# TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR THE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILL SECTOR:

FINAL RULE FOR MANDATORY REPORTING

OF GREENHOUSE GASES

Climate Change Division Office of Atmospheric Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

June 9, 2010

## Contents

1. Industry Description....................................................................................................... ............ 3

2. Total Emissions............................................................................................................

.............. 4

4

5

5

5

6

7

12

15

15

16

16

18

19

21

21

22

23

23 3. Review of Existing Pr ogram s and Methodologies..................................................................... 4. Types of Emissions Information to be Reported ....................................................................... 4.1 Types of Emissions to be Reported ................................................................................. 4.2 Other Information to be Reported.................................................................................... 5. Options for Reporting Threshold............................................................................................... 5.1 Summary of Results........................................................................................................ . 7 5.2 Approach..........................................................................................................................

5.3 Discussion of Results..................................................................................................... 6. Options for Monitoring Methods............................................................................................. 6.1 Calculating Methane Ge neration using the First-or der Decay (FOD) Model ............... 6.2 Developing Appropriate Input Parameters for the FOD Model ....................................

6.2.1 Review of Values for DOC .............................................................................. 6.2.2 Review of Values for Decay Rate Constant (k) ..............................................

6.2.3 Recommended Values for DOC and k for Industrial Solid Wastes.................

6.2.4 Measurement Methods for DOC and k for Industrial Solid Wastes ................ 6.3 Calculating Potential and Actual Emissions using the IPCC Model ............................. 7. Options for Estimating Missing Data ...................................................................................... 8. QA/QC Requirements.........................................................................................................

..... 9. References................................................................................................................................

ii

### 1. Industry Description

An industrial waste landfill is a landfill containing industrial solid wastes. The New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for municipal so lid waste (MSW) landfills (40 CFR 60 subpart WWW) and the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) (40 CFR 98 subpart A) include the following de finition for landfills:

“ Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile as t hose terms are defined under §257.2 [of this title].”

(Note: 40 CFR 257 is the Criteria for Cl assification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices. Only the MSW landfill rule includes the bracketed phrase “of this title.”)

An MSW landfill is a landfill in which household waste is placed. An MSW landfill may receive industrial or commercial wastes, but if the landfill receives household waste, then the landfill is an MSW landfill. There are two basic types of in dustrial wastes: 1) hazardous wastes such as

those defined in Subtitle C of the Resource C onservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or defined in the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); and 2) non-hazardous wastes as those regulated in

Subtitle D of RCRA. A hazardous waste la ndfill may accept non-hazardous wastes, but a nonhazardous waste landfill cannot ac cept hazardous wastes. As RCRA and TSCA have a significant restrictions on the types of hazardous wastes that can be landfilled and significant containment requirements on the landfill, me thane production from these hazardous waste landfills is expected to be neg ligible. Consequently, a reasonab le definition of industrial waste

landfills is:

“Industrial waste landfill means any landfill other than a municipal solid waste landfill, a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wast e landfill, or a TSCA hazardous waste landfill, in which industrial solid waste, such as RCRA Subtitle D wastes (nonhazardous industrial solid waste, defined in 40 CFR 257.2 ), commercial solid wastes, or conditionally exempt small quant ity generator wastes, is placed. An

industrial waste landfill in cludes all disposal ar eas at a facility.”

After being placed in a landfill, waste is initially decomposed by aerobic bacteria. After the oxygen has been depleted, the remaining waste is available for consumption by anaerobic bacteria, which break down organic matter into substances such as ce llulose, amino acids, and sugars. These substances are further broken down through fermentation into gases and shortchain organic compounds that form the substrates for the growth of methanogenic bacteria.

These CH 4 

### -producing anaerobic bacteria convert the fermentation products into stabilized organic materials and biogas.

Methane generation from a given landfill is a function of several factors, including: (1) the total amount of waste disposed of in the landfill each year (annual wast e acceptance rate); (2) the age of the landfill (or the total quant ity of waste in-place); (3) the ch aracteristics of the waste (i.e., composition and organic content of waste); and (4) the climatic cond itions (temperature and soil

### moisture co ntent – wet soils promote anaerobic degradation). The amount of methane emitted is dependent on the amount of CH 4 

### generated less the amount of CH 4 

### that is recovered (and either flared or used for energy purposes) and the amount of CH 4 

### oxidized near the landfill surface prior to being released into the atmosphere.

Although federal standards require some MSW la ndfills to capture and control landfill gas,

industrial waste landfills ar e not subject to similar federal standards.

2. Total Emissions

According the Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (US EPA, 2008a),

the m ajority of the CH 4 

### emissions from on-site industrial wa ste landfills occur at pulp and paper facilities and food processing facilities. In 2006, these landfills emitted 14.6 Tg CO 2 

### e of methane, with pulp and paper facilities emitting 7.3 Tg CO 2 

### e of methane and food processing

facilities emitt ing 7.2 Tg CO 2 

### e of methane. Based on the Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States (US EPA, 1988), there were 180 pulp and paper facilities and 189 food processing facilities with ons ite landfills in 1985. Other indus try sectors that are expected to landfill organic waste materi als that contribute to methan e emissions (and the number of

facilities within the sector that had onsite landfills in 1985) include: organic chemical manufacturers (13); plastics and resins manufacturers (29), wa ter treatment facilities (67); petroleum refineries (31); rubber and misce llaneous product manufact urers (24); selected chemical and allied product manufacturers ( 15); textile manufacturers (10); and leather and leather product manufacturers (7). [U.S. EPA, 1988]

3. Review of Existing Programs and Methodologies

In developing GHG monitoring and reporting options for landfills, a num ber of existing programs and guideline methodologies were reviewed for solid waste landfills. In addition to the NSPS and Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills, the following resources were examined:

1. 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Ch ange (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, Waste

.

2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Tec hnical Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting Of Greenhouse Gases (1605(B)) Program.

3. CARB (California Air Resource Board). 2008. Regulation For The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Second 15-Day Modified Regulatory Language For Public Comment. May 15.

4. Environment Canada (2006). Guidan ce Manual for Estimating Greenhouse Gas

Emissions. http://www.ghgreporting.gc.ca/GHGI nfo/Pages/page15.aspx?lang=E

.

Additional programs and methodological guidance reviewed included: Inventory of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (US EPA, 2008a) and 1990-2007 (US EPA 2009a),

4

### California C limate Action Registry, EPA Climat e Leaders, EU Emission Trading System, The Climate Registry, EPA’s Landfill Methane Outre ach Program, Australia’s National Mandatory GHG Reporting Program (draft), and the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocols.

Each of these sources was reviewed to determin e the types of emissions to be reported, the facility reporting thresholds , and the monitoring methodologies recommended. The reporting and monitoring options presented in Secti ons 4, 5, and 6 are commensurate with the methodologies used in these ex isting programs and guidelines.

