V5 ch2 SWTD 0215

1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Draft First-order Draft Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005
CHAPTER 2
2 3 4 5
SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND 7DISPOSAL

6 8 9Add following contributing authors to the list of authors: 10Kim Pingoud (Finland), Gunnar Thorsen (Norway), Fabian Wagner (Germany)
5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
2.1
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1SOLID 22.1 3
WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

INTRODUCTION
4Treatment and disposal of municipal, industrial and other solid wastes can produce emissions of most of the 5important greenhouse gases (GHG). Solid wastes can be recycled, treated, disposed at landfills, incinerated or 6combusted with and without energy recovery. Incineration of solid waste can reduce not only its mass and 7volume, but also biodegradable waste fraction or emission potential at SWDS. Biodegradable waste fractions can 8also be composted, or digested at biogas facilities. Mechanical-biological pre-treatment (MB treatment) of solid 9waste is a series of mechanical and biological operations with the aim to reduce the amount of waste to be 10disposed as much as possible, and to produce a stable product with a very small emission potential when 11disposed at SWDS. MB treatment can also be used to separate fraction with high heating values for waste-to12energy application. Fraction with high heating values, recyclable resources including biomass, and/or inert 13fraction in solid waste can be also separated at the point of generation (i.e. before collection. National solid 14waste management will include combinations of the options for collection, treatment and disposal. The waste 15management options chosen in different countries will differ much; even within countries waste management in 16different regions may have significant differences. 17This Chapter addresses emissions resulting from solid waste disposal at landfills and biological treatment of 18solid wastes. Waste incineration including open burning of waste is addressed in Chapter 4 of this Volume. 19Greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy, where waste material is used directly as fuel or converted into 20a fuel, should be calculated and reported under the Energy Sector, but the guidance given in Chapter 4 is valid 21for both waste burning with and without energy recovery. Wastewater treatment is addressed in Chapter 3. 22Choice and collection of data on waste generation, composition and management is the starting for the 23estimation of emissions from solid waste treatment and disposal (including waste incineration and open 24burning). Guidance on this is given in Section 2.2. More detailed guidance on choice of activity data and 25emission factors and other parameter needed to make the emission estimates is given under the sections 26addressing the specific waste management options.
27The most important gas produced in solid waste disposal sites (SWDSs) is methane (CH 4). Approximately 5-20 29anthropogenic CH4 produced and released into the atmosphere is a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of
30waste at SWDSs. In many industrialised countries waste management has undergone large changes during the 31last decade. Waste minimisation and recycling/reuse polices have aimed at reducing the amount of waste 32generated. Alternative waste management practices to solid waste disposal on land have been implemented 33increasingly to reduce environmental impacts of waste management. Landfill gas recovery has become more 34frequent as a measure to reduce methane emissions from SWDSs. As result the CH4 emissions from SWDS in 35industrialised countries have decreased substantially since 1990. According to Annex I inventories submitted to 36the UNFCCC in 2004 this decrease has been on average about 30 percent during 1990 - 2002 (UNFCCC 2004). 37In addition to CH4, SWDSs can also produce CO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) as 38well as smaller amounts of N2O, NOx and CO. Decomposition of organic material derived from biomass sources 39(e.g., crops, forests) is the primary source of CO2 released from waste. Hence, these CO2 emissions are not 40treated as net emissions from waste in the IPCC Methodology (link to Energy and AFOLU?). Methodologies for 41NMVOCs, NOx and CO are covered in guidelines under other conventions such as the UNECE Convention on 42Long-Range Transportation of Air Pollutants (CLRTAP). Links to these methodologies are provided in Section 432.x. No methodology is provided for N2O emissions from SWDSs due to their small significance at this time. 44The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1995) and the IPCC Good 45Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000) gave two 46methods to estimate the CH4 emissions from SWDSs: the mass balance method (Tier 1) and the First Order 47Decay (FOD) method (Tier 2). In this Volume, the use of the mass balance method is strongly discouraged as it 48produces results that are not comparable with the more accurate FOD method. To facilitate the use of the FOD 49method a Tier 1 method including a simple spreadsheet model with step-by-step guidance and improved default 50data has been provided. Also the guidance on the Tier 2 FOD method has been improved. 51The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1995) and the IPCC Good 52Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000) did not include 53methodologies to estimate GHG emissions from biological treatment of solid waste. The CH 4 and N2O emissions 28per cent (IPCC, 1992) (figures to be updated based on TAR or other more recent literature) of annual global
42.2
Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2 3 Draft First-order Draft 4 Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 1from composting and anaerobic digestion are usually small, often negligible. However, a poorly managed 2compost can produce both CH4 and N2O, and fugitive CH4 emissions from biogas facilities are possible. Basic 3methodologies how to estimate these emissions are given in Section 2.y. Some countries have already included 4estimates of the emissions from these treatment technologies in their inventories.
2.3
12.2 2 32.2.1 4
DATA COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Solid waste generation and management practises/technologies
5Solid waste generation is the common basis for activity data for estimating emissions from solid waste treatment 6and disposal. Solid waste generation rate and composition vary from country to country by their economic 7situation, industrial structure, waste management regulations and life style. The availability and quality of data 8on solid waste generation as well as subsequent treatment varies also much from country to country. Statistics on 9waste generation and treatment have improved substantially in many countries during the last decade, but there 10are still few countries with good waste data covering all waste types and treatment techniques. Historical data on 11waste disposal at SWDSs is needed to estimate the CH 4 emissions from this source (see Section 2.3.1.1). Very 12few countries, if any, have data on historical waste disposal going back several decades. 13Solid waste is generated from households, offices, shops, markets, restaurants, public institutions, industrial 14installations, water works and sewage facilities, construction and demolition sites, and agricultural activities 15(emissions from manure management as well as on-site burning of agricultural residues are treated in the 16Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector). It is good practice to estimate emissions from all 17types of solid waste in the GHG inventory. Solid waste management practices include, as mentioned in the 18introduction, collection and transportation, recycling, solid waste disposal on land, biological and other treatment 19as well as waste incineration and open burning of waste. Recycling activity will affect the greenhouse gas 20emissions from many sources. Emissions from waste treatment and disposal are decreased when smaller 21amounts of waste entering the systems by recycling. Emissions from production processes are usually also 22decreased due to resource saving, where as emissions from e.g. separation, purification and transportation for 23recycling can be added. The changes in emissions due to recycling are by large covered by existing inventory 24system and will not be addressed here in more detail. Treatments, other than biological and thermal treatment, 25for mass and volume reduction (e.g. crushing, sorting, dehydration, and drying) and for detoxification (e.g. 26neutralization and solidification) of waste are other options for management and can also change mass and 27composition of waste, and GHGs emission at subsequent waste management practices. It is good practice to 28estimate GHGs emissions using mass and composition of waste actually entering sources of emission. 29Estimation of emissions from solid waste disposal on land is addressed in Section 2.3 and emissions from 30biological treatment in Section 2.4 of this Chapter. Guidance for estimation of emissions from waste incineration 31and open burning of waste can be found in Chapter 4 of this Volume. When waste is burned for energy, the 32emissions should be reported in the Energy Sector. Emissions from treatment and disposal of animal waste and 33burning of agricultural residues on-site are included in the AFOLU Sector. 34Guidance how to collect data on waste generation and management practices is given separately for MSW and 35industrial waste. 36MSW 37Municipal waste is generally defined as waste collected by municipalities or other local authorities. This 38definition, however, varies by country. Typically the different waste types that are included in MSW are: 39 40 41
1. 2. 3.
Household Waste; Yard/Garden Waste; and Commercial/Market Waste
42Sludge from domestic wastewater treatment plants is also included in MSW in many countries. However, in 43some countries, e.g. Japan, all sludge is included in industrial waste. 44Different methods to collect data on waste generation and treatment are provided below. The method will 45depend on the availability of data and resources in the country. 46Tier 1: The simplest approach to estimate solid waste generation and to identify management practices is to use 47the region and/or country specific default data provided in the Table 2.1. The default data are generally given 48only for one or a few years. Waste generation per capita for subsequent or earlier year can be estimated using 49GDP (gross domestic product) or some other economical indicator as a driver (guidance how to estimate 50historical on waste disposal at SWDSs is given Section 2.3.1.1, methods for extrapolation and interpolation
42.4
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2 3 Draft First-order Draft 4 Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 1using drivers are given in Volume 1, pp. xx yy). Large countries with regional difference in waste generation 2and treatment are encouraged to use regional data as the starting point. Table 2.1 provides however very limited 3default data by regions with a country. 4Countries, for which no default data are given in Table 2.1, are encouraged to use data from countries with 5similar circumstances (cluster or individual countries). 6 7Table 2.1. (insert here) 8Tier 2: It is good practice that countries with data on country-specific waste generation, waste composition as 9well as management practices use these as the basis for their estimates. If the data covers only certain waste 10types/sources (e.g. municipal waste), this should be documented clearly in the inventory report and efforts made 11to complement the data to cover all waste types. 12Country-specific data on waste generation and management practices can be obtained from waste statistics, 13surveys (municipal or other relevant administration, waste management companies, waste association 14organisations, other) and research projects (World Bank, OECD, ADB, NGO, JICA, USEPA, IIASA, EEA, etc). 15Large countries with regional differences in waste generation and treatment are encouraged to use regional data. 16Additional guidance on data collection is given in Volume 1, pp. xx - yy. 17Tier 3: Waste treatment techniques are often applied in a chain or in parallel. Approaches following the streams 18of waste from one treatment to another taking the changes in composition and other parameters affecting the 19emissions are likely to produce the most accurate estimates on emissions from solid waste treatment. The data 20needs for this approach may be substantial and very often the approach is complemented with modelling. 21An example of the applying the approach for activity data collection for SWDS is given in Box 2.1) Using this 22approach following all waste streams in the country would provide activity data for all solid waste treatment 23(including waste incineration and open burning of waste). 24Industrial waste 25In some countries, significant quantities of organic industrial solid waste are generated. The default values 26provided in Table 2.1 do not generally include industrial solid waste. Industrial waste generation and their 27properties depend on the type of industry and processes/technologies in the concerned country. Industrial waste 28can also be categorised differently in different countries, e.g., construction and demolition waste can be included 29in industrial waste, be categorized as a separate category, type or be included in MSW. In many countries 30industrial solid waste are managed as a specific stream and the waste amounts are not covered by the waste 31statistics. OECD (see e.g., OECD 2002) collects statistical data on industrial waste generation and treatment. 32These statistics are published only periodically. In most of the developing countries industrial wastes are 33included in the municipal solid waste stream, and industrial waste data may be difficult to identify. 34Industrial solid waste disposal data may be obtained by surveys or from national statistics. Industrial wastes 35contain usually larger fractions of inert material than MSW. Construction waste is mainly inert (concrete, rubble 36etc) but may contain some DOC in wood. Only those industrial wastes which are expected to contain DOC 37(degradable organic carbon see Section xxx) and fossil carbon should be considered. Recycling and reduction 38using different technologies applied to industrial waste prior to disposal in SWDSs should be taken into account, 39where data is available. Industrial waste generation in some of countries is given in Table 2.2. Although 40significant amount of industrial waste are generated, and also that the rates of recycling/reuse are often high, and 41the fraction disposed at solid waste disposal sites is often less than that of MSW. 42
2.5

