Anaerobic Digestion Process Model Documentation James W. Levis and Morton A. Barlaz North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695‐7908 September 2013 Contents
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Introduction to SWOLF ......................................................................................................................... 6 3 Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion .................................................................................................... 7 4 Material Flows ....................................................................................................................................... 8 5 Environmental Emissions .................................................................................................................... 11 6 7 5.1 Pretreatment and Material Handling .......................................................................................... 11 5.2 Biogas Production and Processing .............................................................................................. 11 5.3 Leachate Management ............................................................................................................... 14 5.4 Aerobic Curing ............................................................................................................................. 16 5.5 Land Application ......................................................................................................................... 16 Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.1 Capital Costs ................................................................................................................................ 18 6.2 Operating Costs ........................................................................................................................... 19 Default Life‐Cycle Inventory Results ................................................................................................... 21 References .................................................................................................................................................. 41 ListofFigures
Figure 1. Inputs and outputs for a generic waste treatment process model. Input masses and all outputs are specified per unit mass of each waste component. Model parameters are used to characterize the transformation of the incoming waste mass as well as the resulting emissions, fuel use, and costs. 1 Mg = 1 metric ton. .................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Generalized modeling framework showing how energy system modeling is connected to LCA models for a SWM system, and how the outputs of these models are then used as inputs into an optimizable LCA framework to systematically analyze future SWM. ........................................... 7 Figure 3. Mass flow diagram for AD process. Values are approximate for the default model values and are in kilograms. ............................................................................................................................... 10 2 ListofTables
Table 1. Waste components considered in SWOLF and derived composition of inlet stream to anaerobic digestion. .................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2. Material properties used in the LCA model. ................................................................................. 12 Table 3. Food waste methane yield values. ................................................................................................ 13 Table 4. Emission factors for flaring and energy generation (kg/m3 CH4).a ................................................ 14 Table 5. The allocation property and concentration for each emission type in the liquid digestate. The Allocation Property is the material property used to allocate each emission type to each waste material as explained in the text (Eq. 1 and 2). ............................................................................ 14 Table 6. Wastewater treatment plant removal efficiencies for each emission type.................................. 15 Table 7. Land application diesel fuel use inputs. ........................................................................................ 17 Table 8. Land application diesel fuel use inputs. ........................................................................................ 17 Table 9. Agricultural Nutrient Demands and Compost Requirements. ...................................................... 18 Table 10. Default data values used to determine capital costs of AD. ....................................................... 19 Table 11. Inputs values related to personnel costs. ................................................................................... 20 Table 12. Input values related to curing equipment costs. ........................................................................ 20 Table 13. Material flows associated with each component during AD (kg/Mg). ....................................... 22 Table 14. Electricity use and generation for each material (kWh/incoming Mg). ...................................... 23 Table 15. Diesel use for each material (L/incoming Mg). ........................................................................... 23 Table 16. Biogas generation from each material (m3/incoming wet Mg). ................................................. 24 Table 17. Biogas engine combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). ........................................................... 25 Table 18. Biogas flare combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). .............................................................. 26 Table 19. Leaked biogas emissions (kg/incoming Mg). ............................................................................... 27 Table 20. Emissions from WWTP (kg/incoming Mg)................................................................................... 28 Table 21. Emissions from aerobic curing (kg/incoming Mg). ...................................................................... 29 Table 22. Emissions after land application of compost (kg/incoming Mg). ................................................ 30 Table 23. Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). ...................... 31 Table 24. Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). ................. 33 Table 25. Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). ................ 35 Table 26. Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). .......... 37 Table 27. Capital costs associated with AD ($/Mgpy) ................................................................................. 39 Table 28. Operating costs from AD. (kg/Mg incoming). ............................................................................ 39 3 ListofAcronyms
AD Anaerobic digestion AF Allocation factor AP Allocation property BOD Biochemical oxygen demand COD Chemical oxygen demand EF Emission factor GHG Greenhouse gas HDPE High‐density polyethylene LCA Life cycle assessment LCI Life cycle inventory MSW Municipal solid waste OFMSW Organic fraction of municipal solid waste PET Polyethylene terephthalate SWM Solid waste management SWOLF Solid Waste Optimization Life‐cycle Framework TSS Total suspended solids 4 1 Introduction
Proper management of solid waste is essential to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Solid waste contains significant quantities of recoverable materials and can be used for energy recovery, making solid waste management (SWM) a highly visible and potentially high‐impact target for enhancing environmental sustainability. Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies that affect the U.S. energy mix as well as the cost of energy and emissions could significantly alter the cost and strategic direction of SWM. As such, SWM systems must proactively adapt to changing waste composition, policy requirements, and an evolving energy system to cost‐effectively and sustainably manage solid waste. An integrated analysis of the solid waste system requires an understanding of the environmental performance of each process used to collect, separate, treat and ultimately dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW). The foundation of such an analysis is a process model in which the cost, energy consumption, and environmental emissions associated with a solid waste process are calculated as a function of a number of model parameters that can be specified by the model user. A generic process model is represented in Figure 1. Ultimately, a series of process models is linked together to build a life cycle assessment (LCA) model for an entire solid waste system, by combining unit processes from waste collection through treatment, final disposal and beneficial recovery of material. The functional unit for each process model is 1 Mg (Mg = metric ton) of mixed waste arriving at the gate. For each process model, default model parameters are provided, but can also be changed by the user. Each process model calculates the masses of output waste materials, emissions, and fuel use, as well as electricity use, capital costs, and operating costs based on the incoming waste composition and model parameter values. Emission factors have been developed for the emissions associated with equipment fuel use, transportation, chemical and biological transformations, and electricity use in each process. Life cycle impact factors can then be used with the life‐cycle inventory (LCI) results to calculate environmental impacts from the emissions (e.g., global warming potential, acidification potential, or human toxicity). This document is one of a series that describes the approach used to model each process in the solid waste system. This document describes the data and modeling approach used to model anaerobic digestion (AD). 5 Incoming Waste Materials
(Mgin)
Direct Emissions
(kg/Mgin)
Equipment Fuel
Use (L/Mgin)
Model
Parameters
Generic Process
Model
Stored Mass
(Mgstored/Mgin)
Electricity Use
(kWh/Mgin)
Transportation Use
(kg-km/Mgin)
Capital Cost
($/Mgin yr-1)
Operating Cost ($/
Mgin)
Physically Separated
Materials (e.g.,
recyclables, residuals)
(Mgout/Mgin)
Biologically/Chemically
Transformed Materials
(e.g., ash, compost)
(Mgout/Mgin)
Figure 1. Inputs and outputs for a generic waste treatment process model. Input masses and all outputs are specified per unit mass of each waste component. Model parameters are used to characterize the transformation of the incoming waste mass as well as the resulting emissions, fuel use, and costs. 1 Mg = 1 metric ton. 2 IntroductiontoSWOLF
The Solid Waste Optimization Life‐cycle Framework (SWOLF) was developed to perform analysis of SWM as an integrated system. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of SWM systems, rigorous analysis of system response under changing policies requires a modeling framework that links detailed process‐
level LCA models into an integrated SWM system and to the larger energy system. LCA is a framework for estimating the environmental impacts associated with products, processes, or systems. SWM LCA models estimate the environmental impacts of waste management processes and systems, and can facilitate “what‐if” scenario analyses to quantify the environmental effects of incremental changes to the integrated system. While these models are an essential foundation for systematic integrated analysis of SWM systems, an integrated LCA‐based optimization framework is required to systematically generate and analyze potential SWM strategies. Real‐world SWM strategies must adapt to population 6 and policy changes as well as to changes to waste generation and composition, which necessitates the use of a stage‐wise optimization framework. A stage‐wise life‐cycle optimization framework should also be capable of considering changes to energy infrastructure in response to evolving environmental policy and technological innovation that may affect the performance of SWM. Since SWM infrastructure is often in operation for decades, it is essential that integrated SWM models provide useful insights into how such changes may affect SWM. The generalized modeling framework for this research is shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, the foundation of this research is bottom‐up LCA models of SWM processes. The purpose of this document is to describe the data and modeling approach used in the AD process model to calculate life‐cycle costs and environmental emissions. SWOLF considers 40 waste materials that are shown in Table 1. Each process model used in SWOLF reports costs and emissions coefficients for each waste material. Allocating the costs and emissions to individual waste materials allows SWOLF to optimize technology choices and mass flows of materials through the system. Figure 2. Generalized modeling framework showing how energy system modeling is connected to LCA models for a SWM system, and how the outputs of these models are then used as inputs into an optimizable LCA framework to systematically analyze future SWM. 3 IntroductiontoAnaerobicDigestion
An AD facility generates biogas via the anaerobic biodegradation of organic materials. AD facilities can accept various waste materials that comprise the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) usually through separate collection of these materials. Food and yard wastes are the most common materials, but various types of paper can also be accepted. The inclusion of yard wastes is usually 7 dependent on the history of separate yard waste collection and composting in the area considering AD. In an AD facility, degradable materials are digested in a reactor in the absence of oxygen to produce biogas that is between 50 and 70% CH4 (with the remainder mainly CO2). The biogas may either be burned on‐site for electricity generation, or upgraded to vehicle fuel or pipeline quality natural gas. The facility represented in this model produces electricity on site from the resulting biogas. The generated electricity is used to power the AD facility, and excess energy is sold to the regional electrical grid. Most of the default data is for a continuous single‐stage, wet, mesophilic digester. This is a typical configuration for organic waste management, but various combinations of dry, two‐stage, and thermophilic digesters are also used and can be modeled by changing input parameters. 4 MaterialFlows
The AD process model calculates emissions and costs for each of the waste components listed in Table 1, so the model can consider any potential incoming waste composition, but an assumed composition is used to allocate costs and emissions to the individual materials. The AD facility has an assumed composition based on the U.S. EPA municipal solid waste (MSW) generation estimates and estimates of collection efficiencies for source‐separated organic wastes (U.S. EPA, 2013). Table 1 shows waste composition as generated, the fraction of each waste component that is sent to AD, and the resulting assumed composition for each of the waste materials. The majority of the incoming material is food and yard wastes with smaller amounts of paper, and some residual inorganics that are contaminants. The fraction of each waste component sent to AD can be adjusted by the user to reflect an overall level of system contaminants. Figure 3 shows the mass flow through the AD facility based on the assumed composition and default parameters. The first processing step is screening and sorting with the purpose of removing non‐
degradable materials. The materials that are screened out are directed to a landfill or waste‐to‐energy (WTE) combustion facility. The materials that pass through sorting are then then mixed with water to achieve the reactor moisture content (92% by default). Materials degrade in the reactor to produce biogas, and the resulting digestate is sent to dewatering. Some of the water produced during dewatering is recycled and sent back to the mixer. The proportion of the water that can be recovered depends on the concentration of salts and the final use of the digestate. The example mass flow diagram limits the recovered water to 80% of the water added in the mixer. By default, the solids from dewatering are aerobically cured in large windrows, but the user can choose to bypass curing and directly apply the anaerobic digestate. The decision to cure the digestate will vary based on the location of the facility (e.g., local odor concerns, proximity to horticulture) and the availability of markets for the final product. During curing, wood chips and screen rejects are used as bulking agents to provide structure and facilitate air flow through the pile. Aerobic curing produces off gases and compost. The off gases are primarily water vapor and CO2, but trace amounts of CH4, NH3, N2O, and VOCs are also present. After curing, the compost is screened and sold for use in horticulture, with screen rejects recycled to make new windrows. 8 Table 1. Waste components considered in SWOLF and derived composition of inlet stream to anaerobic digestion. Yard Trimmings, Leaves Yard Trimmings, Grass Yard Trimmings, Branches Food Waste ‐ Vegetable Food Waste ‐ Non‐Vegetable Wood Textiles Rubber/Leather Newsprint Corr. Cardboard Office Paper Magazines 3rd Class Mail Folding Cartons Bags and Sacks Paper ‐ Non‐recyclable HDPE ‐ Translucent Containers HDPE ‐ Pigmented Containers PET – Containers Plastic Film Plastic ‐ Non‐Recyclable Ferrous Cans Ferrous Metal ‐ Other Aluminum Cans Aluminum – Foil Al ‐ Non‐recyclable Glass Misc. Inorganic Percent Generated 6.7
5.0
4.9
13.9
3.5
5.0
4.4
0.5
4.9
14.5
2.6
0.8
2.2
2.7
0.5
7.3
0.4
0.7
1.3
2.0
5.6
1.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
4.7
3.6
Percent Collected Percent Incoming to AD Facility 90 90 90 90 90 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 5 5 5 20 5 20 20
15.9 12.0 11.7 33.0 8.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 3.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.5 1.9 Totals
Yard waste Food waste Paper/fiber Other 16.6
17.3
35.5
30.6
9 40 41 8 11 Figure 3. Mass flow diagram for AD process. Values are approximate for the default model values and are in kilograms. 10 5 EnvironmentalEmissions
The major sources of environmental emissions from the AD facility are electricity and diesel use, biogas combustion, and emissions during curing and after land application. Environmental offsets are generated from avoided electricity production as well as from avoided fertilizer and/or peat production with the associated carbon storage. 5.1 PretreatmentandMaterialHandling
The model uses a single value for the electric house load associated with pre‐screening, mixing, operating the reactor, and dewatering. The default value of 58 kWh/incoming Mg was developed by Sanscartier et al. (2011) and is based on the wet, single‐stage, mesophilic Dufferin facility in Toronto. The default pretreatment diesel use value of 0.3 L/Mg was developed from the same data and includes rolling stock and material handling from the tipping floor through delivery to the curing tipping floor. 5.2 BiogasProductionandProcessing
Each material in the reactor will produce different amounts of methane based on its ultimate methane yield and decay rate. Table 2 shows the moisture content, VS content, and methane yield for each waste component. 11 Table 2. Material properties used in the LCA model. Moisture Contenta
VS Contenta Degradable C Methane Yieldb (%ww) (m3/dry Mg) (%TS) Content (%TS) Leaves 38.2c
90.2c
48.6 30.6
c
Grass 82
86.4c
57.8 136
Branches 15.9
96.6
48.1 62.6
Food Waste‐Veg. 77
96.4
47.7 361d
Food Waste‐Non‐Veg. 57
94.2
56.5 361d
e
Wood 16
90.6
51.3 11.6
Textiles 6
96.6
39.1 46.4
7
89.3
0 0
Rubber/Leatherf Newsprint 13
92.7
44.6 74.3
Corr. Cardboard 17
89.0
40.7 152.3
Office Paper 9
87.8
37.3 217.3
Magazines 6
76.7
34.0 84.4
3rd Class Mail 9
75.1
34.4 84.4
Folding Cartons 22
88.8
40.9 152.3
Bags and Sacks 22
88.8
40.9 152.3
Paper‐Non‐recyclable 25
91.5
43.0 132.1
10
93.8
0 0
HDPE‐Translucent Cont.g 10
93.8
0 0
HDPE‐Pigmented Cont.g 10
93.8
0 0
PET‐Containersg 14
95.8
0 0
Plastic Filmh Plastic‐Non‐Recyclable 7
94.9
0 0
13
0
0 0
Ferrous Cansi 13
0
0 0
Ferrous Metal‐Otheri Aluminum Cans 8
0
0 0
Aluminum‐Foil 19
21.8
15 0
Al‐Non‐recyclable 19
0
0 0
Glass 5
0
0 0
Glass‐Green 3
0
0 0
Glass‐Clear 12
0
0 0
37
3.6
0 0
Misc. Inorganicj a.
