Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste ... · i Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced...

i

Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste Management

Technologies for Improved Recycling Rates

February 2016

Nurcin Celik

University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Department of Industrial Engineering

And

Duygu Yasar and Mehrad Bastani

University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Department of Industrial Engineering

Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management University of Florida

P. O. Box 116016

Gainesville, FL 32611

www.hinkleycenter.org

Report # 10387

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. vii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. viiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... xi

RESEARCH TEAM .................................................................................................................................. xiv

DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. xv

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 2

2.1 Biochemical Treatment Technologies........................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Anaerobic Digestion ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1.2 Depolymerization .................................................................................................................. 5

2.1.3 Windrow Composting ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1.4 Static Pile Composting .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1.5 In-vessel Composting ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Advanced Thermal Solid Waste Management Technologies ....................................................... 6

2.2.1 Gasification ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Plasma Arc Gasification ........................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Physical Technologies................................................................................................................... 8

DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Defining Criteria Set .................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Contacting SMEs ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Categorization of Counties.......................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Types in Floridian Counties .......................................................... 11

3.3.2 Floridian County Categories for AHP................................................................................. 12

3.4 Technology Data ........................................................................................................................... 15

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) .......................................................................................... 15

5. AHP RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 16

5.1 Criteria Weights .......................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Global Priorities of Technologies ............................................................................................... 20

iii

6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 22

7. CURRENT STATE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA .................................................. 24

7.1 Waste to Energy Facilities in Florida .......................................................................................... 25

7.2 Composting and AD Facilities .................................................................................................... 27

8. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 29

8.1 Current Recycling Rates of Counties .......................................................................................... 29

8.2 Maximum and Minimum Capacities of Alternatives .................................................................. 30

9. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 366

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 387

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Pictures from events ......................................................................................................... xviivi

FIGURE 2. Management phases of a MSW landfill throughout life-cycle ................................................ 1

FIGURE 3. Traditional open loop (left) and advanced disposal landfills close loop cycles (right) ........... 3

FIGURE 4. Categorization of advanced solid waste management technologies ........................................ 4

FIGURE 5. Harvest’s Energy Garden in Central Florida ........................................................................... 5

FIGURE 6. AHP structure for ATSWMT evaluation ............................................................................... 10

FIGURE 7. AHP structure for ABSWM technology evaluation .............................................................. 10

FIGURE 8. Grouping process of Floridian counties ............................................................................... 133

FIGURE 9. Florida map displaying groups of counties .......................................................................... 144

FIGURE 10. Explanation of 1-9 Saaty Scale .......................................................................................... 166

FIGURE 11. Criteria weights for evaluation of ATSWMT .................................................................... 188

FIGURE 12. Overall inconsistency ratios (IR) (<<0.1) for evaluation of ATSWMT ............................ 188

FIGURE 13. Criteria weights for evaluation of ABSWMT ..................................................................... 20

FIGURE 14. Overall inconsistency ratios (IR) (<<0.1) for evaluation of ABSWMT .............................. 20

FIGURE 15. Global priorities of ATSWMT .......................................................................................... 211

FIGURE 16. Global priorities of ABSWMT .......................................................................................... 222

FIGURE 17. Sensitivity analysis results for ATSWMT ......................................................................... 233

FIGURE 18. Sensitivity analysis results for ABSWMT ......................................................................... 244

FIGURE 19. Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility............................................................................ 276

FIGURE 20. Organic waste treatment facilities in Florida (Zimms and Ver Eecke, 2012) ................... 287

FIGURE 21. Okeechobee composting facility........................................................................................ 298

FIGURE 22. Counties with annually 400,000 tons or greater waste landfilled ...................................... 321

FIGURE 23. Groups of counties in the final recommendations ............................................................... 35

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. WTE facilities in Florida ......................................................................................................... 25

TABLE 2. AHP results and technology capacity interaction ................................................................... 29

TABLE 3. Recycling rates and waste generation of Floridian counties ................................................... 33

TABLE B.1. Consolidated matrix of Group 1 for criteria pairwise comparisons .................................... 39








TABLE C.1. Consolidated matrix of Group 1 for criteria pairwise comparisons .................................... 43








vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABSWMT : Advanced biological solid waste management technologies

ATSWMT : Advanced thermal solid waste management technologies

ASWMT : Advanced solid waste management technologies

AIJ : Aggregation of individual judgments

AD : Anaerobic digestion

AHP : Analytical Hierarchy Process

C&D : Construction and demolition

FDEP : Florida Department of Environmental Protection

GHG : Greenhouse gas

IVC : In-vessel composting

MSW : Municipal solid waste

SWM : Solid waste management

SMEs : Subject matter experts

TPY : Tons per year

USEPA : United States Environmental Protection Agency

WTE : Waste-to-energy

vii

FINAL REPORT

(November 2014 - November 2015)

PROJECT TITLE: Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste

Management Technologies for Improved Recycling Rates

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Nurcin Celik, Ph.D.

AFFILIATION: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Miami

EMAIL: [email protected]

PHONE NUMBER: 1-305-284-2391

PROJECT WEBSITE: http://www.coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html

COMPLETION DATE: November 2015

TAG MEMBERS: Alberto Caban-Martinez, Brenda S. Clark, Bryan Tindell,

Helena Solo- Gabriele, Jeremy O’Brien, Kathleen Woods-

Richardson, Kendra F. Goff, Kenneth P. Capezzuto, Lora

Fleming, Michael J. Fernandez, Nurcin Celik, Patti

Hamilton, Paul J. Mauriello, Paul Valenti, Ram

Narasimhan, Samuel B. Levin, Scott Harper, Sean

Williams, Shihab Asfour, Stanley D. Gray, Tim Vinson,

Timothy G. Townsend

KEY WORDS: Advanced solid waste management technologies, analytical

hierarchy process, sustainability, improved recycling rates

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html

viii

ABSTRACT

The burgeoning growth observed in the solid waste generation combined with the increase in the

regulation of disposal operations and dwindling availability of suitable disposal sites, have made

the planning and operation of integrated solid waste management systems progressively more

challenging. As a result of these factors, and growing pressures for environmental protection and

sustainability, the State of Florida has established an ambitious 75% recycling goal, to be

achieved by the year 2020. This study aims to identify and evaluate new and emerging advanced

solid waste management technologies and their potential to help state reach its recycling goal by

2020, in a manner that is structurally unified, and useful for practitioners in terms of various

criteria such as revenue, tipping fee, capital cost, operation cost, development period, flexibility

of process, land requirement, net conversion efficiency, ease of obtaining permits, marketability,

environmental impact, public acceptability, number of facilities.

In the first phase of the study, new and emerging solid waste technologies which can help

Florida reach its recycling goal in an environmentally friendly and economically feasible way,

were identified. The advanced solid waste management technologies considered in this study

includes gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis, windrow composting, static piles

composting, in-vessel composting, and anaerobic digestion. Data regarding the identified

technologies were collected. Analytical Hierarchy Process, which is a multi-criteria evaluation

method were utilized for a comprehensive evaluation of technologies. In order to implement the

AHP methodology for the evaluation, solid waste management divisions of 67 counties in

Florida along with several facilities that embrace these technologies were contacted. Following

the AHP analysis, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate how input uncertainty might

impact the AHP results.

In the final phase of the study, recommendations were provided at the county level by

considering the combined results from the AHP, sensitivity analysis as well as the current waste

management practices and recycling rates of the counties, their geographical proximity to each

other, and waste treatment capacities of the recommended technologies. Larger counties are

grouped with adjacent small counties to treat their waste jointly. The total potential improvement

in the recycling rates (through the presented recommendations) is estimated to be as large as

17.9%.

ix

METRICS:

1. List graduate student or postdoctoral researchers funded by THIS Hinkley Center project

2. List undergraduate researchers working on THIS Hinkley Center project

Name: Gregory Collins

Department: Department of Industrial Engineering

Professor: Dr. Nurcin Celik

Institution: University of Miami

3. List research publications resulting from THIS Hinkley Center project (use format for

publications as outlined in Section 1.13 of this Report Guide).

Journal Paper: Yasar, D., Celik, N., and Sharit, J. “Evaluation of advanced thermal

solid waste management technologies for sustainability in Florida,” International

Journal of Performability Engineering 12(01) (2016).

Book Chapter: Yasar, D. and Celik, N., Assessment of Advanced Biological

Treatment Technologies for Sustainability, IGI Global, PA, 2015, Joo, S. H. (Eds.),

Applying Nanotechnology for Environmental Sustainability, IGI Global, accepted.

Yasar, D. and Celik, N., “Assessment of advanced thermal solid waste management

technologies,” Talking Trash Newsletter of the SWANA Florida Sunshine Chapter

p.8 (2015).

4. List research presentations (as outlined in 1.13.6 of this Report Guide) resulting from

THIS Hinkley Center project.

Our team has presented the progress of the first phase of this work during our TAG I

meeting in February 20, 2015.

Our team has presented the progress of the second and third phases of this work

during our TAG II meeting in August 18, 2015.

Aristotelis Thanos presented two of our projects including this one during Hinkley

Center Colloquium, Tallahassee, FL, USA in September 24, 2015.

Duygu Yasar, Gregory Collins, and Mehrad Bastani attended SWANA’s National

Solid Waste Design Competition (SWDC) on August 24, 2015 in Orlando, FL. Three

hydrogen sulfide removal technologies namely SulfaTreat, Bio-trickling filter, and

LO-CAT which reduce hydrogen sulfide in the collected landfill gas were evaluated

Last name, first name Rank Department Professor Institution

Bastani, Mehrad Ph.D. Candidate Department of Industrial

Engineering

Prof. Nurcin

Celik

University of

Miami

Yasar, Duygu Ph.D. Student Department of Industrial

Engineering

Prof. Nurcin

Celik

University of

Miami

x

in the competition design report. The methodology used in this project for the

evaluation of advanced SWM technologies were applied to the problem solved in

SWANA’s National Solid Waste Design Competition (SWDC). Hydrogen sulfide

removal technology and evaluation criteria identification were completed in the way

defined in this project. Only the technologies that are currently implemented in US

were considered.

5. List who has referenced or cited your publications from this project?

The journal paper entitled "Evaluation of Advanced Thermal Solid Waste

Management Technologies for Sustainability in Florida" by Duygu Yasar and Nurcin

Celik has been cited in the M.S. thesis authored by Gregory Richard Hinds at

University of South Florida:

G. R. Hinds, 2015, High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of

Municipal Solid Waste State of the Art, Outlook in Florida, and Enhancing Methane

Yields from Lignocellulosic Wastes. (Graduate Thesis). Retrieved from University of

South Florida Scholar Commons Database, 2015.

6. How have the research results from THIS Hinkley Center project been leveraged to

secure additional research funding?

PI Celik and her team have applied for a foundational grant on January and July 2015,

respectively and are awaiting response on their proposal. Another further proposal is

currently being developed for NIOSH/NIH in a multi-institution collaboration, and

will be submitted by the end of this year.

7. What new collaborations were initiated based on THIS Hinkley Center project?

Paul Mauriello, Deputy Director for Waste Operations, Department of Public Works

and Solid Waste Management at the Miami-Dade County has designated Michael J.

Fernandez, Assistant Director of Disposal Operations as the future direct point of

contact for our on-going relationship with UM. He has a wealth of experience in solid

waste collection and disposal operations in both the public and private sectors.

Scott Harper, Solid Waste Services Manager of Hernando County has been very

helpful in both our TAG meetings and afterwards follow-ups. He has also been

instrumental in providing us with expertise rankings of the criterion.

Sally Palmi, Solid Waste Director of Alachua County has been very helpful for

providing necessary information. She has been very interested in our project since

they have just completed a similar task in developing criteria for a project they are

working on.

Mark A. Paisley, P.E., Vice President of Taylor Biomass Energy has been very

xi

helpful for providing the necessary data regarding gasification technology. He

provided detailed information on development period, conversion efficiency,

environmental impact, ease of obtaining permits, and land requirement of the Taylor

Gasification Process.

Kathleen A. Prather, P.E., Environmental Engineer in Division of Materials

Management, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been

very helpful for providing Technical/Operational Documents for JBI, Inc.

Susan Warner, Diversion Manager of Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority has

provided detailed information and relevant reports about Autoclave Technology

Testing Program.

Mike Sims, Solid Waste Director of the Marion County has requested to be informed

on the findings when the project is completed.

8. How have the results from THIS Hinkley Center funded project been used (not will be

used) by FDEP or other stakeholders? (1 paragraph maximum).

The results obtained from this study have not been presented yet.

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT TITLE: Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste

Management Technologies for Improved Recycling Rates

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nurcin Celik, Ph.D.

AFFILIATION: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Miami

PROJECT WEB SITE: http://www.coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html

PROJECT TAG MEMBERS: Alberto Caban-Martinez, Brenda S. Clark, Bryan Tindell,

Helena Solo- Gabriele, Jeremy O’Brien, Kathleen Woods-

Richardson, Kendra F. Goff, Kenneth P. Capezzuto, Lora

Fleming, Michael J. Fernandez, Nurcin Celik, Patti

Hamilton, Paul J. Mauriello, Paul Valenti, Ram

Narasimhan, Samuel B. Levin, Scott Harper, Sean

Williams, Shihab Asfour, Stanley D. Gray, Tim Vinson,

Timothy G.Townsend

COMPLETION DATE: November 2015

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, a significant increase has been observed in the variety and quantity of municipal

solid waste (MSW) worldwide, with the greatest rate of growth, both overall and per-capita,

exhibited by the United States. Due to this burgeoning growth as well as the accompanying

increase in strict regulations of disposal operations and the dwindling availability of disposal

sites, solid waste management (SWM) has become increasingly more challenging. Discharging

waste to landfills and incineration of waste are not sustainable options due to several

environmental problems. Landfills release greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions even 30 years after

their closure. Incineration technology provides a reduction in the total volume of waste to be

discarded in landfills, yet, releases emissions of pollutant organic compounds such as NOx, SOx.

