Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food

Subscriber access provided by La Trobe University Library

Policy Analysis

A Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food Waste Management Strategies in the U.S. Keith L Hodge, James William Levis, Joseph F DeCarolis, and Morton A Barlaz Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00893 • Publication Date (Web): 07 Jul 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 7, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 34

Environmental Science & Technology

1

A Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food Waste

2

Management Strategies in the U.S.

3

Keith L. Hodge,a James W. Levis,*,b Joseph F. DeCarolis,b and Morton A. Barlazb

4

a. TeamAg, Inc.,120 Lake St., Ephrata, PA 17522

5 6

b. North Carolina State University, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Campus Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908

7

*

8

ABSTRACT

9

New regulations and targets limiting the disposal of food waste have been recently enacted in

10

numerous jurisdictions. This analysis evaluated selected environmental implications of food

11

waste management policies using life-cycle assessment. Scenarios were developed to evaluate

12

management alternatives applicable to the waste discarded at facilities where food waste is a

13

large component of the waste (e.g., restaurants, grocery stores, and food processors). Options

14

considered include anaerobic digestion (AD), aerobic composting, waste-to-energy combustion

15

(WTE), and landfilling, and multiple performance levels were considered for each option. The

16

global warming impact ranged from approximately -350 to -45 kg CO2e Mg-1 of waste for

17

scenarios using AD, -190 to 62 kg CO2e Mg-1 for those using composting, -350 to -28 kg CO2e

18

Mg-1 when all waste was managed by WTE, and -260 to 260 kg CO2e Mg-1 when all waste was

19

landfilled. Landfill diversion was found to reduce emissions, while diverting food waste from

20

WTE generally increased emissions. The analysis further found that when a 20-year GWP was

21

used, instead of a 100-yr GWP, every scenario including WTE was preferable to every scenario

Corresponding author. Phone: (919) 515-7823; fax: (919) 515-7908; email: [email protected]

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 34

22

including landfill. Jurisdictions seeking to enact food waste disposal regulations should consider

23

regional factors and material properties before duplicating existing statutes.

24 25

Keywords: solid waste, food waste, life-cycle assessment, decision support, waste-to-energy

2


Page 3 of 34

26


INTRODUCTION

27

In 2013, food waste represented the largest component of discarded municipal solid waste

28

(MSW) in the U.S. at 21%.1 Non-MSW sources (e.g., industrial food manufacturers) in the U.S.

29

generated an estimated 22 million additional tons of food waste.1 California and several New

30

England states and West Coast cities have implemented policies to limit landfill disposal of food

31

waste and promote biological treatment (as summarized in Table S1 in the Supporting

32

Information [SI]). While city-level regulations often include the residential sector, laws at the

33

state level currently focus on large volume, high food waste content industrial, commercial, and

34

institutional (HFW-ICI) waste generators such as restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, and

35

conference centers. Once separated, the most common alternative for food waste treatment in the

36

U.S. is aerobic composting (AC). An emerging alternative in the U.S. is anaerobic digestion

37

(AD) of source-separated food waste in which the generated biogas can be used for energy.

38

Evaluating the system-wide environmental consequences of solid waste management

39

(SWM) decisions is important for guiding policy and achieving environmental goals. Life cycle

40

assessment (LCA) is a framework for systematic environmental evaluation of processes and

41

systems that has been applied to SWM systems in general, and food waste management systems

42

in particular. Laurent et al. reviewed LCA studies of organic waste management alternatives and

43

found that landfills typically had the worst overall environmental performance, while AD and

44

WTE typically outperformed composting.3 Morris et al. performed a meta-analysis of source-

45

separated food waste management LCA studies and reported that composting and AD were

46

preferable to various configurations of WTE and landfilling in consideration of climate change

47

impacts.4 Fruergaard and Astrup concluded that WTE with combined heat and power (CHP) was

3



Page 4 of 34

48

generally preferable to AD with CHP in a Danish setting for source-separated organics,5 and

49

Evangelisti et al. found that AD with CHP outperformed landfilling and WTE of source-

50

separated organics in the UK when considering climate change and acidification impacts.6 Ebner

51

et al. found that co-digestion of food waste and manure reduced GHG emissions by 71%

52

compared to conventional treatment.7 Levis and Barlaz is one of a limited number of studies to

53

have analyzed commercial food waste management alternatives in a U.S. context.8 The study

54

concluded that AD was superior to composting and landfilling, but WTE was not considered.

55

These studies all used source-separated food waste as their functional unit rather than

56

considering a waste composition corresponding to the total waste that HFW-ICI generators must

57

manage. The discarded composition from HFW-ICI generators is on average only 36-75% food

58

waste (Table S3), so there are large quantities of other materials that must also be managed (e.g.,

59

cardboard, plastic film). Not considering these materials is a significant omission when

60

evaluating the environmental implications of food waste policies because the manner in which

61

food waste is separated and managed will affect the cost and environmental implications

62

associated with collecting and treating the remaining waste (i.e., landfilling and WTE both

63

perform differently when food waste is removed).

64

The objective of this study was to evaluate selected environmental implications of food

65

waste management policies in the U.S by comparing alternatives for the management of

66

discarded waste from HFW-ICI entities. Considered treatment alternatives include landfilling,

67

mass burn WTE, composting, and AD.