Moisture, VS, and C content adapted from Riber and Christensen (2009) except as noted in note e. b.
Methane yield provided by Staley and Barlaz, except wood. c.
Moisture content from NRAES (1998) VS and C content from “yard waste, flowers” category in Riber and Christensen (2009). d.
Food waste methane yield developed from 12 studies shown in Table 3. e.
Methane yield from Wang et al. (2009) f.
Rubber/Leather values based on 10% rubber and 90% leather weighted average for moisture, VS, and C content. g.
Used plastic bottle values in Riber and Christensen (2009) for HDPE moisture, VS and C content. h.
Used soft plastic values in Riber and Christensen (2009) for plastic film moisture, VS and C content. i.
Used food Cans values (tinplate/steel) in Riber and Christensen (2009) for ferrous cans, moisture, VS and C content. j.
Used Other non‐combustibles in Riber and Christensen (2009) for moisture, VS and C content. 12 An in‐depth literature review was performed for food waste material properties because there is more data, and the majority of the methane generated in AD facilities is due to food waste. The food waste methane yield of 361 m3/dry Mg is the average of 12 studies shown in Table 3. Table 3. Food waste methane yield values. Source Moisture Content (%ww) VS Content (%TS) 78 74 ‐ 82 72 ‐ ‐ ‐ 76 95 87 95 92 88 ‐ 94 ‐ 91
80 71 ‐ 86 95 ‐ Mohan and Bindu, 2008 Zhang et al., 2007 Cho and Park,1995a Heo et al., 2004 EBMUD, 2008 CIWMB, 2008a,b Eleazar et al., 1997a,c Staley et al., 2006a,b,c Zhang et al., 2012 Qiao et al., 2012 Browne and Murphy, 2013 Trzcinski and Stuckey, 2011a,b Methane Yield m3/Mg VSa 288
445
472
489
420
375
320
197
352
531
498
357
Average a.
b.
c.
m3/dry Mg 274 387 448 450 370 343 300 180 321 459 475 327 395
361 76 92 Moisture content was not reported, so the average moisture content of 76% was used. VS content was not reported, so the average VS content of 92% was used. Results were reported in m3/dry Mg and methane yield per VS was calculated from VS content. m3/wet Mga 60
101
107
81
103
82
71
43
76
90
140
78
86
Materials with lab decay rates above 10 yr‐1 were assumed to reach 100% of their methane yield, and materials with decay rates below 10 yr‐1 were assumed to reach 50% of their methane yield. The percent of methane yield reached for each material can be changed by the user and will depend on material decay rate, retention time, and operating conditions. The total carbon conversion was calculated from the initial carbon content of each waste component, the assumed methane yield, and the percent of that yield that is realized during AD. The model includes a default leak rate of 3% of the biogas generated in the reactor (Sancartier et al., 2011). The collected biogas is either flared, or combusted for energy recovery in a gas turbine or internal combustion engine (default values are provided for a gas turbine). There is also a user defined energy option, so users can model direct use or CHP systems. If the biogas is combusted for energy, the model also includes a default 3% downtime for the engine, during which time the gas is flared. The combustion efficiency and emissions for the flare and energy recovery options were developed from the Nielsen and Illerup (2006) as shown in Table 4. The generated electricity is assumed to offset electricity from the regional grid chosen by the user. 13 Table 4. Emission factors for flaring and energy generation (kg/m3 CH4).a Compound Flare
Turbine/Engine CO2 ‐ Biogenic 3.93E+00
3.91E+00 CH4 7.16E‐04
7.16E‐03 Nitrous Oxide 1.89E‐05
1.89E‐05 Particulates (Total) 9.92E‐05
9.92E‐05 PM10 1.70E‐05
1.70E‐05 PM‐2.5 7.77E‐06
7.77E‐06 Nitrogen Oxides 2.04E‐02
2.04E‐02 NMVOCs 3.38E‐05
8.22E‐05 Sulfur Oxides 7.24E‐04
7.24E‐04 Carbon Monoxide 1.03E‐02
1.03E‐02 Ammonia 3.04E‐05
3.04E‐05 Hydrogen Sulfide 6.53E‐06
1.59E‐05 Conversion Efficiency (%) 0
45 a.
Emission factors developed from Nielsen and Illerup (2006). Default Turbine/Engine values are for a gas turbine. 5.3 LeachateManagement
After the digestate is dewatered, a proportion of the resulting liquid is returned to the mixer (Figure 2) and the rest is treated prior to release. The model defaults assume that the wastewater is sent offsite to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), but onsite treatment can also be modeled by adjusting transport and treatment parameters. Table 5 shows the default concentration used for each emission type in the leachate as well as the material property used to allocate that emission to each waste material. Table 5. The allocation property and concentration for each emission type in the liquid digestate. The Allocation Property is the material property used to allocate each emission type to each waste material as explained in the text (Eq. 1 and 2). Emission Material Allocation Property
BOD Methane potential
COD Biogenic carbon
TSS Equal
Total N N content
Phosphate P content
Cadmium Cd content
Mercury Hg content
Lead Pb content
a.
Adapted from Sancartier et al., 2011. b.
Adapted from Arsova, 2010. c.
Adapted from Schmidt et al., 2001. Concentration (mg/L) 2300a 61,610b 1450a 1350a 60a 0.03c 0.026c 2.6c The calculation of the allocation factors and the resulting emission factors for each material and emission type is shown in Eqs. 1 and 2. These equations are used to take the concentrations of each emission type and allocate them to each of the incoming waste materials based on its contribution to that emission. Allocation factors are non‐negative values that scale the emission factor of a material 14 based on the average contribution to that emission. For example, an inert material would have an allocation factor of 0 for BOD. Materials with higher methane yields (the chosen proxy for degradability) would have higher allocation factors for BOD. ,
=
Eq. 1
,
,
, =
where ,
∙
,
Eq. 2
AFe,m The allocation factor for emission e and material m (unitless). APe,m The allocation property for emission e and material m (x/wet Mg m; e.g., m3 CH4/wet Mg m for BOD , % P/wet Mg m for PO4, etc.). APe,msw The average allocation property for emission e for the assumed incoming composition (x/wet Mg OFMSW; e.g., m3 CH4/wet Mg OFMSW for BOD , % P/wet Mg OFMSW for PO4, etc.). EFe,m The emission factor for emission e and material m (kg e/wet Mg m; e.g., kg BOD/wet Mg m for BOD, kg PO4/wet Mg m for PO4, etc.). EFe,MSW The overall emission factor for emission e from the AD facility (kg e/wet Mg; e.g., kg BOD/wet Mg for BOD, kg PO4/wet Mg for PO4, etc.). Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 are used to determine the mass of each emission from each waste material. The leachate is then treated in a WWTP, where the final effluent emissions are reduced based on default removal efficiencies shown in Table 6. The effluent nitrogen is then split into NH3 and NO3. By default, 43% of the released nitrogen is as NO3‐ and 28% of the effluent nitrogen is emitted as NH3 with the balance released as organic nitrogen (Lassaux, 2007). Table 6. Wastewater treatment plant removal efficiencies for each emission type. Emission type
Removal Efficiency 97a
95b
96a
72b
84b
85a
BOD COD TSS Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorous
Heavy Metals
a.
b.
Adapted from ERG, 2011. Adapted from Rodriguez‐Garcia, 2011. 15 Leachate treatment at a WWTP also generates sludge that must be managed. The default value for sludge generation is 1.2 kg/m3 leachate treated. This mass is assumed to be transported by truck to a landfill and disposed. In addition, BOD removal results in biogenic CO2 production with a default value of 3.6 kg CO2/kg BOD. The electricity used at the WWTP is assumed to vary based on the BOD removal with a default electricity use of 0.99 kWh/kg BOD removed (ERG, 2011). 5.4 AerobicCuring
By default, the solids remaining after dewatering are sent to aerobic curing, but the user can skip this step and send the solid digestate directly to land application or landfill. Before aerobic curing, the solid digestate is mixed with woody materials (screen rejects and/or wood chips). The materials are mixed at a second tipping floor, and are then built into windrows. The windrows are turned periodically (default is 3 times per week) to increase aeration and improve degradation. Material remains in curing piles for three weeks by default. The emissions and energy use are assumed to vary linearly with the amount of compost to be turned. The volume of diesel consumed to turn the compost was developed by Levis and Barlaz (2011). During aerobic curing, the digestate further degrades producing off‐gases. CO2 and water vapor make up the bulk of these off gasses, but CH4, N2, NH3, N2O and VOCs are also produced. The mass of C emitted during curing depends on the C emitted during digestion. By default, 58% of the C entering the reactor is emitted during digestion or curing, and 1.7% of the C emitted during curing is CH4 (Boldrin et al., 2009). The C released during digestion is calculated as described in the Section 5.2, and then the rest of the aerobically degradable C (up to 58% of the initial C) is emitted during curing. If more than 58% of the C in a feedstock is emitted during digestion, then it is assumed to not degrade further during curing. Of the incoming N, 38% is emitted, with 4% of the emitted N as NH3, 0.4% of the emitted N as N2O and the rest as N2 (Beck‐Friis et al., 2001 and Boldrin et al., 2009). Finally VOC emissions depend on the mass of volatile solids (VS) entering curing with a default value of 0.238 kg VOC/Mg VS (Cadena et al., 2009; and Davidsson et al., 2007). After curing, the compost is screened, and the screen rejects are returned to the curing tipping floor and the finished compost is sold for horticulture use. 5.5 LandApplication
The net emissions from land application are generated from the fuel used to transport and apply the finished compost as well as from natural release of nitrogen to the air and water. Emissions savings from land application occur due to carbon storage associated with increased humus formation, and avoided use of fertilizer and/or peat. The finished compost is transported by truck to the land application site. The compost is then land applied using a spreader. The default values and sources for diesel use for transport and application of compost or digestate (when the curing step is skipped) are shown in Table 7. 16 Table 7. Land application diesel fuel use inputs. Parameter Units
Loading and transport to field diesel usea
Land application diesel use per areaa
Land application rateb a.
b.
