[GreenYes] Informed solid waste management

[Stephan Pollard <stephan.pollard@no.address>]

All,

Few would argue that most of us want to do the "right thing."  
Similarly, few would argue that fully informed decisions are anything 
less than optimal.  However, many decisions involving solid waste 
management are made that are not fully informed.  The suggestion has 
been made by Barlaz et al., (2003a) that the public is not always able 
to separate that which sounds appealing from true resource recovery.  It 
has become clear that while there are often positive externalities 
(benefits) to our "do-good" actions there are also negative 
externalities (costs) associated with our actions.  These unaccounted 
for external costs imply that our activities are inefficient.  In this 
circumstance society's net welfare is not maximized and is therefore 
suboptimal.

On September 22, 2006 I sent an email to the GreenYes listserv (Is MSW 
recycling the best policy?) soliciting commentary on the following 
assertions by Lave et al. (1999).  First, "the goal of MSW recycling 
(presumably that of the US) should not be to increase MSW recycling but 
rather to increase environmental quality and the sustainability of the 
economy."  Second, "from a review of the existing economic experience 
with recycling and an analysis of the environmental benefits (including 
estimation of external social costs)... for most communities, curbside 
recycling is only justifiable for some postconsumer waste, such as 
aluminum and other metals."  Third, "curbside recycling of postconsumer 
metals can save money and improve environmental quality if the 
collection, sorting, and recovery processes are efficient."  Finally, 
"curbside collection of glass and paper is unlikely to help the 
environment and sustainability save in special circumstances."  What is 
suggested by Lave et al. (1999) is that the diversion of materials in a 
recycling program that increase the cost of waste management is not 
appropriate when the added cost of the diversion, including 
environmental discharges, resources, and energy, are more than those 
associated with the extraction, transportation, and manufacture of 
virgin materials.  Consideration of cost, environmental discharges, 
resources, energy, and other externalities (both positive and negative) 
should occur when evaluating any waste management alternative.

There are tools available that quantify the relative benefits of the 
various alternatives of solid waste management...tools that indicate the 
appropriateness of integrated solid waste management.  LCA is an 
analytical tool that examines the often complex environmental impact of 
a product, process, or service.  Information returned from LCAs can be 
used as an important input to informed solid waste 
decision-making...decision-making that should incorporate periodic 
reassessment.  Such reassement includes, for example, measurement of the 
efficacy of diversion programs at the material/commodity level.  
Depending on ever-changing circumstances, halting the diversion of glass 
bottles and jars in favor of spending the saved money on programs 
targeting the diversion or perhaps elimination of high-risk products 
might be an indicated course of action.  Given the more than appreciable 
expense of curbside collection of recyclables, a dollar spent on the 
collection of glass, paper, or PET might be better spent elsewhere, 
perhaps on drop-off or deposit programs or take-back schemes as has been 
suggested (Lave et al., 1999; Barlaz et al., 2003a).  As Barlaz et al. 
(2003a) point out, saving gasoline has a lot more potential to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions than does PET recycling.

Any informed waste diversion program would not be complete without a 
review of the literature focused on LCA in resource and solid waste 
management including that which discusses the limitations of its use.  A 
couple of excellent places to get started are EIONET's Web site 
(http://waste.eionet.europa.eu/lca) and the US EPA's Web page on 
Life-Cycle Assessment Research 
(http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/lcaccess/index.html).  I've put together a 
partial list of references focusing on life-cycle assessment (LCA) of 
solid waste management.  If anyone has other references to add I'd like 
to know about them.  It is important to note that failure to consider 
that the rarely-static mix of circumstances/management 
techniques/parameters/inputs differ between locations could result in 
suboptimal or worse-than-before solutions when applying LCA results in a 
cookie-cutter fashion.  Additionally, not all LCAs are created equal.  
Some are more accurate and(or) thorough in their consideration of input 
parameters and externalities than others.  Quantifying tangible and 
intangible social benefits and costs can be very difficult.  Concerning 
the input data and the quality of the LCA, the old adage (and pardon the 
pun) "Garbage In Garbage Out" certainly applies.