4. Types of Emissions Information to be Reported

4.1 Types of Emissions to be Reported Based on the review of existing program s a nd the emission sources at landfills, GHG reporting

for landfills is limited to CH 4 

### because the CO 2 

### produced from the landf ills is considered biogenic. There are potentially other sources of GHG emissions at facilities that operate landfills. For reporting options for stationa ry combustion sources (including landfill gas combustion for energy and combustion of fossil fuel s used to assist gas combustion efficiency), refer to the Technical Support Do cument for Stationary Fuel Co mbustion Emissions. Biogenic

emissions of CO 2 

### from flaring without energy recovery are not reported.

In the case of industrial facilities with onsite landfills, industrial process emissions of greenhouse gases may be occurring onsite as well. Reportin g options for industrial waste landfill emissions are detailed here, but for repor ting options for other industrial process emissions, refer to the Technical Support Document for that industry sector.

4.2 Other Information to be Reported In order to check the reported GHG em issions for reasonableness and for other data quality considerations, additional information about the emission sources is needed. In addition to actual methane emissions, each reporting landfill should also report methane generation and, if applicable, methane combustion annual quantities. Additionally, the following data should also be submitted with the annual report:

Data to report—industrial waste landfills

 General information about the landfill, such as an indication of the landfill as “open” or “closed,” the year in which the landfill first started accepting waste for disposal, the last year the landfill accepted waste or the projected year of landfill closure, the capacity of the landfill, and an indication of whether leachate recirculatio n is used at the landfill.

 Waste characterization information, such as th e number of waste steams or waste stream types accepted at the landfill and a description of each waste stream.

 Waste stream-specific information, such as the decay rate (k) value used in the calculations, the method(s) for estimating hist orical waste disposal quantities, and the range of years for which each method applies. When historical disposal rates are estimated based on production or filled capacity, the production or filled capacity parameters needed to estimate the historical disposal rates must also be reported.

5

###  Historic and current annual landfill operating inf ormation, such as the quantity of waste disposed of in the landfill for each waste stream type for each year, the degradable organic carbon content value for each waste st ream or waste stream type for each year

and an indication as to whether this was th e default value or a value determined through sampling and analysis, and the fraction of CH 4 

### in the landfill gas for each year and an

indication as to whether this was the de fault value or a value determined through

measurement data.

 Description of the landfill cove r, such as the type(s) of cover material used, and the

landfill surface area at th e start of the reporting year a ssociated with each cover type.

 Modeled CH 4 

### generation rate for the reporting year.

 Methane generation (MG), which is the modeled CH 4 

### generation rate adjusted for oxidation (landfills with gas collection system s must report both MG from modeled CH 4 

### generation and MG back -calculated from CH 4 

### recovery).

 Annual CH 4 

### emissions (landfills with gas collection systems must report both CH 4 

### emissions from modeled CH 4 

### generation adjusted for recovery and CH 4 

### emissions backcalculated from CH 4 

### recovery).

 Annual quantity of CH 4 

### recovered (for landfills with landfill gas collection systems).

 An indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares are present at the landfill.

 Information about active landfill gas collection systems (if present), such as the total volumetric flow of landfill gas collec ted for destruction, the measured CH 4 

### concentration, monthly average measured temperature, pressu re, and moisture content, a description of the gas collection system (manufacture, cap acity, number of we lls, etc.), the gas collection efficiency, annual operating hours of gas collection system, and the surface area, waste depth and cover type for areas within the landfi ll serviced by the landfill gas collection system.

 Information about landfill gas destruction de vices (for landfills with gas collection system), such as an indication of whether destruction occurs onsite or offsite, the destruction device efficiency, an indication of whether a back-up destruction device is available and the annual operating hours for pr imary destruction and back-up destruction

devices.

5. Options for Reporting Threshold

The precise im pacts of the facility-wide reporting threshold (in terms of tCO 2 

### e emissions) could not be directly evaluated, because many of the in dustrial waste landfills are expected to be colocated at facilities that have other reportable GHG emissions. In fact, most facilities that have

industrial waste landfills w ill also have stationary combustion sources or other regulated sources that would cause the facility to exceed a f acility-wide 25,000 reporting threshold regardless of how little or how much emissions are generated from the landfill. For example, all pulp and paper facilities (U.S. EPA, 2009c), 97 percent of petroleum refineries (U .S. EPA, 2008b), and 99 percent of petrochemical producti on facilities (U.S. EPA, 2008c), which includes certain organic chemical and plastic manufacturers, are projec ted to exceed the 25,000 re porting threshold based on sources other than landfills at the facility. Food processing facilities are the exception

wherein the industrial waste landf ill is the primary GHG emissions source at the facility (U.S. EPA, 2009d). Consequently, we did not differen tiate between options fo r all industr ial landfills

6

### to report and options for industrial la ndfills to report if th ey are located at a fa cility that exceed a facility-wide reporting thre shold (in terms of tCO 2 

### e emissions). Instead, different reporting “threshold” options were identi fied and evaluated to determine the relative impacts of the different options assuming all indus trial landfills were located at facilities that already exceeded a facility-wide reporti ng threshold of 25,000 tCO 2 

### e.

Based on the analysis that is described in greater detail in the remainder of this section, two of these options were inferior to other similar options (higher costs with less of the nationwide GHG emissions reported). Consequently, the foll owing four reporting “thr eshold” options were

identified as viable alternatives.

 All industrial landfills report (i.e., assumes all industrial landfills are co-located at facilities that exceed the 25,000 tCO 2 

### e threshold).

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills report.

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills with design capacity of 300,000 Mg or more

report.

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills th at accept 20,000 tons/yr or more of waste

report

5.1 Summary of Results Table 1 provides a summary of the altern atives that were cons idered viable.

Table 1. Threshold Analysis of Potentia l Alternatives for Industrial Landfills

Alternative

No. Description Number of

facilities
reporting Percent of

total

number of

facilities Total GHG

emissions reported (10 6 mtCO 2 e) Percent of

total GHG

emissions reported

1 All industrial landfills report 2,310 100% 15.4 100%

2 Only “organic” waste industrial

landfills report 607 26.3% 14.8 96.1%

3 Only “organic” waste industrial

landfills with design capacity of

300,000 Mg or more report 200 8.7% 13.7 89.0%

4 Only “organic” waste industrial

landfills that accept 20,000 tons/yr

or more of waste report 100 4.3% 13.0 84.4%



### 5.2 Approach

Data from the 1988 Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States (US EPA, 1988), which contains data regarding 1985 wa ste management practices, was used to

characterize the number of indus trial landfills, the landfill cap acities, and the annual waste disposal rates for various industr y categories. While these data are 25 years old, they represent the only complete industrial waste survey data available. Tables 2 through 4 provide key data

taken from the 1988 Report to Congress

.