In the light of aforementioned reasons, the State of Florida has established an ambitious 75%

recycling goal to be achieved by 2020. Advanced solid waste management technologies

(ASWMT) such as gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, and in-

vessel composting are capable of achieving this goal as well as reducing the GHG emissions. In

this project, advanced SWM technology options are identified and evaluated using Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision making method. Technologies are

evaluated with respect to several criteria including revenue, tipping fee, capital cost, operation

cost, development period, flexibility of process, land requirement, net conversion efficiency, ease

of obtaining permits, marketability, environmental impact, public acceptability, number of

facilities. SWM divisions of each county were contacted to obtain their criteria preferences.

Following the quantitative analysis, recommendations are provided by considering AHP results,

sensitivity analysis results as well as the current recycling rates of counties, and the amount of

waste landfilled by each county.

http://www.coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html

xiii

METHODOLOGY:

The study is composed of the following phases:

1. Identification of ASWMT: New and emerging solid waste management technologies that

were under the scope of this study were identified as technologies that are not currently in

widespread commercial use in the State of Florida, or that have only recently become

commercially operational (USEPA, 2014). To this end, we had performed an extensive

review on the current literature of ASWMT to identify such technologies, and categorize

them to the extent possible. The category of advanced thermal SWM technologies includes

gasification, plasma arc gasification, and pyrolysis and the category of advanced biological

SWM technologies includes windrow composting, static piles composting, in-vessel

composting, and anaerobic digestion. Technologies in their early phases of investigation

(whether being investigated in US or abroad) and have not been applied in commercial

practice were not considered in the evaluation based on the feedback given by the committee

during our first TAG meeting in February, 2015.

2. Data Collection: Various data regarding the advanced thermal and biological SWM

technologies were collected by utilizing multiple data collection techniques. Data were

collected by reviewing materials and interviewing county waste management divisions and

technology providers. Related works on the literature were collected from on-line databases

at University of Miami and County Waste Management Plans, Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and County government websites. In order to implement

the AHP methodology for evaluation, we contacted solid waste management divisions of 67

counties along with several facilities that embrace these technologies such as Taylor Biomass

Energy, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, JBI Niagara Falls Pyrolysis Facility, and Lee

County Compost Production Facility. Email requests and follow-up phone conversations for

evaluation of criterion set by subject matter experts (SMEs) were sent to all Floridian

counties, and received a 71 percent response rate.

3. Quantitative Assessment: AHP was conducted to assess gasification, plasma arc gasification,

pyrolysis, windrow composting, static piles composting, in-vessel composting, and anaerobic

digestion technologies for 67 counties in Florida with an aim to recommend the best

technology for each county to improve their recycling rates. The model is hierarchically

structured, consisting of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. Technologies were

evaluated with respect to several criteria including capital cost, revenue, net conversion

efficiency, public acceptability, tipping fee, operation/maintenance cost, development period,

flexibility of process, land requirement of facility, ease of obtaining permits, marketability of

recovered products, number of facilities, and environmental impact. Expert Choice Decision

Support Software was utilized as the evaluation tool. Following the derivation of the AHP

results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate how input uncertainty might impact

the outputs. Our aim was to show how the reduction in the weight of the highest ranked

criterion affects the technology evaluation results.

xiv

4. Recommendations: Upon the conduct of the quantitative analysis, recommendations are

provided at the county level by considering the combined results from the AHP, sensitivity

analysis, current recycling rates of counties, and the amount of waste landfilled. Miami Dade,

Broward, Orange, Duval, Polk, and Volusia counties are recommended to install a

gasification facility. Palm Beach County is not recommended to invest in a new facility since

it has recently opened a WTE facility in 2015. Furthermore, Lee County is not recommended

to make an investment since it has already reached 75% recycling rate. The rest of the

counties are considered for anaerobic or in-vessel composting based on the food waste

generation amounts and the results of AHP and sensitivity analysis.

xv

RESEARCH TEAM

Nurcin Celik (P.I.) is an assistant professor at the Department of Industrial

Engineering at the University of Miami. She received her M.S. and Ph.D.

degrees in Systems and Industrial Engineering from the University of Arizona.

Her research interests lie in the areas of integrated modeling and decision

making for large-scale, complex and dynamic systems. Her dissertation work

is on architectural design and application of dynamic data-driven adaptive

simulations for distributed systems. She has received several awards, including

AFOSR Young Investigator Research Award (2013), University of Miami

Provost Award (2011), IAMOT Outstanding Research Project Award (2011), IERC Best Ph.D.

Scientific Poster Award (2009), and Diversity in Science and Engineering Award from Women

in Science and Engineering Program (2007). She can be reached at [email protected].

Duygu Yasar is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Industrial Engineering at

the University of Miami. She earned her bachelor's degree in the field of

Industrial Engineering from Yildiz Technical University, Turkey in June 2014.

She graduated in the top 5 percent of her class. Her research interests evolve

around the queuing system simulations, data envelopment analysis, sustainable

solid waste treatment, evaluation of solid waste management technologies,

multi-criteria decision analysis, advanced thermal treatment of municipal

waste, and modeling of integrated large-scale and complex systems. She can be reached at

[email protected]

Mehrad Bastani is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Industrial

Engineering from University of Miami. His research interests include the

applied operation research, simulation and statistics. He earned his bachelor's

degree from the Department of Industrial Engineering at the Sharif University

of Technology, Iran in September of 2011. He also earned his master's degree

in Industrial Engineering at the University of Tehran, Iran in July of 2013. He

can be reached at [email protected].



xvi

DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

JOURNAL PAPERS AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

1. Yasar, D., Celik, N., and Sharit, J. “Evaluation of advanced thermal solid waste management

technologies for sustainability in Florida,” International Journal of Performability

Engineering 12(01) (2016).

2. Yasar, D. and Celik, N., Assessment of Advanced Biological Treatment Technologies for

Sustainability, IGI Global, PA, 2015, Joo, S. H. (Eds.), Applying Nanotechnology for

Environmental Sustainability, IGI Global, accepted.

3. Yasar, D. and Celik, N., “Assessment of advanced thermal solid waste management

technologies,” Talking Trash Newsletter of the SWANA Florida Sunshine Chapter (2015).

PRESENTATIONS, CONFERENCES AND INVITED TALKS:

1. The team presented the work accomplished before the Technical Awareness Group (TAG)

committee on Friday, February 20, 2015.

2. The team presented the work accomplished before the Technical Awareness Group (TAG)

committee on Tuesday, August 18, 2015.

3. Duygu Yasar, Gregory Collins, and Mehrad Bastani attended SWANA’s National Solid

Waste Design Competition (SWDC) on August 24, 2015 in Orlando, FL. Three hydrogen

sulfide removal technologies namely SulfaTreat, Bio-trickling filter, and LO-CAT which

reduce hydrogen sulfide in the collected landfill gas were evaluated in the competition design

report. The evaluation criteria were footprint, monitoring requirements, electrical power

requirements, water requirements, system complexity, H2S variability, turndown, H2S

removal efficiency, capital and operation costs of the technologies. The poster of the project

was also presented during WASTECON 2015.

4. Aristotelis E. Thanos presented our current project during Hinkley Center Colloquium,

Tallahassee, FL on September 24, 2015.

5. Dr. Nurcin Celik had an interview for NPR/WLRN Radio discussing the potential impact of

a new recycling program in Hollywood, FL. Her interview was published by Wilson Sayre

on October 6th, 2015 and aired on October 7th at 7:43 am, 9:35 am, and 5:44 pm. The audio

and text version of the story are also available online at the local WLRN website.

xvii

FIGURE 1. Pictures from events.

TECHNICAL AWARENESS GROUP (TAG) MEETINGS:

The project team hosted two TAG meetings, on February 20, 2015 and August 18, 2015.

WEBSITE: The team worked on and posted an enhanced website describing the project,

accessible at http://coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html.

FEEDBACKS FROM TECHNICAL AWARENESS GROUP (TAG) MEETINGS:

Our first TAG meeting took place on February 20th, 2015 at the McArthur Engineering Building

of the University of Miami. We also had set up a conference call for those attending the meeting

remotely.

Several comments were given during our first TAG meeting. Attendees suggested our team to

consider whether technologies have been applied earlier in the US or not, and focus on those

implemented in the US. Inspection of several data sources including company and county reports

as well as the websites of technology providers about technologies has revealed that some

particular advanced SWM technologies (i.e., anaerobic digestion and composting) have long

been tested and implemented within the US for several years whereas there are also others (i.e.,

hydrothermal carbonization) with a single demonstration facility in the entire world. As a sign of

the existing of their vendors and market demand, the commercial implementations of

technologies may have a significant impact on their future applicability for a given county. As

such, the alternative technologies were revised based on these comments to include only the

technologies which have been implemented or investigated in the US. To this end, steam

classification, hydrothermal carbonization, catalytic cracking, and depolymerization were

removed from the alternatives.

Attendees also suggested focusing on the technologies and related facilities within the US as the

regulations, waste types, and markets are more similar to those within the State of Florida. Also

of attention were the concerns regarding the gas level that any technology might produce. It is an

important issue since our main goal is to find a technology to manage the waste of Floridian

counties in a more environmentally friendly way than traditional landfilling or other

conventional treatment methods. As such, environmental impact was considered as one of the

criteria in AHP evaluation. During the TAG, it was also discussed that the county goals should

be considered in evaluation. As suggested in the TAG meeting, the recommendations were

differentiated for the counties based on the results obtained from AHP and sensitivity analysis,

current recycling rates of counties, and the least amount of waste that should be diverted from

landfills to reach 75% recycling rate of a given county. The results obtained from the AHP and

sensitivity analysis were considered equally importantly when composing county-specific

recommendations.

http://coe.miami.edu/simlab/swm_2015.html

xviii

Our second TAG meeting took place on August 18th, 2015 with a similar communication set up

to hold a conference call for those attending the meeting remotely. Several comments were

received and discussed during this meeting following our presentation on the current project

progress. Attendees suggested the team to consider conventional waste treatment methods and

their current capabilities, and benchmark the current conventional waste management method of

a given county against possible advanced SWM technologies while giving recommendations. For

instance, if a county has just started a combustion facility it may not be feasible for that county to

invest in a completely different advanced SWM technology. Also, it may be more feasible to

recommend the implementation of advanced SWM technologies for counties that dispose

significant amounts of waste to landfills and do not have an active plan to manage their waste.

As per the extent of this practicality discussion, in the final phase of the study, the team decided

to take the conventional waste management methods into consideration while investigating

county-based recommendations. Here, another clarification was made on the approach taken to

reach 75% recycling rate in each and every considered county (i.e., every county having a

recycling rate that is greater than 75%) rather than focusing only on the waste treatment of large

counties in order to obtain such a recycling rate at the State level (i.e., some counties having

greater than 75% recycling rate compensating for those having a rate that is less than that).

It was also suggested by attendees to double-check the tipping fees of technologies since they

seemed lower than expected. This may affect the recommendations when conventional methods

were taken into consideration. However, the recommendations given here are only among the

advanced SWM technologies. Due to this fact, the increase in the tipping fees of all alternatives

will not affect the evaluation. It was also suggested that the counties that are close to each other

should be grouped together while giving the recommendations. It is more feasible to jointly

establish a facility for the neighboring counties, since they can transfer their waste to a single

location easily. In the recommendations part, geographical proximity of the counties were taken

into consideration and mainly the counties which share a border were grouped together.

The thermal technologies are also suggested to be considered as a single option since the only

main difference between them is the process temperature. Our results obtained from the AHP

model suggested the same thermal treatment technology for all groups of counties. The

sensitivity analysis further demonstrated that change in the criteria weights do not create a major

difference in results.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted after the second TAG meeting. The results obtained from the

AHP and sensitivity analysis pointed to gasification for thermal treatment technology evaluation

and anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting for biological treatment technology evaluation.

The capacities that the alternative technologies can operate in an economically feasible way were

investigated. Furthermore, the least amount of waste that needs to be treated in each county to

reach 75% recycling goal was calculated to compare with the maximum and minimum capacities

of the recommended technologies. Final recommendations were provided based on these

calculations as well as the current waste management practices in the counties.

1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several decades, both the volume and diversity of MSW generation has increased

markedly worldwide, with the United States exhibiting the greatest rate of growth, both overall

and per-capita, by a significant margin. In 2006, the total amount of MSW generated globally

reached 2.02 billion tons, representing a 7% annual increase since 2003 (Key Note Publications

Ltd., 2007). It is further demonstrated that after 2010 global generation of municipal solid waste

has exhibited approximately a 9% increase per year. This burgeoning growth, combined with the

concomitant increase in the regulation of disposal operations and dwindling availability of

suitable disposal sites, has made the planning and operation of integrated SWM systems

progressively more challenging. According to the concept of sustainable waste disposal, a

successful treatment of MSW should be safe, effective, and environmentally friendly (Sakai et

al., 1996). However, existing waste-disposal methods namely landfills and incineration

technology cannot achieve this goal. As a result of these factors, and growing pressures for

environmental protection and sustainability, the State of Florida has established an ambitious

75% recycling goal, to be achieved by the year 2020. At present, the recycling rate in the State of

Florida is approximately 30% (the amount of waste combusted is not included), based on a goal

set by the landmark Solid Waste Management Act of 1988. However, MSW landfills represent

the dominant option for waste disposal in many parts of the world. Based on 2013 MSW

management data, combustion and landfilling has constituted the 62% of Florida waste

management method (FDEP, 2013). Conventional waste landfills occupy large amounts of land

and lead to serious environmental problems (Belevi and Baccini, 1989) such as release of

leachate to the environment. Even though modern landfills are required to use liners, some

chemicals dumped in landfills and tons of garbage on top of them deteriorate liners over time

(Zarske et al., 2016). Furthermore, landfill facilities lead to significant operational and post-

operational care period and costs (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. Management phases of a MSW landfill throughout life-cycle.

