Solid Waste Management: Final Report
Env E 432
Matthew Scott, 1055898
Group: Waste Watchers
April 13, 2007
Abstract
The population at the University of Alberta is projected to be approximately 48500 in
2010 and 70650 by 2029. At the waste usage this yields 4650 and 6780 tonnes
respectively. The cumulative waste until 2029 is expected to be 135830 tonnes. Currently
47% of the waste is landfilled, 36% is potentially recyclable, and 17% is potentially
compostable. The current waste has a C-N ratio of 31 and nitrogen content of 1.4%. The
bulk densities of the Recycle, Compost and Landfill stream are 47.2, 359.5 and 17.6
kg/m3 respectively. ‘
Currently 2 trucks are needed to pickup the waste from campus, while the number of
truckloads needed for the entire week is 17.
The UofA currently has only two recycle streams, fibre and beverage containers (BC),
and the current total recovery percentage is 41.8%. A current total recovery of 45.2% has
been obtained for the fibre stream, while the BC stream only manages 20.6%. At the
projected 80% recovery target a total of around 10120m3 would be saved from being
landfilled.
The amount of organic waste projected to be collected from the pilot buildings is 13.0m3
and 6.4 tonnes per week, while the yearly totals are 674.5m3 and 330.5 tonnes.
At the assumed 40% MC for wood chips, $5147 (345.5m3) of wood chips would be
needed and the MC for the compost would be 61.9%. The free air space was 46.1% and
the resulting C-N ratio was 33.6. The area needed for the compost facility is about
1580m2.
An area of 10062m2 will be needed for the landfill, based on a 30m depth, and 135831
tonnes of waste. Currently a total of 22268 tonnes of methane as carbon would be
released during the lifetime of the landfill. This is reduced to 13360 tonnes-C would be
released if the composting targets are met. The 25-year carbon credit would be
$2,805,725. If the methane were converted to CO2 using flaring, the credit would be
$200,409.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
4
1. Waste Characteristic
5
2. Collection System
10
3. Material Recovery Facility
13
4. Compost System
18
5. Landfill Stream
20
6. Summary and Conclusions
22
References
23
Appendices
24
3
Introduction
This report examined solid waste management at the University of Alberta (UofA). The
current waste generation has been examined, along with population growth, to get
baseline waste quantities for the study period. These waste quantities have been
examined to ascertain the different properties related to solid waste: wet weight, specific
weight, carbon to nitrogen (C-N) ratio, bulk densities, and so forth. The waste has been
divided into different categories, recyclables, compostables, and landfill material.
The third floor on the Natural Resources Engineering Facility (NREF) has been evaluated
for the placement, type and size of collection containers. Improvement recommendations
will be made based on the findings.
The collection system has been analyzed to determine the number of truckloads
generated and the number of trucks needed to transport the waste will be analyzed. The
volume of the mass for each day and week has been found. The quantities of waste
picked up each day are organized in a manner that will provide the most even distribution
throughout the week, based on restrictions for pickup days and frequencies.
The current and potential material recovery at the UofA has been analyzed. The current
recovery (mass and percent) for the fibre and beverage container recycle streams at the
UofA has been determined. Using proposed targets of 80%, the mass and volume
recovered and landfilled have been calculated. These are estimated for the fibre and
beverage container streams, as well as the proposed tin cans, plastic, and glass stream.
The 80% target is compared to other institutions and Canadian recovery targets.
Recovery percentages for a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) are given and a flow
chart illustrating the mass recovery of the proposed facility.
4
A conceptual design for a windrow composting facility has been prepared. The amount of
organics to be collected from the site has been determined. A compost recipe is
recommended based on wood waste properties, as well as a change to the recipe based on
differing wood waste properties. The costs for the mixes are also determined. A compost
mix recipe including recycled material is given based on moisture content and other
essential properties. The compost facility will be preliminarily designed based on area
requirements for a windrow facility.
This chapter has prepared a conceptual design for a sanitary landfill facility. The amount
of solid waste intended for landfill from 2005 to 2009 at the University of Alberta (UA)
is estimated. The area needed for this amount of waste will has also predicted, with the
estimate including space for containment, final cover, water, and equipment areas. The
methane generation potential for the sanitary landfill design is examined, assuming no
recovery and that 80% recyclable and 25% composting targets are met. The difference in
methane generation with and without recovery is examined and a carbon credit amount is
estimated, based on the reduced carbon generation when meeting recovery targets.