7

### Table 2. Characteristics of Industrial Landfills by Industry Category

Industry Category Number

of active

landfill

units 1 Number of

facilities

with active

landfills 1 Number of

facilities

with

closed

landfills 1 Waste quantities disposed in

landfills 2

(1000 tons) Total design
capacity 3

(1000 tons) Remaining design
capacity 3

(1000 tons)

Organic chemicals 17 13 39 263 6,284 4,011

Primary iron and steel 201 177 104 3,687 61,056 42,870

Fertilizer and agricultural

chemicals 31 30 45 5,789 149,252 63,307

Electric power generation 155 126 89 53,449 999,469 874,358

Plastics and resins manufacturing 32 28 46 86 2,200 1,514

Inorganic chemicals 120 81 115 3,220 69,167 8,593

Stone, clay, glass, and

concrete 1257 1153 454 7,571 8,883,934 8,538,009

Pulp and paper 259 180 179 5,873 108,457 229,337

Primary nonferrous metals 111 90 93 1,375 21,460 13,818

Food and kindred products 194 189 140 3,595 23,758 13,078

Water treatment 121 69 29 157 3,374 1,782

Petroleum refining 61 41 66 272 9,200 2,357

Rubber and misc. products 77 36 93 520 18,456 5,657

Transportation equipment 63 56 127 172 7,335 2,003

Selected chemicals and

allied products 21 19 33 112 3,056 3,285

Textile manufacturing 28 25 84 69 697 728

Leather and leather
products 9 9 23 9 178 120

Totals 2,757 2,322 1,759 86,219 10,367,333 9,804,827

1 

### From Table 4-3 of US EPA, 1988.

2 

### From Table 4-8 of US EPA, 1988.

3 

### From Table 4-13 of US EPA, 1988.



### 8

### Table 3. Waste Disposal Rates for I ndustrial Landfills b y Industry Category 1

Number of establishments by quantity of waste landfilled in 1985 (1,000 tons)

Industry Category Less

than 0.5 0.5 ‐ 5 5.1 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 100 101

– 1000 More

than 1000 Totals

Organic chemicals 2 4 4 2 1 0 13

Primary iron and steel 69 55 29 13 9 0 175

Fertilizer and agricultural

chemicals 25 2 0 0 2 1 30

Electric power generation 23 13 6 23 57 3 125

Plastics and resins manufacturing 18 6 2 2 0 0 28

Inorganic chemicals 30 31 10 9 0 1 81

Stone, clay, glass, and

concrete 873 129 85 46 10 0 1,143

Pulp and paper 26 14 83 44 12 0 179

Primary nonferrous metals 32 35 7 13 2 0 89

Food and kindred products 127 22 17 12 11 0 189

Water treatment 33 33 0 3 0 0 69

Petroleum refining 21 9 8 1 1 0 40

Rubber and misc. products 2 22 2 10 0 0 36

Transportation equipment 37 8 7 7 1 0 60

Selected chemicals and

allied products 6 6 6 1 0 0 19

Textile manufacturing 12 6 7 0 0 0 25

Leather and leather
products 8 0 1 0 0 0 9

Totals 1,344 395 274 186 106 5 2,310

1 

### From Table 4-9 of US EPA, 1988.



### 9

### 10 Table 4. Design Capacity for Industrial Landfills by Industry Category 1

Number of establishments by landfill design capacity (1000 tons)

Less

than 0.5 0.5 ‐ 5 5.1 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 100 101

– 1000 More

than 1000 Totals

Organic chemicals 1 0 2 5 4 1 13

Primary iron and steel 3 24 51 25 49 11 163

Fertilizer and agricultural

chemicals 19 1 4 2 0 3 29

Electric power generation 6 5 5 12 21 74 123

Plastics and resins manufacturing 8 2 8 4 7 0 29

Inorganic chemicals 1 12 20 18 20 3 74

Stone, clay, glass, and

concrete 177 234 176 127 162 71 947

Pulp and paper 0 1 17 47 79 26 170

Primary nonferrous metals 9 13 26 8 20 3 79

Food and kindred products 91 33 4 18 39 1 186

Water treatment 24 3 28 7 4 1 67

Petroleum refining 2 5 8 9 6 1 31

Rubber and misc. products 0 0 0 2 11 11 24

Transportation equipment 31 1 2 10 5 2 51

Selected chemicals and

allied products 0 1 4 5 4 1 15

Textile manufacturing 1 2 0 5 2 0 10

Leather and leather
products 0 3 3 0 1 0 7

Totals 373 340 358 304 434 209 2,018

1 

### From Table 4-12 of US EPA, 1988.



### The industrial categories were characterized as either producing “organi c” waste or “inorganic” waste. The following industrial categories were assumed to produce inorganic wastes:

 Primary iron and steel

 Fertilizer and agricultural chemicals

 Electric power generation

 Inorganic chemicals

 Stone, clay, glass, and concrete

 Primary nonferrous metals

 Transportation equipment

### The wastes produced by these industries would generally have m inimal degradable organic content (DOC). Note that it is assumed the “fertilizer and agricultural chemicals” industry does not include agricultural wastes (such as those produced in an imal feeding operations, which could contain significant organi c matter); this category is expected to include primarily fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Plasti cs, metals, glass, and ot her “inert” wastes are generally considered to have negligible DOC (IPCC, 2006). At DOC levels below approximately 0.5 wt%, even the largest industria l landfills would not ge nerate enough methane to exceed a 25,000 tonne CO 2 

### equivalent (tCO 2 

### e) emissions threshold. Consequently, while there is no industry accepted defi nition of “inorganic waste,” for the purposes of this analysis, “inorganic waste” (i.e., waste gene rated by the above 7 industry cate gories) was assumed to have a DOC of 0.5 weight per cent (wt%) or less.

Of the remaining industries that are expected to produce “organic wast e,” the majority of landfills are located at either pulp and paper faci lities or food and kindred products facilities.

Industrial wastes at these industrie s in the U.S. have been evalua ted and are expected to contain approximately 20 to 26 wt% DOC measured on a wet basis (US EPA, 2009a). Consequently, it was assumed that the waste generated by the “org anic” industry categori es listed in Tables 1 through 3 (industries other than the 7 listed “ino rganic” industries) has an average DOC of approximately 20 wt%.