4


Page 5 of 34


68

MODELING APPROACH

69

Functional Unit and System Boundaries

70

A life-cycle approach was used to quantify emissions and selected environmental impacts

71

associated with several alternatives for HFW-ICI solid waste management. The functional unit

72

was 1 Mg (1000 kg) of HFW-ICI waste with a composition that includes 58% food waste, as

73

detailed in Section 2 of the SI. A mixed waste functional unit (i.e., one that includes 42% non-

74

food waste) was chosen to capture interactions of food waste management alternatives with the

75

larger SWM system. It was assumed that HFW-ICI generators already participate in a recycling

76

program independent of the food waste management decision, so the as-discarded mixed waste

77

composition did not include the portion of recycled materials that were already separated out by

78

the generators, such as plastic and glass containers, ferrous and aluminum cans, and paper and

79

cardboard. Waste component material properties assumed for this study are provided in Table S5.

80

System boundaries were chosen to include all activities from waste collection through

81

treatment and final disposal, as illustrated in Figure 1 based on existing technology in a U.S.

82

context. The analysis used a 100-year time horizon for environmental emissions, which is long

83

enough to include over 99.9% of landfill gas (LFG) generation from food waste using a decay

84

rate of 0.096 yr-1.9

85

Selected life cycle impacts were considered based on their relevance to food waste

86

management and our confidence in the inventory estimates underlying these impact categories.

87

Global warming potential (GWP) was selected given the fugitive methane emissions from

88

landfills and AD, as well as offsets from beneficial recovery of energy and nutrients. Cumulative

5



89

fossil energy demand is important for the energy recovery technologies (i.e., WTE, AD, and

90

landfill). Eutrophication and acidification potential are important when considering the

91

application of nutrients as a fertilizer offset and photochemical smog formation is a potentially

92

significant issue for waste combustion activities.

Page 6 of 34

93

All impacts were calculated using the Tool for the Reduction of and Assessment of

94

Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) methodology10 with the exception of GWP,

95

which was calculated using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method,11,12

96

and cumulative fossil energy demand, which was calculated using the methodology described by

97

Frischknecht et al.13 GWP weighting values are inherently uncertain and have changed as

98

atmospheric science has progressed. GWP was estimated in the base cases using the IPCC 2007

99

methodology (25 kg CO2e kg-1 CH4), which is still the standard in LCA, even though IPCC 2013

100

recommends a GWP of 28 for CH4. Sensitivity cases analyzed the impact of using a range of

101

possible GWPs as described in the Results. The modeling approach described herein was

102

implemented using components of the Solid Waste Optimization Life-Cycle Framework

103

(SWOLF) (go.ncsu.edu/swolf). SWOLF is a multi-stage optimization model that was developed

104

to identify efficient alternatives for solid waste management in consideration of cost, net energy

105

utilization, and a number of environmental emissions.14

106

Scenario Descriptions

107

The food waste management alternatives considered in this study included landfill, WTE,

108

composting, and AD. The mixed waste functional unit dictated a split between source-separated

109

food waste and residual waste (i.e., the remaining non-food waste) in scenarios involving

6


Page 7 of 34


110

composting or AD, so 6 scenarios were analyzed (Table 1). For each scenario, facilities with a

111

range of performance were considered (Table 2). In addition, for each facility, there is the

112

potential for the beneficial use of products (e.g., methane in landfill gas, nutrients in compost), so

113

each facility configuration was modeled under multiple assumptions regarding beneficial use

114

(Table 2) for a total of 36 scenarios.

115

Facility and Process Modeling

116 117

SWOLF model components are summarized in this section, and additional description of modeling parameters is provided in Section 4 of the SI.

118

A mixed waste collection process for the full combined functional unit was applied to the

119

landfill and WTE scenarios, while both source-separated food waste and residual mixed waste

120

collection processes were required for scenarios that include composting or AD. Emissions

121

associated with collection were estimated using a previously developed collection model.15

122

Mixed waste, separate food waste, and residual collection were estimated to require 3.4, 5.3, and

123

4.3 L diesel Mg-1 of waste, respectively (Section 4.6 of the SI).

124

The landfill (LF) receives mixed or residual waste from HFW-ICI generators as well as

125

residual material from composting or AD, depending on the scenario. The modeled landfill was

126

based on Levis and Barlaz (2011) and updated with default values from Levis and Barlaz (2014)

127

to estimate emissions, material use, and energy use associated with construction, operations,

128

closure and post-closure activities, landfill gas and leachate management, and carbon storage.15,17

129

Landfill configurations were differentiated by landfill gas collection system parameters, and

130

divided into “Flare” and “Energy Recovery” beneficial use options. “Flare” assumed that all

7



Page 8 of 34

131

collected landfill gas was burned with no beneficial use, while “Energy Recovery” assumed use

132

of an internal combustion engine to produce electricity when greater than 10 m3 min-1 of gas was

133

available. Table 3 defines the landfill gas collection system parameters used for each landfill

134

configuration. In the base case, biogenic carbon remaining in the landfill after 100 years was

135

considered stored. Further details on the landfill model and data are provided in Section 4.1 of

136

the SI.

