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 Programs 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 Generation using the First-order 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 solid 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 definition 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 those terms are defined under §257.2 [of this 

title].” 

(Note: 40 CFR 257 is the Criteria for Classification 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 industrial wastes: 1) hazardous wastes such as 

those defined in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 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 landfill may accept non-hazardous wastes, but a nonhazardous waste landfill cannot accept 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, methane production from these hazardous waste 

landfills is expected to be negligible. Consequently, a reasonable definition of industrial waste 

landfills is: 

“Industrial waste landfill means any landfill other than a municipal solid waste 

landfill, a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 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 quantity generator wastes, is placed. An 

industrial waste landfill includes all disposal areas 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 cellulose, 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 CH4-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 waste acceptance rate); (2) the age 

of the landfill (or the total quantity of waste in-place); (3) the characteristics of the waste (i.e., 

composition and organic content of waste); and (4) the climatic conditions (temperature and soil 
moisture content – wet soils promote anaerobic degradation). The amount of methane emitted is 

dependent on the amount of CH4 generated less the amount of CH4 that is recovered (and either 

flared or used for energy purposes) and the amount of CH4 oxidized near the landfill surface 

prior to being released into the atmosphere. 

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

industrial waste landfills are not subject to similar federal standards. 

2. Total Emissions 

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

the majority of the CH4 emissions from on-site industrial waste landfills occur at pulp and paper 

facilities and food processing facilities. In 2006, these landfills emitted 14.6 Tg CO2e of 

methane, with pulp and paper facilities emitting 7.3 Tg CO2e of methane and food processing 

facilities emitting 7.2 Tg CO2e 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 onsite landfills in 1985. Other industry sectors that are expected 

to landfill organic waste materials that contribute to methane 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), water treatment facilities (67); 

petroleum refineries (31); rubber and miscellaneous product manufacturers (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 number 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 Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, Waste. 

2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Technical 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). Guidance Manual for Estimating Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions. http://www.ghgreporting.gc.ca/GHGInfo/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 Climate Action Registry, EPA Climate Leaders, EU Emission Trading System, The 

Climate Registry, EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Australia’s National Mandatory 

GHG Reporting Program (draft), and the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocols. 

Each of these sources was reviewed to determine the types of emissions to be reported, the 

facility reporting thresholds, and the monitoring methodologies recommended. The reporting 

and monitoring options presented in Sections 4, 5, and 6 are commensurate with the 

methodologies used in these existing 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 programs and the emission sources at landfills, GHG reporting 

for landfills is limited to CH4 because the CO2 produced from the landfills is considered 

biogenic. There are potentially other sources of GHG emissions at facilities that operate 

landfills. For reporting options for stationary combustion sources (including landfill gas 

combustion for energy and combustion of fossil fuels used to assist gas combustion efficiency), 

refer to the Technical Support Document for Stationary Fuel Combustion Emissions. Biogenic 

emissions of CO2 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. Reporting options for industrial waste landfill emissions 

are detailed here, but for reporting 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 emissions 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 recirculation is used at the landfill. 

 Waste characterization information, such as the 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 historical 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 information, 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 stream or waste stream type for each year 

and an indication as to whether this was the default value or a value determined through 

sampling and analysis, and the fraction of CH4 in the landfill gas for each year and an 

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

measurement data. 

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

landfill surface area at the start of the reporting year associated with each cover type. 

 Modeled CH4 generation rate for the reporting year. 

 Methane generation (MG), which is the modeled CH4 generation rate adjusted for 

oxidation (landfills with gas collection systems must report both MG from modeled CH4

generation and MG back-calculated from CH4 recovery). 

 Annual CH4 emissions (landfills with gas collection systems must report both CH4

emissions from modeled CH4 generation adjusted for recovery and CH4 emissions backcalculated from CH4 recovery). 

 Annual quantity of CH4 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 collected for destruction, the measured CH4 concentration, 

monthly average measured temperature, pressure, and moisture content, a description of 

the gas collection system (manufacture, capacity, number of wells, 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 landfill serviced by the landfill gas 

collection system. 