1 2 3
BOX 2.1 AN EXAMPLE OF ACTIVITY DATA COLLECTION FOR ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE TREATMENT BASED
ON WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS BY WASTE TYPE
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Waste streams begin at the point of generation, flow through collection and transportation, separation for resource recovery, treatment for volume reduction, detoxification, stabilisation, recycling and/or energy recovery and terminate at SWDS. Waste streams are country-specific. Traditionally most of solid waste has been disposed at SWDSs in many countries. Recent growing recognition of the necessity to resource conservation and environmental protection has increased solid waste recycling and treatment before disposal in developed countries. In developing countries, recovery of valuable material at collection, during transportation and at SWDSs has been common. Degradable organic carbon (DOC) is the main parameters affecting the CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal. DOC is estimated based on the waste composition and varies for different waste fractions. Accurate estimates on the amount of waste and DOC disposed at SWDS could be achieved by specifying the waste stream for each waste type and/or source. Intermediate processes in the waste stream can significantly change physical and chemical properties of waste, including moisture and DOC contents. The fraction of DOC in waste at SWDS will considerably differ from that at generation depending on the treatment before the disposal. For countries, that do not have reliable data based on measurements on DOC disposed at SWDS, the analysis on the change in moisture and DOC during earlier treatment for each waste type, could provide a method to avoid over-/underestimating the CH4 emission at SWDSs. The figure above shows an example of a waste flow chart for analysis of change in DOC in waste during the treatment before disposal. The DOC in paper waste is reduced by resource recovery, composting, incineration, and drying during transportation before disposal at the SWDS. The estimates are based on expert judgement.
STREAM A (composting) (total 100 >> 78 ton) Paper Waste GENERATION (total 1000 ton) (Mois. 200 ton) (DOC 400 ton) RESOURCE RECOVERY (total 500 ton) (Mois. 100 ton) (DOC 200 ton) (Mois. 20 >> 30 ton) (DOC 40 >>8 ton) STREAM B (incineration) (total 200 >> 20 ton) (Mois. 20 >> 5 ton) (DOC 40 >>0 ton) STREAM C (direct landfilling) (total 200 >> 195 ton) (Mois. 20 >> 15 ton) (DOC 40 >> 40 ton) SWDS (total 293 ton) (Mois. 50 ton) (DOC 48 ton)
42.6
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
To apply this approach national statistics on municipal and industrial waste generation and treatment streams, country-specific parameters on waste composition and fraction moisture as well as DOC estimates for each waste type are needed for precise estimation. It may be difficult to obtain all these data and parameters in many countries.
9Table 2.2 Industrial Waste Generation ( 1,000 tonnes per year) in some countries 10
Region/ Country
Total
Manufacturing Industries
Water Construction Other1 Purification and Distribution
References
Asia China Japan Singapore South Korea Europe Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Latvia Netherlands Israel Norway Poland Portugal Slovak 1000 3,550 58,980 12,800 4,340 480 1,910 1,540 140 60 70 4,970 760 550 3375 9,780 100 16,100 3,050 1000 22,990 9,510 20,590 7,190 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 1261.5 15,281 101,000 47,960 6,680 2.030 10 5,110 40 2,700 3,930 231,000 1,800 80 10 50 150 1,420 NR 13,780 9,110 2,950 2,330 130 1,440 1,480 4,840 3,220 2,840 1,120 27,500 14,300 2 2 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1423.5 39,810 NR 28,750 1,00,4280 120,050 7,910 76,240 78,590 1 2 3 2
2.7
Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK Oceania Australia New Zealand

2References: 31. 42. 5 63. 74. 85. 96.
29,240 19,780 1,470 12,840 50,000 37,040 1,750
540 200 42,000 NR NR 6,390 72,000 10 NR 25,000 NR NR
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11 Other waste exclude waste from Agriculture, Forestry, Mining & quarrying and energy production.
Environmental Statistics Yearbook of China (2003) OECD (2002): Part I. The State of Environment, 5. Waste, In OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2002, http://www.oecd.org/ National environmental agency, Singapore (2001) Estonian Environment Information Centre, 2003. Statistics Finland (2004) Latvia Government, 2001, : www.lva.gov.lv
10Need full references 11Other waste 12Some clinical waste from health care facilities may be disposed in SWDSs. These wastes, including materials 13like animal tissues, bandages, cloths, etc., contribute to the overall emissions of CH4 from SWDSs. Depending 14on the country, these may or may not be included in the MSW. 15Agricultural waste (manure management, burning of agricultural residues) is reported in the AFOLU Sector. 16Some agricultural waste may however be included in MSW or industrial waste.
172.2.2
Waste composition
18Waste composition is one of the main factors influencing emissions from solid waste treatment, as different 19waste types contain different amount of degradable organic carbon. Municipal solid waste (MSW) typically 20contains significant quantities of degradable organic carbon. Different regions and countries are known to have 21MSW with widely differing waste composition. 22MSW can include following waste types: 23(1) 24(2) 25(3) 26(4) 27(5) 28(6) 29(7) 30(8) 31(9) 32(10) 33(11) 34(12)
Paper Textiles Food Waste Wood Straw and Bamboo Garden Waste Disposable napkins (diapers, Am eng) Sludge Leather Plastics Rubbers Metals
42.8
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4 1(13) Glass 2(14) 3(15)
Ash (from cooking and/or heating fuel such as cokes, briquettes or woods) Other (e.g., dirt, dust, electronic waste)
4Waste types from (1) to (8) contain most degradable organic carbon (DOC) in MSW. Ash, dust and rubber 5(natural) contains also small amounts of carbon, but this is typically not degradable. Some textiles, plastics, 6disposable napkins, rubber and electronic waste contain the bulk part of fossil carbon in MSW. Paper (coatings) 7and leather (synthetic) can also include small amounts of fossil carbon. 8Regional and country-specific default data on waste composition in MSW is given in Table 2.3. 9(Insert Table 2.3 here) 10 11 12Default values for DOC content in different waste types is given Table 2.4. The default values in Table 2.4 are 13based on estimates on the DOC content of pure waste fractions. DOC values derived from analyses based on 14sampling during waste collection, at SWDSs or at incineration facilities, are applicable for waste types including 15impurities, e.g. traces of food in glass and plastic waste are included in the DOC values for glass and waste. An 16example of DOC content in waste types based on these kind of analyses is given in Chapter 4, Section 4.x. It is 17good practice to use DOC values consistently with the way the waste composition data is derived.
18 19 20
TABLE 2.4. MSW, DOC 1, FOSSIL C (INCLUDE ALSO AVERGE DRYMATTER CONTENT AND DOC BY DRY WEIGHT
Waste type
Dry matter fraction in % of wet weight3 Default 90 % 80 % 40 % 60 % 60 % 35 % 100 % 100 % 10 %
DOC (fraction in wet waste) min 0,40 0,24 0,15 0,3 0,3 0,17 0 0 0,045 0,04 0,05 0,2
range DOC (fraction in dry waste) max 0,44 0,30 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,49 0 0 0,45 0,4 min 0,40 0,25 0,2 0,46 0,46 0,45
range Fossil C (fraction in dry waste) max 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,54 0,54 0,55 0 0,2 0 0 0 0 0,75 0 min
range
max 0,5
Paper / card board Textiles Wood Straw and Bamboo Garden / Park waste Plastics Other, inert waste Sludge (from domestic/municipal wastewater treatment)
2
0,36 0,45 0,08 0,20 0,28 0,32 0,28 0,32 0,16 0,19
Food waste
0,67 0,85
0.4 0.5
21 DOC includes lignin which is degradable under aerobic conditions, not under anaerobic. 222 40 per cent of textile are assumed to synthetic (default. In some countries leather is included is this category.
233 Moisture content of each waste type should also be varied by moisture of co-existing waste and weather during 24handling. 25Many of the above waste types are also found in industrial waste. The composition of industrial waste is 26however very different from MSW and varies by country. 27The best composition data for waste disposed at SWDS can be obtained by routine monitoring at the gate of 28SWDS. If this data would not be available, composition data obtained at generation and/or transportation, 29treatment and recycling facilities can be used for disposed DOC estimations using waste stream analysis (see 30Box 2.1).
51
2.9
1Waste can be sampled at pits in waste treatment facilities, at loading yards in transportation stations and SWDSs. 2Composition data disposed waste can be obtained from field sampling at SWDSs. The amount of waste 3(typically more than 1 m3 for a representative sample) should be separated manually and each item weighed in 4order to obtain wet weight composition. A certain amount of each item is reduced and sampled by quartering and 5is used for chemical analysis including moisture and DOC. 6Analyses to determine the national waste composition should be based on appropriate sampling methods (link to 7CC volume on data collection) and be repeated periodically to cover changes in waste generation and 8management. 9MSW composition will vary significantly city by city in a same country. It will also vary by a day of the week, 10season and year in the same city. National representative (or average) composition data should be obtained from 11sampling at several typical cities on same day of the week in each season. Sampling on rainy day will change 12moisture content (i.e. wet weight composition) significantly, and needs attention in interpretation of that in 13annual data. 14
152.3 162.3.1 17 2.3.1.1

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Methodological Issues

C H OIC E
OF METH OD
18The methods available for estimating emissions of methane from solid waste disposal sites are:
1.
Mass balance method. This assumes that all the waste deposited in a certain year releases all of its methane in that same year. In reality, the methane will be emitted over a much longer period of tens of years. In previous versions of the IPCC guidance, this was the default (Tier 1) method. However, it is no longer considered suitable, as it will not give a good estimate of current emissions in cases where waste disposal rates vary over time, and it has been replaced with the First Order Decay method (see below). First order decay method (Tier 1 and 2). This assumes that the carbon in waste decays to methane following a first-order decay reaction, where the rate of methane production depends on the amount of carbon remaining in the waste. This means that emissions of methane from waste deposited in a disposal site are highest in the first few years after deposition, and then gradually decline as the degradable carbon in the waste is used up. With a typical decay rate, it can take around 50 years for emissions of methane to decline to insignificant levels. Therefore the first order decay method requires data to be collected or estimated for historic disposals of waste over the last 50 years. The IPCC can now provide guidance on how to estimate historic waste disposal data (section xxx), default data is for all the parameters of the first order decay model, and a simple spreadsheet model to assist countries to use the first order decay method. It is now good practice for all countries to use the first order decay method. When used mainly with IPCC default data, this is the Tier 1 method. When used with national data, or a mix of national and default data, this is the Tier 2 method. Direct physical measurements of methane (Tier 3). Methane emissions from disposal sites can be measured using various techniques. These techniques are subject to a number of uncertainties, but if sufficient good quality measurements from representative sites are available, they can be scaled up to national level. Few countries are expected to have sufficient high quality data for a Tier 3 approach. Complex site-specific models A number of these exist to simulate the movement of methane and other gases through individual disposal sites. However, these models cannot be applied to site populations and therefore are not considered further here.
2.
3.
4.
44The decision tree for choosing the method to use is shown below. If good quality site-specific emission data is 45available for a representative selection of sites, a Tier 3 method can be used. Otherwise, the first order decay 46method should be used. 47The Tier 1 First Order Decay method is described in section 2.3.1.2, below. Two versions of the spreadsheet 48model have been developed: Tier 1a, with decay parameters based on waste composition (paper, food etc) and 49Tier 1b, with parameters based on different types of disposal site (managed, unmanaged, deep and shallow).
42.10
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2 3 Draft First-order Draft 4 Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 1These are described in more detail below. Countries may choose whether to apply the Tier 1a or Tier 1b 2methods depending on the level of data available. If national data is used, these two methods become Tier 2a 3and Tier 2b (see Section 2.3.1.3).
2.11
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1
2 Figure 2.1 Decision Tree for CH 4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
START
Box 3: Tier 3 Are direct measurements of CH4 emissions from SWDS available? YES Use as basis for a Tier 3 method 4
NO
YES Is current data on waste disposal to SWDS available? Is this a key source category?1 NO Use default data Collect data
NO
Box 2: Tier 2 Is historical data on waste disposal to SWDS available? YES Are key2 country specific data available? YES Calculate emissions using FOD with country specific data. Either Tier 2a or Tier 2b can be used.
NO
Box 1: Tier 1 NO Calculate emissions using FOD with default data3. Either Tier 1a or Tier 1b can be used.
Estimate historical data
42.12

1NOTES:
21. The concept of key categories is explained in Volume 1, Section XXXXX (Identification of Key Categories). A significant 3sub-category is one that makes up more than 25-30% of emissions/removals from a category 42. Key data comprises both country-specific data on waste disposed to landfill for the last ten years or more, and country5specific data on either DOC in bulk waste (or L0) or waste composition. 63. Tier 1b can be chosen if the information is available by type of disposal site (managed, unmanaged etc.). If a country plans to 7include carbon stored in landfills, Tier 1a or Tier 2a is encouraged. In all cases, if carbon storage is included, the activity data 8and parameters must be consistent with the data from the HWP module. 94. A Tier 3 method is typically based on emission estimates developed from high quality landfill site-specific measurements or 10modelling. 11
12 2.3.1.2
T IER 1 F IR ST O R DER D EC AY (FOD)
13Here we present a brief description of the first order decay model, and step-by-step guidance on how to use the 14new spreadsheet model. Further background details on the theory, and an explanation of differences to the 15approach in previous versions of the guidance (IPCC 1997; IPCC 2000), are given in Annex 1.
16FIRST ORDER DECAY THEORY