137

The WTE facility receives mixed or residual waste from HFW-ICI generators as well as

138

residual material from composting or AD facilities, depending on the scenario. Estimates of

139

emissions, mass flows, and resource use for the WTE facility were based on an updated version

140

of the model presented by Harrison et al.18 Model updates include consideration of heat lost to

141

moisture and ash in each material, the ability to recover aluminum (in addition to ferrous metal)

142

from bottom ash, and the option to beneficially use steam in addition to that used for electricity

143

generation. The inclusion of moisture effects is particularly important for this study given the

144

emphasis on a high moisture content waste stream. In all modeled configurations, energy

145

released during waste combustion was recovered to produce electricity. For the “CHP” beneficial

146

use option, the WTE plant was assumed to also recover heat released during combustion for use

147

in either a district heating system or an industrial process. Table 3 defines energy and metals

148

recovery values used in the WTE configurations. Direct stack emissions of particular pollutants

149

also varied across configurations, and are described in Section 4.2 of the SI. Transportation and

150

management of ash were included in the LCA.

151

The composting facility model was described by Levis and Barlaz.19 The model estimates

152

process-related direct emissions, emissions associated with land application of finished compost,

8


Page 9 of 34


153

as well as emissions associated with energy and material inputs required for the composting

154

process. Soil carbon storage was estimated for the finished compost material. Additional soil

155

carbon storage due to increased humus formation may also occur, but was not included in the

156

base case because the level of this impact is uncertain and dependent on soil, climate, crops, and

157

land management. The importance of this assumption was explored in a sensitivity case.

158

Beneficial use (BU) of the available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the compost were

159

counted as credits to offset mineral fertilizer production, including the relative differences in

160

emissions between mineral fertilizer and cured solids during and after land application. The no

161

BU (NBU) cases did not consider offsets for mineral fertilizer. For AD and composting, the

162

associated use-on-land model also includes fuel use during land application and emissions of

163

NH3, N2O, and NO3- after compost or equivalent fertilizer application. Other studies have

164

evaluated multiple composting technologies, but only windrow configurations were selected for

165

this study because they are the most common process in the U.S. The difference between the two

166

windrow composting facilities was that one included an odor control system and the other did

167

not. Odor was not quantified in this study, but energy associated with operation of the odor

168

control system was included in the Better and Moderate configurations (Table 2). Residual from

169

the composting operation (e.g., removed glass, plastic, or metal contamination) was directed

170

either to landfill or WTE, depending on the scenario. Further details on the composting model

171

and data are provided in Section 4.3 of the SI.

172

Emissions and energy and material inputs associated with AD and downstream material

173

flows were estimated using the AD model developed by Levis and Barlaz.8,20 The modeled AD

174

facility was based on a wet digestion system, as reflected in the assumed moisture content and

9



Page 10 of 34

175

digestate mass flows. The default data were developed from a continuous single-stage wet

176

mesophilic digester. Land application-related emissions and carbon storage for separated

177

digestate solids were estimated in the same manner as for composting. Three configurations were

178

developed by varying the heat rate of the internal combustion engine used for energy recovery

179

(Table 3). Residual from AD (e.g., removed glass, plastic, or metal contamination) was treated as

180

in the composting scenarios. Further details on the AD model and data are provided in Section

181

4.4 of the SI.

182

Each of the food waste management facilities has one or more opportunities for

183

beneficial use of energy and/or fertilizer, which can displace consumption of an equivalent

184

product produced by conventional means. For facilities that generate electricity, the marginal

185

grid mix from the Southeastern Electricity Reliability Council (SERC) reported by Siler-Evans et

186

al.21 was used for the base case with emissions estimated using a tool developed as part of this

187

study using eGRID2012 and ecoinvent v.3.01 data on U.S. electricity generation

188

technologies.22,23 The SERC marginal grid mix is 55% coal and 45% natural gas, and is the

189

region that most closely resembles the U.S. national mix.21 Coal and natural gas marginal fuel

190

sources were also modeled as bounding cases on emissions for electricity generation. The

191

corresponding electrical energy CO2e intensities are 0.89, 1.3, and 0.74 kg CO2e kwh-1 for the

192

base case, marginal coal case, and marginal gas case, respectively. Impact intensities for fossil

193

energy demand, acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical oxidation are given in Table

194

S30. Heat production in WTE CHP cases was assumed to offset an equivalent quantity of heat

195

generated in a natural gas-fired boiler, using emission factors obtained from the ecoinvent v3.01

196

database.23 Where specified, available nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium in compost and

10


Page 11 of 34


197

cured, digested solids were assumed to avoid conventional N, P, and K fertilizer production,

198

application and use respectively, using emission factors adapted from ecoinvent v3.01 (Tables

199

S16 – S18).23 Mineral fertilizer equivalents for N, P, and K of 0.4, 1.0, and 1.0 were used as

200

described by Hansen et al.24 That is, 1 kg of N in compost offsets 0.4 kg of N in mineral

201

fertilizer.

202

RESULTS

203

Selected LCA results for the Base Case scenarios are presented first, followed by

204

sensitivity analyses of additional cases, and finally policy implications of the results. The net

205

GWP calculated for all configurations in all scenarios is shown in Figure 2. A contribution

206

analysis of the AD-WTE scenario by process and key sub-processes is shown in Figure 3, and

207

contribution results for the other scenarios are shown in Figures S1 to S6. As expected, LF

208

scenarios resulted in higher GWP than the other scenarios, primarily due to emissions of methane

209

prior to installation of a gas collection system.

210

Scenarios involving AD perform better than those involving composting due to electricity

211

offsets from AD. Figure 3.b also shows that fugitive biogas is responsible for 63% of the gross

212

GWP for AD (excludes house electricity use), which highlights the importance of modeling

213

assumptions regarding biogas leakage (3% in this study).25 The largest contributor (25 kg CO2e

214

Mg-1) to gross GWP for composting is direct gaseous emissions associated with biodegradation

215

during composting and solids curing, and after land application (86% of gross emissions).