Industrial landfills are not known to have gas coll ection systems. Therefore, methane emissions

from industrial landfills can be estimated from the modeled methane generation by accounting for the fraction of the generated methane that is oxidized near the soil surface, which is assumed to be 10% (IPCC, 2006 and U.S. EPA 2009a). Methane emissions (modeled methane generation less 10% soil oxidation) were project ed for various sizes of landfills based on the waste disposal rate ranges and the de sign capacity ranges reported in the 1988 Report to Congress (see Tables 3 and 4, respectively) using the IPCC waste model (IPCC, 2006). Each of these differently sized landfills was assumed to contain 25 years of waste within the range of values reported for that group of landfills. An average DOC value of 0.0025 was used for inorganic waste, and an average DOC value of 0.20 was used for organic waste. The decay rate of 0.057 yr -1 

### was used for modeling purposes because only 25 years of waste was used and much of the organic industrial waste is ex pected to have high water content.

Model landfill sizes were initia lly selected from a midpoint in each range, and nationwide emissions were projected based on the number of landfills in that range. The size of the model landfill (and consequently the projected emissions) for selected ranges were subsequently adjusted (but well within the range limits for a given range) so that na tionwide industrial landfill emissions were estimated to be 15.4 teragrams pe r year (Tg/yr) of carbon dioxide equivalence (CO 2 

### e); this is the quantity of methane emissions projected for 2007 in the Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (US EPA, 2009a). This methodology was done both considering the annual waste dispos al rates and the landf ill design capacity (essentially assuming the landfil ls are now nearing capacity). Although the number of landfills responding to the two different survey questions for the 1988 Report to Congress were slightly different, the response rate for these questions wa s quite high (99.3 percent for annual quantity of waste landfilled in 1985 and 87 pe rcent for the design capacity).

11

### This analy sis only considers the landfills that were active in 1985 based on the assumption that, like MSW landfills, it would be impractical to requ ire reporting of landfills that closed prior to 1980. Although some of the landfi lls that reported that they were closed in 1985 may have operated past 1980, the number of active landfills in 1985 provides the be st number of likely affected sources. No attempt was made to delineate what fraction of landfills may still be operating; all landfills that operated in 1985, whet her still operating or closed were assumed to be potentially subject to a GHG reporting rule for industrial landf ills. While the industrial waste disposal practices may have shifted over the pa st 25 years and, this “model landfill” approach provides a reasonable means by which to estimate the impacts of different regulatory alternatives

for industrial landfills.

5.3 Discussion of Results Table 5 pres ents the estimated emissions for the model landfills, the numbe r of landfills, and the cumulative emissions for each landfill range. Usi ng the data in Table 5, various applicability

levels or thresholds can be evaluated. While certa in industrial facilities ma y have landfills as the only reportable GHG emissions source (so that only landfills with emissi ons greater than the 25,000 tCO 2 

### e reporting threshold would need to report), it is anticipated that nearly all industrial

landfills will be co-located at facilities that already exceed the reporting threshold. As such,

alternatives to the facility-wide 25,000 tCO 2 

### e reporting threshold were evaluated. There are three obvious parameters that can be used to aff ect the applicability of th e industrial la ndfill rule: 1) the type of waste disposed (organic vers us inorganic); 2) the annual quantity of waste disposed; and 3) the design capacity of the landfill.

Modeling results indicate that wa stes that have an organic co ntent of 0.5 wt% or less do not contribute significantly to the tota l emissions from industrial sources ; therefore, an exemption or applicability exclusion for waste with an organi c content less than 0.5 wt% appears reasonable. Modeling results also indicate that smaller organic waste industrial landfills will generally have emissions of less than 25,000 tCO 2 

### e. Specifically, organic wast e landfills that dispose of 20,000 tons/year of waste annually or less will ge nerally have emissions less than 25,000 tCO 2 

### e as do organic waste landfills with a capacity of 300,000 Mg (330,000 tons) or less.

Based on the data in Table 5, the number of industrial establishm ents (reporting entities) and the quantity of emissions that would be reported under different applicability or threshold levels were estimated. The inorganic waste and 20,000 t ons of annual waste quantity thresholds are directly evaluated by the data in Table 5. The 300,000 Mg landfill design capacity threshold requires additional assumptions for the landf ills within the 101,000 to 1,000,000 ton capacity range. For this capacity range, it was assumed that two-thirds of the landfills within this range are over the 300,000 Mg capacity threshold simply based on the given range (i.e., assuming the landfills are fairly evenly disperse d within the range). However, because the larger landfills in this range will have higher emissions than the smaller landfills within this range, the emissions distribution will tend to be weighted toward the larger landfills. As such, it was assumed that landfills greater than 300,000 Mg capacity accounted for 85% of the cumulative emissions from the overall range.

12

### Table 5. Emission Projections for Model Industria l Landfills

Parameter values for specified ranges of the annual quantity of waste landfilled (annual waste quantities in 1,000 tons)

Parameter Less

than 0.5 0.5 ‐ 5 5.1 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 100 101

– 1000 More

than 1000 Totals

Number of organic waste

landfills 255 122 130 75 25 0 607

Number of inorganic waste

landfills 1089 273 144 111 81 5 1,703

GHG emissions per organic

waste landfill (tCO 2 e/yr) 257 2,570 11,200 40,000 400,000 2,400,000 N/A

GHG emissions per inorganic waste landfill (tCO 2 e/yr) 3.2 32 150 500 5000 20,000 N/A

Cumulative GHG emissions

for organic waste landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 65.5 313.5 1,456 3,000 10,000 0 14,800

Cumulative GHG emissions

for inorganic waste

landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 3.5 8.7 22 55 405 100 600

Cumulative GHG emissions

for all landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 69 322 1,478 3,055 10,405 100 15,400

Parameter values for specified ranges of landfill design capacity (1000 tons)

Less

than 0.5 0.5 ‐ 5 5.1 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 100 101

– 1000 More

than 1000 Totals

Number of organic waste

landfills 127 50 74 102 157 42 552

Number of inorganic waste

landfills 246 290 284 202 277 167 1,466

GHG emissions per organic

waste landfill (tCO 2 e/yr) 15 90 600 3,050 30,500 230,000 N/A

GHG emissions per inorganic waste landfill (tCO 2 e/yr) 0.2 1.5 7 36 360 3,000 N/A

Cumulative GHG emissions

for organic waste landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 1.9 4.5 44.4 311 4,790 9,660 14,800

Cumulative GHG emissions

for inorganic waste

landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 0.05 0.4 2.0 7.3 100 500 600

Cumulative GHG emissions

for all landfills (1,000 tCO 2 e/yr) 2 5 46 318 4,890 10,160 15,400



### Notes: N/A = not applicable

tCO 2 

### e = tonnes (or metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalence



### 13

### The precise im pacts of the facility-wide 25,000 tCO 2 

### e reporting threshold could not be directly evaluated, but it was assumed that very few, if any, industrial landfills would be excluded from the reporting requirements based on the facility-wide threshold. Consequently, no differentiation was made between options for all industrial landf ills to report and options for industrial landfills to report if they are located at a facility that exceed a facility-wide reporting threshold (in terms

of tCO 2 

### e emissions). The following six “threshol d” options were initially identified and

evaluated to determine the re lative impacts of the different option (beyond a facility-wide reporting threshold of 25,000 tCO 2 

### e).

 All industrial landfills report (i.e., assumes all industrial landfills are co-located at facilities that exceed the 25,000 tCO 2 

### e threshold).

 Only industrial landfills with design capacity of 300,000 Mg or more report.