 Information about landfill gas destruction devices (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 primary destruction and back-up destruction 

devices. 

5. Options for Reporting Threshold 

The precise impacts of the facility-wide reporting threshold (in terms of tCO2e emissions) could 

not be directly evaluated, because many of the industrial waste landfills are expected to be colocated at facilities that have other reportable GHG emissions. In fact, most facilities that have 

industrial waste landfills will also have stationary combustion sources or other regulated sources 

that would cause the facility to exceed a facility-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 production facilities (U.S. EPA, 2008c), which includes certain organic 

chemical and plastic manufacturers, are projected to exceed the 25,000 reporting threshold based 

on sources other than landfills at the facility. Food processing facilities are the exception 

wherein the industrial waste landfill is the primary GHG emissions source at the facility (U.S. 

EPA, 2009d). Consequently, we did not differentiate between options for all industrial landfills 

6 
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 tCO2e emissions). Instead, different reporting 

“threshold” options were identified and evaluated to determine the relative impacts of the 

different options assuming all industrial landfills were located at facilities that already exceeded 

a facility-wide reporting threshold of 25,000 tCO2e. 

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 following four reporting “threshold” 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 tCO2e 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 that accept 20,000 tons/yr or more of waste 

report 

5.1 Summary of Results 

Table 1 provides a summary of the alternatives that were considered viable. 

Table 1. Threshold Analysis of Potential Alternatives for Industrial Landfills 

Alternative

No. Description

Number of

facilities

reporting

Percent of

total

number of

facilities

Total GHG

emissions

reported

(106 mtCO2e)

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 waste management practices, was used to 

characterize the number of industrial landfills, the landfill capacities, and the annual waste 

disposal rates for various industry 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

units1

Number of

facilities

with active

landfills1

Number of

facilities

with

closed

landfills1

Waste

quantities

disposed in

landfills2

(1000 tons)

Total design

capacity3

(1000 tons)

Remaining

design

capacity3

(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 Industrial Landfills by Industry Category1

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 Category1

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 “organic” 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 minimal 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 animal feeding operations, which 

could contain significant organic matter); this category is expected to include primarily 

fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Plastics, metals, glass, and other “inert” wastes are 

generally considered to have negligible DOC (IPCC, 2006). At DOC levels below 

approximately 0.5 wt%, even the largest industrial landfills would not generate enough methane 

to exceed a 25,000 tonne CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) emissions threshold. Consequently, while 

there is no industry accepted definition of “inorganic waste,” for the purposes of this analysis, 

“inorganic waste” (i.e., waste generated by the above 7 industry categories) was assumed to have 

a DOC of 0.5 weight percent (wt%) or less. 

Of the remaining industries that are expected to produce “organic waste,” the majority of 

landfills are located at either pulp and paper facilities or food and kindred products facilities. 

Industrial wastes at these industries in the U.S. have been evaluated 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 “organic” industry categories listed in Tables 1 

through 3 (industries other than the 7 listed “inorganic” industries) has an average DOC of 

approximately 20 wt%. 

Industrial landfills are not known to have gas collection 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 projected for various sizes of landfills based on the 

waste disposal rate ranges and the design 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 expected to have high water content. 

Model landfill sizes were initially 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 nationwide industrial landfill 

emissions were estimated to be 15.4 teragrams per year (Tg/yr) of carbon dioxide equivalence 

(CO2e); 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 disposal rates and the landfill design capacity 

(essentially assuming the landfills 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 was quite high (99.3 percent for annual quantity of 

waste landfilled in 1985 and 87 percent for the design capacity). 

