A BRIEF SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATIONOF KEY POINTS, FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONSFOR

University of Wisconsin Study:“LIFE CYCLE COMPARISON OF FIVE ENGINEEREDSYSTEMS FOR MANAGING FOOD WASTE”
by
WILLIAM F. STRUTZ
STAFF ENGINEER
IN-SINK-ERATORAPRIL, 1998

In order to develop a factual database relative to the actual merits andconcerns for different systems of managing food waste, the National Associationof Heating- Plumbing -Cooling Contractors commissioned a University of
Wisconsin - Madison, Life Cycle Comparison of five Engineered Systems forManaging Food Waste. The comparison included the required land, total
system energy, total system materials, total emissions to the environment andtotal system costs for each method.
Dr. Robert Ham of the Civil Engineering Department and one of thecountry’s recognized landfill experts was chosen to lead and oversee the study.
Carol Diggelman, a graduate student in the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department at UW and a Professor in Environmental Engineering at the
Milwaukee School of Engineering in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was chosen to do theresearch. The results of this four year research project are contained in a 571
page report titled “LIFE-CYCLE COMPARISON OF FIVE ENGINEEREDSYSTEMS FOR MANAGING FOOD WASTE” which compares all five systems
on the basis of processing 100 kilograms of food waste.
The five systems are:1. Food Waste Disposer plus a Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( FWD/ POTW ).
2. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / landfilling ( MSW Collection /Landfilling).
3. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Composting ( MSW Collection /Composting ).
4. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Waste To Energy ( MSW Collection/ WTE; Incineration ).
5. Food Waste Disposer plus an On-Site (Septic) Sysytem ( FWD / OSS )The first four systems are based on specific state of the art operational
systems. The on-site system design is based on simply increasing the septictank and drain field size by 25 % to accommodate a food waste disposer. Thisrequirement is based on a typical required increase of 25 % solids loading to thesystem, based on previous research.
Assumptions for the study based on the best available data:
1.The base of 100 kilograms of food waste was chosen as a convenientbasis of comparison for the five engineered systems. An average person
generates 0.29 pounds of food waste per day. Of this, 75 % or 0.21 pounds per
day is processed through a food waste disposer. 100 kilograms of food waste istherefore the amount processed by the “average” U.S. family of 2.63 persons
over a period of 382 days, or just slightly over one year.
2.

Typical food waste is 70 % water and 30 % solids.

2

3.

The typical composition of food waste and human waste solids is :%C
Human Waste, Solid Organics

%H

%O %N

%S

59.7 9.5

23.8 7.0050.5 6.72

39.6 2.74

0.44

C10H19O3N
Food Waste, Solid Organics
C21.53H34.21O12.66N1.00S0.07
4. The final destination of food waste in the U.S.:
a. Municipal Solid Waste Collection /Landfill....................................41%
b. Food Waste Disposer / Publicly Owned Treatment
Works..................................................... 37 %*c. Food Waste Disposer / On-Site (Septic) System......................... 12 %*d. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Waste
To Energy(Incineration)................................................ 10 %e. Municipal Solid Waste Collection /Composting......................................0%*Wastewater food waste includes contributions from dishwashers and kitchensinks.

CONCLUSION
Of the five alternative food waste systems measured, a food waste disposer
processing food waste through a publicly owned treatment works has the lowest
cost to the municipality; the least air emissions, especially greenhouse gases ! ;converts the food WASTE to a RESOURCE which may be recycled; and as aresult overall is the most environmentally friendly and sustainable option forrecycling non-edible food RESOURCES. The food waste disposer is also themost convenient method of disposing of food waste and is the most likely to be
used as the vehicle for source separation of food waste from the solid waste
stream.

LIFE-CYCLE COSTS
In terms of life-cycle costs, the systems ranked in this order ( lowest to highest ):1. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Landfilling.
2. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Composting.
3. Food Waste Disposer / Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
4. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Waste To Energy ( Incineration ).
5. Food Waste Disposer / On-Site (Septic) System.

