Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales
Andrew Emery a, , Anthony Davies a,1 , Anthony Grifths b,2 , Keith Williams b,3
b a eCommerce Innovation Centre, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4AY, United Kingdom Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom

Received 22 March 2006; accepted 24 March 2006 Available online 2 May 2006

Abstract In recent years the burdens that waste puts on the environment has been widely publicised. To address the earths dwindling resources and the growing mountains of waste many countries have introduced statutory waste minimisation and recovery targets. The general public are generally more concerned with the effects that waste has on the environment. Whereas waste managers and planners need to consider the nancial costs of collection, processing and disposal. This paper investigates and reports on the ndings for both of these areas of concern. A case study area in a typical South Wales valley location was selected to model the environmental and economic impacts of a number of waste disposal scenarios. The environmental impacts of a number of waste management scenarios were compared using a life cycle assessment (LCA) computer model. An interactive microsoft excel spreadsheet model was also developed to examine the costs, employment and recovery rates achieved using various waste recovery methods including kerbside recycling and incineration. The LCA analysis showed the incineration option to be more favourable than the landll and recycling/composting options. However, the economic modelling results showed higher running costs and lower associated jobs when compared to the other options such as recycling. The paper concludes by suggesting that
1 2 3

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 29 2064 7028; fax: +44 29 2064 7029. E-mail address: emeryad@ecommerce.ac.uk (A. Emery). Tel.: +44 29 2064 7028; fax: +44 29 2064 7029. Tel.: +44 2920 874316; fax: +44 2920 874716. Tel.: +44 2920 874847; fax: +44 2920 874716.

0921-3449/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.03.016

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

245

integrated waste management will ultimately be the most efcient approach in terms of both economics and also environment benets. 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment; Economic model; Municipal solid waste; Waste management

1. Introduction What is the correct balance between environmental, economic, technical, social and regulatory factors of one waste treatment system compared to another? What is the correct mix of waste recycling, composting, reduction and recovery options? These are some of the key questions that should be addressed before commencement of any waste management operation. For such a system to be truly effective it needs to be environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable (Nilsson-Djerf and McDougall, 2000). A study conducted by Morrissey and Browne (2004) concluded that no computer software waste management tools currently integrate all three aspects so and so cannot be considered fully sustainable. There is no escaping the fact that todays society has a throwaway culture, producing vast quantities waste. Advances in environmental measurement techniques have shown that the current demand on the earths resources is not sustainable and needs addressing immediately (York et al., 2004). The last 20 years, for example, has seen a substantial increase in the use of plastic packaging. Before this time many products such as foodstuffs were purchased loose or in reusable containers. Factors such as the continuing strength of the UK economy, high consumer condence, low interest rates and low unemployment has resulted in increased consumer spending and ultimately an increase in the amounts of household waste produced. To try to combat the increasing levels of waste the European Union (EU) Landll Directive was introduced in 1999, which set ambitious targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landll (European Parliament and Council Directive, 1999). Subsequently, waste targets for England and Wales were introduced in 2000 and 2002, respectively, which concentrated on recycling, composting and energy from waste (EfW) technologies for the recovery of municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW is the waste collected by a local authority, which consists mainly of household waste, but also contains a range of other wastes such as trade waste and street sweepings. Household waste makes up about 8590% of the total MSW content for the majority of local authorities in the UK (Environment Agency, 2003). This paper examines the environmental and economic impacts of a number of waste disposal systems used in a typical South Wales valley location. To undertake this investigation a case study authority was selected, this being Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. A number of waste management scenarios were compared using the LCA computer model known as Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal (WISARD) to model the environmental impacts. The scenarios modelled were based upon the EU Landll Directive targets for MSW using data collected from a number of household waste classication exercises and a desk study of the case study

246

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

area. An interactive microsoft excel spreadsheet model was also developed to examine the costs, employment and recovery rates achieved using various waste recovery methods including kerbside recycling and incineration. The model produced estimations of the realistic costs (gross and net) that would be incurred as a result of implementing different waste management scenarios. Varying household participation and recovered recyclable materials rates were calculated. Local employment generated as a direct result of these scenarios was investigated as well as the costs of complying with the proposed Wales waste recovery targets. The model inputs were based on a waste classication exercise which was conducted to determine the composition of household waste (Emery et al., 2000).

2. Theoretical background The life cycle of a product initially starts from the point when raw materials are extracted from the earth, followed by manufacturing, transport and use. The life cycle of the product ends with waste management, which includes recycling, composting, EfW and nal disposal. At every stage of the life cycle there are emissions and consumption of resources. Efcient planning for municipal solid waste management systems requires accounting for the complete set of environmental effects and costs associated with the entire life cycle of MSW. A LCA is a process used both to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process or activity and to consider opportunities that can effect environmental improvements. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), a worldwide federation of national standards bodies, has standardised this framework within the ISO 14040 series on LCA (Standards ISO, 1997). While LCA use for waste management decisionmaking is constantly increasing in the UK there are still a number of barriers that hinder its widespread acceptance. The main barriers are a lack of awareness of the importance of using the life cycle concept, the quality of the data and a general lack of understanding of how to conduct a LCA correctly and interpret the results. In terms of economics, the costs of diverting waste from the traditional practice of landlling are largely determined by a number of factors. One of the main challenges for a local authority in trying to achieve recovery targets through recycling composting and EfW are to reduce costs whilst maintaining customer satisfaction. The costs of collecting and sorting/processing of materials need to be considered for which there are numerous variables. It has been estimated that the total cost of collection and disposal of MSW in England and Wales for 2000/2001 was about 1.5 billion (Defra, 2002). The majority of households in the UK have recyclables collected via kerbside collection schemes (National Statistics, 2005). Recyclable materials such as non-ferrous metals or dense plastics have a higher market value than materials such as paper or green waste. Paper and green waste make up a large proportion of the waste stream by mass and so are popular materials for collection when taking into consideration recycling targets (Defra, 2005). Dense plastics which include drinks bottles only take up a small proportion of the waste stream by mass but a high proportion by volume. There are numerous designs of vehicles for sale or for hire, used in the UK for collecting recyclables which can vary quite widely in price. Variables such as the number of people per vehicle employed to collect

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

247

the recyclables, wages, vehicle storage capacities and compaction ratios need to be taken into consideration. Recyclable materials collected in bags tend to be sorted at a materials recycling facility (MRF). A typical MRF is normally comprised of a mixture of manual and mechanised sorting operations. Recyclables sorted at the kerbside tend to go to a storage facility where they are simply bulked up before being transported to a reprocessor. The economies of scale to be gained from MRFs and other waste management processes such as EfW plants need to be taken into consideration. The scenarios modelled in this report are based upon several drivers for waste reduction in the UK. These are the EU Landll Directive targets (European Parliament and Council Directive, 1999) for MSW and Waless recovery targets for MSW set out in Wise About Waste (National Assembly of Wales, 2002). The EU Landll Directive, was adopted on 26 April 1999 and came into force on the 16 July 1999. The obligatory targets will mean that by 2010 the UK and other countries in the EU will have to reduce the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste sent to landll to 75% of the 1995 level. Similarly, this will have to be further reduced to 50% by 2013 and to 35% by 2020. The Welsh Assembly Government published a National Waste Strategy for Wales Wise About Waste in 2002, which seeks to ensure compliance with the European Directives on waste management. The targets state that by 2003/2004 a minimum 15% of MSW must be recycled/composted with a minimum objective for each category of 5%. The target then increases to 25% by 2006/2007 with a minimum objective for each category of 10%. The nal target is set at 40% by 2009/2010 with a minimum objective for each category of 15%.

3. Case study area 3.1. Introduction A large proportion of the LCA and economic modelling calculations in this paper are based on data that was collated from a case study area, a local authority based in South Wales known as Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. The case study area has a population of about 240,000, which makes up 8% of the total Welsh population with around 100,000 households (National Statistics, 2001). 3.2. Waste arisings in the case study area Local authorities in Wales have a statutory obligation to collect and dispose of household waste (National Assembly of Wales, 2002). The most recently published gures for Wales for 2004/2005 showed an average MSW recycling/composting gure of 21.7% (National Statistics, 2005), a great improvement on the 1996/1997 gure of just 3.8% (Defra, 2002). The recycling/composting rate for the case study area for the period 2004/2005 was lower than the Welsh average at 15.6% (National Statistics, 2005). The recycling rate for England for this period was 23% (Defra, 2005). The total amount of MSW produced in Wales increased from 1.39 million tonnes in 1996/1997 to 1.94 million tonnes in 2004/2005 (National Statistics, 2005). The case study local authority collected a total of 101,000 tonnes of MSW of which about 91,000 tonnes was household waste.

248

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

3.3. Waste recovery in the case study area In January 2002, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council launched its roll out weekly kerbside recycling scheme to 28,000 households in the case study area (Emery et al., 2003). The materials chosen for collection for the kerbside scheme were paper and cardboard, dense plastics, metal packaging (beverage and food cans), kitchen and garden waste and glass. Three different methods of storing recyclables were originally trialled as these the most popular schemes across the UK. These were a box scheme, the re-use of supermarket bags and a clear bag scheme of which the clear bag scheme proved the most popular (Woollam et al., 2004). The clear bag recycling scheme is currently available to two-thirds of households in the case study area. 3.4. Household waste analysis To accurately conduct a LCA or an economical analysis of a waste management scenario, the quantities of waste materials disposed of by a typical household needs to be established. Household waste composition and weights are subject to a number of uctuations throughout the year. The most signicant weight change that would be expected and has been recorded in previous waste studies is garden waste (National Assembly for Wales, 2003). To gain an insight into weight variations, monthly tonnage data were analysed for household waste arisings over a 6-year period (Emery et al., 2000), from 1995 to 2000 for the case study area. The average increase in household waste arisings over the 6-year period was found to be 1.96% per year. The Governments predicted annual domestic increase is commonly thought of being in the region of between 1 and 3% (DETR, 2000) which agrees with the case study area waste analysis. It was interesting to note that the population in the case study area actually dropped by about 1.3% between 1991 and 2001 (National Statistics, 2001) even though the waste arisings increased. This clearly showed that households disposed of more waste in 2000 than 1995 and that the increase in waste arisings was a not a result of an increase in population. A full household waste analysis was conducted over a 3-week period in June 2000 to determine the quantities of waste materials produced in the case study area (Emery et al., 2003). Table 1 shows the results of the waste analysis and also a breakdown of the materials that would be expected from a 101,000 tonnes of MSW (the waste generated in the case study area).

4. Life cycle modelling 4.1. Introduction The WISARD LCA tool was developed for the Environment Agency by the Ecobilan Group and utilises a range of data, much of which was collected under the Agencys waste research programme (WS Atkins Environment, 1997). WISARD was ofcially launched on the 9 December 1999. It was designed so that those making waste management decisions such as local authorities can use the LCA approach to aid in the development

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263 Table 1 Breakdown of waste components found in 101,000 tonnes of MSW Material Ferrous metals Fines Glass Miscellaneous combustibles Miscellaneous non-combustibles Non-ferrous metals Paper (total)/recyclable element Plastic dense Plastic lm Putrescibles (green waste) Textiles Total Percentage 4 6 7 5 6 1 25 6 4 32 4 100

249

Mass (tonnes) 4040 6060 7070 5050 6060 1010 25250 6060 4040 32320 4040 101000

of such activities as waste management strategies. This is achieved by considering the environmental effects of different options for managing MSW such as an integrated approach and understanding where the main environmental effects of the chosen waste management systems arise. The tool enables the user to model existing and theoretical waste management systems for operations such as landll, recycling, composting and EfW. The tools underlying software platform and interface is also used by Eco-Emballages in France, by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and by authorities in New Zealand. In each case, separate databases have been employed to reect national circumstances, including energy sources. To date WISARD has been used by many local authorities in the UK and by consultancies acting on their behalf. Removing any waste material from the waste stream by recycling or composting would have an inuence on the composition of the waste subsequently sent either to landll or, for example, energy recovery. A number of waste management options were modelled. The options consider a range of recovery methods that conform to the 2009/2010 Wales (National Assembly of Wales, 2002) and 2020 Landll Directive (European Parliament and Council Directive, 1999) waste targets. The environmental impacts for present day waste arisings were considered and also the predicted waste arisings for 2020 assuming a 3% per year increase. EfW (incineration) was considered as an option, but it should be noted that the only options available in the WISARD model database are for large scale facilities of 250,000 tonnes capacity and greater. The case study area only produced 101,000 tonnes of MSW in 2000/2001 although this would rise to 182,400 tonnes by 2020 if a 3% increase per year is applied. Gasication would be suitable for smaller quantities of waste of about 30,000 tonnes per year but this was not a modelling option available in the software tool. 4.2. Outline of options modelled The following four waste management options were modelled: Option 1: A Do Nothing scenario. This option considered 100% of the MSW recovered in the case study area being disposed of in a landll site. This option considered

250

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

present day tonnages of MSW and also waste arisings for 2020 assuming a 3% per year increase. Option 2: Meet 2009/2010 Wales recovery targets. This option meets the Wise About Waste Wales recovery targets for 2010 through a combination of recycling and composting. No thermal treatment was considered and all remaining MSW was disposed of in a landll site. This option considered present day tonnages of MSW with no increase in waste arisings and also waste arisings assuming a 3% per year increase. Option3: Meet 2020 Landll Directive targets. This option meets the Landll Directive targets for 2020 through a combination of recycling, composting and EfW (incineration). All remaining MSW was disposed of in a landll site. This option considered present day tonnages of MSW and also waste arisings for 2020 assuming a 3% per year increase. Option 4: A Burn All scenario. This option considered 100% of the MSW recovered in the case study area sent to an incinerator. This option considered present day tonnages of MSW and also waste arisings for 2020 assuming a 3% per year increase. This option does not conform to the waste recovery targets but is able to meet the Landll Directive target. Table 2 shows the numbers of facilities and tonnages of waste required for each option. Based on typical capacities it was found that for Option 1 only one landll site was required based on no annual increase in waste arisings. Two landll sites were required by 2020 based on a 3% increase per year in waste arisings. Based on the limited choice of compost facilities available in the model a large number of compost facilities were needed to satisfy Options 2 and 3. Again due to the limited facility options available, only one incinerator was required to process all the MSW for Option 4. 4.3. General assumptions The majority of input data used to conduct the LCA for the different options was kept consistent. The general assumptions used were as follows: The percentages of materials that make up MSW were kept consistent for all waste management options. However, it should be noted that the composition of MSW could change signicantly by 2020, for example, plastics packaging becoming even more popular, replacing cardboard. The average distance travelled by a caged vehicle used to collect recyclables from the kerbside was estimated to be about 17,000 miles year. Each caged vehicle collected 2 tonnes of recyclables per journey. A rigid 3.57.5 tonnes vehicle was chosen from the software tool vehicle list to represent a caged vehicle. It was assumed that the overall population of the case study area did not increase over the time period (20002020). This would result in no increases in the total numbers of wheelie bins, waste sacks and kerbside boxes. As there are currently no thermal treatment facilities in the case study area, one was assumed to be located at either the same location as the landll site or another site of similar distance. In this way the distances travelled by collection vehicles would not vary and hence the results of the LCA modelling would be consistent. A new 250,000 tonnes per year incinerator was chosen.

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

Table 2 Facilities data used for modelling of waste management options Description Waste management facility Landll site Tonnes Option 1 (100% landll) 101,000 tonnes (no increase) 182,400 tonnes (3% increase2020) Option 2 (2010 Wales recovery targets) 101,000 tonnes (no increase2010) 132,000 tonnes (3% increase2010) Option 3 (2020 Landll Directive targets) 101,000 tonnes (no increase) 182,400 tonnes (3% increase2020) Option 4 (thermal recovery) 101,000 tonnes (no increase) 182,400 tonnes (3% increase2020)
a

MRF Number 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 Tonnes 0 0 20200 26350 18400 27400 0 0 Number 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0

Well manageda Tonnes 0 0 17700 23200 19400 40200 0 0 Number 0 0 2 3 3 5 0 0

Covereda Tonnes 0 0 2500 3150 2600 5300 0 0 Number 0 0 3 3 3 5 0 0

Incinerator Tonnes 0 0 0 0 4400 24800 101000 182400 Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

101000 182400 60600 79000 56200 84700 0 0

Compost facility

251

252

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

4.4. Environmental effect categories The outputs from each option modelled were analysed under ve environmental effect categories. These are also the key effect categories recommended in the software tool help le (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006). The impact assessment categories chosen are as follows: CML-air acidication. Some of the principle effects of air acidication include lake acidication and forest decline. The two primary acidifying species are compounds of sulphur and nitrogen. CML-eutrophication (water). Eutrophication is the enrichment of mineral salts and nutrients in marine or lake waters from natural processes and man-made activities such as farming. Depletion of non-renewable resources. Resource depletion is the decreasing availability of natural resources such as fossil and mineral resources. IPCC-greenhouse effect (direct 20 years). The greenhouse effect allows solar radiation to penetrate the earths atmosphere but absorbs the infrared radiation returning to space. The gases responsible for this effect are water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide. WMO depletion of ozone layer. Man-made emissions of CFCs and other chemicals used in refrigeration, aerosols and cleansing agents are thought to cause destruction of ozone in the stratosphere, letting through more of the harmful ultra-violet radiation.

5. Life cycle modelling results and discussion The environmental effect assessment results of the modelling for the four options are represented in Figs. 15. It was immediately apparent from the results that of the four waste management options, Options 24 represented a signicant improvement on Option 1 as would be expected. Option 1 was the Do Nothing scenario where all the MSW was landlled. Several of the gures showed a negative result for a particular option. It should be noted that a negative result refers to a saving (gain) to the environment and a positive result refers to a loss to the environment. In the case of net gains of a waste management scenario, i.e. recovery options such as materials that are recycled, composted or burnt as fuel to generate energy (steam or electricity), an avoided inputs and outputs approach was used to offset requirements for primary materials. A summary of the differences between the 0 and 3% increase in waste arisings for Options 14 for each of the environmental effect categories is shown in Table 3. The waste arisings increased by about 80% for Options 1, 3 and 4 (i.e. 101,000182,400 tonnes). There was a 30% increase for Option 2 where the waste arisings increased from 101,000 to 132,000 tonnes. These increases were also mirrored in the environmental effect category results for Options 14 as shown in Table 3. The higher than average increase for the depletion of non-renewable resources effect category for Option 4 were due to the incineration of all the MSW. This would result an increased consumption of non-renewable resources in the production of new products and hence a larger difference than the other options.

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

253

Fig. 1. Air acidication results for Options 14.

The results of Options 14 were assigned a performance ranking for each of the ve environmental effect categories as shown in Table 4. For each effect category, a ranking of 1 was assigned to the most benecial environmental result and 4 was the worst result. As would be expected it was found that Option 1 (the Do Nothing scenario) performed far

Fig. 2. Eutrophication results for Options 14.

254

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

Fig. 3. Depletion of non-renewable resources results for Options 14.

worse than any of the other options for all ve of the environmental effect results. For the ve effect categories chosen, Option 4 (the Burn All scenario) had the highest ranking for three of the effect categories. The incineration option was only included to use as a comparison to the other options. Unfortunately, treating 100% of MSW in an incinerator

Fig. 4. Greenhouse effect (direct 20 years) results for Options 14.

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

255

Fig. 5. Depletion of ozone results for Options 14. Table 3 Differences between 0 and 3% increase for Options 14 Environmental effect category Option number Option 1 (%) Air acidication Eutrophication Depletion of non-renewable resources Greenhouse effect Depletion of the ozone layer 57 80 75 80 81 Option 2 (%) 32 28 34 29 31 Option 3 (%) 59 81 63 59 14 Option 4 (%) 81 79 171 83 79

would not comply with the Wales recovery targets for 2010, as at least 30% needs to be recovered through recycling and composting. However, the EU Landll Directive targets for 2020 could be achieved through EfW technologies such as incineration. It should be noted that the Landll Directive targets do not include recovery rates for specic processes such
Table 4 Environmental effect category ranking of Options 14 Environmental effect category Option ranking Option 1 CML-air acidication (g eq. H+ ) CML-eutrophication (g eq. PO4 ) EB(R Y)-depletion of non-renewable resources (year 1) IPCC-greenhouse effect (direct 20 years) (g eq. CO2 ) WMO-depletion of the ozone layer (g eq. CFC-11) Note: 1 is the best result and 4 is the worst result. 4 4 4 4 4 Option 2 2 2 1 3 3 Option 3 1 3 3 2 2 Option 4 3 1 2 1 1

256

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

as recycling and composting. Care should be taken though when viewing and interpreting the results. Even though Option 4 was ranked number one for three of the effect categories a lower ranked category could easily be more important in term of major environmental consequences. The software tool does not provide the user with a denitive answer. It provides objective information on broad scale environmental costs and benets. Deciding the weight that should be given to different effects is a problematic process. Although not as favourable as Option 4, the overall environmental effect category results of Option 3 were also very encouraging. This option incorporated an integrated waste management system that would comply with both the Wales recovery targets for 2010 and also the Landll Directive targets for 2020. Compared to Option 1, signicant savings were achieved for all the effect categories. The Landll Directive targets are only concerned with the reduction of biodegradable waste from landll sites and no mention is made of other waste materials such as metals, plastics and glass. The majority of recycling schemes in the UK collect a range of materials (both biodegradable and non-biodegradable) and if other waste materials were collected then results could be even more favourable. Overall the software tool was very limited for the types of recovery facilities available. New technologies such as gasication and pyrolysis are currently not available and should be included. These types of facilities can handle much smaller quantities of waste. The recycling processes available under each recovery category (such as sortingrecycling) and the material reprocessing options are also limited. For example, there is no sorting/recycling process available for textiles or batteries. For a local authority to get a reasonably accurate picture of an integrated waste management scenario the model would require a facility to allow for regular updates as new technologies and data becomes available. The software tool gives a good indication of the environmental benets of different waste management systems but unfortunately was not designed to take account of social impacts or local issues such as nuisance or noise. In making choices, waste managers would also need to take these into account.

6. Economic modelling 6.1. Introduction An interactive microsoft excel spreadsheet model was developed to study different waste management scenarios (Emery et al., 2002). The model incorporates costs, employment and recovery rates achieved using various recovery vehicles and waste processing methods. Fig. 6 shows a typical ow diagram for the various recovery and disposal options that the model incorporates. The scenario output results are presented via a number of graphs and tables. The scenario results tables and graphs present the net and gross costs for a number of participation verses recovery targets. For example, 75% of the available recyclables recovered and 75% participation rate. Also presented are several comparative scenario graphs which are; cost per year, cost per tonne and numbers of job created. The output results also show the minimum recovery, participation rates and costs required to achieve the Welsh recovery target of 40%. To make the model as transparent as possible all scenario calculations can be accessed and viewed.

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

257

Fig. 6. Flow diagram for economic model.

A number of waste management scenarios were investigated which mirrored the options previously modelled for the LCA. The waste management scenarios associated with Options 1, 2 and 4 were modelled. All the economic modelling was based on the collection of 101,000 tonnes of MSW. The waste management scenarios that were modelled were as follows: Landll where 100% of the MSW waste produced in the case study area each year is landlled. This scenario was the equivalent of Option 1. Kerbside recycling, operating a eet of typical caged kerbside collection vehicles with separate compartments for the recyclable materials. This scenario was the equivalent of Option 2. Kerbside recycling operating a eet of specialist collection vehicles. The specialist vehicle is a mechanised 16 tonnes kerbside collection vehicle with separate compartments for the recyclable materials. This scenario was the equivalent of Option 2. Split vehicle collection round, operating a eet of modied refuse collection vehicles (RCVs), which are split into two collection compartments. This scenario was the equivalent of Option 2. A combination of split vehicle collection with a dedicated MRF and a separate MRF involving a thermal pre-treatment step. A thermal pre-treatment system utilises a pressure vessel, tted with rotating internal drum that accepts waste materials in unopened bags. The system creates an initial vacuum to extract any air present in the chamber that would otherwise prevent the effective and immediate heat-up of the waste to be processed. Heat and moisture are introduced in the form of steam. The heat initially causes the

258

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

bags to soften and, during rotation, to break open. The combination of high temperature, pressure moisture and rotating drum ensures that all materials will contact the necessary sterilizing steam. The presence of moisture, high heat and pressure during the process causes pulpable materials such as paper to become repulped and for plastics to deform and shrink. This action decreases the volume of material being processed by about 50% or more of its original volume. The result is a complete sterilization of all processed materials. Incineration where a variable percentage of the MSW waste produced in the case study area was transported outside of the local authority to an incinerator. The incineration option includes variable gate costs. This scenario was the equivalent of Option 4. 6.2. Waste components The composition of the waste materials used for the cost analysis scenarios were based on the ndings of the waste classication trial conducted in the case study area in 2000 (Emery et al., 2000). The total weight of MSW produced in the case study area was assumed to be 101,000 tonnes. A breakdown of the different waste components from the waste classication trial is shown in Table 1. The recyclable materials chosen for the modelling of the kerbside collection scenarios were: ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass, paper (recyclable element) dense plastic and green waste. These waste materials constitute 55% of the waste stream and are also typical of materials recovered by a large proportion of recycling schemes across the UK (Emery et al., 2000). The percentage of recyclable paper collected (17%) is less than that shown in Table 1 (25%) as not all paper is collected by local authorities due to an element that is difcult to recycle. It should be noted that the collected green waste total is made up of 10% garden waste and 10% kitchen waste. The kitchen waste element consists of fruit, vegetables, peelings, eggshells, tea leaves and coffee grounds as currently collected by the case study unitary authority. The remaining 12% kitchen waste, which consists of cooked foods such as meats, was classed as non-recyclable and collected for landlling. Although this practice has now ceased and only garden waste is collected due to the Animal By-products Regulations. Expected revenue for recovered recyclable materials delivered to a local reprocessor were sourced from Materials Recycling Week magazine (2003). The prices as shown in Table 5 should be regarded with some caution because the price ultimately depends on
Table 5 Revenue generated from 100% of recovered materials Material Ferrous metals Glass Non-ferrous metals Paperrecyclable element Plastic dense Green waste Total Note: n/a stands for not applicable. Mass (tonnes) 4040 7070 1010 17170 6060 20200 55550 Price (/tonne) 20 22 670 10 60 n/a Total price () 80800 155540 676700 171700 363600 0 1448340

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263 Table 6 Variables associated with waste collection vehicles Variables Units Refuse collection vehicle 22000 3 9 2 Split refuse collection vehicle 17000 3 6 2 Regular kerbside vehicle 17000 3 2 2

259

Specialist kerbside vehicle 17000 3 2 2

Annual mileage Number of workers per vehicle Waste collected/run Number collections/day

miles number tonnes number

the quality of recyclate produced, transport costs and the quantities sent to the reprocessor. There is also price volatility, but costs selected are a good representation of the different groups. A garden waste price (compost) was not included, as further research needs to be conducted to ascertain the true value of green waste as a compost or soil conditioner. It should also be noted that the net costs quoted in this paper are the total costs of a particular scenario inclusive of the materials revenue. The gross costs are the total costs exclusive of the recyclable materials revenue. 6.3. Collection vehicles The key variables associated with the different collection vehicles modelled for this exercise are shown in Table 6. All the gures shown can be altered in the model to suit any scenario. Four collection vehicles are available to collect the recyclables and general MSW. The collection gures shown are based on data gathered from similar vehicles that were used in the case study area at the time the model was created. The four types of vehicles used to collect the recyclables and MSW were a regular RCV, a two compartment split RCV, a regular kerbside caged vehicle and a specialist kerbside vehicle. The split RCV collected dry recyclables in one compartment and green waste in the other. A typical example of the average total weight that a RCV collected was 9 tonnes of waste per collection round and two loads per day. It was assumed that the split vehicle could collect 6 tonnes of recyclables per journey, which would be transported in a semi-compacted state. The annual total costs for the running of the four different collection vehicles are shown in Table 7. The RCV annual mileage is higher than the other collection vehicles due to the larger distance travelled to the landll site located on the north boundary the case study area. It was assumed that the other recovery vehicles travelled to a centralised MRF and hence lower overall journey distances. Overheads of 30% have been included for the driver and operatives wages to include ofce administration charges and national insurance contributions.

7. Results of economic modelling From the analysis of the different waste management options the most cost-effective option for the case study area was found to be the split vehicle mixed bag recyclable collection round. This option incorporated a MRF to separate the various recyclable materials.

260

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

Table 7 Assumed total annual running costs for different collection vehicles Variables Units Refuse collection vehicle 22000 6906 105 18200 31200 4000 39260 99671 Split refuse collection vehicle 17000 5336 81.04 18200 31200 4000 51480 110298 Regular kerbside vehicle 17000 3169 48 18200 31200 1000 10400 64017 Specialist kerbside vehicle 17000 3169 48.01 18200 31200 4000 42640 99258

Annual mileage Fuel Oil Wagesdriver Wagesoperatives (2) Insurance Hire costs Total

miles /year /year /year /year /year /year /year

Fig. 7 shows the total net costs of the different waste management options with varying participation rates. The gure also shows the cost comparison for recovery of 100 and 65% of the potential recyclable materials and participation of 100 and 50% of households, respectively. From previous experience it is likely that 50% of the households participating in the kerbside collection scheme recover 65% of the potential recyclable materials would be a more realistic scenario. The kerbside collection scenario net costs increased quite dramatically with an increase in participation rates and the quantities of recovered recyclable materials. The specialist kerbside vehicle scenario costs actually increased as more materials were recovered due to the high hire costs of the recovery vehicles and larger numbers of vehicles required due to a lower collection capacity. The specialist, kerbside vehicle option also had the greatest associated costs out of all the options considered. The incineration scenario would not be considered since the Wales recovery targets would not be reached, although the EU Landll

Fig. 7. Waste management option net costs for varying participation and recovery rates.

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

261

Fig. 8. Total number of jobs associated with different waste management scenarios. Asterisk (*) indicates 100% participation and 100% recovery, (**) 50% participation and 65% recovery and (***) proposed Welsh Waste Strategy Target for 2010.

Directive would be satised. It was interesting to note that all of the scenarios, with the exception of one of the split vehicle scenarios, had higher associated costs than the existing landll scenario. When compared to the landll results the caged kerbside vehicle, specialist kerbside vehicle and thermal pre-treatment results only varied between 2 and 14%. A high participation and recovery rate combined with a collection vehicle with a large capacity for holding recyclables was the most cost-effective option. Due to the large number of kerbside collection vehicles required to collect the recyclable materials the kerbside collection option had the greatest number of associated jobs as shown in Fig. 8. The kerbside collection options generated about 30% more associated jobs than the split vehicle collection option. The thermal pre-treatment option had the fewest associated employment opportunities but this increased quite substantially when a split vehicle, materials recovery scheme was introduced with the overall costs only marginally higher than the regular, kerbside collection vehicle option. It should be noted that changing the inputs can lead to quite signicant changes in nancial model results. Fig. 9 shows the gross results after including the recyclable materials revenue. The inclusion of the materials revenue for the scenarios altered the total costs quite signicantly. The most notable changes occurred in the reduction of total costs for the scenarios modelled on the 100% participation and 100% recovery option. The gross costs for the majority of the scenarios were very similar to the costs of the landll scenario. Altering the scenario inputs can lead to quite signicant differences in outputs. For example, reducing the split vehicle capacity from 6 to 2 tonnes to reduce the compaction of the recyclable materials for increased ease of sorting at the MRF. The net cost of the

262

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

Fig. 9. Waste management optiongross costs for varying participation and recovery rates.

new split vehicle scenario with 100% participation and 100% recovery, was 92/tonne compared with the original result of 53/tonne. This actually increased the split vehicle option from being the most cost-effective scenario to the least cost-effective option out of all the scenarios modelled. The results showed that modelling a variety of participation and recovery rates together with different waste recovery options is advisable to get a clear picture of the potential cost variation before making any decisions. Initial input data such as vehicle costs, wages and materials revenue should also be varied to determined a best and worst case scenario.

8. Conclusions The modelling conducted for the case study area was successful in demonstrating that there are many positive environmental and economic benets in choosing an integrated waste management approach. The modelling has shown that software tools can aid those in the waste management industry in making environmentally and economically sound decisions. A LCA software tool should only be used for identifying opportunities for improvement and not used as the sole basis for a nal decision on a waste strategy. Even though the use of WISARD and other LCA tools in the UK are increasing there are still several barriers that hinder their widespread adoption. The three key barriers are: lack of awareness of the importance of using the life cycle concept, the difcultly in obtaining input data and sufcient knowledge of how to input the data correctly and the lack of understanding of impact assessment methodology and identifying what type of modelling is appropriate for the specic application. The effects of variables such as new legislation, vehicle storage capacities and unpredictable markets can all lead to quite signicant differences when conducting an economic

A. Emery et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 244263

263

analysis. Waste disposal via landll played a signicant role in the economic modelling of all the waste management options investigated. It is highly unlikely that the need for landll sites will be totally eliminated in the immediate future. An integrated approach to the management of household waste will ultimately be the most efcient approach in terms of both economics and also environment benets. Unfortunately, LCA and economic software tools are not designed to take account of social impacts or local issues such as nuisance or noise which also need to be considered.

References
Defra, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Municipal waste management survey 2000/2001. Defra; 2002, ISBN 0 85521 014 1. Defra, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. New gures reveal surge in recycling, retrieved 21 January 2006, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050914a.htm; 2005. DETR. Waste strategy 2000 (England and Wales). Norwich: Her Majestys Stationery Ofce; 2000, ISBN 0 10 146932 2. Emery A, Gibbs A, Grifths AJ, Myrddin S, Williams KP. Analysis of waste entering a typical small landll site in the South Wales valleys, phase 2, report on further composition and weight data. Cardiff University; November 2000 [report no. 2683]. Emery A, Grifths AJ, Williams KP. An in depth study of the effects of socio economic conditions on household waste recycling practices. Waste Manage Res 2003;21:18090. Emery AD, Dey M, Grifths AJ, Williams KP. Economic modelling of collection, treatment and disposal methods for household waste in a typical South Wales community. Cardiff University; 2002 [report no. 2920]. Environment Agency. Household waste and recyclingbackground and data, retrieved 18 January 2006, from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/432430/432434/432453/435561/435649/?version=1& lang= e; 2003. European Parliament and Council Directive. EU Landll Directive 1999/31/EC, retrieved 20 November 2005, from http://europa.eu.int; 1999. Materials Recycling Week. Markets. Materials Recycling Week; November 2003 ed.; 2003. Morrissey AJ, Browne J. Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manage 2004;24:297308. National Assembly for Wales. Pilot study on municipal waste composition in Wales. Cardiff: NAW; 2003. National Assembly of Wales. Wales waste strategywise about waste. Part 2. Cardiff: National Assembly of Wales; 2002. National Statistics. Census 2001, retrieved 25 November 2005, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001; 2001. National Statistics. Municipal waste management survey 20042005: results of the survey for Wales. Cardiff: Statistical Directorate, National Assembly for Wales; 2005. Nilsson-Djerf J, McDougall F. Social factors in sustainable waste management. Warmer Bull 2000;73:1820. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. WISARD reference guide, version 3.7. Pricewaterhouse Coopers; 2006. Standards ISO. ISO 14040life cycle assessment, retrieved 15 January 2006, from http://www.iso14001.org.uk/iso-14040.htm; 1997. Woollam T, Marsh R, Grifths AJ, Williams KP, Emery A. Box, bag or re-using a supermarket carrier bag: a trial of different recycling receptacles. In: 19th international conference on solid waste technology and management; 2004. WS Atkins Environment. Life cycle research programme for waste management: inventory development for waste management operations: landll, nal report. Environment Agency; 1997. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T. The ecological footprint intensity of national economies. J Ind Ecol 2004;8:139.