216

Additionally, biogenic carbon storage reduces GHG emissions in AD and composting by 6.3 and

217

9.0 kg CO2e Mg-1, respectively. The largest benefits from carbon storage occur in scenarios that

11



Page 12 of 34

218

include a landfill: 220 to 230 kg CO2e Mg-1 when accepting residual waste (i.e., AD-LF and AC-

219

LF), and 280 kg CO2e Mg-1 when accepting mixed waste (LF).

220

While electrical energy generation from WTE is standard, additional heat recovery at

221

existing WTE facilities is relatively rare in the U.S.26 The WTE (NBU) scenario, which directs

222

all waste to the WTE facility, is comparable in GWP performance to scenarios including AD.

223

This suggests that if a state-of-the-art WTE facility is operating in a given region, the most

224

beneficial strategy in terms of GWP could be to continue directing HFW-ICI waste to WTE. In

225

contrast, there is a large benefit associated with diverting food waste from landfills to AD,

226

composting, or WTE.

227

Comparing the emissions from the landfill in the LF scenarios versus the AD-LF and AC-

228

LF shows the importance of modeling each waste component separately. In the LF scenarios,

229

LFG emissions dominate net GWP (370 kg CO2e Mg-1) as a result of rapidly-degrading food

230

waste producing methane that is released prior to installation of the LFG collection system. In

231

the AD-LF and AC-LF scenarios, LFG emissions are reduced (170 kg CO2 Mg-1), because most

232

of the food waste has been diverted, and the remaining degradable materials (mostly cardboard

233

and paper products) degrade more slowly and less completely, so more of the gas is collected and

234

treated (using the gas collection schedule in Table 3), and more carbon is stored. Studies that

235

consider food waste only, without the other waste components generated at HFW-ICIs, will not

236

capture changes in the performance of facilities from which the food waste is diverted. Similarly,

237

studies that do not consider the decay rates, staged LFG collection, and carbon storage factors for

238

individual waste components will also miss changes in the performance of facilities from which

239

the food waste is diverted.

12


Page 13 of 34


240

The disaggregated results indicate that waste collection from HFW-ICI generators

241

contributes 14 kg CO2e Mg-1 in the mixed waste cases and 19 kg CO2e Mg-1 in the separate

242

collection cases (Section 4.6 of the SI). Disaggregation also shows that mineral fertilizer offsets

243

only reduce AD and composting GHG emissions by 14 kg CO2e Mg-1. Surprisingly, use of CHP

244

in the WTE scenario incurs a GWP penalty (59 kg CO2e Mg-1) compared to generating only

245

electricity (Figure 2). This is because less electrical energy is produced in the WTE CHP

246

scenario and the recovered steam offsets natural gas in the base case, which has a lower GHG

247

intensity than electrical energy generation. These results are sensitive to the assumptions

248

associated with CHP (e.g., maximizing heat production) and could vary with other CHP systems

249

and in regions where district heating from CHP is more widely used (e.g. northern Europe).

250

Figure 4 shows net photochemical oxidation potential (as NOX-eq) for all scenarios. NOx

251

and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions are the major contributors to

252

this impact category. Comparison of the moderate configurations for each scenario shows that

253

LF (NBU) and AC-LF scenarios have the lowest NOx-eq. emissions. WTE and AD facilities

254

result in relatively high smog formation potential because biogas engines tend to have higher

255

NOx and NMVOC emissions than flares, which were used in the LF (NBU) scenario (Table S8).

256

Scenarios involving the Worse Case and Fleet Average WTE configurations have four times

257

higher NOx emissions compared to state-of-the-art (SOTA) WTE configurations that include a

258

greater level of NOx control.

259

Scenario-level results for other impact categories (acidification, eutrophication, CED-

260

fossil) are presented in the SI (Figures S7-S9). The rankings for these categories tend to be

261

similar to GWP. Scenarios involving WTE consistently outperform those involving a landfill,

13



Page 14 of 34

262

and AD typically outperformed composting. Sensitivity analyses are presented in the following

263

section to evaluate the robustness of the results and to develop policy-relevant insights into the

264

waste management system.

265

Sensitivity Analysis

266

Sensitivity analyses were conducted on selected model parameters including the marginal

267

fuel for electricity offsets, carbon storage and peat substitution, inclusion of CHP in LF and AD

268

scenarios, and alternate carbon accounting protocols and the results are summarized in Figure 5.

269

Electricity offsets are major contributors to net GWP in all scenarios involving WTE, AD, or LF

270

(BU). The base case assumes that each unit of electricity produced avoids one marginal unit of

271

electricity from the SERC regional grid, but sensitivity analyses were performed on electricity

272

generation from 100% coal and 100% natural gas (1.3 and 0.74 kg CO2e kWh-1). Resulting GWP

273

for all scenarios for the natural gas case are shown in Figure 6, with comparisons to base case

274

results. Switching to natural gas increases the GWP of all scenarios involving electricity

275

generation by 11 to 75 kg CO2e Mg-1. Results for the coal case showed that a more carbon-

276

intensive grid resulted in greater benefits to scenarios that produce electricity, particularly AD-

277

WTE (both) and WTE (NBU). The change in marginal emissions offset was sufficient for WTE

278

(NBU) and AD-WTE (NBU) to both outperform AD-LF by approximately 33%. These results

279

suggest that as marginal emissions decrease over time, the benefits of energy recovery from

280

waste will also decline.