3

However, in terms of direct costs to the municipality, the Food Waste Disposer /Publicly Owned Treatment Works combination is by far the lowest cost. The
rankings and costs are:1.Food Waste Disposer / Publicly Owned Treatment Works ............$ 0.49.
2. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Landfilling ..............................$13.65.
3. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Composting ............................$16.60.
4. Municipal Solid Waste Collection / Waste To Energy( Incineration ) ...............$20.30.
5. The Food Waste Disposer / On-Site Septic System is the highest cost at$67.20 but since all costs are borne directly by the homeowner, there iszero cost to the municipality.

Other benefits of the Food Waste Disposer / Publicly Owned Treatment
Works are:

ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmentally, the disposer is the most convenient and most likely to be usedmethod to achieve source separation of the putrescible waste from the solid
waste stream. Typically, 75 % of non-edible food waste may be processed
through a food waste disposer. Presently 37 % of U.S. household food waste
goes to a POTW. Food waste is typically 70 % water, therefore utilizing awastewater treatment plant is a more natural method of processing this material
than is a method which collects this water and HAULS it to a “solid waste”
facility. Removing the putrescible food waste at the kitchen sink and diverting itfrom the solid waste stream also reduces disease causing vectors such as flies,
rodents, roaches, etc. that are attracted to food waste.

RECYCLE FOOD NUTRIENTS
Since human wastes influent to wastewater treatment systems is carbon limited( food carbon is exhaled by humans as carbon dioxide, enriching the sewage in
Nitrogen and Phosphorus), the addition of food waste provides additional carbon
to enhance the generation of biosolids. The greater the amount of biosolids
produced at the POTW, the greater the amount of nutrients, nitrogen andphosphorous, that is assimilated into the biomass, which is removed from thesystem as sludge and removed from the effluent.
When biosolids from the POTW, or septage processed through a POTW isapplied to the soil, this is a viable method of recycling. This process is themost
beneficial for retaining the food waste nutrients in a form that can be recycled.

4

HELPS LANDFILLS
Landfilling is the method of disposing of solid waste that is required for every
community in the U.S. Presently 41 % of U.S. food waste goes to landfills.
Hauling food waste that is 70 % water to a “solid waste” facility represents over
72 % of the life cycle costs of disposing of a potentially recyclable resource.
Adding this water to a well designed landfill also increases the quantity ofleachate that is generated. Due to the generally acidic nature of leachate fromfood waste, more metals are contained in the leachate than if the food waste
was not in the landfill. This leachate is then typically hauled to a POTW fortreatment to prevent the leachate from contaminating soils and potentially thegroundwater (hauling the water not once but twice ).
Almost all of the nutrient value of the food is lost in the landfill; the only portion
that is potentially recycled is that which is captured in the leachate andprocessed through the POTW. Eventually almost all of the carbon in the foodwaste at the landfill is converted to methane. In a well designed landfill about
66% of the methane is recovered and beneficially reused as fuel. However thebalance of 34 % of the methane escapes to the atmosphere. The methane gas
has up to 25 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.
Putrescible food waste added to the normal household solid waste also adds todisease causing vector problems such as flies, rodents and roaches while
awaiting collection. In cities that have mandated food waste disposers, solid
waste collection frequency has been reduced from twice weekly to weekly oreven bi-weekly.

BENEFITS OVER COMPOSTING
Municipal compost facilities are not as prevalent as landfills. They are
considered an additional system and a landfill is still required. Hauling foodwaste that is 70 % water to a compost facility represents over 59 % of the life
cycle costs of the compost operation.
Since municipal composting requires more moisture than is available in mostmaterials, the addition of food waste does enhance the composting process.
This higher moisture content does require periodic turning of the material tokeep the process aerobic. If the process goes anaerobic, then there is thepotential for significant odors to be generated and the result is community
opposition to composting. A number of facilities in the U.S. have been shut down
for odor problems. This typically requires locating the facility away from
population centers and hauling the high water content food waste longer
distances.
Composting also results in the loss of most of the nutrients in the food to theextent that the resulting product is of very low value and typically is not worth thecost of hauling and spreading it onto soil. In some communities the compost is ofsuch low value that it is used as landfill cover. Food waste can be processed
through the POTW at a much lower cost to the municipality, retain the nutrientsfor recycling, and reduce the atmospheric emissions.
5

INDIVIDUAL COMPOST SYSTEMS LIMITATIONS
The typical backyard compost system, which is not analyzed in this study is
typically not as well maintained as a municipal system. This results in moreanaerobic conditions, more odors, more methane generated and released to theatmosphere, more potential for leachate to seep into groundwater and a low
nutrient, low quality product. These systems also tend to attract disease causing
vectors. Yet, many homeowners perceive composting to be the “ideal” method ofrecycling food waste. The attached fact sheet based on information from thestudy contradicts this belief.