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills report.

 Only industrial landfills that accept 20,000 tons/yr or more of waste report.

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills with design capacity of 300,000 Mg or more

report.

 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills th at accept 20,000 tons/yr or more of waste

report

Table 6 summarizes number of reporting facilities and the projected indust rial landfill emissions that would be reported for these six different regulatory alternatives.

Table 6. Threshold Analysis Results for Industrial Landfills

Option

No. Description Number

of

facilities
reporting Percent of

total

number of

facilities Total GHG

emissions reported (10 6 mtCO 2 e) Percent of

total GHG

emissions reported

1 All industrial landfills report 2,310 100% 15.4 100%

1a Only industrial landfills with design capacity of

300,00 Mg or more report 730 31.6% 14.3 92.9%

2 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills report 607 26.3% 14.8 96.1%

2a Only landfills that accept more than 20,000 tons/yr of waste report 292 12.6% 13.5 87.7%

3 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills with
design capacity of 300,00 Mg or more report 200 8.7% 13.7 89.0%

4 Only “organic” waste industrial landfills that

accept more than 20,000 tons/yr of waste

report 100 4.3% 13.0 84.4%



### Assuming that the costs associated with each th reshold is proportional to the number of landfills in the threshold, the number of a pplicable landfills included for a given alternative provides a good estimate of the relative costs of the alternative. On this basis, Option 1a (300,000 Mg

14

### capacity threshold) is inferior to Option 2 (inorganic waste exclusion) because it im pacts more facilities while including less GHG emissions than Option 2 (i.e., Option 1a costs more for less reported GHG emissions than Option 2). Sim ilarly, Option 2a (20,000 tons/yr annual waste disposal rate threshold) is inferior to Option 3 (c ombination of inorgani c waste exclusion and 300,000 Mg capacity threshold). Consequently, th ese options (Options 1a and 2a) can be excluded from further analysis. The remaini ng four options (Options 1, 2, 3, and 4) are recommended for further analysis. Note that th e options that include an annual waste disposal threshold (Options 2a and 4) intrinsically pu t more importance on the annual waste disposal quantities than the other options. As such, these options would likely require a more accurate (and costly) monitoring method for waste disposal quantities than the other options to simply determine applicability to the rule.

6. Options for Monitoring Methods

There are tw o cost-effective potential monitoring methods: (1) calculation of methane generation using the IPCC waste model for landfills that do not have landfill gas collection systems; and (2) use of gas flow and composition metering for landfills that have gas collection systems, in addition to calculating methane ge neration with the IPCC waste model. Direct

methane emission measurement from the landf ill surface using optical remote sensing technologies is also a potential monitoring met hod. However, these techniques are expensive, and they typically provide only s hort-term measures of emissions. Using optical remote methods

for a one-time or annual test to estimate annual methane emissions has a high level of uncertainty as short-term emissions from a landfill are expected to vary with temperature and barometric pressure fluctuations, soil moisture content, a nd rainfall events. Even though remote sensing methods may accurately measure the methane emi ssions from the landfill over the course of several hours, the uncertainty of this method in estimating annual average emissions is comparable to the other monitoring methods iden tified above, but the co sts are much higher.

6.1 Calculating Methane Generation usin g the First-order Decay (FOD) Model

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines’ W aste Model produces emissions estimates that reflect the degradation rate of wastes in a landfil l (IPCC, 2006). To assist in developing CH 4 

### emission estimates for solid waste disposal sites (S WDS), the IPCC developed the Waste Model and improved default values for degradable organic c ontent (DOC) and degrada tion rate constants for different types of waste materials. The basic FOD equation for the methane generation rate in the IPCC Waste Model using the “b ulk waste” option and a time dela y of 6 months is presented below (see Equation 1). This is the simp lest calculation performed by the model.

Equation 1.

)/( 4 

### yrMg

Generation CHA T 

### 



#       
  
  

  

# 



 

1 )()1( 

### 12 16 T

Sx xTk xTk

xF x x 

### eeFDOC MCF DOCW 

# 

Where:

15

### A = Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year T (metric tons CH 4 

### ).
X = Year in which waste was disposed.
S = Start year of calculation.
T = Reporting year for which emissions are calculated.

W

x 

### = Quantity of waste disposed in the industrial waste landfill in year X (metric tons, as received (wet weight)).

DOC

x 

### = Degradable organic carbon for year X [fraction (metric tons C/metric ton waste)].

DOC F 

### = Fraction of DOC di ssimilated (fraction).

MCF = Methane correcti on factor (fraction).

F

x 

### = Fraction by volume of CH 4 

### in landfill gas (fra ction, dry basis).
k = Decay rate constant (yr -1 

### ).

The IPCC model includes the delay time (in months) for CH 4 

### generation as an input parameter to the model, and adjusts the emission calculations accordingly. The IPCC default value for this delay time is 6 months, so that Equation 1 eff ectively implements the IPCC Waste Model at the recommended value for the delay time.

Waste disposal quantities are occas ionally directly measured at i ndustrial waste landf ill facilities, but the waste quantities are more commonly estimated based on other company records, such as process unit feed rates less production rates (i.e., mass bala nces around the process unit) or vehicle load counts. Waste generation rates may also be estimated as a percentage of production rate. As methane generation occurs slowly over a number of years, wa ste disposal data are needed for approximately a 50 year period prior to the year of the emissions estimate.

The FOD model can also be applie d to different waste streams that are land disposed by applying Equation 1 to each landfilled waste stream and su m of the modeled methane generation across all of the waste streams. This appr oach requires disposal quantities for each individual waste stream and appropriate values of DOC and k by waste type.