On the other hand, incineration technology was developed to reduce the total volume of waste

and make use of the chemical energy of MSW for energy generation. However, the emissions of

pollutant species such as NOx, SOx, and HCl, harmful organic compounds (Holmgren, 2006 and

de Holanda & Balestieri, 1999) and heavy metals (McKay, 2002 and Suksankraisorn et al. 2003)

are high in the incineration process. Another problem with MSW incineration is the serious

corrosion of the incineration system by alkali metals in solid residues and fly ash (McKay,

2002). Furthermore, due to the low incineration temperature related to the low energy density of

MSW, the energy efficiency of MSW incineration is relatively low (Wiles, 1996). Due to

aforementioned problems of conventional technologies, many stakeholders such as utilities,

regulators, governmental agencies, municipalities, and private firms, have recognized the

Land

fill

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Was

te

Dis

po

sal

Po

st-d

isp

osa

l

Fin

al C

app

ing

Aft

erca

re

(Po

st-c

losu

re

care

)

Surv

eil

lance

No

Car

e

Operational Period Post-operational care period

2

necessity of establishing advanced solid waste management technologies to treat the solid waste

and convert it into energy or marketable products.

Implementing these technologies is essential for the State of Florida for several reasons. These

technologies have the potential to enable the State to reduce its waste, and increase its recycling

rate such that its goal of reaching 75% recycling rate by 2020 can be achieved, not by particular

counties that have strong solid waste management structure in place, but by the majority of the

State of Florida counties, including the ones currently struggling with their waste operations. The

new and emerging solid waste management technologies also show potential to create new jobs,

produce renewable energy, and promote economic growth. In addition, while higher recycling

rates may enable lower disposal rates in the landfills, which reduces the land sources utilization

and leaves more room for humans and wildlife, improper implementation of these new

technologies may cause serious problems such as infectious diseases, waste contamination, toxic

emissions, and occupational health issues for solid waste workers. Moreover, current

implementation of these technologies is limited by aspects such as regional divergence, political

factors, market forces, technical supports, amongst many others. Thus, a comprehensive top-to-

bottom assessment of each of these significant technologies in terms of environmental,

economical, and social aspects as well as their comparison against each other becomes crucial

before their applications are discussed for or appear in the counties of the State of Florida.

However, in light of the inherently challenging nature of the MSW stream and management,

combined with the fiscal difficulties befalling municipalities throughout the state, numerous

technical and social challenges to all parties of solid waste management are presented. Because

these technologies are emerging or being researched in different geographical locations (other

states or maybe other countries), a unified and consistent evaluation scheme has to be developed

before these technologies are considered to be implemented (in part or fully) in the State of

Florida counties. To this end, the purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate new and

emerging advanced solid waste management technologies and their potential to help state reach

its recycling goal by 2020 in a manner that is structurally unified, and useful for practitioners in

terms of various criteria such as cost, impact on the recycling rates, impact on the landfill

emissions, and impact on the promotion of sustainable economic development.

The most challenging phase of this work was to collect consistent data for the technologies.

Their characteristics varies among different applications and are not changed proportionally by

the rate of change in inputs. In addition to this, available data for these technologies are limited

due to the fact that they are emerging technologies and their applications on solid waste

processing are not widespread. The tool utilized for the evaluation, AHP, pose another challenge

for the study. The ranking of the technologies are determined based on the judgments by the

subject matter experts which might be biased. The SMEs who are specialists in their fields were

selected for criteria ranking in order to reduce such a bias. At the end, application of the

technologies to different sites and different waste compositions may result in different

performances. The performances of technologies, their operation costs, environmental impacts,

and waste conversion rates might be different than expected when implemented in a specific site.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Solid waste generation and the importance and social and economic complexity of problems

related to solid waste management in industrialized countries have increased during the last three

3

decades (Hokkanen and Salminen, 1997 & Antmann, 2011). The ideal of completely eliminating

waste is highly unrealistic; therefore, the best approach is to handle solid waste in sustainable

way to protect the environment and conserve the natural resources. Accordingly, significant

modifications to existing waste management technologies and programs have become necessary

in order to achieve the 75% recycling goal established by the Florida State government and

obtain most optimal handling of municipal solid waste for all stakeholders, including

environmental managers, regulators, policy makers, and the affected communities in the state. As

a general definition, integrated SWM systems are systems that provide the collection, transfer,

and disposal or recycling of waste materials from a given region. These systems handle a wide

variety of materials collected from the generation units and require numerous specialized

facilities and technologies to process, recycle and dispose the collected waste. Therefore,

researchers have conducted a series of studies on the technologies required for the integrated

SWM systems throughout the MSW life-cycle.

For any solid waste treatment method, the primary implementation goal is to ensure that the

public health is protected while cost effectiveness is maintained. Compared to traditional

disposal landfills which provide an open loop of MSW life cycle, the advanced disposal

technologies usually combine the recycling and recovery methods, leading to a closed loop of

MSW life cycle (see Figure 3) and thereby improving the recycling rate.

FIGURE 3. Traditional open loop (left) and advanced disposal landfills close loop cycles

(right).

Several researchers have performed evaluation of advanced technologies and analysis for MSW

processing and disposal, in order to decrease landfill utilization and increase the waste recycling

and recovery (Regional Municipality of Halton, 2007 & Moustakas and Loizidou, 2010). Advanced

SWM technologies can be categorized in three major groups including thermal,

biological/chemical, and physical technologies. These technologies are known to be

environmentally sound, cost-effective and implementation acceptable (Suksankraisorn et al.,

2003 and Wiles, 1996). Aforementioned technologies are categorized in Figure 4 to show the

technologies in each group. A similar study that was conducted in New York by the New York

City Economic Development Corporation and Department of Sanitation (2004) provided

information for future planning of SWM systems. The evaluation considered 43 technologies in

total and was conducted based on a set of criteria that included readiness and reliability, size and

flexibility, beneficial use of waste, marketability, public acceptability, and cost. The City of Los

Angeles and URS Corporation collaborated to carry out an assessment project for identifying

Manufacture

Transfer Station

Customers (Residents)

Collection Fleets Landfill

(End of Line)

Manufacture

Transfer Station

Customers (Residents)

Collection Fleets Advanced Disposal Landfill

Recycling Reuse Recovery

4

alternative MSW processing technologies that could improve landfill diversion in an

environmentally sound manner. They concluded that the technologies best suited for processing

unrecyclable MSW on a commercial level were the thermal technologies (URS Corporation,

2005). Chirico (2009) conducted a study with the purpose of evaluation, analysis, and

comparison of SWM technologies. This study investigated the capability of SWM technologies

to decrease landfill utilization and emissions, promote sustainable economic development, and

generate renewable energy in Georgia. It was concluded that plasma arc gasification is the most

sustainable option, but with reservations toward its economic profitability.

FIGURE 4. Categorization of advanced solid waste management technologies.

In this report, initially a brief description of advanced SWM technologies are provided. Data

collection stages are presented in Section 3. It is followed by the description of methodology in

Section 4. Section 5 and 6 present the AHP and sensitivity analysis results. Recommendations,

limitations of the study, and the conclusion are provided in Sections 8 and 9 respectively.

2.1 Biochemical Treatment Technologies

Advanced Biological Solid Waste Management Technologies (ABSWMT) can be used to

process biodegradable materials such as food and green waste. They operate at low reaction rates

and low temperature. ABSWMT offer the opportunity to process the organic rich fraction of

MSW. Organic rich fraction of MSW should be separated from mixed waste before they are used

as feedstock for ABSWMT processes. During the biological treatment of MSW, biodegradable

MSW Technologies

Biomechanical Treatment

Thermal Treatment

Aerobic Process

Anaerobic Digestion

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Plasma Arc Gasification

Steam Classification

Waste Convertor

Hydrothermal

Carbonization

Physical Technologies

Windrow Composting

Static Piles Composting

In-vessel Composting

5

FIGURE 2. Harvest’s Energy

Garden in Central Florida.

waste is decomposed by living microbes. Aerobic and anaerobic conditions are two types of

environment where microbes are able to live. Organic portion of MSW should be separated from

mixed waste before they are used as feedstock for ABSWM processes. Pretreatment requirement

is a disadvantage of ABT technologies since it increases operating costs. ABSWMT are divided

into two major groups as aerobic and anaerobic processes. Windrow composting, static pile

composting, and in-vessel composting (IVC) are evaluated under the category of aerobic

processes as can be seen in Figure 4.

2.1.1 Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a method engineered to

decompose organic matter by a variety of anaerobic

microorganisms under oxygen-free conditions. The process

should be carried out in a closed vessel to keep the process

environment out of oxygen. Process is performed in three major

stages: hydrolysis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. First

insoluble portion of organic matter is hydrolyzed into soluble

molecules. Secondly, the outputs of first step is converted into

carbon dioxide, hydrogen and simple organic acids. In the final

phase, methane formers produce methane. The end product of

AD includes biogas (60–70% methane) and an organic residue

rich in nitrogen. Produced biogas which consists of methane

and carbon dioxide can be converted into heat and electricity, or its quality can be improved to

be distributed to electrical grid system. The optimal process temperature is around 30-35oC. AD

can be classified based on the number of reactors used: single or multiple reactors. In multistage

systems, hydrolysis takes place in a separate vessel. The most important advantage of the

multistage systems is that the process parameters can be customized in each stage, however, they

have higher capital costs.

This technology has been successfully implemented in the treatment of agricultural wastes, food

wastes, and wastewater sludge due to its capability of reducing chemical oxygen demand and

biological oxygen demand from waste streams and producing renewable energy (Chen et al.,

2008). Harvest’s Energy Garden in Central Florida uses low solids AD to convert bio solids and

food waste into clean energy and natural fertilizers (Figure 4).

2.1.2 Depolymerization

A significant, valuable percentage of today's municipal solid waste stream consists of polymeric

materials, for which almost no economic recycling technology currently exists. This polymeric

waste is incinerated, landfilled or recycled via downgraded usage. Thermal plasma treatment is a

potentially viable means of recycling these materials by converting them back into monomers or

into other useful compounds (Guddeti, 2000).

2.1.3 Windrow Composting

One of the most prevalently used methods for large scale composting is windrow composting.

Rows of turning piles are the main components of the windrow systems. Organic waste is fed

6

into piles as they turn periodically. Periodic turning reduces the odor problems and creates

aeration inside the windrows; however, it increases the operating costs. There should be enough

space between the windrows to let the equipment rotation. Due to this requirement and the nature

of the equipment, the system needs to be installed in a large land area. The width and height of

the windrows are defined based on several parameters such as feedstock characteristics and

aeration conditions. The system can easily be affected by the weather changes since it is an open

system. It takes 8 to 12 months to produce a compost.

2.1.4 Static Pile Composting

Static pile composting process is similar to windrow composting however, they do not have the

windrows that need to be turned. Their sizes are not limited by the turner and can be larger than

windrows. They can process large amounts of waste since they can be designed in larger

capacities. Their process parameters should be monitored and controlled closely to provide the

distribution of heat over the pile system.

2.1.5 In-vessel Composting

IVC systems are closely monitored aeration systems which produces compost in an enclosed

container like a reactor. Their appearances are similar to AD systems. The most important

advantage they provide is that the system temperature, moisture, and other parameters can be

closely monitored and controlled. However, they have higher capital and operating costs

compared to other composting methods. Odor control is easier and emission is lower than open

systems since the emitting surface is decreased to the lowest.

2.2 Advanced Thermal Solid Waste Management Technologies

The most important reason for the growing popularity of thermal processes for the treatment of

MSW is the increasing environmental and technical concerns and public dissatisfaction with the

performance of conventional incineration processes. Thermal technologies operate in high

temperatures which usually ranges from 700oF to 10,000oF. They can operate in smaller scales

compared to combustion process. They typically process carbon-based waste such as paper,

petroleum-based wastes like plastics, and organic materials such as food scraps. Organic waste

needs to be dried to decrease the moisture content before thermal processes. The main output

(byproduct) of thermal technologies is syngas which can be converted into electricity. In this

section, information about thermal technologies is presented.

2.2.1 Gasification

The technology data for gasification were obtained from Montgomery Project Gasification

Facility and publicly available online sources. Gasification technology mainly involves the

reaction of carbonaceous feedstock with an oxygen-containing reagent, usually oxygen, air,

steam or carbon dioxide, generally at temperatures above 1400oF. It contains the partial

oxidation of a substance which indicates that the amount of oxygen is not sufficient for entire

oxidization of fuel. The process is largely exothermic but some heat may be required to initialize

and sustain the gasification process. Gasification has several advantages when compared to

combustion for treatment of MSW. It operates in a low oxygen environment that bounds the

7

release of emissions, and the hydrocarbon pollutants are removed in an additional gas cleanup

process. Hydrocarbon pollutants are either not formed or removed in the gas clean-up process.