*Barlaz, M.A, Cekander, G.C., Vasuki, N.C., 2003a. Integrated solid 
waste management in the United States. Journal of Environmental 
Engineering 129(7): 583-584.


Barlaz, M.A., Kaplan, P.O., Ranjithan, S.R., 2003. Using life-cycle 
analysis to compare solid waste management alternatives involving 
recycling, composting and landfills. MSW Management 13(3): 42-43.


Barlaz, M.A., Kaplan, P.O., Ranjithan, S.R., Rynk, R., 2003. Evaluating 
environmental impacts of solid waste management alternatives. BioCycle 
44(10): 52-56.
*

*Camobreco, V., Ham, R., Barlaz, M., Repa, E., Felker, M., Rousseau, C., 
Rathle, J., 1999. Life-Cycle inventory of a modern municipal solid waste 
landfill. Waste Management and Research 17(6): 394-408.*

    *Abstract*
    The Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF), in
    conjunction with Ecobalance and researchers from the University of
    Wisconsin and North Carolina State, is nearing completion of a
    comprehensive 2-year project on the life-cycle inventory (LCI) of a
    modern municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.  Data for the model
    came from both primary (over 100 landfills world-wide) and secondary
    data sources.  Partners in the project included waste management
    companies from North America and Europe (including Waste Management
    Inc., SITA and CREED). In addition to the landfill LCI model, the
    project also includes the development of a software tool.  The final
    report will provide a sound basis for assessing, on a life-cycle
    basis, the emissions and resource consumption associated with a
    modern MSW landfill.  The model and report can be used to assess the
    importance of: (1) the various stages in the life cycle system; (2)
    the time horizon selected; and (3) the air and water management
    techniques selected.



*Denison, R.A., 1996. Environmental life-cycle comparisons recycling, 
landfilling, and incineration: A review of recent research. Annual 
Review of Energy and the Environment 21(1): 191-237.
*

    *Abstract*
    This paper reviews and analyzes the major recent North American
    studies that have compared on an environmental basis the major
    options used to manage the materials that comprise municipal solid
    waste (MSW).  The reviewed studies provide quantitative comparative
    information on one or more of the following environmental
    parameters: solidwaste output, energy use, and releases of
    pollutants to the air and water. The review finds that all of the
    studies support the following conclusions: Systems based on recycled
    production plus recycling offer substantial system-wide or
    "life-cycle" environmental advantages over systems based on virgin
    production plus either incineration or landfilling, across all four
    parameters examined.  Only when the material recovery or waste
    management activities are analyzed in isolation? (which does not
    account for the system-wide consequences of choosing one system
    option over another?) do the virgin material?-based systems appear
    to offer advantages over recycled production plus recycling.

*

Eriksson, O., Carlsson-Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bjorklund, A., Assefa, 
G., Sundqvist, J.-. Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. 
Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. Journal of 
Cleaner Production 13(3): 241-252.
*

    *Abstract*
    Different waste treatment options for municipal solid waste have
    been studied in a systems analysis.  Different combinations of
    incineration, materials recycling of separated plastic and cardboard
    containers, and biological treatment (anaerobic digestion and
    composting) of biodegradable waste, were studied and compared to
    landfilling.  The evaluation covered use of energy resources,
    environmental impact and financial and environmental costs.  In the
    study, a calculation model (Orware) based on methodology from life
    cycle assessment (LCA) was used.  Case studies were performed in
    three Swedish municipalities: Uppsala, Stockholm, and Älvdalen. The
    study shows that reduced landfilling in favour of increased
    recycling of energy and materials lead to lower environmental
    impact, lower consumption of energy resources, and lower economic
    costs.  Landfilling of energy-rich waste should be avoided as far as
    possible, partly because of the negative environmental impacts from
    landfilling, but mainly because of the low recovery of resources
    when landfilling.  Differences between materials recycling, nutrient
    recycling and incineration are small but in general recycling of
    plastic is somewhat better than incineration and biological
    treatment somewhat worse.  When planning waste management, it is
    important to know that the choice of waste treatment method affects
    processes outside the waste management system, such as generation of
    district heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, plastic, cardboard, and
    fertiliser.