WASTE TO ENERGY LIMITATIONS
Hauling food waste that is 70 % water to a waste-to-energy facility represents
over 48 % of the life cycle costs of the operation. Energy required forevaporation of the water in the food waste results in a very small net energy gainfrom the incineration of food waste. Instead of the nutrients being captured forrecycling, most are given off to the atmosphere as acidic or greenhouse gases.
Scrubbers are required in a well designed system to reduce these emissions andare a significant factor in making this the highest cost municipal system. Refer tothe attached fact sheet for a comparison of the emissions generated by thevarious methods.

ON-SITE SYSTEM
An 0n-Site (Septic) System ( OSS ), is a requirement for processing wastewaterin rural areas which are located beyond the municipal collection systems. As
stated earlier, the system for this study was based on a 25 % larger system
when a food waste disposer is used. Since this is not a state of the art system,
this results in the system with the highest life cycle cost.
However, systems with a disposer, an adequate soil type and a “standard” sized
system have functioned trouble free for more than ten years in cold climates.
State of the art for on-site systems is the use of bio-additives to neutralize any
potential additional loading due to food waste. This allows using a “standard”
sized system without any additional system cost, significantly reducing the life
cycle cost of the FWD / OSS system. A state of the art system such as In-SinkErator’s Septic Disposer using Bio-ChargeTM would reduce the size required forthe system and reduce the system cost.

6

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF FIVE FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
FOR 100 KILOGRAMS ( 220.5 POUNDS ) OF FOOD WASTEDISPOSAL OPTION
FWD / POTW
MSW / LANDFILL MSW / COMPOST MSW / WTE
FWD / OSS
( Food Waste Dis- ( Municipal Solid ( Municipal Solid( Municipal Solid ( Food Waste Disposer + Publicly
Waste collection Waste collection
Waste collection poser + On-Site
Owned Treatment plus Landfilling ) plus Composting ) plus Waste To
Septic System )Works )
Energy )( Incineration )PARAMETERLand Required ( Square feet )Rank 1
Energy Required ( Btu )( Total - Exportable Food
Waste Energy )Rank 1
Materials Required ( Pounds )Rank 3Oxygen Required ( Pounds )Rank 3
Life Cycle Emissions ( pounds )Carbon dioxide
Rank 2
MethaneRank 1
Total Greenhouse Gases(Carbon dioxide+4*Methane)Rank 1
Acid Gases ( Pounds)
Nitrogen & Sulfur Oxides

0.003

0.202
3

45,744

80,1122

25

Total air emissions

3

Total System Cost
Low

$9.32
Rank 1High
Public municipality cost
( external to the home )Rank 1225 (compost )
3

0

1.3

480

5
3.3 ( septage )4

310$58.585$20.304$16.603$8.83$17.45$20.30$16.60$13.65

7

0

4

2

2

4800
5

1
39 ( ash )1$16.60$13.65

$0.49

420

2.7

3

1

3994
2273
5

2

0

$13.65$17.94
Rank 3

75
0

370

6

140
3

2

1

2

343

64
0

370

0
1

5

1

Water and waterborne wastes
2800
Rank 3
1
Solid wastes
4.4
Rank 43
Other( sludge )340 ( residues )Rank 5
2Life Cycle Costs
Disposer ( Homeowner costfor separation & convenience )
Low
$8.83
High
$17.45