Additionally, it requires just a fraction of the stoichiometric amount of oxygen necessary for

combustion. As a result, it requires less expensive gas cleaning equipment. In terms of

efficiency, 90% of energy generated is available for end use. Finally, gasification generates a

fuel gas that can be integrated with reciprocating engines, combined cycle turbines, and

potentially, with fuel cells that convert fuel energy to electricity more efficiently than

conventional steam boilers. Commercial gasification plants that use MSW as input have been

implemented in several countries including Japan, Europe, and North America.

2.2.2 Plasma Arc Gasification

Plasma gasification is a multi-stage process which starts with inputs ranging from waste to coal

to plant matter, and can include hazardous wastes. Feedstock is not combusted since the

environment inside the vessel is deprived of oxygen. Rather feedstock is broken down into

elements such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and water. The initial step in plasma arc

gasification is to process the feedstock to make it uniform and dry, and have the usable

recyclables sorted out. The second step is gasification, where extreme heat from the plasma

torches is applied inside a sealed, air-controlled reactor. During gasification, carbon-based

materials break down into gases and the inorganic materials melt into liquid slag which is poured

off and cooled. The heat destroys the poisons and hazards completely. The gas that is created is

called synthesis gas or “syngas”. The syngas created in the gasifier undergoes a clean-up process

to clean dust and other undesirable elements like mercury. It is followed by the generation of

clean fuel, and heat exchangers recycle the heat back into the system as steam. In the final stage,

the output ranges from electricity to a variety of fuels, hydrogen, and polymers. The entire

conversion process constitutes a closed system so no emissions are released. According to the

Westinghouse Plasma Corporation Report, only about 2-4% of the material introduced into their

plasma gasification plant was disposed in landfills. This technology was going to be

implemented in St. Lucie County for the first time in the U.S. in 2007, however the project was

cancelled in 2012.

2.2.3 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis systems thermally break down solid waste in the absence of air or oxygen at

temperatures of approximately 1100F and 1500F. It is a relatively simple and flexible process

that can receive a wide variety of feedstock, and produces several usable outputs from typical

waste streams. Pyrolysis produces gases and a solid char product such as activated carbon,

international grade diesel, and synthetic gas as byproduct. Pyrolysis can convert a wide variety of

waste including hazardous waste since it can generate excess heat to reduce moisture content of

waste below 10%. However, solid fuel must be shredded and the moisture content inside solid

waste must be reduced to below 10%. This is one of the reasons that pyrolysis plants have not

been successfully implemented in large scale. Although pyrolysis of biomass keeps developing

on a relatively small scale, no commercial plants for the pyrolysis of MSW are operating in the

United States currently.

2.3 Physical Technologies

8

Physical technologies are used to alter the physical characteristics of the MSW feedstock. These

materials in MSW may be shredded, sorted, and dried in a processing facility. The output

material is referred to as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). It may be converted into high dense

homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a supplementary fuel in utility

boilers.

DATA COLLECTION

Advanced thermal and biological SWM technologies were evaluated for the counties in Florida.

The collection of reliable data from various sources comprises a major task in this work, since

these technologies are not currently in widespread commercial use. Data collection is composed

of four stages. In the first stage, advanced solid waste management technologies were identified

and the criteria set were defined for AHP. In the second stage of data collection, subject matter

experts (SMEs) from Floridian counties were contacted to compute the criteria weights. In the

third stage, FDEP SWM 2013 annual reports were explored to obtain the annual waste

generation for each waste disposal type of Floridian counties. This data were used to categorize

the counties. In the last stage of data collection, necessary data about technologies were collected

from publicly available sources and facilities in US.

3.1 Defining Criteria Set

The criteria set was defined after inspection of a wide range of journal and white papers in the

first phase of data collection. Several issues such as environmental policies, regulations, public

health, and characteristics of the technologies were also taken into consideration. The criteria set

and the explanations are given below:

Revenue is the profit that the facility earns by selling the outputs of the process. There are

three potential sources of revenue from a MSW conversion facility which are energy sales,

sales of other outputs, and tipping fees. Revenue from the sale of energy highly depends on

the price for electricity and the net amount of electricity generated. Selling the energy and

products should provide a satisfactory profit.

Tipping fee is a charge for a given quantity of waste received at a waste processing facility.

For financial feasibility of project, tipping fees should be cost competitive and should

provide a significant contribution to the revenue of the facility. Tipping fees typically

constitute the largest source of revenue for a waste disposal facility.

Capital cost of the project is the amount of money which is invested in SWM project.

Operation cost is the ongoing expenses for maintenance of the facility.

Development period is the time period between the design/proposal of the project and

starting the facility. A long development period might cause the competitors jump into the

market since the solid waste industry is very competitive even in the public sector.

Flexibility of process is another important factor since the municipal solid waste has a highly

variable nature. The process should be flexible enough to keep up with the changes of the

content of the waste. Flexibility of process may affect operation costs and tipping fees. The

ability of converting different waste types through a single process lowers the costs.

Land requirement of the facility might be an important issue for some counties that do not

own an available land to establish the facility.

9

Net conversion efficiency shows how much of the received waste is diverted into

energy/marketable products. Net conversion efficiency directly affects the tipping fees since

less efficient processes lead to higher operating costs which are generally paid by higher

tipping fees.

Ease of permitting is the criterion to measure how capable the process is at obtaining the

necessary local and state permits.

Marketability of recovered products shows how much demand exists in the current market

for the outputs of the process. It is not possible to generate the necessary revenue to support

the process if the markets for the outputs being produced do not have market demand or

current markets are too unstable.

Environmental impact of the process indicates the level of damage that the process or its

byproducts have on the environment. The process itself should not contradict one of its main

purposes which is to reduce the damage on the environment.

Public acceptability measures the level of public support to the alternative technology. It is

not possible for a solid waste management facility to function properly without public

support.

Number of facilities affects the availability of data and the size of vendors for ASWMT.

AHP structures for ATSWMT and ABSWMT are given in Figure 6 and 7, respectively. AHP

structure was designed in a way that environmental, social, economic, technical, and regulatory

issues can be adequately considered. In the second stage of the data collection, criteria weights

were determined after contacting SWM of Floridian counties and FDEP through email

communication.

10

FIGURE 3. AHP structure for ATSWMT evaluation.

The set of criteria was re-arranged for the evaluation of ABSWMT (Figure 7). Capital cost,

operating cost, operation time, land requirements of the facility, conversion efficiency,

environmental impact, and public acceptance were taken into consideration. The reason for

elimination of the rest of the criteria was that for the rest of the criteria, ABSWMT performances

were very close and their impacts on the evaluation were negligible.

FIGURE 4. AHP structure for ABSWM technology evaluation.

Gasification

Plasma Arc

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Revenue

Tipping Fees

Capital Cost

Operation/Maintenance

Development Period

Flexibility of Process

Land Requirement of Facility

Net Conversion Efficiency

Ease of Permitting

Marketability

Environmental Impact

Public Acceptability

Number of Facilities

Criterion Set

Alternatives

Selecting an

Appropriate

ATSWM

Technology

Goal

Alternatives

Windrow

Composting

Static Pile

Composting

In-vessel

Composting

Capital Cost

Operating Cost

Land Requirement

Operation Time

Public Acceptance

Efficiency

Environmental Impact

Criteria Set

Selecting an

Appropriate ABSWM

Technology

Goal

Anaerobic Digestion

11

3.2 Contacting SMEs

In the second stage of data collection, criteria weights were determined after contacting SMEs

from SWM divisions of Floridian counties and FDEP via surveys. Here, a total of 173 requests

were placed to waste management experts in 67 different counties within the state of Florida

namely Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,

Collier, Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Gulf,

Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Holmes, Indian River, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette,

Lake, Lee, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami Dade, Monroe,

Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam,

Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Volusia,

Wakulla, Walton, Washington counties. Since the counties were categorized into groups, each

SME ranking contributed to the computation of criterion weight of its corresponding county

group.

Experts contacted from given counties come from various backgrounds related to solid waste.

Their backgrounds and job titles include solid waste specialists, solid waste managers,

environmental service directors, public works directors, solid waste recycling coordinators,

hazardous waste professional engineers, recycling coordinators, utility operations directors, solid

waste facility directors, sanitation directors, and environmental managers. Their opinions

represent the preferences of SWM divisions of Floridian counties on the evaluation of

technologies.

3.3 Categorization of Counties

In the third stage of data collection, similar counties were categorized based on their ability to

manage waste using similar advanced SWM technology. This categorization of counties into

different groups was conducted based on the waste disposal types and annual waste generation.

FDEP SWM 2013 annual reports were used to obtain solid waste disposal types and waste

generation data of each count (FDEP, 2013). The first step was to classify counties based on

least recycled disposal types. The formed groups were then divided into subgroups based on their

annual waste generation amounts.

3.3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Types in Floridian Counties

According to United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), MSW heavily consists

of everyday items that are discarded by the residents and businesses, such as newspapers, office

papers, paper napkins, plastic films, clothing, food packaging, cans, bottles, food scraps, yard

trimmings, product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, wood pallets, appliances, paint, and

batteries (USEPA, 2015). In this study, the definition provided by the EPA for MSW is used to

categorize the counties based on the waste types. Waste types that are not considered in

categorization of counties and reasons for not using them are discussed in this section.

For the waste types that are 100% recyclable, recycling technologies are already well established

with their associated markets. For instance non-ferrous metals such as brass, stainless steel,

copper, aluminum are, overall, 100% recyclable and can be easily recovered by the recycling

process. They perform well when used in new products since they retain their properties when

12

recovered. Moreover, 48% of Floridian counties have a recycling rate greater than 50% for non-

ferrous metals. As such, these wastes do not need to be converted by advanced SWM

technologies and therefore are not considered as part of the categorization.

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is comprised of waste that is generated during new

construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges. C&D debris often

contains massive materials such as concrete, asphalt, doors, windows, gypsum, and bricks. C&D

waste is primarily sent to landfılls that are permitted to accept only C&D waste or that receive

primarily MSW. C&D debris waste includes building related construction, renovation, and

demolition debris whereas non-MSW C&D debris contains roadways, bridges, and other non-

building related C&D debris generation. The largest percentage of C&D debris generation and

recovery is made up of non-MSW C&D debris. In addition, C&D debris has a separate disposal

stream than MSW. For these reasons, C&D debris is also not considered as one of the waste

types to categorize the counties.

3.3.2 Floridian County Categories for AHP

The main purpose of using advanced SWM technologies is to reduce the amount of waste

discarded in landfills. For this reason, categorization was performed based on the least recycled

waste type in each county. The counties that have the lowest recycling rates of yard trashes were

categorized in the same group while the counties that have the lowest recycling rates of various

paper waste including newspaper, office paper, cardboard were categorized in another group.

AHP calculations were performed for each group and suggested the same technology for the

counties in the same group. For instance, if in X County food waste and plastic waste have 30%

recycling rate and are the least recycled waste types, we choose the group of X County based on

its waste generation amount. If food waste generation is 14,000 TPY while plastic waste

generation is 10,000, then X County is categorized in the food waste group.

Three groups, food-yard trash, paper, and plastic trash, were obtained in the first categorization

as these were the three waste types that have the lowest recycling rates in each county.

Subgroups were obtained in the second step based on the waste generation amount of each

county.

Grouping procedure is also shown in Figure 8. 2013 Solid Waste Annual Report County MSW

and Recycling Data were used for grouping these counties. The grouping process can be

rearranged as the more annual waste generation data becomes available.

13

Waste type which has the

least recycling rate during 2013

Food

FDEP 2013 Solid Waste Annual Report

County MSW and Recycling Data

Paper Plastic

annual waste

generation

annual waste

generation

annual waste

generation

4500 -15,000

15,000-80,000

80,000-400,000

400,000-1,000,000

1 - 3.5 million

10,000-100,000

100,000-700,000

100,000-700,000

FIGURE 5. Grouping process of Floridian counties.

County groups are as follows (see Figure 9):

Group 1 consists of 10 counties: Lafayette, Holmes, Liberty, Dixie, Gilchrist, Wakulla,

Union, Hamilton, Madison and Calhoun. They have the least recycling rates for food

where their annual waste generation varies from 4500 to 15,000 tons.

Group 2 consists of 10 counties: Glades, Taylor, Franklin, Desoto, Levy, Washington,

Hendry, Okeechobee, Gadsden and Columbia. They have the second least recycling rates

for food where their annual waste generation varies from 15,000 to 80,000 tons.

Group 3 consists of 10 counties: Nassau, Walton, Citrus, Flagler, Clay, Okaloosa,

Osceola, Marion, Bay and Alachua. They have the least recycling rates for food and yard

trash where their annual waste generation varies from 100,000 to 400,000 tons.

Group 4 consists of 7 counties: Escambia, Lake, Manatee, Seminole, Collier, Volusia and

Polk. They have the least recycling rates for food where their annual waste generation

varies from 450,000 to 950,000 tons.

Group 5 consists of 8 counties: Lee, Brevard, Pinellas, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange,

Broward and Dade. They have the least recycling rates for food where their annual waste

generation varies from 1,000,000 to 3,500,000 tons.

14

Group 6 consists of 6 counties: Jefferson, Baker, Bradford, Jackson, Putnam and

Highlands. They have the least recycling rates for paper product where their annual waste

generation varies from 10,000 to 100,000 tons.

Group 7 consist of 10 counties: Gulf, Hardee, Suwannee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Indian

River, Palm Beach, Santa Rosa, St. Johns and St. Lucie. They have the least recycling

rates mainly for plastic products where their annual waste generation varies from 15,000

to 300,000 tons.

