.e., remanufacturing). An
offset analysis is used to calculate the environmental benefits
or added burdens from the conversion of recycled materials
to new products and from the generation of electricity from
landfill gas and WTE (19).
All unit processes are integrated, and the mass balance
is represented by a series of waste flow equations that may
be solved for the minimum value of cost, net energy
consumption, or emissions of selected pollutants. The ISWMDST tracks 30 air- and water-borne pollutants and optimizes
on seven air pollutants (CO, CO2, CH4, NOx, SOx, PM, and
greenhouse gas equivalents [GHEs]), cost, and energy
consumption. Recently, the capability to consider the effect
of uncertain input parameters on model outputs was
10.1021/es8018447 CCC: $40.75

2009 American Chemical Society

Published on Web 01/29/2009

TABLE 1. Description of Model Scenarios

case

description

Model Objective: Least Cost

(1) landfill only
all waste buried in a landfill
(2) current practice
recyclables recovered through
voluntary drop-off only
(3) recycling
waste diversion by both curbside
recyclables collection and waste
sorting at a mixed waste MRF
are enabled
(4) recycling +
as in case 3 plus the separate
composting
curbside collection
of yard waste is
enabled
(5) recycling +
as in case 4 plus WTE is enabled
composting + WTE
Model Objective: Least Greenhouse Gas Equivalents
(6) recycling +
as in case 5
composting + WTE
(7) recycling +
as in case 4
composting

incorporated (20), which enables a post-optimization uncertainty analysis to be conducted.

The functional unit for the system is the management of
1 Mg of MSW set out for collection. MSW includes waste
generated in single-family residential, multifamily residential,
and commercial sectors as defined by the U.S. EPA (21).
Unique waste generation data may be provided for each of
two distinct areas in the residential and multifamily sectors
and ten distinct commercial generation points.

Modeling Approach and Data Development for the State

of Delaware
Scenario Definition. Model scenarios were constructed to
represent current practice and to explore the implications
of increased landfill diversion by recycling, composting, and
WTE on total system cost and emissions (Table 1). In the first
set of scenarios, the goal was to identify cost-effective SWM
plans for different levels of waste diversion, which were
modeled as incrementally increasing diversion requirements.
As described in Table 1, cases 1-5 were analyzed with
different combinations of unit processes enabled. In the
second set of scenarios, the goal was to determine SWM
plans to minimize GHEs in megagram carbon equivalents
(eq 1) for different levels of cost.
GHE (Mg) ) [mass of CO2-fossil (Mg)] 12/44 +
21 [mass of CH4(Mg)] 12/16 (1)
where 21 is used to convert the mass of CH4 to CO2 equivalents
and 12/44 and 12/16 convert CO2 and CH4 to an equivalent
mass of C, respectively.
SWM plans were identified at incrementally increasing
cost targets starting with the cost of current practice (case
2). All scenarios were evaluated separately for each of
Delawares three counties. A follow-up paper will describe
how these county-specific strategies were combined to
construct and analyze statewide integrated strategies.
Data Development. Delaware is comprised of three
counties (Figure S2, SI). New Castle County (NCC) is the
most densely populated with 64% of the states 783600 people.
Kent and Sussex Counties are largely rural. The waste
generation rate and composition data were adopted from
state waste characterization reports (22, 23). Per capita waste
generation was estimated to be 1.04 kg person-1 day-1,
excluding durable items. This rate was assumed to be constant
statewide and independent of whether a resident lived in the
residential or multifamily sector. Totals of 21%, 10%, and