200

260

83
0

1.0
4

5

4

2547
2273

2.9

160

110
1

190
5

5

4

120

Rank 2
Total Water Required ( Pounds )Carrier Water ( Pounds )Rank 4

140

0.2

24
3

15
5

4

3

24
Rank 30.00037

100

<0.05

130
4

3

2

1

140

0.00028

101
3

0
1

5

1

97

95

100

5
4

4881
5

5

3

0.00028

116.1

67

81
1

925,824
5

2

4

97

286,43389.6

01

20.432
5

4

1

0.1

Water Vapor ( Pounds )143,299

338.2
4

0.020
2

3

287.4

2

0.814
4

$67.205$20.304$67.205The brief one page fact sheet titled “ LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF FIVE FOOD
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS” comparing the five systems for land,
energy, materials, emissions and costs has been inserted above. This fact sheet
was developed to present the key parameters for each system and also ranks
the systems for each parameter.
Carol Diggelman’s conclusions, recommendations, and two pages of detailed
comparison charts from the original report are copied verbatim and attached forreference. Copies of the 118 page Executive Summary and the 571 page Full
Report are available upon request.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

As shown on page 11, in general, as total flows to the environment
increase, so do total system costs, all per 100 kg food waste.
Rank by total system cost is a reasonable predictor of overall rank
for the 12 selected parameters-total land, total system materials(minus food waste and carrier water), total system energy (minus
food and carrier water energy), water, total system cost, airemissions, acid gases (NOx and SOx), greenhouse gases,
wastewater, waterborne wastes, solid waste, and food waste
byproducts.
Total flows to the environment from wastewater systems are about
10 times those from MSW systems, primarily because of FWD
carrier water.
The FWD/OSS, the only rural system, ranked either first or second
for most parameters. Because a larger fraction of the total
FWD/OSS was attributable to the 100 kg of food waste; land,materials, energy and flows to the environment attributable to the
100 kg were higher for the rural system than for the four municipal
systems.
The FWD/OSS has the highest flows to the environment of the fivesystems; most is water and waterborne wastes discharged withminimal performance control to the subsurface. About half of theeffluent BOD5 is discharged directly to the absorption bed which
may contribute to biomass assimilation and clogging in theabsorption bed. Although food waste carbon removes someammonia-nitrogen from wastewater as it is assimilated into
biomass, a system stoichiometric excess of ammonia-nitrogren
remains to be discharged into the subsurface, potentiallybypassing plant root zones to pollute groundwater.
The MSW Collection/WTE ranks second highest overall and for
total system cost. Burning food waste yields little exportableenergy in these systems, so diverting food waste to FWD/POTW
systems should be defined as recycling and encouraged, just as
diverting other recycables with no heating value, such as metal andglass, is encouraged.

8

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

The FWD/POTW system ranks in the middle of the five systems
overall and for total system materials and total system cost. Mostof the cost is for the FWD and is borne by the homeowner; the cost
to process food waste through the POTW is less than $0.50 per
100 kg of food waste. The FWD/POTW has the lowest land andtotal system energy requirements but the highest food waste
byproduct, sludge, requiring management.
Wastewater collection and treatment systems and MSW collection
systems and landfills are required systems for both urban and rural
residences for reasons of basic public health and sanitation.
When a FWD Is incorporated in a household wastewater collection
system, there is redundancy in food waste management and mostfood waste can be managed through either system. Food waste
going into a FWD/POTW system, from which either effluent and/or
sludge is/are returned to agricultural soils in compliance with
Federal and State regulations and in which methane is collected
and combusted to produce electricity, is being effectively recycled.
Adding food waste carbon to a carbon limited wastewater system
contributes to a net removal of nutrients (nitrogren andphosphorus) from effluent, as nutrients are assimilated with carbon
into biomass and removed from the system as sludge.
Land requirements for each system give a first approximation of asystem’s appropriation of and reduction in net primary productivity(mass of biomass produced per area or per Joule of incident
energy). Even though impacts to net primary productivity arebeyond the scope of this project, the FWD/POTW system with thelowest land requirements has the lowest impact on net primary
productivity from 100 kg of food waste. When coupled withpotential increases in net primary productivity from effluent andsludge nutrients, this system is potentially the most sustainable ofthe five systems.
The MW Collection/Compost system ranks lowest overall; it has
the lowest total system materials and water requirements andgenerates the lowest amount of wastewater and waterborne
wastes. Food nutrients are returned to soil from compost systems.
Composting is an optional food waste management system that
increases redundancy in food waste management; however,wastewater collection/treatment and MSW Collection / Landfill
systems are still required.
The MSW Collection/Landfill system is the default system for foodwaste management; it ranks next to lowest overall and lowest forcost. It also ranks low for water, wastewater, total air emissions
and food waste byproducts.