Group 8 consists of 6 counties: Sumter, Hernando, Monroe, Martin, Leon and Pasco.

They have the least recycling rates for other paper products where their annual waste

generation varies from 100,000 to 700,000 tons.

FIGURE 6. Florida map displaying groups of counties.

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Group 7

Group 8

15

3.4 Technology Data

In the last stage, data for advanced thermal and biological SWM technologies were collected

from publicly available sources and from facilities in the U.S. The Montgomery gasification

facility in Orange County, St. Lucie plasma arc gasification project and JBI Niagara Falls

pyrolysis facility were contacted to obtain the necessary data for technologies. ABSWMT data

were collected from publicly available sources. Necessary data are the capital cost and operation

cost of technologies, revenue that the facility obtain by selling the outputs of the process, tipping

fees of the facility, permitting issues of project, efficiency and the flexibility of the process.

Some of the criteria were based on verbal assessments prior to their conversion into numerical

values (e.g., environmental impacts of technologies were assessed in the available sources as

low, medium, or high, and converted into numerical values using a scale of 1 to 9, with 9

indicating the highest performing alternative).

Technology data were used for pairwise comparison of alternatives under each criterion. For

each group of counties, 13 pairwise comparison matrices were formed using the technology data

obtained during the study. Local priorities of alternatives under each criterion were then

calculated. Finally, the local priorities were used to calculate global priorities of alternatives.

Steam classification, hydrothermal carbonization, catalytic cracking, and depolymerization

technologies are not commercially used for processing the MSW. However, there are

demonstration facilities, a steam classification facility in California and a hydrothermal

carbonization facility in Germany. Facilities were contacted, but information required for our

evaluation was not provided by them. Furthermore, the committee suggested in the first TAG

meeting that the technologies that has never been implemented in US should not be considered in

the study. For these reasons, they were not evaluated in this study.

METHODOLOGY

Our aim in this research project is to assess the emerging ASWMT for Floridian counties.

Considering SWM literature, AHP was chosen for evaluation of ASWMT and find the best

technology to manage counties’ wastes for each one of them. After ASWMT were defined, the

inputs obtained from solid waste management divisions of Floridian counties were incorporated

into a pairwise comparison matrix to rank the identified technologies. Our methodology was

defined in the following subsections.

4.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The AHP method is a strong and effective tool that deals with complex decision making

problems using a set of criteria to find the best alternative (Saaty, 1980). The model is

hierarchically structured, consisting of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives.

Alternatives are compared with respect to the criteria set which is defined consistent with the

objective. After defining criteria set, the first step of an AHP is to weigh them by averaging the

SME opinions. Each criterion has a different impact on the selection of best alternative. Their

impacts are determined with a weighing process conducted using pairwise comparison matrices.

Pairwise comparison matrices are built based on SMEs opinions. SMEs rank the criterion set

based on their importance and the rankings are converted into values in a 1-9 scale. A 1-9 scale

16

is used to create a pairwise comparison matrix of the criterion set and is shown in Error!

Reference source not found.10. If activity i has one of the non-zero numbers in 7 assigned to it

when compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i.

FIGURE 7. Explanation of 1-9 Saaty scale.

Subject matter expert judgments provided from each county are converted into pairwise

comparison matrices. Aggregation of individual judgments (AIJ) is completed using geometric

mean of corresponding elements. Each matrix element of the consolidated decision matrix is the

geometric mean of corresponding elements of SMEs’ individual decision matrices. The

consolidated matrix is used to compute the global priorities of criteria for each group of counties.

Meanwhile, their consistencies need to be checked in order to achieve a consistent result. In this

study, Expert Choice Decision Support Software is used to establish the AHP model. Global

priorities of technologies are determined by combining criteria weights and performance scores

of alternatives.

5. AHP RESULTS 5.1 Criteria Weights

The next step is to compute the weights of criteria for each group of counties. In this study,

criteria weights are computed using Expert Choice Decision Support Software. SME judgments

obtained from each county were converted into pairwise comparison matrices (Appendix B).

Aggregation of individual judgments (AIJ) is completed using geometric means. Each matrix

element of the consolidated decision matrix is the geometric mean of corresponding elements of

SMEs’ individual decision matrices. The consolidated matrix is used to compute the global

priorities of criteria for each group of counties. The Software uses the consolidated matrix to

compute the weights of criteria. After pairwise comparison matrices were incorporated into the

AHP model, results were obtained from the Software for each group. Eight 13 × 13 square

pairwise comparison matrices were created in total. The computed criteria weights of each

groups of counties for ATSWMT are shown in Figure 11.

1 3 5 7 9

Equal Slight Moderate Strong Extreme More Important

17

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

tsGroup 1

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 2

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 3

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 4

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 5

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 6

18

FIGURE 8. Criteria weights for evaluation of ATSWMT.

Using computed criteria weights, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification

technologies were compared. According to AHP results obtained from our model, the best

alternative with respect to given criteria set is gasification and the poorest one is the pyrolysis for

all groups. The inconsistency ratio which indicates the amount of inconsistency of comparisons

is computed for each group of counties. Inconsistency ratio below 0.1 indicates that the pairwise

comparisons are consistent and do not require revision. Results show that the overall

inconsistencies for all groups are below 0.1 as shown in Figure 12.

FIGURE 9. Overall inconsistency ratios (IR) (<<0.1) for evaluation of ATSWMT.

In order to evaluate ABSWMT, a different set of criteria were used. Criteria weights were

computed using the same procedure as the evaluation of ATSWMT. The criteria weights can be

seen in Figure 13.

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

tsGroup 7

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 8

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8

Inco

nsi

sten

cy R

atio

s

19

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

tsGroup 1

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 4

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 5

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 6

20

FIGURE 10. Criteria weights for evaluation of ABSWMT.

Using computed criteria weights, ABSWMT are compared. The inconsistency ratio which

indicates the amount of inconsistency of comparisons is computed for each group of counties.

Results show that the overall inconsistencies for all groups are below 0.1 as shown in Figure 14.

FIGURE 11. Overall inconsistency ratios (IR) (<<0.1) for evaluation of ABSWMT.

5.2 Global Priorities of Technologies

AHP results for ATSWM technologies show that gasification has the highest ranked global

priority for all groups as shown in Figure 15. However, it can be seen that weights of the plasma

arc gasification and gasification technologies for groups 5 and 8 are approximately the same. For

these counties capital cost is among the most important criteria. Because capital cost criterion

has been quite highly ranked for Groups 5 and 8, and plasma arc gasification technology comes

at the expense of high capital cost, this technology cannot be recommended for these groups.

For the first and seventh groups, where the most important criterion is public acceptability,

plasma arc gasification is not a favorable option unless a public outreach to inform the public

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

tsGroup 7

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Cri

teri

a W

eigh

ts

Group 8

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1


Inco

nsi

sten

cy R

atio

21

about plasma arc gasification is done. There is still public concern about this technology. The

most important criterion for second group is environmental impact. Gasification and plasma arc

gasification perform similarly on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Either of these two

technologies can satisfy this criterion well. Revenue is the most important criterion for the third

and sixth groups. Plasma arc gasification brings the highest revenue among alternatives and

plasma arc gasification may serve better to increase revenue in long term. Capital cost is the

most important criterion for fourth group. Hence, gasification is the most viable option providing

that counties ranked this criterion as among the most important.

FIGURE 12. Global priorities of ATSWMT.

Counties which are interested in output of the process may select any of alternatives since all of

the thermal technologies generate syngas as output which can be converted into energy. When

technology supplier availability is considered, gasification technology has been commercially

used worldwide and vendors can be found in the US.

On the other hand, AHP results for ABSWMT show that static pile composting has the highest

global priority for Group 5, IVC has the highest global priority for Groups 1 and 7, AD has the

highest global priority for Groups 2,3,4,6, and 8 as can be seen in Figure 16.


Pyrolysis 0.240 0.182 0.206 0.214 0.206 0.213 0.214 0.185

Plasma Arc Gasification 0.243 0.367 0.382 0.37 0.391 0.372 0.322 0.407

Gasification 0.516 0.451 0.412 0.416 0.403 0.415 0.463 0.408

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

AT

SW

MT

Glo

bal

Wei

ghts

22

FIGURE 13. Global priorities of ABSWMT.

In Section 8, recommendations are given based on the results obtained from AHP models. These

evaluations and recommendations provide a robust basis and structural framework for the

counties which will initiate an advanced solid waste management project. In the following

section, sensitivity analysis results are presented.

6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Following the derivation of the AHP results, we performed a sensitivity analysis to evaluate how

the input uncertainty might impact the outputs. Sensitivity analysis is a technique which is used

to determine how different values of an independent variable impact a particular dependent

variable under a given set of assumptions. In our case, dependent variables are the global

priorities of the alternative technologies whereas the independent variables are the criteria

weights which are determined based on the SME opinions.

This analysis was confined to all groups of counties for advanced thermal and biological SWM

technologies. Our aim was to show how the reduction in the weight of the highest ranked

criterion affects the AHP results. Here, two criteria weights, marketability and the highest ranked

criterion, were switched in each group. In AHP, the total weight of all criteria should be equal to

1. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis for a given criteria can only be conducted by changing the

weight of at least one other criterion weight (while keeping the criteria weights other than those

two constant). In our case, we selected to switch the weights of capital cost and marketability for

all 8 groups. This enables us better observe the impact of changing the weight of capital cost

since changing the weight of marketability is rather insignificant.

Modifying criteria weights have changed the highest ranked technology in only Groups 5 and 8.

Alternative technology weights before and after the analysis can be seen in Figure 17. For Group

5, the weight of capital cost was decreased to 0.049 whereas the weight of marketability was


Windrow composting 0.130 0.125 0.151 0.158 0.170 0.157 0.135 0.154

Static pile composting 0.214 0.216 0.250 0.276 0.297 0.268 0.238 0.267

In-vessel composting 0.374 0.282 0.289 0.254 0.246 0.281 0.334 0.275

Anaerobic digestion 0.282 0.377 0.310 0.313 0.287 0.295 0.293 0.304

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

AB

SW

MT

Glo

bal

Wei

ghts

23

increased to 0.170. As shown in Figure 17, these changes resulted in plasma arc gasification

being ranked the highest among three technologies. Specifically, the global weight of plasma arc

gasification increased from 0.391 to 0.407, the weight of gasification decreased from 0.403 to

0.373, and the weight of pyrolysis increased from 0.206 to 0.220. Thus the effects of high capital

cost on the global weights of plasma arc gasification and pyrolysis were decreased following a

decrease in the weight of the capital cost criterion. That means that if the capital cost becomes

insignificant in the selection of technology for decision makers (county and state governments,

stakeholders), this changes the best technology recommended by the AHP analysis. This is an

advantage of AHP due to its flexibility based on decision makers’ preferences as well as being a

disadvantage in terms of its subjective nature.

The same process was followed for Group 8. The weight of capital cost was decreased from

0.129 to 0.030. The global weight of plasma arc gasification increased from 0.407 to 0.420, the

weight of gasification decreased from 0.408 to 0.381, and the weight of pyrolysis increased from

0.185 to 0.199. Plasma arc gasification turned out to be the best technology based on revised

criteria weights. However, there was a small difference, as small as 0.001, between the global

weights of gasification and plasma arc gasification in the first case. So small modifications in

criteria weights are expected to cause a change in global priorities and rankings of technologies.

FIGURE 14. Sensitivity analysis results for ATSWMT.

Figure 18 shows the sensitivity analysis results for windrow composting, static piles composting,

IVC, and anaerobic digestion. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by switching the weights of the

highest ranked criterion and the lowest ranked criterion.

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase


AT

SW

MT

Glo

bal

Wei

ghts

Plasma Arc Gasification Gasification Pyrolysis

24

FIGURE 15. Sensitivity analysis results for ABSWMT.

For Groups 1, 4, 7, and 8, the highest ranked and lowest ranked technologies did not change

whereas for the remaining groups, the highest ranked technology changed following a

modification in the criteria weights. Before and after sensitivity analyses IVC was recommended

by AHP for Groups 1 and 7 whereas AD was recommended for Groups 4 and 8. The lowest

ranked technology remained as windrow composting in the first and second cases. For Groups 2,

3, and 6 the highest ranked technology became IVC while in the first case it was AD. For Group

5, the highest ranked technology became AD whereas it was static piles composting in the first

case.

Consequently, after the sensitivity analysis was conducted, the highest ranked technology has

become either IVC or AD for all groups. Due to the sensitivity analysis results, static piles

composting and windrow composting were not considered as alternatives in recommendations

section. It is not astonishing that only AD and IVC were ranked the highest when the reasons

behind this fact are investigated. They are more environmentally friendly due to their closed

system design which also increases the public acceptance rate of a possible facility project and

reduces the emissions.

Based on sensitivity analysis and AHP results, gasification, IVC, and AD have remained to

consider as alternatives in recommendations phase.

7. CURRENT STATE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA

Current waste management practices of Floridian counties were investigated before the final

recommendations were provided. Information regarding currently operating waste-to-energy and

composting facilities are presented in the following sub-sections.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase

firs

t ca

se

seco

nd c

ase


AB

SW

MT

Glo

bal

Wei

ghts

Windrow Composting Static Pile Composting In-vessel Composting Anaerobic Digestion

25

7.1 Waste to Energy Facilities in Florida

Waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities combust MSW to produce electrical energy. A great range of

waste types from semisolid to liquid can be processed using WTE technologies. Currently, the

most commonly known WTE technology for MSW processing is incineration of the material in a

combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The efficiencies for the incineration process are

approximately 20-25%, in terms of energy production (World Energy Council, 2013). The size

of the plants can vary significantly, both in terms of waste input capacity and power output

obtained from the incineration of feedstock.