10% of the residential population reside in multifamily

dwellings in NC, Kent, and Sussex Counties, respectively.
The number of collection locations in the multifamily
sector was calculated by estimating that one dumpster will
serve 40 multifamily housing units, resulting in 1028 collection
locations in NCC. The per-location commercial MSW generation rate was computed from the ratio of commercial
MSW generation to the number of commercial locations.
Commercial waste generation data and the number of
commercial locations were obtained from public records
(23, 24). Waste generation and composition data are summarized in Tables S2 and S3 (SI).
Waste generation in NCC was modeled using two residential sectors, one multifamily sector and one commercial
sector. Two residential sectors were required to represent
differences in average distances from collection routes to
the facilities (i.e., transfer station, landfill) as 10% of the
countys waste flows through a transfer station. Residential
sector 2 in NCC represents the southern region that is served
by a transfer station. Kent and Sussex Counties were
represented by one residential, one multifamily, and one
commercial sector.
Approximately 20% of MSW generated in Delaware is
currently recovered via the states drop-off program plus the
recovery of source-separated recyclables from the commercial sector (22, 23). There was essentially no curbside
collection of recyclables or WTE at the time of this study. For
evaluation of future SWM scenarios in which curbside
collection of recyclables and composting were enabled, it
was necessary to estimate capture rates for these programs.
It was assumed that if a residential curbside recycling program
were to be implemented, then recovery rates would be higher
than the national average rates, which represent the average
of all states, including some that do not have a recycling
program. Material-specific recovery rates in Delaware were
set 20% greater than the national average rates (21). In
addition, the rate of participation in potential future residential curbside collection programs was assumed to be 80%.
Additional input data are presented in Tables 2 and S4 and
S5 (SI).
Uncertainty Analysis. For a given countywide strategy,
uncertainty in the cost and life-cycle emissions was estimated
using uncertainty propagation procedures (20). Probability
density functions (PDFs) for selected model inputs were on
the basis of experience and expert judgment. Cumulative
density functions (CDFs) for cost and GHE were used to assess
the robustness of the countywide SWM strategies. Finally, a
correlation analysis was conducted to understand the relative
significance of uncertainty in each input parameter. The
uncertain inputs and their assumed PDFs are presented in
Table S6 (SI).
Surrogate Environmental Indicator Parameters. A representative indicator parameter for environmental performance was identified to (1) simplify the presentation and
analysis of the results and (2) be consistent with the ability
of ISWM-DST to minimize only one pollutant at a time.
Analyses were conducted in which GHEs were minimized
for different cost constraints, and the results show that GHE
is a reasonable surrogate for emissions of multiple pollutants
(Figure 1). Correlation coefficients (r2) were above 0.9 when
considering the trend of GHE with that of energy consumption and all air pollutants except CO, which did not correlate
well with any other pollutant (Table S7, SI).

Results
Cost-Effective SWM Strategies. The results of model analyses
in which different combinations of unit operations were
enabled are presented in this section. (As the results for Kent
and Sussex Counties were similar, detailed results for Kent
County are presented in the SI.) When all waste is buried in
VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

1265

TABLE 2. Summary of Key Model Inputs

parameter

default value

Collection
refuse collection
1 time per week
frequency
curbside recyclables
1 time per week
collection frequency
time from collection
10 for urban, 30 for rural
to transfer station,
min
time from collection
15 for urban,
to MRF, min
30 for rural
time from collection
15 for urban,
to compost, min
30 for rural
time from collection
10 for urban,
to WTE, min
80 for rural
time from collection
15 for urban,
to LF, min
30 for rural
time from transfer station
45
to WTE, km
MRF
materials market prices
Table S4 (SI)
separation efficiency
55 for each
for mixed waste MRF (%)
recyclable
separation efficiency
94 for glass, 100 for
for commingled MRF (%)
all other items
basic design
heat rate, BTU/(kW h)
ferrous recovery
rate (%)
utility sector
offset

FIGURE 1. Correlation between GHE and other pollutants. The

data plotted represent least-GHE SWM strategies for New
Castle County in which all unit operations were enabled. A
negative value means that the avoided emissions exceeded the
emissions from waste management.

WTE
mass burn
18 000
(19% efficiency)
90
baseload coal and
natural gas

Landfill
basic design
per EPA regulations
time frame for emissions
100
estimates, years
gas collection
0 in years 1-2,
efficiency (%)
50 in year 3, 70 in year 4,
80 in years 5-100
gas management
conversion to
scheme
electrical energy
utility sector
baseload coal and
offset
natural gas