Flaring has also been looked at as a mean to reduce the methane release.
1. Waste Characteristics
1.1 Solid Waste Generation and Population Growth
Waste generation is directly related to population, so it is necessary to examine the
population growth when designing a waste management solution that will be used into
the future. Based on historical population data (Appendix 1), Figure 1 shows the
projected population growth until the design year of 2029. The current per capita waste
5
generation was found to be 0.096 tonnes, using the current population of 43751 and
landfill waste of 4200 tonnes per year. The population in 2029 is expected to be around
71000 people, which corresponds to a waste generation of approximately 6780 tonnes.
The total waste generated from 2005 until 2029 is expected to be 135831 tonnes. The
waste amounts and population for each year can be seen in Table 1-1 of Appendix 1.
This waste was categorized by the building type (large classroom, small classroom, office
building, food services, residences) as well as the fate of the waste it, recycled, compost,
or landfilled. The percentages for the source of the waste (projected until 2010) and the
waste stream type and shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. A target of 50% diversion
would see 18% of recyclables and 24% of compostables avoiding landfilling. The
individual waste sub-types and their masses, in addition to the mass totals can be found in
Table 1-3 of Appendix 1.
Total Population (FTE)
Population Projection of the University of Alberta
50000
49000
48000
47000
46000
45000
44000
43000
42000
41000
40000
39000
38000
37000
36000
35000
34000
33000
1996
y = 1168.3x - 2E+06
R2 = 0.9801
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Year
6
Figure 1: Population Projection of the University of Alberta
2010 Wet Weights By Source
6%
19%
21%
office
class
food
residence
54%
Figure 2: 2010 Wet Weights By Source
Wet Weights By Stream
17%
36%
Recycle Stream
Compost Stream
Landfill Stream
47%
Figure 3: Wet Weights By Stream
1.2 Waste Stream Characteristics
When analyzing the waste streams, it is important to examine the composition, and
qualities of the waste. Moisture contents can be found for all the sub-categories and from
this the mass without water can be found, seen in Figure 4. The minor categories for each
7
of the streams have varying moisture contents and weights, these can be found in
Appendix 1. The mass of moisture present in each waste stream can be seen in Figure 5.
This mass is significant because it represents mass and volume that may not need to be
transported, treated or stored. The moisture contents for the waste streams can be seen in
Figure 5. Carbon to Nitrogen ratio and Nitrogen content are of concern as
microorganisms rely on the chemicals of the compost materials for food. For this waste
analysis the total C-N ratio for compost is 32, and the nitrogen content is 1.4%. The
compost consists of other elements that are of note, and these are shown in Figure 6. The
composting sub-categories have differing C-N ratios and nitrogen contents, and these are
shown in Table 1.
Relative Percent Dry Weight
Landfill
19%
673.30 Tonnes
Recycle
48%
1706.57 Tonnes
Compost
33%
1187.25 Tonnes
Figure 4: Relative Percent Dry Weight
8
Moisture Content Percentages
60.0
Moisture Content (%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Recycle
Compost
Landfill
Waste Stream
Figure 5: Moisture Content Percentages
Ash
5%
S
0%
Dry Com post Elem ents
N
1%
C
47%
O
41%
H
6%
Figure 6: Dry Compost Elements
Table 1: Composting Material Nitrogen content and C-N ratio
Dry % N content
Food Waste (average)
Paper Towels/Tissues (stock paper pulp)
Animal Bedding (straw bedding)
C:N Ratios
2.6
0.3
3.4
18.46
145.00
14.06
9
The bulk densities for each stream, shown in Table 2, were determined using the mass of
each sub-category and average unit weights of the sub-category. (Vesiland et al, 2002)
Table 2: Bulk Density by Stream
Waste Stream
Recycle
Compost
Landfilling
Bulk Density (kg/m3)
47.2
359.5
17.6
2. Collection System
2.1 NREF Field Sketch
Please refer to Appendix 2.A: Field Sketch for the bin locations on the 3rd floor of the
NREF building. An electronic scan is also available at
http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrscott/host/hw/enve432/. Improvements on the bin location,
type, and distribution can be made.