17The first order decay method assumes that the decay of carbon in the waste is governed by a first-order reaction, 18i.e. the rate of decay is directly proportional to the amount of carbon remaining in the disposal site. This is also 19known as exponential decay. In other words, the rate of decay declines exponentially as the reactant (in this case 20degradable carbon) is used up. 21The first order decay reaction for the anaerobic decay of carbon in waste is: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
EQUATION 2.1: FIRST ORDER DECAY DOCm = DOCm0 * e-kt
where DOCm is the mass of degradable organic carbon (DOC) in the disposal site at time t; DOCm0 is the mass of DOC in the disposal site at time 0, when the reaction starts; k is the decay rate constant in y-1; and t is time in years. The decay rate constant, k, determines the speed of the reaction, and is related to the half-life (the time taken for the amount of DOC in the disposal site to decay to half of its initial value) (half life =ln(2)/k, see Annex 1).
32Half life is used as the input parameter in the spreadsheet model. 33Substituting t=1 into equation (a) shows that at the end of year 1, the amount of DOC remaining in the disposal 34site is: 35 36 37 38The amount of DOC lost as CH4 and CO2 at the end of year 1 (DOClost) will then be: 39 40 41
EQUATION 2.2: DOC REMAINING AFTER 1 YEAR OF DECAY At t=1, DOCm = DOCm0 * e-k
EQUATION 2.3: DOC DISSIMILATED AFTER 1 YEAR OF DECAY At t=1, DOCmlost = DOCm0 * (1-e-k)
2.13
1THE BASIS OF THE SIMPLE SPREADSHEET MODEL

2With a first order reaction, the rate of reaction will always be proportional to the amount of reactant (here DOC). 3Therefore, when estimating the amount of DOC which decays in a given year, the key parameter is the total 4amount of DOC present at the start of the year. It does not matter when the DOC was first deposited in the 5disposal site. 6On this basis, a simple spreadsheet model of the first-order decay of carbon in disposal sites has been developed 7for the IPCC based on equations 2.3 and 2.4 above. The spreadsheet keeps a running total of the amount of un8decayed carbon in the disposal site, taking account of the amount deposited each year and the amount remaining 9from previous years. This is used to calculate the amount of carbon decaying to methane and carbon dioxide 10each year. 11The spreadsheet also allows the user to define a time delay between deposition of the waste and the start of 12methane generation. This represents the time taken to establish anaerobic conditions in the SWDS (see Section 132.3.3). 14The model then calculates the amount of methane formed from the DOC which decays, and subtracts the 15methane recovered and methane oxidised in the cover material (see Annex 1 for equations) to give the methane 16emitted.
17TIER 1A AND TIER 1B MODELS

18Two alternative FOD spreadsheet models are provided: Tier 1a and Tier 1b. 19Tier 1a sets the decay parameters based on waste composition. The amounts of each type of degradable waste 20material (paper, wood, food and garden waste, textiles) are entered separately. Separate values of DOC and the 21decay half-life are entered for each waste material. The spreadsheet calculates methane generated from each 22waste component on a different worksheet. The methane correction factor (MCF) is entered as a weighted 23average for all disposal sites in the country, and may vary by time to take account of changes in waste 24management practices (such as a move towards more managed landfill sites or deeper landfills). Finally, 25methane generated from each waste material is summed, and methane recovered and oxidised in the cover 26material is subtracted (if applicable), to give an estimate of total methane emissions. 27Tier 1b sets the decay parameters based on the type of disposal site (managed, unmanaged, shallow or deep). 28The inventory compiler enters details of the quantities of waste disposed of to each type of disposal site. A DOC 29value for bulk waste is entered (this can be a weighted average for MSW and industrial waste, if industrial waste 30is included in the disposal data). Tier 1b is the simplest version of the model. Waste activity data is estimated 31from population data and disposals per capita. 32Countries can choose to use either the Tier 1a or Tier 1b model depending on the level of data available. If good 33quality national data is available on waste composition, it is good practice to use the Tier 1a method. This is 34because methane generation is probably more sensitive to waste composition than to site type. However, if 35waste composition is not available but there is good data on site types, Tier 1b may be used. If no national data 36is available on either waste composition or site type, it is good practice to use the Tier 1a method using the IPCC 37default data for waste composition provided in Table 2.3.
38CARBON STORED IN SWDS

39No waste materials will decay completely in the SWDS. Some carbon will be stored over long time periods. For 40wood and paper, for example, carbon held in lignin and resins, and carbon held in cellulose, which is well 41wrapped in lignin, will not decay and will accumulate in the SWDS. It has been argued that this stored carbon 42could count as a carbon removal from the atmosphere, as the wood (and paper, some argue) could release carbon 43dioxide to the atmosphere if it decayed above ground. It is not necessary to report this stored carbon in the 44waste sector. However, carbon stored in wood and paper can be reported under the harvested wood products 45(HWP) module of the Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use sector. 46The Tier 1a spreadsheet model automatically calculates the carbon stored in wood and paper in the SWDS, as 47this is simply the portion of the DOC that is not lost through decay. This figure is reported in a separate sheet of 48the spreadsheet, to enable comparison with the HWP module It is generally agreed that the estimates of wood 49and paper disposed of to SWDS derived from waste statistics, even when default data is used, are more accurate 50than the estimates from the HWP models. In general, it seems that the HWP model tends to overestimate carbon 51stored, and underestimate emissions of methane. Therefore it is good practice to use the estimates of carbon 52storage in the Tier 1a model to verify the estimates from the HWP model. Further guidance on how to do this is 53provided in the HWP chapter of the AFOLU volume.
42.14
1SPREADSHEET FOD MODELS: STEP BY STEP GUIDANCE
2The input parameters are entered into cells coloured yellow in the spreadsheet models. All other cells are 3calculated automatically and cannot be changed. For each input cell, the user can enter either national data or 4IPCC default data. IPCC default data is provided in a separate panel for the user to copy if required. It is good 5practice to use national data wherever possible. If good quality national data is used for waste disposal amounts 6and composition or DOC over the last ten years, the model becomes a Tier 2 approach. All data sources should 7be clearly referenced. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. 2.
Choose whether to use the Tier 1a or Tier 1b method (see above, Tier 1a and Tier 1b models). Set the starting year on the parameters worksheet. The default starting year is 1950, but this can be changed by the user if required. It is good practice to use a starting year of 1950 or earlier. If the starting year is set later than 1950, the inventory compiler should demonstrate that there will be no significant underestimate of emissions from waste disposed of between 1950 and the starting year. Compile or estimate historical population data, following the guidance in Section XX. Enter into sheet "MSW". Only the population covered by waste collection should be included. This may be just the urban population. Enter historical data for estimated MSW waste production per capita into the MSW sheet, using national data if available, or IPCC default data as described in Section 2.2.1. Enter the percentage disposed of to SWDS for each year. (Note: if statistics on total MSW generated are available, the user can enter these directly into the Total MSW column on the MSW sheet, instead of basing MSW on population or other drivers.)
3.
20Tier 1a Waste com position FOD m odel

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
3.
Estimate the historical MSW waste composition, using national data if available, or IPCC default data as described in Section 2.2.1 of the Guidelines. Enter the data into the appropriate columns on the MSW worksheet. Compile or estimate historical industrial waste disposal data following the guidance in Section 2.2.1, and enter onto sheet "activity data". Work out the weighted average MCF (Methane correction factor) by entering data on the approximate distribution of waste between different types of sites in the appropriate columns on the MCF worksheet. Either IPCC default MCFs or national values may be entered in the yellow cells at the top of the sheet (row 10). Guidance on selecting a methane correction factor is given in Section 2.3.3. The methane correction factor may vary with time, to allow for changes in waste management practices. Fill in the values for the parameters DOC, DOCf, half life, fraction to methane and oxidation rate, on the Parameters sheet. Where no national data are available, copy the IPCC default values, shown in the grey cells, into the yellow national value cells. For the half-life, the appropriate IPCC default values for the climate can be displayed using the drop-down menu. Where national values are used, references should be provided in the yellow reference cells. Guidance on the choice of values for these parameters is given in section 2.3.3 (Choice of parameters). Time Delay. This is entered on the parameters sheet. The default assumption is that the reaction starts on the first of January in the year after deposition. This is equivalent to an average delay of six months before decay to methane commences. It is good practice to assume an average delay of between zero and six months. If a value greater than six months is chosen, evidence to support this must be provided. Methane recovery. Fill in estimated recovery of methane on the results sheet. Guidance is given in Section 2.3.3 of the Guidelines. Methane emissions are calculated automatically, and appear in the blue cells of the results sheet.
4. 5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
10. Carbon stored in paper and wood is also calculated and appears in the pink cells on the carbon stored sheets. These figures can be used to check the estimates of carbon stored in landfill sites in the harvested wood products section of the Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use sector (see above).
48Tier 1b Site type FOD model

49 50 51 52
4.
Compile or estimate historical industrial waste disposal data following the guidance in Section 2.2.1, and enter onto sheet "Industrial". This sheet uses GDP to estimate industrial waste disposal data. Enter the percentage of waste disposed of to SWDS, and the distribution of waste between different site types
2.15
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(managed, unmanaged deep, unmanaged shallow, uncategorised) on both the Industrial and MSW sheets. 5. Work out the weighted average historical MSW waste composition, using national data if available, or IPCC default data as described in Section 2.2.1 of the Guidelines. Enter the data into the appropriate columns on the MSW DOC worksheet. Either IPCC default DOCs or national values may be entered in the yellow cells at the top of the sheet (row 10). The weighted average DOC may vary with time, to allow for changes in waste composition. If national data on DOC for bulk MSW is available, it can be entered directly into the weighted average MSW DOC column. Fill in the values for the parameters MCF, DOCf, half life, fraction to methane and oxidation rate, on the Parameters sheet. Where no national data are available, copy the IPCC default values, shown in the grey cells, into the yellow national value cells. For the half-life, the appropriate IPCC default values for the climate can be displayed using the drop-down menu. Where national values are used, references should be provided in the yellow reference cells.. Guidance on the choice of values for these parameters is given in section 2.3.3 (Choice of parameters). Time Delay. This is entered on the parameters sheet. The default assumption is that the reaction starts on the first of January in the year after deposition. This is equivalent to an average delay of six months before decay to methane commences. It is good practice to assume an average delay of between zero and six months. If a value greater than six months is chosen, evidence to support this must be provided. Methane recovery. Fill in estimated recovery of methane on the results sheet. This is total methane recovery from all site types, but in any case methane can only be recovered from managed sites. Guidance is given in Section 2.3.3 of the Guidelines. Methane emissions are calculated automatically, and appear in the blue cells of the results sheet.
6.
7.
8.
9.
24Modelling different geographical or clim ate regions

25It is possible to use the Tier 1a or Tier 1b models to model methane generation in different geographical regions 26of the country. For example, if the country has a hot, wet region and also a hot, dry region, the decay rates will 27be different in each region. 28To do this, the user should: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1. 2. 3. 4.
Make one copy of the spreadsheet for each region of the country. For each regional spreadsheet, set the population data (for MSW) and industrial waste activity data to the appropriate numbers for that region. Set the other parameters (decay half lives, distribution of waste between site types, waste composition etc) to the appropriate numbers for that region. Each spreadsheet will calculate methane emissions for that region. The emissions from each spreadsheet can then be added together (in a separate summary sheet) to give total emissions for the country.
37Dealing with different waste categories