a landfill (case 1), the resulting annual cost is calculated to

be $37.2 million, $19.8 million, and $34.8 million for NC,
Kent, and Sussex Counties, respectively. The corresponding
emissions are presented in Figure 2 and in Tables S8-S10
(SI). Interestingly, the avoided emissions associated with the
conversion of landfill gas (LFG) to energy resulted in net
negative emissions for PM, SOx, and CO2-fossil, with the
largest benefit occurring in NCC where travel distances are
the shortest. A negative emission means that the avoided
emissions exceed the emissions attributable to waste collection and processing.
For current practice (case 2), which results in 18-20%
diversion using recyclables drop-off and collection of commercial recyclables, net system costs including revenues from
the sale of recyclables for NC, Kent, and Sussex Counties
were $39.7 million, $21.4 million, and $36.9 million, respectively. The corresponding emissions are presented in Figure
2 and in Tables S11-S13 (SI).
The ISWM-DST was next used to identify cost-effective
waste management strategies in which landfill diversion was
constrained to match current practice as well as higher levels.
Solid waste operations that were enabled in addition to those
currently used include (1) a mixed waste MRF in which
recyclables are recovered from MSW using a combination of
hand sorting and mechanical separation and (2) curbside
1266

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009

FIGURE 2. Variation of mass flow and GHE based on use of

landfill only (0% diversion, case 1), current practice (case 2),
and an alternative in which a mixed waste MRF and curbside
collection of commingled recyclables are enabled (case 3): (a)
New Castle County, (b) Sussex County.
collection of recyclables that are processed in an MRF (case
3). Within curbside collection, alternatives to sort at either
the curb during collection or an MRF were enabled.
In NCC, all recyclables were recovered through the dropoff program with increasing use of a mixed waste MRF to
achieve up to 28% diversion (Figure 2a) because utilization
of a mixed waste MRF was estimated to be cheaper than
implementation of curbside recycling. As the diversion rate

increased to 28.5%, curbside collection of recyclables was

utilized in residential sector 1 and the multifamily sector to
recover more material. When the model objective was set to
maximize diversion, commingled recycling was utilized in
residential sector 2 to increase diversion to 28.91%. The MRF
being farther away from the collection routes resulted in
longer transportation distances, which escalated the total
cost (Figure 2 and Table S11, SI). At maximum diversion
(28.91%), the use of a mixed waste MRF decreased slightly,
and the recyclables collected at curbside were sorted by the
crew rather than at a MRF. The shift in waste processing
choices between 28.5% and 28.91% diversion is controlled
by slightly different assumptions about material losses in
MRFs that receive commingled versus presorted recyclables.
While mathematically correct, this diversion increase is likely
insignificant in practice. Of course, the maximum attainable
diversion rate depends on the model inputs specifying
participation and capture rates (Table S4, SI). Between 20%
and 28% diversion, the cost increases uniformly, after which
it increases sharply with the implementation of curbside
recycling (Figure 2). GHEs decrease consistently as diversion
increases due to benefits from remanufacturing offsets and
reduced landfill emissions (Figure 2a).
The results for Sussex and Kent Counties are similar to
those for NCC except that GHEs and several other pollutants
reach minima at less than maximum diversion (Figure 2b,
Tables S12 and S13, SI). GHEs increase with the implementation of curbside recycling due to the rural character of
these counties, causing increased emissions associated with
additional collection vehicles.
Yard waste composting was enabled for the next set of
cost-effective analyses (case 4). As in case 3, drop-off recycling
and a mixed waste MRF were utilized until 28% diversion,
after which composting and then finally curbside recyclables
collection were implemented at the maximum diversion
(Figure 3a). Composting, which was relatively cheaper, was
utilized before curbside recycling. Again, the cost increases
sharply when curbside recycling is included. Between 28%
and 32% diversion, GHE does not change because no
additional recyclables are recovered, resulting in no changes
in the corresponding remanufacturing offsets. Composting
results in increased CO2-fossil associated with collection and
facility operation (Tables S14 and S15, SI). These CO2-fossil
emissions are approximately balanced by the reduced mass
buried in a landfill though this result is sensitive to the manner
in which LFG is managed (i.e., flare vs energy recovery) and
its collection efficiency. While there are benefits associated
with compost as a product in certain applications, this study
did not attribute offsets to the use of compost. The results
for Sussex and Kent Counties (Figure 3b, Table S15, SI) show
trends similar to those for NCC, but GHEs increase with the
implementation of composting and then curbside recyclables
collection due to the greater transport distances.
To complete the scenarios with cost as the objective
function, WTE was enabled with curbside recycling and
composting (case 5). A new WTE facility is assumed to be
located in NCC, and transfer stations are assumed to be
available in Kent and Sussex Counties (Figure S2, SI). Landfill
diversion is now defined to include waste processed by WTE,
excluding the resultant ash. For NCC, once the maximum
diversion achievable via only the drop-off program is realized,
WTE is increasingly utilized to achieve 85% diversion (Figure
4a). Increased diversion above 85% was obtained by first
utilizing a mixed waste MRF, followed by composting and
then curbside recyclables collection. Composting was selected over WTE to maximize diversion because of additional
disposal needs for the ash generation in WTE. In practice
this is inconsequential. Curbside recycling increases diversion
as noncombustibles (e.g., glass and aluminum), which would
otherwise be counted as ash for landfill disposal, are diverted