The advantage of WTE technologies over advanced SWM technologies is that there is less

uncertainty about their markets and process characteristics since they are established

technologies, especially in Florida. When it comes to apply advanced SWM technologies for

treatment of waste, their efficiencies, costs, and markets are subject to uncertainty. Both the

operational and the financial risks are high; however, they are more environmentally friendly

than incineration. The information on WTE facilities in Florida are shown in Table 2 (Michaels,

2014). Florida started with one small WTE facility in 1982 and increased the number of its

facilities up to 11 operating WTE facilities as of 2014. Florida has established the largest

capacity to burn MSW of any state in the country.

TABLE 1. WTE facilities in Florida.

Name of Facility Opening

Year

Design

Capacity

(TPD)

Operating

Status Technology

# of

Boilers

Gross Electric

Capacity

(MW)

# of

Houses

Bay County WTE

Facility 1987 500 Operating Mass Burn 2 15 4000

Hillsborough

County Resource

Recovery Facility

1987 1800 Operating Mass Burn 4 46.5 26,000

Lake County

Resource

Recovery Facility

1991 528 Operating Mass Burn 2 14.5

Lee County

Resource

Recovery Facility

1994 1,836 Operating Mass Burn 3 57.3

McKay Bay

Refuse‐to‐Energy

Facility

1985 1000 Operating Mass Burn 4 22 12,000

26

Miami‐Dade

County Resource

Recovery Facility

1982 3000 Operating RDF 4 77 45,000

Palm Beach

Renewable

Energy Facility

#1

1989 2000 Operating RDF 2 61 40,000

Palm Beach

Renewable

Energy Facility

#2

2015 3000 Under

Construction Mass Burn 3 96 40,000

Pasco County

Solid Waste

Resource

Recovery Facility

1991 1050 Operating Mass Burn 3 29.7

Pinellas County

Resource

Recovery Facility


Wheelabrator

South Broward

Inc.


Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #2 (Figure 19) is the largest WTE facility in the country

based on its gross electric capacity. The net electrical energy produced by the facility is enough

to power 40,000 homes. There are various environmental equipment in the facility for removal of

particulates, acid gases, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. According to the U.S. EPA, a new WTE

facility similar to Facility #2 would produce 63 percent less CO2, 94 percent less SO2 , and 10

percent less NOx than a traditional coal-fired power plant (Greenwalt, 2015). Palm Beach County

is not recommended to install any advanced technology since its recently opened WTE facility.

The WTE facilities of other counties were launched in or before 1994. Hence, they are

considered for implementation of an advanced SWM technology.

27

FIGURE 16. Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility (courtesy by Babcock & Wilcox Power

Generation Group, Inc., 2014).

7.2 Composting and AD Facilities

It was stated in Florida 75% Recycling Report that organics (food waste, yard trash and paper)

represent 40% of MSW and also must be recycled at dramatically higher rates to meet the 2020

goal (FDEP, 2010). According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

database, 11 facilities (out of a total of 24 full-scale facilities) are permitted or registered to

accept food waste for composting (Figure 20) (Zimms and Ver Eecke, 2012). Recently in 2011,

two facilities were opened in Florida by the Waste Management Inc, one in Okeechobee serving

southwest Florida and another one in Apopka serving central Florida. Both facilities are utilizing

the AC Composter covered composting technologies supplied by Engineered Compost Systems

(ECS).

28

FIGURE 17. Organic waste treatment facilities in Florida (Zimms and Ver Eecke, 2012).

$2 million was invested in Okeechobee composting facility which was opened in November

2011 (Figure 21). The Okeechobee facility is the first fully-dedicated organics composting

facility in South Florida accepting yard trimmings and preconsumer food waste (Zimms and Ver

Eecke, 2012). The site is configured to accommodate 11 adjacent aerated static piles with a

capacity permitted to process up to 30,000 tons/year (15,000 tons of yard trimmings and 15,000

tons of preconsumer food waste). Publix provided the organic waste from its stores in Miami

Dade and Palm Beach. It has almost reached its capacity after 10 months of operation. Currently,

finished compost is being sold to Garick which is a lawn and garden products manufacturer.

Jacksonville

Zoological

Gardens

Agricyle

WW One

Stark Vista Landfill

Reedy Creek Improvement

District (Disney)

BS Ranch & Farm

1 Stop Landscape Supply

Okeechobee Landfill, Inc.

Weekley Bros. Industrial Park

Franklin County

Central Landfill

29

FIGURE 18. Okeechobee composting facility (courtesy by Onsite Services, 2015.

$4 million was invested in 150-acre Apopka “Vista” composting facility which is permitted to

process up to 45,000 TPY of material and currently operating at approximately 22,000 TPY. The

facility receives yard trimmings from Orange County as well as pre and postconsumer food

waste (including meat and dairy proteins). The Vista facility utilizes the same covered ASP

system in use at the Okeechobee facility. Currently, finished compost is only being used on the

neighboring landfill as cover (Zimms and Ver Eecke, 2012).

Another recently opened organic waste treatment facility was launched in 2014 by Harvest

Power. The facility uses AD technology to convert organic waste into energy in Reedy Creek

Improvement District (RCID). It was reported by Harvest Power that the facility can process

more than 120,000 tons of organic materials annually while generating 5.4 megawatts of

combined heat and power. Orange County is not recommended to open an ABSWMT since an

AD facility has recently launched in the county. Even if the facility is privately owned, it

receives the food scraps from supermarkets, restaurants, and the municipality in Orange County.

Consequently, the composting facilities presented here were opened in 2011 whereas our

recommendations were based on 2014 annual food waste generation data. Only Orange County

is not recommended to invest in an ABSWMT. While there are recently opened composting

facilities in Florida, based on 2014 reports, their residing counties are still under 75% recycling

rate. Hence, they will need to do further improvements in order to reach that goal, some which

are discussed in the recommendations section of this report.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

The final part of this study is to provide recommendations for the implementation of advanced

SWM technologies based on the results obtained from AHP analysis, sensitivity analysis results

combined with the current waste management practices of the counties. Other important issues

that are elaborated in this section are the current recycling rates of counties, the amount of waste

that should not be disposed in landfills to reach 75% recycling goal, and waste treatment

capacities of the technologies. Final recommendations are given considering these issues as well

as the proximity of counties to each other. These evaluations and recommendations provide a

robust structural framework for the counties to develop insights on their potential advanced

SWM projects.

30

8.1 Current Recycling Rates of Counties

Our approach here is to assume that all counties are required to reach 75% recycling goal to

achieve the statewide goal county by county. In the first place, current recycling rates and the

least amount of waste that should be treated to reach 75% recycling goal are determined and

shown in Table 3 for all 67 counties. According to the 75% Recycling Goal Report (FDEP,

2010), amount of waste currently combusted in WTE facilities should be included in the overall

75% recycling goal as legislatively directed. The recycling rates for the counties were calculated

based on this assumption.

TABLE 2. Recycling rates and waste generation in Floridian counties A: County name, B:

Current recycling rate, and C: The least amount of waste that should not be disposed in landfills

(TPY).

A B C A B C A B C

Broward 57% 659,901 Clay 28% 86,552 Desoto 19% 21,733

Orange 51% 659,579 Osceola 31% 83,368 Levy 16% 17,088

Miami-Dade 58% 623,149 Sumter 25% 78,066 Franklin 35% 14,145

Duval 47% 512,472 Walton 6% 77,945 Hardee 6% 12,806

Polk 26% 483,236 Hernando 27% 76,889 Taylor 25% 10,948

Volusia 48% 305,490 Flagler 21% 65,714 Baker 19% 10,853

Palm Beach 65% 264,914 Highlands 14% 64,708 Washington 3% 10,458

Brevard 57% 240,047 Hillsborough 71% 62,477 Putnam 70% 9,459

Seminole 37% 207,725 Alachua 64% 60,518 Bradford 39% 9,166

Sarasota 53% 177,532 Nassau 33% 54,728 Hamilton 6% 7,947

Escambia 31% 167,457 Suwannee 43% 45,781 Dixie 3% 7,529

St. Johns 24% 162,850 Gadsden 12% 42,041 Gulf 28% 7,402

Manatee 48% 154,261 Martin 62% 39,001 Jefferson 29% 6,939

Collier 53% 134,533 Okeechobee 15% 36,723 Calhoun 22% 6,869

Lake 39% 126,922 Citrus 45% 36,314 Wakulla 17% 6,417

Santa Rosa 19% 125,644 Bay 65% 36,184 Union 21% 5,683

Leon 45% 124,321 Columbia 36% 34,477 Madison 22% 5,446

Charlotte 35% 118,147 Monroe 45% 33,902 Gilchrist 13% 5,257

St. Lucie 39% 114,572 Glades 2% 29,355 Liberty 2% 4,523

Okaloosa 22% 113,338 Pasco 71% 28,754 Lafayette 25% 2,129

Indian River 34% 111,004 Jackson 10% 28,403 Holmes 29% 2,101

Marion 44% 100,363 Pinellas 73% 23,840 Hendry 74% 307

31

Lee county which is the only county with a recycling rate (78%) higher than 75% as of 2014

was not recommended to invest in a SWM project; however, it might send its waste to the

adjacent counties.

The least amount of waste that should be treated in an advanced SWM facility is less than

3000 TPY for Lafayette, Holmes, and Hendry counties. These counties are not recommended

to install an advanced SWM facility. The reason behind this suggestion is that any of the

technologies suggested by AHP (IVC, AD, and gasification) are not suggested to operate

under 3000 TPY to operate in an economically feasible way. However, they might transfer

their waste to adjacent counties to reach 75% recycling goal.

8.2 Maximum and Minimum Capacities of Alternatives

Three technologies including gasification, AD, and IVC were recommended as the best

technologies by the AHP and sensitivity analysis results. There are upper and lower limits for the

capacities that these technologies can operate in an economically feasible way.

The recommended minimum capacity for an AD system is 15,000 tons per year (TPY)

(Davis, 2014) whereas the largest AD system that is commercially available can process

300,000 TPY.

Currently available design capacities for IVC in North America is between 3000 and 160,000

TPY (Ulloa, 2008 & Spencer, 2007).

A minimum capacity of approximately 400,000-500,000 TPY is needed for gasification to be

economically feasible (Aguado and Serrano, 1999). However, there are no existing facilities

in the world that provide the minimum capacity necessary for the economic feasibility and

the largest gasification facility in the world can convert up to 350,000 TPY in practice, which

is Air Products' Tees Valley Renewable Energy Facility in England (Air Products, 2015).

Larger capacity gasifiers are suggested for treatment of solid waste since they perform better

at variable fuel feed processing. Furthermore, they can maintain uniform process temperature

that increases the output quality.

The counties with the largest waste disposed in landfills were considered for gasification

technology since the minimum gasification capacity is assumed as 400,000 TPY. In Figure

22, annual waste generation and amount of waste landfilled for the counties considered to

install a gasification technology are shown. The least amount of waste that needs to be

treated to reach 75% recycling rate were previously presented in Table 3 and as a result,

Broward, Orange, Miami-Dade, Duval, and Polk counties need to treat more than 400,000

TPY. Volusia is also considered for gasification technology since it needs to treat more than

300,000 TPY and can be grouped with an adjacent county to provide 100,000 TPY. The rest

of the counties in Figure 22 should treat less than 300,000 TPY to reach 75% recycling rate.

Due to this fact, they are not recommended to install a gasification facility. Establishing

gasification facility only in Broward, Orange, Miami-Dade, Duval, Polk, and Volusia may

enable the facility receive minimum required amount of waste to operate in an economically

feasible way.

32

FIGURE 19. Counties with annually 400,000 tons or greater waste landfilled.

Small and larger counties that share a border were grouped together. Transferring waste to long

distances increases the cost, number of waste trucks on the road, and environmental pollution

caused by the trucks. 6 gasification facilities were recommended to be installed in Miami-Dade,

Broward, Orange, Duval, Polk, and Volusia counties. The least amount of waste that needs to be

treated by these 6 gasification facilities is approximately 4M TPY and the contribution to the

75% recycling goal is estimated as 13% in total. This contribution increases current recycling

rate from 53% (including combusted waste) to 66%. The details for each of the recommended

facility are given as follows:

Miami-Dade County

Miami Dade and Monroe counties are recommended to install a gasification facility to treat their

waste jointly. The facility is recommended to be located in Miami Dade because of the fact that

the amount of waste that needs to be transferred to the gasification facility from Miami Dade is

larger than Monroe County. Transportation costs are higher for large amounts of waste as well as

the safety risks. The least amount of waste that needs to be treated in the gasification facility is

approximately 650,000 TPY to achieve 75% recycling goal. In such a case, their estimated

contribution to overall state goal is estimated to be 2.04%.

Broward County Broward and Collier counties are recommended to install a gasification facility to treat their

waste. The facility is recommended to be located in Broward because the amount of waste that

needs to be transferred to the gasification facility from Broward is larger than Collier. The least

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Rec

ycl

ing R

ates

Annual

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Counties

Landfilled Collected Minimum Gasification Capacity Recycling Rates

33

amount of waste that needs to be treated in the gasification facility is approximately 795,000

TPY to achieve 75% recycling goal. If conducted, their contribution to overall state goal is

estimated to be 2.46%.

Orange County

Orange County needs to treat 660,000 tons waste instead of discarding them in landfills to reach

75% recycling goal. Orange County has border to Seminole, Lake, Osceola, and Brevard

Counties. Orange and Osceola Counties are grouped together and need to treat at least 745,000

TPY in a gasification facility. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is

estimated as 2.30%.