281 282

Sensitivity cases were conducted on moisture content and anaerobic conversion of biogenic carbon to explore how food waste material properties affect environmental

14


Page 15 of 34


283

performance. Sensitivity to food waste moisture content was evaluated by increasing and

284

decreasing the moisture contents of vegetable and non-vegetable food waste (i.e., 77% and 57%,

285

respectively), by 15 percentage points. Increasing moisture content improves landfill

286

performance by 60 to 110 kg CO2e Mg-1 and significantly reduces the benefits of AD and WTE

287

(e.g., AD-WTE [NBU] GHG emissions increase by 77 kg CO2e Mg-1). This is because increasing

288

the moisture content effectively reduces the methane yield and the LHV of the waste. Decreasing

289

the moisture content has the opposite effect, making WTE [NBU] the top performing scenario.

290

These results indicate that there may be a role for drying pretreatment processes to improve WTE

291

performance with wet materials.

292

The anaerobic conversion of biogenic carbon in AD and the landfill was varied from 50

293

to 100%. The methane yields for the 50% conversion case were 223 and 264 m3 CH4 dry Mg-1

294

for vegetable and non-vegetable food waste, respectively, while the base case methane yield was

295

369 m3 dry Mg-1. This range of methane yields is similar to the range of reported values (Table

296

S29). Changing the percent of biogenic carbon converted to biogas simultaneously changes the

297

amount of carbon stored (i.e., lower carbon conversion leads to increased storage). Using a lower

298

methane yield reduced the benefits of AD, which made the WTE scenarios and composting more

299

competitive alternatives. In the low methane yield case, there was actually a penalty for diverting

300

food waste from the landfill with energy recovery to composting because of lost electricity

301

generation and carbon storage. Using a high methane yield did not significantly alter scenario

302

rankings, though the GWP of the LF scenarios increased by over 110 kg CO2e Mg-1. These

303

results illustrate how scenario-level GWP performance and rankings are dependent upon food

15



304

waste material properties. It may be appropriate for regulators to consider these properties in

305

determining diversion requirements from particular categories of HFW-ICI generators.

306

Page 16 of 34

A sensitivity analysis was also performed on the substitution of peat with increased

307

humus formation for compost produced from AD and composting. The use of peat instead of a

308

fertilizer offset did not change any of the rankings from the Base Case, and the results for the AD

309

and AC scenarios changed by less than 20 kg CO2e Mg-1. Thus, the selection of a fertilizer or

310

peat offset does not substantially change the results.

311

A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the potential benefits of adding

312

supplemental heat recovery to both AD and landfill. It was assumed that 75% of waste heat could

313

be recovered, including a penalty of 25% on the electrical energy heat rate. For the AD system,

314

10% of the recovered heat was assumed to be used to heat the digester. As expected, the addition

315

of CHP improves AD and landfill performance, which improves the performance of the AD-LF

316

(BU) case by (46 kg CO2e Mg-1), while having minimal effect on the rankings.

317

Additional sensitivity analyses were performed on GWP factors to explore the effects of

318

different carbon accounting assumptions. In total five sets of GWP factors were considered: (1)

319

the base case which used the 2007 IPCC 100-yr GWP (CH4 = 25; Emitted Biogenic CO2 = 0;

320

Stored Biogenic CO2 = -1); (2) 2013 IPCC 100-yr GWP with aerosol effects (CH4 = 34; Emitted

321

Biogenic CO2 = 0; Stored Biogenic CO2 = -1); (3) 2007 IPCC 100-yr GWP (CH4 = 25; Emitted

322

Biogenic CO2 = 1; Stored Biogenic CO2 = 0); (4) 2007 IPCC 20-yr GWP (CH4 = 72; Emitted

323

Biogenic CO2 = 0; Stored Biogenic CO2 = -1); and (5) 2007 IPCC 20-yr GWP (CH4 = 72;

324

Emitted Biogenic CO2 = 1; Stored Biogenic CO2 = 0). For 100-yr GWP, changing accounting of

325

biogenic carbon emissions and storage did not change the rankings of the best seven scenarios

16


Page 17 of 34


326

compared to the Base Case, and did not change the rankings at all when comparing 20-yr GWPs.

327

The results indicate that increasing the GWP of CH4 has the largest effect on the rankings due to

328

the fugitive CH4 emissions from AD and landfills (Table S27). For the 20-yr GWP cases, WTE

329

(BU and NBU) performed the best, followed by AD-WTE (BU and NBU), followed by AC-

330

WTE (BU and NBU). The six scenarios involving landfills performed the worst. The results

331

show that the benefits of WTE were robust no matter the GWP accounting method, while

332

increasing the GWP of CH4 emissions (i.e., 2013 IPCC GWP, and 20-yr GWP) led to significant

333

penalties for scenarios that used landfills.

334

The net GWP results shown in Figure 5 reveal several trends that remain consistent

335

across sensitivity cases. In most cases, AD-LF (BU) was the top performer, but was out-

336

performed by WTE when coal was assumed to be the source of marginal electricity, when AD

337

generated less electricity (low methane yield, high moisture content), and when the GWP of CH4

338

was increased (2013 IPCC GWP, and 20-yr GWP). In ten of the thirteen cases presented, the

339

difference in net GWP between first- and second-ranked scenarios as a percent of the range for

340

that case was less than 10%, which is likely within model accuracy.