FIGURE 3. Variation of mass flow and GHE for alternate SWM

strategies in which curbside recyclables collection and yard
waste composting are enabled: (a) New Castle County, (b)
Sussex County (case 4).
from WTE. The sharp cost increase at 88% diversion is due
to the inclusion of more costly programs to capture more
material (Figure 4). Interestingly, these programs result in
only slight increases in diversion, but with a sharply higher
cost and an increase in GHEs.
The major difference in the results for the rural counties
in case 5 is that a mixed waste MRF was utilized at smaller
diversion targets. Recyclables were recovered by sorting
mixed waste, after which the residual was transported to a
WTE facility. This is cost-effective because the waste must
be transported, at greater cost, to northern Delaware for
combustion while a mixed waste MRF is located closer to the
point of waste generation (Figure S2, SI). The capital costs
of WTE are such that, realistically, only one facility would be
located in Delaware, and a location near the industrialized
area (i.e., NCC) was assumed. The increase in presorted
recycling at 87% diversion in Sussex County is from presorted
commercial material. Composting and curbside recycling
were only selected at the maximum diversion rate (Figure
4b). As for NCC, GHE achieved a minimum at 88% diversion
before composting and curbside recycling were utilized
(Figure 4a).
Minimum GHE SWM Strategies. The objective of this
analysis was to minimize GHE at increasing cost targets,
starting with the cost of current practice. First, all processes
were enabled as in case 5. In NCC, WTE was the most costeffective way to minimize GHEs until $60 million year-1, after
which more expensive processes were utilized with a slight
decrease in GHEs (Figure S3, SI). The use of curbside recycling
results in the recovery of slightly more recyclable materials
than a mixed waste MRF, yielding increased remanufacturing
GHE offsets. Interestingly, although composting was enabled,
it was not utilized. WTE is the most effective GHE-reducing
VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

1267

TABLE 3. Correlation Factors for Uncertain Input Parameters

That Are Strongly Correlated to Cost, Energy Consumption,
and GHG Emissionsa
New Castle
cost

Sussex

commercial residual
collection-loading time
at one service stop
0.745
heat rate in
combustion facility

compacted waste
density in the
landfill
-0.956
energy
compacted waste
consumption
density in the
landfill
0.855
-0.932
greenhouse gas CO2-fossil emissions
compacted waste
equivalents
savings from aluminum
density in the
remanufacturing
landfill
-0.603
-0.747
a
Negative correlation indicates an inverse relation
between the input parameter and the output.