6.2 Developing Appropriate Input Parameters for the FOD Model As appropriate values for DOC and k are critical to the app lication of the FOD model, a literature review was conducted to develop default paramete rs for these model parameters. Also, potential

measurement methods were evaluated. The results of these investigations ar e summarized in this

section



## 6.2.1 Review of Values for DOC

The IPCC Guidelines provides default values for DOC for several different types of industrial wastes (IPCC, 2006); the IPCC default DOC values are provided in Table 7. The IPCC notes that DOC values can vary widely by facility w ithin a given industry. Flores et al. (1999) conducted analyses of food waste in Iowa. The carbon content (assumed to be all degradable) calculated from the non-aqueous waste streams anal yzed by Flores et al. (1999) are provided in

Table 8. The data from Flores et al. suggests that the average mois ture content of food wastes in the may U.S. may be approximately 40 to 45 perc ent rather than 60 percent used in the default

16

### values for IP CC. Other things being equal, the IPCC DOC content of food waste at 40 to 45 percent moisture content would be 22 percent. This value compares well with the median and average values as well as for raw scrap, cooke d scrap, and sausage casings. While Table 8 shows that different waste streams may have significantly different DOC values, a central tendency DOC value for food processing wast e of 22 percent (or 0.22) is recommended.

Table 7. IPCC Default Values for Degradab le Organic Content (DOC) for Industrial Waste Streams (IPCC, 2006)

Industry Type DOC (wt%, wet) Total

Carbon (wt%, wet) Water

Content

(wt%) Food, beverages and tobacco (other than sludge) 15 15 60

Textile 24 40 20 Wood and wood products 43 43 15 Pulp and paper (other than sludge) 40 41 10

Plastics

- 80 0

Rubber (39) a 

### 56 16

Construction and demolition 4 24 0

a 

### Natural rubbers would likely not degrade under anaerobic conditions.



### Table 8. Carbon Content of Food Industry Waste Derived from Data Reported by Flores et al. (1999)

Originating

SIC Description Moisture (%) a 

### Carbon (% Dry Basis) b 

### Carbon (% Wet

Basis)

2013 Raw Scrap 55.81 64.93 28.69

2013 Cooked Scrap 69.28 69.45 21.34

2013 Rendering Grease I 17.47 90.96 c 

### 75.07

2013 Rendering Grease II 86.55 20.13 2.71

2015 Offal 68.47 72.42 22.83

2096 Popcorn feed and tailings, REC 13.93 46.4 39.94

2087 Spent diatomaceous earth 42.89 7.18 4.10

2096 Corn and chip waste 3.94 54.49 52.34

2096 Wet waste solid (corn) 78.33 38.02 8.24

2052 Egg shell 32.98 8.77 5.88

2013 Sausage casings 46.06 50.6 27.29

2048 Dust collection 2.38 11.09 10.83

2048 Floor sweepings 2.46 12.17 11.87

Median—all 42.9 46.4 21.3

Mean—all 40.0 42.0 23.9

a 

### As reported by Flores et al. (1999).

b 

### Carbon content was not directly reported, but the % Nitrogen (dry basis) and the carbon to nitrogen ratio were reported. Carbon content was calculated as the %Nitrogen (dry basis) times the carbon to nitrogen ratio, except where noted otherwise.



### 17c 

### Carbon content calculated from carbon to nitrogen ratio lead to unrealistic value (102%). Calculated carbon content as %Fat+%Fiber+%Protein-%Nitrogen-%Ash. 

### Pulp and paper waste, the IPCC default DOC valu e is based on 10 percent moisture content. However, Kraft and Orender (1993) present da ta for some pulp and paper waste streams suggesting the moisture content is commonly 50 per cent, so that the carb on content (wet weight) is between 12 and 25 percent (see Table 9). Na tional Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) calculated methane generation potential of four diffe rent pulp and paper wastes. The methane generation potential ranged from 70 to 101 m 3 

### of methane per Mg waste (Miner, 2008); this translates into DOC values of 0.14 to 0.20. Correcting the IPCC default DOC value for pulp and paper waste to be on a wet basis of 50 percent moisture, th e IPCC value would be 0.22. Considering all of these data, a default DOC value of 0.20 is recommended for the pulp and paper industry.

Table 9. Sludge and Bark Analysis Data from Kraft and Orender (1993)

Material Moisture (% by Wt) Carbon (% by Wt) Deinking Sludge 1 58 12.1 Deinking Sludge 2 58 13.07 Pulp Mill Sludge 58 21.66

Bark 50 25.15 Average 18.0

Bronstein and Coburn (2010) evaluated availabl e U.S. data for construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. The average wood content in C&D waste from a nu mber of studies ranged from 10 to 33 percent. Combined with the DOC content of wood and wood product waste of 0.43 (IPCC, 2006), this wood content in C&D waste s uggests that bulk C&D wa ste could have DOC

value between 0.04 and 0.14. Not all of the wood wa ste in C&D waste would be degradable, as some of the wood is pressure treated. Nevert heless, these data suggest that the IPCC default value for DOC for C&D waste may be low compared to typical U.S. C&D waste. The weighted average wood content of all of the C&D waste studies reviewed by Bronstein and Coburn was 22.6 wt%, suggesting a DOC of approximately 0.10. Assuming 20 percent of the wood is pressure treated, the DOC value of 0.08 is recommended for C&D waste.



## 6.2.2 Review of Values for Decay Rate Constant (k)

The IPCC Guidelines also provides recommended ranges and default values for the decay rate constant (k). These values vary by type of waste and climate (average temperature and soil moisture in the landfill). The ranges for k for te mperate regions (i.e., annual average temperature less than or equal to 68°F), which should be applicable for most pa rts of the U.S., are provided in Table 10. Note that IPCC encourages countries using its methods to collect and use national data, where available, and also comments th at the default data are very uncertain.

The U.S. EPA has also defined 3 different valu es for k in its greenhouse gas inventories (U.S. EPA, 2009a) for “bulk wastes” depending on pr ecipitation range. These k values were determined by statistical best fit of methane generation rates calculated from U.S. landfills with landfill gas collection and destruction system s. The EPA inventory k values follow:

k = 0.02 yr -1 

### for areas where the precipitation is <20 inches/year;

18

### k = 0.038 yr -1 

### for areas with precipitation between 20 and 40 inches/year; and k = 0.057 yr -1 

### for areas where precipitation is greater than 40 inches/year.

Table 10. Ranges of k Values by Waste Type for Temperate Climates (IPCC, 2006)
k Values (yr -1 

### ) Waste Type (and examples) Dry Climates a 

### Wet Climates a


### Slowly degrading wastes (paper, tex tiles, wood or straw) 0.01 to 0.05 0.02 to 0.07 Moderately degrading wastes (Other [non-food] organic putrescible/garden and park waste) 0.04 to 0.06 0.06 to 0.1

Rapidly degrading wastes (food waste and sewage sludge) 0.05 to 0.08 0.1 to 0.2

Bulk wastes 0.04 to 0.06 0.08 to 0.1

a 

### Dry climate is defined as areas where the annual aver age precipitation rate is less than the potential

evapotranspiration rate, and a wet cl imate is one where the annual average precipitation rate is greater than the potential evapotranspiration rate.