*

Harrison, K.W., Dumas, R.D., Nishtala, S.R., Barlaz, M.A., 2000. A 
life-cycle inventory of municipal solid waste combustion. Journal of the 
Air and Waste Management Association 50(6): 993-1003.
*

    *Abstract*
    Evaluation of alternative strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW)
    management requires models to calculate environmental emissions as a
    function of both waste quantity and composition.  A methodology to
    calculate waste component-specific emissions associated with MSW
    combustion is presented here.  The methodology considers emissions
    at a combustion facility as well as those avoided at an electrical
    energy facility because of energy recovered from waste combustion. 
    Emission factors, in units of kg pollutant per metric ton MSW
    entering the combustion facility are calculated for CO2-biomass,
    CO2-fossil, SOx, HCI, NOx, dioxins/furans, PM, CO, and 11 metals. 
    Water emissions associated with electrical energy offsets are also
    considered.  Reductions in environmental emissions for a
    500-metric-ton-per-day combustion facility that recovers energy are
    calculated.

*

Harrison, K.W., Dumas, R.D., Solano, E., Barlaz, M.A., Brill, D.E., 
Ranjithan, S.R., 2001. Decision support tool for life-cycle-based solid 
waste management. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 15(1): 44-58.
*

    *Abstract*
    Existing solid waste management (SWM) planning software provides
    only limited assistance to decision makers struggling to find
    strategies that address their multifarious concerns.  The
    combinatorial nature (many waste items and many management options)
    and multiple objectives of the SWM problem severely constrain the
    effectiveness of a manual search process using these tools. 
    Recognizing this, researchers have proposed several
    optimization-based search procedures.  These methods, however, enjoy
    limited use due to the substantial expertise required for their
    application.  This paper presents a new computer-based decision
    support framework that addresses these limitations.  The new
    framework integrates process models that quantify the lifecycle
    inventory of a range of pollutants and costs for an extensive
    municipal solid waste system, an optimization search procedure that
    identifies strategies that meet cost and environmental objectives
    and site-specific restrictions, and a user-friendly interface that
    facilitates utilization of these components by practitioners. After
    describing the software design, the use and value of the tool in
    typical waste management scenarios is demonstrated through a
    hypothetical, but realistic, case study in which several alternative
    SWM strategies are generated and examined.

*

Kaplan, P.O., Solano, E., Dumas, R.D., Harrison, K.W., Ranjithan, S.R., 
Barlaz, M.A., Brill, E.D., 2003. Life-cycle-based solid waste 
management. Second International Conference of the International Society 
for Industrial Ecology, June 29-July 2, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI.
*

    *Abstract*
    The development of integrated solid waste management (ISWM)
    strategies that are efficient with respect to both cost and
    environmental performance is a complex task.  There are numerous
    interrelations among the different unit operations in the solid
    waste system; e.g., collection, recycling, combustion, disposal, and
    large numbers of design parameters that affect estimates of cost and
    environmental emissions.  The objective of this study was to develop
    and demonstrate an ISWM model to assist in the identification of
    alternative SWM strategies that meet cost, energy, and environmental
    emissions objectives.  The modeled system includes over 40 unit
    processes for collection, transfer, separation, treatment (e.g.,
    combustion, composting), and disposal of waste as well as
    remanufacturing facilities for processing recycled material.  Waste
    composition and generation rates are defined for three types of
    sectors: single family, multifamily and commercial. The mass flow of
    each item through all possible combinations of unit processes is
    represented in a linear programming model using a unique modeling
    approach.  Cost, energy consumption and environmental emissions
    associated with waste processing at each unit process are computed
    in a set of specially implemented unit process models.  A life-cycle
    approach is used to compute energy consumption and emissions of
    numerous pollutants, including CO, fossil- and biomass-derived CO2,
    NOx, SOx, particulate matter, and CH4.  The model is flexible to
    allow representation of site-specific issues, including recycling
    and composting targets, mass flow restrictions, and targets for the
    values of cost, energy and each emission.  The model was applied in
    a hypothetical case study.  Several SWM scenarios were studied,
    including the variation in energy and environmental emissions among
    alternate SWM strategies; the effect of mandated waste diversion
    (through recycling and other beneficial uses of waste such as
    combustion to recover energy) on environmental releases and cost;
    the tradeoff between cost and the level of waste diversion; and the
    tradeoff between cost and greenhouse gas emissions.  In addition,
    the flexibility of the model is illustrated by the identification of
    alternate SWM strategies that meet approximately the same objectives
    using distinctly different combinations of unit processes.  Use of
    the model illustrates the potential impact of solid waste management
    policies and regulations on global environmental emissions. 
    Recently, the model was extended to enable consideration of
    uncertainty in input parameters. Monte Carlo simulation with Latin
    Hypercube Sampling was integrated within the ISWM model to estimate
    the uncertainty in cost and emissions for a specific SWM strategy. 
    For each realization, the cost and LCI coefficients are computed. 
    These are then combined with the mass flows of waste items
    corresponding to an SWM strategy to estimate its cost and
    emissions.  After repeating this procedure for all realizations, the
    resultant cost and emissions values are used to form output
    cumulative distribution functions.  The extended capability of the
    ISWM decision support tool