341

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

342

The results show that in most cases, it is beneficial to divert food waste from a landfill to

343

AD, composting, or WTE, but often not beneficial to divert food waste from WTE. AD

344

outperformed composting in terms of GWP in most cases, but the treatment options were more

345

comparable when electricity produced at AD offset less GHG-intensive natural gas electricity

17



Page 18 of 34

346

and when food waste methane yields were reduced by 50%. Generally, the AD-LF (BU) scenario

347

was the leading alternative in terms of GWP.

348

The results indicate that the benefits of energy recovery are dependent on the GHG

349

intensity of electricity generation. Regions with more GHG intensive electrical grids therefore

350

have more incentive to switch to AD or WTE, and as electrical grids get cleaner over time, the

351

benefits of energy recovery in AD or WTE may decrease.

352

The increased GWP associated with diverting food waste from WTE challenges the

353

assumption that food waste diversion to composting or AD is always beneficial. In particular, a

354

future case study could evaluate the Massachusetts commercial food waste diversion regulation,

355

which requires diversion of commercial organics from combustion facilities. This is especially

356

important since Massachusetts combusts a larger proportion of its waste than any state but

357

Connecticut, and since New England is the most attractive region in the country for district

358

heating systems that can utilize steam produced from CHP.

359

Results of sensitivity analysis on food waste material properties suggest that certain

360

properties (e.g., moisture content and methane yield) have a notable impact on the relative

361

ranking of scenarios. Changing the moisture content effectively changed the LHV, methane

362

yield, and nutrient content and therefore affected all scenarios, while changing the methane yield

363

affected AD and landfill facilities. Based on the possible changes to overall SWM system results,

364

it could be beneficial to consider food waste characteristics (e.g., moisture content, nutrient

365

content, or methane yield), when developing diversion policies for HFW-ICI generators.

366

The analysis showed that the choice of GWP time horizon significantly alters the

367

rankings of the scenarios. When using a 100-yr GWP, AD-LF was typically the best performing

18


Page 19 of 34


368

alternative, but in the 20-yr GWP cases, no scenario that included landfills was among the best

369

six scenarios. While 100-yr GWP is still the most used standard metric for global warming

370

impacts, the choice of GWP time horizon is subjective and the best metric will depend on the

371

application and policy context.12 Increasing interest in mitigating short-term climate impacts

372

could increase interest in switching to a 20-yr GWP standard, which would make minimizing

373

fugitive CH4 emissions at landfills the primary global warming concern from SWM systems. If

374

20-yr GWP did become standard, then excluding WTE as a food waste diversion alternative

375

would appear to be even more counterproductive because both WTE scenarios performed the

376

best in the 20-yr GWP cases.

377

The recommendations described above are in large part based on moderate configurations

378

for all scenarios. Comparing better with worse configurations, for example, could produce a

379

different set of results and rankings, which indicates that it is important to evaluate actual or site-

380

specific facility performance in decision making. The conclusions are also primarily based on the

381

global warming impacts. The analysis found that while scenario rankings for fossil energy use,

382

acidification, and eutrophication generally followed global warming, photochemical oxidation

383

did not. Increasing use of WTE and AD could potentially exacerbate photochemical oxidation

384

impacts, so trade-offs among environmental impacts should also be considered when formulating

385

food waste diversion policies.

386

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

387 388

This work was supported by Covanta Energy, the National Science Foundation (CBET1034059) and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation.

19



389 390 391

Page 20 of 34

SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional methodology details, results, and discussion are provided in the SI. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.

392

20


Page 21 of 34

393


REFERENCES

394 395 396

1. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 Fact Sheet; U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery: Washington, DC, 2014; http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf

397 398 399

2. Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers, Retailers, and Wholesalers; BSR, 2013; http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/FWRA_BSR_Tier2_FINAL.pdf.

400 401 402 403

3. Laurent, A.; Bakas, I.; Clavreul, J.; Bernstad, A.; Niero, M.; Gentil, E.; Hauschild, M. Z.; Christensen, T. H. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 2014, 34 (3), 573–588; DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.

404 405 406

4. Morris, J.; Matthews, S. H.; Morawski, C. Review and meta-analysis of 82 studies on end-oflife management methods for source separated organics. Waste Manage. 2012, 33(3), 545– 551; DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.004.

407 408

5. Fruergaard, T.; Astrup, T. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective. Waste Manage. 2011, 31(3), 572–582; DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.009.

409 410 411

6. Evangelisti, S.; Lettieri, P.; Borello, D.; Clift, R. Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study. Waste Manage. 2014, 34(1), 226–237; DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.013.

412 413 414 415

7. Ebner, J. H.; Labatut, R. A.; Rankin, M. J.; Pronto, J. L.; Gooch, C. A.; Williamson, A. A.; Trabold, T. a. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of an Anaerobic Codigestion Facility Processing Dairy Manure and Industrial Food Waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (18), 1199–1208; DOI 10.1021/acs.est.5b01331.

416 417 418

8. Levis, J. W.; Barlaz, M. A. What is the most environmentally beneficial way to treat commercial food waste? Environ. Sci. & Technol. 2011, 45(17), 7438–7444; DOI 10.1021/es103556m.

419 420 421

9. De la Cruz, F.B. and Barlaz, M.A. Estimation of Waste Component-Specific Landfill Decay Rates Using Laboratory-Scale Decomposition Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 47224728; DOI 10.1021/es100240r.

422 423 424

10. Bare, J. TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol. Envir. 2011, 13, 687–696; DOI 10.1007/s10098010-0338-9.