FIGURE 4. Variation of mass flow and GHE for alternate SWM

strategies in which curbside recyclables collection, yard waste
composting, and WTE are enabled: (a) New Castle County, (b)
Sussex County (case 5). The cost and GHE for the 88%
diversion case for NCC were disaggregated into individual
components of the waste management system in Table S17 (SI).
option because the recovered energy offsets the generation
of electricity from fossil fuels. In contrast to waste management choices for NCC, increasing quantities of waste were
processed in a mixed waste MRF prior to entering WTE in
Kent and Sussex Counties (Figure S3, Table S18, SI). The
utilization of both the mixed waste MRF and WTE depended
on the cost constraint. When GHE is minimized without a
cost constraint, only a minimal improvement in GHEs is
achieved by using commercial and multifamily recycling
(Figure S3, Table S19, SI).
A scenario was explored in which GHEs were minimized
without WTE to represent current regulations that prohibit
WTE use in Delaware. In NCC, recyclables drop-off is utilized
initially followed by the use of a mixed waste MRF, curbside
recyclables collection, and finally composting as the cost
target is increased (Figure S4, SI). Composting is selected
over a landfill at costs higher than $55 million year-1 although
no emissions offset is assigned to the compost product. This
is explained by the assumed decay rate of grass in landfills
and the LFG collection efficiency that dictates how much
gas is captured over time. The assumed decay rate for grass
is relatively high (k ) 0.09 year-1), and no gas is assumed to
be collected during the first 2 years. As such, some gas
production attributable to grass is released to the atmosphere
in the early years, making composting more favorable from
a GHE standpoint.
In the rural counties, only a base case and minimum GHE
scenario were considered because the difference in cost
among these scenarios was less than 5%. For Sussex County,
the primary difference between least GHE and the base case
1268

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009

scenario is the utilization of commingled curbside recycling

in the multifamily sector along with some additional recovery
at a mixed waste MRF (Figure S4, SI). Both of these unit
operations serve to complement the existing residential dropoff recycling program with decreasing GHEs. Diversion in
the least GHE case is 34.5%, 23.1%, and 24.5% for NC, Kent,
and Sussex Counties, respectively.
Sensitivity to Varying Recyclable Market Prices. Selected
strategies in case 5 for NCC were analyzed to evaluate whether
increased revenue from recyclable material sales would
increase the use of curbside recycling. The original and
updated recyclables market prices are presented in Table S5
(SI). Case 5 scenarios with diversion rates of 40% and 85%
were rerun (Figure S5, SI). Despite the increased prices,
curbside recycling was not selected, and WTE was still
preferred for meeting the diversion targets. The changes in
system cost were 3-4%, which is insignificant relative to the
accuracy of the model.
Uncertainty Analysis. For NCC, the expected cost of
current practice when considering uncertainty is $39 million,
with a range of $32.6 million to $47.4 million and a 38%
likelihood of exceeding the deterministic cost of $39.7 million
(Figure S6, SI). The expected GHE of current practice is 18830
MTCE year-1, with a range of 15674-21415 and a 3%
likelihood of exceeding the deterministic estimate of 20726
MTCE year-1 (Figure S7, SI).
Table 3 shows a subset of the most strongly correlated
uncertain input parameters to the selected model outputs
(cost, energy consumption, and GHE). These results can be
used to prioritize the input parameters for which better data
are most needed. Comparison of CDFs for multiple SWM
alternatives can be used to consider robustness as part of
SWM alternative selection.

Discussion
Differences among SWM Strategies for Urban and Rural
Counties. The higher population density in NCC resulted
overall in less costly SWM strategies. When identifying costeffective diversion strategies with curbside recyclables collection enabled, unit costs at maximum diversion were $174,
$507, and $631 Mg-1 in NC, Kent, and Sussex Counties,
respectively. There are two caveats to this analysis. First,
urban areas in Kent County (e.g., Dover) may behave more
like NCC in some respects. Second, DSWA does not control
the manner in which cities and counties collect refuse and
recyclables, but rather manages the waste after collection.
Cities and counties may implement a variety of collection
alternatives that are not optimal.
The strategy with the lowest GHE for NCC (case 6) results
in a 74665 MTCE year-1 reduction at an incremental cost of

TABLE 4. Cost, Emissions, and Diversion for a Waste Management Strategy Displaying Near-Optimal Characteristicsa
cost, millions
of dollars year-1

GHE,
MTCE year-1

diversion, %

current practice
case 3
case 4
case 5

New Castle County

39.7
20700
45.6
13900
51
11200
57.8
-33000

20
28
35
85

current practice
case 3
case 4
case 5

Sussex County
36.9
11400
36.8
8500
38
4400
41.6
-5600

19
26
27
87

a
Data are for a diversion level just prior to the level at
which costs escalate sharply.