9

13.

14.

15.

As indicated on page 12, for MSW systems the MSW Collection
system contributes from half to 3/4 of the total system cost.
Systematic diversion of wet, putrescible food waste from MSW to
FWDs has the potential to produce drier, more storable MSW andreduce the need for weekly collection and the cost of MSW
collection.
The MSW Collection system requires about 17 times the land,
about 18% of the total materials, 88% of the total system energy, isabout half the high estimate and is about the same as the low
estimate of the cost of the FWD; the total flows to the environment
for the MSW Collection system are about 18% those of the FWD,
because there is no carrier water.
If household plumbing were redesigned to use non-potable waterfor flushing wastes (both human through toilets and food throughFWDs), diverting food wastes to municipal wastewater systems
becomes a more sustainable choice.

Final Recommendations:
1.
Diverting food waste through FWDs to a POTW should be
encouraged when solids’ handling systems are adequate, methane
is combusted to generate energy, and effluent and/or sludge are
returned to soil; food waste is effectively being recycled and should
be so designated in Federal and State regulations.
2.
Benefits to MSW management systems from the systematic use of
FWDs should be quantified; because by transferring putrescible
FW from solid to wastewater management systems, there a
reduction in regulatory requirements for MSW collection systems(weekly collection), landfill systems (daily cover requirement),
compost systems (more stringent management requirements) andreduced solids’ handling for WTE systems.
3.
Separate regulations that give different design requirements for
POTWs depending on FWD usage should be challenged,
especially if no other household appliance or device is so listed.
4.
To make the life-cycle inventory a cost-effective process, there
needs to be an accurate, up-to-date data base of unit factors forwater and waterborne wastes, air emissions, and solid waste formaterials and fuels that is readily available to the public.

10

Comparison of Land, Materials, Energy, and Costs of Five System Used to Manage Food Waste
Neg.-negligible;
NI-no information
NA-Not ApplicableLand, ft

2

FWD+
POTW+
MSW
Compost+WTE +Landfill+
FWD
OSS
OSS
POTW
FWD
Collection Compost Collection
W-T-E
Collection Landfill
Collection
Table 4.17 Table 5.19
Table 6.103
Table 7.18 Table 8.17
Table 9.27
Table 7.43
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg
ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg ft /100kg
ft /100kg
0.0006
20.43
20.43
0.003
0.003
0.01
0.80
0.81
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.20
lb/100kg lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg

Materials
Construction &Landfill Materials
0.1
3143.23143.3
7.9
8.0
2.7
5.9
8.6
5.0
7.7
243.7
246.4
Equipment,
vehicles
0.1
Neg.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
Electricity
1.4
Neg.
1.4
1.4
2.8
5.4
9.5
14.9
22.1
27.4
0.0
5.4
Natural Gas
0.5
Neg.
0.5
0.0
0.5
NI
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.4
0.6
0.6
Diesel Fuel
0.1
12.9
13
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.2
1.6
1.9
3.3
1.4
2.8
Gasoline
0.7
Neg.
0.7
0.0
0.7
NI
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FWD Materials
1.5
0
1.5
0.0
1.5
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Water
260.4
3733.43993.82286.32546.7
38.5
25.5
64
36.5
75
44.3
82.8
Food Waste
0.0
220.5
220.5
220.5
220.5
0.0
220.5
220.5
220.5
220.5
220.5
220.5
Total
264.9
7109.97374.82516.22781.1
48.2
261.9
310.1
288.4
336.6
510.5
558.7
Total - FW & CW
264.9
4616.24881.1
22.5
287.4
48.2
41.4
89.6
67.9
116.1
290.0
338.2
EnergyBtu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg Btu/100kg
Embodied Materials
308
526506526814
5707
6014
18983
13351
32334
2289
21272
6628
25611
Embodied-Processequip./vehicles
1477
Neg.
1477
1021
2498
2027
6975
9002
2068
4095
1635
3662
Electricity
6177
Neg.
6177
6056
12233
23373
41061
64434
99225
122598NI23373
Natural Gas
13126
Neg.
13126
416
13542
NI
NI
NI
61347
61347
15299
15299
Diesel3717
302149305866
1659
5376
33856
3549
37405
43108
76963
31877
65733
Gasoline
16780
NI
16780
52
16832
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
FWD Material
47197
0.0
47197
0.0
47197
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Water
547
7840
8387
4798
5345
81
43
124
77
158
93
174
Total
89329
836495925824
19708
10903778320
64979
14329920811328643355531
133851
Total - Exportable
FW Energy*
89329
836495925824-43585
45744
78320
64979
1432992081132864331792
80112
Costs - $$17.45$49.75$67.20$0.49$17.94$9.90$6.70$16.60$10.39$20.30$3.75$13.65
Exportable
Electricity** kWh
0
0
0
19
19
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
* Exportable energy for POTW = 63,293 Btu/100kg FW; for Landfill = 53739 Btu/100kg FW