### For the pulp and paper industry, NCASI derive d k values for 4 types of pulp and paper

wastewater treatment residuals th rough field testing and best f it analysis (Miner, 2008); these values are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. NCASI k Values for Pulp and Paper Wastes (Miner 2008)
Residual Description k, yr -1



### Bleached Kraft, combined 0.0034
Deinked, combined 0.020 Deinked, primary 0.014 Nonintegrated, primary 0.016 Average 0.013

Comparisons between these different sources of k values are not easy, because the values do not represent the same waste materials or climate. The bulk waste decay rates from the U.S. data appear to be slower than indi cated by the IPCC defaults. The pulp and paper waste decay rates from the NCASI study is within th e range (albeit the lo wer end of the range) of the decay rates for slowly degrading wastes provided by IPCC.



## 6.2.3 Recommended Values for DOC and k for Industrial Solid Wastes

Based on a review of all of the available data as described above, recommended values for DOC and k were developed. As de scribed in Section 6.2.1, the cent ral tendency DOC values of 0.22 for food processing waste and 0.20 for pulp and paper wastes are recommended. The IPCC

Guideline’s DOC value of 0.43 for wood and wood product wastes is recommended (IPCC, 2006). For C&D waste, the DOC value of 0.08 is recommended based on the mass fraction of wood waste in C&D waste in the U.S. (Bronstein and Coburn, 2010) and the default DOC value for wood waste. Inert wastes, such as glass, co ncrete, metals, and plastics, are expected to have negligible DOC; the recommended DOC value for these waste materials is zero. Data are not readily available for other types of industrial wa stes, but the average DOC value for bulk wastes

19

### in an MSW landfill is 0.20. MSW landfills may also accept industrial solid wastes, so this bulk waste DOC value may also represent other industria l solid wastes. Given that inert materials are assumed to have no DOC, and seeing other indust rial wastes appear to have a DOC value of 0.20, this value is recommended for “other” industrial solid wastes. However, we note that there is significant variability in DOC content for different types of waste streams. As such, measurement methods for determining waste st ream-specific DOC values should provide as good or better estimates of the DOC content of indus trial wastes than the default values provided

in Table 12.

Table 12 also provides recommended values for the decay rate constant, k. As the soil moisture content (which is generally relate d to rainfall amounts) are an important driv er for the value of k, three rainfall categories (dry, moderate, and we t) are recommended for assessing the appropriate value for k. This approach prevents the significan t shift in k for moderate rainfall areas (where the annual average precipitation ra te is approximately equal to the potential evapotranspiration rates) caused by the two rainfall category system suggested by IPCC. The use of direct rainfall data should also be easier to implement by reporte rs, as they would not need to determine or find potential evapotranspiration rates applicable to their landfill site. To acc ount for the effect of leachate recirculation (to the extent it is used at industrial waste landfills ), leachate recirculation rates are added to precipitation rates for determin ing the appropriate rainfall category. Values of k for food processing wastes were selected from the IPCC ranges for rapidly degrading wastes. Values of k for pulp and paper wastes, wood and wood product wastes, and C&D wastes were selected from the IPCC ranges for slowly degrad ing wastes. The k values for other industrial

wastes were selected from the default values for bulk wastes, r ounded to one significant digit. Inert wastes have no DOC, so these wastes do not n eed to be modeled at all, but default k values

of zero are included in Table 12 for these wastes for completeness.

Table 12. Recommended DOC and Decay Rate Values for Industrial Waste Landfills

Industry/Waste Type DOC (weight fraction, wet basis) k [dry

climate a 

### ]

(yr -1 

### ) k [moderate

climate a 

### ]

(yr -1 

### ) k [wet

climate a 

### ]

(yr -1 

### ) Food Processing 0.22 0.06 0.12 0.18 Pulp and Paper 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.04

Wood and Wood Product 0.43 0.02 0.03 0.04

Construction and Demolition 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.04 Inert Waste (glass, metal, plastic) 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial Solid Waste (not otherwise listed) 0.20 0.02 0.04 0.06

a 

### The applicable climate classification is determined based on the annual rainfall plus the recirculated leachate application rate. Recirculated leachate appli cation rate (in inches/year) is the total volume of leachate recirculated and applied to the landfill divided by the area of the portion of the landfill containing waste [with appropriate unit conversions].

 Dry climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate less than 20 inches/year

 Moderate climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate from 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive)

 Wet climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate greater than 40 inches/year



### 20

## 6.2.4 Measurement Methods for DOC and k for Industrial Solid Wastes

Various test methods for dete rmining DOC and k values were assessed. Traditionally, DOC values (or “methane generation potential, Lo” values) are estimated from landfills with gas collection systems or from long- term laboratory studies. Values for k are generally estimated using a best fit regression analysis of the methane generated over time once the “measured” methane generation potential is established. Un fortunately, these methods are not suitable for reasonably quick and repeatable determinations of DOC and k values for specific waste streams. As such other approaches for determini ng these parameters were investigated.

There are a variety of test met hods for determining the total or ganic carbon (TOC) content, the chemical oxygen demand, or the biological oxygen demand of a waste material. Any of these measured parameters would be a reasonable pr oxy for estimating DOC; however, these methods appear to be only applicable to wastewaters or dilute sludges. The tests are targeted to the dissolved organic compounds and the waste must be able to pass through a pipette for the analyses. As such, these methods are generally not applicable to industrial solid wastes.

Method 2540G “Total, Fixed, and Volatile Solids in Solid and Semisolid Samples” of the Standard Methods for the Exami nation of Water and Wastewater (21 st 

### edition, 2005) [available on-line (to subscribers) at http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ ] may be a reasonable, quick, and inexpensive means to estimate the DOC conten t of solid wastes. Pa rticularly, degradable organic carbon is expected to be a primary compone nt of the volatile solids content. Das et al. (1998) measured the volatile solids and carbon content of pulp and paper wastes used in a composting test. Zhang et al. (2007) performed similar measurements of chicken wastes, and Barlaz (1998) measured these parameters for co mponents of MSW. Pertinent data from these

studies are summarized in Table 13. As seen from the data in Table 13, except for the one ratio of 0.41 for office paper, the carbon content to vola tile solids content ratios ranged from 0.46 to 0.61. The average ratio of all values is 0.53. As the carbon-to-volatile solids content ratio for different types of wastes is consistently within a fairly narrow range, the use of volatile solids content as a proxy for DOC appears to be reasonable. A ratio of 0.6 appears to be a reasonable high-range estimate of the DOC content per mass of volatile solids, while 0.53 is the central tendency of the data identified from the literature.

No reasonable test methods were identified for determining values for k, the decay rate constant. As such, the recommended default values for the decay rate constant presented previously in

Table 12 should be used.

6.3 Calculating Potential and Actual Emissions using the IPCC Model

Potential em issions are calculated from the me thane generation rate a nd the assumed oxidation factor according to Equation 2.