L/Mg
L/ha
Mg/ha
Digestate
0.21
14
30
Value Compost 0.4 10 25 Adapted from Berglund and Börjesson, 2006. Adapted from Arsova, 2010. After land application of the compost or digestate, a proportion of the nitrogen is emitted as NH3 and N2O and some runs‐off as NO3‐. Table 8 shows the default values for the nitrogen emissions associated with land application of compost. Table 8. Land application diesel fuel use inputs. Parameter Value Digestate
a Percent nitrogen that is NH3
50 a Percent of NH3 that evaporates
15 a Percent of applied nitrogen evaporated as N2O
1.5 Percent of nitrogen run‐off as NO3‐b 22 a.
Adapted from Hansen et al., 2006. b.
Adapted from Bruun et al., 2006 using the average values for loamy arable soil. Compost
1 15 1.5 14 The fertilizer offset model assumes that there is a market for all of the available nitrogen in finished compost. As is typical, nitrogen was assumed to be the controlling nutrient for fertilizers and the demands of phosphorous and potassium were determined based on the total amount of nitrogen that can be applied. Any phosphorus or potassium applied above the demand does not receive offset credit. Nitrogen in compost is not as available to plants as nitrogen in mineral fertilizers, so a mineral fertilizer equivalent of 0.40 was applied (Boldrin et al., 2009). This means that 2.5 times as much nitrogen in compost is required compared to mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Since soybeans and corn are the leading crops in the U.S., the model thus uses the average nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium demand of soybeans and corn developed from USDA, 2003. Table 9 illustrates how the ratio of phosphorus and potassium to nitrogen was determined. The emissions associated with the production of mineral N, P, and K were developed from the EcoInvent database (EcoInvent, 2013). Additional benefits associated with compost use such as increased moisture retention and weed suppression were not quantified. 17 Table 9. Agricultural Nutrient Demands and Compost Requirements. Mineral Compost Nutrient Nutrient Content Fertilizer Required (dry Ratio to Demand (kg nutrient/dry Equivalent Mg/ha/yr) Nitrogenc Nutrient (kg/ha/year)a Mg compost)b 0.4
Nitrogen 93 18.4 12.6 ‐ 1.0
Phosphorus 76.5 5.1 15 1.0 1.0
Potassium 123.5 20.7 6.0 0.48 a.
Average nutrient demand for corn and soybeans developed from USDA, 2003. b.
Based on default assumed composition. c.
The demand for phosphorus and potassium for each kg of nitrogen in the compost based on assumed default composition. All of the applied phosphorus and 48% of the potassium will count towards a fertilizer offset. It is assumed that the rest of the applied potassium is unnecessary, and therefore no avoided emissions are counted. Soil amendment with compost leads to increased soil carbon storage by two mechanisms. The first is from the carbon content of the compost as some carbon will remain after 100 years, and is thus considered stored. A carbon storage factor of 0.10 kg C per kg C applied in compost was adopted from Bruun et al. (2006). Compost addition to soil may also lead to incremental humus formation and resulting carbon storage. An estimate of 0.19 kg C stored per kg‐C input due to incremental humus formation was developed from U.S. EPA (2006) data. Peat production requires preparing the land, excavating the peat, transporting the peat, and peat decomposition. By default, compost replaces peat with a 1:1 volumetric substitution based on Boldrin et al. (2010). The emissions associated with peat harvesting were developed from the EcoInvent database (EcoInvent, 2013). 6 Costs
The model calculates capital costs associated with initially building and starting the facility as well as operating costs associated with processing each material. The capital costs associated with AD refer to the upfront costs that must be paid prior to operating the facility and are reported in units of $/Mg per yr (Mgpy). Operating costs are the costs associating with processing a mass of material through the AD facility and are reported in units of $/Mg. The model can calculate these costs for the user, or the user can directly enter the capital and operating cost coefficients, if these costs are known. There may be no capital costs associated with AD, if solid waste is being co‐digested in an existing wastewater digester. 6.1 CapitalCosts
The capital costs primarily consist of land acquisition, engineering, construction, and equipment installation. The direct project costs (DPC) are those associated with the actual construction of the facility. Engineering and management costs are estimated as a percent of the DPC to estimate the installed project costs (IPC). Commissioning, contingency, and contractor’s fees are calculated as a percent of the IPC to get the total plant costs (TPC).The final capital costs are then calculated as the sum 18 of TPC and land acquisition costs. Land acquisition costs will vary significantly based on the location of the facility, and site‐specific values should be used when available. The primary construction costs are shown in Table 10. Table 10. Default data values used to determine capital costs of AD. AD capital costs (excludes curing) Direct project cost (DPC) Engineering, design, supervision Management overheads Commissioning Contingency Contractor's fees Interest during construction Land cost Land acquisition cost Land required a.
b.
Units
Valuea
2010 $/Mgpy
%DPC
%DPC
%IPC
%IPC
%IPC
%IPC
167
15
10
5
10
10
10
Units
Value
2010 $/ha
m2/Mgpy
4000b
6.2b
Data adapted from Karellas et al., 2010 except when noted otherwise Adapted from Komilis and Ham, 2004 assuming most land use is due to curing windrows. The default model values lead to a total capital cost of $284 per Mgpy, which is 28% less than the average of $396 per Mgpy reported by Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006), but it is in their range of $122‐800 Mgpy for AD facilities. 6.2 OperatingCosts
The primary operating costs are fuel and electricity, personnel, and equipment maintenance. Diesel costs are calculated by multiplying the total diesel use calculated in the previous section by the current price of diesel. Electricity costs are calculated similarly except the model allows different costs for sold and purchased electricity. Most AD plants will be net electricity producers, so the sold price would be used with the assumption that in‐house electricity use is met by the plant itself. The model divides personnel costs into two category types: 1) managers/engineer and 2) laborers and administrative staff. The requirement of each type of employee varies with plant throughput. Input values related to personnel are shown in Table 11. 19 Table 11. Inputs values related to personnel costs. Personnel parameters Manager and engineer requirements
Laborer and administrative requirements
Manager pay rate (wages + benefits)
Laborer pay rate (wages + benefits)
Overhead percent Hours worked by each laborer per day
a.
b.
Units
Value persons/Mgpy
persons/Mgpy
$/person‐year
$/person‐hour
% personnel cost
hours
1.40E‐05a 3.40E‐05a 100,000b 20b 10a 8 Data adapted from Karellas et al., 2010. Illustrative values that will vary by location. There are operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated purchasing, installing, and maintaining, and from purchasing consumables. The model splits O&M costs from the anaerobic digester and aerobic curing separately to accommodate facilities that do not cure the digestate. By default, the annual variable O&M cost for the digester system is 7.5% of the total project cost which was developed from Karellas et al. (2010) and includes spare parts, external maintenance assistance, and consumables. The costs associated with the curing equipment were divided by piece of equipment and the model calculates the amortized purchase cost, repair costs, and tire cost for each piece of equipment based on the values in Table 12. The only consumable used in aerobic curing is the wood chips or other bulking agents. The price of wood chips is variable, and the default value is $5 per Mg. Table 12. Input values related to curing equipment costs. Equipment Costs Windrow turner Tub grinder Front End Loader Bobcat Post‐screen Installation cost (%) a.
b.
Requirements (units/Mgpd)a 0.173 0.0038 0.003 0.003 0.0025 30 Cost (2010 $/unit)a 26,701
370,844
222,506
44,501
148,337
Life (years) Repair Cost (% Initial Cost)b Tire Cost ($/set)b Tire Life (hours)b 10
10
10
10
10
60
60
60
60
60
2,000 1,000 600 2,100
2,100
2,000