Duval

Duval County needs to treat at least 510,000 TPY. The County has borders to Nassau, Baker,

Clay, and St. Johns Counties. Nassau County has border only to Duval County in Florida. For

that reason, Nassau is grouped with Duval County. They need to treat 565,000 TPY in a

gasification facility. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as

1.76%.

Polk

Polk County needs to treat at least 480,000 TPY. It shares a border with Osceola, Lake, Sumter,

Pasco, Hillsborough, Hardee, and Highlands Counties. Osceola was previously grouped with

Orange County. There is also Manatee County in southwest of the Polk. They were in the same

group in the first county categorization. They need to treat at least 640,000 TPY in a gasification

facility. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as 1.98%.

Volusia

Volusia County has border to Lake, Seminole, Brevard, Marion, Putnam, and Flagler counties.

Volusia, Seminole, and Lake Counties fell under the same group in the first categorization. They

are grouped together. They need to treat at least 640,000 TPY in a gasification facility. Under

such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as 1.98%.

The rest of the counties are considered for AD or IVC. In the light of the information given about

the technology capacities, the counties that have annual landfilled waste amount less than

350,000 tons are recommended to install IVC or AD (whichever is suggested by the AHP

results) to increase their recycling rates up to 75%. Table 4 displays the counties for technology

capacity and AHP results interaction. It can be seen in the Table 4, that the counties which send

more than 160,000 tons food waste per year to landfills was recommended to install AD whereas

for the counties which send less than 15,000 tons of food waste per year to landfills are

recommended to install IVC. Washington, Bradford, Taylor, Baker, Jefferson, Liberty, Wakulla,

Hamilton, Dixie, Hardee, Madison, Okeechobee, Gulf, Union, Calhoun, Glades, Holmes, and

Lafayette are the counties which are not recommended to install AD or IVC; however, they can

transfer their waste to adjacent counties. Because, the amount of food waste that they send to

34

landfills is less than 3000 TPY which is lower than the minimum suggested capacity for AD and

IVC.

TABLE 3. AHP results and technology capacities.

Amount of food

waste landfilled

(TPY)

The highest ranked technology based on AHP and sensitivity analysis

IVC AD IVC / AD

3000-15,000

TPY (IVC)

Gilchrist

Santa Rose

Suwannee

St. Lucie

Sumter

Hernando

Martin

Levy Franklin Desoto

Gadsden Jackson Putnam

Highlands Columbia Walton

Flagler Citrus

15,000-160,000

TPY

(IVC or AD)

Charlotte

St. Johns

Indian River

Sarasota

Palm Beach

Escambia

Pasco

Leon

Brevard

Pinellas

Hillsborough

Bay

Alachua

Clay

Okaloosa

Marion

The counties that are considered for gasification technology are also not included here (Miami-

Dade, Monroe, Broward, Collier, Orange, Osceola, Duval, Nassau, Polk, Manatee, Volusia,

Seminole, and Lake). Under the 160,000-300,000 tons of food waste per year category, there is

no county since Orange, Broward, and Miami-Dade are recommended to install gasification

technology because of the large amount of waste that they discard in landfills each year.

Considering the interaction cells in the Table 4, Gilchrist, Santa Rose, Suwannee, St. Lucie,

Charlotte, St. Johns, Indian River, Sarasota, and Palm Beach counties are recommended to

implement IVC since the highest ranked technology in both AHP and sensitivity analyses

was IVC. The capacity of in vessel composting is appropriate for the amount of food waste

that they send to landfills.

Levy, Gadsden, Highlands, Flagler, Franklin, Jackson, Columbia, Citrus, Desoto, Putnam,

and Walton counties are also recommended to implement IVC because the amount of food

waste landfilled annually is best suited to IVC and sensitivity analysis suggests IVC. Even

though AHP suggested AD, either of them can be implemented based on our approach.

AD is recommended for Escambia, Pasco, Leon, Brevard, Pinellas, and Hillsborough

counties because the highest ranked technology in both AHP and sensitivity analyses was

AD. The amount of food waste landfilled is higher than 15,000 TPY for these counties. The

capacity of AD is best suited to this amount.

The counties that have not been yet recommended any technology are then grouped with the

counties that have been recommended a technology based on their geographical proximity.

Furthermore, any county that has been suggested to implement the same technology are grouped

together if they have a border to each other and their total amount of food waste landfilled

annually does not exceed the capacity of the recommended technology. Further groupings are as

follows:

35

Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton counties are in close proximity to each other. All of them

were recommended to install IVC. The total amount of food waste that they landfill is

approximately 29,000 TPY. Okaloosa constitutes the highest amount with 16,000 TPY and

shares a border with the two other counties. These three counties are grouped together. If

conducted, their contribution to the overall state goal is estimated as 0.09%.

Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, and Gulf counties are recommended to install

IVC. The amount of food waste that is landfilled is approximately 31.5 thousand TPY. Bay

County constituted the highest amount with 22.5 TPY. These six counties are grouped

together. If conducted, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as 0.1%.

Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, and Wakulla counties are grouped together and recommended to

install IVC. The amount of food waste that is landfilled is approximately 15,000 TPY.

Gadsden constituted the highest amount with approximately 9,000 TPY. These four counties

are grouped together. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is

estimated as 0.05%.

Leon, Taylor, and Jefferson counties are grouped together and recommended to install an AD

facility. The amount of food waste that is landfilled is approximately 28,000 TPY. Leon

constituted the highest amount with approximately 24,000 TPY. These three counties are

grouped together. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated

as 0.09%.

Suwannee County is recommended to install an IVC facility to manage 6840 tons of food

waste landfilled annually. The county shares a border with Madison, Hamilton, Gilchrist,

Lafayette, Columbia, and Dixie counties. They are suggested to transfer their food waste to

Suwannee County. The total food waste that is supposed to be treated with this grouping is

20,000 TPY. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as

0.06%.

An IVC facility is recommended to be established by Alachua and Marion counties jointly to

treat the food waste of also Union, Bradford, Levy, Putnam, Clay, Baker, St. Johns, and

Flagler counties. The total food waste that is supposed to be treated with the proposed way is

approximately 106,000 TPY. Due to the close proximity of three counties with a high food

waste landfilled, the amount of food waste that should be treated in the recommended facility

is higher than others. Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is

estimated as 0.33%.

An AD facility is recommended to be installed by Citrus, Hernando, Sumter, Pasco,

Hillsborough, and Pinellas. The total amount of food waste which is landfilled by these

counties is 326,000 TPY. Pinellas County constitutes the highest amount with 155,000 TPY.

Under such a scenario, their contribution to overall state goal is estimated as 1.01%.

At the end, Palm Beach should treat at least 265,000 tons of waste per year. This large

amount of waste can be treated using gasification. However, Palm Beach has recently opened

a WTE facility with a capacity of 3000 TPD. Its waste can be treated in its recently opened

facilities with adjacent counties namely Glades, Hendry, Charlotte, and Sarasota. The

contribution of this proposed grouping to the overall recycling rate is estimated as 1.83%.

The most important consideration for this facility is that long distances are supposed to be

travelled by Charlotte and Sarasota counties.

Brevard should treat at least 240 thousand tons of waste to reach 75% recycling goal.

Highlands, Indian River, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Martin, Hardee, and Desoto counties are

grouped with Brevard. The total amount of waste that should be treated in the recommended

36

gasification facility is approximately 576,000 TPY. The contribution of this proposed facility

to the overall recycling rate is estimated as 1.75%.

Escambia is recommended to install AD whereas the adjacent counties are recommended to

install IVC based on both sensitivity analysis and AHP results. Escambia might install a

small scale AD facility to treat 24,000 tons of food waste annually. The contribution of this

proposed facility to the overall recycling rate is estimated as 0.07%.

It is assumed that no residual is landfilled after waste conversion by gasification, AD, and IVC.

The calculation of the contribution to the overall state recycling rates are completed based on this

assumption. The proposed grouping for joint waste management in Floridian counties can be

studied further to investigate the economic and environmental costs of transferring waste to the

suggested counties. It should be considered that transferring waste to the counties in long

distances increases not only costs but also the number of required waste transfer stations which

increases local air pollution, waste trucks in traffic, and the greenhouse gas emissions released by

them. Our recommendation here is to establish the facility in a county with the highest amount of

waste to be treated and transfer the waste from other counties that share a border with it. Figure

23 shows the new grouping as well as the technologies suggested for each groups of counties.

FIGURE 20. Groups of counties in the final recommendations.

9. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION

In this study, advanced solid waste management technologies that may help the State of Florida

reach its 75% recycling goal were identified and evaluated. To this end, Analytical Hierarchy

Process which is a multi-criteria decision making method was utilized to evaluate the

technologies with respect to several criteria including their capital cost, revenue, environmental

impact, etc. In order to conduct the method, subject matter experts from solid waste management

departments of 67 Floridian counties were contacted. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was

conducted to investigate the impact of changing criteria weights on the evaluation results.

Recommendations were provided based on the analysis results, current waste management

37

practices, and recycling rates in the counties, their geographical proximity to each other, and

waste treatment capacities of the recommended technologies. Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange,

Duval, Polk, and Volusia counties that should treat at least 300,000 TPY to reach 75% recycling

goal were recommended to install a gasification facility. They were grouped with adjacent small

counties to treat their waste jointly. The rest of the counties were recommended to install AD or

IVC based on the amount of food waste discarded in landfills each year combined with the

capacities of AD and IVC and analytical hierarchy process results. The total improvement in the

recycling rates obtained by the recommended facilities is 17.9%, which increases the current

statewide recycling rate from 53% (including combustion) to 70.9%. This rate can be improved

by converting different kind of wastes than food in the recommended anaerobic digestion and

composting facilities.

Certain limitations apply to the research conducted. The most challenging phase of this work was

to collect a consistent data for ASWMT. Characteristics of ASWMT vary among different

applications. Their operational and investment costs, revenues, markets of products, energy

requirements depend on several factors including the geographic location of the facility, local

waste generation, the type and composition of waste processed, local regulations, and

governmental policies. Their characteristics are not changed proportionally by the rate of change

in the factors. Available data for these technologies are also limited due to their emerging nature

and their applications on solid waste processing are not widespread.

Further limitations of this study apply to the evaluation tool, AHP. The ranking of the

technologies are determined based on the judgments by subject matter experts that can be biased.

The SMEs who are specialists in their fields were selected for criteria ranking in order to reduce

the bias. Application of the technologies to different sites and different waste compositions may

result in different performances. The performances of technologies, their operation costs,

environmental impacts, and waste conversion rates might change under their specific

implementations due to the uncertainties discussed throughout this report.

38

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SELECTED DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Aguado, J. and Serrano, D. P., Feedstock Recycling of Plastic Wastes, Vol. 1, Royal Society of

Chemistry, Cambridge, 1999, p 21.

Air Products. [Cited 2015 11/10/2015]. Tees Valley Renewable Energy Facilities. Available

online at: [http://www.airproducts.co.uk/microsite/uk/teesvalley/]

Antmann, E.D., Shi, X., Celik, N., and Dai, Y.D. “Continuous-discrete simulation-based decision

making framework for solid waste management and recycling programs,” Computer and

Industrial Engineering 65(3): 438-454 (2011).

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., 2014. Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility

No. 2. available online at: http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/pch604.pdf

Belevi, H., & Baccini, P. “Long-term behavior of municipal solid waste landfills,” Waste

Management & Research 7(1): 43-56 (1989).

Wiles, C. C. “Municipal solid waste combustion ash: state-of-the-knowledge,” Journal of

Hazardous Materials 47(1): 325-344 (1996).

Chen, Y., Cheng, J. J., & Creamer, K. S. “Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review,”

Bioresource Technology 99(10): 4044-4064 (2008).

Chirico, J. There is No Such Thing as “Away”: An Analysis of Sustainable Solid Waste

Management Technologies. Atlanta, Georgia: Program in Science, Technology, and

Innovation Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009.

Davis, R.C. Anaerobic Digestion: Pathways for Using Waste as Energy in Urban Settings.

Available online at:

[https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/Sustainability%20Scholars/GCS%20reports

%202014/Examining%20the%20current%20state%20of%20anaerobic%20digestion%20faci

lities.pdf], 2014.

de Holanda, M. R., & Balestieri, J. A. P. “Cogeneration in a solid-wastes power-station: a case

study,” Applied Energy 63(2): 125-139 (1999).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 75% Recycling Goal Report to the

Legislature. Available online at:

[http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/75percent/75_rec

ycling_report.pdf], 2010.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Solid Waste Annual Report Data.

Available online at:

[http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/13_data.htm], 2013.

Key Note Publications Ltd. (2007) Global Waste Management Market Report. Pub ID:

KEYL1470786. Available online at:

[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Key_Global_Waste_Generation.pdf]

McKay, G. “Dioxin characterisation, formation and minimisation during municipal solid waste

(MSW) incineration: review,” Chemical Engineering Journal 86(3): 343-368 (2002).

Michaels, T. (2014). The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-to-energy Facilities. The Energy

Recovery Council. Available online at:

[http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/files/ERC_2014_Directory.pdf]

Guddeti, R. R, Depolymerization of The Waste Polymers in Municipal Solid Waste Streams

Using Induction-coupled Plasma Technology, Vol. 61-03, Drexel University, Philadelphia,

2000, p 161.

http://www.airproducts.co.uk/microsite/uk/teesvalley/

https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/Sustainability%20Scholars/GCS%20reports%202014/Examining%20the%20current%20state%20of%20anaerobic%20digestion%20facilities.pdf



http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/75percent/75_recycling_report.pdf

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/75percent/75_recycling_report.pdf

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/13_data.htm

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Key_Global_Waste_Generation.pdf

http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/files/ERC_2014_Directory.pdf

39

Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. “Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria

decision analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research 98(1): 19-36 (1997).