21



Page 22 of 34

425 426

11. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2007.

427 428

12. Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2013.

429 430 431

13. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007; http://www.esuservices.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/03_LCIA-Implementation.pdf.

432 433 434 435

14. Levis, J. W.; Barlaz, M. A.; DeCarolis, J. F.; Ranjithan, S. R. Systematic exploration of efficient strategies to manage solid waste in U.S municipalities: Perspectives from the solid waste optimization life-cycle framework (SWOLF). Environ. Sci. and Technol. 2014, 48(7), 3625–3631; DOI 10.1021/es500052h.

436 437 438

15. Jaunich, M. K., Levis, J. W., Barlaz M. A., & Ranjithan, S. R., A Life-cycle Process Model for Municipal Solid Waste Collection, J. Environ. Eng-ASCE. 2016, (in-press); DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001065.

439 440 441

16. Levis, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A. Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill greenhouse gas inventory model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45(13), 5470–5476; DOI 10.1021/es200721s.

442 443 444

17. Levis, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A. Landfill Gas Monte Carlo Model Documentation and Results. Report to ICF for the U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM), 2014, http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/pdfs/lanfl_gas_mont_carlo_modl.pdf.

445 446

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. 2000, 50(6), 993–1003; DOI .

447 448

19. Levis, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A., Composting Process Model Documentation. Internal Report, 2013, http://go.ncsu.edu/swolf_composting.

449 450

20. Levis, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A., Anaerobic Digestion Process Model Documentation. Internal Report, 2013, http://go.ncsu.edu/swolf_ad.

451 452

21. Siler-Evans, K.; Azevedo, I.L., Marginal Emissions Factors for the U.S. Electricity System. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46(9), 4742-4748; DOI dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300145v .

453 454

22. Ninth edition of eGRID with year 2010 data (Version 1.0); U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 2014; http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/.

22


Page 23 of 34


455 456 457

23. Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2013; https://www.ecoinvent.org/files/dataqualityguideline_ecoinvent_3_20130506.pdf.

458 459 460 461

24. Hansen, T. L.; Bhander, G. S.; Christensen, T. H.; Bruun, S.; Jensen, L. S. Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage. Res. 2006, 24(2), 153–166; DOI 10.1177/0734242X06063053.

462 463 464

25. Sanscartier, D.; Maclean, H. L.; Saville, B. Electricity production from anaerobic digestion of household organic waste in Ontario: techno-economic and GHG emission analyses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46(2), 1233–1242; DOI 10.1021/es2016268.

465 466

26. The 2010 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants; Energy Recovery Council, Washington, DC, 2010; http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/ERC_2010_Directory.pdf.

467 468

23



469

TABLES AND FIGURES

470

Table 1. Waste material routing for each food waste management scenario. Scenario Name LF WTE AD-LF AD-WTE AC-LF AC-WTE

Page 24 of 34

Description All waste collected together and disposed in a landfill. All waste collected together and combusted in WTE with the bottom and fly ash to an ash landfill. Food waste collected separately and treated by AD, residuals to landfill. Food waste collected separately and treated by AD, residuals to WTE, and WTE bottom and fly ash to ash landfill. Food waste collected separately and treated by composting, residuals to landfill. Food waste collected separately and treated by composting, residuals to WTE, and WTE bottom and fly ash to ash landfill.

471 472 473 474

24


Page 25 of 34

475


Table 2. Beneficial use options, and facility configurations for each management alternative. Waste Management Facility LF WTE AD AC

476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

h. i. j. k. l.

Configurations Beneficial Use (BUa / No BU) Energy Recoveryb / Flarec CHPg / No CHP Fertilizer Offseti / Nonej Fertilizer Offsetl / Nonej

Better Moderate SOTAd,e U.S. Nat’l Avg.e SOTAd,h Fleet Avg.h k Better Case Typicalk Windrows, Under Roof with Biofilter

Worse NSPS Limitsf Worse Case h Worse Casek Windrows, Open

BU = Beneficial Use. Energy Recovery. Collected landfill gas is treated and burned in an internal combustion engine to produce electricity when sufficient gas (10 m3 min-1) is collected. All collected landfill gas is flared without beneficial use. State-of-the-art. Definition for SOTA varies by facility. SOTA and U.S. national average MSW landfill gas generation and collection characteristics adopted from Levis and Barlaz.17 New Source Performance Standards set minimum landfill gas collection requirements. Combined Heat and Power. The CHP case here assumes 50% of the energy in steam generated in the WTE boiler is exported for district or industrial process heat and 50% is used in a turbine to generate electricity. The no CHP case assumes all steam from the WTE boiler is used for electricity production. WTE SOTA, fleet average, and worse case emissions and performance data from M. Van Brunt, Covanta Energy (pers. comm.). Beneficial Use. Curing and subsequent land application of dewatered solids from digestate. Land application of solids offsets inorganic fertilizer use and promotes soil quality. None involves land disposal of cured dewatered digestate or compost product, providing carbon storage but no nutrient offsets or soil quality promotion. Better Case, Typical, Worse Case indicate predicted range of performance for AD facilities using food waste as their primary feedstock. Based on variation of biogas engine efficiency. Beneficial use of compost offsets inorganic fertilizer production.