38Some users may find that their national waste statistics do not match the categories used in the model (food, 39garden waste, wood and straw, paper, textiles, plastic, inert and industrial waste). Where this is the case, it is 40good practice to re-classify the national waste statistics into the IPCC categories. For example, the national 41statistics may contain a category street sweepings. The user should estimate the composition of this waste. 42For example, it may be 50% inert material, 10% food, 30% paper and 10% garden/park waste. The street 43sweepings category can then be divided into these IPCC categories and added on to the waste already in these 44categories. This can all be done in a separate worksheet set up by the user.
45Sorting or recycling before dispo sa l

46If the waste is sorted or recycled before disposal in a SWDS, it is important that the user takes account of 47changes in the composition of the waste that is sent to the SWDS, compared to the composition of the waste that 48is generated. The user should establish whether national waste composition statistics refer to the composition of 49waste generated or waste received at SWDS. The default waste composition statistics presented here are the 50composition of waste generated, not waste sent to SWDS. The composition should therefore be adjusted if 51necessary to take account of the impact of recycling or composting activities on the composition of the waste 52sent to SWDS. This is best done in a separate spreadsheet set up by the user, to estimate the amounts of each
42.16
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2 3 Draft First-order Draft 4 Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 1waste material generated, then subtract estimates of the amount of each waste material recycled or composted, 2and work out the new composition of the residual waste sent to SWDS.
3Open burning of waste at SWDSs

4Open burning at SWDSs in common in many developing countries. The amount of waste (and DOC) available 5for decay at SWDSs should be adjusted with the amount burned. Chapter 4 provides methods how to estimate 6the amount of waste burned. The estimation of emissions from SWDSs should be consistent with estimates for 7open burning of waste.
8 2.3.1.3
T IER 2 F IR ST O R DER D EC AY
9Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods are both based on the first order decay method. The only difference lies in the quality 10of the input data used. The approach is considered to be Tier 1 if the estimate uses mainly IPCC default data for 11waste generation rates, waste composition and other parameters. Good quality national data and parameters 12qualify the approach as a Tier 2 method. In reality, most countries will probably use a mix of national and IPCC 13default data and parameters. The approach is considered Tier 2 if national data is used for waste disposals over 14the last ten years or more, and waste composition, bulk waste DOC, or methane generation potential (L0). 15The spreadsheet model provided by the IPCC has been kept as simple as possible. It is intended mainly for 16countries applying the Tier 1 method, using mainly IPCC default data. Countries with adequate data for a Tier 2 17approach may wish to develop their own spreadsheet models with more complex versions of the FOD method. 18For example, some countries may wish to model separate groups of disposal sites in different climate zones, and 19assign different decay rate constants or DOCF parameters to these different zones (as decay is faster in warm, wet 20climates). Countries may also wish to have different waste categories, for example to give a more detailed 21breakdown of industrial and commercial waste types. It is also possible to build a more complex model which 22bases decay parameters on both waste composition and different site types (Tier 2a and 2b combined). Countries 23may wish to have more parameters varying with time. In all cases where national models are used, the models 24and parameters should be described transparently. All key assumptions should be explained, justified and 25documented.
262.3.2
Choice of Activity Data
27 Section 2.2 gives guidance on collection of data on waste generation and waste composition as well as waste 28management practices. To achieve accurate emission estimates in national inventories it is usually necessary to 29include data on solid waste disposal (amount, composition) for 3 to 5 half lives (see Section 2.3.3) of the waste 30deposited at the SWDS, and specifications of different half-lives for different components of the waste stream or 31for bulk waste by landfill type (IPCC, 2000). Changes in waste management practices (e.g. landfill 32covering/capping, leachate drainage improvement, compacting, and prohibition of hazardous waste disposal 33together with MSW) should also be taken into account when compiling historical data. The Tier 1a and Tier 1B 34FOD methods require that data on solid waste disposal (amounts and composition) is collected by default for 50 35years. 36Few countries have historical statistical or equivalent data that goes back for the whole period of 50 years or 37more. The historical solid waste disposal will therefore need to be estimated using a surrogate (extrapolation 38with population, economic or other indicator as drivers). The choice of the method will depend on the 39availability of data in country. 40For countries using default data on MSW disposal on land (Tier 1a or Tier 1b FOD method) the historical data 41can be estimated proportional to urban population (or total population when historical data on urban population 42is not available). Countries having national data on MSW generation, management practices and composition 43over a period of years (Tier 2 FOD) analyses on the drivers for solid waste disposal are encouraged. The 44historical data could i.e. be proportional to economic indicators, or combinations of population and economic 45indicators. Trend extrapolation could also produce good results. Waste management policies to reduce waste 46generation and promoting alternatives to solid waste disposal should be taken into account in the analyses. 47Data on industrial production (amount or value, preferably by industry type, depending on availability of data) is 48recommend as surrogate for the estimation of disposal of industrial waste (Tier 2). When this is not available, 49historical disposal of industrial waste can be estimated proportional to GDP or other economic indicators (Tier 501a and 1b).
2.17
1Historical data on urban population (or total population), GDP (or other economic indicators) and statistics in 2industrial production can be obtained from national statistics. International database can be helpful when 3national data is not available:
4
5 7
Population data (1950 onwards with five-year intervals) can be found in e.g. UN Statistics (see http://esa.un.org/unpp/). GDP data (1970 onwards, annual data at current prices in national currency) can be found in e.g. UN Statistics (see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selectionbasicFast.asp).
8For those year for which data is not available interpolation or extrapolation can be used. 9Also alternative methods have been put forward in literature. Bogner and Matthews (2003) estimated global 10methane emissions from landfills using energy production per capita as the surrogate. 11The choice of method, and the reasoning behind the choice, should be documented transparently in the inventory 12report. The surrogate methods, interpolation and extrapolation as means to derive missing data is described in 13more detail in Volume 1, pp. xx - yy.
142.3.3
Choice of EFs and Parameters

2
15METHANE CORRECTI ON FACTOR (MCF)
16Waste disposal practices vary in the degree of control, the placement of waste and management of the site. The 17methane correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged SWDS produce less CH4 from a given 18amount of waste than anaerobic managed SWDS, because a larger fraction of waste decomposes aerobically in 19the top layers of unmanaged SWDS. In unmanaged SWDS with deep disposal and/or with high water table, the 20fraction of waste that degrades aerobically should be smaller than in shallow SWDSs. Semi-aerobic managed 21SWDSs are managed to introduce air to the waste layer to create a semi-aerobic environment within the SWDS. 22These SWDS have a leachate drainage system. The MCF in relation to solid waste management is specific to 23that area and should be interpreted as the waste management correction factor that reflects the management 24aspect it encompasses. 25A Methane correction factor (MCF) is assigned to each of four categories, as shown in Table 2.5. The MCF 26reflects the lower methane-generating potential of semi-aerobic managed and unmanaged sites, explained above. 27A default value is provided for countries where the quantity of waste disposed to each SWDS is not known. A 28countrys classification of its waste sites into managed or unmanaged may change over a number of years as 29national waste management policies are implemented.
30The Fraction MSW Disposed to Solid Waste Disposal Sites (MSW F) and Methane Correction Factor (MCF) 31reflect the way in which MSW is managed and the effect of site structure and management practices on CH4
32generation. The methodology requires countries to provide data or estimates of the quantity of waste that is 33disposed of to each of four categories of solid waste disposal sites (Table 2.5).
TABLE 2.5 SWDS CLASSIFICATION AND METHANE CORRECTION FACTORS Type of Site Managed anaerobic a Managed semi-aerobic
b
Methane Correction Factor (MCF) Default Values 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6
Unmanaged c deep ( >5 m waste) and /or high water tabled Unmanaged d shallow (<5 m waste) Uncategorised SWDS
a) Anaerobic managed solid waste disposal sites. These must have controlled placement of waste (i.e., waste directed to specific deposition areas, a degree of control of scavenging and a degree of control of fires) and will include at least one of the following: (i) cover material; (ii) mechanical compacting; or (iii) levelling of the waste. b) Semi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal sites. These must have controlled placement of waste and will include the following structure for introducing air to waste layer: (i) permeable cover material; (ii) leachate drainage system;
42
The term methane correction factor (MCF) in this context should not be confused with the methane conversion factor (MCF) 5referred to in the IPCC Guidelines for wastewater and livestock manure management emissions.
62.18

(iii) regulating pondage; and (iv) gas ventilation system.
c) Unmanaged solid waste disposal sites deep and/or with high water table. All SWDSs not meeting the criteria of managed SWDSs and which have depths of greater than or equal to 5 metres and/or high water table at near ground level. Latter situation corresponds to filling inland water, such as pond, river or wetland, by waste. d) Unmanaged-shallow solid waste disposal sites. All SWDSs not meeting the criteria of managed SWDSs and which have depths of less than 5 metres.
Sources: Reference Manual of the IPCC Guidelines and IPCC Good Practice Guidance; Matsufuji et al., Generation of Greenhouse Effect Gases by Different Landfill Types and Methane Gas Control, Proceedings of 7th ISWA International Congress and Exhibition, No.1, 253-254, 1996.10
2DEGRADABLE ORGANIC CARBON (DOC)

3Degradable organic carbon is the organic carbon that is accessible to biochemical decomposition, and should be 4expressed as Gg C per Gg waste. It is based on the composition of waste and can be calculated from a weighted 5average of the carbon content of various components of the waste stream. The following equation estimates 6DOC using default carbon content values: 7
EQUATION 5.4 DOC = ( DOCa A ) + ( DOCb B ) + ( DOCc C ) + ( DOCd D ) + (DOCe E) + (DOCf F)
8 9
10 11Where: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DOCa = The degradable organic content of paper/cardboard A = Fraction of MSW that is paper/cardboard DOCb = The degradable organic content of textiles B = Fraction of MSW that is textiles DOCc = The degradable organic content of food waste C = Fraction of MSW that is food waste DOCd = the degradable organic content of wood or straw D = Fraction of MSW that is wood or straw DOCe = The degradable organic content of garden waste, park waste or other non-food organic putrescibles E = Fraction of MSW that is garden waste, park waste or other non-food organic putrescibles DOCf = The degradable organic content of sludge F = Fraction of MSW that is sludge
26The default carbon content values for these fractions can be found Table 2.4. The terms for waste fractions 27containing degradable carbon in the equation can very, depending on the waste composition data used in the 28country. 29The use of national values is encouraged if data are available. National values can be obtained by performing 30waste generation studies, sampling at SWDSs combined with analysis of the degradable carbon content within 31the country. If national values are used, survey data and sampling results should be reported (see also Section 322.2.2).
33FRACTION OF DEGRADABLE ORGANIC CARBON DISSIMILATED (DOC F )

34DOCf is an estimate of the fraction of carbon that is ultimately degraded and released from SWDS, and reflects 35the fact that some organic carbon does not degrade, or degrades very slowly, when deposited in SWDS. The 36recommended default value for DOCf is 0.5 (under the assumption that DOC values include lignin, see Table 2.4
2.19
1for default DOC values). This is based on a review of recent literature (Oonk and Boom, 1995; Bogner and 2Matthews 2003). DOCf value is depending on many factors like temperature, moisture, pH, composition of 3waste, etc. National values for DOCf or values from similar countries can be used for DOC f, but they should be 4based on well-documented research. 5The amount of DOC leached from the SWDS is not considered in the estimation of DOCf. 6Higher tier methodologies (Tier 2 or 3) can also use DOCf values defined for specific waste types. The use of 7waste type specific values on DOCf can introduce additional inaccuracy to the estimates in cases where the data 8on waste composition is based default values or estimates based on expert judgement. Therefore, it good practice 9to use DOCf values specific to waste types only when waste composition data is based on representative 10sampling and analyses.
11 FRACTION OF CH 4 IN LANDFILL GAS

12The main portion of waste materials in SWDSs generates a gas with, or very close to, 50 % CH 4. Only waste 13including substantial amounts of fat/oil can generate gas with substantially more than 50% CH4. The use of the 14IPCC default value for the fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (0.5) is therefore encouraged. 15The fraction of CH4 in generated landfill gas should not be confused with measured CH4 in gas emitted from the 16SWDS. In the SWDS, CO2 is absorbed in seepage water, and the neutral condition of the SWDS transforms 17much of the absorbed CO2 to bicarbonate. Therefore, it is good practice to adjust for the CO2 absorption in 18seepage waster, if the fraction of CH4 in landfill gas is based on measurements of CH4 concentrations measured 19in evolved landfill gas (Bergman 1995; Fischer et al. 2001; IPCC 1996).
20OXIDATION FACTOR (OX )