11
This analysis only considers the landfills that were active in 1985 based on the assumption that, 

like MSW landfills, it would be impractical to require reporting of landfills that closed prior to 

1980. Although some of the landfills that reported that they were closed in 1985 may have 

operated past 1980, the number of active landfills in 1985 provides the best 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, whether still operating or closed were assumed to 

be potentially subject to a GHG reporting rule for industrial landfills. While the industrial waste 

disposal practices may have shifted over the past 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 presents the estimated emissions for the model landfills, the number of landfills, and the 

cumulative emissions for each landfill range. Using the data in Table 5, various applicability 

levels or thresholds can be evaluated. While certain industrial facilities may have landfills as the 

only reportable GHG emissions source (so that only landfills with emissions greater than the 

25,000 tCO2e 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 tCO2e reporting threshold were evaluated. There are 

three obvious parameters that can be used to affect the applicability of the industrial landfill rule: 

1) the type of waste disposed (organic versus inorganic); 2) the annual quantity of waste 

disposed; and 3) the design capacity of the landfill. 

Modeling results indicate that wastes that have an organic content of 0.5 wt% or less do not 

contribute significantly to the total emissions from industrial sources; therefore, an exemption or 

applicability exclusion for waste with an organic 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 tCO2e. Specifically, organic waste landfills that dispose of 20,000 

tons/year of waste annually or less will generally have emissions less than 25,000 tCO2e 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 establishments (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 tons 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 landfills 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 dispersed 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 Industrial 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 (tCO2e/yr)

257 2,570 11,200 40,000 400,000 2,400,000 N/A

GHG emissions per

inorganic waste landfill

(tCO2e/yr)

3.2 32 150 500 5000 20,000 N/A

Cumulative GHG emissions

for organic waste landfills

(1,000 tCO2e/yr)

65.5 313.5 1,456 3,000 10,000 0 14,800

Cumulative GHG emissions

for inorganic waste

landfills (1,000 tCO2e/yr)

3.5 8.7 22 55 405 100 600

Cumulative GHG emissions

for all landfills

(1,000 tCO2e/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 (tCO2e/yr)

15 90 600 3,050 30,500 230,000 N/A

GHG emissions per

inorganic waste landfill

(tCO2e/yr)

0.2 1.5 7 36 360 3,000 N/A

Cumulative GHG emissions

for organic waste landfills

(1,000 tCO2e/yr)

1.9 4.5 44.4 311 4,790 9,660 14,800

Cumulative GHG emissions

for inorganic waste

landfills (1,000 tCO2e/yr)

0.05 0.4 2.0 7.3 100 500 600

Cumulative GHG emissions

for all landfills

(1,000 tCO2e/yr)

2 5 46 318 4,890 10,160 15,400

Notes: N/A = not applicable 

 tCO2e = tonnes (or metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalence 

13
The precise impacts of the facility-wide 25,000 tCO2e 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 landfills 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 tCO2e emissions). The following six “threshold” options were initially identified and 

evaluated to determine the relative impacts of the different option (beyond a facility-wide 

reporting threshold of 25,000 tCO2e). 

 All industrial landfills report (i.e., assumes all industrial landfills are co-located at 

facilities that exceed the 25,000 tCO2e 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 that accept 20,000 tons/yr or more of waste 

report 

Table 6 summarizes number of reporting facilities and the projected industrial 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

(106 mtCO2e)

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 threshold is proportional to the number of landfills 

in the threshold, the number of applicable 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 impacts more 

facilities while including less GHG emissions than Option 2 (i.e., Option 1a costs more for less 

reported GHG emissions than Option 2). Similarly, Option 2a (20,000 tons/yr annual waste 

disposal rate threshold) is inferior to Option 3 (combination of inorganic waste exclusion and 

300,000 Mg capacity threshold). Consequently, these options (Options 1a and 2a) can be 

excluded from further analysis. The remaining four options (Options 1, 2, 3, and 4) are 

recommended for further analysis. Note that the options that include an annual waste disposal 

threshold (Options 2a and 4) intrinsically put 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 two 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 generation with the IPCC waste model. Direct 

methane emission measurement from the landfill surface using optical remote sensing 

technologies is also a potential monitoring method. However, these techniques are expensive, 

and they typically provide only short-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, and rainfall events. Even though remote sensing 

methods may accurately measure the methane emissions 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 identified above, but the costs are much higher. 

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

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines’ Waste Model produces emissions estimates that reflect the 

degradation rate of wastes in a landfill (IPCC, 2006). To assist in developing CH4 emission 

estimates for solid waste disposal sites (SWDS), the IPCC developed the Waste Model and 

improved default values for degradable organic content (DOC) and degradation rate constants for 

different types of waste materials. The basic FOD equation for the methane generation rate in 

the IPCC Waste Model using the “bulk waste” option and a time delay of 6 months is presented 

below (see Equation 1). This is the simplest calculation performed by the model. 

Equation 1. 

 )/( 4 CHA Generation yrMg  T

 



 















   





 1)()1(

12

16 T

Sx

xTk xTk

x x xF DOCW MCF eeFDOC  

Where: 

15
A = Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year T (metric tons CH4). 

X = Year in which waste was disposed. 

S = Start year of calculation. 

T = Reporting year for which emissions are calculated. 

Wx = Quantity of waste disposed in the industrial waste landfill in year X (metric 

tons, as received (wet weight)). 

DOCx = Degradable organic carbon for year X [fraction (metric tons C/metric ton 

waste)]. 

DOCF = Fraction of DOC dissimilated (fraction). 

MCF = Methane correction factor (fraction). 

Fx = Fraction by volume of CH4 in landfill gas (fraction, dry basis). 

k = Decay rate constant (yr-1). 

 

The IPCC model includes the delay time (in months) for CH4 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 effectively implements the IPCC Waste Model at the 

recommended value for the delay time. 

Waste disposal quantities are occasionally directly measured at industrial waste landfill 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 balances 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, waste disposal data are 

needed for approximately a 50 year period prior to the year of the emissions estimate. 

The FOD model can also be applied to different waste streams that are land disposed by applying 

Equation 1 to each landfilled waste stream and sum of the modeled methane generation across all 

of the waste streams. This approach 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 application of the FOD model, a literature 

review was conducted to develop default parameters for these model parameters. Also, potential 

measurement methods were evaluated. The results of these investigations are 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 within 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 analyzed by Flores et al. (1999) are provided in 

Table 8. The data from Flores et al. suggests that the average moisture content of food wastes in 

the may U.S. may be approximately 40 to 45 percent rather than 60 percent used in the default 

16
values for IPCC. 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, cooked 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 waste of 22 percent (or 0.22) is recommended. 

Table 7. IPCC Default Values for Degradable 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 90.96c 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. 

17
c

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 value is based on 10 percent moisture content. 

However, Kraft and Orender (1993) present data for some pulp and paper waste streams 

suggesting the moisture content is commonly 50 percent, so that the carbon content (wet weight) 

is between 12 and 25 percent (see Table 9). National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 

Inc. (NCASI) calculated methane generation potential of four different pulp and paper wastes. 

The methane generation potential ranged from 70 to 101 m3

 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, the 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 available U.S. data for construction and demolition 

(C&D) wastes. The average wood content in C&D waste from a number 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 suggests that bulk C&D waste could have DOC 

value between 0.04 and 0.14. Not all of the wood waste in C&D waste would be degradable, as 

some of the wood is pressure treated. Nevertheless, 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 temperate regions (i.e., annual average temperature 

less than or equal to 68°F), which should be applicable for most parts 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 that the default data are very uncertain. 

The U.S. EPA has also defined 3 different values for k in its greenhouse gas inventories (U.S. 

EPA, 2009a) for “bulk wastes” depending on precipitation 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 systems. 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 Climatesa Wet Climatesa

Slowly degrading wastes (paper, textiles, 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 average precipitation rate is less than the potential 

evapotranspiration rate, and a wet climate is one where the annual average precipitation rate is greater 

than the potential evapotranspiration rate. 

For the pulp and paper industry, NCASI derived k values for 4 types of pulp and paper 

wastewater treatment residuals through field testing and best fit 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 indicated by the IPCC defaults. The pulp and paper waste decay rates 

from the NCASI study is within the range (albeit the lower 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 described in Section 6.2.1, the central 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, concrete, 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 wastes, 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 industrial solid wastes. Given that inert materials are 

assumed to have no DOC, and seeing other industrial 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 stream-specific DOC values should provide as 

good or better estimates of the DOC content of industrial 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 related to rainfall amounts) are an important driver for the value of k, 

three rainfall categories (dry, moderate, and wet) are recommended for assessing the appropriate 

value for k. This approach prevents the significant shift in k for moderate rainfall areas (where 

the annual average precipitation rate 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 reporters, as they would not need to determine or find 

potential evapotranspiration rates applicable to their landfill site. To account 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 determining 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 degrading wastes. The k values for other industrial 

wastes were selected from the default values for bulk wastes, rounded to one significant digit. 

Inert wastes have no DOC, so these wastes do not need 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 

climatea] 

(yr-1) 

k 

[moderate 

climatea] 

(yr-1) 

k 

[wet 

climatea] 

(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 application 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 determining 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. Unfortunately, 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 determining these parameters were investigated. 

There are a variety of test methods for determining the total organic 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 proxy 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 Examination of Water and Wastewater (21st 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 content of solid wastes. Particularly, degradable 

organic carbon is expected to be a primary component 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 components 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 volatile 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 emissions are calculated from the methane generation rate and 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, default rate is 0.1 (10%) 

 

For landfills without gas collections 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 gas collection systems. Few, if any, industrial waste landfills 

have landfill gas collection systems. For landfills 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 determining methane generation rates. Measurement 

methods associated with landfill gas collection systems were covered in the general landfill 

technical support document (EPA, 2009b). As landfill gas collection systems are not typically 

used in conjunction with industrial waste landfills, the reader is referred to EPA, 2009b if more 

information on measurement methods for gas collection systems is desired. 

Table 13. Volatile Solids (VS) and Carbon (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 measurement quantities are required for Equation 1, these values must be 

measured or estimated. For gas collection systems, if present, the missing value for the CH4

content and/or the missing gas flow rates should be the arithmetic average of the values 

immediately before and immediately after the missing 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 records on waste quantity measurements and waste 

composition. 

(2) Reporters are to maintain records of Waste Model input values used (historical waste 

disposal quantities, DOC values, k values, etc.) and the procedures used 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 monitors, and/or heating value monitors that are 

used to provide data for the GHG emissions calculations should be calibrated prior to the 

first reporting year, using a suitable method published by a consensus standards 

organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API, AGA, etc.). Alternatively, calibration procedures 

specified by the flow meter manufacturer may be used. Fuel flow meters and gas 

composition monitors should be recalibrated either annually or at the minimum frequency 

specified by the manufacturer. 

(4) Documentation of the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of the estimates of fuel usage, 

gas composition, and/or heating value including, but not limited to, calibration of weighing 

equipment, fuel flow meters, and other measurement devices should maintained. The 

estimated accuracy of measurements 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 municipal solid waste 

components in laboratory-scale landfills.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Vol. 12, No. 2, 

pp. 373-380. June. 

Bronstein, K. and J. Coburn (2010). Memorandum 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 Modified Regulatory Language For Public 

Comment. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/ghgattachment1.pdf. 

May 15. 

Das, K. C., E. W. Tollner, and T.G. Tornabene (1998). “Composting pulp and paper industry 

wastes: process design and product evaluation.” Compost in the Southeast: Proceeding 

23
of the 1998 Conference. Athens, Georgia. September 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/GHGInfo/Pages/page15.aspx?lang=E. 

Flores, Rolando A., Carol W. Shanklin, Mariano 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 Change (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.html. 

Kraft, David L., and Hayes C. Orender (1993). “Considerations for using 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 Nicholson, RTI International. “Calculations 

documenting the greenhouse gas emissions from the pulp and paper industry.” May 21. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Technical 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 Atmospheric 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: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases. Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0024. Office of Air and 

Radiation. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. September 9.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2007. Annex 3. Methodological Descriptions for Additional Source or Sink 

Categories. EPA-430-R-09-004. Office of Atmospheric 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 Mandatory 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. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. February 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.