*

Komilis, D.P., Ham, R.K., 2004. Life-Cycle inventory of municipal solid 
waste and yard waste windrow composting in the United States. Journal of 
Environmental Engineering 130(11): 1390-1400.
*

    *Abstract*
    This paper presents a life-cycle inventory (LCI) for solid waste
    composting.  Three LCIs were developed for two typical municipal
    solid waste (MSW) composting facilities (MSWCFs) and one typical
    yard waste (YW) composting facility (YWCF).  Municipal solid waste
    was assumed to comprise three organic components, food wastes, yard
    wastes, and mixed paper, as well as various inorganic components. 
    Total costs, combined precombustion, and combustion energy
    requirements and 29 selected material flows (also referred to as LCI
    coefficients) were calculated by accounting for both the processes
    involved in originally producing, refining and transporting a
    material used in the facility as well as consumption during normal
    facility operation.  Total costs ranged from $15/ t to $50/ t and
    energy requirements from 29 kw h/ t to 167 kw h/ t for a YWCF and a
    high quality MSW composting facility, respectively.  More than 90%
    of the overall CO2 emissions in all facilities were due to the
    biological decomposition of the organic substrate, while the rest
    was due to fossil fuel combustion.

*

Lave, L.B., Hendrickson, C.T., Conway-Schempf, N.M., McMichael, F.C., 
1999. Municipal solid waste recycling issues. Journal of Environmental 
Engineering 125(10): 944-949.*

    *Abstract*
    Municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling targets have been set
    nationally and in many states. Unfortunately, the definitions of
    recycling, rates of recycling, and the appropriate components of MSW
    vary.  MSW recycling has been found to be costly for most
    municipalities compared to landfill disposal. MSW recycling policy
    should be determined by the cost to the community and to society
    more generally.  In particular, recycling is a good policy only if
    environmental impacts and the resources used to collect, sort, and
    recycle a material are less than the environmental impacts and
    resources needed to provide equivalent virgin material plus the
    resources needed to dispose of the postconsumer material safely. 
     From a review of the existing economic experience with recycling
    and an analysis of the environmental benefits (including estimation
    of external social costs), we find that, for most communities,
    curbside recycling is only justifiable for some postconsumer waste,
    such as aluminum and other metals. We argue that alternatives to
    curbside recycling collection should be explored, including product
    takeback for products with a toxic content (such as batteries) or
    product redesign to permit more effective product remanufacture.



*Morris, J., 2005. Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either 
Landfilling or Incineration with Energy Recovery. International Journal 
of Life Cycle Assessment 10(4): 273-284.*

    *Abstract*
    Background.

    This article describes two projects conducted recently by Sound
    Resource Management (SRMG) - one for the San Luis Obispo County
    Integrated Waste Management Authority (SLO IWMA) and the other for
    the Washington State Department of Ecology (WA Ecology). For both
    projects we used life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques to evaluate
    the environmental burdens associated with collection and management
    of municipal solid waste. Both projects compared environmental
    burdens from curbside collection for recycling, processing, and
    market shipment of recyclable materials picked up from households
    and/or businesses against environmental burdens from curbside
    collection and disposal of mixed solid waste.