21The oxidation factor (OX) reflects the amount of CH4 from SWDS that is oxidised in the soil or other material 22covering the waste. If the oxidation factor is zero, no oxidation takes place, and if OX is 1 then 100% of CH4 23formed in landfill site is oxidised. 24Methane oxidation is accomplished by methanotropic micro-organisms in cover soils and can range from 25negligible to 100% of internally produced CH4; under some circumstances atmospheric CH4 may be oxidised at 26landfill surface. The thickness, physical properties and moisture content of cover soils directly affect CH 4 27oxidation. 3 28Studies show that sanitary, well-managed landfills tend to have higher oxidation results than unmanaged dump 29sites. The oxidation factor at sites covered with thick and well-aerated material may differ significantly from 30sites with no cover or where large amounts of CH4 can escape through cracks in the cover. 31Results from field and laboratory give a wide range, but values higher than 0.1 are probably too high for national 32inventories. Field and laboratory CH4 and CO2 emissions concentrations and fluxes measurements should not be 33used directly. In general, these field and laboratory experiments determine CH4 oxidation from uniform and 34homogeneous soil layers. In reality, only a fraction of the CH4 generated will diffuse through such a 35homogeneous layer. Another fraction will escape through cracks or via lateral diffusion without being oxidised. 36Therefore, results from field and laboratory studies may lead to over-estimation of oxidation in landfill cover 37soils. 38Default value for oxidation factor is zero. The use of the oxidation value of 0.1 is justified for covered, well39managed landfills. The use of an oxidation value different than zero to 0.1 should be clearly documented and 40referenced. 41It is important to remember that any CH4 that is recovered must be subtracted from the amount generated before 42applying an oxidation factor. 43
TABLE 2.6 SWDS OXIDATION FACTOR (OX) Type of Site Oxidation Factor (OX) Default Values
43 Bogner.J and E.Matthews, Global methane emissions from landfills: New methodology and annual estimates
51980-1996, Global biogeochemical cycles, vol 17, no2, 1065, 2003 6
72.20

Managed a, unmanaged and uncategorised SWDS Managed covered with at least 1m of porous material
a b
0
b
0.1
managed but not covered with aerated material
examples: soil, compost, sand
2HALF LIFE
3The half-life value, t1/2, that appears in the FOD method is the time taken for the DOC in waste to decay to half 4its initial mass. The half life is affected by a wide variety of factors related with the composition of the waste, 5climatic conditions at the site where the SWDS is located, characteristic of the SWDS, waste disposal practices 6and others (Pelt et al., 1998; Environment Canada, 2003). 7The half-life value applicable to any single SWDS is determined by a large number of factors associated with the 8composition of the waste and the conditions at the site. In recent years, there has been a slight increment in the 9reports of determinations of half-lives (experimental or by means of models). However, the results obtained are 10related, fundamentally, to characteristic of developed countries under temperate conditions. Few available results 11reflect the characteristics of developing countries and tropical conditions. Measurements from SWDS in 12Argentina, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands support values for t 1/2 in the 13range approximately 3 to 35 years (Oonk and Boom, 1995; USEPA, 2004, Netherlands, 2004; Canada, 2004; 14and Argentina, 2004). The most rapid rates (k = 0.2, or a half-life of about 3 years) are associated with high 15moisture conditions and rapidly degradable material such as food waste. The slower decay rates (k = 0.02, or a 16half-life of about 35 years) are associated with dry site conditions and slowly degradable waste such as wood or 17paper. A much longer half-life of 70 or above could be justified for shallow dry landfills in a temperate climate 18or for wood waste in a dry, temperate climate. A half-life less than 3 years may be appropriate for managed 19landfills in a wet, temperate climate or rapidly degrading waste in a wet, tropical climate. Inventory agencies are 20encouraged to establish half-life values or established country specific half-life values if available and 21documented. 22Current knowledge and data limitations constrain the development of a default methodology for estimating half 23lives from tests at landfills. To select default half-life values, there are two alternative approaches that are 24developed below as the Tier 1a and Tier 1b methods. Countries may develop specific half-life values more 25appropriate for their circumstances and characteristics. It is recommended that countries which develop their 26own half life values, document the experimental procedures used to derive them. 27If no data country specific half lives, default half-life values have been provided in Tables 2.7 and 2.8. To select 28default half-life values, there are two alternative approaches that are developed below as the Tier 1a and Tier 1b 29methods. Countries may develop specific half-life values more appropriate for their circumstances and 30characteristics. It is good practice that countries which develop their own half-life values, document the 31experimental procedures used to derive them. The default values can be used to obtain typical emission estimates 32in the absence of site-specific data. The two half-life value tables are described below: 33Tier 1a (Default): Tier 1a is suitable for countries without or with limited data on waste composition. Default 34values are estimated in function of the climate zone and the type of solid waste disposal sites, characterised by 35the degree of waste management and depth. The main assumptions made for this approach are:
36
37 38 39 40 42
41 43
44 45 46Default half-life values under Tier 1a are provided in Table 2.7.
Moisture content of a SWDS is an essential element for anaerobic decomposition and CH 4 generation. A simplified method assumes that the moisture content of a SWDS is proportional to the mean annual precipitation (MAP) in the place of location of the SBDS (Pelt et al., 1998; U.S. EPA, 1998; Environment Canada, 2003) or to the ratio of mean annual precipitation (MAP) and potential evapotranspiration (PET). The extent to which ambient air temperatures influence the temperature of the SWDS and gas generation rates depends mainly on the degree of waste management and the SWDS depth. Wastes in shallow unmanaged SWDS generally decompose aerobically, producing little methane. In deep unmanaged SWDS the conditions for methane production are more favourable (PNNL, 2004).
47Tier 1b (Default): Tier 1b is suitable for countries where the composition of the fractions in the waste stream are 48known for the time series selected. Achievement of acceptably accurate results requires specification of different 49half-lives (t1/2) for different components of the waste stream (IPCC, 2000). The selection and use of the half-life 50in the calculation can be made by two alternative ways: (a) calculate a weighted average for t 1/2 for mixed MSW 51(Friland Jensen and Pipatti, 2002) or (b) divide the waste stream into categories of waste according to their
2.21
1degradation speed (Brown, et al., 1999). These categories each have a separate decay rate. Default half-life 2values are estimated in function of the climate zone and categories of waste. The main assumptions and 3considerations made for this approach are: 4
5
6 7 8
11
10
12 13 14 15 16 17
Waste composition (specially the organic component) is one of the main factors influencing both the amount and the extent of CH4 production. This composition is conditioned by different factors, including standard of living, income level, and cultural traditions. These aspects condition differences for the half-life value in different regions of the world and even in different zones inside a country. In this approach it is usually required to use different half-life values for different stages of the time series to reflect appropriately the changes experienced in waste composition. Organic material like food waste degrades rapidly, whereas material in paper and wood degrades slowly. Wastes from developing countries are generally high in food and yard wastes; whereas developed countries have bigger paper and cardboard content in their solid wastes. This aspect means that landfills in developing countries will tend to produce gas quickly (completing methane production within 10-15 years) and landfills with a high paper and cardboard content will tend to produce methane for 20 years or more, at a lower rate (PNNL, 2004).
18Default half-life values under Tier 1b are provided in Table 2.8. 19Another consideration under the choice of half-life value is the inclusion of carbon storage in the inventory. 20Inventory agencies are encouraged to use either a Tier 2 method or the Tier 1b method to enable consistency 21between the two estimations. The Tier 1a values are based on more extensive experiments and thus may be 22more reliable. 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
30
42.22
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4 1
TABLE 2.7 RECOMMENDED DEFAULT HALF LIFE (t1/2) VALUES (yr) UNDER TIER 1b (FOR MSW)
(Derived from k values obtained in experimental measurements, calculated by models, or used in GHG inventories and other studies) Type of Solid Waste Disposal Site Climate Zone* Boreal and Temperate (MAT < 20C) Dry (MAP/PET <1) Managed Unmanaged deep10 Unmanaged shallow10
1
Tropical (MAT > 20C) Dry (MAP < 1000 mm) (23-17) 20 35 35 Moist (MAP 10002000 mm) (126 - 77,8) 10 236 356 Wet (MAP > 2000 mm) (5 2) 47 77 12
Wet (MAP/PET > 1) (173, 4-78,9) 12

5
(231- 232) 35
1
35 69
23 35
Recommended by U. S. EPA for arid areas (receiving less than 635 mm annual rainfall). Determined by tests at various U. S. landfills (Pelt et al., 1998; U. S. EPA,1998).
2
Represents slow decay rate in dry sites and slowly degradable waste (IPCC, 2000). It is also the smallest value in the range obtained in SWANA, 1998. This range of values has been obtained in Canada in dependence of the geographical region (province) (Canada, 2004).
3
Recommended by U. S. EPA for areas receiving 635 mm or more annual rainfall. Determined by tests at various U. S. landfills (Pelt et al., 1998; U. S. EPA,1998). This value and also the default value of 14 yr (IPCC, 2000) in this interval have been used in several countries under these and other conditions.
4
Mode of values used in GHG inventories of the Annex I Parties under these climatic conditions (UNFCCC, 2004).
5
Value obtained in SWANAs 1998 study (SWANA, 1998). This value also was used in the New Zealand's GHG Inventory and was confirmed by a comparison of CH4 generation and recovery estimates to actual recovery rates (SCS Wetherill Environmental, 2002). A value near to this (10 yr) has been used in several countries under these conditions,e.g. in Netherlands from 1994 (RIVM, 2004). A range of values from 9 to 17 yr-1 has been obtained in Mexico from site-specific data gathered from representative landfills (SCS Engineers, 2003).
6
Values obtained in Thailand (Towprayoon et al., 2000) based on one year field methane emissions measurements. Was found that k is lineraly related to site compaction.
7
Considering t1/2 = 4 - 7 yr as characteristic values for most developing countries in a tropical climate. High moisture conditions and highly degradable waste.
8
This value has also been used in evaluations of emissions from bioreactor landfills (Sullivan and Alexander, 2000).
9
Value selected in Argentina for the Olavarria Landfill due the high moisture conditions and the large amount of degradable material in the waste (FIUC, 2004)
10
The available information on the determination of k and half-lives in unmanaged SWDS is quite limited especially in tropical conditions and developing countries. The values included in the table are indicative and have been derived from the assumptions described in the text and the values obtained for managed SWDS.
2MAT Mean annual temperature; MAP Mean annual precipitation; PET Potential evapotranspiration. The 3average annual MAT, MAP and PET during the time series selected to estimate the emission and indicated by 4the nearest representative meteorological station. The information available doesn't facilitate to subdivide 5temperate in cold (<10C) and warm (10-20C). In this IPCC classification for warm temperate, MAT is referred 6to the growing season.
2.23
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1(

*
) estimate default range; #.## default value.
2 Adapted from: Chapter 3 IPCC GPG LULUCF, 2003. 3 4
TABLE 2.8 RECOMMENDED DEFAULT HALF LIFE (t1/2) VALUES (yr) UNDER TIER 1a
(Derived from k values obtained in experimental measurements, calculated by models, or used in GHG inventories and other studies) Type of Waste Boreal and Temperate (MAT < 20C) Dry (MAP/PET <1) Slowly Paper/textils degradin waste g waste Wood/ straw waste Moderat Other (non ely food) organic degradin putrescible/ g waste Garden and park waste Rapidly Food waste/ degradin Sewage sludge g waste
1 2 3
IPCC Climate Zone* Tropical8 (MAT > 20C) Dry (MAP < 1000 mm) 12 35 7 Moist and Wet (MAP 1000 mm) 10 23 3
Wet (MAP/PET > 1) (143-10) 14 (695-23) 35 (94 5) 7

