Comparison of common dredging equipment air emissions

The purpose of this study is to provide a procedure to include emissions to the atmosphere resulting from the combustion of diesel fuel during dredging operations into the decision-making process of dredging equipment selection. The proposed procedure is demonstrated for typical dredging methods and data from the Illinois Waterway as performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. The equipment included in this study is a 16-inch cutterhead pipeline dredge and a mechanical bucket dredge used during the 2005 dredging season on the Illinois Waterway. Considerable effort has been put forth to identify and reduce environmental impacts from dredging operations. Though environmental impacts of dredging have been studied no efforts have been applied to the evaluation of air emissions from comparable types of dredging equipment, as in this study. By identifying the type of dredging equipment with the lowest air emissions, when cost, site conditions, and equipment availability are comparable, adverse environmental impacts can be minimized without compromising the dredging project. A total of 48 scenarios were developed by varying the dredged material quantity, transport distance, and production rates. This produced an “envelope” of results applicable to a broad range of site conditions. Total diesel fuel consumed was calculated using standard cost estimating practices as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedule (USACE, 2005). The diesel fuel usage was estimated for all equipment used to mobilize and/or operate each dredging crew for every scenario. A Limited Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used to estimate the air emissions from two comparable dredging operations utilizing SimaPro LCA software. An Environmental Impact Single Score (EISS) was the SimaPro output selected for comparison with the cost per CY of dredging, potential production rates, and transport distances to identify possible decision points. The total dredging time was estimated for each dredging crew and scenario. An average hourly cost for both dredging crews was calculated based on Rock Island District 2005 dredging season records (Graham 2007/08). The results from this study confirm commonly used rules of thumb in the dredging industry by indicating that mechanical bucket dredges are better suited for long transport distances and have lower air emissions and cost per CY for smaller quantities of dredged material. In addition, the results show that a cutterhead pipeline dredge would be preferable for moderate and large volumes of dredged material when no additional booster pumps are required. Finally, the results indicate that production rates can be a significant factor when evaluating the air emissions from comparable dredging equipment.

Life cycle assessment of trayless dining

Universities in the United States are applying more sustainable approaches to their dining service operations. "The increase in social consciousness and environmental stewardship on college campuses has spurred an array of new and innovative sustainability programs"(ARAMARK Higher Education 2008). University residence dining is typically cafeteria style, with students using trays to carry food. Studies report that food served without trays substantially reduces food waste and water and electrical consumption associated with washing trays. Commonly, these reported results are estimates and not measurements taken under actual operating conditions. This study utilizes measurements recorded under actual dining service conditions in student residence halls at Michigan Technological University to develop the following: 1) operational-specific data on the issues and potential savings associated with a conversion to trayless dining and 2) life cycle assessment (LCA) cost and environmental impact analyses comparing dining with and without trays. For the LCA, the entire life cycle of the system is considered, from the manufacturing to the usage and disposal phases. The study shows that trayless dining reduces food waste because diners carry less food. The total savings for the diner shifts when not using trays for the standard academic year (205 days), with an average number of 700 diners, is 7,032 pounds of food waste from the pre-rinse area (33% reduction) and 3,157 pounds of food waste from the pan washing area (39% reduction). In addition, for each day of the study, the diners consumed more food during the trayless portion of the experiment. One possible explanation for the increased food consumption during this short duration study could be that the diners found it more convenient to eat the extra food on their plate rather than carrying it back for disposal. The trayless dining experiment shows a reduction in dishwasher water, steam, and electrical consumption for each day of the study. The average reduction of dishwasher water, steam, and electrical consumption over the duration of the study were 10.7%, 9.5%, and 6.4% respectively. Trayless dining implementation would result in a decrease of 4,305 gallons of consumption and wastewater discharge, 2.87 mm BTU of steam consumption, and 158 kWh of electrical consumption for the dinner shift over the academic year. Results of the LCA indicate a total savings of $190.4 when trays are not used during the dinner shift. Trayless dining requires zero CO2 eq and cumulative energy demand in the manufacturing stage, reductions of 1005 kg CO2 eq and 861 MJ eq in the usage phase, and reductions of 6458 kg CO2 eq and 1821 MJ eq in the end of the life cycle.