The recommendations are as follows:

Location B – Recycle bin needed, loose cardboard and mixing of wastes

Location L (Reception Copy Room) – Signage to prevent cross contamination
into paper stream.

Location K (Coffee Room) – Potential for recycling. Pop bottles, cans, newsprint
and other papers. Cabinet cutouts not in use

Bin placement near higher traffic areas such as doorways, for easier disposal of
waste

Bin Labeling improvement, minimize cross contamination

Scrap paper for reuse in copy rooms
10
2.2 Waste Collection
To determine the number of truckloads needed it is necessary to find the total volume of
waste being generated across campus. This volume is dependant on the size and the
number of collection bins located throughout university property. These volumes assume
a compaction ratio of 2 for waste not pre-compacted and a compaction ratio of 1.5 for bin
compactors. The total volume of waste generated is approximately 377 m3 per week, with
the distribution shown in Figure 7. Balancing of the days was attempted, but due to the
constraints of the pick up days, Mondays and Fridays still have larger pickup amounts.
These routes were balanced over all 3 campuses as the transit time between campuses
was assumed to be negligible compared to the time required to drive to the waste disposal
facility. Using the in truck compacted density of 210 kg/m3, the total mass per day is
shown in Figure 8. The total weekly mass of waste is 79.05 tonnes. Yearly this works out
to about 4111 tonnes. The calculations for individual days can be found in Appendix 2.B
to 2.G.
Volume of waste per day
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
y
Fr
id
a
y
Th
ur
sd
a
y
ne
sd
a
y
W
ed
Tu
es
da
on
da
y
0.00
M
volume (m3)
100.00
Day
Figure 7: Volume of waste per day
11
Fr
id
ay
ay
ur
sd
Th
W
ed
Tu
ne
es
sd
da
ay
y
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
M
on
da
y
mass (tonnes)
Mass of waste per day
Day
Figure 8: Mass of waste per day
2.3 Truck Loads
Transportation of the waste is done by garbage truck. The trucks have a storage capacity
of 27m3. Table 3 shows the number of truckloads per day, as well as the rounded
truckloads. Due to the fact that the trucks are able to make 3 trips per day, the actual
number of trucks needed per day is included. Appendix 2.H shows the methodology.
Table 3: Truck Loads
Truck Loads
Remaining Capacity (m3)
Trucksloads (rounded)
Trucks needed
Trucks needed (rounded)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
3.16
2.32
2.70
2.46
3.27
22.67
18.28
8.11
14.70
19.80
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
1.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.33
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
The number of trucks needed, based on the constraints given, is 2. It may be possible to
reduce this by shifting certain pickup days. For example, the 0.16 truckloads on Monday
at the end of the day could be moved to Tuesday without increasing the number of trucks
12
needed on Tuesday. A fraction of the Friday load might be able to be picked up late
Thursday, in order to reduce the total trucks needed to 1. Another option would be to pay
overtime to the driver on Monday and Friday, as this may be cheaper than buying or
contracting a second truck. Currently the number of truckloads needed for the entire week
is 17.
3. Material Recovery Facility
3.1 Current Recovery
The University of Alberta currently has only two recycle streams, fibre and beverage
containers (BC). The total mass saved and percent recovered from these two streams are
shown in Figure 9 and the current total recovery percentage is 41.8%
Current Total Mass per stream
1200.00
1135.62
Mass (tonnes)
1000.00
815.51
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
Waste Stream Audit
Recycle Stream
Figure 9: Current Total Mass per stream
A current total recovery of 45.2% has been obtained for the fibre stream, while the BC
stream only manages 20.6%. The masses for each of the streams are shown in Figure 10.
The sub-categories for each stream can be found in Table 3-1 of Appendix 3.
13
Waste and Recycle Masses
1000.00
921.14
900.00
800.00
760.00
Fibre Waste
Mass (tonnes)
700.00
Fibre Recylce
600.00
BC Waste
500.00
BC Recycle
400.00
300.00
214.48
200.00
55.51
100.00
0.00
Stream
Figure 10: Waste and Recycle Masses
3.2 Proposed Recovery
The UofA has proposed recovery targets of 80% for the two current recycle streams, in
addition to the new stream with tin cans, plastic and glass. At 80% the recovery is nearly
doubled and the mass per stream are shown in Table 4. The volume saved from
landfilling is shown in Figure 11. The sub-categories for each stream can be found in
Table 3-2 of Appendix 3.