3
(231 ,2 141) 23 (695-231 ,2) 69

5
14
12
(67 - 31,2) 43
(7 - 2) 3
(7 16) 2
Oonk and Boom, 1995. IPCC, 2000.
Brown et al., 1999. A near value (16 yr) was used, for slow degradability, in the GasSim model verification (Attenborough et al., 2002?)
4 5 6 7 8
Estimated from RIVM, 2004. Environment Canada, 2003. Estimated from Friland Jensen and J. E. and Pipatti, R., (2002). Value used for rapid degradability, in the GasSim model verification (Attenborough et al., 2002)
The available information on the determination of k and half-lives in tropical conditions is quite limited. The values included in the table are indicative and have been derived from the assumptions described in the text and the values obtained for temperate conditions.
5MAT Mean annual temperature; MAP Mean annual precipitation; PET Potential evapotranspiration. The 6average annual MAT, MAP and PET during the time series selected to estimate the emission and indicated by 7the nearest representative meteorological station. The information available doesn't facilitate to subdivide 8temperate in cold (<10C) and warm (10-20C). In this IPCC classification for warm temperate, MAT is referred 9to the growing season. 10(
) estimate default range; #.## default value.
11*Adapted from: Chapter 3 IPCC GPG LULUCF, 2003.
42.24
1DELAY TIME
2In most solid waste disposal sites, waste is deposited continuously throughout the year, usually on a daily basis. 3However, there is evidence that production of methane does not begin immediately after deposition of the waste. 4At first, decomposition is aerobic. This may last for some weeks, until all readily available oxygen has been used 5up. This is followed by the acidification stage, with production of hydrogen. The acidification stage is often said 6to last for several months. After this there is a transition period from acidic to neutral conditions, when methane 7production starts. 8The period between deposition of the waste and full production of methane is chemically complex and involves 9successive microbial reactions. Time estimates for the delay time are uncertain, and will probably vary with 10waste composition and climatic conditions. Estimates of up to one year have been given in the literature. 11(REFERENCES??? Per?) The IPCC provides a default value of six months for the time delay. This is 12equivalent to a reaction start time of January 1 in the year after deposition, when the average residence time of 13waste in the SWDS has been six months. However, the uncertainty of this assumption is at least 2 months. 14The spreadsheets allow the user to change the default delay of six months to a different value. It is good practice 15to choose a delay time of between zero and six months. Values outside this range should be supported by 16evidence.
172.3.4
Completeness
18Previous versions of the guidelines have focused on emissions from MSW disposal sites, although inventory 19agencies were encouraged to consider emissions from other waste types. However, it is now recognised that 20there is often a significant contribution to emissions from other waste types. This version of the guidelines 21therefore provides default data and methodology for estimating the generation and DOC content of the following 22waste types. Countries should provide their own estimates of the fractions of these waste types which are 23disposed of to solid waste disposal sites, incinerated or recycled. All of the sources and disposal routes listed 24below should be included in this sector (SWDS) unless countries can show that they are not key source 25categories (see Chapter xx of Volume 1: General Guidance). Emissions from incineration of these waste types 26should be included under Chapter 4 (Incineration and open burning of waste). 27Waste types to include
28 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) including household waste, yard/garden waste, street sweepings and co29 30
collected commercial and market waste. In countries with significant ash waste from household fires there may be some DOC in unburnt wood etc.
31 Sewage sludge 32 Industrial waste and sludge (including waste from forestry and paper industries) 33 Construction and demolition waste (this may be largely inert materials, but wood is a source of DOC)
34Waste types to exclude:
35 Emissions from manure management (included in the AFOLU sector.) 36 Waste ash from power stations is likely to contain very little DOC
37Disposal routes to include:
38 Managed solid waste disposal sites 39 Unmanaged solid waste disposal sites (open dumps, including above-ground piles, holes in the ground and
40
dumping into natural features such as ravines)
41 Centralised composting facilities 42 Emissions from composting and landfilling associated with Mechanical-biological treatment plants (e.g. in
43 44 45 46Disposal routes to exclude
Germany and Austria) (but emissions from incineration of residues should be included under the incineration section, Chapter 4 of this volume).
2.25
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 2
1 Emissions from open burning of solid waste disposal sites (covered in the Incineration and open burning
section (Chapter 4 of this volume).)
3 Emissions from home composting are excluded due to lack of data. Also this process is generally aerobic so
4
methane will not be produced in significant quantities.
5Closed SWDS continue to emit methane. This is automatically accounted for in the FOD method because 6historic waste disposal data is used.
72.3.5
9 10
Developing a Consistent Time Series

Replacing the old default (mass balance) method with the first-order decay (FOD) method; Inclusion of industrial waste and other non-MSW categories for all countries.
8This version of the guidelines has two major changes from previous versions:
1. 2.
11Both of these changes will require countries to re-calculate their results for previous years, so that the time series 12will be consistent. The new spreadsheet provided for the Tier 1 FOD method automatically calculates emissions 13for all past years. However, it is important to ensure that the data input into the model forms a consistent time 14series. The FOD model requires historic data as far back as 1950, so this is a significant task. 15Guidance is given in Section xxx to enable countries to estimate past MSW and industrial waste disposal based 16on population, GDP and other factors. The general guidance on data collection, QA/QC and time series 17consistency given in Volume 1 (General guidance) may also be useful in estimating historic waste disposal and 18composition data. 19As waste statistics generally improve over time, countries may find that country-specific data is available for 20recent years but not for the whole time series. It is good practice to use country-specific data where possible. 21However, where default data and country-specific data are mixed in a time series, it is important to check for 22consistency. It may be necessary to use backward extrapolation or splicing techniques to reconcile the two 23datasets. The general guidance in Chapter 5 of Volume 1 (Time series consistency and recalculation) may be 24useful here.
252.3.6
Uncertainty Assessment
26There are two areas of uncertainty in the estimate of CH 4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites: (1) the
27uncertainty attributable to the method; and (2) the uncertainty attributable to the data.
28 2.3.6.1
29.
U NC ER TAINTY
ATTR I BU TABL E TO TH E METH OD .
30The use of the mass balance method, which was the default (Tier 1) method in previous 31versions of the IPCC guidance, tends to lead to over-estimation of emissions in cases where 32the trend is for increased disposal of waste to SWDS over time, because it was assumed 33that all methane would be released in the same year that the waste was deposited. The 34use of the first order decay method removes this error and reduces the uncertainty 35associated with the method. However, it is important to remember that the FOD method is 36a simple model of a very complex and poorly understood system. Uncertainty arises from 37the following sources: 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
1. Decay of carbon to methane involves a series of complex chemical reactions and may not always follow a first-order decay reaction. Higher order reactions may be involved, and reaction rates will vary with landfill conditions. Reactions may be limited by restricted access to water and local variations in populations of bacteria. 2. Landfill sites are inhomogeneous. Conditions such as temperature, moisture, waste composition and compaction vary considerably even within a single site, and even more between different sites in a country. Selection of average parameter values typical for a whole country is difficult.
42.26
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2 3 Draft First-order Draft 4 Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 1 3. Use of the FOD method introduces additional uncertainty associated with two extra 2 parameters: decay rates (half-lives) and historic waste disposal amounts. Neither 3 of these parameters is well known.
4However, it is likely that the main source of uncertainty lies in selection of suitable 5parameters for the model, rather than with the methodology of the model itself.
6 2.3.6.2
U NC ER TAINTY
ATTR I BU TABL E TO TH E
D ATA
7This source of uncertainty is simply the uncertainty attributable to each of the parameter inputs. In the case of the 8Tier 1 methodology, this includes the uncertainty in the total MSW generated, fraction of MSW disposed to solid 9waste disposal sites, DOC, the fraction of DOC actually degraded (DOCf), decay rate or half life, and amounts 10of methane recovered and oxidised. The uncertainty attributable to the data can be classified into emission 11factors and activity data
12Activity Data Uncertainties 13The quality of CH4 emissions estimates is directly related to the quality and availability of the waste
14management data used to derive these estimates. The activity data in the waste sector include the total municipal 15solid waste (MSWT), total industrial waste, waste composition, and the fraction of solid waste sent to solid waste 16disposal sites (MSWF). 17The uncertainty in waste disposal data depends on the estimation method. There is less uncertainty when the 18amounts of waste in the landfill are weighed. If the estimates are based on waste delivery vehicle capacity or 19visual estimation, there will be much higher uncertainty and it should be judged by the national or international 20experts. If there is waste scavenging activity at the SWDS (a common phenomena in the developing countries), 21the waste amount and composition will be changed and uncertainty will increase. 22Alternatively, waste generation may be estimated from population and per-capita waste generation rates. 23Uncertainty can be introduced if the population does not match the population whose waste is collected. 24Typically, in many countries, waste is only collected from urban populations. Accurate estimates of urban 25population can reduce this uncertainty.
26Emission factor Uncertainties