11

Summary of Life Cycle Emissions from Acquisition, Use and Decommissioning of Five Enhanced Systems for the Management of Food Waste
FWD+
POTW+
MSW
Compost+WTE +Landfill+
FWD
OSS
OSS
POTW
FWD
Collection Compost Collection
W-T-E
Collection Landfill
Collection
Air Emissions
lb/100kg lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg
lb/100kg lb/100kg lb/100kg
lb/100kg
Particulates
2.8e-022.4e-01
2.7e-01
1.8e-033.0e-02
1.6e-02
1.4e-023.0e-029.4e-032.5e-02-1.2e-02
3.8e-03
Nitrogren Oxides
4.5e-026.2e-01
6.6e-01
5.1e-025.0e-02
6.6e-02
3.6e-021.0e-01
2.8e+00
2.8e+00
7.8e-03
7.4e-02
HC (Not Methane)
4.7e-022.1e-01
2.5e-01
2.6e-03
4.9e-022.7e-02
1.5e-024.3e-021.1e-01
1.4e-01
1.8e-012.1e-01
Sulfur Oxides
6.4e-022.9e-01
3.6e-01
5.7e-037.0e-02
5.9e-026.1e-021.2e-01
1.9e-027.8e-02-8.9e-02-3.0e-02
Carbon Monoxide
1.3e-01
4.9e-01
6.2e-01
5.8e-03
1.4e-01
5.5e-023.1e-028.6e-026.5e-021.2e-01
3.3e-028.8e-02
Carbon Dioxide
1.4e+01
1.1e+02 1.3e+02
8.4e+01
9.7e+01
9.6e+00
9.4e+01
1.0e+02
1.3e+02
1.4e+02 7.1e+01
8.1e+01
Aldehydes
1.6e-04
1.1e-021.1e-025.4e-05
2.1e-03
1.2e-03
1.3e-04
1.3e-03
1.5e-032.7e-03
1.1e-032.3e-03
Other Organics
2.1e-022.1e-01
2.3e-01
1.1e-032.2e-022.3e-022.5e-032.6e-023.0e-025.4e-022.2e-024.5e-02
Ammonia
4.7e-06
6.9e-05
7.4e-05
3.9e-075.1e-06
8.0e-06
1.3e-06
9.3e-06
1.0e-05
1.8e-05
6.5e-06
1.5e-05
Lead
3.5e-06
2.0e-08
3.5e-06
1.1e-08
3.5e-06
2.3e-09
3.5e-102.6e-092.9e-09
5.1e-09
1.8e-09
4.1e-09
Methane2.5e-04
1.5e+01 1.5e+01
2.9e-05
2.8e-04
1.5e-04
1.3e-04
2.8e-04
2.2e-04
3.7e-04
5.0e+00
5.0e+00
Kerosene
1.0e-06
2.5e-07
1.3e-06
1.3e-071.2e-06
1.1e-06
1.9e-06
3.1e-06
7.4e-08
1.2e-06-4.1e-06-2.9e-06
HCI
1.4e-072.1e-05
2.3e-06
1.2e-08
1.5e-072.5e-073.8e-082.8e-073.1e-075.6e-072.0e-074.5e-07
Water Vapor - FW
0.0e+00
0.0e+00 0.0e+00
2.4e+01
2.4e+01
0.0e+00
1.6e+02
1.6e+022.0e+022.0e+02 2.4e+01
2.4e+01
Total Air Emissions 1.4e+01
1.3e+02 1.4e+02
1.1e+02
1.2e+02
9.9e+00
2.6e+022.7e+02
3.4e+02
3.5e+02 1.0e+02
1.1e+02
SW / CW
1.6e+00