    Methodlogy.
    The SLO IWMA project compared curbside recycling for households and
    businesses against curbside collection of mixed refuse for
    deposition in a landfill where landfill gas is collected and used
    for energy generation. The WA Ecology project compared residential
    curbside recycling in three regions of Washington State against the
    collection and deposition of those same materials in landfills where
    landfill gas is collected and flared. In the fourth Washington
    region (the urban east encompassing Spokane) the WA Ecology project
    compared curbside recycling against collection and deposition in a
    wasteto- energy (WTE) combustion facility used to generate
    electricity for sale on the regional energy grid. During the time
    period covered by the SLO study, households and businesses used
    either one or two containers, depending on the collection company,
    to separate and set out materials for recycling in San Luis Obispo
    County. During the time of the WA study households used either two
    or three containers for the residential curbside recycling programs
    surveyed for that study. Typically participants in collection
    programs requiring separation of materials into more than one
    container used one of the containers to separate at least glass
    bottles and jars from other recyclable materials. For the WA Ecology
    project SRMG used life cycle inventory (LCI) techniques to estimate
    atmospheric emissions of ten pollutants, waterborne emissions of
    seventeen pollutants, and emissions of industrial solid waste, as
    well as total energy consumption, associated with curbside recycling
    and disposal methods for managing municipal solid waste. Emissions
    estimates came from the Decision Support Tool (DST) developed for
    assessing the cost and environmental burdens of integrated solid
    waste management strategies by North Carolina State University
    (NCSU) in conjunction with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the
    US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)1. RTI used the DST to
    estimate environmental emissions during the life cycle of products.
    RTI provided those estimates to SRMG for analysis in the WA Ecology
    project2. For the SLO IWMA project SRMG also used LCI techniques and
    data from the Municipal Solid Waste Life- Cycle Database (Database),
    prepared by RTI with the support of US EPA during DST model
    development, to estimate environmental emissions from solid waste
    management practices3. Once we developed the LCI data for each
    project, SRMG then prepared a life cycle environmental impacts
    assessment of the environmental burdens associated with these
    emissions using the Environmental Problems approach discussed in the
    methodology section of this article. Finally, for the WA study we
    also developed estimates of the economic costs of certain
    environmental impacts in order to assess whether recycling was cost
    effective from a societal point of view.

    Conclusions.
    Recycling of newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, glass bottles and
    jars, aluminum cans, tin-plated steel cans, plastic bottles, and
    other conventionally recoverable materials found in household and
    business municipal solid wastes consumes less energy and imposes
    lower environmental burdens than disposal of solid waste materials
    via landfilling or incineration, even after accounting for energy
    that may be recovered from waste materials at either type disposal
    facility.  This result holds for a variety of environmental impacts,
    including global warming, acidification, eutrophication, disability
    adjusted life year (DALY) losses from emission of criteria air
    pollutants, human toxicity and ecological toxicity.  The basic
    reason for this conclusion is that energy conservation and pollution
    prevention engendered by using recycled rather than virgin materials
    as feedstocks for manufacturing new products tends to be an order of
    magnitude greater than the additional energy and environmental
    burdens imposed by curbside collection trucks, recycled material
    processing facilities, and transportation of processed recyclables
    to end-use markets.  Furthermore, the energy grid offsets and
    associated reductions in environmental burdens yielded by generation
    of energy from landfill gas or from waste combustion are
    substantially smaller then the upstream energy and pollution offsets
    attained by manufacturing products with processed recyclables, even
    after accounting for energy usage and pollutant emissions during
    collection, processing and transportation to end-use markets for
    recycled materials. The analysis that leads to this conclusion
    included a direct comparison of the collection for recycling versus
    collection for disposal of the same quantity and composition of
    materials handled through existing curbside recycling programs in
    Washington State.  This comparison provides a better approximation
    to marginal energy usage and environmental burdens of recycling
    versus disposal for recyclable materials in solid waste than does a
    comparison of the energy and environmental impacts of recycling
    versus management methods for handling typical mixed refuse, where
    that refuse includes organics and non-recyclables in addition to
    whatever recyclable materials may remain in the garbage.  Finally,
    the analysis also suggests that, under reasonable assumptions
    regarding the economic cost of impacts from pollutant emissions, the
    societal benefits of recycling outweigh its costs.