27The methane correction factor (MCF) 28There are two sources of uncertainty in the MCF. 29 1. Uncertainty in the value of the MCF for each type of site (managed, unmanaged deep, unmanaged 30 shallow). The MCF is based on expert opinion and not on measured data. 31 2. Uncertainty in the classification of sites into the different site types. For example, the distinction 32 between deep and shallow sites (5 m depth of waste) is arbitrarily chosen based on expert opinion. 33 Inevitably, few if any countries will be able to classify their unmanaged waste disposal sites into deep 34 and shallow based on measured data. It can also be difficult to determine what proportion of sites in 35 developing countries meet the IPCC criteria for managed sites. . 36Degradable organic carbon (DOC) 37. There are two sources of uncertainty in DOC values. 38 1. Uncertainty in setting the DOC for different types of waste material (paper, food etc). There are few 39 studies of DOC, and different types of paper, food, wood and textiles can have very different DOC 40 values. The water content of the waste also has an influence. DOC for industrial waste is very poorly 41 known. 42 2. Uncertainty in the waste composition also affects estimates of total DOC in the SWDS. Waste 43 composition varies widely even within countries (for example, between urban and rural populations, or 44 between households on different incomes) as well as between countries. 45 46Additional uncertainty can be introduced if waste scavenging occurs at the landfill site (people removing waste 47materials for re-use or recycling). This can affect the waste composition to some extent. 48 49Fraction of degradable organic carbon dissimilated (DOCF) 50The uncertainty in DOCf is very high. There have been few studies, and it is difficult to replicate real landfill 51conditions in experimental studies. 52 53The methane generation potential (L0)
2.27
3uncertainty for CH4 generation per tonne of waste is estimated to be approximately 15% (Oonk and Boom, 41995). In countries with similar quality data, uncertainties in quantities of CH4 generation per tonne of waste are 5expected to be of the same order. For countries with poor quality data on CH4 generation per tonne of waste, the 6associated uncertainties could be of the order of 50%. The basis for the uncertainty assessment should be well 7documented. 8 9Fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (F) 10The CH4 fraction of landfill gas, F, is usually taken to be 0.5, but can vary between 0.5 and 0.6, depending on 11several factors (see section 2.3.3). The uncertainty in this figure is relatively low, as F depends largely on the 12stoichiometry of the chemical reaction producing methane. The concentration of CH 4 in recovered landfill gas 13may be lower than the actual value because of potential dilution by air, so F values estimated in this way will not 14necessarily be representative. 15 16Methane recovery (R) 17Methane recovery is the amount of CH4 generated at SWDS that is recovered and burned in a flare or energy 18recovery device. The uncertainty depends on the method used to estimate recovered methane. The uncertainty is 19likely to be relatively small compared to other uncertainties if metering is used. If other methods are used, for 20example by estimating the efficiency of methane recovery equipment, the uncertainty may be very large. (See 21section 2.3.3). 22 23Oxidation factor (OX) 24 The oxidation factor reflects the degree of oxidation that occurs as the methane diffuses through the landfill 25cover material. There is high uncertainty in estimates of the oxidation factor because it is difficult to measure, 26and because it varies considerably with the thickness and nature of the cover material, atmospheric conditions 27and climate, and the escape of methane through cracks in the cover material. Therefore, results from field and 28laboratory studies may lead to over-estimations of oxidation in landfill cover soils. 29 30The half life 31 32There is high uncertainty in the estimates of half-life because it is difficult to measure 33decay rates under conditions equivalent to those prevailing in real landfill sites. Also, there 34is considerable variation in half-life with waste composition, climate and site type, so it is 35difficult to select values representative of a whole country. 36 37 38Uncertainty estimates for MSWT and MSWF and the default model parameters are given in Table 2.9. The 39estimates are based on expert judgement. 40
TABLE 2.9 ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEFAULT PARAMETERS IN THE FOD METHODS FOR CH4 EMISSIONS FROM SWDS
A
2above (L0 = MCF DOC DOCF F 16 / 12). In the Netherlands, where high quality data are available, the
1The methane generation potential (L0) is not a separate parameter, but combines the three parameters discussed
Activity data and emission factors
Uncertainty Range b
42.28
Country-specific: 30% is a typical value for countries which collect waste disposal data on regular basis.
Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSWT)
10%. For countries with high quality data (e.g. weighing at all SWDS and other treatment facilities) 25%. For countries with poor quality data: more than a factor of two. 10%. For countries with high quality data (e.g. weighing at all SWDS)
Fraction of MSW sent to SWDS (MSWF)
25% for countries collecting data on disposal at SWDSs. For countries with poor quality data: more than a factor of two.
The waste generation intensity Total uncertainty of Waste composition Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC)
15% 10% for countries IPCC default values : 20% For country specific values: Based on representative sampling and analyses: 10% +10% For IPCC default value (0.5): 20%
Fraction of Degradable Organic Carbon Dissimilated (DOCf) Methane Correction Factor (MCF) = 1.0
For country specific value For countries based on the experimental data. 10% For IPCC default value 10%, +0%
= 0.8 = 0.5 = 0.4 = 0.6
20%, +20% 20%, +20% 30%, +30% 50%, +60%
Fraction of CH4 in generated Landfill Gas (F) = 0.5
For IPCC default value: 10%, +5%
Methane Recovery (R)
The uncertainty range will depend on how the amounts of CH4 recovered and flared or utilised are estimated, but the uncertainty is likely to be relatively small compared to other uncertainties if metering is in place. If metering is not in place, uncertainty will be high ( 50%). Include OX in the uncertainty analysis if a value other than zero has been used for OX itself. In this case the justification for a non-zero value should include consideration of uncertainties.. Ranges for the IPCC default values are provided in Tables x ja Y Country-specific values should include consideration of uncertainties.
Oxidation Factor (OX)
half-life ( t )
Source: Judgement by authors of the chapter.
1 2
2.29
12.3.7
QA/QC, Reporting and Documentation
2It is good practice to document and archive all information required to produce the national emissions inventory 3estimates as outlined in Chapter xx, Quality Assurance and Quality Control, Volume 1 (General guidance). 4Some examples of specific documentation and reporting relevant to this source category are provided below. 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. 2. 3. 4.
If country-specific data is used for any part of the time series, it should be documented. The distribution of waste to managed and unmanaged sites for the purpose of MCF should also be documented with supporting information. If methane recovery is reported, an inventory of known recovery facilities is desirable. Flaring and energy recovery should be documented separately from each other. Changes in parameters from year to year should be clearly explained and referenced.
11It is not practical to include all documentation in the national inventory report. However, the inventory should 12include summaries of methods used and references to source data such that the reported emissions estimates are 13transparent and steps in their calculation may be retraced. 14It is good practice to conduct quality control checks and an expert review of the emissions estimates as outlined 15in Chapter xx of Volume 1, Quality Assurance and Quality Control. 16Inventory agencies should cross-check country-specific values for MSW generated, industrial waste generated 17and waste composition against the default IPCC values, to see whether the national parameters used are 18considered reasonable relative to the IPCC default values. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Where survey and sampling data are used to compile national values for solid waste activity data, QC procedures should include: (i) Reviewing survey data collection methods, and checking the data to ensure they were collected and aggregated correctly. Inventory agencies should cross-check the data with previous years to ensure the data are reasonable. (ii)Evaluating secondary data sources and referencing QA/QC activities associated with the secondary data preparation. This is particularly important for solid waste data, since most of these data are originally prepared for purposes other than greenhouse gas inventories.
27Inventory agencies should provide the opportunity for experts to review input parameters. 28Inventory agencies should compare national emission rates with those of similar countries that have comparable 29demographic and economic attributes. Inventory agencies should study significant discrepancies to determine if 30they represent errors in the calculation or actual differences. 31 32 33
342.4 352.4.1
36
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT Methodological Issues
37(to be completed during the weekend) 38
42.30
1REFERENCES 2
3Attenborough, G. M, D. H. Hall, R. G. Gregory and L. McGoochan (2002). GasSim: Landfill 4 5 6 7Brown, K. A., Smith, A., Burnley, S. J., Campbell, DJV, King, K., Milton, MJT (1999). 8 9 10Canada (2004): Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Quantification Protocol. Environment 11 12 13Environment Canada, (2003). Canadas Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2001. 8. Waste. 14
Gas Risk Assessment Model. In: Conference Proceedings SITA Environmental TrustSponsored by SITA Environmental Trust and Organics Limited. ISBN 0-9539301.
Methane Emissions from UK Landfills, AEA Technology, AEAT-5217, Culham.
Canada. Avaliable at: www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/lfg_protocol_e.cfm.
Greenhouse Gas Division August 2003. The Green line Environment Canadas Worldwide Web Site. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg.
15
16
17Facultad de Ingeniera de la Universidad del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (FIUC) 18 19 20 21Friland Jensen, J. E. and Pipatti, R., (2002). CH4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal. In: 22 23 24 25 26Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., 27 28 29 30 31Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land 32 33 34 35OECD, 2002. OECD Environmental Data. Waste. Compendium 2002. Environmental Performance and 36 Information Division, OECD Environment Directorate. Working Group on Environmental Information and 37 Outlooks. 27 p 38 39Oonk, H. and Boom, T. (1995). Landfill gas formation, recovery and emissions. TNO-report
(2004). Landfill Gas Recovery Project, Simplified Project Design Document, Clean Development Mechanism. Buenos Aires, Argentina, August.
IPCC,
2002. Background Papers. IPCC Expert Meetings on Good Practice Guidance
and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC-NGGIP, IGES, Hayama, Japan, pp 419-465.
Hiraishi T., Nyenzi B., Enmanuel S., Buendia L., Hoppaus R., Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., and Tanabe K. (Eds). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertianty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (Ed. Jim Penman et al.,). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan.
2.31
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1 2
R95-203, TNO. Appeldoorn, The Netherlands.
3Pelt, R., R.L. Bass, R. E. Heaton, Ch. White, A. Blackard, C. Burklin and A. Reisdorph (1998). 4 5 6 7RIVM, (2004). Netherlandss National GHG Inventory Report. 8. Waste. RIVM Report 8 9 10SCS Wetherill Environmental, (2002). New Zealands Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-200211 12 13SCE Engineers (2003). Stege, G., and D. Murray. Users Manual, Mexico Landfill Gas Model, 14 15 16 17Sullivan, P. and G. Alexander (2000). An Evaluation of Air and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 18 19 20Towprayoon, S., A. G. Gale, A. Wongkumpoo, O. Jittasatra, k. Smakgahn and M. Masyinom, 21 22 23 24 25UNFCCC, (2004). UNFCCC searchable inventory database of greenhouse gas emissions
Users
Manual Landfill Gas Emissions Model Version 2.0. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. February 1998, 94 pp.
773201008, 8 pp.
Chapter 8: Waste. New Zealand Climate Change Office.
Version 1.0. Prepared by SCS Engineers for SEDESOL IIE CONAE, November. Landfill Methane Recovery. Publication No. GR-LG 0075, March.
Methane Recovery Potential from Bioreactor Landfills. MSW Management, September/October 2000.
(2000). sector.
Development of GHG Inventories in Thailand: focused on agriculture and waste Proceedings of the IGES/NIES Workshop on GHG Inventories for Asia-Pacific
Region, Shonan Village, Japan, 9-10 March 2000, 241-252.
26
27
inventories. http://www.unfccc.int/ (search data October 2004).
28U. S. EPA (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, 29
Volume1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter 2: Solid waste Disposal. Section 2.4.4.1.U.S.EPA,November1998. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/cO2sO4.pdf
30
31
42.32
1Annex
3
1: The First Order Decay Model
2Authors: Per Svardal MSc, Gunnar Thorsen, Professor (Sections 2 and 3), Alison Smith MSc.
41. INTRODUCTION 5The first order decay (FOD) model is now the default Tier 1 method for calculating methane emissions from 6solid waste disposal sites (SWDS). This annex first defines the mathematical basis for the FOD model. In 7section 3 we explain the differences between this approach and the IPCC 1996 and 2000 Guidelines, both of 8which underestimate methane emissions to some extent. 9A new spreadsheet model for estimating emissions from SWDS is then described (Section 4). The annex 10describes how the model first estimates the mass of degradable organic carbon (DOC) available for decay, and 11then estimates methane emissions. 12The model makes certain assumptions concerning the time of deposition of the waste, and the time at which the 13methane production reaction starts. The basis for these assumptions is described in section 5. 142. THE FIRST ORDER DECAY (FOD) MODEL BASIC THEORY 15The basis for a first order decay reaction is that the reaction rate is proportional to the amount of reactant 16remaining, in this case the mass of degradable organic carbon (DOCm). The mass of DOC reacted over a period 17of time dt is then described by this differential equation: 18 19 20
EQUATION A1.1 DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR FIRST ORDER DECAY dDOCm = -k * DOCm *dt where k is the decay rate constant in y-1.
21The solution to this equation is the basic first order reaction equation (which is analogous to the compound 22interest equation, with a negative interest rate). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Substituting t=1 into equation (a) shows that at the end of year 1, the amount of DOC remaining in the disposal 32site is: 33 34 35 36The amount of DOC dissimilated into CH4 and CO2 at the end of year 1 (DOCmdiss) will then be: 37 38 39 40The equation for the general case, for DOC dissimilated in period T between time (t-1) and t, will be:
EQUATION A1.2: FIRST ORDER DECAY EQUATION DOCm = DOCm0 * e-kt
where DOCm is the mass of degradable organic carbon (DOC) in the disposal site at time t; DOCm0 is the mass of DOC in the disposal site at time 0, when the reaction starts; k is the decay rate constant in y-1; and t is time in years.
EQUATION A1.3: DOC REMAINING AFTER 1 YEAR OF DECAY At t=1, DOCm = DOCm0 * e-k
EQUATION A1.4: DOC DISSIMILATED AFTER 1 YEAR OF DECAY At t=1, DOCmdiss = DOCm0 * (1-e-k)
2.33
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1 2 3 43. DIFFERENCE TO PREVIOUS IPCC APPROACHES 51996 Guidelines - The rate of reaction approach
EQUATION A1.5: DOC DISSIMILATED IN YEAR (T) DOCmdiss (T) = DOCm0 * (e-k(t-1)-e-kt)
6The 1996 guidelines are based on the rate of reaction equation. This is a common way of looking at the mass 7transformation in a chemical reaction. This is obtained by differentiating equation A1.2 with respect to time: 8 9
EQUATION A1.6: FIRST ORDER RATE OF REACTION EQUATION DOC reaction rate = -d(DOC)/dt = k * DOC0 * e-kt
10The rate of reaction equation shows the rate of reaction at any time. Therefore it has to be integrated to find the 11amount of reacted DOC over a period of time. 12We want to find the mass of DOC dissimilated into CH4 and CO2 per calendar year. The start is year number 1 13going from point 0 to point 1 on the time axis. Year number 1 is associated to point 1 on the time axis. Therefore 14the integration has to be performed from t-1 to t, which leads to an equation identical to equation A1.5. 15However, the equation presented in the 1996 IPCC Guidelines (Equation 4, Chapter 6) is: 16 17 18 19In fact, this is the rate of reaction equation. Effectively this means that the yearly methane production is 20calculated from the rate of reaction at the end of the year. This is an approximation which involves summing a 21series of rectangles under the rate of reaction curve, instead of accurately integrating the whole area under the 22curve. An error is introduced (the small triangles on the top of the columns are forgotten (see fig A1.1)). This 23means that calculations based on the equation in the 1996 IPCC guidelines are too low. With a half-life time of 2410 years the results will be underestimated by 3.5 %. 25 26 Figure A1.1 Error introduced by not fully integrating the rate of reaction curve 27To be provided (Per??) 28 29The IPCC 2000 Good PracticeGuidelines 30In the IPCC 2000 Good Practice Guidelines, equation 5.1, a Normalisation factor A is introduced into the rate 31of reaction equation. When this Normalisation factor is multiplied into equation 5.1 the result is a solved 32integral: 33 34 35 36This is equivalent to the correct equation (equation A1.5) except that it integrates the decay curve. However, it 37integrates from point 1 to point 2 on the time axis, and therefore the methane formed in the first year of reaction 38is not counted (see fig A1.2). This means that with a half-life time of 10 years the GPG 2000 equation calculates 39results that are 7 % too low. 40 FIGURE A1.2: Effect of error in the GPG 2000 equation 41To be provided by Per 42
EQUATION A1.7: IPCC 1996 GUIDELINES EQUATION FOR DOC REACTING IN YEAR (T) DOCmdiss(T) = k * DOCm0 * e-kt
EQUATION A1.8: IPCC 2000 GPG FOD EQUATION FOR DOC REACTING IN YEAR (T) DOCmdiss(T) = DOCm0 * (e-kt - e-k(t+1))
42.34
1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4 1CHANGING THE TIME DELAY IN THE FOD EQUATION
2In most solid waste disposal sites, waste is deposited continuously throughout the year, usually on a daily basis. 3However, there is evidence that production of methane does not begin immediately after deposition of the waste 4(see main text, Section 2.3.3). 5Equations A1.1 to A1.5 assume that the decay reaction starts on January 1 in the year after deposition, i.e. an 6average six month delay before the reaction commences. 7However, the equations can also easily be transformed to model an earlier start to the decay reaction, i.e. start of 8decay reaction in the year of deposition. This is done by moving the e -kt curve backwards along the time axis. For 9example, to model a reaction start on the first of October in the year of deposition (i.e. an average time delay of 10three months before the decay reaction commences, instead of six months), equation A1.2 will be transformed 11into this: 12 13 14 15 16Then there will be two solutions, one for the year of deposition and one for the rest of the years: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27DEPOSITION PROFILE 28As discussed above, the method presented here assumes that methane production from all of the waste deposited 29during the first year (Year 0) begins on the first of January on the year after deposition. Year 1 is defined as 30being the year after deposition. 31Some inaccuracy will be introduced by the fact that in reality, waste deposited at the beginning of the year will 32begin to produce methane earlier, and waste deposited at the end of the year will begin to produce methane later. 33However, the model presented here has been used to evaluate this error. With a half-life time of 10 years, 34evaluating methane emissions on a day-by-day basis gives a decay profile only 1 day different from the 35simplified version of the model. With a half-life time of 3 years the simple model is 3.5 days different from the 36exact day-by-day model. Even with a half-life time of 1 year the difference between the exact and simple models 37is just 10 days. The error introduced by this assumption is very small in comparison with other uncertainties in 38the parameters, especially given that the uncertainty in decay time is at least two months. 39NEW SPREADSHEET MODEL FOR FOD METHOD 40In order to estimate methane emissions for all solid waste disposal sites in a country, one method is to model the 41emissions from the waste deposited in each year as a separate row in a spreadsheet. Methane formation is 42calculated separately for each year of deposition, and the total amount of methane generated is found by a 43summation at the end. A typical example, for six years of deposition of 100 units of DOC each year, with a 44decay rate constant of 0.1, and methane generation beginning in the year after deposition, is shown in the table 45below. Each column of the table represents a package of waste deposited in a single year. The figures in the 46table are the DOC lost from that waste each year, from which the methane emissions can be calculated.
EQUATION A1.9: FOD EQUATION FOR DECAY COMMENCING AFTER 3 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 6 DOCm = DOCm0 * e-k(t+0.25)
EQUATION A1.10: DOC DISSIMILATED IN YEAR OF DEPOSITION (3 MONTH DELAY) DOCmdiss(0) = DOCm0 * (1-e-0.25k)
EQUATION A1.11: DOC DISSIMILATED IN YEAR (T) (3 MONTH DELAY) DOCmdiss(T) = DOCm0 * (e-k(t-0.75)-e-k(t+0.25))
Where t = year, referring to point t on the time axis where year 1 is the year after deposition. DOCmdiss(0) = DOC mass dissimilated in year of deposition DOCmdiss(T) = DOC mass dissimulated in year T (from point t-1 to point t on time axis).
2.35