4.7e+02 4.8e+02
2.8e+00
4.4e+00
9.7e-01
1.7e+00
2.7e+00
3.4e-01
1.3e+00 5.0e+00
6.0e+00* Other
0.0e+00
3.1e+02 3.1e+02
3.4e+02
3.4e+02
0.0e+00
3.9e+01
3.9e+01
3.3e+00
3.3e+00 2.5e+01
2.5e+01
Water / Waterbone
WastesWater
2.6e+02
3.6e+03 3.8e+03
2.1e+03
2.3e+03
3.9e+01
2.1e+01
5.9e+01
2.9e+01
6.7e+01 1.9e+02
2.3e+02
Acid
1.0e-09
6.6e-02
6.6e-02
6.6e-02
6.6e-02
1.7e-09
2.7e-102.0e-092.2e-09
4.0e-09
1.4e-09
3.2e-09
Metal Ion
2.1e-05
3.2e-04
3.4e-04
1.8e-06
2.3e-05
3.7e-05
5.8e-06
4.3e-05
4.7e-05
8.4e-05
3.0e-05
6.7e-05
Dissolved Solids
1.3e-02
1.8e-01
1.9e-01
2.5e-+00 2.5e+00
2.1e-023.4e-032.4e-022.7e-024.8e-02
1.8e-023.9e-02
Suspended Solids
7.1e-03
1.2e-01
1.2e-01
2.0e-012.1e-01
1.2e-03
1.3e-032.4e-03
3.8e-04
1.5e-032.5e-022.7e-02BOD
1.1e-03
3.5e-03
4.6e-03
1.3e-04
1.2e-03
4.5e-03
3.9e-04
4.9e-03
3.2e-05
4.5e-03
1.3e-02
1.8e-02COD
4.0e-038.7e-04
4.8e-03
1.3e-05
4.0e-03
1.3e-04
1.1e-04
2.4e-04
1.3e-04
2.6e-04
2.5e-022.5e-02
Phenol
7.0e-08
1.0e-06
1.1e-06
5.8e-09
7.6e-08
1.2e-07
1.9e-08
1.4e-07
1.5e-072.7e-079.7e-08
2.2e-07Oil
1.4e-032.5e-03
3.9e-03
3.3e-05
1.5e-03
3.1e-04
1.8e-04
4.8e-04
4.6e-04
7.7e-04
4.2e-04
7.3e-04
Sulfuric Acid
2.4e-035.5e-04
3.0e-03
3.1e-04
2.7e-032.6e-03
4.6e-03
7.2e-03
1.7e-04
2.8e-03-9.6e-03-6.9e-03
Iron
6.1e-04
1.4e-04
7.5e-04
7.6e-05
6.8e-04
6.6e-04
1.1e-03
1.8e-03
4.3e-05
7.0e-04
1.0e-021.1e-02
1.7e-06
2.5e-05
2.7e-05
1.4e-07
1.8e-06
2.9e-06
4.5e-073.3e-06
3.7e-06
6.5e-06
2.5e-032.5e-03
Ammonia + NO3
Chromium
4.1e-09
6.0e-08
6.5e-08
3.4e-10
4.4e-09
7.0e-09
1.1e-098.1e-098.9e-09
1.6e-08
5.7e-09
1.3e-08
Lead
1.8e-09
2.7e-082.8e-08
1.5e-102.0e-09
3.1e-094.8e-10
3.6e-09
3.9e-09
7.0e-092.5e-09
5.6e-09
Zinc
2.7e-08
3.9e-074.2e-072.2e-092.9e-08
4.5e-08
7.1e-09
5.2e-08
5.7e-08
1.0e-073.7e-088.2e-08
Total Water Wastes 3.0e-02
1.3e+01 1.3e+01
2.8e+00
2.8e+00
3.0e-021.1e-024.1e-022.8e-02
5.9e-028.5e-021.2e-01
Total
2.8e+02
4.5e+03 4.8e+03
2.5e+03
2.8e+03
4.9e+01
3.2e+02
3.7e+02
3.7e+024.2e+02 3.2e+02
3.7e+0212

13