Adopted from Komilis and Ham, 2004. Developed from Nunnally, 2007. Revenue from product sales is also included in the operating costs. The value of the produced soil amendment will vary significantly based on quality and the availability of markets. Bagged compost demands the highest price, but if markets are not available, facilities may rely solely on bulk sales. The default product sales price is $20 per Mg, which assumes mostly bulk sales. If most of the sales are bagged compost, then the price could be greater than $100 per Mg. Using the assumed compostion in Table 1, the average cost to process the inlet stream is $38.45 per Mg. This is 8% greater than the average $35.45 per Mg reported by Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006), and in their range of 4‐80 $/Mg for AD facilities with full cost data. 20 7 DefaultLife‐CycleInventoryResults
This section shows the LCI results from the model based on the defaults provided. Table 13 shows the mass flow in and out of the system per incoming Mg of each waste component. For dry materials, more than 1 Mg leaves the system due to the added wood chips and water. Table 14 shows the electricity used by each process for each material and Table 15 shows the diesel use. 21 Table 13 (part 1/2). Material flows associated with each component during AD (kg/Mg). New water added Wood chips added Residual to landfill or WTE Biogas produced Wastewater to WWTP Substrate in final compost (dry) Compost produced (ww w/added water and wood chips) Leaves 1129 153 50 98 802 358 Grass 358 29 50 85 254 58 Branches 1444 203 100 102 1026 479 Veg. Food Waste 510 9 50 211 363 30 Non‐Veg Food Waste 951 17 50 394 675 57 Wood 1397 228 100 12 993 524 Textiles 1581 244 100 53 1123 620 Misc. Organic 1249 169 50 108 887 553 1126 196 1504 84 157 1664 1887 1532 Table 13 (part 2/2). Material flows associated with each component during AD (kg/Mg). New water added Wood chips added Residual to landfill or WTE Biogas produced Wastewater to WWTP Substrate in final compost (dry) Compost produced (ww w/added water and wood chips) Newsprint 1474 221 100 67 1047 537 Corr. Cardboard 1476 179 100 187 1049 451 Office Paper 1650 176 100 275 1172 463 1665 1377 1389 Magazines 1649 206 100 191 1171 552 3rd Class Mail 1688 156 100 348 1199 429 Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 1375 166 100 174 977 420 Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 1383 130 100 280 982 322 Inert 148 24 911 0 105 73 1645 1266 1281 990 210 58
2
10
527
‐457
58
2
7
263
‐197
58
1
5
425
‐360
Inert 58
2
5
290
‐224
Misc. Organic 58 2 15 417 ‐342 Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 58
2
8
283
‐215
Folding Containers/ Bags 3rd Class Mail 58
2
3
102
‐38
Magazines 58
3
3
80
‐16
Office Paper 58
2
0
18
43
Newsprint 58
0
3
597
‐536
Textiles 58
0
1
321
‐262
Cardboard 58
1 4 155
‐92
Wood 58 0 0 129 ‐70 Non‐Veg Food Waste Grass 58 1 1 148 ‐88 Branches Leaves Pre‐processing Post‐curing screen Leachate treatment Generated Net Veg. Food Waste Table 14. Electricity use and generation for each material (kWh/incoming Mg). 58
2
3
164
‐101
58
0
0
0
58
0.3 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
8.9 1.7 11.8
0.5
1.0
13.2
14.1
12.8
10.4
10.2 11.9
9.1
9.6
7.5
9.8
0.8
7.7 1.6 0.9 19.4 1.5 0.3 0.2 3.9 10.2
2.2
1.2
25.7
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.9
0.2
0.1
2.5
11.5
2.4
2.3
29.8
12.3
2.6
2.6
31.9
11.1
2.3
2.3
28.9
9.0
1.9
1.9
23.4
8.9 1.9 1.9 23.1 10.4
2.2
2.2
27.0
7.9
1.7
1.7
20.6
8.4
1.8
1.8
21.9
6.5
1.4
1.4
17.1
8.5
1.8
1.8
22.2
0.7
0.1
0.2
2.1
Textiles Inert 0.3
23 Misc. Organic 0.3
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 0.3
Folding Containers/ Bags 0.3
3rd Class Mail 0.3
Magazines 0.3
Cardboard 0.3
Newsprint Non‐Veg Food Waste 0.3 Wood Veg. Food Waste 0.3 Branches Grass Pre‐processing front end loaders Curing front end loaders Windrow turner Tube grinder Land application Total diesel use Leaves Office Paper Table 15. Diesel use for each material (L/incoming Mg). Table 16 shows the biogas generated from each material, and Tables 17‐19 show the resulting emissions from flaring, combusting for energy, and biogas leaks. 38
38
76
4
4
9
20
20
39
25
25
50
24 70
70
139
103 103 205 71
71
142
130
130
260
65
65
130
105
105
209
40
40
81
Inert Misc. Organic Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable Folding Containers/ Bags 3rd Class Mail Magazines Office Paper Cardboard Newsprint 147
147
294
Textiles 79
79
158
Wood 32 32 63 Non‐Veg Food Waste 36 36 73 Branches Grass CH4 CO2 ‐ Biogenic Total Biogas Leaves Veg. Food Waste Table 16. Biogas generation from each material (m3/incoming wet Mg). 0
0
0
Table 17 (part 1/2). Biogas engine combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). Leaves 8.7E+01
1.6E‐01
2.2E‐03
4.5E‐01
1.8E‐03
1.6E‐02
2.3E‐01
3.6E‐04
CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Grass 6.6E+01
1.2E‐01
1.7E‐03
3.4E‐01
1.4E‐03
1.2E‐02
1.7E‐01
2.7E‐04
Veg. Food Waste 4.1E+02
7.5E‐01
1.0E‐02
2.1E+00
8.6E‐03
7.6E‐02
1.1E+00
1.7E‐03
Branches 2.0E+02
3.7E‐01
5.2E‐03
1.1E+00
4.3E‐03
3.8E‐02
5.4E‐01
8.3E‐04
Non‐Veg Food Waste 1.4E+03
2.6E+00
3.6E‐02
7.4E+00
3.0E‐02
2.6E‐01
3.7E+00
5.8E‐03
Wood 2.7E+00
4.9E‐03
6.8E‐05
1.4E‐02
5.6E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
1.1E‐05
Textiles 5.4E+01
9.8E‐02
1.4E‐03
2.8E‐01
1.1E‐03
9.9E‐03
1.4E‐01
2.2E‐04
Misc. Organic 2.2E+02
3.9E‐01
5.5E‐03
1.1E+00
4.5E‐03
4.0E‐02
5.7E‐01
8.8E‐04
Table 17 (part 2/2). Biogas engine combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Newsprint 8.7E+01 1.6E‐01 2.2E‐03 4.5E‐01 1.8E‐03 1.6E‐02 2.3E‐01 3.5E‐04 Corr. Cardboard 6.7E+02
1.2E+00
1.7E‐02
3.5E+00
1.4E‐02
1.2E‐01
1.8E+00
2.7E‐03
Office Paper 1.5E+03
2.7E+00
3.7E‐02
7.6E+00
3.1E‐02
2.7E‐01
3.9E+00
6.0E‐03
Magazines 3.5E+02
6.5E‐01
9.0E‐03
1.8E+00
7.4E‐03
6.5E‐02
9.3E‐01
1.4E‐03
25 3rd Class Mail 1.2E+03
2.1E+00
3.0E‐02
6.1E+00
2.5E‐02
2.2E‐01
3.1E+00
4.8E‐03
Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 5.8E+02
1.1E+00
1.5E‐02
3.0E+00
1.2E‐02
1.1E‐01
1.5E+00
2.4E‐03
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 7.6E+02
1.4E+00
1.9E‐02
4.0E+00
1.6E‐02
1.4E‐01
2.0E+00
3.1E‐03
Inert 0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 18 (part 1/2). Biogas flare combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Leaves 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Grass 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Branches 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Veg. Food Waste 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Non‐Veg Food Waste 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Wood 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Textiles 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Misc. Organic 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Table 18 (part 2/2). Biogas flare combustion emissions (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Newsprint 2.7E+00 4.9E‐04 6.9E‐05 1.4E‐02 2.3E‐05 5.0E‐04 7.1E‐03 4.5E‐06 Corr. Cardboard 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Office Paper 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Magazines 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
26 3rd Class Mail 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Inert 2.7E+00
4.9E‐04
6.9E‐05
1.4E‐02
2.3E‐05
5.0E‐04
7.1E‐03
4.5E‐06
Table 19 (part 1/2). Leaked biogas emissions (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Leaves 2.8E‐03
5.1E‐06
7.1E‐08
1.5E‐05
5.9E‐08
5.2E‐07
7.3E‐06
1.1E‐08
Grass 2.1E‐03
3.9E‐06
5.3E‐08
1.1E‐05
4.4E‐08
3.9E‐07
5.5E‐06
8.6E‐09
Branches 6.5E‐03
1.2E‐05
1.6E‐07
3.4E‐05
1.4E‐07
1.2E‐06
1.7E‐05
2.6E‐08
Veg. Food Waste 1.3E‐02
2.4E‐05
3.3E‐07
6.8E‐05
2.8E‐07
2.4E‐06
3.4E‐05
5.3E‐08
Non‐Veg Food Waste 4.5E‐02
8.3E‐05
1.2E‐06
2.4E‐04
9.5E‐07
8.4E‐06
1.2E‐04
1.8E‐07
Wood 8.6E‐05
1.6E‐07
2.2E‐09
4.5E‐07
1.8E‐09
1.6E‐08
2.3E‐07
3.5E‐10
Textiles 1.7E‐03
3.1E‐06
4.3E‐08
8.9E‐06
3.6E‐08
3.2E‐07
4.5E‐06
6.9E‐09
Misc. Organic 6.9E‐03
1.3E‐05
1.7E‐07
3.6E‐05
1.4E‐07
1.3E‐06
1.8E‐05
2.8E‐08
Table 19 (part 2/2). Leaked biogas emissions (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Particulates (Total) Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Sulfide Newsprint 2.8E‐03 5.1E‐06 7.0E‐08 1.4E‐05 5.8E‐08 5.1E‐07 7.3E‐06 1.1E‐08 Corr. Cardboard 2.1E‐02
3.9E‐05
5.5E‐07
1.1E‐04
4.5E‐07
4.0E‐06
5.7E‐05
8.7E‐08
Office Paper 4.7E‐02
8.6E‐05
1.2E‐06
2.4E‐04
9.8E‐07
8.7E‐06
1.2E‐04
1.9E‐07
Magazines 1.1E‐02
2.1E‐05
2.9E‐07
5.9E‐05
2.4E‐07
2.1E‐06
3.0E‐05
4.6E‐08
27 3rd Class Mail 3.7E‐02
6.8E‐05
9.5E‐07
1.9E‐04
7.9E‐07
6.9E‐06
9.8E‐05
1.5E‐07
Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 1.9E‐02
3.4E‐05
4.7E‐07
9.7E‐05
3.9E‐07
3.5E‐06
4.9E‐05
7.6E‐08
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 2.4E‐02
4.4E‐05
6.1E‐07
1.3E‐04
5.1E‐07
4.5E‐06
6.4E‐05
9.9E‐08
Inert 0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 20 shows the emissions from the WWTP as well as the volume of leachate treated from each material. Table 20 (part 1/2). Emissions from WWTP (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic Suspended Solids BOD COD Ammonia Cadmium Mercury Phosphate Lead Nitrate Leachate to WWTP (m3) Leaves 4.4E+00