*

Solano, E., Ranjithan, S.R., Barlaz, M.A., Brill, E.D., 2002. Life-cycle 
based solid waste management I: Model development. Journal of 
Environmental Engineering 128(10): 981-992.*

    *Abstract*
    This paper describes an integrated solid waste management ~ISWM!
    model to assist in identifying alternative SWM strategies that meet
    cost, energy, and environmental emissions objectives.  An SWM system
    consisting of over 40 unit processes for collection, transfer,
    separation, treatment ~e.g., combustion, composting!, and disposal
    of waste as well as remanufacturing facilities for processing
    recycled material is defined.  Waste is categorized into 48 items
    and their generation rates are defined for three types of sectors:
    single-family dwelling, multifamily dwelling, and commercial.  The
    mass flow of each item through all possible combinations of unit
    processes is represented in a linear programming model using a
    unique modeling approach. Cost, energy consumption, and
    environmental emissions associated with waste processing at each
    unit process are computed in a set of specially implemented unit
    process models.  A life-cycle approach is used to compute energy
    consumption and emissions of CO, fossil- and biomass-derived CO2
    ,NOx ,SOx , particulate matter, PM10 and greenhouse gases.  The
    model is flexible to allow representation of site-specific issues,
    including waste diversion targets, mass flow restrictions and
    requirements, and targets for the values of cost, energy, and each
    emission.  A companion paper describes the application of this model
    to examine several SWM scenarios for a hypothetical, but realistic,
    case study.



*Solano, E., Dumas, R.D., Harrison, K.W., Ranjithan, S.R., Barlaz, M.A., 
Brill, E.D., 2002. Life-cycle based solid waste management II: 
Illustrative applications. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(10): 
993-1005.*

    *Abstract
    *A companion paper described the development of the integrated solid
    waste management ~ISWM! model that considers cost, energy, and
    environmental releases associated with management of municipal solid
    waste.  This paper demonstrates the application of the ISWM model to
    a hypothetical, but realistic, case study. Several solid waste
    management ~SWM! scenarios are studied, including the variation in
    energy and environmental emissions among alternate SWM strategies;
    the effect of mandated waste diversion ~through recycling and other
    beneficial uses of waste such as combustion to recover energy! on
    environmental releases and cost; the tradeoff between cost and the
    level of waste diversion; and the tradeoff between cost and
    greenhouse gas emissions.  In addition, the flexibility of the model
    is illustrated by the identification of alternate SWM strategies
    that meet approximately the same objectives using distinctly
    different combinations of unit processes.  This flexibility may be
    of importance to local solid waste management planners who must
    implement new SWM programs.  Use of the model illustrates the
    potential impact of solid waste management policies and regulations
    on global environmental emissions.



*US EPA, 2002. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle 
Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. EPA530-R-02-006. Washington, DC, 
Author.  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf 
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf>**


Weitz, K., Barlaz, M.A., Ranjithan, S.R., Brill, D.E., Thorneloe, S., 
Ham, R., 1999. Life cycle management of municipal solid waste. 
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4(4): 195-201.*

    *Abstract*
    Life-cycle assessment concepts and methods are currently being
    applied to evaluate integrated municipal solid waste management
    strategies throughout the world.  The Research Triangle Institute
    and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are working to develop
    a computer-based decision support tool to evaluate integrated
    municipal solid waste management strategies in the United States. 
    The waste management unit processes included in this tool are waste
    collection, transfer stations, recovery, compost, combustion, and
    landfill.  Additional unit processes included are electrical energy
    production, transportation, and remanufacturing.  The process models
    include methodologies for environmental and cost analysis.  the
    environmental methodology calculates life cycle inventory type data
    for the different unit processes.  The cost methodology calculates
    annualized construction and equipment capital costs, and operating
    costs per ton processed at the facility.  The resulting
    environmental and cost parameters are allocated to individual
    components of the waste stream by process specific allocation
    methodologies.  All of this information is implemented into the
    decision support support tool to provide a life-cycle management
    evaluation of integrated municipal solid waste management strategies.

* <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf>*
Regards,
Stephan



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---