Table 4: Landfill and Recycle Mass at 80% Recovery
Mass (tonnes)
Stream
Recycle
Landfilled
Fibre
1344.91
336.23
BC
311.66
77.92
14
Volume Saved from Landfill
8000.00
7277.62
7000.00
Volume (m3)
6000.00
5000.00
Fibres
4000.00
Beverage Containers
2841.14
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
Stream
Figure 11: Volume Saved from Landfill at 80% Recovery
The potential recycle stream has large volume savings, particularly due to the plastics
sub-category. This is shown in Figure 12. The masses recovered by the inclusion of these
sub-categories are presented in Figure 13.
18689.72
1373.28
Total
0.00
HDPE #2
196.39
Plastics
Grades 1, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7
56.14
Electronic
Waste
14.96
Aluminum
(Foil, Food
Containers)
17048.95
Metal (Tin
Cans)
20000.00
18000.00
16000.00
14000.00
12000.00
10000.00
8000.00
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
Glass
(Clear)
Volume (m3)
Target Volume Potential Recyclable Stream
Potential Recyclable type
Figure 12: Target Volume Potential Recyclable Stream
15
Potential Recyclables at 80% Recovery
Mass (tonnes)
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
Glass
(Clear)
Metal
(Tin
Aluminu Electroni Plastics
HDPE #2
m (Foil, c Waste Grades
Target Recycle Stream
24.00
28.32
5.61
0.00
227.65
26.08
311.66
Target Landfill Stream
6.00
7.08
1.40
0.00
56.91
6.52
77.92
Total
Potential Recyclable type
Figure 13: Potential Recyclables at 80% Recovery
3.3 Benchmarks
Comparing the UofA target of 80% to other institutions is necessary to ensure the quality
of our waste management system is maintained and world class. According to Leo Girard
Canada’s long term recovery goal is 70%.
16
3.4 Fibre MRF Flow Chart
Fibre Stream
Cardboard (OCC) 233.7 Tonnes
Newspaper (ONP) 291.5 Tonnes
Mixed Paper (Glossy & Magazines) 699.7 Tonnes
Office Paper (White Only) 120.0 Tonnes
Contaminants 27.4 Tonnes
Total (1372.3 Tonnes)
Cardboard (95%)
222.0 Tonnes
Newspaper (ONP) 291.5 Tonnes
Mixed Paper (Glossy & Magazines) 699.7 Tonnes
Office Paper (White Only) 120.0 Tonnes
Contaminants 27.4 Tonnes
Residuals 11.7 Tonnes
Total (1150.3 Tonnes)
Newspaper (90%)
262.4 Tonnes
Mixed Paper (Glossy & Magazines) 699.7 Tonnes
Office Paper (White Only) 120.0 Tonnes
Contaminants 27.4 Tonnes
Residuals 40.8 Tonnes
Total (887.9 Tonnes)
Office Paper (90%)
108.0
Mixed Paper (Glossy & Magazines) 699.7 Tonnes
Contaminants 27.4 Tonnes
Residuals 52.8 Tonnes
Total (779.9)
Contaminants (98%)
26.9 Tonnes
Mixed Paper (Glossy & Magazines) 699.7 Tonnes
Residuals 53.3 Tonnes
Total (753 Tonnes)
17
4 Compost System
4.1 Organic Collection
The amount of organic waste projected to be collected from the pilot buildings are shown
in Table 5. The volumes and wet tonnes are shown per week and per year. The totals for
all buildings are 13.0m3 and 6.4 tonnes per week, while the yearly totals are 674.5m3 and
330.5 tonnes.