6.8E‐02
3.8E‐02
4.0E+00
1.3E‐02
6.6E‐03
0.0E+00
6.8E‐03
5.8E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Grass 3.8E‐01
6.8E‐03
3.3E‐03
1.4E‐01
1.6E‐02
1.1E‐04
0.0E+00
1.1E‐04
1.9E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Veg. Food Waste 1.9E+00
1.4E‐02
1.7E‐02
3.0E‐01
1.3E‐02
2.2E‐05
0.0E+00
6.6E‐06
3.1E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Branches 1.6E+01
1.1E‐01
1.4E‐01
8.8E+00
1.9E‐03
1.5E‐02
0.0E+00
1.6E‐02
7.5E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Non‐Veg Food Waste 1.3E+01
4.8E‐02
1.1E‐01
2.3E+00
8.6E‐02
1.7E‐04
0.0E+00
4.2E‐05
2.5E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Wood 1.7E+00
1.0E‐01
1.5E‐02
8.8E+00
1.4E‐02
2.8E‐02
0.0E+00
2.4E‐02
1.0E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Textiles 9.8E+00
1.3E‐01
8.4E‐02
9.6E+00
6.5E‐02
5.5E‐02
0.0E+00
1.4E‐02
9.5E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Misc. Organic 1.2E+01
8.3E‐02
1.0E‐01
4.9E+00
1.5E‐02
1.0E‐02
0.0E+00
6.7E‐03
3.7E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 20 (part 2/2). Emissions from WWTP (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic Suspended Solids BOD COD Ammonia Cadmium Mercury Phosphate Lead Nitrate Leachate to WWTP (m3) Newsprint 1.1E+01
1.2E‐01
9.3E‐02
8.8E+00
1.9E‐03
6.5E‐03
0.0E+00
4.1E‐03
2.9E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Corr. Cardboard 3.0E+01
1.2E‐01
2.6E‐01
7.7E+00
1.9E‐03
3.2E‐03
0.0E+00
5.8E‐03
4.8E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Office Paper 5.6E+01
1.4E‐01
4.8E‐01
9.7E+00
2.1E‐03
4.5E‐03
0.0E+00
4.2E‐03
1.7E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Magazines 1.9E+01
1.4E‐01
1.7E‐01
9.1E+00
2.1E‐03
4.8E‐03
0.0E+00
8.9E‐03
7.8E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
28 3rd Class Mail 3.7E+01
1.5E‐01
3.2E‐01
9.4E+00
6.5E‐03
3.2E‐03
0.0E+00
4.3E‐03
6.9E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 2.4E+01
1.0E‐01
2.1E‐01
6.3E+00
3.5E‐03
5.5E‐03
0.0E+00
5.2E‐03
4.6E‐04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 2.0E+01
1.0E‐01
1.7E‐01
6.4E+00
8.0E‐03
3.3E‐03
0.0E+00
4.0E‐03
2.0E‐03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Inert 0.0E+00
3.6E‐04
0.0E+00
2.4E‐04
1.1E‐04
1.2E‐05
0.0E+00
9.7E‐06
5.8E‐05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 21 shows the emissions resulting from aerobic degradation during curing. Table 21 (part 1/2). Emissions from aerobic curing (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Nitrous Oxide Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Ammonia Leaves 1.4E+02
3.2E+00
1.2E‐02
0.0E+00
2.1E‐01
9.4E‐02
Grass 6.8E+02
8.5E‐01
1.3E‐02
0.0E+00
4.0E‐02
1.0E‐01
Branches 4.1E+01
4.2E+00
1.8E‐03
0.0E+00
2.8E‐01
1.4E‐02
Veg. Food Waste 1.5E+02
0.0E+00
9.5E‐03
0.0E+00
1.3E‐02
7.4E‐02
Non‐Veg Food Waste 8.0E+02
0.0E+00
6.5E‐02
0.0E+00
2.4E‐02
5.1E‐01
Wood 8.0E+02
5.0E+00
1.4E‐02
0.0E+00
3.1E‐01
1.1E‐01
Textiles 5.4E+02
4.1E+00
6.3E‐02
0.0E+00
3.3E‐01
4.8E‐01
Misc. Organic 4.3E‐01
0.0E+00
1.4E‐02
0.0E+00
2.3E‐01
1.1E‐01
Table 21 (part 2/2). Emissions from aerobic curing (kg/incoming Mg). CO2 ‐ Biogenic CH4 Nitrous Oxide Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Ammonia Newsprint 4.8E+02 4.2E+00 1.8E‐03 0.0E+00 3.0E‐01 1.4E‐02 Corr. Cardboard 4.1E+02 3.0E+00 1.7E‐03 0.0E+00 2.4E‐01 1.3E‐02 Office Paper 4.4E+02 2.6E+00 1.9E‐03 0.0E+00 2.4E‐01 1.5E‐02 Magazines 3.0E+02 2.8E+00 2.0E‐03 0.0E+00 2.8E‐01 1.5E‐02 29 3rd Class Mail 4.5E+02 1.9E+00 5.7E‐03 0.0E+00 2.1E‐01 4.4E‐02 Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 4.5E+02 2.8E+00 3.2E‐03 0.0E+00 2.3E‐01 2.5E‐02 Paper ‐
Non‐
recyclable 3.6E‐01 2.3E+00 6.9E‐03 0.0E+00 1.8E‐01 5.4E‐02 Inert 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Table 22 shows the air and waterborne emissions resulting from the application of compost as a soil amendment as well as the dry mass of compost produced. Table 22 (part 1/2). Emissions after land application of compost (kg/incoming Mg). Airborne Emissions CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 Nitrous Oxide Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Ammonia Nitrate Substrate in final compost (dry) Leaves 0.0E+00
1.1E+02
0.0E+00
7.5E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.9E‐01
2.0E+00
358
Grass 0.0E+00
2.9E+01
0.0E+00
8.2E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.2E‐01
2.2E+00
58
Branches 0.0E+00
1.4E+02
0.0E+00
1.1E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1E‐02
2.8E‐01
479
Veg. Food Waste 0.0E+00 2.1E+01 0.0E+00 5.8E‐02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E‐01 1.5E+00 30 Non‐Veg Food Waste 0.0E+00
7.7E+01
0.0E+00
4.0E‐01
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.5E+00
1.1E+01
57
Wood 0.0E+00
1.7E+02
0.0E+00
8.6E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.3E‐01
2.3E+00
524
Textiles 0.0E+00
1.4E+02
0.0E+00
3.8E‐01
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.5E+00
1.0E+01
524
Misc. Organic 0.0E+00
2.6E+02
0.0E+00
8.8E‐02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.4E‐01
2.3E+00
620
Table 22 (part 2/2). Emissions after land application of compost (kg/incoming Mg). Airborne Emissions CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 Nitrous Oxide Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Ammonia Nitrate Substrate in final compost (dry) Newsprint 0.0E+00
1.4E+02
0.0E+00
1.1E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.3E-02
2.9E-01
537
Corr. Cardboard 0.0E+00
1.0E+02
0.0E+00
1.1E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1E-02
2.8E-01
451
Office Paper 0.0E+00
8.8E+01
0.0E+00
1.2E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.5E-02
3.1E-01
463
30 Magazines 0.0E+00
9.4E+01
0.0E+00
1.2E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.6E-02
3.1E-01
552
3rd Class Mail 0.0E+00
6.4E+01
0.0E+00
3.5E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.3E-01
9.1E-01
429
Folding Containers/ Paper Bags 0.0E+00
9.7E+01
0.0E+00
2.0E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.6E-02
5.2E-01
420
Paper ‐
Non‐
recyclable 0.0E+00
7.9E+01
0.0E+00
4.3E-02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
1.1E+00
322
Inert 0.0E+00
1.8E-01
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
45
Table 23 and 22 show the airborne and waterborne peat offsets associated with land application of compost, respectively. Table 23 (part 1/2). Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). CO2 ‐ Fossil CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 ‐ Fossil CH4 ‐ Biogenic Nitrous Oxide Particulates (Total) PM10 PM‐2.5 Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Ammonia Lead Hydrochloric acid Mercury Benzene Chloroform Carbon tetrachloride Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Dioxins Furans Hydrogen Sulfide Leaves 9.4E+00 1.4E‐01 1.1E‐05 1.6E‐01 5.2E‐05 1.2E‐03 2.4E‐01 5.3E‐03 2.5E‐04 3.4E‐02 1.6E‐03 6.2E‐02 2.0E‐02 5.0E‐05 6.4E‐06 8.0E‐04 3.7E‐06 1.7E‐04 8.6E‐08 2.7E‐09 1.9E‐07 4.5E‐07 2.1E‐08 4.7E‐08 1.1E‐09 1.0E‐04 5.9E‐05 7.7E‐06 9.2E‐11 8.6E‐11 2.4E‐06 Grass 4.3E‐01
6.4E‐03
4.9E‐07
7.2E‐03
2.4E‐06
5.4E‐05
1.1E‐02
2.4E‐04
1.2E‐05
1.6E‐03
7.4E‐05
2.9E‐03
9.0E‐04
2.3E‐06
2.9E‐07
3.7E‐05
1.7E‐07
7.9E‐06
4.0E‐09
1.2E‐10
8.9E‐09
2.1E‐08
9.9E‐10
2.2E‐09
5.1E‐11
4.6E‐06
2.7E‐06
3.6E‐07
4.2E‐12
3.9E‐12
1.1E‐07
Branches 1.6E+01
2.5E‐01
1.9E‐05
2.7E‐01
9.1E‐05
2.0E‐03
4.2E‐01
9.2E‐03
4.4E‐04
5.9E‐02
2.8E‐03
1.1E‐01
3.4E‐02
8.7E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.4E‐03
6.4E‐06
3.0E‐04
1.5E‐07
4.7E‐09
3.4E‐07
8.0E‐07
3.8E‐08
8.3E‐08
1.9E‐09
1.8E‐04
1.0E‐04
1.4E‐05
1.6E‐10
1.5E‐10
4.2E‐06
Veg. Food Waste 1.3E‐01
2.0E‐03
1.5E‐07
2.2E‐03
7.4E‐07
1.7E‐05
3.4E‐03
7.5E‐05
3.6E‐06
4.8E‐04
2.3E‐05
8.9E‐04
2.8E‐04
7.1E‐07
9.1E‐08
1.1E‐05
5.2E‐08
2.4E‐06
1.2E‐09
3.8E‐11
2.7E‐09
6.5E‐09
3.1E‐10
6.8E‐10
1.6E‐11
1.4E‐06
8.4E‐07
1.1E‐07
1.3E‐12
1.2E‐12
3.4E‐08
31 Non‐Veg Food Waste 9.2E‐01 1.4E‐02 1.0E‐06 1.5E‐02 5.1E‐06 1.1E‐04 2.4E‐02 5.1E‐04 2.5E‐05 3.3E‐03 1.6E‐04 6.1E‐03 1.9E‐03 4.8E‐06 6.2E‐07 7.8E‐05 3.6E‐07 1.7E‐05 8.4E‐09 2.6E‐10 1.9E‐08 4.4E‐08 2.1E‐09 4.6E‐09 1.1E‐10 9.8E‐06 5.8E‐06 7.6E‐07 9.0E‐12 8.4E‐12 2.4E‐07 Wood 2.2E+01
3.2E‐01
2.5E‐05
3.6E‐01
1.2E‐04
2.7E‐03
5.6E‐01
1.2E‐02
5.8E‐04
7.8E‐02
3.7E‐03
1.4E‐01
4.5E‐02
1.1E‐04
1.5E‐05
1.8E‐03
8.4E‐06
4.0E‐04
2.0E‐07
6.2E‐09
4.4E‐07
1.0E‐06
4.9E‐08
1.1E‐07
2.5E‐09
2.3E‐04
1.4E‐04
1.8E‐05
2.1E‐10
2.0E‐10
5.6E‐06
Textiles 2.0E+01
2.9E‐01
2.2E‐05
3.3E‐01
1.1E‐04
2.5E‐03
5.1E‐01
1.1E‐02
5.3E‐04
7.1E‐02
3.4E‐03
1.3E‐01
4.1E‐02
1.0E‐04
1.3E‐05
1.7E‐03
7.7E‐06
3.6E‐04
1.8E‐07
5.7E‐09
4.1E‐07
9.6E‐07
4.5E‐08
1.0E‐07
2.3E‐09
2.1E‐04
1.2E‐04
1.6E‐05
1.9E‐10
1.8E‐10
5.1E‐06
Misc. Organic 3.0E+01
4.5E‐01
3.4E‐05
5.0E‐01
1.7E‐04
3.7E‐03
7.7E‐01
1.7E‐02
8.0E‐04
1.1E‐01
5.1E‐03
2.0E‐01
6.3E‐02
1.6E‐04
2.0E‐05
2.6E‐03
1.2E‐05
5.5E‐04
2.8E‐07
8.6E‐09
6.2E‐07
1.5E‐06
6.9E‐08
1.5E‐07
3.5E‐09
3.2E‐04
1.9E‐04
2.5E‐05
2.9E‐10
2.7E‐10
7.7E‐06
Table 23 (part 2/2). Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). CO2 ‐ Fossil CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 ‐ Fossil CH4 ‐ Biogenic Nitrous Oxide Particulates (Total) PM10 PM‐2.5 Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Ammonia Lead Hydrochloric acid Mercury Benzene Chloroform Carbon tetrachloride Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Dioxins Furans Hydrogen Sulfide Newsprint 1.8E+01 2.7E‐01 2.1E‐05 3.0E‐01 1.0E‐04 2.3E‐03 4.7E‐01 1.0E‐02 4.9E‐04 6.6E‐02 3.1E‐03 1.2E‐01 3.8E‐02 9.6E‐05 1.2E‐05 1.6E‐03 7.1E‐06 3.3E‐04 1.7E‐07 5.2E‐09 3.7E‐07 8.8E‐07 4.2E‐08 9.2E‐08 2.1E‐09 1.9E‐04 1.1E‐04 1.5E‐05 1.8E‐10 1.7E‐10 4.7E‐06 Corr. Cardboard 1.1E+01
1.6E‐01
1.2E‐05
1.8E‐01
6.0E‐05
1.3E‐03
2.8E‐01
6.0E‐03
2.9E‐04
3.9E‐02
1.8E‐03
7.1E‐02
2.3E‐02
5.7E‐05
7.3E‐06
9.2E‐04
4.2E‐06
2.0E‐04
9.9E‐08
3.1E‐09
2.2E‐07
5.2E‐07
2.5E‐08
5.4E‐08
1.3E‐09
1.2E‐04
6.8E‐05
8.9E‐06
1.1E‐10
9.8E‐11
2.8E‐06
Office Paper 9.3E+00
1.4E‐01
1.0E‐05
1.5E‐01
5.1E‐05
1.2E‐03
2.4E‐01
5.2E‐03
2.5E‐04
3.3E‐02
1.6E‐03
6.1E‐02
1.9E‐02
4.9E‐05
6.3E‐06
7.9E‐04
3.6E‐06
1.7E‐04
8.5E‐08
2.6E‐09
1.9E‐07
4.5E‐07
2.1E‐08
4.7E‐08
1.1E‐09
9.9E‐05
5.8E‐05
7.6E‐06
9.0E‐11
8.4E‐11
2.4E‐06
Magazines 1.2E+01
1.7E‐01
1.3E‐05
2.0E‐01
6.5E‐05
1.5E‐03
3.0E‐01
6.6E‐03
3.1E‐04
4.2E‐02
2.0E‐03
7.8E‐02
2.5E‐02
6.2E‐05
8.0E‐06
1.0E‐03
4.6E‐06
2.1E‐04
1.1E‐07
3.4E‐09
2.4E‐07
5.7E‐07
2.7E‐08
5.9E‐08
1.4E‐09
1.3E‐04
7.4E‐05
9.7E‐06
1.2E‐10
1.1E‐10
3.0E‐06
32 3rd Class Mail 6.2E+00 9.2E‐02 7.0E‐06 1.0E‐01 3.4E‐05 7.7E‐04 1.6E‐01 3.5E‐03 1.6E‐04 2.2E‐02 1.1E‐03 4.1E‐02 1.3E‐02 3.3E‐05 4.2E‐06 5.3E‐04 2.4E‐06 1.1E‐04 5.7E‐08 1.8E‐09 1.3E‐07 3.0E‐07 1.4E‐08 3.1E‐08 7.2E‐10 6.6E‐05 3.9E‐05 5.1E‐06 6.0E‐11 5.6E‐11 1.6E‐06 Folding Containers/
Paper Bags 9.4E+00
1.4E‐01
1.1E‐05
1.6E‐01
5.2E‐05
1.2E‐03
2.4E‐01
5.3E‐03
2.5E‐04
3.4E‐02
1.6E‐03
6.2E‐02
2.0E‐02
5.0E‐05
6.4E‐06
8.0E‐04
3.7E‐06
1.7E‐04
8.6E‐08
2.7E‐09
1.9E‐07
4.5E‐07
2.2E‐08
4.7E‐08
1.1E‐09
1.0E‐04
5.9E‐05
7.7E‐06
9.2E‐11
8.6E‐11
2.4E‐06
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 6.0E+00
8.9E‐02
6.8E‐06
9.9E‐02
3.3E‐05
7.4E‐04
1.5E‐01
3.3E‐03
1.6E‐04
2.2E‐02
1.0E‐03
3.9E‐02
1.2E‐02
3.1E‐05
4.1E‐06
5.1E‐04
2.3E‐06
1.1E‐04
5.5E‐08
1.7E‐09
1.2E‐07
2.9E‐07
1.4E‐08
3.0E‐08
7.0E‐10
6.4E‐05
3.7E‐05
4.9E‐06
5.8E‐11
5.4E‐11
1.5E‐06
Inert 1.7E‐03
2.6E‐05
2.0E‐09
2.9E‐05
9.6E‐09
2.2E‐07
4.5E‐05
9.7E‐07
4.6E‐08
6.2E‐06
3.0E‐07
1.1E‐05
3.6E‐06
9.1E‐09
1.2E‐09
1.5E‐07
6.7E‐10
3.2E‐08
1.6E‐11
4.9E‐13
3.5E‐11
8.4E‐11
4.0E‐12
8.7E‐12
2.0E‐13
1.8E‐08
1.1E‐08
1.4E‐09
1.7E‐14
1.6E‐14
4.4E‐10
Table 24 (part 1/2). Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). Dissolved Solids Suspended Solids BOD COD Sulfate Iron Ammonia Copper Cadmium Arsenic Mercury Phosphate Selenium Chromium Lead Zinc Barium Silver Nitrate Benzene Chloroform Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Hydrocarbons unspecified Leaves 2.0E‐01 2.1E+00 2.8E‐03 2.9E‐03 2.0E+00 9.4E‐01 8.0E‐05 3.1E‐05 3.6E‐06 7.1E‐06 6.7E‐08 1.1E‐03 8.0E‐06 5.3E‐06 5.6E‐06 1.9E‐04 2.6E‐03 9.4E‐06 1.5E‐04 7.6E‐06 1.8E‐12 2.7E‐10 3.3E‐08 1.2E‐11 7.3E‐06 4.0E‐06 4.8E‐07 1.3E‐06 Grass 9.0E‐03
9.5E‐02
1.3E‐04
1.3E‐04
9.0E‐02
4.3E‐02
3.7E‐06
1.4E‐06
1.7E‐07
3.3E‐07
3.1E‐09
4.8E‐05
3.7E‐07
2.4E‐07
2.6E‐07
8.8E‐06
1.2E‐04
4.3E‐07
6.9E‐06
3.5E‐07
8.4E‐14
1.3E‐11
1.5E‐09
5.7E‐13
3.3E‐07
1.8E‐07
2.2E‐08
6.0E‐08
Branches 3.4E‐01
3.6E+00
4.9E‐03
5.0E‐03
3.4E+00
1.6E+00
1.4E‐04
5.5E‐05
6.4E‐06
1.2E‐05
1.2E‐07
1.9E‐03
1.4E‐05
9.3E‐06
9.8E‐06
3.4E‐04
4.6E‐03
1.6E‐05
2.6E‐04
1.3E‐05
3.2E‐12
4.8E‐10
5.8E‐08
2.2E‐11
1.3E‐05
6.9E‐06
8.4E‐07
2.3E‐06
Veg. Food Waste 2.8E‐03
2.9E‐02
4.0E‐05
4.1E‐05
2.8E‐02
1.3E‐02
1.1E‐06
4.5E‐07
5.2E‐08
1.0E‐07
9.5E‐10
1.5E‐05
1.1E‐07
7.5E‐08
8.0E‐08
2.7E‐06
3.8E‐05
1.3E‐07
2.1E‐06
1.1E‐07
2.6E‐14
3.9E‐12
4.7E‐10
1.8E‐13
1.0E‐07
5.6E‐08
6.8E‐09
1.9E‐08
33 Non‐Veg Food Waste 1.9E‐02 2.0E‐01 2.7E‐04 2.8E‐04 1.9E‐01 9.2E‐02 7.8E‐06 3.1E‐06 3.6E‐07 6.9E‐07 6.5E‐09 1.0E‐04 7.9E‐07 5.2E‐07 5.5E‐07 1.9E‐05 2.6E‐04 9.1E‐07 1.5E‐05 7.4E‐07 1.8E‐13 2.7E‐11 3.2E‐09 1.2E‐12 7.1E‐07 3.9E‐07 4.7E‐08 1.3E‐07 Wood 4.5E‐01
4.7E+00
6.4E‐03
6.6E‐03
4.5E+00
2.2E+00
1.8E‐04
7.2E‐05
8.4E‐06
1.6E‐05
1.5E‐07
2.4E‐03
1.9E‐05
1.2E‐05
1.3E‐05
4.4E‐04
6.1E‐03
2.2E‐05
3.5E‐04
1.7E‐05
4.2E‐12
6.3E‐10
7.6E‐08
2.8E‐11
1.7E‐05
9.1E‐06
1.1E‐06
3.0E‐06
Textiles 4.1E‐01
4.3E+00
5.9E‐03
6.0E‐03
4.1E+00
2.0E+00
1.7E‐04
6.6E‐05
7.7E‐06
1.5E‐05
1.4E‐07
2.2E‐03
1.7E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.2E‐05
4.0E‐04
5.6E‐03
2.0E‐05
3.2E‐04
1.6E‐05
3.8E‐12
5.7E‐10
7.0E‐08
2.6E‐11
1.5E‐05
8.3E‐06
1.0E‐06
2.8E‐06
Misc. Organic 6.2E‐01
6.6E+00
8.9E‐03
9.2E‐03
6.3E+00
3.0E+00
2.6E‐04
1.0E‐04
1.2E‐05
2.3E‐05
2.1E‐07
3.4E‐03
2.6E‐05
1.7E‐05
1.8E‐05
6.1E‐04
8.5E‐03
3.0E‐05
4.8E‐04
2.4E‐05
5.8E‐12
8.7E‐10
1.1E‐07
3.9E‐11
2.3E‐05
1.3E‐05
1.5E‐06
4.2E‐06
Table 24 (part 2/2). Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided peat use (kg/Mg incoming). Dissolved Solids Suspended Solids BOD COD Sulfate Iron Ammonia Copper Cadmium Arsenic Mercury Phosphate Selenium Chromium Lead Zinc Barium Silver Nitrate Benzene Chloroform Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Hydrocarbons unspecified Newsprint 3.8E‐01 4.0E+00 5.4E‐03 5.5E‐03 3.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.5E‐04 6.1E‐05 7.1E‐06 1.4E‐05 1.3E‐07 2.0E‐03 1.6E‐05 1.0E‐05 1.1E‐05 3.7E‐04 5.1E‐03 1.8E‐05 2.9E‐04 1.5E‐05 3.5E‐12 5.3E‐10 6.4E‐08 2.4E‐11 1.4E‐05 7.7E‐06 9.2E‐07 2.5E‐06 Corr. Cardboard 2.2E‐01
2.4E+00
3.2E‐03
3.3E‐03
2.3E+00
1.1E+00
9.2E‐05
3.6E‐05
4.2E‐06
8.2E‐06
7.7E‐08
1.2E‐03
9.2E‐06
6.1E‐06
6.4E‐06
2.2E‐04
3.0E‐03
1.1E‐05
1.7E‐04
8.7E‐06
2.1E‐12
3.1E‐10
3.8E‐08
1.4E‐11
8.4E‐06
4.5E‐06
5.5E‐07
1.5E‐06
Office Paper 1.9E‐01
2.0E+00
2.7E‐03
2.8E‐03
1.9E+00
9.3E‐01
7.8E‐05
3.1E‐05
3.6E‐06
7.0E‐06
6.6E‐08
1.0E‐03
7.9E‐06
5.2E‐06
5.5E‐06
1.9E‐04
2.6E‐03
9.2E‐06
1.5E‐04
7.5E‐06
1.8E‐12
2.7E‐10
3.3E‐08
1.2E‐11
7.2E‐06
3.9E‐06
4.7E‐07
1.3E‐06
Magazines 2.4E‐01
2.6E+00
3.5E‐03
3.6E‐03
2.5E+00
1.2E+00
1.0E‐04
3.9E‐05
4.6E‐06
8.9E‐06
8.3E‐08
1.3E‐03
1.0E‐05
6.6E‐06
7.0E‐06
2.4E‐04
3.3E‐03
1.2E‐05
1.9E‐04
9.5E‐06
2.3E‐12
3.4E‐10
4.1E‐08
1.5E‐11
9.1E‐06
5.0E‐06
6.0E‐07
1.6E‐06
34 3rd Class Mail 1.3E‐01 1.4E+00 1.8E‐03 1.9E‐03 1.3E+00 6.2E‐01 5.2E‐05 2.1E‐05 2.4E‐06 4.7E‐06 4.4E‐08 6.9E‐04 5.3E‐06 3.5E‐06 3.7E‐06 1.3E‐04 1.7E‐03 6.1E‐06 9.9E‐05 5.0E‐06 1.2E‐12 1.8E‐10 2.2E‐08 8.1E‐12 4.8E‐06 2.6E‐06 3.1E‐07 8.6E‐07 Folding Containers/
Paper Bags 2.0E‐01
2.1E+00
2.8E‐03
2.9E‐03
2.0E+00
9.4E‐01
8.0E‐05
3.1E‐05
3.6E‐06
7.1E‐06
6.7E‐08
1.1E‐03
8.1E‐06
5.3E‐06
5.6E‐06
1.9E‐04
2.7E‐03
9.4E‐06
1.5E‐04
7.6E‐06
1.8E‐12
2.7E‐10
3.3E‐08
1.2E‐11
7.3E‐06
4.0E‐06
4.8E‐07
1.3E‐06
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 1.2E‐01
1.3E+00
1.8E‐03
1.8E‐03
1.2E+00
6.0E‐01
5.1E‐05
2.0E‐05
2.3E‐06
4.5E‐06
4.2E‐08
6.7E‐04
5.1E‐06
3.4E‐06
3.6E‐06
1.2E‐04
1.7E‐03
5.9E‐06
9.6E‐05
4.8E‐06
1.2E‐12
1.7E‐10
2.1E‐08
7.8E‐12
4.6E‐06
2.5E‐06
3.0E‐07
8.3E‐07
Inert 3.6E‐05
3.8E‐04
5.1E‐07
5.3E‐07
3.6E‐04
1.7E‐04
1.5E‐08
5.8E‐09
6.7E‐10
1.3E‐09
1.2E‐11
1.9E‐07
1.5E‐09
9.7E‐10
1.0E‐09
3.5E‐08
4.9E‐07
1.7E‐09
2.8E‐08
1.4E‐09
3.4E‐16
5.0E‐14
6.1E‐12
2.3E‐15
1.3E‐09
7.3E‐10
8.8E‐11
2.4E‐10
Table 25 and 24 show the airborne and waterborne fertilizer offsets associated with land application of compost, respectively. Table 25 (part 1/2). Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). CO2 ‐ Fossil CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 ‐ Fossil CH4 ‐ Biogenic Nitrous Oxide Particulates (Total) PM10 PM‐2.5 Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Ammonia Lead Hydrochloric acid Mercury Benzene Chloroform Carbon tetrachloride Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Dioxins Furans Hydrogen Sulfide Leaves 8.5E+00 9.6E‐02 3.1E‐07 2.7E‐02 2.3E‐04 2.8E‐04 1.0E‐02 5.6E‐03 3.9E‐03 2.0E‐02 2.7E‐03 1.5E‐01 1.3E‐02 1.8E‐04 3.8E‐06 3.2E‐04 3.5E‐07 1.6E‐04 8.3E‐09 3.3E‐08 2.7E‐05 1.6E‐07 1.5E‐09 5.3E‐09 5.7E‐08 2.2E‐04 1.3E‐04 1.7E‐05 2.1E‐11 2.4E‐06 1.5E‐05 Grass 5.6E+00
3.4E‐02
2.9E‐07
2.1E‐02
7.3E‐05
1.8E‐04
4.6E‐03
2.6E‐03
2.3E‐03
1.0E‐02
1.6E‐03
6.5E‐02
8.6E‐03
6.0E‐05
1.5E‐06
1.7E‐04
2.4E‐07
1.3E‐04
6.1E‐09
1.0E‐08
7.8E‐06
1.7E‐07
1.5E‐09
5.6E‐09
1.8E‐08
1.8E‐04
1.1E‐04
1.4E‐05
1.9E‐11
6.9E‐07
4.8E‐06
Branches 6.5E+00
1.2E‐01
1.2E‐07
1.7E‐02
2.9E‐04
2.3E‐04
1.1E‐02
5.8E‐03
3.4E‐03
1.9E‐02
2.3E‐03
1.6E‐01
1.0E‐02
2.2E‐04
4.4E‐06
3.1E‐04
2.5E‐07
9.1E‐05
5.4E‐09
4.2E‐08
3.5E‐05
3.0E‐08
3.8E‐10
1.1E‐09
7.2E‐08
1.1E‐04
7.2E‐05
8.3E‐06
8.8E‐12
3.0E‐06
1.8E‐05
Veg. Food Waste 5.0E+00
4.4E‐02
2.2E‐07
1.7E‐02
1.0E‐04
1.6E‐04
5.2E‐03
2.9E‐03
2.2E‐03
1.0E‐02
1.5E‐03
7.2E‐02
7.7E‐03
7.9E‐05
1.8E‐06
1.7E‐04
2.1E‐07
1.0E‐04
5.2E‐09
1.4E‐08
1.2E‐05
1.2E‐07
1.1E‐09
4.1E‐09
2.5E‐08
1.4E‐04
8.5E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.4E‐11
1.0E‐06
6.5E‐06
35 Non‐Veg Food Waste 3.3E+01 3.3E‐01 1.6E‐06 1.1E‐01 7.9E‐04 9.3E‐04 3.9E‐02 2.1E‐02 1.6E‐02 7.0E‐02 9.9E‐03 5.3E‐01 5.1E‐02 5.5E‐04 1.4E‐05 1.1E‐03 1.5E‐06 6.3E‐04 3.7E‐08 9.0E‐08 9.3E‐05 8.5E‐07 7.8E‐09 2.8E‐08 2.0E‐07 8.5E‐04 5.1E‐04 6.5E‐05 9.1E‐11 8.2E‐06 4.9E‐05 Wood 5.4E+00
2.5E‐02
2.9E‐07
2.0E‐02
4.8E‐05
1.7E‐04
3.8E‐03
2.2E‐03
2.1E‐03
9.2E‐03
1.5E‐03
5.3E‐02
8.2E‐03
4.2E‐05
1.1E‐06
1.5E‐04
2.3E‐07
1.3E‐04
5.9E‐09
6.7E‐09
4.9E‐06
1.8E‐07
1.6E‐09
5.8E‐09
1.2E‐08
1.8E‐04
1.1E‐04
1.4E‐05
1.9E‐11
4.3E‐07
3.3E‐06
Textiles 2.6E+01
1.8E‐01
1.4E‐06
9.1E‐02
3.9E‐04
7.4E‐04
2.4E‐02
1.3E‐02
1.1E‐02
4.8E‐02
7.3E‐03
3.2E‐01
4.0E‐02
2.9E‐04
7.6E‐06
7.6E‐04
1.1E‐06
5.7E‐04
3.0E‐08
4.4E‐08
4.5E‐05
8.1E‐07
7.2E‐09
2.6E‐08
9.8E‐08
7.8E‐04
4.7E‐04
6.0E‐05
8.4E‐11
4.0E‐06
2.5E‐05
Misc. Organic 7.3E+00
6.5E‐02
3.3E‐07
2.5E‐02
1.5E‐04
2.3E‐04
7.7E‐03
4.2E‐03
3.2E‐03
1.5E‐02
2.2E‐03
1.1E‐01
1.1E‐02
1.1E‐04
2.6E‐06
2.4E‐04
3.1E‐07
1.5E‐04
7.8E‐09
2.0E‐08
1.7E‐05
1.9E‐07
1.7E‐09
6.1E‐09
3.7E‐08
2.1E‐04
1.3E‐04
1.6E‐05
2.1E‐11
1.5E‐06
9.5E‐06
Table 25 (part 2/2). Airborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). CO2 ‐ Fossil CO2 ‐ Biogenic CO2 ‐ Stored CH4 ‐ Fossil CH4 ‐ Biogenic Nitrous Oxide Particulates (Total) PM10 PM‐2.5 Nitrogen Oxides NMVOCs Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Ammonia Lead Hydrochloric acid Mercury Benzene Chloroform Carbon tetrachloride Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Dioxins Furans Hydrogen Sulfide Newsprint 8.5E‐01 5.9E‐03 4.0E‐08 3.1E‐03 1.3E‐05 2.8E‐05 7.5E‐04 4.2E‐04 3.4E‐04 1.6E‐03 2.5E‐04 1.0E‐02 1.3E‐03 1.1E‐05 2.4E‐07 2.6E‐05 3.5E‐08 1.9E‐05 8.8E‐10 1.9E‐09 1.4E‐06 2.3E‐08 2.1E‐10 7.6E‐10 3.2E‐09 2.7E‐05 1.6E‐05 2.0E‐06 2.7E‐12 1.2E‐07 8.4E‐07 Corr. Cardboard 8.8E‐01
8.2E‐03
4.1E‐08
3.0E‐03
1.9E‐05
2.7E‐05
9.7E‐04
5.3E‐04
4.0E‐04
1.8E‐03
2.7E‐04
1.3E‐02
1.4E‐03
1.4E‐05
3.3E‐07
3.0E‐05
3.8E‐08
1.8E‐05
9.6E‐10
2.4E‐09
2.2E‐06
2.3E‐08
2.1E‐10
7.4E‐10
4.7E‐09
2.4E‐05
1.5E‐05
1.9E‐06
2.5E‐12
2.0E‐07
1.2E‐06
Office Paper 7.2E‐01
3.7E‐03
4.0E‐08
2.7E‐03
7.3E‐06
2.1E‐05
5.4E‐04
3.2E‐04
2.9E‐04
1.2E‐03
2.0E‐04
7.5E‐03
1.1E‐03
5.8E‐06
1.6E‐07
2.0E‐05
3.2E‐08
1.7E‐05
8.2E‐10
8.9E‐10
7.8E‐07
2.4E‐08
2.2E‐10
7.9E‐10
1.8E‐09
2.4E‐05
1.4E‐05
1.8E‐06
2.6E‐12
6.8E‐08
4.9E‐07
Magazines 1.2E+00
1.3E‐02
4.8E‐08
3.7E‐03
3.1E‐05
3.6E‐05
1.4E‐03
7.7E‐04
5.5E‐04
2.6E‐03
3.6E‐04
2.0E‐02
1.8E‐03
2.3E‐05
5.1E‐07
4.2E‐05
5.0E‐08
2.2E‐05
1.2E‐09
3.9E‐09
3.6E‐06
2.6E‐08
2.4E‐10
8.4E‐10
7.5E‐09
3.0E‐05
1.8E‐05
2.3E‐06
3.0E‐12
3.1E‐07
1.9E‐06
36 3rd Class Mail 2.3E+00 1.3E‐02 1.2E‐07 8.5E‐03 2.8E‐05 7.2E‐05 1.9E‐03 1.1E‐03 9.4E‐04 4.2E‐03 6.6E‐04 2.6E‐02 3.6E‐03 2.3E‐05 5.7E‐07 6.7E‐05 1.0E‐07 5.4E‐05 2.5E‐09 3.7E‐09 3.0E‐06 7.3E‐08 6.5E‐10 2.4E‐09 6.9E‐09 7.6E‐05 4.5E‐05 5.8E‐06 7.9E‐12 2.6E‐07 1.8E‐06 Folding Containers/
Paper Bags 1.3E+00
8.9E‐03
7.0E‐08
4.8E‐03
1.9E‐05
4.0E‐05
1.2E‐03
6.7E‐04
5.7E‐04
2.5E‐03
3.9E‐04
1.6E‐02
2.1E‐03
1.5E‐05
3.7E‐07
4.0E‐05
5.9E‐08
3.0E‐05
1.5E‐09
2.4E‐09
2.1E‐06
4.2E‐08
3.7E‐10
1.4E‐09
4.8E‐09
4.2E‐05
2.5E‐05
3.2E‐06
4.5E‐12
1.9E‐07
1.2E‐06
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 3.4E+00
3.2E‐02
1.6E‐07
1.1E‐02
7.5E‐05
1.0E‐04
3.8E‐03
2.1E‐03
1.6E‐03
7.1E‐03
1.0E‐03
5.2E‐02
5.3E‐03
5.5E‐05
1.3E‐06
1.1E‐04
1.5E‐07
6.9E‐05
3.8E‐09
9.0E‐09
8.8E‐06
9.0E‐08
8.2E‐10
3.0E‐09
1.9E‐08
9.3E‐05
5.6E‐05
7.1E‐06
9.9E‐12
7.8E‐07
4.8E‐06
Inert 0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 26 (part 1/2). Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). Dissolved Solids Suspended Solids BOD COD Sulfate Iron Ammonia Copper Cadmium Arsenic Mercury Phosphate Selenium Chromium Lead Zinc Barium Silver Nitrate Benzene Chloroform Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Hydrocarbons unspecified Leaves 3.2E‐01 1.5E‐02 8.5E‐03 9.0E‐03 2.0E‐01 5.9E‐03 2.0E‐04 1.3E‐04 1.7E‐05 2.7E‐05 1.1E‐05 5.5E‐03 7.5E‐06 6.4E‐05 6.4E‐05 4.5E‐04 2.9E‐03 1.5E‐05 1.3E‐02 1.4E‐05 4.3E‐10 6.4E‐05 3.3E‐07 7.2E‐10 1.6E‐05 8.5E‐06 1.2E‐06 5.1E‐06 Grass 2.8E‐01
8.5E‐03
3.4E‐03
2.9E‐03
6.6E‐02
2.3E‐03
1.2E‐04
4.0E‐05
5.2E‐06
9.3E‐06
3.4E‐06
1.9E‐03
2.6E‐06
2.2E‐05
2.1E‐05
1.5E‐04
2.6E‐03
1.3E‐05
1.3E‐02
1.1E‐05
1.3E‐10
1.9E‐05
1.1E‐07
2.3E‐10
1.1E‐05
6.1E‐06
7.8E‐07
2.4E‐06
Branches 1.5E‐01
1.4E‐02
9.7E‐03
1.1E‐02
2.5E‐01
6.8E‐03
1.7E‐04
1.6E‐04
2.2E‐05
3.2E‐05
1.5E‐05
6.6E‐03
9.1E‐06
7.7E‐05
8.0E‐05
5.6E‐04
1.2E‐03
7.0E‐06
4.0E‐03
8.1E‐06
5.5E‐10
8.3E‐05
4.0E‐07
9.0E‐10
1.1E‐05
5.8E‐06
1.0E‐06
5.2E‐06
Veg. Food Waste 2.1E‐01
8.3E‐03
4.0E‐03
4.0E‐03
8.7E‐02
2.8E‐03
1.1E‐04
5.7E‐05
7.5E‐06
1.2E‐05
5.0E‐06
2.5E‐03
3.4E‐06
2.9E‐05
2.9E‐05
2.0E‐04
2.0E‐03
1.0E‐05
9.4E‐03
8.9E‐06
1.9E‐10
2.8E‐05
1.5E‐07
3.2E‐10
9.8E‐06
5.1E‐06
7.0E‐07
2.6E‐06
37 Non‐Veg Food Waste 1.3E+00 5.9E‐02 2.9E‐02 3.0E‐02 5.1E‐01 2.0E‐02 7.6E‐04 4.4E‐04 5.9E‐05 9.2E‐05 4.0E‐05 1.8E‐02 2.6E‐05 2.3E‐04 2.2E‐04 1.5E‐03 1.2E‐02 6.1E‐05 6.5E‐02 5.5E‐05 1.5E‐09 2.2E‐04 1.1E‐06 2.5E‐09 6.3E‐05 3.3E‐05 4.6E‐06 1.8E‐05 Wood 2.8E‐01
7.7E‐03
2.6E‐03
2.0E‐03
4.8E‐02
1.8E‐03
1.2E‐04
2.6E‐05
3.4E‐06
6.6E‐06
2.1E‐06
1.4E‐03
1.9E‐06
1.6E‐05
1.4E‐05
1.0E‐04
2.7E‐03
1.3E‐05
1.3E‐02
1.1E‐05
7.8E‐11
1.2E‐05
7.6E‐08
1.5E‐10
1.1E‐05
5.9E‐06
7.3E‐07
2.1E‐06
Textiles 1.2E+00
4.1E‐02
1.7E‐02
1.5E‐02
2.6E‐01
1.2E‐02
5.7E‐04
2.2E‐04
2.9E‐05
4.9E‐05
1.9E‐05
9.7E‐03
1.4E‐05
1.2E‐04
1.1E‐04
7.8E‐04
1.2E‐02
5.6E‐05
5.9E‐02
4.9E‐05
7.1E‐10
1.1E‐04
5.7E‐07
1.2E‐09
5.1E‐05
2.7E‐05
3.5E‐06
1.2E‐05
Misc. Organic 3.2E‐01
1.2E‐02
5.9E‐03
5.8E‐03
1.2E‐01
4.1E‐03
1.7E‐04
8.3E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.8E‐05
7.3E‐06
3.6E‐03
5.0E‐06
4.3E‐05
4.2E‐05
2.9E‐04
3.0E‐03
1.5E‐05
1.4E‐02
1.3E‐05
2.7E‐10
4.1E‐05
2.1E‐07
4.6E‐10
1.4E‐05
7.6E‐06
1.0E‐06
3.8E‐06
Table 26 (part 2/2). Waterborne offset emissions associated with avoided fertilizer use (kg/Mg incoming). Dissolved Solids Suspended Solids BOD COD Sulfate Iron Ammonia Copper Cadmium Arsenic Mercury Phosphate Selenium Chromium Lead Zinc Barium Silver Nitrate Benzene Chloroform Ethylene dichloride Methylene chloride Vinyl chloride Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene Hydrocarbons unspecified Newsprint 4.0E‐02 1.3E‐03 5.7E‐04 5.2E‐04 1.3E‐02 3.9E‐04 1.9E‐05 7.1E‐06 9.3E‐07 1.6E‐06 6.1E‐07 3.3E‐04 4.5E‐07 3.8E‐06 3.6E‐06 2.6E‐05 3.8E‐04 1.9E‐06 1.7E‐03 1.6E‐06 2.3E‐11 3.4E‐06 1.9E‐08 4.0E‐11 1.7E‐06 9.0E‐07 1.2E‐07 3.9E‐07 Corr. Cardboard 3.7E‐02
1.5E‐03
7.4E‐04
7.4E‐04
1.4E‐02
5.1E‐04
2.0E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.4E‐06
2.3E‐06
9.5E‐07
4.5E‐04
6.3E‐07
5.5E‐06
5.4E‐06
3.8E‐05
3.5E‐04
1.7E‐06
1.7E‐03
1.5E‐06
3.5E‐11
5.3E‐06
2.7E‐08
6.0E‐11
1.7E‐06
9.0E‐07
1.2E‐07
4.7E‐07
Office Paper 3.7E‐02
1.1E‐03
3.7E‐04
3.0E‐04
5.9E‐03
2.6E‐04
1.6E‐05
4.0E‐06
5.3E‐07
9.8E‐07
3.3E‐07
2.0E‐04
2.7E‐07
2.4E‐06
2.1E‐06
1.5E‐05
3.6E‐04
1.7E‐06
1.8E‐03
1.5E‐06
1.2E‐11
1.8E‐06
1.1E‐08
2.3E‐11
1.5E‐06
7.8E‐07
9.8E‐08
2.9E‐07
Magazines 4.4E‐02
2.1E‐03
1.1E‐03
1.2E‐03
2.3E‐02
7.8E‐04
2.7E‐05
1.7E‐05
2.3E‐06
3.5E‐06
1.5E‐06
7.1E‐04
9.8E‐07
8.5E‐06
8.5E‐06
5.9E‐05
4.1E‐04
2.1E‐06
2.0E‐03
1.9E‐06
5.6E‐11
8.5E‐06
4.3E‐08
9.5E‐11
2.2E‐06
1.2E‐06
1.7E‐07
6.7E‐07
38 3rd Class Mail 1.2E‐01 3.5E‐03 1.3E‐03 1.1E‐03 2.5E‐02 9.1E‐04 5.1E‐05 1.5E‐05 2.0E‐06 3.6E‐06 1.3E‐06 7.3E‐04 1.0E‐06 8.6E‐06 7.9E‐06 5.6E‐05 1.1E‐03 5.4E‐06 5.3E‐03 4.6E‐06 4.8E‐11 7.1E‐06 4.2E‐08 8.7E‐11 4.7E‐06 2.5E‐06 3.2E‐07 9.8E‐07 Folding Containers/
Paper Bags 6.4E‐02
2.1E‐03
8.5E‐04
7.6E‐04
1.5E‐02
5.8E‐04
3.0E‐05
1.1E‐05
1.4E‐06
2.4E‐06
9.2E‐07
4.8E‐04
6.7E‐07
5.8E‐06
5.5E‐06
3.8E‐05
6.2E‐04
3.0E‐06
3.1E‐03
2.6E‐06
3.4E‐11
5.1E‐06
2.8E‐08
6.0E‐11
2.7E‐06
1.4E‐06
1.9E‐07
6.0E‐07
Paper ‐ Non‐
recyclable 1.4E‐01
6.0E‐03
2.9E‐03
2.9E‐03
5.3E‐02
2.0E‐03
7.9E‐05
4.2E‐05
5.6E‐06
8.9E‐06
3.8E‐06
1.8E‐03
2.5E‐06
2.2E‐05
2.1E‐05
1.5E‐04
1.4E‐03
6.7E‐06
6.9E‐03
6.0E‐06
1.4E‐10
2.1E‐05
1.1E‐07
2.3E‐10
6.7E‐06
3.5E‐06
4.8E‐07
1.8E‐06
Inert 0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Table 27 and 28 show the capital and operating costs, respectively, for the AD facility. Table 27. Capital costs associated with AD ($/Mgpy) Installed project cost (IPC) Total plant cost (TPC) Total land cost Total capital costs 208.75
281.81
2.48
284.29
Table 28 (part 1/2). Operating costs from AD. (kg/Mg incoming). Costs Leaves Grass
Branches
AD variable O&M Total equipment Cost Manager/engineer cost Laborer/admin cost Overhead Leachate treatment Wood chips Diesel Revenue 1.49 27.06 1.40 1.41 0.28 6.41 0.76 18.46 Leaves 1.49
20.81
1.40
1.41
0.28
2.03
0.15
3.77
Grass
1.49
29.63
1.40
1.41
0.28
8.21
1.02
24.48
Branches
4.39 22.52 30.38 3.51
3.92
23.90
4.59
30.08
33.24
Net electricity sales Product sales Total Cost Veg. Food Waste 1.49
19.81
1.40
1.41
0.28
2.90
0.05
1.40
Veg. Food Waste 13.10
1.68
13.95
39 Non‐Veg Food Waste 1.49 20.21 1.40 1.41 0.28 5.40 0.09 2.36 Non‐Veg Food Waste 26.79 3.14 2.72 Wood
Textiles
1.49
30.87
1.40
1.41
0.28
7.94
1.14
27.41
Wood
1.49
31.69
1.40
1.41
0.28
8.99
1.22
29.32
Textiles
‐4.19
33.27
42.86
0.88
37.74
37.17
Misc. Organic 1.49
27.91
1.40
1.41
0.28
7.10
0.84
20.39
Misc. Organic 5.09
30.65
25.09
Table 28 (part 2/2). Operating costs from AD. (kg/Mg incoming). Costs AD variable O&M Total equipment Cost Manager/engineer cost Laborer/admin cost Overhead Leachate treatment Wood chips Diesel Revenue Net electricity sales Product sales Total Cost Newsprint 1.49 30.52 1.40 1.41 0.28 8.38 1.10 26.58 Newsprint 1.97 33.30 35.90 Corr. Cardboard Office Paper 1.49
1.49
28.39
28.25
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
0.28
0.28
8.39
9.38
0.89
0.88
21.55
21.23
Corr. Office Paper
Cardboard 10.77
27.55
25.48
17.14
27.79
19.39
Magazines 1.49
29.77
1.40
1.41
0.28
9.37
1.03
24.78
Magazines
11.25
32.90
25.38
40 Folding Containers/Paper 3rd Class Mail Bags 1.49
1.49
27.25
27.76
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
0.28
0.28
9.59
7.81
0.78
0.83
18.88
20.09
3rd Class Mail
Folding Containers/Paper Bags 22.91
9.89
25.32
25.63
12.86
25.57
Paper ‐
Non‐
recyclable 1.49
25.91
1.40
1.41
0.28
7.86
0.65
15.73
Paper ‐
Non‐
recyclable 18.02
19.80
16.90
Inert 1.49
20.58
1.40
1.41
0.28
0.84
0.12
3.22
Inert ‐5.82
4.20
30.95
References
Arsova, L. (2010). Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Current status, problems and an alternative product. Master’s Thesis, New York, NY: Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf Beck‐Friis, B., Smars, S., Jonsson, H., and Kirchmann, H., (2001) Gaseous emissions of carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrous oxide from organic household waste in a compost reactor under different temperature regimes. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 78(4), p 423‐430. Berglund, M. & Börjesson, P. (2006) Assessment of energy performance in the life‐cycle of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30,254–
266. Boldrin, A.; Andersen, J.K.; Moller, J.; Christensen, T.H.; Favoino, E. (2009) Composting and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions Waste Manage. Res., 27 (8), 800‐812. Boldrin, A., Hartling, K.R., Laugen, M., and Christensen, T.H. (2010) Environmental inventory modelling of the use of compost and peat in growth media preparation Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(12), 1250‐1260. Browne J.D., Murphy J.D., 2013. Assessment of the resource associated with biomethane from food waste, Applied Energy 104 (2013) 170–177. Bruun, S., Hansen, T.L., Christensen, T.H., Magid, J. & Jensen, L.S. (2006) Application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land: a scenario analysis. Environmnetal Modeling and Assessment, 11, 251‐265. Cadena, E., Colon, J., Sanchez, A., Font, X., and Artola, A. (2009) A methodology to determine gaseous emissions in a composting plant. Waste Management, 29(11) p. 2799‐2807. De la Cruz, F.B.; Barlaz, M.A. (2010) Estimation of waste component‐specific landfill decay rates using laboratory‐scale decomposition data. Environ. Sci. Technol, 44 (12), 4722‐4728. Davidsson Å., Gruvberger C., Christensen T.H., Hansen T.L., Jansen J.l.C., (2007). Methane yield in source‐sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Waste Management 27, pp. 406 – 414. Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste, (2008) East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA, http://www.epa.gov/region9/organics/ad/EBMUDFinalReport.pdf 41 EcoInvent v2.2 (2013), Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. Eleazer, W. E.; Odle, W. S.; Wang, Y.; Barlaz, M. A. Biodegradability of Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory‐Scale Landfills. (1997), 31, 911–917. ERG (2011). Final Background Information Document for Life‐Cycle Inventory Landfill Process Model. Eastern Research Group, Chantilly, VA. Hansen, T.L., Bhander, G.S., Christensen, T.H., Bruun, S. & Jensen, L.S. (2006) Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Management & Research, 24, 153‐166. Heo, N.H., Park, S.C., Kang, H., (2004). Effects of mixture ratio and hydraulic retention time on single‐stage anaerobic co‐digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health A39 (7), 1739–1756. Karellas, Sotirios. (2010). Development of an investment decision tool for biogas production from agricultural waste, Renew Sust Energ Rev, 14(4), 1273‐1282. Keener, H. M., C. Marugg, R. C. Hansen and H. A. J. Hoitink. (1993). Optimizing the efficiency of the composting process. In Science and Engineering of Composting: Design,Environmental, Microbiological, and Utilization Aspects,pp. 59‐94. Worthington, Ohio: Renaissance Publications. Komilis, D. P.; Ham, R. K. (2004). Life‐Cycle Inventory of Municipal Solid Waste and Yard Waste Windrow Composting in the United States. J. Env Eng, 130(11), 1390–1400. Lassaux, S.; Renzoni, R.; Germain, A. (2007) LCA Case Studies Life Cycle Assessment of Water from the Pumping Station to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 12, 118–126. Levis, J. W.; Barlaz, M. A. (2011). What is the most environmentally beneficially way to treat commercial food waste? Environ. Sci. Technol, 45 (17), 7438‐7444. Mohan S, Bindu BK. (2008). Effect of phase separation on anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. NRC Research Press, jees.nrc.ca; Feb. 19, 2008. Nielsen, M. and Illerup, J.B. (2006): Danish emission inventories for stationary combustion plants. Inventories until year 2003. Research Notes NERI No. 229. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark. 42 NRAES (1998) Composting for municipalities: Planning and Design Considerations; Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service: Ithaca, New York, 1998. Nunnally, S.W. (2007) Construction Methods and Management. 7th Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Columbus, OH. Riber, C., Petersen, C. and Christensen, T.H. (2009): Chemical composition of material fractions in Danish household waste. Waste Manage., 29, 1251–1257. Rodriguez‐Garcia, G.; Molinos‐Senante, M.; Hospido, a; Hernández‐Sancho, F.; Moreira, M. T.; Feijoo, G. (2011). Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water research, 45, 5997–6010. Qiao W., Yan X., Ye J., Sun Y., Wang W., Zhang Z., (2011). Evaluation of biogas production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal pretreatment, Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3313‐3318. Sanscartier, D.; Maclean, H. L.; Saville, B. (2012). Electricity production from anaerobic digestion of household organic waste in Ontario: techno‐
economic and GHG emission analyses. Environ Sci Technol, 46, 1233–42. Schmidt. S., Welker. A, and Schmidt. T G. (2001): Vergleichende Untersuchung der Stoffstrome bei der Vergarung von Bio‐ und Restabfall. (Comparative assessment of mass !lows related to fermentation of organic waste. in German). Mull und Abfall. 33. 456‐460. Staley, B. F.; Xu, F.; Cowie, S. J.; Barlaz, M. A; Hater, G. R. (2006) Release of trace organic compounds during the decomposition of municipal solid waste components. Environ Sci Technol, 40, 5984–91. Trzcinski A.P. and Stuckey D.C., (2012). Determination of the Hydrolysis Constant in the Biochemical Methane Potential Test of Municipal Solid Waste, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE, Volume 29, Number 9. Tsilemou, K., Panagiotakopoulos, D., (2006) Approximate cost functions for solid waste treatment facilities. Waste Manage Res, 24, 310–322. U.S. EPA (2008) AP‐42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal. 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Draft Section, October. URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf Link accessed: 05‐07‐2013. U.S. EPA (2006) Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life‐Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf Date accessed: 06‐02‐2010. 43 U.S. EPA (2013). Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:2011 Facts and Figures; EPA 530‐R‐13‐001; U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste: Washington, DC, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2003). Agricultural chemical usage 2002 field crops summary, USDA: (Ag. Ch 1(03)), Washington, D.C. Wang, X.; Padgett, J. M.; Cruz, F. B. De; Barlaz, M. A. (2011) Wood Biodegradation in Laboratory‐Scale Landfills. Environ Sci Technol, 29(4) 6864–
6871. Zhang Y., Banks C.J., Heaven S., (2012). Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal waste streams, Journal of Environmental Management 104 (2012) 166‐174. Zhang, R.; El‐Mashad, H. M.; Hartman, K.; Wang, F.; Liu, G.; Choate, C.; Gamble, P. (2007) Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource technology, 98, 929–35. 44