$33.4 million year-1 relative to current practice. In contrast,

the net decrease in GHEs and cost increase for Sussex County
are 21695 MTCE year-1 and $6.4 million, respectively. While
the GHE reduction in Sussex County is slightly more costeffective, there is less waste and therefore a smaller overall
reduction potential. In NCC, emission reductions were
realized via both curbside recycling and WTE. In contrast,
the implementation of curbside recycling increased emissions
in Sussex County (case 3) relative to scenarios with diversion
lower than the maximum diversion.
Effects of Cost and Diversion Targets on Waste Process
Choices. The ISWM DST is not constrained to apply a single
waste process to an entire sector equally. In most solutions
(e.g., Figure 2), a process that is more expensive than dropoff is only utilized to the extent required to meet a diversion
constraint. Thus, only a fraction of the total population may
be served by, for example, curbside collection to achieve the
target diversion. Similarly, WTE was used for only a fraction
of the total waste when minimizing GHE subject to a cost
target (Figure S3, SI).
In practice, it may be difficult to convince a community
of the rationale for providing only some residents with, for
example, curbside collection while expecting others to utilize
drop-off bins, or having some waste disposed in a landfill
while other waste is treated by WTE. This is an example of
a situation where the optimal strategy could be judged
politically or socially infeasible. Alternative strategies that
are only incrementally more expensive than the optimal
solution, but utilize maximally different sets of facilities, can
be developed (16). This is expected to yield more efficient
strategies that may include politically or socially more viable
options.
Counterintuitive Insights Gained through Modeling.
One advantage of a mathematical analysis of a complex
system is that it may result in outcomes that are not intuitive.
When the objective was to minimize cost at a desired
diversion level, the model was able to identify a creative
approach in which some waste was first processed through
a mixed waste MRF prior to flowing to WTE (Figure 4b). This
tandem processing accomplishes the following: (1) allows
for recovery of noncombustible recyclables (e.g., glass and
aluminum) that were not captured via the drop-off program
and (2) reduces the quantity of waste to be transported to
the WTE facility from the rural counties.
Ultimately, a decision-maker must determine the most
suitable SWM plan in consideration of competing cost,
environmental, and social/political considerations. While
there are many cases that could be examined, Table 4
summarizes three key parameters for an SWM strategy at a
diversion level just prior to where the cost increases sharply.
Clearly, the most significant reductions in GHEs can be

realized when WTE is utilized, albeit at a higher cost. While

the objective of case 5 was to minimize cost at varying
diversion constraints, the objective of case 6 was to minimize
GHE emissions. For an expenditure of $50 million year-1,
GHE emissions of -17200 and -31300 MTCE year-1 are
realized for NCC in cases 5 and 6, respectively, at diversion
levels of 60% and 57% (Figures 4 and S3, SI).
This study quantifies the tradeoffs among cost, diversion,
and environmental performance by using a life-cycle planning tool to evaluate multiple alternatives for SWM in
Delaware. The resultant trends are similar to results reported
for several European case studies (10-14). While this study
provides a quantitative and systematic basis for evaluating
cost, diversion, and GHE objectives for SWM choices and
their tradeoffs, specific decisions must be made as to the
direction of future SWM. Such a decision may also involve
political and other subjective considerations. The quantitative
results here are envisioned to provide the necessary information to screen for technically superior strategies that could
form the basis for such a decision-making process. When
making final decisions that constrain the array of alternatives
to be considered, a more narrow set of SWM alternatives
should be selected for detailed engineering analysis before
a strategy is implemented. In subsequent work, methods are
described to develop optimal statewide strategies based on
combinations of the county-specific alternatives described
here.

Supporting Information Available

Waste composition and recyclables capture rate, uncertain
parameters and their distributions, and tables of mass and
emissions data for each scenario. This material is available
free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Literature Cited
(1) U.S. EPA. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A
Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, September 2006.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.
html (accessed July 3, 2008).
(2) Solano, E.; Dumas, R. D.; Harrison, K. W.; Ranjithan, S.; Barlaz,
M. A.; Brill, E. D. Life cycle-based solid waste managements2.
Illustrative applications. J. Environ. Eng. 2002, 128, 9931005.
(3) Thorneloe, S. A.; Weitz, K.; Jambeck, J. Application of the US
decision support tool for materials and waste management.
Waste Manage. 2007, 27, 10061020.
(4) Eriksson, O.; Frostell, B.; Bjorklund, A.; Assefa, G.; Sundqvist,
J.-O.; Granath, J.; Carlsson, M.; Baky, A.; Thyselius, L. ORWAREsA
simulation tool for waste management. Resour., Conserv. Recycl.
2002, 36, 287307.
(5) Finnveden, G.; Bjorklund, A.; Moberg, A.; Ekvall, T. Environmental and economic assessment methods for waste management decision-support: Possibilities and limitations. Waste
Manage. Res. 2007, 25, 263269.
(6) Hellweg, S.; Doka, G.; Finnveden, G.; Hungerbuhler, K. Assessing
the eco-efficiency of end-of-pipe technologies with the environmental cost efficiency indicatorsA case study of solid waste
management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 189203.
(7) Huang, G. H.; Chi, G. F.; Li, Y. P. Long-term planning of an
integrated solid waste management system under uncertaintysI.
Model development. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2005, 22, 823834.
(8) Huang, G. H.; Chi, G. F.; Li, Y. P. Long-term planning of an
integrated solid waste management system under uncertaintysII.
A North American case study. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2005, 22, 835
853.
(9) Rechberger, H.; Brunner, P. H. A new, entropy based method
to support waste and resource management decisions. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 809816.
(10) Emery, A.; Davies, A.; Griffiths, A.; Williams, K. Environmental
and economic modeling: A case study of municipal solid waste
management scenarios in Wales. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2007,
49, 244263.
(11) Eriksson, O.; Reich, M. C.; Frostell, B.; Bjorklund, A.; Assefa, G.;
Sundqvist, J. O.; Granath, J.; Baky, A.; Thyselius, L. Municipal
solid waste management from a systems perspective. J. Clean.
Prod. 2005, 13, 241252.
VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

1269

(12) Finnveden, G.; Bjorklund, A.; Reich, M. C.; Eriksson, O.; Sorbom,
A. Flexible and robust strategies for waste management in
Sweden. Waste Manage. 2007, 27, S1-S8.
(13) Kirkeby, J. T.; Birgisdottir, H.; Bhander, G. S.; Hauschild, M.;
Christensen, T. H. Modelling of environmental impacts of solid
waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program EASEWASTE. Waste Manage. 2007, 27, 961970.
(14) Reich, M. C. Economic assessment of municipal waste management systemssCase studies using a combination of life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). J. Clean. Prod.
2005, 13, 253263.
(15) Chester, M.; Martin, E.; Sathaye, N. Energy, greenhouse gas,
and cost reductions for municipal recycling systems. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 21422149.
(16) 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. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2001, 15, 4458.
(17) Solano, E.; Ranjithan, S.; Barlaz, M. A.; Brill, E. D. Life cyclebased solid waste managements1. Model development. J.
Environ. Eng. 2002, 128, 981992.

1270

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 5, 2009

(18) 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, 9931003.
(19) McDougall, F. R.; White, P. R.; Frankie, M.; Hindle, P. Integrated
Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory; Blackwell
Science: Oxford, U.K., 2001.
(20) Kaplan, P. O.; Barlaz, M. A.; Ranjithan, S. R. Life-cycle-based
solid waste management under uncertainty. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004,
8, 155172.
(21) U.S. EPA. Waste Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States: 2000 Update; EPA-530-R-02-001; Washington,
DC, 2002.
(22) Delaware Solid Waste Authority. Project Final Report for the
Delaware Solid Waste Characterization Study; File No. 0296001;
SCS Engineers: Long Beach, CA, 1997.
(23) Delaware Solid Waste Authority. Assessment of Delaware Solid
Waste Discards in 2000 and the Potential Recycling of Materials;
Franklin Associates, Ltd.: Prairie Village, KS, 2002.
(24) Delaware Department of Labor. 1998 Annual Averages by Major
Industry SectorsDelaware. http://www.delawareworks.com/
oolmi/information/data/EmpWages/IND1998YR.shtml (accessed July 3, 2008).

ES8018447