Equation 2.

Potential emissions = A x (1 – OX) Where, A = modeled methane generation rate (derived in Equation 1)

21

### OX = oxidation factor, de fault rate is 0.1 (10%)

For landfills without gas collectio ns systems, which include nearly all industrial waste landfills, the potential and actual emissions are identical. That is, Equation 2 also provides the actual emissions for landfills without ga s collection systems. Few, if any, industrial waste landfills have landfill gas collection systems. For landfi lls with gas collection systems, measurement of the quantity and quality (i.e., methane content) of landfill gas generated at the landfill provides a

second and often more accurate means of determ ining methane generation rates. Measurement

methods associated with landf ill gas collection systems were covered in the general landfill technical support document (EPA, 2009b). As landf ill gas collection systems are not typically used in conjunction with industria l waste landfills, the reader is referred to EPA, 2009b if more

information on measurement methods fo r gas collection systems is desired.

Table 13. Volatile Solids (VS) and Ca rbon (C) Content of Waste Materials

Parameter %VS (dry basis) %C (dry basis) Carbon to VS

Ratio Reference

Seed1 48.2 27.37 0.57 Barlaz (1998)

Seed2 42.4 25.93 0.61 Barlaz (1998)

Grass 85 44.87 0.53 Barlaz (1998)

Leaves 90.2 49.4 0.55 Barlaz (1998)

Branches 96.6 49.4 0.51 Barlaz (1998)

Food 93.8 50.8 0.54 Barlaz (1998)
Coated paper 74.3 34.3 0.46 Barlaz (1998)
Newsprint 98.5 46.2 0.47 Barlaz (1998)
Corrugated container 98.2 46.9 0.48 Barlaz (1998)
Office paper 98.6 40.3 0.41 Barlaz (1998)
Sludge 57 35 0.61 Das et al. (1998)

Bark 90.8 45.3 0.50 Das et al. (1998)

Grit 90.8 48.9 0.54 Das et al. (1998)

Ash 34.2 20.8 0.61 Das et al. (1998)
Poultry Litter 87.6 43.4 0.50 Das et al. (1998)

Chicken waste 54.7 29.1 0.53 Zhang et al. (2007)

7. Options for Estimating Missing Data

As only annual m easurement quantities are requ ired for Equation 1, these values must be measured or estimated. For gas collection syst ems, if present, the missing value for the CH 4 

### content and/or the missing gas flow rates shoul d be the arithmetic average of the values immediately before and immediately after the missi ng data incident.

22

### 8. QA/QC Requirements

In order to ensure the quality of the reported GHG emissions, the following quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC ) activities are recommended:

(1) Reporters are to maintain annual record s on waste quantity measurements and waste composition.

(2) Reporters are to maintain records of Wast e Model input values used (historical waste disposal quantities, DOC values, k values, etc.) and the procedures us ed to develop those

values.

(3) Reporters are to maintain records on daily or weekly gas flow and methane content to the combustion device, if applicable.

(4) All fuel flow meters and gas composition moni tors, and/or heating value monitors that are used to provide data for the GHG emissions calc ulations should be calibrated prior to the first reporting year, usin g a suitable method published by a consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API, AGA, etc. ). Alternatively, ca libration procedures specified by the flow meter manufacturer ma y be used. Fuel flow meters and gas composition monitors should be recalibrated e ither annually or at the minimum frequency specified by the manufacturer.

(4) Documentation of the procedures used to ensu re the accuracy of the estimates of fuel usage, gas composition, and/or heating value includi ng, but not limited to, calibration of weighing equipment, fuel flow meters, and other m easurement devices should maintained. The estimated accuracy of measurem ents made with these devices should also be recorded, and the technical basis for the estimates should be provided.

9. References

Barlaz, Morton A. (1998). “Carbon storage during biodegradation of m unicipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 373-380. June.

Bronstein, K. and J. Coburn (2010). Memorandu m from Kate Bronstein and Jeff Coburn, RTI International, to Rachel Schmeltz, U. S EPA. “GHG inventory improvement – construction & demolition waste DOC and Lo value.” April 15.

CARB (California Air Resource Board). 2008. Regulation For The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Second 15-Day Mo dified Regulatory Language For Public

Comment. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/reg act/2007/ghg2007/ghgattachm ent1.pdf

. May 15.

Das, K. C., E. W. Tollner, and T.G. Tornab ene (1998). “Composting pulp and paper industry wastes: process design and product evaluation.” Compost in the Southeast: Proceeding

23

### of the 1998 Conference. Athens, Georgia. Septembe r 9-11. Pp. 129-134. Available at: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/12/11563.pdf

Environment Canada (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting: Technical Guidance on Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: http://www.ghgreporting.gc.ca/GHGI nfo/Pages/page15.aspx?lang=E

.

Flores, Rolando A., Carol W. Shanklin, Ma riano Loza-Garay and Seung H. Wie (1999). “Quantification and characterization of food processing wastes/residues.” Compost
Science & Utilization , Winter, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 63-71.

IPCC. 2006. 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate C hange (IPCC) Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, Waste; Chapters 2 and 3. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.htm l

.

Kraft, David L., and Hayes C. Orender (1993). “Considerations for us ing sludge as a fuel.” Tappi Journal , March, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 175-183.

Miner, Reid (2008). Memorandum from Reid Minor, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) to Becky Nichol son, RTI International. “Calculations documenting the greenhouse gas emissions from the pulp and paper industry.” May 21.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Technica l Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting Of Greenhouse Gases (1605(B)) Program. Section 1.E.4.1.6. Iron and Steel Production . January 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988. Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Volume II. EPA/530-SW-88-011B. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks: 1990-2006. EPA-430-R-08-005. Office of Atmo spheric Programs, Washington, DC. April 15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. Technical Support Document for the Petroleum Refining Sector: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0025. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. September 8.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008c. Technical Support Document for the Petrochemical Production Sector: Propos ed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of

Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR- 2008-0508-0024. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Pr ograms, Washington, DC. September 9.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. Annex 3. Methodological De scriptions for Additional Source or Sink Categories. EPA-430-R-09-004. Office of Atmos pheric Programs, Washington, DC. April 15.

24

### 25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Technical Support Document for the Landfill Sector: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0034. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. February 4.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009c. Technical Support Document for the Pulp and Paper Sector: Proposed Rule for Ma ndatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0027. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. February 11.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009d. Technical Support Document for the Food Processing Sector: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0013. Offi ce of Air and Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. Febr uary 4.Zhang, Y., H. Cui, R. Ozao, Y. Cao, B. Chen, C. Wang, and W. Pan. 2007. “Characterization of activated carbon prepared from chicken waste and coal.” Energy & Fuels , Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 3735-3739.