25



498

Table 3. Selected treatment facility parameters for three configurations. Parameters

499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515

Page 26 of 34

Better

Moderate Worse U.S. National Avg.a NSPS Limitsa 2 5 50 50 5 5

SOTAa Landfill Gas Collectiona Time until initial gas collection (yr) 0.5 Initial gas collection efficiency (%) 50 Time to intermediate cover (yr) 3 Gas collection efficiency under intermediate cover 75 75 75 (%)j Time to increased gas collection efficiency (yr) 15 15 15 Increased gas collection efficiency (%) 82.5 82.5 82.5 Time from final waste placement to final cover (yr) 1 1 1 Gas collection efficiency under final cover (%) 90 90 90 Landfill Energy Recovery/ Methane Oxidation Electrical energy recovery efficiencyb (%) 36.5 36.5 36.5 Energy recovery cut-on timec (yr) 5 5 5 Energy recovery cut-off timec (yr) 52 52 52 Energy recovery downtime (%) 3 3 3 Without gas collection or final cover (%) 10 10 10 With gas collection, before final cover (%) 20 20 20 With final cover (%) 35 35 35 WTE Facility SOTAd Fleet Avg.d Worsee f Net Electrical Efficiency (%) (with CHP) 10.3 8.8 7.6 Net Heat Recovery Efficiency (%) (with CHP only) 37.5 33.0 30.6 Net Electrical Efficiency (%) (without CHP) 24.4 20.9 18.2 Ferrous Recovery from Ash (%) 90 90 90 Aluminum Recovery from Ash (%) 65 35 35 Copper Recovery from Ash (%)g 0 0 0 AD Facility Better Case Typical Worse Case Electricity generation efficiency (%)h 40.2 36.5 32.9 Biogas leakage (% of biogas produced)i 3 3 3 Percent of captured gas that is flared without 3 3 3 electricity generation. -1 i Specific electricity usage (kWh Mg ) 58 58 58 a. Values adopted from Levis and Barlaz unless otherwise noted.17 b. Efficiency chosen based on manufacturer specifications. Refer to Table S6 for details. c. Energy recovery cut-on and cut-off times indicate the number of years after initial waste placement that the energy recovery system becomes operational and ceases operation, respectively. The chosen values are based on estimates of the time span over which sufficient gas (10 m3 min-1) is collected from the landfill, with a one-year delay of cut-on to account for system installation. d. Values obtained from M. Van Brunt, Covanta Energy (pers. comm.). e. Values adopted from fleet average, except where noted. Note that stack emission rates for particular pollutants vary between fleet average and worse case. Refer to Table S9. f. This represents the fraction of the LHV of the waste stream that is converted to electricity. The overall energy recovery efficiency would be the value in this row plus the Net Heat Recovery Efficiency. g. Though copper recovery is typically practiced, it was not considered in this study due to the low copper content expected in the HFW-ICI composition. h. Efficiency is expressed as percent of energy in combusted methane, on LHV basis. “Typical” value chosen following procedure described for landfill gas engine. “Better Case” and “Worse Case” are 110% and 90%, respectively, of “Typical.” i. Adopted from Sanscartier et al.25

26


Page 27 of 34

516 517 518 519


j.

U.S. regulations require 30 cm of intermediate cover in an area of the landfill where additional waste will not be placed for 12 months. This has the effect of improving landfill gas collection efficiency.

27



Page 28 of 34

520

Figure 1 – Simplified process flow diagrams for each of the processing alternatives. As described in Table 1, six scenarios were analyzed and food waste may be collected either separately or with mixed waste. Construction, fuel combustion, and direct emissions are calculated for each process, as well the emissions associated with electricity, fuel, and raw material production. Offset processes represent avoided emissions from beneficial use or recovery of materials or energy. 521 522 523 524 525

28


Page 29 of 34

526 527 528 529 530 531


Figure 2 – Net GWP for each scenario and configuration. The bar outlines represent the range of values for all scenarios modeled and the individual symbols correspond to configurations described in Table 2. Selected life-cycle inventory results for the moderate configuration of each of the six scenarios are shown in Tables S21 to S26.

29



Page 30 of 34

(a)

(b)

(c)

532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541

Figure 3 – Contribution analysis for the AD-WTE scenario; (a) the processes involved in the AD-WTE scenario (waste collection, WTE, AD, and material reprocessing for metals recovered from WTE), (b) the AD facility, and (c) the WTE facility as it performs in the AD-WTE scenario. Results are based on moderate configuration, with beneficial use. Processes contributing less than 5% of gross GWP are not shown in (b) and (c) for clarity.

30


Page 31 of 34

542 543 544 545 546


Figure 4 – Net photochemical oxidation potential for each scenario and configuration. The bar outlines represent the range of values for all scenarios modeled and the individual symbols correspond to configurations described in Table 2.

547

31



548 549 550 551 552

Page 32 of 34

Figure 5 – Net GWP for the moderate configurations of each sensitivity case excluding GWP cases and the pure food waste case. Associated rankings and GWP values are shown in Table S27, and net GWP results for each scenario are shown in Figures S10 to S17.

553 554

32


Page 33 of 34

555 556 557 558 559 560 561


Figure 6 – Net GWP for each scenario and configuration under the natural gas case (0.74 kg CO2e kWh-1). Wide bar outlines present the range of values for all scenarios modeled and the individual symbols correspond to configurations described in Table 2. Thin bars show the range of Base case results using the SERC regional grid (0.89 kg CO2e kWh-1) (Figure 2).

33



Page 34 of 34

For Table of Contents Only

562 563

7 TOC Art

564 565

34


Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food

Recommend Documents