Transcript LESSON 2: CHARACTERISTICS AND QUANTITY OF MSW

LESSON 2: CHARACTERISTICS
AND QUANTITY
OF MSW
Goals
 Determine why quantification is important
 Understand the methodology used to quantify
MSW
 Become aware of differences among global
production rates
 Understand factors affecting waste
generation rates
 Become familiar with per capita generation
rates
Goals, Cont’d
 Explain why it is important to characterize
MSW.
 Become familiar with MSW descriptors.
 Understand the methods used to characterize
MSW
 Describe the physical, chemical, and
biological properties associated with MSW.
 Perform calculations using waste composition
and properties.
RCRA Subtitle D Wastes
 MSW
 Household
hazardous wastes
 Municipal sludge
 Non-hazardous
industrial wastes
 Combustion ash
 SQG hazardous
waste
 Construction and
Demolition debris
 Agricultural wastes
 Oil and gas wastes
 Mining wastes
MSW - RCRA Definition
Durable goods
Non-durable goods
Containers/Packaging
Food wastes
Yard wastes
Miscellaneous inorganics
MSW - Textbook Definition








Mixed household waste
recyclables
household hazardous waste
commercial waste
yard waste
litter
bulky items
construction & demolitions waste
What are the sources of RCRA
Subtitle-D Wastes?







Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Industrial
Agricultural
Treatment Plants
Open Areas (streets, parks, etc.)
What is the Nature of RCRA
Subtitle-D Wastes?
Organic
Inorganic
Putrescible
Combustible
Recyclable
Hazardous
Infectious
Terminology
Generated Waste =
Disposed (Collected)
Waste + Diverted Waste
Importance of Generation
Rates
Compliance with Federal/state diversion
requirements
Equipment selection,
Collection and management decisions
Facilities design
Per Capita Generation
(lb/day)
Florida MSW Per Capita
Generation Rate
10
9
8
7
6
5
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
0
Florida Population Growth (1830 - 2020)
24
22
20
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Population
Low Projection
Medium Projection
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1930
1920
1910
1900
1890
1880
1870
1860
1850
0
1840
2
1830
Millions
18
High Projection
Florida MSW Management
Tons MSW Managed (In Millions)
14
12
Landfills
10
8
Recycle
6
4
2
Incineration
0
1990
Landfill
1991
1992
1993
Recycle
1994
1995
1996
WTE
1997
1998
Factors affecting generation
Rates
 Source
reduction/recycling
 Geographic location
 Season
 Home food waste
grinders
 Collection Frequency
 GNP trend
 Population increase
 Legislation
 Public attitudes
 Per capita income
 Size of households
Population density
 Pay As You Throw
Programs
Waste Composition Studies
Methodology Development
Study Planning
Sample Plan
Sampling Procedure
Data Interpretation
Sample Plan
Load Selection
Number of Samples
Sampling Procedure
Vehicle Unloading
Sample Selection and Retrieval
Container Preparation
Sample Placement
Sorting
Waste contents are
unloaded for sorting
Appropriate mass of material is selected randomly
Each load is separated manually by
component example - Wood, concrete,
plastic, metal, etc.
Each component is weighed and
weights recorded
Components are separated
Data Interpretation
Weighted Average based on Generator
Source Composition/Distribution
Contamination Adjustment
Specific Weight
Values - 600-900 lb/yd3 as delivered
Function of location, season, storage
time, equipment used, processing
(compaction, shredding, etc.)
Moisture content (MC)
Weight or volume based
– Weight: wt. of water/sample wt.
• MCwet= water/(water+solids)
• MCdry= water/solids
– Volume: vol. of water/sample volume
Chemical Composition
Used primarily for combustion and
waste to energy (WTE) calculations but
can also be used to estimate biological
and chemical behaviors
Waste consists of combustible (i.e.
paper) and non-combustible materials
(i.e. glass)
Proximate Analysis
Loss of moisture (temp held at 105 C)
Volatile Combustible Matter (VCM)
(temp increased to 950 C, closed
crucible)
Fixed Carbon (residue from VCM)
Ash (temp = 950 C, open crucible)
Ultimate Analysis
Molecular composition (C, H, N, O, P,
etc.)
Table in notes
Typical Data on the Ultimate
Analysis - Example
Food Wastes
– Carbon: 48%
– Hydrogen: 6.5%
– Oxygen: 37.6%
– Nitrogen: 2.6%
– Sulfur: 0.4%
– Ash: 5%
Energy Content
Models are derived from physical
composition and from ultimate analysis
Determined through lab calculations
using calorimeters
Individual waste component energy
contents
Empirical Equations
Modified Dulong formula (wet basis):
BTU/lb = 145C +610(H2-02/8)+40S +
10N
Model based on proximate analysis
Kcal/kg = 45B - 6W
B = Combustible volatile matter in MSW (%)
W = Water, percent weight on dry basis