Holmgren, K. “Role of a district-heating network as a user of waste-heat supply from various

sources -the case of Goteborg,” Applied Energy 83(12):1351–67 (2006).

Moustakas K. and Loizidou M. Solid Waste Management through the Application of Thermal

Methods, INTECH Open Access Publisher, Rijeka, 2010, P 232.

Onsite Services, OKEECHOBEE COMPOSTING FACILITY, available online at

http://www.oesfl.com/portfolio-view/okeechobee-composting-facility/. [cited in September

2015]

Regional Municipality of Halton. EFW Technology Overview. Available online at:

[www.halton.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=17470], 2007.

Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.

Sakai, S., Sawell, S. E., Chandler, A. J., Eighmy, T. T., Kosson, D. S., Vehlow, J., ... & Hjelmar,

O. “World terends in municipal solid waste management,” Waste Management 16(5): 341-

350 (1996).

Spencer, L. R. “What’s new- in-vessel composting,” BioCycle 48(5) (2007).

Suksankraisorn, K., Patumsawad, S., & Fungtammasan, B. “Combustion studies of high

moisture content waste in a fluidised bed,” Waste Management 23(5): 433-439 (2003).

Ulloa, P. Overview of Food Waste Composting in the U.S. Internal Report, Earth Engineering

Center, Columbia University, 2008.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). [Cited 2015 5/22/2015]. Wastes-

Municipal Solid Waste. Available online at:

[http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/.]

URS Corporation. Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies. Available

online at:

[http://lacitysan.org/solid_resources/strategic_programs/alternative_tech/PDF/final_report.p

df], 2005.

World Energy Council (2013). World Energy Resources 2013 Survey: Summary. World Energy

Council, London. ISBN: 978 0 946121 29 8.

Zarske, M. S., Yowell, J., and Straten, M. [Cited 2016 2/15/2016]. Landfills: Building Them

Better. Available online at:

[https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_enven

g/cub_enveng_lesson05.xml]

Zimms, M. and Ver Eecke, D. “Food waste composting progress in the southeast,” BioCycle

53(10) (2012).

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/

http://lacitysan.org/solid_resources/strategic_programs/alternative_tech/PDF/final_report.pdf

http://lacitysan.org/solid_resources/strategic_programs/alternative_tech/PDF/final_report.pdf

40

APPENDIX B: PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES FOR ATSWMT

C1: Revenue C2: Tipping fee C3: Capital cost C4: Operation cost C5: Development period C6:

Flexibility of process C7: Land requirement of facility C8: Net conversion efficiency C9: Ease of

permitting C10: Marketability C11: Environmental impact C12: Public acceptability C13: Number of

facilities

Black values in the matrices indicate a more important criterion in the row compared to the criterion

in the column whereas red values indicate the opposite.

The consolidated matrices were directly entered into the Expert Choice Decision Support System.

TABLE B.2. Consolidated matrix of Group 1 for criteria pairwise comparisons.

Group 1 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

C1 1 1.00 2.00 1.41 3.87 2.83 4.90 3.87 2.83 3.46 1.15 4.90 3.46

C2

1 2.45 1.41 4.00 2.45 4.47 4.00 2.45 2.83 1.41 5.48 3.87

C3

1 1.15 2.83 3.87 2.83 4.90 1.00 4.47 1.73 3.87 5.29

C4

1 2.83 3.16 3.16 4.90 1.22 3.74 2.45 4.24 4.90

C5

1 6.00 2.00 7.00 2.00 6.32 4.24 2.00 6.93

C6

1 6.00 2.00 4.00 1.22 1.41 7.00 2.45

C7

1 8.00 3.00 6.93 5.29 2.00 7.48

C8

1 6.00 1.22 3.16 8.00 1.00

C9

1 4.90 3.16 4.00 5.48

C10

1 1.73 7.35 1.41

C11

1 5.66 2.83

C12

1 8.49

C13

1



C1 1 2.29 1.10 1.26 1.91 1.71 1.82 1.33 2.88 2.88 3.30 3.17 5.77

C2

1 1.82 1.59 1.34 1.32 1.59 1.14 1.71 2.06 4.00 1.82 4.58

C3

1 1.10 2.15 1.65 2.29 1.08 4.00 4.38 3.17 3.11 6.21

C4

1 3.17 1.82 3.42 1.10 3.78 4.93 2.52 3.42 6.65

C5

1 1.44 1.26 1.69 1.00 2.52 5.43 1.26 3.63

C6

1 1.26 1.39 1.44 3.17 4.38 1.14 4.00

C7

1 1.71 1.06 2.29 5.01 1.14 3.78

C8

1 1.75 2.62 2.38 1.74 3.16

C9

1 1.59 5.52 1.26 3.42

C10

1 6.84 1.82 2.52

C11

1 5.65 8.32

C12

1 3.91

C13

1

41



C1 1 1.51 1.00 1.07 3.26 2.88 4.88 2.51 5.27 3.10 2.00 1.78 2.20

C2

1 1.15 1.12 2.42 2.54 3.46 2.49 3.45 1.94 1.70 1.68 2.08

C3

1 1.26 3.03 2.64 4.65 2.88 4.82 2.82 2.14 1.48 2.33

C4

1 3.14 2.57 4.53 2.71 4.90 2.49 1.76 1.37 2.25

C5

1 1.12 1.78 1.02 1.78 1.16 1.97 1.57 1.01

C6

1 2.14 1.16 2.14 1.01 1.47 1.36 1.32

C7

1 1.38 1.26 1.67 2.80 2.09 1.19

C8

1 1.65 1.00 1.54 1.18 1.07

C9

1 1.85 2.67 2.08 1.28

C10

1 1.07 1.31 1.20

C11

1 1.22 1.62

C12

1 1.49

C13

1



C1 1 1.51 1.12 1.05 2.54 3.05 3.83 2.46 2.57 1.59 1.45 2.05 2.51

C2

1 1.63 1.51 1.85 2.88 2.99 2.12 1.59 1.18 1.12 1.86 2.06

C3

1 1.12 3.71 4.56 5.41 3.09 3.36 2.22 1.62 2.80 2.78

C4

1 2.67 4.11 5.03 2.96 2.49 1.84 1.41 2.74 2.45

C5

1 1.22 2.57 1.28 1.32 1.11 2.08 1.04 1.35

C6

1 1.87 1.67 1.62 1.35 3.07 1.20 1.31

C7

1 2.08 2.88 1.76 3.60 2.35 1.07

C8

1 1.16 1.32 2.70 1.24 1.61

C9

1 1.05 2.22 1.26 1.67

C10

1 2.09 1.20 1.95

C11

1 1.86 2.26

C12

1 1.94

C13

1

42



C1 1 1.03 1.30 1.15 2.27 2.35 4.80 2.93 3.69 2.61 2.43 2.61 2.49

C2

1 1.02 1.25 2.35 3.55 5.57 4.34 5.10 3.81 2.99 3.95 2.93

C3

1 1.74 3.57 3.73 5.97 4.62 5.53 3.20 2.49 2.70 3.57

C4

1 3.17 2.54 5.22 3.20 4.92 2.63 2.30 2.46 2.91

C5

1 1.08 2.40 1.89 2.30 1.02 1.05 1.03 1.79

C6

1 2.83 1.89 2.86 1.22 1.10 1.04 1.43

C7

1 1.43 1.32 1.89 1.78 1.84 1.64

C8

1 1.50 1.00 1.56 1.40 1.06

C9

1 2.09 2.24 2.14 1.58

C10

1 1.08 1.08 1.03

C11

1 1.15 1.35

C12

1 1.27

C13

1



C1 1 1.26 1.44 1.59 2.15 5.24 1.82 5.19 2.47 3.48 5.04 1.59 6.00

C2

1 1.39 1.44 1.82 5.01 1.59 5.04 2.47 2.88 4.82 1.69 5.85

C3

1 1.26 2.00 4.64 1.82 4.48 2.88 2.29 4.16 1.05 4.82

C4

1 1.52 4.00 1.04 4.00 1.82 2.88 4.22 1.59 5.24

C5

1 2.88 1.26 1.91 1.26 1.44 2.00 1.26 2.71

C6

1 2.29 1.10 2.52 1.82 1.00 2.27 1.59

C7

1 2.00 1.44 1.62 2.03 1.26 2.41

C8

1 2.08 1.65 1.26 2.13 1.44

C9

1 1.26 1.96 1.59 2.29

C10

1 2.29 1.14 3.63

C11

1 2.00 2.00

C12

1 3.78

C13

1

43



C1 1 1.51 1.18 1.09 1.90 2.47 1.34 1.25 1.38 1.63 1.98 2.19 2.32

C2

1 1.36 1.05 1.44 1.92 1.10 1.29 1.06 1.44 1.93 2.28 1.67

C3

1 1.47 2.26 3.21 1.80 1.56 1.71 1.66 1.56 1.96 2.32

C4

1 1.83 2.55 1.61 1.36 1.25 1.47 1.95 2.55 2.07

C5

1 1.06 1.32 1.53 1.40 1.24 2.99 3.70 1.03

C6

1 1.28 2.19 1.60 1.36 3.40 4.87 1.08

C7

1 1.26 1.12 1.08 2.98 3.42 1.20

C8

1 1.05 1.23 2.39 2.58 1.77

C9

1 1.13 2.30 3.16 1.37

C10

1 2.22 2.73 1.49

C11

1 1.03 4.11

C12

1 4.65

C13

1



C1 1 1.19 1.41 1.86 3.35 5.83 6.40 3.46 2.63 5.32 1.41 2.59 5.63

C2

1 2.00 2.38 4.56 5.54 6.70 3.56 3.31 5.29 1.32 2.51 5.83

C3

1 1.57 3.72 4.43 5.73 2.91 2.61 4.90 1.05 2.00 5.01

C4

1 3.31 3.72 5.01 2.00 2.11 3.83 1.52 1.78 4.00

C5

1 1.22 1.86 1.47 1.07 1.14 2.63 1.88 1.19

C6

1 1.26 2.45 1.78 1.19 4.68 2.21 1.00

C7

1 3.36 2.15 1.86 4.90 3.46 1.19

C8

1 1.48 2.21 1.57 1.14 2.47

C9

1 1.46 2.55 1.28 1.47

C10

1 4.36 2.21 1.00

C11

1 1.37 4.68

C12

1 3.46

C13

1

44

APPENDIX C: PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES FOR ABSWMT

C1: Capital cost C2: Operation cost C3: Development period C4: Land requirement of facility C5: Net

conversion efficiency C6: Environmental impact C7: Public acceptability

Black values in the matrices indicate a more important criterion in the row compared to the criterion

in the column whereas red values indicate the opposite.

The consolidated matrices were directly entered into the Expert Choice Decision Support System.

TABLE C.2. Consolidated matrix of Group 1 for criteria pairwise comparisons.

Group 1 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

C1 1 1.15 2.83 2.83 4.90 1.73 3.87

C2 1 2.83 3.16 4.90 2.45 4.24

C3 1 2.00 7.00 4.24 2.00

C4 1 8.00 5.29 2.00

C5 1 3.16 8.00

C6 1 5.66

C7 1



C1 1 1.10 2.15 2.29 1.08 3.17 3.11

C2 1 3.17 3.42 1.10 2.52 3.42

C3 1 1.26 1.69 5.43 1.26

C4 1 1.71 5.01 1.14

C5 1 2.38 1.74

C6 1 5.65

C7 1



C1 1 1.26 3.03 4.65 2.88 2.14 1.48

C2 1 3.14 4.53 2.71 1.76 1.37

C3 1 1.78 1.02 1.97 1.57

C4 1 1.38 2.80 2.09

C5 1 1.54 1.18

C6 1 1.22

C7 1

45



C1 1 1.12 3.71 5.41 3.09 1.62 2.80

C2 1 2.67 5.03 2.96 1.41 2.74

C3 1 2.57 1.28 2.08 1.04

C4 1 2.08 3.60 2.35

C5 1 2.70 1.24

C6 1 1.86

C7 1



C1 1 1.74 3.57 5.97 4.62 2.49 2.70

C2 1 3.17 5.22 3.20 2.30 2.46

C3 1 2.40 1.89 1.05 1.03

C4 1 1.43 1.78 1.84

C5 1 1.56 1.40

C6 1 1.15

C7 1



C1 1 1.26 2.00 1.82 4.48 4.16 1.05

C2 1 1.52 1.04 4.00 4.22 1.59

C3 1 1.26 1.91 2.00 1.26

C4 1 2.00 2.03 1.26

C5 1 1.26 2.13

C6 1 2.00

C7 1



C1 1 1.47 2.26 1.80 1.56 1.56 1.96

C2 1 1.83 1.61 1.36 1.95 2.55

C3 1 1.32 1.53 2.99 3.70

46

C4 1 1.26 2.98 3.42

C5 1 2.39 2.58

C6 1 1.03

C7 1



C1 1 1.57 3.72 5.73 2.91 1.05 2.00

C2 1 3.31 5.01 2.00 1.52 1.78

C3 1 1.86 1.47 2.63 1.88

C4 1 3.36 4.90 3.46

C5 1 1.57 1.14

C6 1 1.37

C7 1

Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste ... · i Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced Solid Waste ... · i Assessment and Evaluation of Advanced...