Table 5: Compostable Material
Building
Number
11
22
51
66
75
75
101
Building Name (m3)
Biological Sciences
2.0
ECERF
1.5
CAB
2.2
SUB
2.6
Hub E Side
1.3
Hub SE Corner
1.3
Lister Centre
2.0
Totals
13.0
Target Compostable Per Week
(Tonnes,wet)
(Tonnes, Dry)
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.3
0.6
0.6
1.0
6.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.9
Target Compostable Per Year
(m3)
(Tonnes,wet) (Tonnes, Dry)
106.0
51.9
79.5
38.9
112.6
55.2
135.1
66.2
67.6
33.1
67.6
33.1
106.2
52.0
674.5
330.5
4.2 Compost Recipe
Compost piles require proper mixture for optimum efficiency. The recommended
moisture content (MC) range is 40~65% percent. It was assumed that the wood chips
used for the bulking agent have a MC of 40%. A recovery of 80% was chosen for the
compostable material. Using the WCDM model (Appendix 4), The volume of woodchips
needed is 345.4m3, with a cost of $5147 per year. The recipe used is shown in Table 6.
The MC was found to be 61.9%, and the food waste to wood chip volume ratio was
1.95:1. The free air space was 46.1% and the resulting C-N ratio was 33.6.
18
15.6
11.7
16.6
19.9
9.9
9.9
15.6
99.2
Table 6: Initial Recipe at 40% MC woodchips
Amount of each material required:
a. Wet
330.5 wet t/yr
99.2 dry t/yr
b. Dry
110.2 wet t/yr
66.1 dry t/yr
c. Other.
0.0 wet t/yr
0.0 dry t/yr
d. Recycle.
0.0 wet t/yr
0.0 dry t/yr
440.7 wet t/yr
165.3 dry t/yr
TOTALS
674.5 m3 / year
345.4 m3 / year
0.0 m3 / year
0.0 m3 / year
1019.9 m3 / year
If the average MC for the wood chips were 21.4%, the recipe would change to the
amounts shown in Table 7. The resulting MC would be 57.9% and the C-N ratio would
be 48.6. The food waste to wood chip volume ratio would stay at 1.95:1.
Table 7: Initial Recipe at 21.4% MC woodchips
Amount of each material required:
a. Wet
330.5 wet t/yr
99.2 dry t/yr
b. Dry
110.2 wet t/yr
86.6 dry t/yr
c. Other.
0.0 wet t/yr
0.0 dry t/yr
d. Recycle.
0.0 wet t/yr
0.0 dry t/yr
440.7 wet t/yr
185.7 dry t/yr
TOTALS
674.5 m3 / year
345.4 m3 / year
0.0 m3 / year
0.0 m3 / year
1019.9 m3 / year
4.3 Facility Design
With the wood chips meeting the 40% MC specified and in accordance with the previous
compost mix design, it is preferable to recycle the wood material, as to reduce cost and
facility volume. Using the WCDM spreadsheet (Appendix 4), the ratios of food (wet),
wood (dry), and recycle material can be found, and are shown in Figure 14. This recipe
results in a bucket ratio of food waste to remaining mix of 3.91.
19
Windrow Design Percentages
0
12.5
12.5
a. Wet
b. Dry
c. Other.
d. Recycle.
75
Figure 14: Windrow Design: Mixture Recipe
The total area of the windrow composting facility depends upon the areas needed for
material storage, composting, curing, compost storage, equipment storage and water
handling. Considering all these factors, the area needed for the facility is about 1580m2,
and is setup as shown in the sketch in Appendix 4.The windrow turning frequency is very
dependant of site conditions, but an estimate of 1 turn per week is reasonable.
5 Landfill Stream
5.1 Landfill Area
The landfill volume needed for the projected amount of waste can be calculated using the
bulk density for a medium compacted landfill, as shown in Table 5-2 of Appendix 2. A
bulk density of 450kg/m3 for 135831 tonnes (Appendix 1) yields a volume of about
301846m3 for the waste. An area of 10062m2 will be needed for the landfill, based on a
30m depth. Table 8 shows the different dimensions of the landfill, in addition to the
20
addition areas needed for water storage and ancillary equipment areas. Assumption for
these calculations can be found in Appendix 5, Table 5-3.
Table 8: Landfill Geometry
Landfill
Height
(m)
30.00
Length
(m)
100.31
Width
(m)
100.31
Clay
Clay Liner Cover
(m) pg.
(m) pg.
134
153
1.50
2.30
Total
Ancillary
Surface
Volume
Area (20%, Water Area
(m^3)
m^2)
(10%, m^2)
340079.89
2012.31
1207.38
5.2 Methane Generation
As waste decomposes it generates methane gas. Methane gas is a potent greenhouse gas,
and its emissions need to be examined when considering the impact of a landfill. Solid
waste can be separated into slowly decomposing (SD) and rapidly decomposing (RD)
material, which both contribute to methane generation. Estimating a chemical formula for
the SD of C150H223O26N and for the RD of C63H100O46N, the methane generation can be
approximated. The calculations to generate these chemical formulas are shown in
Appendix 5, Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7. As shown in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 in Appendix 5, SD
generates 2368 tonnes-C (tonnes as carbon) of methane, and RD generates 19900 tonnesC. Assuming that the 80% recycling target, and 25% composting target were met in every
year of the study period, the methane generation from SD is 1420 tonnes-C while RD
generates 11940 tonnes-C of carbon. This is shown in Table 5-10 of Appendix 3.
5.3 Carbon Credits
If diversion results in lower methane generation the landfill may qualify for carbon
credits. Assuming an average credit amount of $15/tonne-C of CO2 ($315.00/tonne-C
methane), and meeting the diversion goals, the 25 year carbon credit would be
$2,805,725. If the methane were converted to CO2 using flaring, the credit would be
$200,409. The assumptions and values are shown in Tables 5-11 and 5-12 of Appendix 5.
21
It may be possible to increase the number of carbon credits received by altering the
treatment technologies. If waste to electricity incineration is used, before landfilling, it is
likely that methane will not be generated. Also, the waste burn energy has lower
emissions than a coal burning energy facility; therefore using electricity from the waste
burn instead of the coal burn should result in even more carbon credits. (Finnveden,
1998)
6. Summary and Conclusions
The population at the University of Alberta is projected to be approximately 48500 in
2010 and 70650 by 2029. At the waste usage this yields 4650 and 6780 tonnes
respectively. The cumulative waste until 2029 is expected to be 135830 tonnes. Currently
47% of the waste is landfilled, 36% is potentially recyclable, and 17% is potentially
compostable. The current waste has a C-N ratio of 31 and nitrogen content of 1.4%. The
bulk densities of the Recycle, Compost and Landfill stream are 47.2, 359.5 and 17.6
kg/m3 respectively. ‘
Currently 2 trucks are needed to pickup the waste from campus, while the number of
truckloads needed for the entire week is 17.
The UofA currently has only two recycle streams, fibre and beverage containers (BC),
and the current total recovery percentage is 41.8%. A current total recovery of 45.2% has
been obtained for the fibre stream, while the BC stream only manages 20.6%. At the
projected 80% recovery target a total of around 10120m3 would be saved from being
landfilled.
The amount of organic waste projected to be collected from the pilot buildings is 13.0m3
and 6.4 tonnes per week, while the yearly totals are 674.5m3 and 330.5 tonnes.
22
At the assumed 40% MC for wood chips, $5147 (345.5m3) of wood chips would be
needed and the MC for the compost would be 61.9%. The free air space was 46.1% and
the resulting C-N ratio was 33.6. The area needed for the compost facility is about
1580m2.
An area of 10062m2 will be needed for the landfill, based on a 30m depth, and 135831
tonnes of waste. Currently a total of 22268 tonnes of methane as carbon would be
released during the lifetime of the landfill. This is reduced to 13360 tonnes-C would be
released if the composting targets are met. The 25-year carbon credit would be
$2,805,725. If the methane were converted to CO2 using flaring, the credit would be
$200,409.
Reference
Finnveden, G. 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid
waste management systems. Resources, Conversation and Recycling. 26: 173-187.
Harris, D.C. 2003. Quantitative Chemical Analysis; Sixth Edition. W.H. Freeman and
Company. New York USA.
McCartney, D. 2007. Personal correspondence, class/course notes, Solid Waste
Management.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management
Enginnering Principles and Management Issues. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Inc. Boston, USA.
Vesiland, P.A., Worrell, W., Reinhart, D. 2002. Solid Waste Engineering. Brooks/Cole.
Paciface Grove, CA.
23
Appendices
Appendix 1. Waste Characteristic
Appendix 2. Collection System
Appendix 3. Material Recovery Facility
Appendix 4. Compost System
Appendix 5. Landfill Stream
All excel spreadsheets can be found online at
http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrscott/host/hw/enve432/final/
24