1
TABLE A1.1 DOC DISSIMILATED FOR EACH YEAR year DOC deposited 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total DOC lost
DOC deposited Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

2
100 9.5 8.6 7.8 7.0 6.4 5.8
100
100
100
100
100
100 9.5
9.5 8.6 7.8 7.0 6.4 9.5 8.6 7.8 7.0 9.5 8.6 7.8 9.5 8.6 9.5
18.1 25.9 33.0 39.3 45.1
3When considered over a period of 50 years, which is necessary for the first order decay method, this leads to a 4rather large calculation matrix. However, the new spreadsheet uses a more compact and elegant approach to the 5calculations. This is done by adding the mass of DOC deposited into the disposal site in one year to the mass of 6DOC left over from the previous years. The methane emission for the next year is then calculated from this 7running total of the DOC remaining in the site. In this way, the full calculation for one year can be done in 8only three columns, instead of having one column for each year (see Table A1.2). 9The basis for this approach lies in the first order reaction. With a first order reaction the amount of product (here 10DOC dissimilated) is always proportional to the amount of reactant (here DOC). This means that the time of 11deposition of the DOC is irrelevant to the amount of methane generated each year - it is just the total mass of 12DOC remaining in the site that matters. 13This also means that when we know the amount of DOC in the SWDS at the start of the year, every year can be 14regarded as year number 1 in the time series, and all calculation can be done by these two simple equations: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
EQUATION A1.12 DOCmaccumulated(T) = DOCmdeposited(T) + ( DOCmaccumulated(T-1) * e-k)
EQUATION A1.13 DOCmdissimilated(T) = DOCmaccumulated(T-1) * (1 - e-k)
Where: the decay reaction begins on the 1st of January the year after deposition DOCmaccumulated(T) =mass of DOC accumulated at the end of year T DOCmaccumulated(T-1) = mass of DOC accumulated at the end of year (T-1) DOCmdeposited(T) = mass of DOC deposited in year T DOCmdissimilated(T) = mass of DOC dissimilated in year T
TABLE A1.2 NEW FOD CALCULATING METHOD year DOC deposited DOC accumulated DOC dissimilated
0 1 2 3
100 100 100 100
100 190.5 272.4 346.4
0 9.5 18.1 25.9
42.36
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Draft First-order Draft Modified by Riitta Pipatti 9 February 2005 413.5 474.1 529.0 33.0 39.3 45.1
4 5 6
1
100 100 100
2INTRODUCING A DIFFERENT TIME DELAY INTO THE SPREADSHEET MODEL 3The table and equations presented above assume that dissimilation of DOC to methane begins in the year after 4deposition (i.e. an average delay of 6 months before the decay reaction begins). 5If the dissimulation is set to start earlier than this, i.e. in the year of deposition, separate calculations will have to 6be made for the year of deposition: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Equations A1.12 and A1.13 will then become: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28The spreadsheets are based on equations A1.14 to A1.17. If the reaction start is set to the first of January the year 29after deposition, this is equivalent to setting the starting month of the reaction to 13. Equations A1.16 and A1.17 30will then be identical to equations A1.12 and A1.13. 31 32CALCULATING MASS OF DOC FROM AMOUNT OF WASTE DEPOSITED 33Data on waste disposal is entered into the spreadsheet. For the Tier 1a structure, waste is split by waste material 34(paper, food and garden waste, wood, textiles and inert waste). For Tier 1b, waste is split by site type (managed, 35unmanaged).Not all DOC entering the site will actually degrade. The parameter DOCf is the fraction of DOC 36which will actually degrade in the SWDS (see main text, section 2.3.3). The mass of dissimilable DOC (DDOC) 37entering the SWDS is calculated as follows:
EQUATION A1.14: DOC REMAINING AT END OF YEAR OF DEPOSITION DOCmremaining(T0) = DOCmdeposited(T) * e(-k*(13-M)/12)
EQUATION A1.15: DOC DISSIMILATED DURING YEAR OF DEPOSITION DOCmdissimilated(T0) = DOCmdeposited(T) * (1 e(-k*((13-M)/12)))
Where DOCmdeposited(T) = mass of DOC deposited in year T DOCmremaining(T0) = mass of DOC deposited in year T which still remains at the end of year T DOCmdissimilated(T0) = mass of DOC deposited in year T which has been dissimilated by the end of year T M = Month number. Reaction set to start on the first of this month (must be at least 7, which is equivalent to zero delay before decay starts).
EQUATION A1.16 DOCmaccumulated(T) = DOCmremaining(T0) + ( DOCmaccumulated(T-1) * e-k)
EQUATION A1.17 DOCmdissimilated(T) = DOCmaccumulated(T-1) * (1 - e-k) + DOCmdissimilated(T0)
2.37
1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12CALCULATING METHANE FORMED FROM DOC DISSIMILATED.
EQUATION A1.18: CALCULATING DISSIMILABLE DOC FROM WASTE DISPOSAL DATA DDOCmdeposited x (T) = W x (T) * DOC(T) x * DOCf x
Where: T = year of deposition x = category of waste material or site type DDOCmdeposited x = mass of dissimilable DOC deposited in category x. W = mass of waste deposited in category x in year T. DOC(T)x = Degradable organic carbon (Gg C/Gg waste) for category x of waste material or site type. DOCf = Fraction of DOC that can be dissimilated for category x of waste material or site type.
13The amount of methane formed from the DOC which decays is calculated as follows: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23The methane generated by each category of waste disposed is added to get total methane generated in each year. 24Finally, emissions of methane are calculated by subtracting first the methane gas recovered from the disposal 25site, and then methane oxidised to carbon dioxide in the cover layer. 26
EQUATION A1.19: METHANE GENERATED FROM DOC WHICH DECAYS CH4 produced = DOCmdissimilated * F * MCF * 16/12
where DOCmdissimilated = mass of DOC dissimilated. F = Fraction of CH4, by volume, in generated landfill gas MCF = methane correction factor 16/12 = Conversion factor from mass of C to mass of CH4
EQUATION A1.20: METHANE EMITTED FROM SWDS CH4 emitted in year t = (xCH4 produced(tx) R(t)) * (1- OX) where: t = Year of calculation x = category of waste disposals R(t) = Methane recovered in year t OX = Oxidation factor (fraction)
27
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35.
42.38

V5 ch2 SWTD 0215

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

V5 ch2 SWTD 0215

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4

SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND 7DISPOSAL

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Household Waste; Yard/Garden Waste; and Commercial/Market Waste

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Water Construction Other1 Purification and Distribution

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK Oceania Australia New Zealand

29,240 19,780 1,470 12,840 50,000 37,040 1,750

540 200 42,000 NR NR 6,390 72,000 10 NR 25,000 NR NR

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Dry matter fraction in % of wet weight3 Default 90 % 80 % 40 % 60 % 60 % 35 % 100 % 100 % 10 %

6Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

152.3 162.3.1 17 2.3.1.1

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Methodological Issues

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Estimate historical data

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4

T IER 1 F IR ST O R DER D EC AY (FOD)

16FIRST ORDER DECAY THEORY

EQUATION 2.1: FIRST ORDER DECAY DOCm = DOCm0 * e-kt

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

1THE BASIS OF THE SIMPLE SPREADSHEET MODEL

17TIER 1A AND TIER 1B MODELS

38CARBON STORED IN SWDS

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1SPREADSHEET FOD MODELS: STEP BY STEP GUIDANCE

1Chapter 2: Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal 2 3 4

20Tier 1a Waste com position FOD m odel

48Tier 1b Site type FOD model

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

1Waste 2 3First-order Draft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

24Modelling different geographical or clim ate regions

37Dealing with different waste categories

45Sorting or recycling before dispo sa l

Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

3Open burning of waste at SWDSs

Choice of Activity Data

5Draft 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories