"Applied Science, Faculty of"@en . "Civil Engineering, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Barton, Philip K."@en . "2009-07-09T21:52:39Z"@en . "2000"@en . "Master of Applied Science - MASc"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "A greenhouse gas analysis of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's (GVRD's) solid\r\nwaste management system is presented in this thesis. This investigation quantifies the\r\ngreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the GVRD's current system of\r\nlandfilling, incinerating, composting and recycling of the municipal solid waste generated\r\nwithin its boundaries and provides recommendations for future management. The\r\ndefinition of municipal solid waste (MSW) in this thesis is the sum total of all waste\r\ngenerated from residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sources, and excludes\r\nthe typically categorized demolition and land-clearing (DLC) waste. The waste\r\ncomponents newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, high-density polyethylene, lowdensity\r\npolyethylene, food scraps and yard trimmings are investigated individually while\r\nthe remaining waste is analyzed as a whole. This research finds that the GVRD solid\r\nwaste system in 1998, instead of causing greenhouse gas emissions, actually prevented\r\nthe release of 180,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tC0\u00E2\u0082\u0082e). The existing waste\r\nmanagement system created GHG benefits largely from landfill carbon sequestration and\r\nby allowing recyclables to offset virgin manufacturing by industry. Energy generation\r\nduring incineration and at landfills also provided some GHG benefits. These benefits are\r\naccounted for as negative emissions and more than compensate for the important GHG\r\nemissions identified by this research such as landfill CH\u00E2\u0082\u0084, CO\u00E2\u0082\u0082 released during the\r\ncombustion of diesel fuel and plastics and N\u00E2\u0082\u0082O emissions. Modelling of this waste\r\nsystem into a spreadsheet program allowed the demonstration of the GHG response to\r\nfuture management changes. Several scenarios were programmed into the Model which\r\nillustrate the critical importance future management changes can have on the overall\r\nGVRD emissions; of particular relevance when analyzed from the perspective of\r\nemissions trading. Major conclusions derived from the scenarios are: the difference\r\nbetween pursuing improvements in landfill gas (LFG) collection and doing nothing could\r\nbe almost 300,000 tC0\u00E2\u0082\u0082e/yr, the initiation of electricity generation could reduce\r\nemissions by 55,000 tC0\u00E2\u0082\u0082e/yr, considering incineration as a replacement for landfill\r\ndisposal could bring in credits of 140,000 tC0\u00E2\u0082\u0082e/yr when electricity generation is\r\nprovided, the future methane liability of landfilling requires extensive consideration since\r\nmodelling ultimate decomposition calculates an emissions increase of over 300,000\r\ntC0\u00E2\u0082\u0082e/yr. Each of these projects have emissions trading opportunities and at an assumed\r\n$5/tCO\u00E2\u0082\u0082e, significant revenue could be generated in this manner. A number of\r\nrecommendations complete this thesis. The most important are: to strongly encourage\r\nthe GVRD to begin actively participating in emissions trading or to bank credits for\r\nfuture regulatory requirements, to investigate improving the LFG collection system at the\r\nCache Creek Landfill, to investigate electricity generation at the Burnaby Incinerator and\r\nto encourage greater recycling of metal, glass and plastic."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/10537?expand=metadata"@en . "18255673 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "A GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT b y P H I L I P K . B A R T O N B . A . S c , T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 9 6 A T H E S I S I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A P P L I E D S C I E N C E i n T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S ( D e p a r t m e n t o f C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g ) W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A A u g u s t , 2 0 0 0 \u00C2\u00A9 P h i l i p K . B a r t o n , 2 0 0 0 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT A G R E E N H O U S E G A S A N A L Y S I S O F S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T I N T H E G R E A T E R V A N C O U V E R R E G I O N A L D I S T R I C T by Philip K. Barton A greenhouse gas analysis of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's (GVRD's) solid waste management system is presented in this thesis. This investigation quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the GVRD's current system of landfilling, incinerating, composting and recycling of the municipal solid waste generated within its boundaries and provides recommendations for future management. The definition of municipal solid waste (MSW) in this thesis is the sum total of all waste generated from residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sources, and excludes the typically categorized demolition and land-clearing (DLC) waste. The waste components newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, food scraps and yard trimmings are investigated individually while the remaining waste is analyzed as a whole. This research finds that the GVRD solid waste system in 1998, instead of causing greenhouse gas emissions, actually prevented the release of 180,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tC02e). The existing waste management system created GHG benefits largely from landfill carbon sequestration and by allowing recyclables to offset virgin manufacturing by industry. Energy generation during incineration and at landfills also provided some GHG benefits. These benefits are accounted for as negative emissions and more than compensate for the important GHG emissions identified by this research such as landfill CH4, CO2 released during the combustion of diesel fuel and plastics and N 2 0 emissions. Modelling of this waste system into a spreadsheet program allowed the demonstration of the GHG response to future management changes. Several scenarios were programmed into the Model which illustrate the critical importance future management changes can have on the overall GVRD emissions; of particular relevance when analyzed from the perspective of emissions trading. Major conclusions derived from the scenarios are: the difference between pursuing improvements in landfill gas (LFG) collection and doing nothing could be almost 300,000 tC02e/yr, the initiation of electricity generation could reduce emissions by 55,000 tC02e/yr, considering incineration as a replacement for landfill disposal could bring in credits of 140,000 tC02e/yr when electricity generation is provided, the future methane liability of landfilling requires extensive consideration since modelling ultimate decomposition calculates an emissions increase of over 300,000 tC02e/yr. Each of these projects have emissions trading opportunities and at an assumed $5/tC02e, significant revenue could be generated in this manner. A number of recommendations complete this thesis. The most important are: to strongly encourage the GVRD to begin actively participating in emissions trading or to bank credits for future regulatory requirements, to investigate improving the L F G collection system at the Cache Creek Landfill, to investigate electricity generation at the Burnaby Incinerator and to encourage greater recycling of metal, glass and plastic. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS: CONDENSED INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 B A C K G R O U N D 2 1.2 G R E E N H O U S E G A S E S & C L I M A T E C H A N G E 5 1.3 S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T 7 1.4 R E C E N T P O L I C Y D E V E L O P M E N T S 13 1.5 R E S E A R C H OBJECTIVES 15 1.6 THESIS O V E R V I E W 16 METHODOLOGY 18 2.1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 18 2.2 G L O B A L W A R M I N G P O T E N T I A L 19 2.3 B I O M A S S D E C O M P O S I T I O N / C O M B U S T I O N 20 2.4 L A N D F I L L C A R B O N S E Q U E S T R A T I O N 22 2.5 N I T R O U S O X I D E E M I S S I O N S 29 2.6 R E C Y C L I N G A N A L Y S I S 44 2.7 U N C E R T A I N T Y W I T H T H E E S T I M A T E S 70 2.8 S P R E A D S H E E T P R O G R A M 70 2.9 W A S T E M A S S E S T I M A T E S 78 2.10 R E M A I N I N G W A S T E S 85 2.11 G H G E M I S S I O N S N O T I N V E S T I G A T E D 89 2.12 S T A N D A R D S 90 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 91 3.1 E X I S T I N G S Y S T E M 91 3.2 S C E N A R I O S 100 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 5.1 R E F E R E N C E S 108 5.2 P E R S O N A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N S 114 APPENDICES 115 in TABLE OF CONTENTS: DETAILED A B S T R A C T i i L I S T O F T A B L E S v i i L I S T O F F I G U R E S v i i i L I S T O F A C R O N Y M S i x A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S x INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 B A C K G R O U N D 2 1.2 GREENHOUSE GASES & CLIMATE CHANGE 5 1.3 SOLID WASTE M A N A G E M E N T 7 1.3.1 Landfill Disposal 9 1.3.2 Incineration 10 1.3.3 Backyard & Centralized Composting 11 1.3.4 Recycling 12 1.4 RECENT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 13 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 15 1.6 THESIS OVERVIEW 16 METHODOLOGY 18 2.1 INTRODUCTION 18 2.2 G L O B A L WARMING POTENTIAL 19 2.3 BIOMASS DECOMPOSITION/COMBUSTION 20 2.4 LANDFILL CARBON SEQUESTRATION 22 2.4.1 Introduction 23 2.4.2 Literature Review 24 2.4.3 Application to GVRD Landfills 26 2.5 NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS 29 2.5.1 Global Nitrogen Cycle 29 2.5.2 Global Nitrous Oxide Cycle 30 2.5.3 Anthropogenic Interference with the Global Nitrogen Cycle 32 2.5.4 Anthropogenic Interference with the Global Nitrous Oxide Cycle 33 2.5.5 Implications for Waste Management 34 2.5.5.1 Landfill Disposal 35 iv 2.5.5.2 Composting 41 2.5.5.3 Incineration 42 2.5.6 Summary 44 2.6 RECYCLING ANALYSIS 44 . 2.6.1 Newsprint . 45 2.6.1.1 Literature Review 46 2.6.1.2 Local Situation 50 2.6.2 Office Paper 56 2.6.3 Ferrous Metal 59 2.6.4 Glass 61 2.6.5 High-Density Polyethylene , 63 2.6.6 Low-Density Polyethylene 65 2.6.7 Forest Carbon Sequestration 66 2.7 UNCERTAINTY WITH THE ESTIMATES 70 2.8 SPREADSHEET PROGRAM 70 2.8.1 Explanation 71 2.8.2 Examples 73 2.8.3 Modelling Scenarios 77 2.9 WASTE MASS ESTIMATES 78 2.10 REMAINING WASTES 85 2.11 G H G EMISSIONS NOT INVESTIGATED 89 2.12 STANDARDS 90 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 91 3.1 EXISTING SYSTEM 91 3.2 SCENARIOS 100 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 5.1 REFERENCES 108 5.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 114 Appendix A: General Calculations 115 Appendix B: Municipality Calculations 129 B. l CITY OF ABBOTSFORD 131 B.2 CITY OF BURNABY 131 B.3 CITY OF COQUITLAM 132 B.4 CORPORATION OF D E L T A 132 B.5 CITY OF L A N G L E Y 134 B.6 TOWNSHIP OF L A N G L E Y - 134 v B.7 DISTRICT OF M A P L E RIDGE 135 B.8 CITY OF NEW WESTMINSTER 135 B.9 CITY OF NORTH V A N C O U V E R 136 B. 10 DISTRICT OF NORTH V A N C O U V E R 137 B. l 1 DISTRICT OF PITT MEADOWS 138 B. 12 CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM 13 9 B. 13 CITY OF PORT M O O D Y 13 9 B. 14 CITY OF RICHMOND 140 B.15 CITY OF SURREY 140 B. 16 CITY OF V A N C O U V E R 141 B.l7 DISTRICT OF WEST V A N C O U V E R 142 B. 18 CITY OF WHITE ROCK 143 B.19 E L E C T O R A L A R E A A (U.B.C. & U.E.L.) 143 B.20 E L E C T O R A L A R E A C (BOWEN ISLAND & HOWE SOUND) 143 Appendix C: Newsprint Waste Management 145 Appendix D: Office Paper Waste Management 160 Appendix E: Ferrous Metal Waste Management 165 Appendix F: Glass Waste Management 166 Appendix G: High-Density Polyethylene Waste Management 167 Appendix H: Low-Density Polyethylene Waste Management 172 Appendix I: Food Waste Management 173 Appendix J: Yard Trimmings Waste Management 188 Appendix K: Remainder Waste Management 203 Appendix L: Spreadsheet Program 210 Appendix: References 260 Appendix: Personal Communications 263 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: First-Order Decay Rate Constants 29 Table 2-2: Global Reactive Nitrogen Sources 32 Table 2-3: Global N 2 0 Budget 33 Table 2-4: Review of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Composting 41 Table 2-5: Review of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Incineration 42 Table 2-6: List of Worksheets 72 Table 2-7: Incineration of Food Waste from District of North Vancouver 74 Table 2-8: Centralized Composting of Yard Waste from City of Vancouver 75 Table 2-9: Correction for Mixed Recyclables 82 Table 2-10: City of Burnaby Waste Generation, Recycling & Disposal 83 Table 2-11: Waste Percentages 85 Table 2-12: Waste Estimates by CH2M Hill Engineering 86 Table 2-13: Components of the Remainder 87 Table 3-1: Waste Mass Estimates for the City of Vancouver 92 Table 3-2: GHG Emission Factors for the City of Vancouver 93 Table 3-3: GHG Emissions for the City of Vancouver 98 Table 3-4: GHG Emissions for the GVRD 99 vn LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Important GHGs from Waste Management Operations 3 Figure 2-1: Nitrification & Denitrification Pathways 31 Figure 2-2: Potential N2O Emissions from Waste Management 35 Figure 3-1: Relative Importance of Emissions to Newsprint Disposal 96 Figure 3-2: Relative Importance of Emissions to Food Waste Disposal 96 vm LIST OF A CRONYMS A A C allowable annual cut Bl Burnaby Incinerator BNF biological nitrogen fixation C A A D carbon available for anaerobic decomposition C C L F Cache Creek Landfill CPL Crown Packaging Limited - Paper Mill Division CSF carbon storage factor D L C demolition and land-clearing (waste) GERT Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot Program G H G greenhouse gas GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District GWP Global Warming Potential HDPE high-density polyethylene ICI insitutional, commercial, industrial (waste) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LDPE low-density polyethylene L F G landfill gas MSW municipal solid waste M T C E metric tonnes of carbon equivalent MWP mixed waste paper OCC old corrugated cardboard RDO residential dropoff TMP thermo-mechanical pulp TS transfer station USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency V C R Voluntary Challenge & Registry (Federal Government) V L F Vancouver Landfill WS worksheet (in spreadsheet Model) ix A CKNO WLED GEMENTS Without the support (and prodding) of my advisor, Professor Jim Atwater, the quality and depth of this investigation would not have been possible. The funding by the GVRD and Stantec Environmental (Calgary) was greatly appreciated and provided the resources necessary to make this research a reality. The assistance of John Paul of Transform Compost Systems and Neil Bird of Woodrising Consulting is also appreciated. The substantial proofreading effort of Margaret Wojtarowicz, Kevin Frankowski and Daniel Walker helped the timely completion of this thesis. Lastly, the extraordinary patience of the significant other of this author, Dara Hendren, must be acknowledged. If she ever has to listen to further ponderings about global climate change, emissions trading or nitrous oxide emissions she will probably be sick. Readers wishing to contact this author in the future with questions or comments should send e-mail to pkbarton@hotmail.com or to jatwater@civil.ubc.ca. x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A greenhouse gas analysis of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's (GVRD's) solid waste management system is presented in this thesis. This investigation quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the GVRD's current system of landfilling, incinerating, composting and recycling of the municipal solid waste generated within its boundaries and provides recommendations for future management. The definition of municipal solid waste (MSW) in this thesis is the sum total of all waste generated from residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sources, and excludes the typically categorized demolition and land-clearing (DLC) waste. The waste components newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, food scraps and yard trimmings are investigated individually while the remaining waste is analyzed as a whole. Waste management is important from a greenhouse gas (GHG) perspective since it contributes to the observed increases in the atmospheric concentrations of all three of the most significant greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). Large quantities of carbon and nitrogen are contained in the municipal solid waste stream and thus there is the potential for significant atmospheric releases of C 0 2 , C H 4 and N 2 0 . It is these three greenhouse gases which this research investigates. As a result of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Canada is committed to reduce GHG emissions. Though it is still unclear in which manner our Federal government will elect to successfully reach its emissions target (an approximate per capita reduction of 30% over the next 10 years), it is quite likely that in the next decade either GHG emissions trading, GHG emissions taxing or direct legislation (or a combination of all three) will be implemented to force reductions in all sectors, waste management included. This research assists the GVRD's assessment of any opportunities which may exist in a future GHG emissions trading environment and/or its assessment of any liabilities which may exist in a future G H G emissions taxing environment. The intent of this research is to provide an important planning tool to assist in determining the future direction of waste management in the GVRD. This thesis estimates the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the existing system of landfilling, incinerating, composting (backyard and centralized) and recycling of newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, plastic (high-density and low-density polyethylene), food scraps and yard trimmings. The remaining waste is grouped together, defined as the Remainder, and is also analyzed. These eight main components of the municipal waste stream were investigated individually so that the current participation in source-separation can be more effectively directed at \"greenhouse gas reducing\" activities. In addition, the member municipalities were investigated separately to more accurately model the existing system. In order for this analysis to serve as a 1 planning tool, the GVRD requires an assessment of the existing system - a baseline against which any proposed changes, can be compared. For this reason, in addition to this report, an adaptable spreadsheet program has been developed to model the response of G H G emissions to changes in waste tonnages and other improvements made by the program user. This Introduction chapter consists of 6 parts. The first section, Background (1.1), provides a framework of the scope and intent of the research. Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change (1.2), the second section, explains the international scientific consensus which is concerned with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The third section, Solid Waste Management (1.3), introduces the GVRD's existing system of Landfilling (1.3.1), Incineration (1.3.2), Backyard & Centralized Composting (1.3.3) and Recycling (1.3.4). These respective sections briefly discuss the important greenhouse gas implications of these activities. In the fifth section, Recent Policy Developments (1.4), new policies with potential to affect waste management in the future are discussed. Research Objectives (1.5), the fifth section, present the goals of this investigation. The last section, Thesis Overview (1.6), presents an overview of the thesis to assist readers in understanding the analysis performed. 1.1 BACKGROUND The planning of municipal solid waste management is largely influenced by economic and environmental considerations. Current waste management systems, which include various activities such as landfill disposal, incineration, composting and recycling, have occurred as a result of these two main considerations. For example, the relatively recent interest in recycling (starting in the late 1980's) was initiated largely because of increasing awareness in environmental issues and possibly because of economic factors. Landfilling continues to be one of the most popular methods for disposal because the economics are attractive and it satisfies the present environmental (i.e. regulatory) considerations. These systems, which evolved out of the driving factors thus far, could potentially be faced with many changes in the future as a new consideration gains importance. A new consideration could be the strong international effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There is now an international scientific consensus that human-induced increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have great potential to raise the surface temperature of the planet. The climatic change which is believed to result could raise global sea levels, increase the intensity of severe weather conditions and increase the frequency of heat waves and droughts. Reducing the emissions of these greenhouse gases will likely be one of the most challenging endeavors of the entire international community in the 21st Century. 2 Briefly, the main greenhouse gas implications of waste management are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Emissions of C O 2 from the combustion of diesel fuel during curbside collection, processing at transfer stations and subsequent transportation to landfills, incinerators, recycling or composting facilities. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Emissions of C H 4 from the anaerobic decomposition in landfills or from anaerobic zones of inadequately aerated compost piles. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Emissions of N 2 O from the nitrification and denitrification of nitrogen present in organic wastes. This can occur at landfills (predominantly from landfill leachate) or during composting and there can also be thermal formation during incineration. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Emissions of C O 2 from fossil fuel energy required in the processing of recyclable materials such as paper, metal, glass and plastics into new products. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The prevention of C O 2 emissions from fossil fuels when energy is produced in the form of steam at incinerators or in the form of recovered and utilized methane at landfills. This energy can prevent the consumption of fossil fuels which would otherwise be necessary. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The prevention of C O 2 emissions when carbon storage or carbon sequestration occurs. This is the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. This occurs with wastes that resist decomposition in the anaerobic conditions of landfills. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The prevention of C O 2 emissions by substituting recycled materials for virgin materials. This prevention would be the result of reduced fossil fuel energy consumption when using recycled rather than virgin materials for the manufacture of similar items. The following matrix illustrates many of these emissions in a waste management context: F i g u r e 1 - 1 : I m p o r t a n t G H G s from W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t O p e r a t i o n s Fossil Fuel-C02 CH 4 N 2 0 Energy Generation* Carbon Storage* Recycled vs Primary - C O 2 * Collection ++ Transportation ++ Landfill Disposal ++ ++ + ++ Incineration + ++ ++ Centralized Composting + + ++ + Backyard Composting + ++ + Recycling ++ ++ ++ major importance + minor importance * GHG prevention activity (negative emission) For greenhouse gas emissions to be a new consideration in solid waste planning, it is necessary to have an extensive understanding of the implications presented above. Furthermore, there is tremendous variation among the greenhouse gas emission response of the five main components of the GVRD waste management system: landfill disposal, 3 incineration, recycling, backyard composting and centralized composting. The need to possess this understanding has fostered the interest in this research. Three reports and five research papers (of which this author is aware) have also compared the greenhouse gas emissions from waste management processes. However, the rapidly evolving science of greenhouse gas emissions and the importance of localized conditions makes this thesis necessary. As an example of the evolving science, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998) report did not consider that nitrous oxide is emitted during the composting or landfilling of waste and did not consider that N 2 O emissions from incinerators are a function of the waste nitrogen content. These issues are discussed in Section 2.5 and are quantitatively important for nitrogen-containing wastes such as food scraps and yard trimmings. In fact, none of the reviewed research adequately assesses nitrous oxide emissions. While these limitations do exist in the work by the USEPA, it is important to mention that that report is the most extensive and valuable research available so far; indeed, the provocative questions raised in that work conceived this very thesis. The second report, Environment Canada (1995), was completed before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed methodology in which the carbon emissions from the decomposition of sustainable biomass can be considered as \"GHG neutral\" and need not be counted as an emission\". As a result, the Environment Canada report considers composting and waste incineration as sources of C O 2 emissions. In addition, that report does not consider landfill carbon sequestration or the potential for nitrous oxide emissions from waste management. All of these shortcomings also occur in new life-cycle analysis work by the industry groups, Corporations Supporting Recycling and the Environment and Plastics Industry Council (CSR 1999). These industry groups, together with Environment Canada, have developed a spreadsheet program which neglects nitrous oxide emissions, neglects landfill carbon sequestration and ignores the GHG neutrality of biomass carbon emissions. Five journal papers were located and are reviewed. The paper by Hunt (1995) only analyzed the difference between the landfilling or incinerating of paper and plastic - and is thus incomplete for use here. The papers by Eschenroeder (1999), Aumonier (1996) and Pipatti & Savolainen (1996), while valuable, all compared the impact of landfilling or incinerating municipal solid waste as a whole - they did not investigate any waste components individually. Thus these three studies suffer from inaccuracies resulting from the very local question - What is municipal solid waste? A comprehensive methodology for modeling the GHG benefits of landfilling the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste versus composting this fraction has been developed at the University of Calgary (Hettiaratchi et al. 1998). This useful model compares landfilling in Edmonton against the new Edmonton Co-Composting facility and determines significant GHG benefits by the management alternative. However, this study assumes zero landfill gas collection for flaring or energy utilization over the next 30 years. As a result, this research gives composting GHG benefits which may be largely undeserved, at least in jurisdictions other than Edmonton. For readers unfamiliar with the science of greenhouse gases and their inter-relationship with climate change the next section provides an introduction to this important issue. 4 1.2 GREENHOUSE GASES & CLIMATE CHANGE Greenhouse gases, the most important of which are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane ( C H 4 ) , and nitrous oxide (N2O), allow the atmosphere to act like a greenhouse window - letting in much of the sun's energy while simultaneously only allowing a portion of it to escape immediately back to space. This occurs by permitting the entry of solar energy, which the Earth absorbs and then re-emits in the form of infrared radiation. While some of this infrared radiation escapes immediately back into space, most is temporarily trapped by greenhouse gases. This warms the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface to a much greater extent than would otherwise have occurred. If it were not for this natural greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 33\u00C2\u00B0C colder than the average temperature of 15\u00C2\u00B0C (Environment Canada 1997b). This would result in a chilly mean temperature o f - 1 8 \u00C2\u00B0 C on Earth and life would be profoundly different. Unfortunately, as a result of human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases C O 2 , C H 4 and N 2 O and others have been rising. For several thousand years before the Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1700's, a steady balance was maintained in which the atmospheric concentration of C O 2 , as measured from ice cores, remained within 10 parts per million (ppm) of an average level of 280 ppm (Houghton 1997). However, since the Industrial Revolution this concentration has increased almost 30%, from 280 ppm to over 360 ppm, and continues to increase at an average rate of 1.5 ppm every year (ibid). In addition, the atmospheric concentration of C H 4 (a greenhouse gas estimated to be 21 times more effective in the trapping of infrared radiation then CO2) has increased by 145% since pre-industrial times, from a level of 700 parts per billion (ppb) to that of 1721 ppb in 1994 IPCC 1995a). The third most important greenhouse gas, N 2 O - estimated to be 310 times more effective at absorbing infrared radiation then C O 2 - has increased from a pre-industrial level of 275 ppb to a level of 311 ppb in 1992, an increase of 13% (ibid). It was in 1827, when a French scientist, Jean Baptiste Fourier, first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He also noted the similarity between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping infrared radiation and in the glass of a greenhouse, which led to the phrase \"greenhouse effect\" (Houghton 1997). In 1896, the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, calculated what would be the effect of increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. He estimated that doubling the concentration of C O 2 would increase the global average temperature by 5 to 6 C - an estimate not far from the present understanding (ibid). Nearly 50 years transpired before an amateur British scientist, Guy Stewart Callendar, calculated the warming due to the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and discovered supporting evidence correlating the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures (ibid). It was in 1957 that Roger Revelle and Hans Suess of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California first raised concern about the implications of fossil fuel-related C O 2 emissions on global climate change. These scientists published a paper pointing out that with the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, human beings were carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment. \"Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in 5 sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years.\" (Revelle and Suess 1957; Houghton 1997) Since then, a great deal of scientific investigation has occurred looking into the mechanisms and interactions of greenhouse gases with climate and climate change. The understanding of atmospheric science has advanced to such a level today that several position statements of international scientific consensus have recently been distributed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC), a scientific body of leading atmospheric scientists established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, stated in 1995 that: \"Global mean surface temperatures has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 \u00C2\u00B0C since the late 19th century, a change that is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The balance of evidence, from changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggests a discernible human influence on global climate... .Global sea level has risen by between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past 100 years and much of the rise may be related to the increase in global mean temperatures.\" (IPCC 1995b) This has been followed by the American Geophysical Union, a prominent scientific body of 35,000 earth and planetary scientists, stating in a January 1999 position statement that: \"There is no known geologic precedent for the transfer of carbon from the Earth's crust to atmospheric carbon dioxide, in quantities comparable to the burning of fossil fuels, without simultaneous changes in other parts of the carbon cycle and climate system. This close coupling between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate suggests that a change in one would in all likelihood be accompanied by a change in the other.\" (American Geophysical Union 1999; Dunn 1999) From this international scientific consensus, 160 nations agreed to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1997. In this Protocol, the 38 developed countries of the world committed themselves to stabilize and ultimately reduce, their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases. Developing countries agreed to monitor their emissions and are encouraged to voluntarily reduce emissions but are not subject to binding commitments. Canada signed this convention and is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Between the commitment period of 2008 to 2012, Canada is required to reduce to a level 6% below what the national emissions were in 1990. Unfortunately, our national emissions were 601 million tonnes of C O 2 equivalent in 1990 (this includes C O 2 , but also C H 4 and N 2 0 converted into units of C0 2 ) , but have increased to 682 millions tonnes in 1997, and are predicted to reach annual emissions of 750 million tonnes by 2010 (Environment Canada 1999). Not only is energy consumption expected to increase in the coming decade, but the population is expected to increase as well. The per capita reductions necessary to reach Canada's Kyoto commitment, national emissions of only 565 million tonnes per year, will be an enormous undertaking. It will likely represent a decrease of the per capita emissions by 20 to 30%. 6 The national emissions in 1997, the 682 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, break down into 76% as carbon dioxide, 13% as methane, 9% as nitrous oxide with various trace gases completing the total (ibid). Reversing the increase and continuing downwards to satisfy Canada's international commitment will require a strong and determined effort by government and industry. It is also important to recognize that Kyoto is only the beginning. The Kyoto Protocol is inadequate and it is commonly recognized that this agreement will not by itself, significantly reduce the rate of climate change. While it represents a necessary first step towards emission reductions it is only the beginning in a long series of conventions to reduce global emissions (Rolfe 1998). Dutch researchers have estimated that in order to avoid extreme changes in climate (defined as sea level increases of no more then 20 centimetres and global temperature increases of no more than 1\u00C2\u00B0C over the next century), greenhouse gas emissions will need to be reduced to 37% below 1990 levels by 2050 and to 64% below by 2100 (Alcamo and Kreileman 1996). As the reductions to prevent extreme climate change are much greater than the average 5.2% reductions committed by the vast majority of developed countries, the Kyoto Protocol is not expected (by itself) to successfully stop Global Climate Change. Therefore much greater and deeper emission reductions will undoubtedly be required in the future. Though there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty regarding how our country will actually decrease the national emissions in the coming years, it is likely that reductions will be required by all sectors. Waste management will probably be called upon to decrease its contribution to climate change along with all other sectors, be it industry, government or the general population. Not only will emission reductions to satisfy the Kyoto Protocol be expected from waste management in the next decade but even deeper cuts will be likely in the long-term future. The next section presents an overview of the GVRD's existing system of solid waste management and discusses the important greenhouse gas implications of these activities. The concepts in the next section represent the opportunities for the participation of waste management in reducing emissions in a carbon-constrained environment. 1.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The solid waste management system of the Greater Vancouver Regional District serves the population of the 1.98 million residents in the 20 municipalities and two electoral areas that make up the metropolitan area of Greater Vancouver. One Fraser Valley municipality, Abbotsford, outside the GVRD boundaries, also participates in this waste management system. For simplicity, Anmore and Belcarra have been included with the City of Port Moody and the Village of Lions Bay has been included with Electoral Area C in this report. As a result, this report will refer to the GVRD as consisting of 23 member municipalities but only 20 municipal entities are investigated. 7 There are five main components to this waste management system: landfill disposal, incineration, recycling, backyard composting and centralized composting. In 1998, this system managed 1,120,000 tonnes of general waste and 681,910 tonnes of recyclables and composted organics from all the various residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sources represented in these municipalities (GVRD 1999). Two landfills are currently in use by the GVRD, the Cache Creek Landfill and the Vancouver Landfill (at Burns Bog), while one incinerator, the Burnaby Incinerator, is also owned by the GVRD. In 1998, the Cache Creek Landfill provided disposal for 474,873 tonnes of waste, the Vancouver Landfill disposed of 379,554 tonnes and the Burnaby Incinerator combusted 247,078 tonnes (ibid). Recyclables in the GVRD collected curbside and by other means are delivered to a number of depots in the Lower Mainland for processing and subsequent marketing to various industries for reuse. The recycling depots operated by E T L Recycling Services, International Paper Industries and Browning Ferris Industries are just three examples of these. In addition to recycling, many of the member municipalities have been actively encouraging backyard composting for residents to manage their own food scraps and yard trimmings. In some jurisdictions, backyard composters have been distributed to more than 30% of the population of ground-level (single-family) residences (Pers. comm. A l Lynch 1999). It is estimated that each composter annually diverts 250 kg of food scraps and yard trimmings from collection (Pers. comm. Bev Weber). In order to keep yard trimmings out of the waste stream, a separate curbside collection of yard trimmings has been initiated in many municipalities. Other jurisdictions have elected to provide residential drop-off (RDO) locations. Many of the municipalities have contracted with Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle (FRBC) to manage the collected yard trimmings. FRBC provides centralized composting of yard wastes by turned windrows and then subsequently markets the finished compost. The City of Vancouver operates its own composting facility at the Vancouver Landfill, and while the RDO of yard trimmings has been in existence for quite some time, they recently initiated curbside collection of yard trimmings. To serve the flows of this large quantity of waste from the member municipalities, several transfer stations (TSs) exist in the GVRD. In total, six transfer stations, the Coquitlam TS, the Vancouver TS, the North Shore TS, the Matsqui TS, the Langley TS and the Maple Ridge TS, facilitate the flow of waste from collection vehicles to disposal sites. In terms of 1998 masses, the Coquitlam TS with 316,360 tonnes, the Vancouver TS with 273,377 tonnes and the North Shore TS with 194,683 tonnes were by far the three most important transfer stations (GVRD 1999). It is important to recognize that all these operations require fossil energy, predominantly in the form of diesel fuel, a fossil fuel. The curbside collection of wastes, the processing of wastes at transfer stations and the transportation of wastes to disposal facilities all require the combustion of diesel fuel. This combustion directly results in a greenhouse gas emission of approximately 2.8 kg of C 0 2 equivalent (includes C O 2 , but also C H 4 and N 2 O converted into units of C O 2 ) per L of diesel fuel (Environment Canada 1997a). 8 The remainder of this section will discuss the greenhouse gas issues associated with the five waste management methods employed in the GVRD: landfill disposal, incineration, recycling and backyard and centralized composting. While discussed in a general manner, the following discussion is particularly suited to the local situation in the GVRD. 1.3.1 Landfill Disposal Landfills are well known to be emitters of methane to the atmosphere. In 1997, landfills in Canada were estimated to have emitted 1 million tonnes of C H 4 or 21.0 million tonnes of C O 2 equivalent. This represents 3.1% of Canada's estimated national GHG emissions of 682 million tonnes in 1997 (Environment Canada 1999). If organic wastes are landfilled the resulting anaerobic decomposition will emit nearly equal parts of C H 4 and C O 2 . The anaerobic decomposition of a simple six carbon sugar is: C 6 H i 2 0 6 3C0 2 + 3CH 4 The methane represents a strong greenhouse gas emission because it is 21 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, the C O 2 emission, while being a greenhouse gas, does not have to be considered a greenhouse gas emission. These organic materials were originally formed when photosynthesis fixed the inorganic carbon of C O 2 to organic carbon. The decomposition of these organic materials liberates the same carbon that was originally removed and is therefore completing the cycle. As a result, the C O 2 emission during anaerobic decomposition at landfills is \"GHG neutral\" and can be ignored as an emission. The logical extension of this is that if the landfill methane produced can be collected and combusted to C O 2 , then no GHG emission would result. This is indeed what occurs at many active and inactive landfills - methane is collected and flared. However, not all of the methane is collected; while at some sites a large portion is managed in this manner, at other sites much of the methane escapes collection systems - or there is no collection system - and it is emitted to the atmosphere. There is also the potential for microorganisms in the cover material of the landfill to cause the oxidation of C H 4 to C O 2 . Research conducted in the U.S. suggests that about 10% of the methane which had escaped collection was oxidized (Czepiel et al. 1996). Of even greater benefit than collecting all the methane and flaring it, is to collect all the methane and utilize it for energy purposes - to essentially use the landfill methane to replace natural gas, a fossil fuel. By using a GHG neutral bioenergy source like landfill methane to avoid the consumption of a fossil fuel, greenhouse gas benefits are realized. These benefits are the prevented C O 2 emissions from the combustion of natural gas. It is important to recognize that when the carbon in fossil fuels is released to the atmosphere as C O 2 , it is considered to be a greenhouse gas emission. But this carbon was also originally photosynthesized from carbon in the atmosphere. However, the time scale of millions of years necessary to create geological formations of fossil fuels is appropriate for climate change concerns while the months, years or decades time scale for the closed carbon cycle of food or paper is not the carbon of concern. Assessing the C O 2 emissions from composting food waste, carbon which was only fixed 6 months previous, as a greenhouse gas emission would be putting a \"red-herring\" in front of efforts attempting to reduce emissions from fossil fuels - the main contributor to Global Climate Change. 9 There are two important remaining issues with landfill disposal: landfill carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions. Landfill carbon sequestration is the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. This can occur when organic waste is disposed in landfills but resists decomposition in the anaerobic conditions. Because this photosynthesized carbon from atmospheric-carbon becomes stored in landfills it reduces the atmospheric concentration of C O 2 . This concept is thoroughly discussed in Chapter 2 - Methodology. For the introduction here it will suffice to state that different waste materials greatly vary in providing landfill carbon sequestration. While newsprint and branches, with their high lignin content, largely resist anaerobic decomposition, office paper and food scraps readily decompose in landfills and provide more methane than carbon sequestration. It needs to be recognized that the disposal of plastics in landfills cannot be considered a sequestration activity. The removal of petroleum products from geological reservoirs, their manufacture into plastics and their disposal in landfills at the end of their useful life is just substituting one sequestration for another (remember that the time scale is again relevant). There is no net difference to the atmosphere and as such must be ignored from the perspective of sequestration. Much of the nitrogen contained in the food and yard waste components of M S W can be traced back to chemical fertilizers applied onto agricultural lands or onto backyard residences. When these organic wastes are disposed in landfills, the resulting anaerobic decomposition will release the nitrogen as ammonia (NH3) or ammonium (NH 4 + ) . Due to the low pH from the presence of volatile fatty acids in the fill, the vast amount of nitrogen will be in the ammonium form. The nitrification of the ammonium to nitrate (NO3\") is greatly restricted because of the lack of suitable electron acceptors in the anaerobic conditions. Furthermore, with nitrification restricted, denitrification is also restricted. Thus there is little potential for N 2 O to be emitted with the vented landfill gas. However, water percolating through the fill can entrain the ammonium and remove it as landfill leachate. Leachate is typically transferred to wastewater facilities for treatment. From this point forward, the nitrogen is free to nitrify and denitrify (in fact, depending on the treatment plant, the nitrogen may be encouraged to nitrify and denitrify) and N 2 O emissions are a strong possibility. As much of this nitrogen was originally created by human activity, any subsequent emission as N 2 O is an important GHG emission. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.5. 1.3.2 Incineration The G V R D utilizes one incinerator for waste disposal purposes, the Burnaby Incinerator. During 1998, this Incinerator combusted 247,075 tonnes of M S W which resulted in 820,000 tonnes of steam being generated. Over half of this steam was transferred to the adjacent Crown Packaging Limited (CPL) facility for the pulping of cardboard. Were it not for the steam from the Incinerator, CPL would be using natural gas-fired boilers, fossil energy, to produce the necessary steam. Consequently, a definite greenhouse gas benefit from the avoided natural gas consumption is realized by the transfer of steam to CPL. 10 The combustion of municipal solid waste at the Bumaby Incinerator is supported by the chemical energy inherent in the wastes. With the exception of metals, glass and ceramics, all the other components are organic and will burn. As the oxidation of organic wastes must release C O 2 , it is necessary to once again discuss the origins of the emitted carbon. When biomass wastes such as paper products, food scraps and yard trimmings are combusted, they will be releasing the same carbon previously photosynthesized; they can be considered GHG neutral and thus ignored. In contrast, plastics contain fossil-carbon (as these materials are manufactured from petroleum products). This is carbon that was also photosynthesized but it occurred millions of years ago. Combusting plastics in an incinerator is identical to burning fossil fuels for energy; both contain the carbon of concern in human-induced climate change. While paper, food and yard waste can be considered bioenergy upon combustion, plastics must be considered a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, the combustion of plastics generates steam which is used by another industry and thus eliminates the need for the combustion of natural gas (another source of fossil-carbon). Also of importance with respect to waste incineration is the potential for nitrous oxide emissions. The formation of nitrous oxide can result from five separate pathways: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 thermal conversion of N2 gas in air to N 2 O during combustion (immediate emis.), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 thermal conversion of N in fuel (wastes) to N 2 O (immediate emission), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 thermal conversion of ammonia (NH3) injected in the flue gases (immediate emis.), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 microbial N 2 O conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (future emission) and \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 microbial N 2 O conversion of N H 3 injected but unreacted (future emission). All of these pathways will be thoroughly discussed in Section 2.5.5.3. For this introduction it should be noted that the thermal conversion of the nitrogen in food waste is likely the greatest source of nitrous oxide emissions during incineration. 1.3.3 B a c k y a r d a n d C e n t r a l i z e d C o m p o s t i n g The greenhouse gas implications of the backyard or centralized composting of food scraps and yard trimmings are virtually identical. The greatest exception would be the diesel fuel necessary for the curbside collection vehicles and windrow equipment to perform centralized composting. Both waste materials are biological in origin and thus any C O 2 from decomposition is GHG neutral and can be ignored. By diverting these organic wastes from landfill disposal and composting them, the prevention of any future methane emissions at the landfill is achieved. However, by composting there is also no opportunity for energy generation in the form of steam at the incinerator or collected methane at the landfill. Also of concern in the composting process, is the potential for nitrous oxide and methane emissions. As with the N 2 O emitted from landfill leachate, N 2 0 can result during the microbial leakage associated with the nitrification and denitrification of the nitrogen in the organic wastes. Several research papers have been obtained which report the existence of these emissions. A greater discussion of this issue is provided in Section 2.5.5.2. There is also an opportunity for methane gas to be emitted from composts which 11 are inadequately aerated. This has been observed to occur with passively aerated static piles (composts which are turned infrequently) and is assessed in Appendices I and J. 1.3.4 Recycling Recycling is a critical component of integrated solid waste management. In fact, the mass of waste currently recycled in the GVRD nearly equals the mass which is landfilled and is almost three times that which is incinerated. For this reason, any waste analysis neglecting recycling would be largely inaccurate. As to be discussed, recycling has important greenhouse gas repercussions. However, complicating the emissions-from-recycling issue is that many of these repercussions are outside the jurisdictional authority of the GVRD. Nevertheless, they require discussion here. Recycling requires the expenditure of energy. As most of this energy is derived from fossil fuels, it therefore contributes greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Recyclables require curbside collection, processing at recycling depots and subsequent transportation to the factories or mills where they will be manufactured into new products. In addition, the manufacturing of new products from recycled materials also requires fossil energy consumption. However, this consumption of energy and the associated greenhouse gas emissions are not the only considerations. There is great potential for large savings in the energy requirements of making Widget A from recycled materials (wholly or in part) as opposed to making Widget A entirely from virgin materials. When recycled materials are substituted for virgin materials and the energy consumption is decreased there is a consequent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Extensive research by various organizations have observed decreased energy requirements and decreased GHG emissions by substituting recycled materials for primary materials. However, the converse can also be true; several researchers have questioned the recycling of paper - while it is more energy efficient to make recycled paper than virgin paper, it may actually increase the consumption of fossil energy. In contrast, virgin paper production typically utilizes wood waste as its energy source (wood waste being a form of GHG neutral bioenergy). This research is reviewed in Section 2.6 -Recycling Analysis. The utilization of energy by industry (and the associated GHG emissions) for the manufacture of products used by society is outside the interest of planners in waste management. However, the greenhouse gas implications of landfill disposed or incinerated waste products which could have been recycled require assessment. By disposing or combusting paper products which would otherwise have been recycled, a municipality is preventing the substitution of recycled fibre for virgin fibre at a pulp and paper mill. If there is a GHG benefit to substituting recycled feedstocks for virgin feedstocks, this issue has to be addressed when, disposing or incinerating of recyclables. For example, increasing waste incineration of paper products to generate bioenergy may result in greater GHG emissions at the pulp mill. As a result, the GHG emissions of recycling newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass and plastic (high-density and low-density polyethylene) is investigated in this thesis. It is important to note, however, that the recycling investigation was restricted to comparing the emissions from taking recycled and virgin materials to an identical intermediate product. This is not the same as 12 manufacturing the final product for it is only following the respective materials until they converge, defined by one consultant as the \"Energy Convergence Point\" (Tellus 1994). For example, the recycling of ferrous metal is only analyzed until steel ingots have been produced but not a final product. From this analysis it is possible to assess the GHG implications of substituting recycled materials for virgin materials. Lastly, this thesis presents research into the potential for carbon storage in forests in Canada to be affected by increased paper recycling reducing the demand for the harvesting of primary timber. It is important to recognize that many of the energy (and thus greenhouse gas) ramifications of virgin vs. recycled manufacturing are outside the authority of waste planners at the GVRD and could cause complications in future emissions trading; not the least of which being \"Who owns the emissions credit?\". If the GVRD endeavors to reduce the GHG emissions under its responsibility but resulted in increasing the emissions of a manufacturing organization there would be no net benefit to the atmosphere. Full life-cycle impacts need to be taken into account when attempting to reduce emissions. This discussion has further relevance when explained in conjunction with emissions trading where the action has to result in a \"net reduction\" - the credit cannot be invalidated by indirect emissions leaking from other sources. Developments in the national and international policy to reduce emissions will be important to the greenhouse gas implications of waste management discussed in this section. The emissions of C O 2 , C H 4 or N 2 O from GVRD's waste management could be reduced in the future and traded for revenue or taxed in the future to force reductions to be implemented. This is the focus of the next section. 1.4 RECENT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS How can the international effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases affect waste management? As previously discussed, in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Canada committed to reduce emissions to 6% below the 1990 level between the years 2008 and 2012. Considering that with the population growth during this time, the cuts will represent per capita reductions between 20 and 30%, a monumental undertaking. For the successful attainment of this target, it is very likely that the emissions trading of G H G credits, the taxation of GHG emissions or direct legislation to reduce emissions (or a combination of these three) will be implemented in the next decade. These mechanisms could greatly impact the current economics of waste management. For example, if one activity is demonstrated to result in lower emissions than another, such as using composting to divert organic waste away from landfill disposal (thereby preventing future methane emissions), there is a real GHG benefit translated into an economic motivator in the following ways. In an emissions trading program, composting projects could claim credits for the resulting GHG benefit. These credits could be sold to another party, such as an energy company, which is being forced by regulations to reduce its emissions. The revenue generated by trading credits could then be used to finance the composting 13 project. Under a taxation system, the methane emissions from a landfill could be taxed as a GHG emission, potentially making composting a more economically attractive activity to pursue instead of landfilling. Both of these systems could profoundly change the current economics of waste management. Trading is fueled by the government legislating an emissions cap which can only be exceeded by possessing an equivalent amount of emissions credits. A typical GHG emission reduction trade occurs when a buyer with high cost options for emission reductions purchases a lower cost option from a seller and enters into a contract to transfer ownership of the emission reduction credit (ERC) (GERT 1998). To qualify as a greenhouse gas reduction, the activity must result in the atmosphere experiencing a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. These reductions are measured against a baseline which is determined by the emissions path that would have occurred in the absence of the specific activity. Greenhouse gas emission reductions become credits when \"i) the action has been implemented, ii) the action generates a reduction, and iii) the reduction has been verified.\" (USD 1998) These emission reduction credits may be traded within a future legally binding emission trading system or may be accumulated and used against possible future compliance requirements. Emissions trading is already occurring. A landfill gas utilization project initiated by Norseman Engineering for the Port Mann Landfill will prevent an estimated emission of 210,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCC^e) over the next 14 years (through the upgrade of the L F G collection system). The GHG credits were purchased by a consortium of Canadian energy companies, the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium (GEMCo), for $1 per tCC^e and thus the project will be implemented. The resulting $210,000 payable over the next 14 years as the GHG emission reductions are realized will finance the project. Another example is a proposed composting project in Southern Ontario which is estimated to prevent 31,422 tC02e of future methane emissions over the next 12 years. This will be achieved by diverting 111,000 tonnes of yard waste away from landfill disposal. While up for sale, the GHG credits from this project have not been purchased at this time. Both of these credit trading projects are part of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot Program (GERT) which is a combined effort between the Federal Government, several provincial environment ministries and a number of industry and non-profit groups (GERT 1998). This pilot program was initiated in June 1998 and will continue as a learning exercise until Dec 2001. The lessons learned in this pilot program will likely prove invaluable to the full-scale implementation of emission trading. Internationally, carbon taxation is also occurring. Finland is the first country in the world to introduce a CO2 tax. In September, 1998, this carbon tax on heat and transportation fuels was raised to US$19.2 per tC02. Also in Scandinavia, the Norwegian government is proposing a carbon tax of US$13.3 per tC02, and in the United Kingdom, the potential is also strong for instituting a carbon tax (Hanisch 1998). Though it is not clear in which manner our Federal government will elect to successfully reach its target in the Kyoto Protocol, it appears that every organization at all levels of the 14 government and each industrial sector will have to reduce emissions. Personal lifestyle changes by Canadians will also be necessary to reduce emissions. These governmental agencies and private companies will likely have to undertake meaningful reductions or purchase the credits, from another party's meaningful reductions. This is part and parcel with the emissions trading option. In contrast, under carbon taxation, meaningful reductions will also occur, but out of brute necessity - it will become too costly to continue emitting. Discussing trading or taxing is all speculative since the required reductions or the price of carbon, either traded or taxed, is yet to be determined. A carbon-constrained environment has yet to be developed and at the GERT pilot program, the carbon credits in the nine projects available for trading as of May 17, 1999, ranged in value from $1.00 to $14.00 per tonne of C 0 2 equivalent (tC02e) (GERT 1999). BC Hydro has committed over $2 million for the purchase of GHG offsets over the 2000-2001 time frame (BC Hydro 2000). The impact that these new policies could have on future waste management are sufficient to warrant this analysis. The next section explains in detail the objectives of this research. 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES There are two main objectives to this study: (1) to perform a greenhouse gas emissions analysis of the GVRD's existing solid waste management system and (2), to develop a planning tool which can evaluate the positive and negative GHG impacts of changes to this waste management system. Before attempting to include greenhouse gases in future waste management it is necessary to have a critical understanding of the existing system. This research analyzes the current system and then enables, with a spreadsheet program, changes in waste management to be assessed from the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions. In this spreadsheet program the mass flows of waste into various management processes are variables that can be changed. In addition, parameters important in calculating greenhouse gas emissions, such as the effectiveness of landfill gas collection systems or the energy efficiency of waste incineration, are also variables subject to change by the user. This thesis, together with the spreadsheet program, enables planners to evaluate opportunities which may exist in a future GHG emissions trading program or liabilities which may present themselves in a future GHG emissions taxing system. This thesis estimates the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the existing system of landfilling, incinerating, composting (backyard and centralized) and recycling of newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, plastic (high-density and low-density polyethylene), food scraps and yard trimmings. The remaining waste is grouped together, defined as the Remainder, and is also analyzed. These eight main components of the municipal waste stream were investigated individually so that the current participation in source-separation can be more effectively directed at \"greenhouse gas reducing\" activities. In addition, the 23 member municipalities were investigated separately to more accurately model the GVRD. 15 By using the results of this research with the currently debated price of carbon (either traded or taxed), it is possible to assess changes in waste management from the perspective of financial incentives. Any future changes which are performed voluntarily in order to reduce GHG emissions can be claimed for credits. When traded, these credits assist in financing the proposed project. However, if the changes to future operation are required by legislation, their implementation is no longer voluntary and would be ineligible for crediting. The importance of emissions trading in future waste management cannot be understated. However, in order to assess changes it is necessary to have a baseline upon which to improve. This baseline is the existing waste management system. 1.6 THESIS OVERVIEW The end of the first chapter is an opportune moment to present an overview of this thesis. This chapter has introduced the concern with greenhouse gases emissions and the recent developments in policy-making to mitigate global climate change. Together with an explanation of solid waste management in the GVRD, the inter-relationships between emissions and policy are discussed. It is the importance of these inter-relationships which necessitates this research and provides the impetus for Section 1.5 - Research Objectives. The next chapter, Chapter 2 - Methodology, explains the calculations which are used to estimate the GHG emissions. This chapter consists of 12 major sections : \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Methodology Introduction \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Global Warming Potential \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Biomass Decomposition/Combustion \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Landfill Carbon Sequestration \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Nitrous Oxide Emissions \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Recycling Analysis \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Uncertainty with the Estimates \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Spreadsheet Program \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Mass Estimates \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Remaining Wastes \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 GHG Emissions not Investigated \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Standards These methods represent the current state of the knowledge on these issues and were developed from an extensive review of available literature. These sections lay out the methods utilized in the 12 appendices. However, the fine details which are necessary to actually calculate greenhouse gas emissions are included in the appropriate appendices for that issue. It is the intent of this thesis that readers learn a specific concept in the next chapter and then refer to the appropriate appendix to learn how it is actually implemented \"for number crunching.\" As a result, readers should feel comfortable in jumping back and forth to learn the principles used to assess GHG emissions. 16 The results and discussion of this thesis are presented in Chapter 3 . This is followed by Chapter 4 - Conclusions & Recommendations. The 12 appendices after the Bibliography constitute a major portion of this thesis. These appendices present all of the calculations which are used in the spreadsheet program to model emissions. These calculations serve as sample calculations to provide readers with an understanding of the numbers and equations contained in the accompanying spreadsheet. Many of these appendices are presented as independent modules which are developed separately. Because of this lack of interdependency, a degree of repetition results for readers. However, in instances of excessive repetition, such as transportation issues after the North Shore Transfer Station for the three North Shore municipalities, only one complete version is provided. The first appendix, Appendix A - General Calculations, contains general parameters and calculations which are not specific to either a single municipality or a waste component. This is followed by Appendix B -Municipality Calculations, which presents all the diesel fuel consumption data necessary for curbside collection, processing at transfer stations and subsequent transportation to disposal, recycling or composting facilities. This also includes the estimates of the masses of different waste components which are disposed or recycled. It was necessary to estimate waste masses specific to individual municipalities because of the highly variable contribution of wastes from ICI sources which is independent of the residential population of that jurisdiction. This appendix (and the entire report) assumes that waste from Anmore and Belcarra are essentially from the City of Port Moody and that waste from the Village of Lions Bay can be included with Electoral Area C. The next 9 appendices are specific to the 9 waste components analyzed in this thesis. They provide the calculations used to estimate the GHG emissions to be expected from landfilling, incinerating, composting or recycling of newsprint, office paper, metal, glass, plastic, food and yard waste, and remainder. The important results derived in Appendix A through K are the emission factors required to calculate emissions from various management methods. When these emission factors are multiplied by the tonnage of waste managed in this manner, the estimated GHG emission will result. Appendix L -Spreadsheet Program, is the last appendix and contains the greenhouse gas Model of the GVRD's existing waste management system. 17 Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY The calculations in the appendices are based on the methodology developed in this chapter. An extensive review of previous research and the available guidelines for estimating greenhouse gas emissions is performed for this thesis. In addition, a number of individuals involved in waste management in the Lower Mainland were contacted to acquire data for this investigation. These personal communications with representatives of organizations such as the GVRD, City of Vancouver, Wastech Services, North Shore Recycling Program and Montenay proved invaluable to this work. Much of this collected data is directly used in the calculations in the appendices. 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter explains the important concepts used to develop the methodology for this investigation. Twelve sections are required in this methodology to describe these principles. However, the fine details which are necessary to actually calculate greenhouse gas emissions are included in the associated appendices. For example, the GHG neutrality of combusting newsprint for energy is discussed in Section 2.3 - Biomass Decomposition/Combustion but the actual calculations for this energy are developed in Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management. In fact, all the calculations conducted for this study are included in the appendices. It is these calculations that are used to program the spreadsheet. With the great utility of this spreadsheet program accredited in no small part to the fact that mass inputs and parameters can be changed to calculate new emissions, the calculations provided in the appendices become essentially sample calculations. The methodology section, together with the sample calculations in the appendices, serve to provide the reader with valuable information so that changes can be made to the spreadsheet in the future. Of critical importance to the methodology used throughout this report are the guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate GHG emissions. Canada and the other 160 signatory parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have agreed to develop inventories of GHGs for the purposes of developing mitigation strategies and monitoring the progress of those strategies (USEPA 1998). These national inventories are estimated using guidelines developed by the IPCC. These guidelines are the three volumes of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 1997). While throughout this investigation an attempt has been made to remain consistent with the IPCC guidelines, in several instances it has been necessary to make changes. This resulted from a careful evaluation of the subject. Most notable is the concept of landfill carbon sequestration (already included in a recent USEPA (1998) report) and the 18 potential for nitrous oxide emissions. All changes are documented throughout this report. It is my opinion that these changes were necessary to refine the GHG estimates and it is hoped that future IPCC methodology will reflect these changes. This chapter consists of 12 major sections. The first, Section 2.1 - Introduction, provides an overview of this chapter and introduces the methodology used in this report. Global Warming Potential (2.2) is the second section and explains the internationally accepted convention by which different greenhouse gases are converted into a common unit based on each gases relative ability to trap infrared radiation. The next section, Biomass Decomposition/Combustion (2.3), describes guidelines by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which draws clear distinctions between C 0 2 released from fossil fuel combustion and C O 2 released during the decomposition of biomass. This has important ramifications in this thesis as waste management contributes substantial emissions of both. Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration, reviews the available literature on this emerging issue. To properly assess landfill disposal from a greenhouse gas perspective, it is necessary to quantify not only the C H 4 emissions but also the ability of landfills to store the carbon from biomass which resists anaerobic decomposition. The next section, Nitrous Oxide Emissions (2.5), presents an extensive review of the current understanding of this important issue. N 2 0 can leak from the cells of microorganisms during nitrification and denitrification. Because of the high nitrogen content of food and yard components of MSW, the potential emissions during the management of these wastes is of particular importance. Section 2.6 - Recycling Analysis, discusses the methods employed in this study to estimate the emissions associated with recyclables. Uncertainty with the Estimates (2.7), presents the uncertainty that is always associated with estimating data. While much of the data in this thesis contains minimal uncertainty, many parameters are highly uncertain and require separate discussion in this section. The next section, Spreadsheet Program (2.8), illustrates the workings of the spreadsheet to educate users in its operation. Waste Mass Estimates (2.9) provides the methodology utilized to estimate the masses of the 8 waste components analyzed in the 23 member municipalities in the GVRD. Each municipality is analyzed individually because of the large differences between the fractions of waste from residential or ICI sources. After the 8 investigated waste components are removed from MSW there will be still be a remainder. This remainder is discussed in Section 2.10 - Remaining Wastes from the perspective of GHG implications. GHG Emissions not Investigated (2.11) draws a boundary around the focus of this research, thereby excluding the thousands of direct & indirect sources of emissions which could be included in this study as a result of our energy intensive society. The last section, Standards (2.12), provides readers with the units and other conventions used throughout this thesis. 2.2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL The three greenhouse gases evaluated in this report, C O 2 , C H 4 and N 2 O , greatly vary in their relative contribution to global warming. Each of these gases has different radiative forcings (the capacity to absorb infrared radiation) and different atmospheric lifetimes. To complicate matters further, there are direct radiative forcing effects or indirect 19 radiative forcing effects. Direct radiative forcing is when the gas itself is a greenhouse gas. Indirect radiative forcing effects occur when the chemical transformation of the original gas produces a gas or gases that are greenhouse gases, or when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other greenhouse gases (Environment Canada 1997a). The radiative forcing of C O 2 is estimated to be 0.018 W/m 2\u00C2\u00ABppm while that of C H 4 is 0.37 W/m2*ppm or 20.6 times greater and N 2 0 is 3.7 W/m 2 ,ppm or 206 times greater. The atmospheric lifetime of C H 4 , N 2 0 and C 0 2 , is estimated to be 12.2 years, 120 years, and variable based upon the carbon cycle (IPCC 1995). With all this variation, the concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow for the comparison of the relative ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is defined as: \"the time-integrated change in radiative forcing due to the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace gas expressed relative to the radiative forcing from the release of 1 kg of C 0 2 . . .The GWP of a greenhouse gas takes into account both the instantaneous radiative forcing due to an incremental concentration increase and the lifetime of the gas.\" (Environment Canada 1997a) A 100 year reference period is recommended by the IPCC when dealing with global warming potentials (IPCC 1995). The latest information from the IPCC has estimated the 100 year time-frame GWP of C H 4 to be 21 and the GWP of N 2 0 to be 310 (relative to C 0 2 on a mass basis) (ibid). The GWP for C H 4 also takes into account the indirect contributions due to tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour production. These are the Global Warming Potential values that are used in this report. 2.3 BIOMASS DECOMPOSITION/COMBUSTION This section presents the internationally accepted guidelines which draw a clear distinction between the C 0 2 emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels and the C 0 2 emitted during the decomposition or combustion of biomass. The C 0 2 from the consumption of fossil fuel results from human activities and is believed to be causing Global Climate Change while the quantitatively greater carbon cycling for biomass is a natural closed process. Separating these two is necessary, for otherwise, this research would have to consider the decomposition of biomass during the composting process as a GHG emission; of little merit when remembering that the alternative is natural rotting on the ground. The IPCC methodology for addressing C 0 2 emissions from biomass has already been mentioned in the introduction but requires further discussion as it is extremely important for this study. Specifically, these are the C 0 2 emissions resulting from the decomposition or combustion of paper products, food scraps or yard trimmings, defined as biomass for the remainder of this section. The carbon in biomass material was originally removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, and under natural conditions, will eventually cycle back to the atmosphere as C 0 2 . This carbon is part of a natural 20 process which cycles through the atmosphere, water, soils and biota, and is far greater in magnitude than carbon resulting from human intervention, the carbon from fossil fuels or deforestation. But the focus of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is not on these natural processes but on the anthropogenic emissions, emissions resulting from human activities and subject to human control, as it is these emissions that have the potential to disrupt the carbon's biogeochemical cycle and alter the atmosphere's heat trapping ability (USEPA 1998). The difference in C O 2 emissions from the decomposition of biogenic materials and the combustion of fossil fuels was explained succinctly in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report (ibid): \"Thus, for processes with C O 2 emissions, if (a) the emissions are from biogenic materials and (b) the materials are grown on a sustainable basis, then those emissions are considered to simply close the loop in the natural carbon cycle - that is, they return to the atmosphere C O 2 which was originally removed by photosynthesis. In this case, the C O 2 emissions are not counted. ... On the other hand, C O 2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are counted because these emissions would not enter the cycle were it not for human activity. Likewise, C H 4 emissions from landfills are counted -even though the source of carbon is primarily biogenic, C H 4 emissions would not be emitted were it not for the human activity of landfilling the waste, which creates anaerobic conditions conducive to C H 4 formation.\" As a result, the C O 2 emissions resulting from composting, incineration or landfilling of biomass are considered to be \"neutral\" and thus are not considered to be greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the release of C O 2 during anaerobic decomposition at landfills, the biomass-C02 emission from combustion at incinerators and the C O 2 resulting from aerobic decomposition during composting are not considered as greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, incineration can just be thought of as an accelerated version of composting with an energy generating component included. It is important to recognize the important assumption that biomass is sustainably grown and harvested. The combustion of paper that was manufactured from unsustainable harvested trees would not be GHG neutral; there is no future tree growth to fix this carbon once again. This assumption is necessary to neglect any C O 2 emissions from biomass decomposition/oxidation. This report assumes that paper products, food scraps and yard trimmings are sustainably harvested. Separating the C O 2 resulting from fossil fuels and the C O 2 resulting from biomass decomposition or combustion is necessary to prevent effort being wasted on natural processes which are not a concern for Global Climate Change. For example, this distinction causes the calculations in the appendices to account for the diesel fuel consumption (for conversion into units of C O 2 emitted) associated with the curbside collection, transfer station processing and subsequent transportation of yard trimmings to a centralized composting facility. It also includes the diesel fuel consumption necessary to operate the equipment required to perform composting of this material. However, it does not consider any of the emissions which result when this organic material is 21 oxidized by microorganisms to inorganic C O 2 . This is simply the conclusion of the cycle which started when inorganic C O 2 in the atmosphere was fixed by photosynthesis to organic carbon. Readers may have already noticed that a reference time-frame is inherent in treating biomass decomposition as GHG neutral. Fossil fuels contain carbon which was also originally C O 2 in the atmosphere and was fixed by photosynthesis into the organic carbon of biomass. This occurred millions of years ago and the fossil fuel carbon has been stored deep underground in geological reservoirs in the interim. Liberating this carbon into the atmosphere is fundamentally different than liberating the carbon in an apple core which was photosynthesized 6 months or 6 years ago. Even liberating the carbon in paper products which were photosynthesized by tree growth 50 years ago is fundamentally different than liberating carbon from fossil fuels created millions of years ago. Especially when remembering that a new tree will be growing in the location where the previous one was harvested - the sustainable harvesting assumption. It is these boundaries which are used in the calculations in the appendices. Landfill methane emissions also require discussion in the context of biomass carbon cycling. If the C O 2 emission from a landfill is neutral but C H 4 emissions are G H G contributions, would it not be more accurate to subtract C H 4 by the C O 2 which would have occurred otherwise. This improvement is based on the fact that the methane results from a biomass waste and if the material can decompose anaerobically (without oxygen), it would likely decompose aerobically (breakdown with oxygen is inherently easier). Though methane is 21 times more effective than C O 2 , it would be more accurate to subtract the C O 2 that would otherwise have occurred if the methane emission did not. This reduces landfill methane emissions by approximately 5% and is defined by this author as CO2 Subtraction. However, this improvement has not been included in this report so that it would be consistent with the IPCC methodology, but it is logical that it may be included in future work. What if photosynthesis removes C 0 2 from the atmosphere to create biomass but the carbon is never returned to the atmosphere? If the biomass resists the decomposition necessary to return the carbon to the atmosphere, this process can be interpreted as a GHG benefit and is analogous to permanently converting grassland to forests to sequester carbon. Both examples are reducing the atmospheric concentration of C O 2 to assist in mitigating Global Climate Change. This removal of carbon from the atmosphere and permanent storage can occur when biomass is disposed in landfills and resists decomposition in the anaerobic conditions. The next section reviews this emerging issue. 2.4 LANDFILL CARBON SEQUESTRATION The anaerobic decomposition of municipal solid waste has been well documented in the past and will not be reviewed in this thesis. However, this report will address the emerging issue of partial decomposition of organic materials in landfills in this section. The three organic components of municipal solid waste which are critical to the degradation reported in the literature are cellulose (40-50% dry mass), lignin (10-15%) and hemicellulose (9-12%) (Barlaz 1989a). Both the decomposed and undecomposed 22 organics are of concern in GHG emission considerations. The decomposed portion of the organics leads to methane emissions, whereas the portion resistant to decomposition presents the carbon sequestration potential of landfills. It is important to note that carbon sequestration is not included in the latest IPCC guidelines but was considered in a 1998 analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998). Even under optimal conditions for biodegradation, complete anaerobic decomposition of organic materials cannot be expected. The presence of recalcitrant lignin and large particle sizes can limit the access of hydrolytic bacteria to some of the biodegradable material (Baldwin et al. 1998; Stinson and Ham 1995; Cummings and Stewart 1994; Wang et al. 1994; Tong et al. 1990). Complicating the matter further still is the fact that lignin concentrations of specific MSW components are highly variable. These issues are important for assessing the GHG emissions associated with landfill disposal and will be the focus of the discussion in this section. After the introduction of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin biodegradability (2.4.1), a literature review of landfill carbon sequestration is presented (2.4.2). This is followed by a discussion of how this issue is applied to the two GVRD landfills analyzed in this thesis (2.4.3). 2.4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n It has been reported that over 90% of the methane potential of MSW results from the cellulose plus hemicellulose fraction (Barlaz et al. 1989a) and the remaining biodegradable constituents are soluble sugars and proteins. Cellulose is the principal structural molecule in plants; in fact, half of all the organic carbon in the biosphere has been estimated to be contained in cellulose (Curtis and Barnes 1989). In its frequently occurring fibrous form, its tensile strength is very great and it is insoluble in water. Cellulose is a carbohydrate; a polymer made up largely of glucose, and corresponds to the empirical formula of (CeHioOsV However, the degree of polymerization (DP) is very large, often ranging between 1000 and 5000, giving molecular weights between 163,000 and 810,000. Hemicelluloses are nonfibrous wood components. While cellulose is comprised mainly of glucose units, the hemicelluloses contain primarily sugar units other than glucose - such as xylose or mannose. The DP of hemicelluloses is much lower than cellulose; it is typically 150\u00C2\u00B130 (McGraw-Hill 1962). Lignin accounts for between 20 to 30% of wood material and functions as a filler or cementing substance to impart rigidity to the tissues. It is thought that lignin probably exists in wood as branched-chain polymer molecules comprising a vast network. This network may be further intermeshed and/or chemically combined with hemicellulose or other nonlignin components of wood (ibid). Lignin is highly recalcitrant. Not only does it strongly resist anaerobic decomposition, but it also prevents the decomposition of the embedded cellulose and hemicellulose components of the lignin matrix (Micales and Skog 1997). By themselves, the majority of cellulose and hemicellulose can be readily degraded. Under idealized laboratory decomposition conditions, Barlaz (1989b) observed the decomposition of 72% of the cellulose and hemicellulose of MSW but negligible decomposition of lignin. 23 There is a great deal of variability in the lignin content of many individual MSW components. This variability is demonstrated in office paper, which is largely delignified (one study measured the lignin content to be 2.3% (Barlaz 1998)), or in branches and newspapers, which are highly lignified (the same study measured lignin contents of 33% and 24%, respectively). The lignin content is \"important because it is both a physical and chemical barrier to microbial attack.\" (Wang et al. 1994) In one study, about 40% of the cellulose in newsprint was degraded, while 90 and 97%, respectively, in delignified office and filter paper decomposed anaerobically (Khan 1997). In another study, the partial delignification of newsprint by acid chlorite treatment significantly increased the amount of cellulose available for decomposition and resulted in about 75% of the cellulose being degraded. By comparison, the cellulose decomposition in untreated newsprint was limited to 50% (Stinson and Ham 1995). Lastly researchers at the USDA Forest Service have performed calculations which \"suggest that maximally only 30% of the carbon from paper and 0-3% of the carbon from wood are ever emitted as landfill gas.\" (Micales and Skog 1997) 2.4.2 L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w Resulting from the ability of organic components of MSW to resist decomposition, the potential therefore exists for the long-term sequestration of carbon in sanitary landfills. It is worth noting that these are anaerobic conditions largely because there is no identified anaerobic microbial lignin attack (as opposed to white rot fungus which attacks aerobically). In fact, from the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions, the organic carbon deposited in landfills has to be partitioned into one of only three pathways: \"(1) eventual atmospheric emission as methane, (2) eventual atmospheric emission as carbon dioxide following microbial oxidation or combustion, and (3) long-term sedimentary storage in landfill reservoirs.\" (Bogner and Spokas 1995) Two research investigations have attempted to estimate the amount of carbon being sequestered in landfills worldwide. The first one by Bogner and Spokas (1995), also partially described in Bogner (1992), developed a highly conservative estimate based on idealized laboratory decomposition studies with well-mixed waste and elevated moisture contents by Barlaz (1989b). It is likely that actual landfills, with high rates of compaction and restricted moisture infiltration, will have an even greater proportion of recalcitrant organic carbon and thus a greater amount of sedimentary storage would be expected. Bogner and Spokas (1995) estimated that about 30 million metric tonnes of carbon annually enters sedimentary storage by deposition in landfills - a considerable amount when compared to the estimated 20-30 million tonnes of carbon annually entering sedimentary storage worldwide from other sources (mainly marine). The second investigation into the long-term storage of carbon in landfills was performed by Barlaz (1998) and is also discussed in Eleazer et al. (1997) and USEPA (1998). This also simulated enhanced anaerobic decomposition in laboratory-scale reactors. This research placed various types of organic waste in separate reactor vessels \"in which was maintained anaerobic conditions similar to those in a landfill, but controlled to favor maximum methane generation.\" The experiments included shredding, seeding, leachate recycling and the maintenance of sufficient concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus to ensure nutrient availability. These reactors were allowed to run for periods varying from 24 three months to two years. The experiment for each reactor was finished when either no measurable methane was being emitted (below instrument detection limit), or when it was determined that the reactor had produced at least 95% of the methane that it would produce if run indefinitely. The amount of methane and the amount of undecomposed carbon remaining in each reactor at the end of the experiment was measured. The goal of this second study was to determine the \"ultimate biodegradability\" that is to be expected. The most significant contribution of this research is the study of the major individual components of MSW separately, and the subsequent determination of component-specific \"Carbon Storage Factors\". Once again, this storage determination is conservative; actual decomposition in a traditional landfill would be expected to be lower. The measured Carbon Storage Factor (CSF) represents the mass of carbon that was stored (not anaerobically degraded) per initial dry mass of component. Not surprising, the highest storage capability was observed with the high lignin MSW components, and the lowest storage was demonstrated by the lower lignin content materials. The measured CSF for grass, leaves, branches and newsprint was 0.32, 0.54, 0.38 and 0.42 kg C/dry kg, corresponding to lignin concentrations of 23, 43, 33 and 24%, respectively. Food waste and office paper exhibited low storage, with CSFs of 0.08 and 0.05 kg C/dry kg at low lignin concentrations of 11 and 2.3%, respectively. The carbon measured by the CSF includes not only the portion of cellulose and hemicellulose (and in the case of food waste - protein) which resisted anaerobic decomposition, but also most of the lignin content - very little lignin was actually degraded. In an extrapolation of this data, Barlaz used these results to generate a global landfill carbon storage value. He estimated the global carbon sequestration due to MSW burial to be 118.7 million metric tonnes of carbon annually. This global carbon sequestration value is much greater than the previous value estimated by Bogner and Spokas. Inspection of these Carbon Storage Factors for development in this thesis has discovered inconsistencies in the data reported by Barlaz (1998). For example, the CSF for leaves was reported as 0.54 kg C per dry kg while the initial carbon content of the leaves was only reported as 0.49 kg C per dry kg. This impossible result raises important questions about the results. The method used to calculate the CSF is a back-calculation based upon the carbon remaining in the reactor at the end of the experiment, but corrections were necessary to attribute the necessary fraction to the seed introduced to insure successful decomposition. It appears the initial carbon content was not used at any time for the calculation of CSF's and that the uncertainty with the correction for the seed has caused problems with some of the CSF's reported. Upon personal communication with Morton Barlaz and Jim Atwater, a new method for estimating Carbon Storage Factors is developed and employed in this thesis. Using the methane emission reported in USEPA (1998) to calculate the moles of C H 4 emitted and by assuming equal moles of C O 2 , it is possible to estimate the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD). When this C A A D is subtracted from the initial carbon content reported in Barlaz (1998), a revised CSF results. The actual calculations for the revised CSF's are presented in the respective appendix for each biodegradable material investigated. Only one material changes appreciably with this revision: the CSF for leaves is decreased (from the 25 previous 0.54 kg C/dry kg to a new 0.43 kg C/dry kg). All the remaining biodegradable waste components (newsprint, office paper, grass and branches) change only slightly. The above revision has not been used on the CSF for food waste due to the fact that the laboratory-scale reactors for food contained a greater proportion of seed than the other reactors. If the above revisions are used on food waste, the CSF increases by 150%, an unreasonable amount. It is this author's belief that the current CSF is likely the more appropriate and it is thus left unrevised. 2.4.3 A p p l i c a t i o n to G V R D L a n d f i l l s The application of this issue to the analysis in this thesis must be addressed. What proportion of office paper, newsprint, food and yard waste will remain undecomposed in the Cache Creek or Vancouver Landfill? It requires noting that only the sequestration of these four biomass materials is of consequence, because they do not contain the carbon of concern from a climate change perspective. Any carbon which is stored in this manner is a G H G benefit to the atmosphere. However, the disposal of plastics is not to be considered a net GHG benefit - plastics contain carbon from petroleum products that, as fossil fuels, was already in storage. As a result, the plastics have simply been moved from one 'storage' state to another, and are not considered in this analysis. To estimate landfill carbon sequestration and the inverse of this issue, landfill methane emissions, a Time-Dependant model is developed in this thesis. In this model, all of the carbon disposed in a landfill has to eventually follow one of four distinct pathways: atmospheric emission as C H 4 , atmospheric emission as C O 2 , long-term storage or awaiting decomposition (though not yet degraded, this carbon is not to be considered sequestered). In this manner, emissions for the next 20 years are estimated. In this model, the organic-carbon in the newsprint, office paper and food and yard waste components of MSW disposed in landfills will be partitioned according to the pathways described above. The landfill carbon sequestration estimates as reported by Barlaz (1998), and revised for this thesis as described in the previous section, are likely the most appropriate. However, since the Cache Creek Landfill (CCLF) is a dry landfill (there is little appreciable leachate (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent), the actual sequestration may be greater. The Vancouver Landfill (VLF) is a wet landfill (a substantial quantity of leachate is annually transferred to the nearest wastewater treatment plant (Pers. comm.. Paul Henderson) and is likely better represented by the experiments by Barlaz. If data for dry landfill sequestration becomes available in the future, the estimates can be revised. The flip side of the sequestered fraction is the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (as described in the previous section) which is the total C H 4 and C O 2 which was emitted from the anaerobic reactors during the enhanced decomposition simulated by Barlaz. This C A A D is used in this thesis to estimate the methane generation potential at the landfills. At the end of 20 years, organic carbon in this model can decompose (to C O 2 or CH 4 ) , it can be sequestered or it can simply be awaiting decomposition. However, this is not to say that carbon has to decompose anaerobically - organic carbon can be removed in the leachate and be aerobically degraded at wastewater treatment plants. While identifying 26 this possibility is valuable, the following estimates demonstrate the relative lack of importance of this issue. At the Vancouver Landfill, 2,115,772 m 3 of leachate was collected and transferred to the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant in 1999 (Pers. comm.. Paul Henderson). Using a typical B O D 5 concentration of 100 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy 1991), it is possible to calculate the mass of organic carbon contained in this leachate. This can be compared with the annual loss of carbon as landfill gas as a result of anaerobic decomposition. The most recent estimate is that the landfill gas production rate was 5082 cubic feet per minute in 1999 (Pers. comm. Paul Henderson). These calculations are below. Mass of Carbon in Leachate = (2,115,772 m3]^ 100 m g \u00C2\u00B0/j * 2 /mol C 32 g / /mol 0 2 j ' IDE I O O O V )=\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0 - 5 tonnes/ h 000 V , 79 tonnes of C Volume of LFG = (5,082 f t\"/. j f - ^ - l feO 1 1 1 ' 1 1 /*24h/*365 r f / ]{\000 V 3)= 75.7* 109 L V' / r nm\3.28ftJ V / h / d />\"'JX /in' Mass of Carbon in Landfill Gas = (75.7 * 109 L ) Q ^ ~ ^ ] ( ' 2 ^ m o l ) ( 1 \u00C2\u00B0 \" t 0 n n / ^ ] = 4 0 > 6 0 0 t o n n e s o f Carbon The estimated 79 tonnes of carbon leaving the landfill as leachate is virtually irrelevant when compared to the 40,600 tonnes of carbon leaving the landfill as carbon dioxide or methane gas. Furthermore, since the Cache Creek Landfill is a dry landfill with little appreciable leachate (any leachate which is collected is spread on the active face to return the leachate back to the fill (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent)), this issue has even less importance. As a result of the demonstrated lack of importance, the potential for landfill leachate to provide aerobic decomposition of the organic carbon deposited in landfills is ignored. It is also helpful to compare the mass of carbon in landfill gas with the mass of carbon in place at the landfill site. Since beginning operation in 1966, an estimated 11.3 million tonnes of waste has been deposited in the Vancouver Landfill by 1999 (CRA 1999), or an average 330,000 tonnes per year. By assuming a moisture content for MSW of 25% and a carbon content for MSW of 50%, it can be estimated that each year 124,000 tonnes of carbon is deposited in the landfill. However, only about 40,000 tonnes of carbon, or one part in three, actually escapes in the landfill gas each year. These simple estimates suggest that sequestration is indeed occurring at the local Vancouver Landfill. Now part of the landfill gas (LFG) resulting from anaerobic decomposition may be collected. The methane gas component can be flared or utilized for energy. The remaining portion will escape collection and will be emitted to the atmosphere. However, some of the C H 4 which escapes collection can still be oxidized to C O 2 by microorganisms in the landfill cover materials prior to emission. New research by Czepiel et al. (1996) estimated the landfill oxidation rate of 10% for landfill methane. This study investigated a landfill that had a 1-2 m cover consisting of sandy-clay loam with intermittent low shrubs and grasses in older sections. This estimate will be used as an oxidation rate representative of the CCLF and the V L F for methane by-passing collection. 27 The last \"fraction\" or \"partition\" for organic carbon in this model is that which has yet to decompose. In this model, part of the organic carbon that will eventually decompose will not do so within the first 20 years; this carbon is part of the C A A D which hasn't yet decomposed after 20 years. Due to its future degradability potential, it cannot be considered as having entered long-term storage. Critical to this time-dependant modelling is the first-order decay rate constant used. Various decay rates are published in available literature. Several of these were experimented with for this research but it is difficult to know which is of the greatest accuracy. The first order decay rate constant used by the GVRD in modelling methane emissions at the CCLF, 0.02 yr\"1, can be used to simulate the future degradation in the C C L F (GVRD 1999b). This is the decay rate developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for dry landfills (USEPA 1997). Unfortunately, this is an estimate of the degradation rate of general MSW and is not specific to any particular waste component. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates used a decay rate constant of 0.028 yr\"1 when modelling the landfill gas at the V L F in a recent assessment for the City of Vancouver (Conestoga-Rovers 1999). This decay constant was developed by Levelton & Associates (for Environment Canada) in a province by province evaluation of landfill emissions (B.H. Levelton 1991). This higher decay rate represents the greater degradation to be expected at a wet landfill over the dry Cache Creek Landfill. When using the 0.02 yf'decay rate it can be estimated that only 33% of the C A A D will degrade within the 20 year time period and when using the higher 0.028 yr\"', 43% of the C A A D is expected within the time period. This author believes it more useful to assume that over half of the C A A D of newsprint, office paper and Remainder and that over three-quarters of the C A A D of food scraps and yard trimmings is realized in the first 20 years after disposal (food waste is known to be readily decomposable and since yard waste is comprised of about 50% grass, this component is also easily degraded). By using a decay rate of 0.04 yr\"1 for paper and Remainder disposed in the Cache Creek Landfill, 56% of the C A A D will materialize in the 20 years. For the Vancouver Landfill, the decay rate of 0.05 yr\"1 will result in 64% of the C A A D being depleted. Using 0.07 yr\"1 for the food and yard waste disposed at Cache Creek, 77% of C A A D will be decomposed. At Vancouver, 0.08 yr\"1 calculates that 82% of the C A A D degrades. Lastly, if users wish to model the ultimate methane generation, 100% decomposition of the C A A D , then inputting the decay rate as 0.14 yr\"1 will cause this. 28 These decay rates are displayed in the table below. Due to the nature of the spreadsheet Model, users can change the decay rates in the future to suit their needs. T a b l e 2-1 : F i r s t - O r d e r D e c a y R a t e C o n s t a n t s Landfill Waste Component Decay Rate (year\"') % ofCAADin first 20 years Source Cache Creek MSW 0.02 33 GVRD 1999b Vancouver MSW 0.028 43 Conestoga-Rovers 1999 Cache Creek Paper & Remainder 0.04 56 assumption Vancouver Paper & Remainder 0.05 64 assumption Cache Creek Food & Yard 0.07 77 assumption Vancouver Food & Yard 0.08 82 assumption either 0.14 100 change to ultimate any decomposition Also important in modelling GHG emissions is the expected collection efficiency of the generated landfill gas. This Model slowly increases, year after year, not only the collection effectiveness but also the proportion utilized for energy (to replace fossil energy). 2.5 N I T R O U S O X I D E E M I S S I O N S The potential is great for significant releases of nitrous oxide during waste management, especially food and yard waste management, and consequently requires consideration. Given that N 2 0 is a strong greenhouse gas, it is estimated to be 310 times more effective in trapping infrared radiation than C 0 2 , it has to be considered in this research. In order to facilitate this, the Global Nitrogen Cycle (2.5.1) and the Global Nitrous Oxide Cycle (2.5.2) must be introduced. This is followed by the Anthropogenic Interference with the Global Nitrogen Cycle (2.5.3) and the consequent Anthropogenic Interference with the Global Nitrous Oxide Cycle (2.5.4). Finally this human-induced interference will be assessed for its Implications for Waste Management (2.5.5). This section will discuss the ramifications for Landfill Disposal (2.5.5.1), Composting (2.5.5.2) and Incineration (2.5.5.3) in turn. A detailed discussion of this can be found in Barton & Atwater (2000). This entire section is a summary of that paper. While it may appear that much of the following information is unrelated to the primary focus of the thesis, this review is provided to impress upon readers the uncertainty of the reported data and the crude understanding of this issue. As a result, the actual emissions measured in the future can and may be much greater than are currently estimated. 2.5.1 G l o b a l N i t r o g e n C y c l e Nitrogen is a critical element for life. It is an essential component of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which in turn are the building blocks of all life. It is estimated that 16% of protein, or 0.16 kg of N per kg of protein, is nitrogen (IPCC 1997). The cycling of global nitrogen throughout terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the atmosphere is critical for this building block. 29 The Earth's atmosphere is 78% by volume molecular nitrogen, N 2 gas, and thus it is an immense reservoir. It is estimated that 5 billion million metric tonnes of nitrogen are contained in the atmosphere, ocean, terrestrial and marine biota, soil organic matter and sedimentary rocks. Although N is abundant, the vast majority of it is in a form which can be used by only a few living organisms (Mackenzie 1998). It is estimated that <0.02% (or ~1 million million tonnes) of global N is actually accessible to living organisms, most is either diatomic nitrogen (N 2 gas) in the atmosphere (-78%) or tied up in sedimentary rocks (-20%) (ibid). To be available for utilization by living organisms, it must be in the form of reactive or fixed nitrogen (defined as \"N bonded to C, O or H (e.g. NO y , NH X , organic N)\" (Galloway 1998)). Only a few species of aquatic and terrestrial bacteria and blue-green algae can fix the nearly inert N 2 molecule into ammonium (NH4 +) for utilization. This conversion is called biological N-fixation (BNF) and it has been estimated that in preindustrial times, 90-130 xlO 6 metric tonnes of N was annually fixed by this natural process (Galloway 1995). Lightning contributes an estimated additional 3-5 xlO 6 metric tonnes of N fixation annually. This reactive or fixed nitrogen moves through the terrestrial N cycle by the death of plants and microorganisms, mineralization - the breakdown of amino acids, assimilation - uptake by plants and by immobilization - uptake by microorganisms (Kinzig and Socolow 1994). Assuming an annual fixation rate of 130 million tonnes, this is miniscule in relation to the pool of total nitrogen (1 part in 38 million) or to the pool of reactive nitrogen (1 part in 7800). However it is upon this fixation rate which organisms depend. Since plant and animal life can only utilize reactive nitrogen as nutrients, and not diatomic nitrogen, \"all life ultimately depends on nitrogen fixation\" (Ayres et al 1994). For nitrogen to remain in steady state conditions there must also be the return of reactive N to the N 2 reservoir (though this reactive N may transfer through several from due to oxidations and reductions before returning to N 2). The majority of this is accomplished by the microbial processes, nitrification and denitrification. There is also pyrodenitrification which occurs during forest fires. In nitrification, ammonium (NH4 +) is oxidized to nitrate (NO3\") by mainly autotrophic bacteria under aerobic conditions in order to derive energy. In denitrification, nitrate is reduced to N 2 by mainly facultative heterotrophic bacteria under anoxic (oxygen restricted) conditions. These bacteria use the nitrate as a terminal electron acceptor so that they can concurrently derive energy from the breakdown of organic carbon (Beauchamp 1997). During pyrodenitrification, \"two nitrogen atoms that were in separate molecules in plants or soil bind to one another to make N 2 , as the result of a sequence of high-temperature reactions.\" (Ayres et al. 1994) By these three processes, equal amounts of N (the approximately 93 to 135 xlO 6 tonnes N fixed annually) are returned to the atmosphere as N 2 gas. 2.5.2 G l o b a l N i t r o u s O x i d e C y c l e Nitrous oxide (N 20) is a stable gas which leaks from microbial cells during nitrification and denitrification (Firestone and Davidson 1989). Though the predominant product of nitrification is nitrate (NO3\"), and of denitrification is N 2 , a portion of the N can be emitted as nitrous oxide. 30 Though some parts of the nitrification and denitrification pathways are not well understood, particularly the pathways encompassing nitric oxide (NO), the generally accepted metabolic pathways are shown below. The dashed lines signify unconfirmed pathways. F i g u r e 2 - 1 : N i t r i f i c a t i o n & D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n P a t h w a y s NITRIFICATION (Hooper 1984; Firestone and Davidson 1989): NO nitric oxide A N,0 nitrous oxide t , N O , i A \ T N H / \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > N H 2 O H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [HNO]% ^N0 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094>N0 3 ammonium hydroxyl-amine \ j nitrite nitrate N 0 2 N H O H nitrohydroxyl-amine DENITRIFICATION (Firestone and Davidson 1989): NO nitric oxide i i I i : ^ N O , \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C2\u00BB N 0 2 - - - - M X ] - \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 > N 2 0 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> N 2 nitrate nitrite nitrous oxide nitrogen gas The \"hole-in-the-pipe\" or \"process-pipe\" conceptualization by Firestone & Davidson has been used to visualize the N 2 0 production in soils. These researchers consider that N 2 0 production is a factor of, (1), the amount of nitrogen cycling between the soil-plant-microbial system, and (2), the ratios of the N 20/N03 _ and N 2 0 / N 2 products of nitrification and denitrification. These two factors, the overall movement of nitrogen through the pipe, and the amount of leakage (the size of the holes in the pipe), control the emission of N 2 0 . Agricultural research has found that anywhere from 0.001% to 6.8% of the nitrogen applied to fields is emitted as N 2 0 (Mosier et al. 1996), and the ratio of N20/N03~ produced as a result of nitrification has been reported as high as 20% (Martikainen 1985), but is generally below 1% (Firestone and Davidson 1989). Though both processes have been demonstrated to result in N 2 0 leakage, denitrification is considered to be the major source of N 2 0 from soils (Sahrawat and Keeney 1986). The production of N 2 0 during nitrification in soils has been demonstrated to result from: \"a reductive process in which the organisms use N0 2\" as an electron acceptor, especially when 0 2 is limiting. This mechanism not only allows the organisms to conserve limited 0 2 for the oxidation of N H 4 + (from which they gain energy'for growth and regeneration), but also avoids the potential for accumulation of toxic levels of N 0 2 \ \" (Hutchinson and Davidson 1993; Poth and Focht 1985) The nitrous oxide leakage during denitrification is considered to result when: \"the availability of oxidant (N-oxide) greatly exceeds the availability of reductant (most commonly organic carbon), then the oxidant may be 31 incompletely utilized, i.e. N 2 0 will be produced.\" (Firestone and Davidson 1989) \"Conversely, when the overall rate of denitrification is limited by the supply of oxidant, most of the N-oxide is converted to N 2 . \" (Hutchinson and Davidson 1993) The latest estimate of the IPCC (1995) is that 9 xlO 6 tonnes of N 2 0 - N is naturally emitted to the atmosphere by soil processes, forest and brush fires and the oceans. As there is no chemical loss in the troposphere (the lower -12 km of the atmosphere (Mackenzie 1998)), this 9 xlO 6 tonnes of N 2 0 - N slowly rises to the stratosphere where it is destroyed. The destruction of N 2 0 occurs at an altitude above 30 km (in the stratosphere) and returns this nitrogen to the N 2 reservoir. It takes, on average, 120 years for N 2 0 to reach this altitude and to be destroyed (IPCC 1995). The N 2 0 is destroyed predominantly by photodisassociation into N 2 molecules and O atoms. However, approximately 10% of the N 2 0 reacts with electronically excited oxygen atoms (formed by the photolysis of ozone) to form NO. The production of NO is important in stratospheric ozone chemistry, since NO catalytically destroys ozone (Abbatt and Molina 1993). 2.5.3 A n t h r o p o g e n i c In te r fe rence o f the G l o b a l N i t r o g e n C y c l e The crux of the problem is that humans have approximately doubled the global rate of N fixation, from an estimated pre-industrial rate of 93-135 xlO 6 tonnes N/yr to an estimated 243-295 xlO 6 tonnes N/yr fixed currently (Galloway 1998). The increased fixation of elemental N 2 gas has been a direct result of nitrogenous fertilizer production, human-induced increases in the cultivation of leguminous crops (which host a symbiotic relationship with biological N-fixing bacteria) and by the combustion of fossil fuels. Estimates adapted from Galloway (1998) of this anthropogenic interference are provided in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: G loba l Reactive Ni t rogen Sources Global Nitrogen Fixation (million tonnes N/year) Natural Biological N Fixation 90-130 Lightning 3-5 Natural Source Subtotal 93-135 Synthetic Fertilizers 80-90 Human-Induced Biological N Fixation 40 Fossil Fuel Combustion 30 Anthropogenic Source Subtotal 150-160 T O T A L SOURCES 243-295 (Percent Anthropogenic) (51-66%) Fertilizer production by the Haber-Bosch process fixes N 2 to ammonia (NH3) thereby reproducing at high temperature and pressure what bacteria can accomplish with enzymes at ambient temperature and pressure (Kinzig and Socolow 1994). Human-induced biological N-fixation occurs by the increased cultivation of leguminous crops such as soybean and alfalfa which symbiotically host nitrogen fixing bacteria in their root nodules. The last source of reactive N is the by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels. 32 Whereas nitrogen fixation from fertilizer production and the cultivation of leguminous crops is intentional, the reactive N produced as a result of combustion is not intentional. The combustion of fossil fuels causes nitrogen that was originally in air as N 2 gas or nitrogen that was originally sequestered in the fuel as organic-N to be oxidized to nitric oxide (NO) or nitrogen dioxide (N02). 2.5.4 A n t h r o p o g e n i c In te r fe rence of the G l o b a l N i t r o u s O x i d e C y c l e As a direct result of enhancing of the global nitrogen cycle, there has been a consequent enhancing of the global nitrous oxide cycle. The atmospheric N 2 0 concentration has increased from a pre-industrial level of 275 ppb to a level of 311 ppb in 1992, an increase of 13% (IPCC 1995). This is estimated to contribute 6% of the human-induced increase in the infrared radiation absorbing ability of the atmosphere (Erisman et al 1998). In addition, this concentration continues to increase by about 0.8 ppb annually (IPCC 1995). The most recent budget, as of 1998, of global nitrous oxide is provided in Table 2-3 (adapted from Mosier et al. (1998)) T a b l e 2 - 3 : G l o b a l N 2 0 B u d g e t G l o b a l Sources a n d S i n k s o f N 2 0 ( m i l l i o n tonnes N 2 0 - N / y e a r ) Identified Natural Sources 9.0 Identified Anthropogenic Sources 7.2 Total Identified Sources 16.2 Unaccounted Sources 0 Total Sinks (Photolysis) 12.3 Atmospheric Increase 3.9 Agricultural activities dominate the emissions of anthropogenic nitrous oxide with industrial sources (primarily fossil fuel combustion) providing the remainder of emissions. It is only since 1998 that the budget of N 2 0 sources and sinks has been successfully balanced. Previous budgets were not balanced because sinks exceeded sources with the missing emissions labeled as \"unaccounted sources.\" In the newest IPCC methodology, there are new sources of N 2 0 which were previously not included (IPCC 1997). In this new methodology, \"three sources of N 2 0 are distinguished: (i) direct emissions from agricultural soils, (ii) emissions from animal production systems, and (iii) N 2 0 emissions indirectly induced by agricultural activities.\" (IPCC 1997; Mosier et al. 1998) It is the N 2 0 emissions indirectly resulting from agriculture with which this research is concerned, because it is the source of the emissions that result from the MSW stream. Reactive N exported from farms as food products can cause indirect emissions of N 2 0 . This reactive N is eventually nitrified and denitrified and N 2 0 leakage can result. These 33 sources of N 2 0 are considered indirect because they do not actually occur on farms but are nevertheless, agricultural in origin. For instance, the nitrification and denitrification of reactive N used in food production (and the associated N 2 0 leakage) may occur at wastewater treatment plants. As a result, N 2 0 emissions from wastewater treatment can be considered indirectly agricultural in origin, in fact, any N 2 0 emissions from reactive N downstream of food production are indirectly agricultural N 2 0 emissions. This will be further discussed in the following section, Implications for Waste Management (2.5.5). 2.5.5 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t The existence of anthropogenic nitrogen in MSW has important implications for waste management. Municipalities are typically given the responsibility to perform waste management. Given that fertilizer nitrogen, either in food or yard waste, has the potential to emit N 2 0 during this management, municipalities are responsible for the emissions. To assess this potential source of GHG emissions, a survey of available research has been performed. This survey only found nine papers on the N 2 0 emissions from composting, ten papers on the N 2 0 emissions from waste incineration and only two papers on the N 2 0 emissions from waste disposed in landfills. However, 26 papers and one patent were found on the N 2 0 emissions resulting during wastewater treatment - a frequent destination of landfill leachate. Each of the management alternatives, landfill disposal, composting and incineration will be reviewed from the perspective of N 2 0 emissions in this section. These papers actually generate many more questions than they answer. For all of the papers, only the immediate emissions of N 2 0 were measured during the investigated process. There was no attempt to quantify any future emissions resulting from ammonia, nitric oxide or nitrate losses during the process, or from the future decomposition of the organic matter. For example, gaseous emissions of NH3 are common during wastewater treatment or composting, but atmospheric discharges of this reactive nitrogen are not considered with respect to subsequent N 2 0 emissions. Ammonia has an atmospheric lifetime of only a few hours to a few days and is mainly removed by wet and dry deposition. However, a portion, perhaps 10%, is oxidized to NO, and a third fraction is removed by reacting with nitrates or sulphates to form ammonium-containing aerosols, (NH4)2S04 and NH4NO3. These aerosols are later removed by rainfall or dry fallout (Matthews 1994). Nitrogen oxides (N0 X = NO + N0 2 ) are short-lived gases and they have an atmospheric lifetime between 1-10 days. Nitrogen oxides are removed from the atmosphere by conversion to nitric acid (HNO3), which is followed by wet or dry deposition (Olivier et al 1998; Logan 1983). In addition, nitrogen oxides are suspected to indirectly contribute to global warming - they deplete the atmospheric concentration of the OH radical; a radical which limits the atmospheric lifetime of CH4. With OH depleted, the potential exists for methane to have a longer atmospheric lifetime than it would otherwise be able to (Mackenzie 1995). Once these nitrogen compounds (NH 3, N H 4 + , NO, (NH 4) 2S0 4 , NH4NO3, H N 0 3 , etc) are returned to land or water surfaces by wet or dry deposition, this reactive nitrogen is again available for nitrification/denitrification, and the associated N 2 0 emissions can result. As 34 a result, discharges of reduced or oxidized nitrogen compounds only temporally and spatially alter the nitrous oxide emissions but do nothing to prevent these emissions. Another example of a. future N2O emission originates from the organic nitrogen contained in wastewater sludge or finished compost. As this organic-nitrogen will eventually undergo decomposition, the released ammonium (NH/) is now available to undergo nitrification and denitrification. A simplified conceptualization of N 2 0 emissions during waste management operations and of potential future emissions is demonstrated in Figure 2-2. F i g u r e 2 - 2 : P o t e n t i a l N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t N-,0 Fert i l izer Human Consumption A . Agriculture ^ Food Products ^^\"\"\"\"\"\"^ l e a c h f t i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ^ (-25%) Landfill ing N 2 0 N20 N2 V N20 NH3 t 1 Food process ing wastewater S sludge n \"*\"\" r Treatment ~ N 2 \u00C2\u00B0 solid waste i n c i n e r a t i o n ^ 1 . \u00E2\u0080\u009E l l r - Agriculture L o S s e s H u m a n c \u00C2\u00B0 n r s u m p t l 0 n Management r f , m n n i . H n n ^ * M n Human-induced BNF A r~7W^ C \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E H c o m p o s t i n g NO (~75%) Food Processing N;0 NH3 N20 /\ N20 N2 To reiterate, N 2 0 emissions in waste management from the reactive nitrogen in food waste are considered indirectly agricultural in origin by the IPCC. This is because the nitrogen was originally fixed for food production. In addition, the nitrogen component of yard trimmings may also be synthetic fertilizer in origin. During waste management, there can be immediate or future emissions of N 2 0 . Immediate emissions occur during the operation in question, be it wastewater treatment, composting, landfilling or incineration. Future emissions occur as a result of the future nitrification and denitrification of reactive N which exits the operation, usually in the fomi of ammonia or nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + N0 2 ) emissions or organic-nitrogen in compost or sludge. While waste managers are responsible for the release of reactive nitrogen, once the nitrogen is released they have no way of controlling its conversion to N 2 0 . The following sub-sections review the potential for N 2 0 emissions to result from wastes that are landfilled, composted or incinerated. It is the intent of these reviews to complement the N 2 0 calculations in Appendix C through Appendix K. 2.5.5.1 - Landfill Disposal Does the reactive nitrogen in landfilled MSW (predominantly in the food and yard waste components) contribute N 2 0 emissions to the atmosphere? A literature review has only located two research papers addressing this question. Unfortunately, only the Japanese study actually investigated the N 2 0 emissions resulting from waste disposed in landfills -35 the other research paper, a Swedish study, examined the emissions from different materials as cover soils. In the Japanese study, two landfills, one active and the other closed, both with over 10 million tonnes of refuse in place, were examined (Tsujimoto 1994). Average N 2 0 emissions of 40.2 g/day and 7.8 g/day for the active and closed landfills, respectively, were observed in the landfill gas vented. This emission, while important (40 g/d of N 2 0 will equal the annual greenhouse gas emission of 4.5 tonnes of C 0 2 equivalent [using the N 2 0 global wanning potential of 310] or the combustion of approximately 1600 L of diesel fuel1), represents only 9.3 kg of N 2 0 - N annually or 0.02% of an assumed 50,000 kg of nitrogen in the waste (using a nitrogen content of 0.5% for typical waste (White et al 1995)). Either this small emission indicates limited nitrification/denitrification taking place or limited N 2 0 leakage of the nitrification/denitrification taking place. (For further discussion of N 2 0 leakage refer to Section 2.5.2 - Global Nitrous Oxide Cycle) Given the anaerobic nature of landfills, it is likely the former. The Swedish study, determined that about 1.6% of sludge nitrogen used as a landfill cover soil will be emitted as N 2 0 - N during the first two years (Borjesson and Svensson 1997). This is similar to the 1.25% N 2 0 - N estimate for fertilizer and manure nitrogen found in agriculture research (IPCC 1997) and is not surprising considering that the land application of sludge is analagous to fertilization. Can appreciable amounts of nitrous oxide eventually become emitted from nitrogenous waste disposed in landfills? The Japanese study has demonstrated the existence of an emission, albeit a small one. Appreciable N 2 0 emissions likely occur indirectly via landfill leachate or landfill gas. Reactive nitrogen contained in landfilled organic waste is released when anaerobic decomposition occurs. At this point, ammonia-nitrogen is free to undergo nitrification and denitrification, to be leached by water percolating through the fill or to be volatilized in the vented landfill gas. Ammonia nitrogen can dissolve in the percolating water and exit the landfill in the leachate. Landfill leachate is known to be high in nitrogen, with a typical total nitrogen concentration (Organic-N + NH3 -N + NO3-N) between 25 and 1600 mg/L for active landfills and between 105 and 170 mg/L for mature landfills (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). In recent years, leachate ammonia concentrations in excess of 2000 mg/L are even being reported (Henderson and Atwater 1995; Robinson et al. 1998; Rettenberger 1998). On a dry volume basis, the typical ammonia content of landfill gas has been reported between 0.1 and 1.0% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). Assuming that a minimum of nitrification (and thus little denitrification) occurs inside the landfill because of the anaerobic environment, the likely pathway of N 2 0 emissions is from the treatment of landfill leachate or the release of ammonia gas to the atmosphere. As a result, a review of the literature on the N 2 0 emissions reported during wastewater treatment is necessary along with a discussion of the wet and dry deposition of ammonia emitted to the atmosphere. A survey of available research conducted on the N 2 0 emissions from wastewater treatment found 26 papers. Interestingly, the studies of actual wastewater treatment plants observed very low N 2 0 emissions, but laboratory experiments generally reported much higher N 2 0 emissions. ' Using the emission estimate of 2.8 kg of C0 2 /L of diesel from Environment Canada (1997a) 36 Studies using laboratory-scale reactors have demonstrated high N 2 O losses but have also observed a profound ability to affect these emissions; therefore the possibility exists for mitigation of a large portion of these emissions. The conversion of ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) to N 2 O during nitrification has been demonstrated by Zheng et al. ( 1 9 9 4 ) to be between 2 .3 and 7 . 0 % at dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations between 0.1 and 6.8 mg/L. They also found N 2 0 conversions as high as 1 6 % and as low as 2 . 3 % at solids retention times (SRT) of 3 days and 10 days, respectively. It was concluded that high N 2 O production resulted when incomplete nitrification occurred. Thus preventing incomplete nitrification by maintaining DO levels greater than 0.5 mg/L and having SRTs of greater than 5 days would greatly reduce N 2 0 emissions. By also using reactors, Hanaki et al. ( 1 9 9 2 ) observed that as much as 8 % of influent nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) was transformed to N 2 O during denitrification, though several experiments demonstrated very little N 2 O . The high conversion to N 2 0 was observed at a COD/NO3 -N ratio of 3 . 5 , an SRT of 0 .5 days and a pH of 6 .5 . These researchers concluded that \" N 2 O production can be avoided by achieving complete denitrification [by maintaining] high COD/NO3 -N in wastewater, long SRTs and neutral to alkaline pH conditions.\" Work by Hong et al. ( 1 9 9 3 ) also agrees with this; they concluded that \"the lower the ratio of COD/NO3 -N, the higher the percentage of N 2 O in the produced gas was\" and that short hydraulic retention times resulted in higher N 2 O production. Several papers have reported extremely high N 2 O conversion rates in the laboratory. Osada'et al. ( 1 9 9 5 ) reported a 3 5 % N 2 O - N conversion in a fill and draw activated sludge process while treating swine wastewater under continuous aeration but only a 0 . 7 % N 2 O -N conversion during intermittent aeration. Experiments on a sequencing-batch reactor (SBR) found that as much as 4 0 % of the removed nitrogen was emitted as N 2 0 ; most of which occurred during the low DO period in aeration (Okayasu et al 1 9 9 7 ) . During the aerobic treatment of swine slurry, nitrous oxide emissions could represent up to 3 0 % of the total nitrogen content of the slurry (Beline et al 1 9 9 9 ) . Research by Spector ( 1 9 9 8 ) , observed that N 2 0 accumulated to a maximum and was subsequently reduced to N2 gas, when reducing nitrate with methanol in a closed reactor. At maximum accumulation, 5 0 to 80%o of the reduced nitrate was in the form of N 2 O . This scientist noted that if the same experiment had been performed in an open reactor, \"most or all the N 2 O retained at ^max would have been discharged to the atmosphere:\" In contrast to this laboratory research are the findings from several investigations at full-scale facilities. Three studies at WWTP's performing biological nitrogen removal (BNR) reported very low N 2 0 emissions. Kimochi et al ( 1 9 9 8 ) reported N 2 O - N conversions between 0 .01 and 0 . 0 8 % of influent nitrogen. This WWTP was modified to attempt to reduce these emissions and they found that by maintaining a dissolved oxygen concentration of over 0.5 mg/L during the aerobic/nitrification stage and allowing 6 0 minutes for the anoxic/denitrification stage, that complete nitrification and denitrification with a minimum of nitrous oxide production could be achieved. In fact, their findings state: \"an optimum combination of aerobic and anoxic conditions and their suitable control are very important for improving nitrogen removal efficiency and controlling N 2 0 emissions.\" At a pilot plant, Thorn and Sorensson ( 1 9 9 6 ) , observed an average nitrous oxide production rate of 0 . 0 0 9 1 mg N L\"1 h\"1 in the denitrification basin. 3 7 However there is insufficient information to convert this value into a percentage of influent nitrogen. Research at a Swiss WWTP with a predenitrification anoxic tank followed by three aerobic tanks also observed a very low nitrous oxide emission (<0.1% of influent nitrogen) (von Schulthess and Gujer 1996). However, two studies at secondary treatment facilities (aeration tanks only treating biochemical oxygen demand) have also determined negligible emissions. At the municipal WWTP in Durham, New Hampshire, Czepiel et al. (1995) found N 2 0 emissions of only 1.6 xlO\"6 g of N 2 0 / L of wastewater or 3.2 g N20/person*year. Though it is not provided, if one assumes a typical nitrogen content of raw wastewater of 40 mg of N/L (Metcalf & Eddy 1991), this is a N 2 O - N conversion of influent nitrogen of only 0.0025%. Sumer et al. (1995) reported an N 2 0 - N conversion of 0.001% of influent-N at an activated sludge plant in Germany; however, this plant included a pre-trickling filter to increase nitrification in the aeration tank. If the conversions of reactive nitrogen to N 2 O have been demonstrated by these five scientific studies to be extremely low and therefore of almost no importance, then why discuss it? Unfortunately, the complete picture is much more complicated and uncertain to allow for this simple dismissal. At the three BNR plants low emissions were observed; it appears that the processes to successfully promote nitrogen removal are consistent with the same processes which ensure complete nitrification & denitrification and thus minimize N 2 O emissions. However, is this representative of all BNR facilities? Kimochi reported that the aerobic/anoxic conditions and their control are very important for controlling emissions. As demonstrated by laboratory research, the possibility exists for poorly operated BNR plants to be important sources of N 2 O emissions. Furthermore, for the two investigations at secondary treatment facilities, there is a distinct possibility that the emissions are not low because the nitrification and denitrification which occurs in the WWTP produces little N 2 0 . Rather, the emissions are low because it appears that little nitrification or denitrification actually occurred at the secondary treatment plant studied by Czepiel et al. (1995). While nitrification was encouraged at the activated sludge plant studied by Sumer et al. (1995), there was little or no opportunity for denitrification. Remember, agricultural research has identified denitrification as the more important N 2 O source of the two processes. An example of past inadequate identification of nitrous oxide emission sources has been demonstrated by a very recent investigation of the South Platte River in Colorado (McMahon and Dennehy 1999). It was found that the N 2 O emissions from this single river, which receives Denver's wastewater effluent, approached the emission estimated by Czepiel et al. (1995) for all the primary plants in the U.S. In a much older study, researchers investigating the surface water bodies receiving wastewater effluent from Washington, D . C , U.S.A., found data to imply that \"the loss of nitrogen as N 2 O could account for between 2 and 4% of the total nitrogen released by the wastewater treatment plants.\" (McElroy et al. 1978) As a result of the uncertainty around estimating N 2 0 emissions from wastewater, the latest guidelines of the IPCC (1997) (and Mosier et al (1998)) advise using an emission coefficient of 0.01 kg N 20-N/kg sewage-N produced (it ranges between 0.002 and 0.02 38 kg N20-N/kg sewage-N produced). This estimate assumes that 1% of wastewater nitrogen will be emitted as N2O-N either immediately or in the future. This estimate will likely be improved upon with new research. The United States has used this emission coefficient as an estimate in the Environmental Protection Agency's latest national greenhouse gas inventory (USEPA 1999). This results in an estimated emission of 27,000 tonnes of N 2 0 from 1997 alone and can be converted to 8.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, MtCC^e. While it is only a small part of the 6651 MtCC^e estimated to be emitted by the U.S. in 1997, it is a more important part of the 931 MtCChe non-energy related greenhouse gas emissions (energy accounts for 86% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions). Furthermore, this may be an underestimate. The estimated nitrous oxide contribution from U.S. agriculture which produced the food in the first place is 283 MtCChe for 1997. Several researchers have estimated the nitrogen efficiency of their respective countries agricultural industry (efficiency of N in food products vs. total N input required) to be 10% for Norway (Bleken and Bakken 1997) and 25% for Germany (Isermann and Isermann 1998). Overall, Isermann and Isermann (1998) estimated the N efficiency of European Union agriculture as only being between 20-30%o. Assuming the same to be true for the United States, a similar conversion of about 25%> taken from the farm as food products could result in an actual waste derived N 2 0 emission as high as 94 MtC02e (from both liquid and solid forms of waste). To bring this discussion closer to home, the typical ammonia concentration and annual quantity of leachate at the Vancouver Landfill has been obtained from the Landfill Operations Branch of the City of Vancouver (Pers. comm. Paul Henderson). In the 1999 calendar year, 2,115,772 m 3 of leachate was transferred to the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant with an average ammonia concentration of 157 mg/L as nitrogen. Using the IPCC estimate of 1.0% eventual N 2 0 emission from the influent nitrogen to a wastewater facility in the calculations below and a nitrous oxide global wanning potential of 310, it is possible to estimate that Vancouver Landfill's contribution of N 2 0 from leachate nitrogen is: Mass of Nitrogen = (2,115,772 m 3 T157 m g N / Y10\"9 tonnes/ U 0Q0 W 3) = 332 tonnes of N N 2 0 Emission = (332tonnesN) 0.01 2 N , 0 - N , 'L\ /mgyv / m -'N 4 4 g l N 2 'mol (310)CWP =1617tC02e As a result of these calculations, it is possible to assess a currently neglected source of greenhouse gas emissions, an estimated 1600 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually. To put this in perspective, it would be helpful to compare this with the currently estimated methane emission at this same landfill. The most recent estimate for this landfill is that in 1999, the landfill gas production rate was 5082 cubic feet per minute of which 50% was methane. Staff estimate that approximately 22% of the generated landfill gas is 39 being collected and flared (Pers. comm. Chris Underwood)2. From this data is possible to calculate the current methane greenhouse gas emission: Volume of LFG=(5,082 f t 3 / . T - ^ - l (60min/ *24 h /*365^/ YlOOoV 3)= 75.7*109 L Massof C H 4 = (75.7*109 L ) f ^ ] ( 0 . 5 ) M E T H A N E * ( 1 6 ^ J f I O \" 6 t o m e % ) ( 2 l ) G W P *(l-0.22) = 443,000tC02e ^22.4Ly The calculations above have estimated the atmospheric emission of methane to be 443,000 tC0 2e in 1999. When compared to this value, the nitrous oxide emission is less than half a percent. This estimate is likely because the majority of the landfill methane emissions result from the cellulose of disposed paper products. These same paper products also have low or negligible nitrogen contents, and therefore contribute little N 2 0 emissions. However, when analyzing the GHG implications of landfilling food or yard wastes (with their high nitrogen contents), N 2 0 emissions are of greater importance.. Also remember that the actual N 2 0 emissions can be much greater than the currently stipulated guideline of a 1.0% conversion rate. This will be illustrated in the next chapter, Results of the Analysis (Chapter 3). A further complicating factor is that of nitrogen sequestration. Whereas the potential for carbon sequestration was previously discussed, reactive nitrogen can also be stored in landfills and will prevent nitrous oxide emissions. While the calculations above estimate that 332 tonnes of nitrogen exited the V L F as leachate in 1999, 336,633 tonnes of waste was disposed in this landfill in the same year (Pers. comm. Mike Stringer). From an old Environment Canada (1978) report, a MSW moisture content of 24% and a dry MSW nitrogen content of 0.8% results in an estimated 2050 tonnes of nitrogen in the disposed waste. While the annual mass of waste disposed in the V L F has increased in its 30 odd years of existence, the possibility exists that much more nitrogen is being deposited than will have the opportunity to exit. Not to be overlooked is the possibility that reactive nitrogen, as ammonia, will exit the landfill in vented gas. Future wet or dry deposition will return this ammonia gas to soils or surface water bodies where nitrification and denitrification can occur. Thus the potential for future N 2 0 emission also exists from this pathway. If the landfill gas containing ammonia is collected and combusted, the ammonia will be oxidized to nitrogen oxides (NO or N0 2). This also provides reactive nitrogen to the atmosphere, and with subsequent wet or dry deposition, can nitrify and denitrify. The IPCC provides guidelines for these emissions and estimates that 1% of NH 3 -N or N O x - N emitted to the atmosphere will eventually be converted to N 2 0 . However, they also provide low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. Thus, emission factors for gaseous emissions of ammonia or nitrogen oxides are similar to the emission factor for wastewater-nitrogen. It is not important how reactive nitrogen gets out of the landfill, only how much reactive nitrogen gets out. 2 It is important to note that in 1999 Vancouver City Council approved the expenditure of $5.4 million to upgrade this landfill gas collection system and thereby improve this collection efficiency (Henderson and Underwood 2000). 40 2.5.5.2 Composting The composting of food and yard wastes will result in N 2 0 either during the process itself or by the future nitrification and denitrification of reactive nitrogen leaving the composting process in the form of ammonia emissions, nitrate or organic matter. The available research has demonstrated the existence of N 2 0 emissions during the composting process. This is likely N 2 0 leakage during the nitrification and denitrification of reactive N in the organic wastes. Researchers have observed a conversion of N to N 2 0 ranging from 0.00005 to 2.2% and the findings are summarized in Table 2-4. T a b l e 2 - 4 : R e v i e w o f N i t r o u s O x i d e E m i s s i o n s f r o m C o m p o s t i n g N 20-N Loss Compost & Method (% of Initial TKN)f Researcher Dairy Cow Litter -Static Piles 0.00005 - 0.0005 Sommer and Dahl(1999) Yard Waste -Turned Windrow 0.5 Hellebrand(1998) Food & Yard Waste -Tunnel and Static Pile 0.2-0.4 Schenk et al. (1997) Wastewater Sludge & Wood Ash -Aerated Static Piles 0.7* Czepiel etal. (1996) Yard Waste -Turned Windrow 1.2 Ballestero et al. (1996) Bedding & Horse Manure -Turned Windrow 2.2 (after 60 days) Ballestero et al. (1996) Swine Feces & Cardboard -Aerated & Turned In-Vessel 0.1 Kuroda et al. (1996) Not given 0.5-0.8 Hellmann (1995) from Hellebrand(1998) * data provided in the research paper was adapted to determine this value f TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ammonia-N + organic-N) The above research documented immediate N 2 0 losses during composting, but this is not the complete picture. Additional N 2 0 generation is possible from the reactive nitrogen frequently lost during composting, and from the reactive nitrogen contained in finished compost. Nitrogen losses in the form of ammonia occur during composting when C:N ratios are below 20:1 and \"the available carbon is fully utilized without stabilizing all of the nitrogen.\" (NRAES 1992) In addition, finished compost is typically land applied as a soil conditioner, where the reactive nitrogen is free to nitrify and denitrify. As a result, actual N 2 0 losses may be greater than demonstrated by these studies. For the N 2 0 emissions from yard waste composting to be considered a net GHG emission, it would have to be human-induced emissions. In other words, it would have to be N 2 0 emissions which would not have occurred naturally without human interference. There are two possibilities when this could occur: (1) yard trimmings which contain anthropogenic N fertilizer (i.e., yard waste resulting from fertilizer applications), and (2), when the human-induced accelerated composting process increases the emission of N 2 0 over and above the rotting/decomposition of organic waste which would otherwise occur in nature. While it is a simple concept that any N 2 0 emission from anthropogenic 41 reactive N should be considered a GHG emission, it is difficult in reality, to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic yard waste nitrogen. It is even more complicated to assess the second possibility. In fact, this author has been unsuccessful in finding any scientific research on either of these issues. As a result of these complexities, two assumptions are used in this report: that only 50% of yard waste nitrogen is anthropogenic and that composting does not impact N 2 0 emissions which would otherwise occur in nature. By making these assumptions, this research states that only half of the N 2 O emissions resulting from the composting of yard waste can be considered as anthropogenic GHG emissions. The IPCC methodology does not yet consider composting as a N 2 O source; agriculture is the main human-induced source and wastewater treatment is indirectly considered because of the anthropogenic fertilizer component of wastewater. However, it is likely that composting will be included in the future. 2.5.5.3 I n c i n e r a t i o n Limited research has demonstrated that emissions of nitrous oxide occur during the incineration of municipal solid waste and wastewater sludge. This research was compiled by de Soete (1993) for an IPCC Workshop and is adapted for use in Table 2-5: T a b l e 2 - 5 : R e v i e w o f N i t r o u s O x i d e E m i s s i o n s f r o m I n c i n e r a t i o n Waste - Facility Temperature (\u00C2\u00B0C) N 2 0 Emission (g N20/tonne waste) R e s e a r c h e r * Municipal refuse - Stepgrate 780-880 11-43 Yasuda et al. (1992) Municipal refuse - Stepgrate 780-980 40-220 Yasuda et al. (1992) Municipal refuse - Fluidized Bed 830-850 14-123 Yasuda et al. (1992) MSW - 5 stokers (20-400 tpd) not given 26-270 Watanabe et al. (1992) MSW - 3 fluidized bed not given 97-293 Watanabe et al. (1992) MSW-rot. kiln (120 tpd) not given 35-165 Watanabe et al. (1992) Wastewater sludge - rotary grate 750 227 Yasuda et al. (1992) Wastewater sludge - fluidized bed 770-812 580-1528 Yasuda et al. (1992) Wastewater sludge - rotary grate 838-854 684-1508 Yasuda et al. (1992) Wastewater sludge - rotary grate 834-844 275-886 Yasuda et al. (1992) Wastewater sludge - rotary grate 853-887 101-307 Yasuda et al. (1992) * As quoted in de Soete (1993) - unable to acquire primary reference The data presented in Table 2-4 demonstrate the limited and highly variable research on the N 2 O emissions resulting from waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates for municipal solid waste incineration which are being used are as follows (Environment Canada 1997a; USEPA 1999; USEPA 1998): \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada National Inventory 160 g N20/tonne waste incinerated \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 U.S. EPA National Inventory 30 g N20/tonne waste incinerated \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 U.S. EPA MSW Analysis 130 g N20/tonne waste incinerated 42 Though the research is uncertain, the data in Table 2-4 suggest three key points: 1. both the combustion of solid waste and sludge result in the formation of N 2 O , 2. wastewater sludge combustion, which generally has a higher N content than MSW, may result in greater N 2 0 emissions, and 3. increasing the combustion temperature during sludge incineration may decrease N 2 O formation. Both solid waste and wastewater sludge incineration have been demonstrated to result in the thermal formation of nitrous oxide. While the emissions from MSW incineration range between 11 and 293 g of N20/tonne of waste, the emissions from wastewater sludge incineration range from 101 to 1528 g of N20/tonne of waste. This may be an indication that sludge, which generally has a higher N content than MSW, may result in greater N 2 O formation and therefore emissions. Is thermal N 2 O formation a function of nitrogen content? Research has also demonstrated N 2 0 formation during the fluidized-bed combustion of coal, and two excellent review papers on this subject are Johnsson (1994) and Wojtowicz et al. (1994). This is important, because N 2 O formation during coal combustion has been found to \"originate mainly from the nitrogen present in the carbonaceous fuel (fuel-N) (Wojtowicz et al. 1994).\" Also, recent research on MSW incineration has found a correlation between N 2 O formation and the N content of wastes incinerated (Tanikawa et al. 1995). In addition, experiments with the incineration of sewage sludges and various coals found that the sludges yielded higher N 2 O emissions, and it was concluded that this was due to the higher nitrogen contents offering a greater potential for N 2 O formation. Therefore, the formation of N 2 O may likely be the conversion of part of the reactive nitrogen in the combusted material to N 2 O gas. Does increasing the combustion temperature during sludge incineration cause a reduction in thermal N 2 O formation? While the results of Yasuda et al. (1992) are variable, the N 2 O emission was lowest, 101-307 g/tonne, when the temperature was 853-887 \u00C2\u00B0C. An exception to this was the result of 227 g/tonne at a temperature of 750 \u00C2\u00B0C. Clearly, the only conclusion that can be derived from these results is that future research is greatly required. However, the decrease in N 2 O formation with an increased combustion temperature has been conclusively demonstrated in coal research (Wojtowicz et al. 1994; Pels et al. 1994). Unfortunately, as N 2 0 formation decreases, the formation of NO increases, in fact the sum of fuel nitrogen conversions \"was found to be remarkably constant\" over a range of temperatures.(Pels et al. 1994) Nitric oxide is also of environmental concern due to its contribution to acid rain and photochemical smog. In contrast, the study by Tanikawa et al (1995) was unable to find a correlation between N 2 O emission and temperature during MSW incineration, while sludge incineration experiments by Werther et al (1994) found that increasing the freeboard temperature lead to a decrease in N 2 0 without a consequent increasing of NOx emissions. It is important to remember that NOx is a future source of N 2 0 emissions; this reactive nitrogen is short-lived in the lower atmosphere and is returned to terrestrial ecosystems in the form of HNO3 and NO3 where it is then available for denitrification. Could solid waste and sludge incineration provide an effective means of performing clean denitrification? If the potential exists, the consequent increases in NOx emissions must be contended with. 43 2.5.6 Summary When nitrogen leaves farms as food products leave the farm it switches responsibility; no longer is it the responsibility of agriculture, the waste management community and municipalities take over. In addition, the nitrogen in yard wastes is assumed in this study to be partially anthropogenic in origin, and are therefore in excess of natural processes. Therefore, any immediate or future nitrous oxide emissions during landfilling, composting or incineration of these wastes must be considered as anthropogenic interference of the global N 2 0 cycle. 2.6 RECYCLING ANALYSIS The collection, processing and subsequent marketing of recyclable materials in the GVRD is an inherently complicated system. Several brokers exist and compete for market share throughout the various municipalities. Some municipalities provide their own curbside collection of blue-boxes while others have contracted this collection out to private industry. Blue-box recycling, either at single- or multi-family residences, may be managed by municipal crews, one company or a number of companies. The collection of recyclables at commercial buildings are typically managed by a number of different firms. Increasing the complication, once the recyclables are at the brokers, these materials are processed and marketed to a myriad of potential factories or mills for reuse into new products. The recycling of paper products illustrates this complexity. Once collected by one of the several methods, paper products can be shipped to mills across North America, and increasingly, recycled paper is shipped overseas to Asia. Similar systems are in place for other recyclable materials. In fact, the destinations of the collected recyclables rapidly change in response to the fluctuating markets for these materials. Brokers, as private enterprises, endeavour to maximize their revenues while concurrently minimizing the expenses incurred as a result of the necessary transportation. Recyclables collected in the GVRD could be delivered to the factories or mills in the region (or within British Columbia) which are designed to handle these materials but recycled paper could also be sent to the Eastern United States. Conversely, recycled paper is imported into Canada from cities in the U.S. to supply the local Newstech Recycling facility (Pers. comm. Pat Martin). This material is transported a great distance; likely requiring a substantial energy outlay and generating greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and handling requirements. Collaboration with GVRD representatives identified early on in this project that it would be necessary to simplify the complicated and rapidly changing recycling system. Rather than assess the plethora of potential fates for recyclables, it was deemed appropriate to simplify the system by assuming a single recycling facility depot and a single final destination for each type of recyclable. However, this research is performed to assess this pathway in the greater industry context. Concurrent to this, an invesigation is also conducted on the ramifications of manufacturing an equivalent product using virgin materials. This research is necessary to ascertain the greenhouse gas benefits or liabilities 44 of recycled vs. virgin manufacturing. The analysis of manufacturing using virgin or recycled materials is ceased when the convergence point (as discussed in Section 1.3.4) is reached. This investigation is not concerned with the GHG emissions by industry, only the differences between material choices as a result of the available recyclables supply. It is unnecessary in many cases to follow the steps all the way to finished product. This research is presented in the following sub-sections. The following sections provide a review and analysis of the six recyclable materials investigated in this thesis: newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass and high- and low-density polyethylene. These sub-sections, 2.6.1 to 2.6.6, are provided in a manner different than the rest of Chapter 2 - Methodology and requires explanation. The entire recycling analysis is provided here and is not expanded any further in the appendices. This is in contrast to all of the other issues investigated in this thesis where a general overview is presented in Chapter 2 - Methodology while the fine details are developed in the appropriate appendix. The investigation of manufacturing and recycling warrants this difference as the literature review and assessment of the local situation are closely tied together. The author believes that when the information is laid out in this manner it is most logical and effective . 2.6.1 N e w s p r i n t Newsprint largely consists of mechanical pulp with a small percentage of full chemical pulp to increase strength (Biermann 1996). This analysis will concentrate on the mechanical pulp component. Mechanical pulp is produced by using only mechanical attrition to pulp the lignocellulosic materials (only water and steam are used - as opposed to chemical pulping which typically uses sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide) (ibid). Since lignin is retained in the pulp, high yields between 90 and 98% (of the original fibre from the wood chips) are typically achieved (ibid). Mechanical pulp represented 46% of total pulp production in Canada in 1997 (PAPRICAN 1999). While there are two main methods to produce mechanical pulp, stone groundwood (SGW) and thermomechanical pulp (TMP), TMP is responsible for about 85% of the mechanical pulp made in North America (ibid) and it is this process which is reviewed in this section. In the TMP process, \"preheated wood chips are fed into the narrow gap formed between a stationary and a rotating patterned disc, or between two counter-rotating patterned discs... By this means, the fibres are gradually separated from each other as the wood material progresses to the discs' peripheries and the pulp so produced is blown to a cyclone...\" (ibid). As with any manufacturing process, energy is required and greenhouse gas emissions can result when newsprint is produced from wood chips. This can occur whether woodchips (virgin materials) or old newspapers (recycled materials) are used in manufacturing. However, does the substitution of recycled materials for virgin materials reduce this energy consumption and affect GHG emissions? To answer this question, the full GHG emissions resulting from both processes must be known. The acquisition of virgin raw materials and their manufacture into products must be directly compared to the acquisition of recycled materials and their manufacture into equivalent products. Any difference in these total emissions will be the GHG implications of virgin versus recycled manufacturing. Valuable to these emission calculations are the questions of what 45 proportion of energy is derived from fossil energy and what proportion comes from neutral bioenergy. As an industrial sector, pulp and paper is the largest consumer of energy in Canada - using 26% of the total industrial energy demand. However, pulp and paper only derives 44% of its energy needs from fossil fuel energy sources; the remainder is derived from wood waste. This breakdown is critically important to the discussion in this section. In assessing these issues, a review of available research (2.6.1.1) and an investigation of our local situation (2.6.1.2) is presented. For those unfamiliar with the pulp and paper industry, this review attempts to report all masses in air dry metric tonnes (adt) with an assumed moisture content of 8%. 2.6.1.1 Literature Review A survey of available literature has located several studies by various organizations: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Franklin Associates Ltd. (FAL 1994), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Tellus Institute (Tellus 1994), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 University of London (Leach et al. 1997), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Virtanen and Nilsson 1992), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Institute for Papermaking, Germany (Hamm and Gottsching 1993), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 University of Edinburgh (Collins 1998; 1996), \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 British Newsprint Manufacturer's Association (BNMA 1995), and \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Aylesford Newsprint, United Kingdom (Aylesford 1998). In addition to this literature, this author also searched extensively on the Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR) website of the Federal Government. This organization was initially established in 1995 by Natural Resources Canada as part of Canada's National Action Program on Climate Change. The VCR's purpose is to encourage private and public sector organizations to voluntarily limit their net greenhouse gas emissions. As of July 28, 2000, there are submissions by 28 pulp and paper organizations. The progress reports by four of these organizations were found to be of particular relevance to this work and will also be discussed in this section. It appears that, of this research, the work by the two consulting firms, Franklin Associates Ltd. (FAL 1994) and the Tellus Institute (Tellus 1994), are the most extensive investigations. As a result of their demonstrated expertise, these two companies were contracted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to perform a further analysis (USEPA 1998). Thus, the recent USEPA report is a collaborative effort of these two organizations and results in valuable improvements over the previous work published individually by these two. This review will only present the most recent work, that which is provided in the USEPA report. Both firms analyzed wood chip acquisition and manufacture into virgin newsprint in the U.S. to determine an average expected emission for each tonne of virgin newsprint manufactured. F A L calculated this emission to be 2.18 tCC^e per tonne newsprint and Tellus calculated 2.22 tC02e per tonne newsprint. These two estimates are subsequently averaged for further development in the USEPA report. These estimates include the 46 emissions from on-site energy consumption, off-site emissions from power generation for the electricity used at the mill and emissions at a chemical factory for any additives (herein defined as process energy). These estimates also include the transportation-related emission of the raw materials (herein defined as transportation energy). It was found that the process energy was of much greater importance than the transportation energy necessary for raw material acquisition. F A L and Tellus estimated that 96 and 98% of the emissions resulted from process energy consumption, respectively, with the remainder being transportation-related. The F A L process energy emissions resulted from the consumption of 39.5 GJ per tonne newsprint; 58% came from electricity (predominantly coal generation in the U.S.), 33% resulted from natural gas and 6.5% from biomass. The Tellus process energy emissions originated from 39.5 GJ/tonne but a similar breakdown is not provided (steam is listed as a fuel source but it is not stipulated what fueled the necessary boiler). Both these firms also assessed the GHG ramifications of recycling old newsprint into equivalent new products. They estimated the energy expended during the acquisition of recycled newsprint and the process energy expended during the manufacturing. It was assumed that 100% recycled inputs were used. F A L determined that 1.58 tC02e/tonne newsprint and Tellus calculated 1.54 tCChe/tonne newsprint. These estimates were also averaged for further development in the USEPA report. As with woodchips, the process emissions dominated over the transportation emissions; process energy was 95 and 89% of the total emissions for F A L and Tellus, respectively. F A L estimated that 26.7 GJ of process energy is expended per tonne of newsprint manufacture (60% from electricity and 39%) from natural gas). Tellus estimated that 21.5 GJ of process energy was necessary to manufacture a tonne of newsprint, and once again a similar breakdown was not provided. Both of the total energy estimates for recycled production are significantly lower than those for virgin production. It appears that the most important issues concerning these estimates are: (1) the total process energy required, and (2) what type of energy is used. Electricity, which is generated primarily from coal in the U.S. (56% of national electricity generation; USEPA (1998)), and natural gas, were the most important energy sources observed in both virgin and recycled manufacturing. F A L identified only a small fraction of energy, 6.5%, from biomass (invariably wood waste) during virgin newsprint production. While biomass energy is GHG neutral (zero emission), this relatively small fraction does not allow for much impact on the total GHG emissions. A recent report by the Pulp & Paper Research Institute of Canada (PAPRICAN 1999) provides energy data that can compare virgin production against recycled production but does not calculate any GHG emissions. The typical energy requirement for the TMP process is between the range of 1600 and 3000 kWh/bone dry tonne (bdt) of mechanical pulp. Assuming the moisture content of an air dry tonne (adt) to be 8%, these values can be converted to a range between 5.3 and 9.9 GJ/adt. These can be compared with the reported gross energy consumption.of a newsprint deinking facility of 820 kWh per adt of pulp (600 kWh/adt of electrical power and 220 kWh/adt of process steam) or 3.0 GJ/adt. This results in an energy difference of between 2.3 and 6.9 GJ/adt for the direct 47 comparison of TMP and deinked pulp. From the perspective of newsprint papermaking, there is no difference between deinked pulp and virgin mechanical pulp from the TMP process. By including the typical energy for newsprint papermaking, a range between 4.6 to 7.7 GJ/adt (3.4 to 5.5 GJ/adt of process steam and 1.2 to 2.3 GJ/adt of electrical power; same report), it is possible to calculate the overall energy requirement for making virgin or recycled newsprint. Assuming averages of the ranges above, virgin newsprint manufacture requires 13.8 GJ/adt and recycled manufacture requires 9.2 GJ/adt - a difference of 4.6 GJ/adt. These energy values are substantially lower than that reported by the USEPA. However, part of the difference may result from mill energy consumption not taking into account the energy losses realized by producing the electricity or steam to generate mill energy. Yet even assuming an energy conversion efficiency of 60%, the PAPRICAN data are still substantially lower than the 39.5 GJ/tonne reported for virgin newsprint and 21.5 to 26.7 GJ/tonne reported for recycled newsprint by the USEPA. The remaining research available on the GHG implications of newsprint recycling is primarily concerned with comparing incineration with recycling. It appears that there is a scientific debate occurring in Europe which is questioning the validity of ever increasing recycling initiatives. Research at the University of London and at the University of Edinburgh, questioning recycling, appears to have sparked \"counter-research\" by a large member of the recycling industry, Aylesford Newsprint Ltd (ANL). Not surprisingly, the research by ANL, which was conducted by the consulting firm, Ecobalance UK, came to opposite conclusions. Unfortunately, these studies do not directly compare manufacturing with virgin woodchips against manufacturing with recycled newsprint. Rather they assess recycling against incineration plus virgin newsprint production. It is not possible to separate out the recycling versus virgin production component in these studies. In addition, most of these studies are not specific to newsprint but instead, analyze wastepaper as an entity. Nevertheless, the findings of this research are reviewed here. Matthew Leach at the University of London performed a systems analysis of virgin and recycled wastepaper as resources flowing in and out of cities (Leach et al. 1997). They found that even when including the virgin paper production, the environmental impact of incineration for energy was lower than that of recycling. Or in other words, the energy generation of paper incineration more than offsets the energy benefit which would have been realized by using recycled paper instead of woodchips to produce new paper. The research recognizes that modern pulp & paper mills obtain most of their energy requirements from wood waste; discarded parts of the tree such as bark. In contrast, the re-pulping of wastepaper into new paper products uses energy which must usually come from fossil fuel sources. As stated in a review of this research by Pearce (1997), Leach reckoned that \"in terms of fossil energy used to supply a tomie of paper in the United Kingdom, virgin paper accounts for roughly half as much energy as recycled paper.\" Researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria (IIASA 1992) analyzed this issue using three scenarios: (1) maximum recycling of wastepaper (90%o collection), (2) selective use of recycled fiber with consequent virgin production 48 and (3) zero recycling - 100% incineration with energy recovery - and also the consequent virgin production. Only the maximum and zero-recycling scenarios are discussed here in the interest of simplicity. The overall energy demand is 25% greater for zero recycling than maximum recycling. However, about 80% of the total energy is derived from GHG-neutral wood waste in the zero recycling case, compared with only 45%o in the maximum recycling scenario. In fact, the fossil fuel demand is about 100% larger in the maximum recycling scenario. This paper is also comprehensively reviewed in Cockram (1994). The study by the Institute for Papermaking (Hamm and Gottsching 1993) in Germany, used a slightly different tack and modelled the impact of using wastepaper not as a fibre source for new paper production but as an energy source for new paper production. Their estimated possibility of substituting part of the fossil energy used in papermaking could potentially reduce fossil fuel use by 65% (as compared with present practices). However, the authors state that 70% of this wastepaper would have to be imported to satisfy demand; this point raises strong questions of the results. Lyndhurst Collins, at the University of Edinburgh, has published two discussion papers questioning the interest in recycling when the alternative, for much of the United Kingdom, is waste incineration with energy recovery (Collins 1998; 1996). These papers, while very informative, do not provide the results of any studies. Rather, they review other work and discuss the current scientific & political understanding. Of note, is the review of an independent study conducted by the British Newsprint Manufacturer's Association (BNMA 1995), which this author has not been able to acquire. The B N M A study concluded, as quoted by Collins (1996), \"there seems to be no clear winner in the comparison between recycling and incineration. With better technology and higher ratios, the case for recycling improves\". In contrast to the findings by all these European organizations, are the results of the study published by Aylesford Newsprint Limited (ANL) which was prepared by the independent consulting firm, Ecobalance U K (Aylesford 1998). This investigation compared the recycling of old newsprint at the A N L facility against incineration with energy recovery. The incineration scenario also includes the alternative newsprint production which is necessary. This 'alternative' source is assumed to be a mix of mills from the U K and abroad who could satisfy the customers of A N L in ANL's absence. Many possible environmental impacts are assessed in addition to GHG emissions, and the overall conclusion is that \"Recycling of used newspapers and magazines at A N L is environmentally preferable to the incineration for energy recovery.\" The A N L system results in 11%> less fossil fuel CO2 emissions than incineration with alternative newsprint production. The incinerator scenario causes about 1.4 tC02/tonne newsprint while A N L results in about 1.25 tC02/per tonne. In addition, when including methane and nitrous oxide, A N L is estimated to have 15% less impact on the Greenhouse Effect than incineration. Due to the scarcity of data on the issue of virgin versus recycled manufacture it is necessary to assess our local situation. Furthermore, the relatively close proximity of the 49 GVRD to a number of pulp & paper mills and an available forest resource, likely results in important differences with the U.S. research. In addition, British Columbia's predominant use of hydroelectric facilities for power generation has significant G H G implications when compared with the largely coal-fired electricity generation in the U.S. The next sub-section presents data that were obtained from several pulp and paper operations in the region to estimate emissions. 2.6.1.2 Local Situation Several organizations were contacted for this research. However, only three facilities provided data for this research. These include (along with their activity in brackets): \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Howe Sound Pulp & Paper (wood chips -> virgin newsprint) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Newstech Recycling (old newsprint -> de-inked newsprint pulp) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Pacifica Papers (wood pulp + de-inked pulp -> newsprint with recycled content) As a result of discussions with those contacted, an important factor has been recognized; a point missed by much of the research previously reviewed. This is the inherent variability of the pulp & paper industry resulting from the fact that there is no such thing as a typical pulp mill or a typical paper mill. Many TMP mills use sawdust, wood shavings and bark as a source of energy in power boilers. With sawmills in close proximity, there are readily available sources of wood waste for clean bioenergy. As a result, an integrated pulp & paper facility, a combined pulp mill and papermaking facility, will have much lower GHG emissions than a stand-alone paper mill which has to rely on externally supplied electricity and natural gas. (A stand-alone paper mill typically does not have any power boilers even if wood waste is available at nearby sawmills.) Furthermore, the integration of pulp and paper production removes the need to dry pulp for shipment (wet pulp is transported directly to paper-making machines); the drying of pulp can consume up to 40% of the energy used in a pulp mill (NCCP 1998). This author has observed that a number of pulp mills are in the process of upgrading their wood waste utilization with power boilers (to replace natural gas consumption) and/or with turbo-generators (to replace the need for external electricity). The following data collected by these facilities contacted have borne out this variability. At Howe Sound Pulp & Paper (HSPP, operated by Canadian Forest Products), newsprint is manufactured entirely from wood chips. This is an integrated pulp & paper facility which performs both pulping and papermaking. There is no recycled paper content in this product as it is manufactured for export to Japan with the intent to provide new paper to replace losses. Canadian Forest Products has performed extensive life-cycle analyses on all of their products. Their analysis of newsprint production at HSPP was provided to this author upon personal communication with Mike Bradley, Director of Technology, Canfor Pulp and Paper Marketing. At HSPP, virgin newsprint production (production from wood chips) requires the energy utilization of 35.9 GJ per tonne newsprint. This energy results from biomass (56%), hydroelectricity (18%) and natural gas (27%). As the combustion of biomass (fines and wood waste) is bioenergy (carbon neutral) and there are no emissions from hydroelectricity, it follows that GHG emissions can only result from the combustion of natural gas. This natural gas consumption includes on-site 50 usage (mill) and off-site usage by BC Hydro in the generation of electricity for the mill (using the provincial average for thermal electricity generation). The following calculations estimate the GHG emissions from this newsprint production. CO2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997a) Energy of Natural Gas (typically) = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) Energy Fraction from Natural Gas = 26.7% Total Energy Consumption - 35.9 GJ (l.S&k&\u00C2\u00B0/Xo6l%J) C02 Emissions = (0.267) 35 .9 G J / )) (ULl = 0 . 4 8 / C \u00C2\u00B0 2 V A / t o n n e \ i ^ W \ X M ) / t o n n e ^ /m \ /tonne) While the HSPP energy requirement of 35.9 GJ/tonne is similar to the value reported by the EPA of 39.5 GJ/tonne, the emission of 0.48 tC02e/tonne, is only 21% of the USEPA estimate, 2.2 tC02e/tonne. This low emission may be a direct result of being an integrated pulp & paper mill. In fact, in terms of all production by HSPP, GHG emissions per tonne have decreased from 1.25 tC02e/tonne in 1990 to 0.26 tC02e/tonne in 1997 (CANFOR 1999). This decrease in emissions is the result of \"HSPP burning increased quantities of wood residue and natural gas in place of bunker \"C\" oil and energy efficiencies realized from a $1.3 billion mill modernization and expansion\". Furthermore, the electricity requirements of the mills in the USEPA study were largely provided by fossil fuel combustion, whereas BC Hydro is largely hydroelectric. It needs to be mentioned that this estimate of 0.48 tCC^e/tonne does not include the harvesting and transportation of wood chips to the mill for processing while the USEPA study included this transportation. The USEPA study estimated the transportation emissions at 0.06 tC02e/tonne, therefore it is likely appropriate to add this to the HSPP emissions. This results in a total of 0.54 tC02e/tonne. While this estimate does not include any emission associated with the production of chemicals consumed, there is only minimal a chemical requirement for mechanical pulping, so this potential is likely negligible. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. submitted an extensive progress report to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry and their two Newfoundland mills, Grand Falls and Stephenville, provide valuable data to this review. Both of the mills are integrated pulp & paper operations turning wood chips into newsprint with very low recycled content (Pers. comm. Michael Innes). In 1997, the energy consumed at Grand Falls was 18.8 GJ/tonne newsprint and was 20.8 GJ/tonne at Stephenville. The GHG emissions are reported as 0.326 tC02e/tonne newsprint for Grand Falls and as 0.548 tCC^e/tonne for Stephenville (Abitibi-Consolidated 1999). These emission factors do not include purchased electricity from the Newfoundland utility. However, electricity in Newfoundland is largely hydroelectric (with some thermal generation); it has an emission average of 190 tC02e/GWh - less than half of a low-efficiency natural gas generation (500 tC02e/GWh, Pers. comm. John Duffy). This report estimates the indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity as 67,823 tC02e. By assuming equal consumption by each facility, dividing by the annual production of 212,000 tonnes at Grand Falls and 181,000 tonnes at Stephenville, an indirect emission factor of 0.173 tC02e/tonne newsprint results. When added to the direct emissions reported above, an overall emission factor of 0.499 tC02e/tonne newsprint for Grand Falls and as 0.721 tCC^e/tonne for Stephenville is 51 estimated. The emission by the Grand Falls mill is on par with that reported by HSPP and the Stephenville mill is 50% higher. Against virgin production can be compared the production using old newsprint. Newstech Recycling is a de-inking pulp mill which supplies recycled fibre to Pacifica Papers, a stand-alone paper mill, in addition to others. Data has been obtained from both these organizations to assess GHG emissions. Newstech produces de-inked pulp from old newspapers, old magazines and telephone directories which are purchased throughout western Canada and the U.S. mid-west. In 1999, 168,000 tonnes of old newsprint was converted into 141,000 tonnes of de-inked newsprint pulp. This required the consumption of 220 MWh of electricity each day for 350 days of the year, 143,489 GJ of natural gas and 8,321 GJ of landfill gas (Pers. comm. Pat Martin). While the landfill gas is GHG neutral, the emissions from the other sources of energy are assessed below: Electricity Consumption = 220 MWh each day for 350 days of the year = 277,200 GJ [220 MW=220 MJ/s * h/d * 3600 s/h * 350 d/yr 1GJ/1000MJ= 277,200 GJ] BC Hydro provincial emission average = 30 tC0 2e/GWh = 0.00833 tC0 2e/GJ [30 tC0 2e/GWh * (1/3600 GWh/GJ)=0.00833 tC02e/GJ] (BC Hydro 1998) Natural Gas Consumption = 143,489 GJ C 0 2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997a) Energy of Natural Gas (typically) = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) Mass of old newsprint processed = 168,000 tonnes Mass of newsprint pulp produced = 141,000 tonnes \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E . Mass of Newsprint Pulp Produced 141,000 ,\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E, Conversion Efficiency = - = \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 100 = 84% Mass of Old Newsprint 168,000 (277,200GJI 0.00833 ,tCO,e /GJ J tCO e/ Electricity Emissions = -, r - = 0.014 2 / (l68,000tonnes) /tonne N , | 0 E . . ( ,43, 8 , C J ) ( ' ^ C % ) \u00C2\u00B0 - % ) , c o , e / Natura Gas Emissions = 7\u00E2\u0084\u00A2^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094T ; r = 0.042 2 / \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 /tonne (l68,000tonnes)(37 8 4 3 k J / \ 1 0 3 k g / ) \ ' /mi\ /tonnej Total Emissions= Electricity + Natural Gas = 0.014 +0.042 = 0 . 0 6 8 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 X J /tonne For discussion purposes: n , j j (277,200GJ) 106kWh C / 1 , i , W | , / Electricity per pulp produced = -r * = 546 K w ' / ,. (l41,000tonnes) 3600GJ / a d t \u00E2\u0080\u009E , , J (143,489 + 8321 GJ) 106 kWh , \u00E2\u0080\u009E , t w l l / NG & Methane per pulp produced = ^ -r-1 ^ * = 297 k w l y .. (l41,000tonnes) 3600 GJ / a d t Total Energy Consumption = 3.0G J^ d = 843 k w h ^ d t Total emission by the Newstech facility is estimated at 0.372 tC0 2e per tonne of old newsprint processed. Newsprint is processed with a conversion efficiency of 84%, for each tonne of old newsprint brought in, it can be expected that 840 kg of de-inked pulp will result. There was also the utilization of six chemicals but only three of these were used in an appreciable amount: sodium hydroxide to swell the fibers (14 kg/tonne), hydrogen peroxide as bleach to brighten the pulp (20 kg/tonne) and sodium silicate to buffer the peroxide (21 kg/tonne). Tellus (1994) has estimated the energy consumed in 52 producing sodium hydroxide at 32.5 MJ/tonne. Even if all this energy was provided by natural gas, it only results in a miniscule GHG emission of 0.023 kgC02e/tonne newsprint. As a result, this report assumes that emissions from these chemicals are negligible. It is important to observe that the electricity consumption, 546 kWh/adt, and the natural gas and landfill methane consumption, 297 kWh/adt, at Newstech is on par with the values reported in the previously reviewed PAPRICAN (1999) report. This report provides typical de-inking mill data as 820 kWh per adt of pulp (600 kWh/adt of electrical power and 220 kWh of process steam). Data has been obtained from Pacifica Papers, in Powell River, for the subsequent conversion of the de-inked pulp to newspapers. Pacifica Papers is a stand-alone paper mill and should therefore not be utilizing wood waste as an energy source. However, this facility does combust wood waste and in early 1998 installed a new fluidized bed boiler to replace 4 natural gas-fired boilers. \"This installation reduced the use of fossil fuels by 59%\" (Pacifica Papers 1998). In 1999, Pacifica Papers used 59,565 tonnes of de-inked pulp (recycled), 73,710 tonnes of stone groundwood pulp (wood chips), 130,322 tonnes of chemithermal mechanical pulp (wood chips), 79,056 tonnes of kraft fiber (wood chips), 1,660 tonnes of cull rolls (rejects from mill) and 50,907 tonnes of clays and fillers to produce 410,981 tonnes of newsprint and 15,761 tonnes of sludge. This sludge makes up part of the wood waste fed to their power-boiler. This process required, in 1999, the consumption of 904,158 MWh of electricity and 2,008,376 GJ of natural gas (Pers. comm. Ray Dyer). This 343,313 tonnes of pulp is converted into newsprint with a recycled content of approximately 17%. With the calculations below, it is assumed that this energy consumption can be evenly distributed over all of the pulps used so as to estimate the emissions which would result from the manufacture of newsprint with a 100%o recycled content. The calculations below are based on tonnes of pulp used. Electricity Consumption = 904,158 MWh BC Hydro provincial emission average = 30 tC0 2e/GWh (BC Hydro 1998) Natural Gas Consumption = 2,008,376 GJ C 0 2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997a) Energy of Natural Gas (typically) = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) Mass of de-inked pulp processed = 59,565 tonnes Mass of pulps derived from wood chips = 284,748 tonnes Mass of newsprint produced = 410,981 tonnes Total Mass of Pulps = Deinked+ Wood Pulp = 59,565 + 284,748 = 344,313 tonnes of pulp \u00E2\u0080\u009E . T.\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E . Mass of Newsprint Produced 410,981 , .\u00E2\u0080\u009E Conversion Efficiency = = \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 100 = 96% Mass of Inputs 426,742 ( 9 0 4 , 1 5 8 M W h ( 3 0 t C \u00C2\u00B0 : % w h ) Electricity Emissions = T r 7 7 Z 7 l J.\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009Eun./ \ = \u00C2\u00B0 - 0 7 9 '/tonne (344,313 tonnes)(l000y W M%^J N tu 1G E ' ' i ? \u00C2\u00AB ^ ) ( , 8 8 k 8 C O ^ > 0 , % ' ) oWCO,. atural Gas Emissions = -r -r T \U ; =r = 0.290 2 / . (344,313tonnes) 3 ? 8 4 3 k J / ) 1 Q 3 k g / > /tonne ' ' / m 3 \ /tonne i Total Emissions = Electricity + Natural Gas = 0.079 + 0.290 = 0 - 3 6 9 t C O / t o n n e p u i p 53 The calculations above estimate that 0.369 tCC^e are emitted per tonne of pulp used in newsprint production at Pacifica Papers. There is also a conversion efficiency of 96%; 1 tonne of pulp (together with the appropriate quantities of clay and fillers) will typically produce 960 kg of newsprint. Similar to Newstech, there is also the consumption of several chemicals. The greatest usage, 3,441 tonnes annually, is sodium hydroxide. When this is distributed over the total pulp used for paper-making, the result is 10 kg per tonne. As it was previously estimated that the consumption of 14 kg of sodium hydroxide at Newstech results in a miniscule emission of 0.023 kgCC^e during its production, the chemicals at Pacifica are also safely ignored here. By assuming that all of the sources of pulp at Pacifica require the same energy requirement in paper-making, it is possible to estimate the emissions to be expected from producing a tonne of newsprint. It has been estimated that one tonne of old newsprint delivered to Newstech Recycling will be converted into 840 kg of de-inked pulp with an emission of 0.068 tCC^e. When this 840 kg of de-inked pulp is delivered to Pacifica Papers, if assumed to be the same as the other pulp sources, it will result in 840kg*0.96 or 806 kg of newsprint being produced. This will be at an emission rate of 0.369 tCC^e per tonne pulp used or an emission of 0.369*0.84tonne = 0.310 tCC^e. Added to the emissions of Newstech, an estimate of 0.068 + 0.310 = 0.378 tCC^e to produce 806 kg of newsprint results. As a unit of one tonne of newsprint, manufacturing a 100% recycled content would result in 0.47 tCC^e. As this does not include transportation emissions, the USEPA estimate of 0.12 tCC^e/tonne can be used instead. The total for recycled newsprint production becomes 0.59 tCC^e/tonne. While at HSPP it was estimated that a 0.54 tCC^e emission results per tonne of virgin newsprint manufactured, it has been calculated that recycled manufacture, using Newstech Recycling and Pacifica Papers, results in a slightly larger GHG emission, 0.59 tC02e per tonne of newsprint with a 100% recycled content. Another possibility for recycling old newsprint is to have the de-inking facility inside an integrated pulp & paper mill. This is the situation at Pine Falls Paper Company in Pine Falls, Manitoba. This mill produces 170,000 tonnes of newsprint annually with a recycled content of 22%. Pulp for the newsprint is produced from woodchips (groundwood and sulfite), deink (old magazines and newspapers) and purchased kraft (PFPC 1999; Pers. comm. Brian Kotak). The recycled content results from the de-inking processes on-site. Including the indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity, this organization's progress report submission to the VCR estimates that 0.80 tCC^e is emitted per tonne of newsprint produced. Much of this emission results from the combustion of coal as there is no natural gas available. However, new wood waste and biosolids incinerators in mid-2001 will increase on-site energy generation and reduce coal consumption by over 50%. This emission factor is higher than both HSPP and Newstech/Pacifica but will greatly decrease in the future. There are best-case and worst-case scenarios possible for virgin and recycled production which can be discussed in the context of the above data. An integrated pulp & paper 54 facility could bring in large quantities of wood waste and become energy self-sufficient to produce virgin newsprint. This facility also has the advantage of not having to dry the market pulp for shipment. Little GHG emissions would result in this \"best\" scenario. The worst-case scenario for virgin production would be a stand-alone pulp mill providing mechanical pulp to a stand-alone paper mill with the pulp mill only supplying part of its own energy needs and the paper mill relying exclusively on fossil energy. In Canada, this scenario could occur with both mills situated in Alberta where purchased electricity is provided by coal combustion at thermal power plants. This second scenario would result in very high GHG emissions. Howe Sound Pulp & Paper is in between these scenarios but lies closer to the former. On the recycled side, two similar scenarios are also possible. A de-inking facility could be integrated with a pulp and paper facility where large quantities of bioenergy are available. In this scenario, minimal GHG emissions could result. The worst-case scenario would be a stand-alone de-inking facility paired with a stand-alone paper mill with both operations relying exclusively on fossil energy. Once again, this would result in very high GHG emissions per unit of production and could occur if both operation's relocated to Alberta. While the Newstech plant relies on external energy, the electricity is largely zero emission hydroelectric power, and the Pacifica Paper mill supplies part of its operation with bioenergy. The Newstech/Pacifica Papers data analyzed lie in between these two extremes. What if these operations did exist in Alberta? By changing the BC provincial average GHG emission intensity for electricity generation from the current 30 tC0 2e/GWh (BC Hydro 1998), to the Alberta average, (this author cannot locate the emission average for Alberta - will use the Canada's average for fossil-generated electricity 880 tC02e/GWh (Environment Canada 1999)), the production of recycled newsprint would result in 3.3 tC0 2e per tonne! This is a dramatic increase from previous estimates and even doubles the estimates developed by F A L and Tellus. Of greater importance than whether newsprint is made from woodchips or old newspapers is whether bioenergy is utilized during production. And if external electricity is relied upon - where does this electricity come from? The literature review and discussion above has demonstrated the lack of any cut & dry certainty to these issues. While the USEPA (1998) work estimated a substantial GHG benefit for recycling newsprint, it appears they largely neglected the variability existing within the pulp & paper industry. All assumptions are inherently inaccurate with this industry because of this extreme variability. This author believes that the safest assumption at the present time is to assume no difference between virgin and recycled manufacture. In fact the lack of Canadian research into this issue is surprising - given the important role that pulp & paper and wastepaper recycling have today. An industry wide analysis of virgin and recycled paper production in Canada is indeed warranted. So as to have newsprint recycling remain a zero GHG emissions activity, the curbside collection of this material and any other transportation will not be accounted for. This allows newsprint recycling to exactly break even with the alternative virgin production arid to allow a zero impact in the Model. 55 2.6.2 Office Paper Office paper or fine paper (its name in the pulp & paper field) is typically made from bleached kraft or sulfite softwood pulps (Biermann 1996). Kraft mills accounted for 50% of Canada's pulp production in 1997, sulphite/semi-chemical pulps made up 4.3% and the remainder was mechanical pulp (PAPRICAN 1999). This review will concentrate on kraft pulp production. Kraft pulping is a full chemical pulping method using sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide at high pH and elevated temperate and pressure in order to dissolve much of the lignin fibers (Biermann 1996). Largely because of the delignification which occurs to make fine paper, the yield of pulp from the initial wood chips is only about 50%> (NCCP 1998). However, this loss is also interpreted as an advantage over mechanical pulping because this removed lignin can be used for bioenergy purposes. \"Canadian kraft mills are typically 60 to 80% energy self-sufficient and the upper limit of self-sufficiency has not yet been achieved. With the emerging energy-efficient technologies, it is conceivable that a mill could be designed and operated so that is essentially self-sufficient (PAPRICAN 1998).\" In another report, the energy self-sufficiency of kraft mills in Canada has been cited as 79% (PAPTAC 1999). Currently in Finland, kraft mills generate excess electricity which is placed in the national grid to generate revenue (ibid). In fact, \"an integrated pulp and paper mill in New Brunswick now sells surplus power to NB Power...\" (NCCP 1998). The two consulting firms, Franklin Associates Ltd. (FAL 1994) and the Tellus Institute (Tellus 1994), also performed an extensive investigation of office paper recycling. Subsequent to this work, these consultants were contracted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to perform a further analysis (USEPA 1998), and it is this recent work which is reviewed here. Both firms analyzed wood chip acquisition and manufacture into virgin office paper in the U.S. to determine the expected emission for each tonne of virgin office paper produced. F A L calculated this emission to be 2.30 tC02e per tonne office paper and Tellus calculated 2.14 tC02e per tonne office paper. Both these estimates include the process energy (factory or electricity consumption) and the transportation-related emission of the raw materials. These estimates were averaged for further development in the USEPA report. It was determined that the process energy, greatly dominated over the transportation energy necessary for raw material acquisition. F A L and Tellus estimated that 91 and 94% of the emissions resulted from process energy consumption, respectively, with the remainder being transportation-related. The F A L process energy emissions resulted from the consumption of 63.7 GJ per tonne office paper; 50% came from biomass, 25%o from electricity (predominantly coal generation in the U.S.), 10%>, directly from coal and 9% from natural gas. The Tellus process energy emissions originated from 40.8 GJ/tonne but a similar breakdown is not provided (steam is listed as providing 77% of the energy requirement but it is not stipulated what fueled the boiler). These results can be directly compared with their assessment of utilizing recycled materials in manufacturing in a similar manner as presented in the previous section on newsprint. The consultants estimated the energy expended during the acquisition of recycled newsprint and the process energy expended during the manufacturing. It was 56 assumed that 100% recycled inputs were used. When this was not feasible, data were extrapolated to estimate as such. F A L determined that 2.02 tCC^e is emitted per tonne office paper and Tellus calculated 1.69 tCC^e per tonne office paper. These estimates were also averaged for further development in the USEPA report. As with woodchips, the process emissions dominated over the transportation emissions; process energy was 94 and 90% of the total emissions for F A L and Tellus, respectively. F A L estimated that 30.7 GJ of process energy is expended per tonne of office paper manufacture (the most important energy fractions are 49%> from electricity and 24% from natural gas). Tellus estimated that 24.1 GJ of process energy was necessary to manufacture a tonne of office paper, but a similar breakdown was not provided. Both of the total energy estimates for recycled production are significantly lower than for virgin production. In the previously discussed PAPRJCAN (1999) report, data for kraft pulping are also provided. The typical energy requirement for a kraft mill is 17.0 GJ/adt of process steam and 3.2 GJ/adt of electrical power. Unfortunately, this 20.2 GJ/adt cannot be compared to the F A L or Tellus values, for this value does not include energy losses in generating the steam or electricity or the energy associated with producing the chemicals consumed. A recent report by the Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada (PAPTAC 1999) has cited the total energy consumption of 24 Canadian kraft mills in 1996 as between 30 and 61 GJ/adt with an average of 40.4 GJ/adt. It is unclear as to why this data is twice that of the PAPRICAN report. To obtain actual data with which to compare against the U.S. research, Weyerhaeuser and Domtar, were contacted but declined to participate in this analysis. There is no de-inking facility for office paper in Western Canada. Tony Kaptein at the Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, facility of Weyerhaueser spent a considerable amount of time explaining to this author the inherent complications in acquiring accurate data. The Prince Albert operation is an integrated pulp and paper mill which produces a number of different pulps and paper products and it would be a fairly involved process to separate out the energy requirements. Furthermore, the mill will soon drastically change its external energy consumption with the installation of a new turbo generator in August and a new bark boiler in September. While the mill currently produces 30% of its own electricity, the new turbo generator will allow the mill to produce 80 to 100% of its own electricity. This is very important from a GHG perspective as electricity generation in Saskatchewan is largely fossil fuel based. The new bark boiler will offset natural gas consumption. In fact, the GHG emissions for the Weyerhaueser Canada group of companies, formerly MacMillan Bloedel, is approximately 37% below its 1990 levels. Currently, 59%> of Weyerhaueser Canada's fuel energy demand is supplied by biomass fuels (Weyerhaueser 1999). Weldwood of Canada Ltd operates two kraft pulp mills producing bleached kraft pulp for making fine paper, one in Quesnel, B.C., and the other in Hinton, Alberta. Emissions data for these facilities are available on the VCR website (Weldwood 1999). Including the indirect emissions from using electricity in B.C. and from using electricity in Alberta, it is reported that 0.33 tC02e resulted per tonne of kraft pulp produced at Quesnel and 57 0.58 tCC^e resulted per tonne of kraft pulp produced in Hinton. As this does not include chemicals consumed during the process, data from Tellus (1994) estimated an energy requirement of 2.6 GJ/tonne office paper for the manufacturing these chemicals. Assuming the energy is completely provided by natural gas, an emission of 0.13 tCC^e per tonne is estimated. Even with this indirect chemical emission added to the higher emission at Hinton, it is still less than a third of the value reported by Tellus in the USEPA (1998) report. It is unlikely that even when emissions for papermaking are included, that emissions could ever approach the estimates reported in USEPA (1998). This serves as another example of the high estimates by F A L and Tellus. While this investigation is largely without any data with which to compare recycled and virgin production of office paper, only isolated pieces of information exist, it would appear that much of the same uncertainty that exists with newsprint also occurs with office paper. In fact, the low conversion rate of wood chips to kraft pulp, 50% largely because of the loss of lignin, adds a new complication. Whereas TMP mills frequently bring in wood waste to burn in power boilers, kraft mills produce their own wood waste without any external inputs and currently approach energy self-sufficiency of 80%o. Furthermore, some kraft mills in the world, and one in New Brunswick, are actually exporting surplus energy. It appears that de-inking facilities may even have greater difficulty in competing against an energy self-sufficient kraft mill, especially if that de-inking facility is stand-alone and relies on natural gas and external electricity for its energy demands. It is important to recognize that there will be little difference between bleached kraft pulp and de-inked pulp for the papermaking operations necessary to manufacture fine (office) paper. Furthermore, an integrated kraft pulp and paper mill will also have the advantage of not having to dry its pulp for shipment - an energy savings of as much as 40% (see previous section). The previous section finished with the safe assumption that there is no GHG benefit to newsprint production. Virgin office paper (manufactured from a nearly energy self-sufficient integrated pulp and paper facility) could even have smaller GHG emissions than production with recycled fiber. Once again, there is significant variability present within this complicated industry. While the USEPA and their consultants estimated a substantial GHG benefit for recycling office paper, it appears they largely neglected this variability. As with newsprint, the most appropriate assumption will be to assume no GHG benefit with the important caveat that research is greatly needed on this issue. To enable office paper recycling to remain a zero GHG emissions activity, the curbside collection of this material and any other transportation will not be accounted for. This allows office paper recycling to exactly break even with the alternative virgin production and to allow a zero impact in the Model. 58 2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Ferrous metal (steel) is a readily recyclable material and the recycling of metallic scrap back into iron and steel furnaces has long been an economically viable means of utilizing ferrous waste materials. Iron ore is the most important raw material in making steel. Coal is typically used as a source of energy with limestone (CaCOa) and lime (CaO) used as fluxing agents (substances that remove impurities from the molten iron or steel). The production of virgin molten steel involves the following steps: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 extraction and processing of the necessary iron ore, coal, limestone and lime, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 blast furnace ironmaking, and \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 basic oxygen furnace steelmaking. The production of molten steel with a 100% post-consumer content requires only the electric arc furnace steel making of densified steel scrap. These steps, particularly the extraction and processing, require a number of different organizations. The analysis of these steps by two consulting firms will be reviewed in this section. Two consulting firms, Franklin Associates Ltd (FAL) and the Tellus Institute (Tellus), performed investigations of the GHG emission implications of virgin steel can production and the recycling of steel cans back into steel ingot while on contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998). These organizations analyzed the raw material acquisition and manufacture of steel cans in the United States so as to compare with their analysis of the acquisition and processing of post-consumer steel cans also into containers. F A L estimated the typical emission of virgin manufacture to be 4.2 tC02e per tonne steel can. This estimate includes both process energy and transportation energy emissions but also non-energy process emissions resulting from the release of CO2 from limestone. These emissions break down into 2.8 tC02e per tonne steel resulting from process energy consumption, 1.0 tC02e per tonne steel of non-energy process emissions and 0.4 tCChe per tonne steel resulting from the transportation emissions during raw material acquisition. The process energy consumption for one tonne of steel cans is estimated at 36.6 GJ. Tellus estimated the typical emission of virgin manufacture to be 4.9 tC02e per tonne steel can. These emissions break down into 3.8 tC02e per tonne steel resulting from process energy consumption, 1.0 tC02e per tonne steel of process non-energy emissions and 0.1 tC02e per tonne steel resulting from the transportation of the post-consumer steel cans. A much reduced process energy requirement is estimated, 13.7 GJ/tonne compared to 36.6 for virgin steel. The F A L and Tellus estimates were averaged for further development in the USEPA report and are also averaged here for an estimate of 4.55 t C 0 2 e per tonne virgin steel cans. This estimate of virgin manufacturing can be directly compared with the assessment of utilizing post-consumer steel in manufacturing. Assuming a 100% recycled content, F A L determined the energy expended during the acquisition of recycled steel and the process energy expended during the manufacturing. It was assumed that 100% recycled inputs were used. F A L determined that 2.1 tC02e is emitted per tonne of recycled steel utilized. These emissions break down into 0.8 tC02e per tonne steel resulting from process energy 59 consumption, 1.0 tC0 2e per tonne steel of process non-energy emissions and 0.3 tC0 2e per tonne steel resulting from the transportation of the post-consumer steel cans. A much reduced process energy requirement is estimated, 13.7 GJ/tonne compared to 36.6 for virgin steel. Tellus determined that 2.3 tC0 2e is emitted per tonne of recycled steel utilized. These emission breaks down into 1.2 tC0 2e per tonne steel resulting from process energy emissions, 1.0 tC0 2e per tonne steel of process non-energy emissions and 0.1 tC0 2e per tonne steel resulting from the transportation of the post-consumer steel cans. A much reduced process energy requirement is estimated, 19.7 GJ/tonne compared to 48.8 for virgin steel. The F A L and Tellus estimates were averaged for further development in the USEPA report and are also averaged here for an estimate of 2.2 tC0 2e per tonne recycled steel cans. By comparing the consultants estimates of virgin versus recycled steel can production, it is possible to derive a GHG benefit of utilizing post-consumer steel. For a tonne of steel and including the necessary transportation, the difference between 4.55 tC0 2e for virgin and 2.2 tC0 2e for recycled is 2.35 tC0 2e. This 2.35 tC0 2e is the GHG benefit to be expected from recycling a tonne of steel cans rather than disposing them in a landfill and necessitating further virgin production to replace this material. While these estimates were developed for the steel used in steel cans, this is ubiqitous with steel for any purpose. To determine whether this GHG factor is appropriate for use in this investigation, the local situation has been assessed. All recycled and scrap steel collected in the GVRD by Allied Salvage & Metal is exported to the United States (Pers. comm. George Weinstein). This is likely representative of other metal recyclers since their is no local smelter or foundry for steel. The purpose of Allied Salvage & Metal, and others, is to accumulate and process scrap steel for recycling. They wait until they have a batch of sufficient size and of appropriate quality before shipping it to a smelter or foundry in the United States. As previously discussed, a number of different organizations participate in the production of molten steel. Due to this complexity, the opportunity to analyze the life-cycle of steel production does not presently exist. As a result, the estimates developed by the two consultants on behalf of the USEPA will be used here. Since there isn't a local steel smelter or foundry in the GVRD, and since recycled steel scrap is exported to the United States, it is also appropriate to use the recycling estimates developed by the U.S. consultants. As the transportation component of GHG emissions is included in the USEPA report, the emissions associated with the recycling of steel in the GVRD are not specifically analyzed in this thesis. 60 2.6.4 Glass Glass, like ferrous metal, is also a readily recyclable material. In fact, in the United States in 1991, it was estimated that cullet (waste glass) made up about 30% of the input to new manufacturing (two-thirds of the cullet is post-consumer waste and the remainder is in-house scrap) (Gaines and Mintz 1994). The energy analysis of glass recycling by Gaines and Mintz (1994) of the Energy Systems Division of the Argonne National Laboratory provides an excellent description of the manufacturing involved and the energy implications. This report is reviewed here. Glass is manufactured from 4 main raw materials. These include sand (silica), limestone (CaCCb), soda ash (Na2C03), and feldspar (aluminium silicates with potassium, sodium, calcium or barium) with sand making up the bulk of the raw material input. Glass-container production includes mixing of the raw materials, melting at 2800\u00C2\u00B0F, then forming, annealing and finishing. Melting is by far the most energy-intensive step in the process, because of the large quantities of material which must be heated to high temperatures. This energy is typically provided by natural gas and electricity. This is the step in which cullet content can influence energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Cullet can aid the melting of the batch and allows operation at a lower furnace temperature; both of which contribute to reducing energy consumption. Furthermore, the substitution of recycled glass for the virgin feedstocks limestone and soda ash can prevent the release of C 0 2 which occurs when these materials are reacted to form glass. There is no physical barrier to the allowable recyclable content; glass containers can be manufactured with 100% cullet. Gaines and Mintz (1994) determined the primary energy consumption of bottle manufacturing and the necessary transportation as being 19.7 GJ/tonne with no post-consumer recycling, 18.4 GJ/tonne with the 1991 recycled content (approximately 23%) and 17.2 GJ/tonne with maximum recycled content. While the total primary energy use decreases as the percent of glass recycled rises, the maximum energy saved is only about 13%. Furthermore, as the percent of recycled glass rises, cullet quality is likely to decline, leading to a higher reject rate and therefore increasing energy consumption. However, energy consumption is not necessarily the same as greenhouse gas emissions because the necessary reactions with limestone (CaCC^) and soda ash (Na2CO\"3) result in the evolution of C 0 2 gas; carbon that was previously sequestered in geological formations. This is a non-energy related greenhouse gas emissions and this same report calculated that 0.15 tonnes of C 0 2 is released for each tonne of glass containers manufactured without any post-consumer content. As a result of this shortcoming, an actual GHG analysis of glass manufacture and recycling is necessary. This is the next report reviewed. The consulting firm, Franklin Associates Ltd (FAL), performed the only GHG analysis of glass container manufacturing and recycling of which this author is aware. This was on contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998). This firm analyzed the raw material acquisition and manufacture of glass containers in the United States so as to compare with their analysis of the acquisition and processing of 61 post-consumer glass also into containers. They estimated the typical emission of virgin manufacture to be 0.65 tC0 2e per tonne glass. This estimate includes both process energy and transportation energy emissions but also process non-energy emissions resulting from the release of C O 2 from limestone and soda ash. This estimate assumes a post-consumer content of 0%. These emission breaks down into 0.44 tC0 2e per tonne glass resulting from process energy consumption (79% of which was derived from natural gas), 0.16 tC0 2e per tonne glass of non-energy process emissions and 0.04 tC0 2e per tonne glass resulting from the transportation emissions during raw material acquisition. As with other recyclables, transportation is of minor importance, only 6% of total emissions. Surprisingly, the energy consumption estimated by F A L , 7.7 GJ/tonne glass, is much lower than the previously discussed estimate of 19.7 GJ/tonne glass by Gaines and Mintz (1994). It is unclear why these two organizations had such differing estimates. This estimate of virgin manufacturing can be directly compared with the assessment of utilizing post-consumer glass in manufacturing. Assuming a 100% post-consumer content, F A L estimated the energy expended during the acquisition of recycled glass and the process energy expended during the manufacturing. F A L determined that 0.28 tC0 2e is emitted per tonne of recycled glass manufactured. This emission breaks down into 0.24 tC0 2e per tonne glass resulting from process energy consumption (92% of which was derived from natural gas), 0 tC0 2e per tonne glass of non-energy process emissions at the factory (no new limestone or soda ash is required) and 0.04 tC0 2e per tonne glass resulting from the transportation of the post-consumer glass. The transportation is of increased importance in this process, comprising 14%o of emissions. As with the virgin analysis, the estimate for the energy requirement, 5.1 GJ/tonne glass, is much lower than the estimate by Gaines and Mintz (1994) of 17.2 GJ/tonne glass. By comparing the F A L analysis of virgin versus recycled glass production, it is possible to derive a GHG benefit of utilizing post-consumer glass. For a tonne of glass and including the necessary transportation, the difference between 0.65 tC0 2e for virgin and 0.28 tC0 2e for recycled is 0.37 tC0 2e. This 0.37 tC0 2e is the GHG benefit to be expected from recycling a tonne of glass rather than disposing it in a landfill and necessitating further virgin production to replace this material. To determine whether this benefit is appropriate to this region, our local situation is also investigated. In the GVRD, post-consumer glass enters the recycled waste stream through curb-side collection, residential drop-off or various commercial recycling initiatives. This glass is processed at recycling facilities and much of it is transported to Consumers Glass in Lavington, B.C., for use as cullet in container manufacture. Valuable information has been obtained by personal communication with Donna O'Dwyer of this organization. Consumers Glass produces glass containers with a recycled content of approximately 11%. Greater post-consumer content would be preferable and readily utilized but the supply is simply not available. Depending on how much cullet is used in production, energy savings between about 3 and 15% can be realized. 62 Consumers Glass used 67,757 tonnes of silica sand, 18,499 tonnes of limestone, 22,447 tonnes of soda ash, 6,023 tonnes of Syenite (refined feldspar) and 13,715 tonnes of post-consumer glass in 1999 (total inputs = 128,441 tonnes) to produce 110,289 tonnes of glass containers. The difference between inputs and outputs, 18,152 tonnes, is cullet that will be used for future glass production. Cullet from previous glass manufacturing in 1998 also carried cullet forward into the 1999 production year. During 1999, 51,910 MWh of electricity and 777,980 GJ of natural gas was consumed by this organization. The following calculations calculate the GHG emissions. Electricity Consumption = 51,910 MWh BC Hydro provincial emission average = 30 tC0 2e/GWh (BC Hydro 1998) Natural Gas Consumption = 777,980 GJ C 0 2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997a) Energy of Natural Gas (typically) = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) Mass of container-glass produced = 110,289 tonnes (51,910MWhf30 t C O , e Electricity Emissions = \f , .\u00E2\u0080\u009E., , \u00E2\u0080\u0094 = 0.014 t^ 2/' (l 10,289 tonnes)(l000^^^J / t o n n e (l 8 8 k g C C V Y l 0 6 k J / ) 777,980 1 7m3 A /GJ' tCO e/ Natural Gas Emissions = , , _ -^-r v . ; = 0.350 2'tonne (110,289tonnes) (37,843% 3^10 3 k^ tonne tCO,e, Total Emissions = Electricity + Natural Gas = 0.014 + 0.350 = 0.364 2Y , J /tonne pulp The emission for Consumers Glass is lower than the F A L estimate, but the emission above does not include the non-energy release of C O 2 from the consumption of limestone and soda ash (estimated by F A L to be 0.12 tC02e/tonne) and does not include the energy consumption associated with the acquisition and transportation of the sand, limestone, soda ash and feldspar raw materials (not available in USEPA (1998)). The F A L estimate is likely appropriate for use in this GVRD analysis and the 0.37 tCC^e is assumed to be the GHG benefit expected from recycling a tonne of glass in this investigation. 2.6.5 High-Density Polyethylene The manufacture of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) products requires a number of steps from various different organizations. Production using virgin resins is a complicated process which includes: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 petroleum & natural gas extraction and refining, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ethylene production via thermal cracking, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 slurry or gas phase polymerization process, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 compounding, extrusion & palletizing, and \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 blow molding polyethylene products. Production using recycled resins requires these steps: 63 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Collection and baling of post-consumer plastics \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Plastic resin separation and granulation \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Cleaning and drying \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Extruding and pelletizing \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Blow molding polyethylene products The GHG emissions by these processes have been estimated by Franklin Associates Ltd. (FAL 1994) and the Tellus Institute (Tellus 1994). Subsequently, these consultants were contracted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to perform a further analysis (USEPA 1998). It is the most recent work which is reviewed here. However, both these consultants did not include the blow molding of polyethylene products. Rather, their analysis ceased with resins (not finishd products) as this was sufficient for comparison purposes; manufacturing a plastic product is not affected whether the resin used is virgin or primary in origin. Both firms analyzed the raw material acquisition and manufacture of virgin HDPE resins in the U.S. to determine the expected emission. They estimated the emissions from energy consumption during raw material acquisition and subsequent processing (process energy) and the transportation-related emissions of the raw materials (transportation energy). F A L also identified process non-energy emission during the life-cycle but it is not stated how these emissions occur. F A L estimated the total of these emissions to be 2.3 tC02e/tonne HDPE with a breakdown of 2.0 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE from process energy, 0.2 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of process non-energy emissions and 0.1 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE from the transportation energy. As with other recyclables, transportation is of minor importance, only 4% of emissions. Tellus estimated the total of these emissions to be 3.4 tC02e/tonne HDPE with a breakdown of 2.9 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of process emissions, 0.2 tC02e per tonne HDPE of process non-energy emissions and 0.3 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of transportation emissins. As with the F A L assessment, transportation is of minor importance, only 9% of emissions. The average of the F A L and Tellus estimates is 2.85 tC02e/tonne HDPE. These consultants also investigated the emissions from the alternative realization of recycled HDPE resins. This is the same end product as the previous estimate and can be directly compared. Their investigation included process energy and non-energy emissions resulting from the washing and processing of post-consumer HDPE materials to generate recycled resins and transportation energy consumed during the acquisition of this post-consumer HDPE. F A L estimated the total of these emissions to be 1.0 tC02e/tonne HDPE with a breakdown of 0.85 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE from process energy and 0.16 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE from the transportation energy. Tellus estimated the total of these emissions to be 1.3 tC02e/tonne HDPE with a breakdown of 1.2 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of process emissions and 0.1 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of transportation emissins. The average of the F A L and Tellus estimates is 1.15 tC02e/tonne HDPE. By comparing the estimates of virgin versus recycled HDPE resin production, it is possible to derive a GHG benefit of utilizing post-consumer HDPE. For a tonne of HDPE and including the necessary transportation, the difference between 2.85 tC0 2e for 64 virgin and 1.15 tCC^e for recycled is 1.7 tCC^e. This 1.7 tCC^e is the GHG benefit to be expected from recycling a tonne of HDPE rather than disposing it in a landfill or combusting it in an incinerator and therefore necessitating further virgin production to replace this material. To determine whether this GHG factor is appropriate for use in this investigation, the local situation has been assessed. The manufacture of plastic containers using virgin resins is performed in the Lower Mainland by Portola Packaging. This firm only utilizes virgin resins produced by the petroleum industry in the United States. They do not use any virgin resins produced in Canada nor any post-consumer resins. As previously discussed, there are a number of steps to prepare resins for use in the manufacturing of plastics containers. The main steps include petroleum & natural gas extraction and refining, ethylene production, polymerization and pelletizing. Due to this complexity, and the number of potential organizations involved, this research will use the work by F A L and Tellus instead of attempting to develop a separate estimate for this virgin production. Furthermore, as resins used in the Lower Mainland actually originate from the United States, this author believes that the estimates by the U.S. consultants are appropriate for use here. Post-consumer HDPE plastic materials such as bottles and others are recycled in the GVRD. This occurs at Merlin Plastics of Annacis Island. This organization generates recycled resins for export to California. In fact, all of the recycled resins from this facility are shipped to California where some new plastics must have a minimum recycled content (Pers. comm.. Tony Mouchachen). While plastics in the GVRD are recycled, it is important to recognize that the production of recycled plastic bottles does not occur here. However, recycled HDPE resins can be down-graded into non-food-grade materials such as buckets or plastic lumber. Tony Mouchachen of Merlin Plastics was contacted to obtain energy data but declined to participate in this research. Therefore, the estimates developed in the USEPA report are used in this thesis. As the transportation component of GHG emissions is included in the USEPA report, these emissions are not specifically analyzed in this thesis. 2.6.6 Low-Density Polyethylene Low-density polyethylene is a material very similar to high-density polyethylene and for the purposes of this research behaves the same. As a result, much of the discussion in the previous section (2.6.5) is also applicable here. In addition, emission estimates from the USEPA work are reviewed. Franklin Associates Ltd. (FAL) and the Tellus Institute (Tellus) also investigated LDPE manufacture and recycling for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998). They estimated the emissions from energy consumption during raw material acquisition and subsequent processing (process energy) and the transportation-related emissions of the raw materials (transportation energy). F A L also identified process non-energy emission during the life-cycle but it not stated how these emissions occur. F A L estimated the total of these emissions to be 2.7 tCC^e/tonne LDPE with a breakdown of 2.4 tCC^e per tonne LDPE from process energy, 0.2 tCC^e per tonne HDPE of process non-energy emissions and 0.1 tCC^e per tonne LDPE from 65 transportation energy. Tellus estimated the total of these emissions to be 4.4 tCO\"2e/tonne HDPE with a breakdown of 3.9 tC0 2e per tonne LDPE of process emissions, 0.2 tC0 2e per tonne HDPE of process non-energy emissions and 0.3 tC0 2e per tonne LDPE of transportation emissions. The average of the F A L and Tellus estimates is 3.55 tC02e/tonne LDPE. These consultants also investigated the emissions from the alternative realization of recycled LDPE resins. This is the same end product as the previous estimate and can be directly compared. Their investigation included process energy and non-energy emissions resulting from the washing and processing of post-consumer LDPE materials to generate recycled resins and transportation energy consumed during the acquisition of this post-consumer LDPE. F A L estimated the total of these emissions to be 0.93 tC02e/tonne LDPE with a breakdown of 0.77 tCC^e per tonne LDPE from process energy and 0.16 tC0 2e per tonne LDPE from the transportation energy. Tellus estimated the total of these emissions to be 1.7 tC02e/tonne LDPE with a breakdown of 1.6 tC0 2e per tonne LDPE of process emissions and 0.1 tC0 2e per tonne LDPE of transportation emissins. The average of the F A L and Tellus estimates is 1.3 tC02e/tonne LDPE. By comparing the estimates of virgin versus recycled LDPE resin production, it is possible to derive a GHG benefit of utilizing post-consumer LDPE. For a tonne of LDPE and including the necessary transportation, the difference between 3.55 tC0 2e for virgin and 1.3 tC0 2e for recycled is 2.25 tC0 2e. This 2.25 tC0 2e is the GHG benefit to be expected from recycling a tonne of LDPE rather than disposing it in a landfill or combusting it in an incinerator and therefore necessitating further virgin production to replace this material. As with HDPE, it is the USEPA estimates which are used in this thesis. 2.6.7 F o r e s t C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on Can the recycling of paper products affect the carbon storage in forests? This impact would be derived from the belief that \"paper and wood recycling tend to reduce timber harvesting, and possibly lengthen rotation ages, leaving more carbon sequestered in the forests.\"(Ince et al. 1995) Does recycling reduce the demand for timber harvesting and therefore allow greater carbon sequestration? The state of forestry in Canada and a literature review of available research on forest sequestration issues is presented in this section. In addition, the helpful discussions with individuals at the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the B.C. Ministry of Forests and the Canadian Forest Service are also provided. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the rate of carbon uptake has exceeded the rate of carbon release in US forests since about 1977 (USEPA 1998). This carbon sequestration, \"primarily due to forest management activities and the reforestation of previously cleared areas\"(ibid), has been estimated to offset about 5% of US energy-related C 0 2 emissions (USEPA 1999). In the USEPA (1998) analysis, an extensive modeling investigation was performed to estimate the amount of forest carbon sequestration per ton of paper product which is recycled. They, together with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Forest Service, found that a relationship 66 does exist between recycling and forest carbon sequestration. It was determined that 0.80 tonnes of additional carbon can be expected to be sequestered if one tonne of paper is recycled. This is equivalent to preventing the emission of 2.9 tCC^e to the atmosphere. Their model treats \"forest product markets in the US and Canada as a single integrated economic and biological system.\" However, Canadian forest inventories are not modeled in the same way or detail as the US forest inventories. This is an important limitation given that much of the economically marginal paper production is from Canadian pulp sources - recycling in the U.S. would impact mainly Canadian forests. Peter Ince and others at the USDA - Forest Service have also modeled the carbon sequestration issue together with the fossil energy consumption implications of virgin vs. recycled paper production (Ince et al. 1995). These researchers found that by increasing the 1990 recovered paper utilization rate of 27% to 56%> by 2010, that the annual emission of 180 million tonnes of C O 2 could be prevented in the U.S. Unfortunately, a breakdown of the GHG reductions into forest carbon sequestration or process energy savings is not provided. To determine whether this US research is appropriate for application in this thesis, the Canadian situation requires investigation. Canada's landmass of 977 million hectares contains 418 million hectares of forest. Of these forests, 245 million hectares or 59% is considered to be commercial forests. However, \"due to accessibility limits, environmental constraints, land ownership, land-use constraints and operability issues, only 119 million hectares or about half of the commercial forest is considered to be available for timber production at present\". Canada, along with only Russia, Alaska and parts of Scandinavia, has a predominance of the slow-growing natural (never-harvested) boreal forest. \"Canada's forest is weighted toward relatively young (29%) and mature (59%) stands of trees, while over-mature stands make up most of the remainder...\" (all information from NCCP (1998)) Of the 119 million hectares of available commercial forest, only 1.1 million hectares was harvested in 1998 (Natural Resources Canada 2000). In fact, natural disturbances impacted a much greater area; forest fires destroyed 1.7 million hectares in 1998 and insects defoliated 5.1 million hectares (ibid). However, some of the burnt and defoliated forests can still provide salvagable timber. The maximum allowable production levels -the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) - was even greater than the harvested area in 1998. While the A A C in 1998 was 241 million m 3, only 175 million m 3 or 73%) was actually harvested (ibid). This A A C consists largely of first-growth forest which has not previously been harvested. This is in constrast to activities in the US which are harvesting mainly second growth trees (Pers. comm. Bill Wilson). By the current practice of harvesting mainly first growth trees, the forest industry is removing trees which are past their biological maturity (trees which are no longer growing and fixing carbon from the atmosphere). By harvesting stands which are no longer growing and photosynthezing, forestry operations are allowing the replacement with actively growing seedlings to further fix carbon while much of the harvested tree will be converted into various wood products. 67 Industry-wide statistics are annually published by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA 1999) and the following discussion will compare 1990 data (when the utilization of post-consumer paper began rapidly expanding) with the most recent data, that for 1997. The production of paper, paperboard and market pulp went from 23.7 million tonnes in 1990 to 29.1 million tonnes in 1997. Much of this production was a result of waste from sawmills. Most trees in Canada are not harvested to make paper. Rather, they are harvested to make lumber. As not all of round logs are turned into lumber, the remaining wood, excluding the bark, is typically chipped for use in pulp mills. The harvest of industrial roundwood was 156 million m 3 in 1990 yet only 42 million m 3 was roundwood directly for pulping; the majority was for lumber production. Approximately 55 million m 3 or 57% of the total virgin fibre consumed by the pulp and paper sector was wood waste from sawmills. In 1998, the national harvest had climbed to 182 million m 3 , but only 33 million m 3 was roundwood directly for pulping; an even greater amount, 74 million m or 69% of virgin fibre consumed by the pulp and paper sector, was wood waste from sawmills. While the total harvest of industrial roundwood increased between 1990 and 1997, the roundwood directly consumed at pulp and paper mills actually decreased. The amount of wood waste generated at sawmills which is transferred to pulp and paper operations is remarkably consistent with the rule of thumb provided to this author by Mike Whybrow of the B.C. Ministry of Forests. He explained that approximately 40%> of a round log delivered to a sawmill becomes lumber, 40% becomes wood chips and 20% becomes wood waste such as sawdust, shavings or bark which is typically combusted in the power-boilers of pulp mills or are disposed of in beehive burners. It is important to recognize that currently nearly of 70% of the vurgin fibre used at Canadian pulp operations rely on wood waste from sawmills. Along with the wood chips from sawmills or from roundwood harvested especially for pulping is combined the de-inked pulp produced from recycled paper products. While 1990 marked the beginning of strong growth in the utilization of postconsumer paper by the pulp & paper industry, it is not a new occurrence. As far back as 1980, 1.1 million tonnes of recycled paper was used in producing 13.5 million tonnes of paper and paperboard for a utilization rate of 8.4% (CPPA 1999). In 1990, 1.8 million tonnes of recycled paper was used to produce 16.5 million tonnes of paper and paperboard, a utilization rate of 11.2%. The most recent available data is for 1998. In this year, 4.7 million tonnes of recycled paper, along with virgin fibre, produced 18.7 million tonnes of paper and paperboard for a utilization rate of 24.9%. Given that nearly 70% of virgin fibre used in pulp & paper production is from trees not harvested directly, what effect has recycling had on fibre demand? Both David Church (Canadian Pulp & Paper Association) and Mike Whybrow (B.C. Ministry of Forests) believe that the recycling of paper products has served to 'stretch' the fibre resource. While roughly the same amount of wood chips were being utilized prior to recycling as is currently being utilized - the main difference is that recycled fibre now allows more paper to be produced. This belief is indeed borne out by available data. Virgin fibre consumed by the pulp and paper industry was 97 million m 3 in 1990 and had only slightly increased to 107 million m 3 in 1998 (CPPA 1999). This increase came not from direct 68 harvesting of roundwood but from increased utilization of wood waste. The greater wood waste and recycled fiber enabled pulp & paper production to increase from 23.7 million tonnes in 1990 to 28.5 million tonnes in 1998. As previously discussed, direct harvesting of roundwood actually decreased during this period - from 42.1 million m 3 in 1990 to 33.4 million m 3 in 1998 (ibid). Assuming that wood waste utilization is already at a maximum (this author has not been able to find any data on this), it could logically be concluded that increased harvesting of roundwood for pulping would be necessary to satisfy fibre demand. Especially when considering that the A A C is currently only at 73% - there is 27% of additional harvesting available. However, this harvesting will only occur if the economics are attractive; pulping has to make money and traditionally it is the lumber which brings in the large revenues. Also, geographic considerations are important as much of this available A A C may be a great distance from the pulp mills which require this raw material. To complicate matters further, it is the opinion of Mike Whybrow that additional demand for paper would be supplied not by increased harvesting in Canada but by fast-growing plantations in tropical or sub-tropical countries. Bill Wilson (Canadian Forestry Service) is of a similar opinion and also believes that additional demand would spur on investigations into the potential of non-timber sources of pulp such as flax, hemp or agricultural residues. Assuming increased harvesting did to take place, while it may appear to lead to increased GHG emissions, removing zero net growth primary forest with a young actively photosynthesizing seedling may also have advantages. Contrary to the USEPA (1998) report, which is designed for municipalities in the United States, this thesis is analyzing the GHG emissions solely from the GVRD waste management system. For this reason, a different tack can be employed to derive a forest carbon estimate. Paper is recycled so that the pulp & paper industry has the required minimum recycle content to remain in the marketplace. If the GVRD disposes of paper, instead of recycling, the free market value of recycled paper products would logically have to increase. With the value increasing, it is conceivable that other jurisdications would increase their recycling to satisfy any shortage. Increased harvesting of roundwood strictly for pulping is unlikely as this does nothing to reach the minimum recycled content in new paper products. If the GVRD removed its recycled paper supply, to burn for carbon-neutralbioenergy generation for instance, an incentive would result for other cities to pull more paper out of their waste stream for recycling. In this situation, if the GVRD chooses to recycle or chooses not to, there is little GHG implication. Probably the only implication would result from increased transportation to import recycled paper back to B.C. from the U.S. This research assumes that the GVRD's choice in isolation to recycle or not to recycle has zero GHG benefit or liability. 69 2.7 UNCERTAINTY WITH THE ESTIMATES As with any estimating procedure, there is uncertainty in the results. This study is no exception. While much of the data, especially the diesel fuel consumption data, has very little uncertainty, there are other values for which a lack of confidence exists. In this report, it was decided that high, low and best-guess estimates will be provided with data and factors that have a high level of uncertainty. Factors for which there is minimal uncertainty will only have one value; high and low estimates will not be provided. The range of potential values (the range between the high and low values) will be included in brackets after the best-guess value. When values with uncertainty are summed, the best-guess, high and low estimates will be summed respectively to calculate the resulting best-guess, high and low estimate. In many cases, the uncertainty results from the prevailing lack of understanding of the process being analyzed. Unfortunately, two of the most uncertain issues, landfill methane and nitrous oxide emissions, are also some of the most quantitatively important from a greenhouse gas perspective. Nevertheless, estimates are required and have therefore been developed. It is hoped that when the level of understanding grows in the future, that it will be possible to incorporate the new understanding into the model. Only two significant figures are reported in the results of this research. This is likely the most appropriate given the uncertainty in the underlying data. 2.8 SPREADSHEET PROGRAM In addition to this report, the second important deliverable from this research study is a spreadsheet program to facilitate future waste management planning. This spreadsheet is programmed so that the mass flows of waste into various management methods (landfill disposal, incineration, composting and recycling) are variables that can be altered. Also, parameters that are important for calculating GHG emissions, such as the effectiveness of landfill gas collection systems, are also programmed as variables ( in bo ld ) so that improvements in the future will cause the Model to recalculate emissions. The spreadsheet also allows for the development of a new landfill and a new incinerator. It is the intent of this spreadsheet to Model the GVRD's existing system and provide planners with a tool to calculate the future emissions to be expected from decisions made today. This section describes the inner workings of the spreadsheet program to give readers an understanding of this Model. This section begins by explaining the 34 worksheets which are the complete spreadsheet (2.8.1). These worksheets simply represent the sample calculations provided in the appendices. The only difference being that when structured in a spreadsheet, changes in waste masses or parameters will immediately demonstrate the response on G H G emissions. The inter-relationships of these individual worksheets are effectively illustrated to readers by the use of two examples (2.8.2). After these two sub-sections, an understanding of this spreadsheet Model should be attained. Together 70 with the sample calculations provided in the appendices, waste management planners should feel confident enough to make future improvements to the Model. Several scenarios of specific interest to the waste planners at the GVRD are also inputted into the spreadsheet Model. These are potential management alternatives already being discussed at the GVRD and it was identified that it would be particularly valuable to include their evaluation in this thesis. The last sub-section (2.8.3) is the discussion of the several scenarios of specific interest to the GVRD. 2.8.1 E x p l a n a t i o n This spreadsheet program contains 34 individual worksheets to calculate the emissions from the GVRD's existing system of solid waste management. Though at the outset, this spreadsheet may appear to be extremely complicated, it is actually quite simple. The 34 worksheets can be divided into four categories to facilitate explanation. These four main groups, Results, General, Municipal and Waste, are organized so that the most relevant parts to planners are up front, in the beginning, and that further exploration in the spreadsheet would reveal data and calculations of greater detail and complexity. 71 These groups and their associated worksheets are: T a b l e 2 - 6 : L i s t o f W o r k s h e e t s G R O U P # N A M E O F W O R K S H E E T Results Group 1 GHG Emissions 2 Waste Tonnages 3 Emissions Factors 4 Factor List General Group 5 General Parameters Municipality Group 6 City of Abbotsford 7 City of Burnaby 8 City of Coquitlam 9 Corporation of Delta 10 City of Langley 11 Township of Langley 12 District of Maple Ridge 13 City of New Westminster 14 City of North Vancouver 15 District of North Vancouver 16 District of Pitt Meadows 17 City of Port Coquitlam 18 City of Port Moody 19 City of Richmond 20 City of Surrey 21 City of Vancouver 22 District of West Vancouver 23 City of White Rock 24 Electoral Area A 25 Electoral Area C Waste Group 26 Newsprint Waste Management 27 Office Paper Waste Management 28 Ferrous Metal Waste Management 29 Glass Waste Management 30 High-Density Polyethylene Waste Management 31 Low-Density Polyethylene Waste Management 32 Food Waste Management 33 Yard Trimmings Waste Management 34 Remainder Waste Management The first worksheet (WS#1) presents the results of the entire spreadsheet program - it is the total greenhouse gas emissions from all the municipalities. WS#2 (Waste Tonnages) is the mass, in tonnes, of each component of the waste stream from each municipality under investigation. This waste tonnage is multiplied by the emission factors in WS#3 to calculate the greenhouse gas emission results in WS#1. The last worksheet in the Results Group is WS#4 (Factor List). This is simply a list of all the emission factors from the 72 next 30 worksheets to serve as a transition for ease of programming WS#3. Factors from WS#5 through WS#34 first are entered into the Factor List (WS#4) and then are automatically organized for Emission Factors (WS#3). The General Parameters worksheet (WS#5) is the location of factors and calculations which are not municipality or waste component specific. Examples of these factors include physical constants, landfill gas collection efficiencies and energy conversion during incineration. Examples of calculations include the transportation emissions associated with transfer stations, subsequent transport to landfills or the incinerator or landfill equipment. The next 20 worksheets, WS#6 to WS#25, comprise the Municipality Group. (While there are 23 member municipalities in the GVRD, Anmore and Belcarra are contained within the City of Port Moody municipality and the village of Lions Bay is included with Electoral Area C for this Model.) These worksheets contain all the factors which are municipality-specific such as waste mass estimates and curbside collection. As each municipality has different distances involved in waste management (and therefore different diesel fuel consumption), it was necessary to analyze each municipality individually. The last 9 worksheets, WS#26 to WS#34, are the waste component-specific group, and contain the detailed information on Newsprint Management (WS#26), Office Paper Management (WS#27), Ferrous Metal Management (WS#28), Glass Management (WS#29), HDPE Management (WS#30), LDPE Management (WS#31), Food Waste Management (WS#32), Yard Trimmings Management (WS#33) and Remainder Waste Management (WS#34). These worksheets contain the factors necessary to calculate the emissions to be expected when these materials are either disposed in the Cache Creek or Vancouver Landfills, combusted at the Burnaby Incinerator or undergo backyard or centralized composting. WS#34 (Remainder Waste Management) is an analysis of the remaining fraction of the waste stream after the 8 main components are removed. This waste fraction will be discussed in greater detail in Section 2.10 - Remaining Wastes. In the nine worksheets which assess the individual waste components, some of the emission factors are negative values. For example the energy benefit of landfill gas utilization at the Cache Creek Landfill and the energy generation at the Burnaby Incinerator are negative emissions. This resultsfrom the fact that these factors actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to be included in this thesis are calculated as negative values - when the amount of emission reduction is the value provided. In addition to energy at a landfill or incinerator, negative emission factors are presented in this thesis as a result of landfill carbon sequestration or sequestration in finished compost. These GHG benefits are converted to negative emission factors after all calculations are completed when presented in the appendices. In the spreadsheet program, each emission reduction is multiplied by -1 to convert to a negative value. 2.8.2 Examples The workings and interconnections of these worksheets can be illustrated by using examples. The GHG emissions resulting from the incineration of food scraps in the District of North Vancouver (tC02e) can be calculated by multiplying two numbers, the mass of food scraps incinerated (tonnes) and the GHG emission factor for food waste incineration (tC02e/tonne). The mass of food scraps is determined from GVRD data on solid waste generation together with waste characterization data - the result is provided 73 in WS#2 (Waste Tonnages). When the GHG emission factor for food waste incineration is calculated it can be found in WS#3 (Emission Factors), but calculating this value, and all others, is essentially the bulk of this research. The factor is dependent on data in WS#5 (General Parameters), data specific only to the District of North Vancouver (WS#15), and data specific only to the incineration of food waste (WS#32). There is a series of five steps required to combust food waste from this municipality. Food waste requires curbside collection, processing at the North Shore Transfer Station and then transportation to the Bumaby Incinerator. All three of these steps require diesel fuel consumption and have been estimated in WS#15 (District of North Vancouver). Curbside collection of general waste is 0.014 tC02e/tonne, Factor 1 (WS#15 - F#l), processing at the transfer station is 0.0013 tC02e/tonne, Factor 4 (WS#5 - N S T S : F#l) and the transfer to the Bumaby Incinerator is 0.0026 tC02e/tonne (WS#5 - NSTS: F#8). Once at the Incinerator, WS#32 (Food Waste Management) is necessary for energy generation. The energy benefit of incineration results in -0.097 tC02e/tonne, Factor 10 (WS#32 - F#10), but the GHG emissions during incineration are 0.091 tC02e/tonne, Factor 1 (WS#32 - F#l 1). By totaling all these steps together, it is possible to calculate the overall emission factor as tonnes of C 0 2 equivalent per tonne of food waste. The emission factor provided in WS#3 (Emission Factors) is the total of these factors, 0.010 tC02e/tonne. While a negative emission may seem odd, this will be fully discussed in the next chapter. Examine the tabulation below of this example: T a b l e 2 - 7 : I n c i n e r a t i o n o f F o o d W a s t e f r o m D i s t r i c t o f N o r t h V a n c o u v e r ws# Worksheet Name F# Factor Name tC0 2e/ tonne 15 District of North Vancouver 1 Curbside Collection of General Waste 0.014 15 District of North Vancouver 4 Transfer Station Equipment 0.0013 15 District of North Vancouver 8 Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator 0.0026 32 Food Waste Management 7 Energy Generation from Waste Incineration -0.097 32 Food Waste Management 8 G H G Emissions from Waste Incineration 0.091 T O T A L = 0.010 For another example, let us calculate the emissions from the centralized composting of yard waste generated in the City of Vancouver. The series of steps required in this process are: curbside collection of yard trimmings (WS#21 - F#3), processing at the Vancouver Transfer Station (WS#21 - VTS: F#l), transport to the composting facility at the Vancouver Landfill (WS#21 - F#5), fuel consumption by composting equipment (WS#5), G H G emissions of centralized composting (WS#33 - F#12) and the long-term sequestration of compost (WS#33 - F#13). Totaling all these factors will result in the emission factor for the centralized composting of yard waste generated in the City of Vancouver. These emissions are tabulated on the next page. 74 T a b l e 2 - 8 : C e n t r a l i z e d C o m p o s t i n g o f Y a r d W a s t e f r o m C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r ws# Worksheet Name F# Factor Name tC02e/ 21 21 21 5 33 33 Yard Waste Management Yard Waste Management City of Vancouver City of Vancouver City of Vancouver General Parameters 12 13 3 4 6 Emissions from Centralized Composting Long-Term Sequestration of Compost Transport to the Composting Facility Curbside Collection of Yard Waste Transfer Station Equipment Composting Equipment TOTAL tonne 0.027 0.0009 0.0033 0.019 0.105 -0.10 0.05 The overall emission factors in WS#3 are simply a total of all the necessary factors associated with the process under investigation. There are three parts to every activity, a municipality-specific part (What is the municipality?), a waste-specific part (What waste material is being analyzed?) and a general part (this is the depository for general data not specific to either municipalities or materials). The spreadsheet has simply been programmed to total the appropriate individual factors for each of the possible activities in WS#3 (Emission Factors). Changes in the variables or parameters at any stage will be reflected in the final results presented in WS#1 (GHG Emissions). However, it is important to distinguish between variables and results cells in the spreadsheet. New data or parameters should only be typed into variable cells ( in bo ld ) so that a new result can be calculated. Result cells contain the mathematical functions necessary to calculate the result from the available data and parameters. Improvements to the spreadsheet should not be performed by typing new numbers into the results cells for this would erase the calculations. The utility of the spreadsheet Model comes from the ability to change the existing system and model the response in GHG emissions. Logically, the questions thus result: What are the modifications possible and what are the limitations in the Model? A list of the most important variable changes to users follows. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste mass estimates for generation, recycling and disposal can be altered in the municipality-specific worksheets (WS#6 - WS#25). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The mass flows of waste to transfer stations and direct or transferred mass flows to disposal facilities in the GVRD can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5) to recalculate the percentage of waste disposed in each facility. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Curbside collection fuel consumption data can be altered in the municipality-specific worksheets (WS#6 - WS#25). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fuel consumption by transfer station equipment, landfill equipment or for transportation to landfills or incinerators can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Landfill methane collection for flaring or energy utilization can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Energy conversion during incineration and the fraction of steam to CPL or to a turbo-generator can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The G H G benefit of preventing steam generation by CPL or of preventing electricity generation by BC Hydro can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5). 75 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Global Warming Potential of CH4 and N 2 0 can be altered in the General Parameter Worksheet (WS#5). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The first-order decay rate constants for anaerobic decomposition can be altered in the waste-specific worksheets (WS#26 - WS#34). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition for each material can be altered in the waste-specific worksheets (WS#26 - WS#34). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The Carbon Storage Factor for each material can be altered in the waste-specific worksheets (WS#26 - WS#34). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The moisture content, nitrogen content and net energy content for each material can be altered in the waste-specific worksheets (WS#26 - WS#34). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The N 2 O conversion rates for food and yard waste can be altered in WS#32 & WS#33. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The G H G benefit of the utilization of recyclables by industry can be altered in the waste-specific worksheets (WS#26 - WS#34). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The removal of entire categories of emissions such as landfill sequestration or the benefit of recycling is possible by deleting their values in Factor List (WS#4). The above list is not exhaustive - many other minor modifications are possible within the framework of the Model. While the Model is flexible, there are limitations to the allowable changes. For example, the spreadsheet will not allow major changes to transfer stations in the municipalities. Waste from the three North Shore municipalities must be delivered to the North Shore Transfer Station. Once there, waste is free to be transferred to the Cache Creek, Vancouver or a Future Landfill, or the Bumaby or Future Incinerator. The same is true for Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam; waste must be delivered to the Coquitlam Transfer Station. 76 2.8.3 M o d e l l i n g Scena r i os Of particular interest to planners at the GVRD is. the GHG response of eight scenarios for future waste management alternatives. Using the existing system programmed into the Model as the baseline, any scenario inputted will recalculate new GHG emissions. Each of these scenarios can be directly compared with the baseline to identify whether the emissions increase or decrease. The first five scenarios are potential planning changes to the current management system. The last three scenarios demonstrate the response of the Model to changes in interpretation of the emission estimates (and do not actually represent management changes). These eight scenarios are the following. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 No future increases of the landfill gas collection efficiency at the Cache Creek or Vancouver Landfill and no allowance for energy utilization. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Decreasing the fraction of steam transferred to Crown Packaging Limited (CPL) from the existing 56% to 37%; CPL will require less steam in the future (Pers. comm. Ken Carrusca). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Allowing a turbo-generator to convert the unused steam fraction to electricity; increasing from the current 0% to 57% of steam after CPL decreases its need, (assuming 6% is required internal for plant operation) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Hypothetically allowing incineration to replace all landfill disposal at the proposed steam usage of 37% to CPL. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Hypothetically allowing incineration to replace all landfill disposal at 37% to CPL and 57% to electricity generation. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Ultimate (complete) decomposition of the C A A D in the wastes - to remove the 20 year time period. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Removal of landfill carbon sequestration benefits from the Model. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Removal of recycling and forest sequestration benefits from the Model. The scenarios can be programmed by following the instructions below. However, it is necessary to erase changes when finished unless otherwise stated. The first scenario is performed by changing the gas collection percentages in WS#5 - General Parameters. For the year 1999, Cache Creek is assumed to flare 43% and use 0% for energy - copying these numbers down to the year 2018 will model no future increases. The same can be performed for the Vancouver Landfill. The 22% flared and 0% for energy in 1999 can be copied down to 2018 to model no changes. The second scenario, scheduled to occur in the near future as CPL has a reduced requirement for steam from the Incinerator, can be inputted by changing the Fraction of Steam Sold to CPL (Row 177 in WS#5 - General Parameters) from 56% to 37%. While this scenario is in effect, the third scenario can be added - to change the Fraction of Steam to Generate Electricity in a Turbo-Generator (Row 178 in WS#5 - General Parameters) from 0% to 57%. To program the fourth scenario, all previous changes have to be reversed and the table Percentage Distribution of Waste Disposal (blocks J41 to 063 in WS#5 - General Parameters) requires changing. This table contains the calculations to determine the breakdown of waste disposal for each municipality. To get all waste disposed at the Bumaby Incinerator, users need to set the Incinerator at 100% and all other facilities at 0% for each of the municipalities. While the Bumaby Incinerator cannot currently handle all this waste, this change hypothetically models the GHG emissions to be expected if it could. Users could also use Future Incinerator to model this hypothetical scenario but they would have to 77 provide data for the necessary transportation. Also necessary to complete this scenario is changing the Fraction of Steam Sold to CPL (Row 177 in WS#5 - General Parameters) from 56% to 37%>. While this scenario is in effect, the fifth scenario can be programmed - change the Fraction of Steam to Generate Electricity in a Turbo-Generator (Row 178 in WS#5 - General Parameters) from 0% to 57%. After reversing these changes, the sixth scenario can be implemented by changing all the decay rate constants in WS#26 to WS#34 to 0.14 year\"1 to allow complete decomposition of the C A A D within 20 years after disposal. The seventh scenario, removing carbon sequestration can be programmed in the simplest manner by deleting all reference to sequestration in WS#4 - Factor List. This can be performed by deleting cells H22 to Z22 and cells H26 to Z26. The eighth and last scenario is to remove the benefits of recycling from the Model. This can be implemented by deleting all reference to recycling in WS#4 - Factor List; these are cells H36 to Z36. These instructions are provided to demonstrate how modifications can be performed by users. The results of these scenarios are presented and discussed in the next chapter. The next section (2.9) is concerned with finding the appropriate data to place in WS#2 -Waste Tonnages. By using previous work performed by consultants on behalf of the GVRD, it is possible to estimate the required data. 2.9 W A S T E M A S S E S T I M A T E S Up to now this report has strictly been concerned with the greenhouse gas emissions associated with waste management and the development of emission factors based on tonnes of C O 2 equivalent per tonne of waste. These completed emission factors estimate the emissions to be expected when managing a specific component (newsprint, food scraps, HDPE, etc...) in a specific manner (landfilling, incineration, composting, etc...). But how much newsprint is recycled? How much newsprint is incinerated? How much newsprint is landfilled? Furthermore, it is necessary to be municipality-specific. How many tonnes of food waste from Burnaby was incinerated, landfilled or composted in 1998? How many tonnes of office paper from Vancouver are recycled, landfilled or incinerated in 1998? The mass (tonnes) of each of these fractions is required so as to multiply with the emissions factors (tCC^e/tonne) to calculate the overall emissions (tCC^e). This section develops the estimates for each of the analyzed components in each of the municipalities and it is these estimates which are used to calculate GHG emissions. There are three important concepts critical in analyzing waste. These are: 1. a mass of waste generated, M G E N , 2. a mass of waste recycled or composted, M R E c or M C O M , and 3. a mass of waste disposed, M D i s -These factors are inter-related by the law of conservation of mass such that: \"waste that is generated but not recycled has to be disposed of.\" As a formula this is represented by M G E N - M R E C = M D I S 78 If not diverted from disposal by recycling programs, generated wastes will either be landfilled or incinerated. Consequently, the mass disposed (MDi S) can be further sub-divided into the mass landfilled or the mass incinerated. Backyard or centralized composting activities are analogous to recycling programs as they serve a similar purpose - diverting waste from necessary disposal. Thus, for use with food scraps, the equation would become: M G E N - M C O M = M D I S Since there is only one equation and three unknowns, mathematics dictates that it is necessary to find data for two of the variables and then the third unknown can be solved for. Using newsprint as an example, the mass collected and delivered to recycling depots is typically recorded and reported to municipalities on an annual basis; this would be MREC- The mass generated (MGEN), i.e. the mass of newspapers distributed and consumed by residents has likely changed little over the years and data for this generation on a per capita basis is available in reports. However, the mass of newsprint disposed (MDIS) has changed dramatically in recent years. In the 1980's, before strong recycling initiatives, the vast majority of newsprint and other paper products were disposed in landfills or incinerators, while in the 1990's, recycling completely reversed this. Recycling now manages a majority of the newsprint in many jurisdictions and paper bans specifying maximum allowable quantities have even been instituted at disposal facilities. These programs have greatly decreased the mass of newsprint requiring disposal. Without the results of a recent waste study which has accurately measured the mass of newsprint still in MSW (remember that even with strong recycling programs there will still be disposal), it is very difficult to estimate this mass. As a result, this third variable will be solved for. The other variables, MGEN and MREC, were acquired by available data and reports. This also holds true for the other 8 components of MSW analyzed. In 1993, three consultants (CH2M Hill Engineering, K P M G Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg and Resource Integration Systems) performed an extensive analysis of the GVRD's waste management and recycling programs (GVRD 1993). In their report, three sources of residential waste, urban single family, urban multi-family and rural single family, and nine major ICI (Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) groups were analyzed for 17 major waste components. All the estimates for this consultant report were based on 1991 data but unfortunately, this thesis requires more recent data, 1998 preferably, and much has changed in the preceding years. As a result, large portions of their data are projected into 1998 numbers. A municipality's residential and ICI waste generation (MGEN) estimated in 1991 can be divided by the population at that time to develop per capita estimates. Using the municipalities' population in 1998 (projections from the census in 1996), it is possible to update this waste generation. This is of greater accuracy than calculating per capita generation for the entire GVRD as a whole; different municipalities have varying fractions of their waste from commercial sources. For example, the CH2M Hill report estimated that 63% of Vancouver's waste is generated from ICI sources but only 40% of Coquitlam's waste is derived from this sector. This issue is of significant importance to 79 the generation of office paper. However, two important assumptions are necessary by doing this. Firstly, that increasing residential population is also an indication of increasing ICI activity and that secondly, that the per capita waste materials generated by society have not changed appreciably in the last nine years. This second assumption was demonstrated by an investigation of solid waste disposal and recycling in the GVRD by Margaret Wojtarowicz (2000). Both assumptions will be necessary because of the lack of a more recent waste audit from which to acquire data. It should be noted that improvements in the future understanding of these wastes should be included in the adaptable spreadsheet program. Individually by municipality, the generation of waste from six material categories in the CH2M Hill report were directly adaptable for use in this report. The six materials directly adaptable include newsprint, glass, ferrous metal, HDPE, food and yard waste. Assumptions are necessary to convert part of the mixed paper category into office paper and part of the mixed plastics category into low-density polyethylene (LDPE). The consultants report estimated that of the 199,000 tonnes of mixed paper (excluding newsprint or corrugated cardboard) disposed in the GVRD, that 27,000 tonnes was office paper, or 14%. Assuming that the mixed paper recycling rate, 27% of generated mixed paper, is representative of office paper, then it can be assumed that 14% of generated mixed paper is also office paper. Similarly, the consultants report estimated that of the 93,000 tonnes of mixed plastics (excluding HDPE and PET) disposed in the GVRD, that 42,300 tonnes was LDPE, or 45%>. Assuming that the mixed plastics recycling rate, 8% of generated mixed plastics, is also representative of LDPE, then it can be assumed that 45% of generated mixed plastics is LDPE. It is hoped that future understanding will improve the accuracy of these estimates. After estimating waste generation, it is necessary to estimate the mass of waste which is recycled (MREC)- A S previously discussed, municipalities annually publish this data. As recycling programs dramatically expanded in the 1990's, it is preferable to obtain the most recent data. However, to be consistent with the rest of this report, 1998 is the year used for data gathering and not 1999. The GVRD has provided the required data of the mass of residential materials which were recycled (MREC) and the mass of residential compostables which were composted (MCOM) (Pers. comm. Andrew Marr). Unfortunately, their data analysis differs from that employed in this research. Their Mixed Paper does not separate out office paper, their Metal does not separate ferrous metal, and their Plastic does not differentiate between HDPE, LDPE and other plastics. As a result, this research will assume that 14%> of Mixed Paper is office paper, that 50% of Metal is ferrous metal, that 33% of Plastic is HDPE and that 33% of Plastic is LDPE. These assumptions result from an inspection of the generation masses estimated in the CH2M report. Finally, the last complication with the recycling data provided by the GVRD, is the category listed as mixed recyclables. These are commingled recyclables that are only weighed prior to sorting, and as a result, the masses are differentiated into paper, glass, metal, e tc . , categories. These mixed recyclables, 12,342 tonnes in 1998, are a relatively low 9%> of the 132,880 tonnes of recyclables in that year. By using four municipalities in which there is no mass of mixed recyclables, Coquitlam, Langley Township, Maple Ridge and Surrey, it is possible to estimate an average percentage for 80 recyclables in the GVRD. This average percentage is applied to mixed recyclables and added to the appropriate category. This is presented in Table 2-9: Correction for Mixed Recyclables, on the following page. Backyard composting is estimated by the number of composters active in each municipality. While it is estimated by the GVRD that each composter annually diverts 250 kg of food scraps and yard trimmings from collection (Pers. comm. Bev Weber), it is further necessary to separate these two masses. By what is essentially a best-guess, this author assumes that 167 kg of the diverted waste was yard trimmings and that 83 kg was food scraps (or two parts yard trimming to each part food scraps). This guess results from the authors' understanding that backyard composting vessels are used more frequently for managing yard waste than food waste. Unfortunately, the GVRD does not possess any municipality-specific data on the collection of specific recyclables from ICI sources because of the numerous private haulers which overlap jurisdictional boundaries. They only have ICI recycling \"data for the entire GVRD region. Since this research requires the ICI recycling rate of specific recyclables, the total mass of ICI recyclables divided by the total mass of ICI waste (pre-recycling) is assumed to serve as the recycling rate for the individual waste components analyzed in this thesis. Both masses were provided by the GVRD. With all these assumptions, it is hoped that when data collection improves, new inputs can be provided to the spreadsheet program. Using the City of Burnaby as an example, the wastes generated, the wastes recycled and the wastes disposed are presented in Table 2-10 on the following page. Similar tables for each of the other municipalities are included in WS #5 to WS#25. It requires noting that Anmore and Belcarra have been included with the City of Port Moody. Also, Matsqui has been included along with the City of Abbotsford (at the time of the CH2M Hill report these were separate municipalities but have now been amalgamated). As previously discussed, by subtracting the waste recycled and composted (MREC & M C O M ) from the waste generated (MGEN), the mass of waste disposed (MDIS) can be calculated. 81 T a b l e 2 - 9 : C o r r e c t i o n f o r M i x e d R e c y c l a b l e s 1998 - RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN THE GVRD - WMA - RECOVERED TONNES BY MATERIAL Mixed ONP Mxd Ppr OCC Glass Metal* Plastic Recyclables T O T A L Abbotsford 3104 553 2849 318 202 119 0 7145 Burnaby 3496 3620 290 54 715 58 1541 9774 Coquitlam 2605 1960 120 636 199 222 0 5742 Delta 2251 2170 1065 824 583 322 0 7215 Langley City 539 351 438 117 37 41 0 1523 Langley Township 2607 565 630 652 391 130 0 4975 New Westminster 1060 678 117 2 366 10 271 2504 North Vancouver City 1489 440 78 17 26 5 485 2540 North Vancouver District 3456 1092 131 29 44 9 1170 5931 Maple Ridge 1644 466 2969 333 965 25 0 6402 Pitt Meadows 255 270 0 0 0 0 125 650 Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 1944 1944 Port Moody 198 474 117 199 86 61 171 1306 Richmond 4455 3322 159 30 298 10 1631 9905 Surrey 7497 5551 0 1605 516 561 0 15730 Vancouver 8428 7254 575 131 2653 31 3961 23033 West Vancouver 2162 683 81 18 28 5 719 3696 White Rock 375 676 61 0 0 0 219 1331 Electoral Area A 99 962 277 42 214 9 105 1708 Electoral Area C 46 35 62 43 9 2 0 197 * -the value for Surrey is for 1999 as the correct value for 1998 is unavailable. RELATIVE PERCENTAGES: Coquitlam 45 34 2 11 3 4 0 100 Langley Township 52 11 13 13 8 3 0 100 Maple Ridge 26 7 46 5 15 0 0 100 Surrey 48 35 0 10 3 4 0 100 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE USED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF GVRD: Average Mix 43 22 15 10 7 3 0 100 CORRECTED RECYCLABLE MASSES: ONP Mxd Ppr OCC Glass Metal Plastic T O T A L Abbotsford 3104 553 2849 318 202 119 7145 Burnaby 4155 3959 526 207 829 98 9774 Coquitlam 2605 1960 120 636 199 222 5742 Delta 2251 2170 1065 824 583 322 7215 Langley City 539 351 438 117 37 41 1523 Langley Township 2607 565 630 652 391 130 4975 New Westminster 1176 738 158 29 386 17 2504 North Vancouver City 1696 547 152 65 62 18 2540 North Vancouver District 3956 1350 310 145 131 40 5931 Maple Ridge 1644 466 2969 333 965 25 6402 Pitt Meadows 308 298 19 12 9 3 650 Port Coquitlam 832 428 297 192 144 51 1944 Port Moody 271 512 143 216 99 65 1306 82 Richmond 5153 3681 408 191 419 53 9905 Surrey 7497 5551 0 1605 516 561 15730 Vancouver 10122 8126 1180 523 2947 134 23033 West Vancouver 2470 841 191 89 81 24 3696 White Rock 469 724 94 22 16 6 1331 Electoral Area A 144 985 293 52 222 12 1708 Electoral Area C 46 35 62 43 9 2 197 T a b l e 2-10: C i t y o f B u r n a b y W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n , R e c y c l i n g & D i s p o s a l M A S S O F W A S T E G E N E R A T I O N ( M G E N ) : Waste Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Total Material Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Generation 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap*yr) (kg/cap*yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 8,279 3,602 158,858 52 23 191,600 9985 4344 14330 Mixed Paper 13,025 19,112 158,858 191,600 0 Office Paper 1,824 2,676 158,858 11 17 191,600 2199 3227 5426 Ferrous Metal 1,061 10,914 158,858 7 69 191,600 1280 13163 14443 Glass 2,069 2,979 158,858 13 19 191,600 2495 3593 6088 HDPE 690 1,213 158,858 4 8 191,600 832 1463 2295 Mixed Plastics 3,695 8,541 158,858 191,600 LDPE 1,663 3,843 158,858 10 24 191,600 2005 4636 6641 Food Waste 5,451 11,116 158,858 34 70 191,600 6574 13407 19982 Yard Waste 5,433 4,261 158,858 34 27 191,600 6553 5139 11692 Total ICI waste generated in 1998= 164,172tonnes Total ICI waste r e c y c l e d in 1998= 67,479 tonnes ICI Recycling Rate= 41 % . # of b a c k y a r d c o m p o s t e r s = 8,968 M A S S O F W A S T E R E C Y C L E D (MREC) & C O M P O S T E D ( M C O M ) : Waste Residential ICI Residential Backyard Centralized ICI Total Backyard Centralized Material Generation Generation Recycling Composting Composting Recycling Recycling Composting Composting 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 9,985 4,344 4,155 1,786 5,941 Mixed Paper 3,959 Office Paper 2,199 3,227 554 1,326 1,881 Metal 829 Ferrous Metal 1,280 13,163 415 5,411 5,825 Glass 2,495 3,593 207 .1,477 1,684 Plastics 98 HDPE 832 1,463 32 601 634 LDPE 2,005 4,636 32 1,905 1,938 Food Waste 6,574 13,407 744 0 5,511 744 5,511 Yard Waste 6,553 5,139 1,498 8,004 2,112 1,498 10,116 Total waste d i s p o s e d in 1998= 129,089tonnes 83 Total waste r e c y c l e d in 1998= 87,526tonnes M A S S O F W A S T E D I S P O S E D (M D I S ) : Waste Total Total Waste Material Generation Recycling Disposal 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 14330 5,941 8,389 Office Paper 5426 1,881 3,546 Ferrous Metal 14443 5,825 8,618 Glass 6088 1,684 4,405 HDPE 2295 634 1,662 LDPE 6641 1,938 4,703 Food Waste 19982 6,255 13,727 Yard Waste 11692 11,614 78 Remainder 51,755 83,962 When estimating the masses of wastes in this manner several errors occur however. In eight municipalities it is estimated that more yard waste is composted than is even generated. These municipalities are: Abbotsford, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, City of Port Coquitlam, City of Richmond, District of West Vancouver and Electoral Area A. Either the yard waste generation estimate by CH2M Hill was too low or the amount of yard waste generated in these municipalities has increased faster than the population. Rather than have negative values for the mass of yard waste disposed in these municipalities (the subtraction of waste generated and waste composted), the generation estimate is ignored and the mass of yard waste disposed is set at zero. Special modifications are also necessary for Electoral Area A (U.B.C./U.E.L.) and Electoral Area C (Bowen Island/Howe Sound). ICI waste generation is not considered for Electoral Area A in the CH2M report. It appears that U.B.C. was combined with the City of Vancouver from the perspective of ICI waste for that report. As a result, this research uses the ICI waste generation per capita values developed for the City of Vancouver. Another necessary modification at this Electoral Area occurs in response to the fact that accurate data on recycling in 1998 is not available. However, 1999 values are available and are used instead. ICI data on Electoral Area C is also not available. However, personal communication with Mike Stringer has informed this author that the assumption of zero ICI activity from this Electoral Area is acceptable. 84 2.10 REMAINING WASTE This thesis assesses specific waste components with the intent that the current participation in source-separation could be more effectively focused on GHG emission reducing activities. It has also been observed that previous greenhouse gas studies limit their accuracy and effectiveness by regarding municipal solid waste as a single entity. While this study analyzed specific components to make the research of greater value, problems still arise. After the eight investigated components of solid waste are removed, there will still be waste remaining. This is waste which does not fall under the categories of newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, HDPE, LDPE, food scraps or yard trimmings. For purposes of this research, this remaining waste is defined as Remainder. The Remainder may include such items as corrugated cardboard, textiles, rubber, aluminum, other plastics in addition to many other materials. Using this category, Remainder, is necessary due to the large number of materials represented in the municipal solid waste stream. Assessing all of the various pieces far outstrips the available time and funding for this work. In fact, in an extensive undertaking by the USEPA (1998) similar to this, only 11 individual components of the MSW stream were analyzed; this was estimated to only account for 55% of total waste generated in the United States. Three sources of reference are used to determine the materials represented in the Remainder. The most important of these is the CH2M Hill report completed for the GVRD in 1993 (GVRD 1993). Data from Franklin Associates Ltd (FAL 1998) and Tchobanoglous (1993) is also provided to provide readers with a 'ball-park' of estimates by other organizations. This data is presented in the table below. Table 2-11: Waste Percentages PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL MSW DISPOSED Tchobanoglous et al. (1993)2 Total Paper=36% Total Paper=36% 5.8 9.1 Total Plastics=7% Total Plastics=7% 8.0 17.3 Not applicable ' Percentage of 1996 United States generation of MSW. 2 Typical Composition of 1990 U.S. residential MSW (including recyclables). 3 It requires noting that the definition of steel cans is narrower than the category of ferrous metal used in this thesis. Now in 1991, the GVRD disposed of 1,128,000 tonnes of waste from all residential and ICI sources. The 1993 CH2M Hill report estimated what materials constituted this 1,128,000 tonnes. These estimates are provided in the following table (the low and high range estimates have been removed): COMPONENT PERCENTAGE OF MSW GENERATION FAL (1998)' Newsprint 5.9% Office Paper 3.2% Steel Cans3 1.3% Glass 5.3% HDPE 0.6%, LDPE 0.01% Food Scraps 10.4% Yard Trimmings 13.4%) Total=40.1% 85 T a b l e 2 - 1 2 : W a s t e E s t i m a t e s b y C H 2 M H i l l E n g i n e e r i n g Waste Type Tonnage Percent of Total Paper 368700 32.7 Newspaper 68700 6.1 Corrugated Cardboard 108200 9.6 Fine 27000 2.4 Glossy Magazines, Fliers, Books 24300 2.2 Packaging Paper 46300 4.1 Other Paper 94300 8.4 Glass 32900 2.9 Food and Beverage Containers 26500 2.3 Other Glass 6400 0.6 Metal 57800 5.1 Aluminum Food and Beverage 4000 0.4 Ferrous Food and Beverage 14800 1.3 Other Ferrous and Aluminum 25300 2.2 Non-Ferrous 3200 0.3 Other/multi-material 10500 0.9 Plastic 98800 8.8 PET Food and Beverage 1700 0.2 HDPE Food and Beverage 6800 0.6 Film and Bag Plastics (LDPE) 42300 3.7 P V C 9200 0.8 Expanded Polystyrene (PS) 5900 0.5 Other Plastics 14200 1.3 Multi-Resin Materials 18700 1.7 Organics 361000 32.0 Food Waste 95200 8.4 Yard Waste 124100 11.0 Landclearing/landscaping 27700 2.5 Wood Waste 68300 6.1 Miscellaneous Organics 45700 4.0 Rubber 8200 0.7 Used Tires 2200 0.2 Other Rubber 6000 0.5 Natural Textiles and Leather 41300 3.7 Natural Textiles 38100 3.4 Leather 3200 0.3 Other/White Goods 1100 0.1 Bulky Goods 9800 0.9 Construction, Demolition 22600 2.0 Miscellaneous Combustibles 15400 1.4 Non-Combustibles 32900 2.9 Household Hazardous 11300 1.0 Other Materials 66500 5.9 T O T A L = 1,128,000 100.0 Table 2-12 can be altered in two ways. Firstly, the eight investigated components of this research (newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, HDPE, LDPE, food scraps or yard trimmings) can be removed. For the component, Other Ferrous and Aluminum, 80% will be assumed to consist of ferrous metal. Secondly, the remaining materials will be consolidated into their respective categories. The new table is below: 86 T a b l e 2 - 1 3 : C o m p o n e n t s o f t h e R e m a i n d e r Waste Type Tonnage Percent of Remainder Paper 273100 39.2 Metal 22800 3.3 Plastic 49700 7.1 Organics 141700 20.3 Rubber 8200 1.2 Natural Textiles and Leather 41300 5.9 Other/White Goods 1100 0.2 Bulky Goods 9800 1.4 Construction, Demolition 22600 3.2 Miscellaneous Combustibles 15400 2.2 Non-Combustibles 32900 4.7 Household Hazardous 11300 1.6 Other Materials 66500 9.5 TOTAL = 696,400 100.0 The remaining waste fraction, estimated at 62% of the total waste stream, requires investigating from a GHG perspective. Specifically: What is the potential for landfill methane emissions? What is the potential for landfill carbon sequestration? What is the energy to be derived from incinerating the Remainder? If the waste is combustible, does it release biomass carbon or fossil carbon? Does the Remainder contain any reactive nitrogen which could contribute N 2 O emissions? These are the necessary questions to determine the GHG consequences of disposing of the Remainder. However, an important fraction of the Remainder is also recycled. The recycling of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and mixed waste paper (MWP) occurs throughout the GVRD. This is the fate of much of the Remainder. In addition to the GHG implications of disposing of the Remainder in a landfill or incinerator, it is important to assess the GHG benefits or impacts of recycling part of the Remainder. Both disposal and recycling are discussed below. The first two questions, landfill methane and landfill carbon sequestration, are inter-related due to the partitioning of the carbon available for anaerobic decomposition and the carbon entering sequestration. As it is difficult to estimate a carbon storage factor (CSF) for the wastes in Table 2-13, this thesis could default to using the CSF for mixed MSW published in USEPA (1998). This CSF is 0.18 tonnes of carbon sequestered per wet tonne of MSW. As the lignified newsprint and yard waste has already been investigated individually, this author believes it is more appropriate to half this CSF -reduce it by 50%. As a result, the CSF used in the Model is assumed to be 0.09 tonnes C per wet tonne of MSW. If this is the carbon entering sequestration, what is the carbon available for anaerobic decomposition! The carbon to provide methane emissions will be the initial biodegradable carbon which is not sequestered. It will be contributed by paper products (39.2%), organics (20.3%), natural textiles and leather (5.9%) and miscellaneous others. In fact, these pieces represent well over half of the Remainder; 70%o will be assumed. For lack of more accurate estimates, this research assumes the carbon content measured for mixed MSW, 40%, is appropriate for this 70% organic fraction. Also a moisture content of 30% is assumed. With these assumptions it is possible to calculate the landfill disposal implications of the Remainder. This is developed in Appendix K. 87 The next two questions, energy generation and the partition of biomass carbon or fossil carbon, are important for waste incineration. The net energy content of mixed MSW has been reported as 11,600 kJ/kg in USEPA (1998). While this included the materials already investigated individually, it is used here as an approximate energy content of the Remainder. To answer the second question, it is important to take from Table 2-13 that combustible organics consists ofpaper products (39.2%), organics (20.3%), plastics (7.1%), natural textiles and leather (5.9%) and miscellaneous combustibles (2.2%). By using a carbon content for plastics of 85% (see Appendix G) with the percentage mass of plastics (7.1%), and a negligible moisture content, it can be calculated that each tonne of Remainder contains 60.4 kg of fossil carbon. By using a dry carbon content for biodegradable organics of 50% (in Tchoganoglous et al. (1993) most carbon contents are between 45 and 60%o) with the percentage mass of biodegradable organics (approximately 70%), and an assumed moisture content of 30%, it is possible to estimate that each tonne of Remainder contains 245 kg of biomass carbon [1000kg *0.70*(1-0.30)*0.50 = 245]. Thus, fossil carbon represents only one carbon in 5 or 19.7% of total carbon. As a result, a fifth of all the C O 2 emissions from incineration of the Remainder are attributable to the fossil carbon in plastics. Expressed differently, 0.060 tonnes of fossil carbon will be emitted as C O 2 during the incineration of one tonne of Remainder. The final question is: Does the Remainder contribute any N 2 O emissions? For simplicity purposes, this study assumes that all the reactive nitrogen in MSW is represented in the food and yard wastes already assessed. However, there is a possibility that nitrogen exists in wood wastes and textiles. If future work demonstrates that nitrogen is in important component of the Remainder, this assumption will underestimate the emissions. The largest component of the Remainder is paper at 39%. This is likely old corrugated cardboard (OCC), magazines and other mixed papers. This is also the portion of the Remainder which is most likely to be recycled to the greatest extent and not disposed of. OCC and mixed waste paper (MWP) are typically two categories of recyclables in the waste field which are appropriate for discussion here. Other potential recyclables could also be plastics other than HDPE or LDPE and metal other than ferrous. However, the masses of these materials are just a fraction of the paper component. As a result, only paper will be evaluated here. Are there any GHG implications for recycling the OCC and MWP components of the Remainder? MWP probably suffers from the same uncertainty Section 2.6 demonstrated for newsprint and office paper. Section 2.6;developed the assumption that no GHG benefit results by recycling these materials - likely appropriate for MWP. F A L and Tellus estimated the GHG benefit of recycling corrugated cardboard boxes which was published in USEPA (1998). Both of these consulting firms estimated that the manufacturing of recycled cardboard boxes caused greater GHG emissions than the manufacturing of virgin cardboard boxes. F A L estimates 1.09 tC02e/tonne to produce virgin cardboard and 1.61 tC02e/tonne to produce recycled cardboard. Tellus estimates 1.93 tC02e/tonne to produce virgin cardboard and 2.18 tC02e/tonne to produce recycled cardboard. These emissions include transportation-related emissions. There is a large 88 spread between these estimates. This author is not very confident with the accuracy of these estimates - they are probably as uncertain as the other paper products. As a result, the safest assumption is to believe that no GHG benefit occurs when recycling OCC and MWP out of the Remainder and since OCC and MWP are being used as proxies for recycling of the Remainder, zero GHG benefit is assumed for Remainder. 2.11 GHG EMISSIONS NOT INVESTIGATED As there is a tremendous number of sources of greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels is so pervasive in Canada, this analysis cannot attempt to quantify all the possible emissions from waste management. There are likely to be thousands of individual sources of GHG emissions resulting from the direct and indirect operations associated with waste management. As a result, the development of this analysis has tried to focus only on the most significant and quantitatively important emissions. Examples of the GHG emissions not investigated include: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Coal consumed during the refining of iron ore to produce steel for collection vehicles, transfer trucks and construction of the Bumaby Incinerator. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fossil fuels consumed during the construction of the landfills, transfer stations and the Incinerator. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Greenhouse gases from the upstream production of diesel fuel. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Greenhouse gases from the upstream production and transmission of natural gas. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Electricity consumption for waste management facilities (except at the Incinerator, where it was included to demonstrate the minor importance of this issue). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Displacement of the emissions associated with the manufacture of chemical fertilizers (especially nitrogenous fertilizers) through the use of compost. It should be mentioned that rough calculations have indicated that construction-related GHG emissions are of virtually no importance when investigating the GHG's per tonne of waste over the lifetime of an incinerator or landfill. Using the Bumaby Incinerator as an example, and by assuming that 1000 tonnes of concrete and 1000 tonnes of steel were used during its construction, it is possible to demonstrate these calculations. Using a published GHG emission factor for cement of 0.5 tCOae per tonne cement (Environment Canada 1997a), and assuming that a third of concrete is actually cement, it can be calculated that 170 tC02e will result from the 1000 tonnes of concrete in the Incinerator. By using a life-cycle GHG emission estimate developed for the fabrication of steel cans, 4.5 tC02e per tonne of steel cans, it is possible to calculate that 4,500 tonnes of C O 2 will be emitted to manufacture the 1000 tonnes of steel used in the Incinerator. However, when these emissions are divided by an assumed 30 year life of the Incinerator which combusts 250,000 tonnes of waste annually, it turns out that only 0.0006 tC02e results per tonne of waste over the Incinerator's lifetime. This is less than one kg of C O 2 per tonne of waste. By the response indicated by this rough calculation, it is deemed safe to ignore any construction-related GHG emissions. 89 2 . 1 2 STANDARDS There are three standards consistently used throughout this report which are noteworthy to minimize the potential for confusion. These are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The unit for assessing greenhouse gas emissions. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The moisture content convention used. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The consistent use of 'wet' waste or 'as-is' basis for reporting. Throughout this report, the greenhouse gas emission will be quantified as a unit of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and signified as tCC^e. The \"equivalent\" refers to the use of Global Warming Potentials (See Section 2.2) to calculate all GHG's in terms of C O 2 . It should be noted that this unit needs to be recognized, since in climate change circles a standardized unit has not yet been developed. Some reports might refer to tonnes of C O 2 while others may refer to tonnes of carbon or M T C E (metric tonnes of carbon equivalent). The conversion from a mass of C O 2 to a mass of carbon is simple enough, it only requires multiplying by the difference in molecular mass: The convention used for calculating moisture content in this study is the wet-weight method of measurement; the method most commonly used in the field of solid waste management (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). As defined in the engineering handbook, Integrated Solid Waste Management, percentage moisture content is the mass of the water divided by the wet mass of the material (ibid). The masses of all waste components in this report are consistently wet weight, on an as-is basis for typical waste. The use of dry weight for the wastes does occur in several calculations and is specified as such. MTCE 90 Chapter 3 RESULTS & DISCUSSION The results of the entire GHG analysis are presented in this chapter. These results include the investigation of the GVRD's existing solid waste management system (Section 3.1 - Existing System) and the greenhouse gas response of the eight scenarios assessed (Section 3.2 - Scenarios). These results are presented together with a discussion of their importance; the discussion being primarily concerned with evaluating the emissions for their implications to emissions trading and emissions taxing. In addition, future legislation to reduce GHG emissions, the so called command-and-control regulations, will be discussed in the context of its particular importance to the emissions trading opportunities identified. The Conclusions & Recommendations in Chapter 4 will complete this thesis. Both positive and negative GHG emissions are presented and discussed in this chapter. Positive GHG emissions contribute to Global Climate Change while negative G H G emissions result from activities which actually reduce GHG emissions and help to offset the positive emissions. These negative GHG emissions are in fact of benefit from a G H G perspective. Readers should be aware that negative emissions and GHG benefits are used interchangeably throughout this chapter. Negative GHG emissions are benefits with no negative sign necessary but when benefits are discussed in this chapter the negative sign in front of the emission will remain. 3.1 EXISTING SYSTEM Results of this research are the greenhouse gas emission estimates (Worksheet #1) calculated by multiplying the waste tonnages (Worksheet #2) by the appropriate emission factors (Worksheet #3). Both the waste tonnages and emission factors are estimates themselves; their development is described in Chapter 2 - Methodology and the appendices. Results in this thesis are estimated for wastes generated and managed in 1998. All calculations estimate what are the GHG emissions resulting from wastes in that year. Namely, the waste tonnages are for 1998 and the emission factors have been developed to model the approximate emissions to be expected from the management processes. Incineration, composting and recycling are essentially immediate activities, but it is necessary to model landfill methane emissions into the future while remembering that these greenhouse gases are from the wastes disposed in 1998 (and not from waste disposed in other years). The emission factors, waste mass estimates and GHG emissions from all of the municipalities are provided in Appendix L - Spreadsheet Program and Worksheets #1,#2 and #3. In this section, the largest municipality of the GVRD, the City of Vancouver, will be discussed in detail as an example. The discussion of this municipality is readily applicable to the others. Only two significant figures are provided with the emissions 91 data presented in this section. As a result, slight differences can occur between the numbers here and the values in the spreadsheet. The crux of this thesis is to create the GHG emission factors. Their development comprised the majority of the effort in this work. However, emission factors are of little use without waste masses to multiply with. Both waste mass estimates and emission factors for the City of Vancouver are presented and analyzed here. Vancouver is the largest member municipality of the GVRD with a 1998 population of 552,481 and significant ICI activity. While 206,323 tonnes of waste was recycled in 1998, 346,991 tonnes of waste remained for disposal. Of the wastes collected for disposal, 225,740 tonnes went to the Vancouver Transfer Station, 83,761 tonnes went to the North Shore Transfer Station, 22,374 tonnes went to the Coquitlam Transfer Station, 8,899 tonnes went directly to the Vancouver Landfill and 6,217 tonnes went directly to the Bumaby Incinerator. When considering the waste flows out of the transfer stations in 1998, Worksheet #5 - General Parameters calculates that approximately 68% of Vancouver's waste was disposed at the Vancouver Landfill, with the Cache Creek Landfill taking 18%> and 14% going to the Bumaby Incinerator. Or as tonnes, 236,061 tonnes was disposed at the Vancouver Landfill, 61,290 was disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill and 49,641 tonnes was combusted at the Bumaby Incinerator. The estimates for each waste component are provided in the table below. The eight materials individually assessed (newsprint, office paper, ferrous metal, glass, HDPE, LDPE, food scraps and yard trimmings) represent 42%> of the disposed waste stream and 42% of the recycled stream. The Remainder fraction makes up the remaining 58% of the disposed waste and 58%) of the recycled materials. Table 3-1: Waste Mass Estimates for the City of Vancouver (tonnes) C a c h e Creek V a n c o u v e r B u r n a b y B a c k y a r d Cent ra l i zed Landf i l l Landfi l l Incinerator R e c y c l i n g C o m p o s t i n g C o m p o s t i n g TOTAL Newspr in t 4,669 17,984 3,782 15,178 41,614 Off ice P a p e r 1,813 6,981 1,468 5,284 15,545 Metal 4,531 17,451 3,670 17,187 42,840 G l a s s 2,741 10,556 2,220 5,516 21,033 H D P E 891 3,431 722 2,112 7,155 L D P E 2,285 8,801 1,851 5,053 17,990 F o o d S c r a p s 7,319 28,190 5,928 1,979 16,837 60,253 Y a r d T r i m m i n g s 1,235 4,758 1,001 3,981 28,112 39,087 R e m a i n d e r 35,806 137,907 29,000 105,084 307,797 TOTAL 61,290 236,061 49,641 155,414 5,960 44,949 553,314 92 The best-guess emission factors (tCC^e/tonne of waste) of each of Vancouver's waste management processes are presented in the table below. Table 3-2: GHG Emission Factors for the City of Vancouver (tCChe/tonne) C a c h e Creek V a n c o u v e r B u r n a b y B a c k y a r d Cent ra l i zed Landf i l l Landfi l l Incinerator R e c y c l i n g C o m p o s t i n g C o m p o s t i n g Newspr int -1.2 -1.2 -0.41 0.0 Off ice P a p e r 0.59 0.83 -0.34 0.0 Metal 0.035 0.020 -1.2 -2.4 G l a s s 0.035 0.020 0.016 -0.37 H D P E 0.035 0.020 2.1 -1.7 L D P E 0.035 0.020 2.1 -2.3 F o o d S c r a p s 0.26 0.32 0.010 0.057 0.13 Y a r d T r i m m i n g s -0.53 -0.50 0.058 -0.032 0.054 R e m a i n d e r -0.033 0.095 -0.020 0.0 Important differences can be recognized in the emission factors above. Newsprint and office paper are discussed first. The most favourable disposal method for newsprint is landfilling, not incineration, with the Cache Creek Landfill the preferred site. In fact, landfilling and incineration are of greater benefit than even recycling. Landfilling of newsprint results in lower emissions (-1.2 tCC^e/tonne for Cache Creek and -1.2 tCC^e/tonne for Vancouver) than the Burnaby Incinerator (-0.41 tC02e/tonne) largely because of landfill carbon sequestration. In fact, switching newsprint from the Incinerator to Cache Creek will reduce GHG emissions by 0.8 tCC^e/tonne. The calculations in Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management find that landfill sequestration causes significant GHG benefits (-1.4 tC02e/tonne) which more than compensates against the future methane emissions (0.17 tCChe/tonne). While the combustion of newsprint at the Burnaby Incinerator generates carbon-neutral energy, some of which is used to offset natural gas consumption at Crown Packaging Limited (CPL), the GHG benefits are a fraction of that caused by landfill sequestration. The emission factors for the two landfills differ because of the slightly higher decay rate used to represent the wet Vancouver Landfill and because of the different transportation-related emissions. Office paper is delignified and provides far less resistance to anaerobic decomposition than newsprint. As a result, office paper exhibits a completely different GHG response. Office paper disposal at Cache Creek results in 0.59 tC02e/tonne, disposal at Vancouver results in 0.83 tC02e/tonne but incineration causes -0.34 tC02e/tonne. With a greatly reduced carbon sequestration factor (-0.10 tC02e/tonne) as compared to newsprint, the future methane emissions (0.80 tC02e/tonne for Cache Creek) dominate. Once again the differences with the two landfills derive from decay rates and transportation. Even with the lower energy content of office paper, due to the presence of inert clays and fillers, important GHG benefits result from the generation of this carbon-neutral energy to offset natural gas. Now in the other direction, switching office paper from disposal in Cache Creek to combustion at the Incinerator results in emission reductions of nearly 1 tC0 2e per tonne of office paper. Recycling is estimated to result in 0 tC02e/tonne placing it in between incineration and landfilling as the preferred management method. 93 The four non-biodegradable waste components analyzed, ferrous metal, glass, HDPE and LDPE, greatly simplify matters at the landfills. Since these materials cannot contribute methane emissions, only transportation and equipment-related diesel fuel consumption causes emissions for the landfill disposal of these wastes. However, incineration and recycling processes are quite responsive to these wastes. The recycling of metal back to industry for the manufacture of new products offsets the mineral extraction and smelting which would otherwise be necessary. The utilization of recycled metal by industry results in substantial GHG benefits, -2.4 tC02e/tonne, and is actually the largest GHG benefit observed in this research. Part of this benefit can also occur when metal passes through an incinerator. If ferrous metal is contained in the MSW sent to the Bumaby Incinerator, part of this metal is recovered from the ash by magnetic separation and sent to processors for recycling. A GHG benefit of-1.2 tCO^e/tonne has been estimated for metal sent to the Bumaby Incinerator to represent this additional recycling opportunity. Inert glass does not have any GHG response to landfilling or incineration (besides transportation) but results in benefits when recycled. Glass cullet has a reduced energy requirement for production when compared against raw materials, thereby causing recycled glass to have a GHG benefit of-0.37 tCC^e/tonne. The high and low-density polyethylene plastics result in significant GHG emissions when incinerated, 2.1 tC02e/tonne. This results from the fact that these materials are made from petroleum products and therefore consist of fossil-carbon. Upon combustion, the resulting fossil-based CO2 causes a large GHG emission (3.1 tCCWtonne) which is only partly compensated by the energy benefit (-1.1 tCCWtonne). These issues cause incineration to be the least attractive disposal method from a GHG perspective. However, substantial benefits can be realized by recycling plastic. A benefit of-1.7 tCC^e/tonne occurs when recycled HDPE replaces virgin production and a benefit of-2.3 tCO^e/tonne occurs when recycled LDPE also replaces virgin production. Food scraps and yard trimmings are the last two waste components analyzed individually. Both will decompose anaerobically in a landfill but only yard trimmings will provide significant landfill carbon sequestration (-0.75 tCC^e/tonne versus -0.09 tCO\"2e/tonne for food scraps). Food scraps disposed at Cache Creek result in 0.32 tC02e/tonne. This is a combination of future methane (0.40 tC02e/tonne), energy generation (-0.06 tC02e/tonne), landfill sequestration (-0.088 tC02e/tonne) and nitrous oxide emissions (0.038 tC02e/tonne). Using a slightly higher decay rate to represent the Vancouver Landfill, the overall emission factor is 0.41 tC02e/tonne. The increase is caused by the higher future methane emission. It is valuable to compare this landfill disposal against incineration. Energy generation at the Bumaby Incinerator contributes a benefit of-0.10 tC02e/tonne which is largely cancelled by N2O emissions. Together with the transportation-related emissions, an overall emission factor of 0.010 tCC^e/tonne is estimated. Diverting food waste from Cache Creek to incineration can provide an emission reduction of 0.33 tCC^e/tonne. Both backyard and centralized composting result in higher emissions than incineration but are still preferable over landfilling. Backyard composting causes 0.057 tC02e/tonne strictly from N 2 0 emissions. Centralized composting also causes 0.057 tC02e/tonne from N 2 0 but has been estimated to also release C H 4 (0.020 tC02e/tonne) due to inadequate aeration. Since composting does not present any opportunity to generate energy and subsequently offset fossil-based 94 energy production, it does not allow for the counteracting benefit that incineration has. From a strictly GHG perspective, ignoring any other environmental economic or social issues, it is preferable to incinerate food waste than to compost it. Two other management alternatives exist for food waste generated in the GVRD but were not analyzed by this thesis. Kitchen waste disposal units (garburators) likely manage appreciable quantities and International Bio-Recovery in North Vancouver is a new company testing and marketing their aerobic digestion technology. The household waste disposal units send the shredded food waste to the nearest wastewater treatment plant where it is oxidized to CO2. As this treatment utilizes aerobic decomposition, it is similar to composting but there is energy consumption at the plant required for machinery. International Bio-Recovery uses aerobic digestion so is also similar to composting but may have considerable energy consumption. Steam from natural gas-fired boilers is first used to heat up a food waste slurry (to initiate digestion) and then steam is also used to dry a de-watered slurry to pellets. Electricity consumption is also necessary for the various pumps, aerators, shredders and mixers used at the facility. While it would be valuable to compare this process with traditional composting, its direct competitor, this organization has declined to participate in this research (Pers. comm. Fahimeh Mirminachi). While readers may have found it thought-provoking that landfilling newsprint is of greater GHG benefit than even recycling, it is equally intriguing that sequestration causes landfill disposal of yard trimmings to be preferable over backyard or centralized composting. The overall emission factor for the disposal of yard trimmings at Cache Creek is -0.53 tC02e/tonne and for the Vancouver is -0.50 tC02e/tonne. These activities are of greater benefit than incineration (0.058 tCC^e/tonne), backyard composting (-0.032 tC02e/tonne) and centralized composting (0.054 tC02e/tonne). Given the choice, landfilling at Cache Creek is the preferred management method for yard trimmings. The significant landfill sequestration of yard waste (-0.75 tC02e/tonne) more than compensates against the future methane emissions (0.18 tC02e/tonne), and this is using a higher decay rate than used for paper which calculates that 77% of the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition actually degrades within the 20 year period. Both types of composting are estimated to release N2O and centralized composting also emits CH4 as with the food waste, but in contrast, an assumption has been used to approximate the sequestration potential of finished compost. For both composting methods, it is assumed that -0.10 tC02e/tonne serves as a GHG benefit. Based on the assumed properties of the Remainder, as developed in Section 2.3 -Remaining Wastes, the GHG implications of landfilling, incineration and recycling are also developed. Disposal at Cache Creek (-0.033 tCC^e/tonne) is nearly equivalent to combustion at the Bumaby Incinerator (-0.037 tCCWtonne). With the higher decay rate assumed for the Vancouver Landfill, an emission factor of 0.10 tC02e/tonne is estimated. Recycling of the remainder causes a GHG benefit of 0 tC02e/tonne. 3 This is surprising result when considering that this author's original interest in this subject came from an attempt to demonstrate the GHG benefits of backyard composting over landfilling. Initially, incineration was not included as a waste management alternative. 95 The importance of transportation and equipment-related emissions to waste management is a relatively minor issue for landfilling and incineration. This research has found that methane, sequestration, energy benefits or nitrous oxide issues are of much greater value when calculating on a per tonne of waste basis. This fact can be effectively illustrated by sub-dividing some of the calculated emission factors in Table 3-2 into five distinct groups: Transport, Future Methane, Energy Utilization, Carbon Sequestration and Nitrous Oxide. The Transport group contains emissions resulting from curbside collection, transfer station equipment, transport to disposal facility and landfill equipment while the other groups are specific to landfilling or incineration. Using absolute values, all emissions are converted to positive numbers, it is possible to compare the percentage importance of these factors. Two examples are provided below. The first figure compares newsprint disposal at the Cache Creek Landfill, the Vancouver Landfill or at the Burnaby Incinerator. The second figure compares food waste disposal also at the Cache Creek Landfill, the Vancouver Landfill or at the Burnaby Incinerator. F i g u r e 3 - 1 : R e l a t i v e I m p o r t a n c e o f E m i s s i o n s t o N e w s p r i n t D i s p o s a l \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Transportation s Future Methane H Carbon Sequestration B Energy Utilization H Nitrous Oxide Cache Creek LF Vancouver LF Burnaby INC in c o 'in in 1 ne UJ c O /to X V o o \u00C2\u00A9 4-\u00C2\u00BB o o < 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 F i g u r e 3 - 2 : R e l a t i v e I m p o r t a n c e o f E m i s s i o n s t o F o o d W a s t e D i s p o s a l in c o <7> in mi a> c UJ c o o X \"5 CM o ute o o in JO < 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 rowjsa raws?! Cache Creek LF Vancouver LF Burnaby INC a Transportation & Future Methane \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Carbon Sequestration m Energy Utilization \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Nitrous Oxide 96 For newsprint disposal, transportation only represents 2% of the absolute GHG emissions at the Cache Creek Landfill, only 1% at the Vancouver Landfill and 3% of emissions at the Bumaby Incinerator. Carbon sequestration is of dominant importance at Cache Creek (86%) and at Vancouver (83%) while energy generation is of greatest importance at the Bumaby Incinerator (95%). During food waste disposal, transportation only represents 6%, 3%> or 8%o at the Creek Cache Landfill, the Vancouver Landfill or the Bumaby Incinerator. With food waste, future methane is of greatest value during landfilling (64% at Cache Creek and 71% at Vancouver) and energy utilization is the largest percentage during incineration (50%). Carbon taxation of diesel fuel and other fossil fuels is a very real possibility in 5 or 10 years and could have an impact on the economics of waste transportation. To stave off any surprises, it would be in the GVRD's best interest to assess the unknown effect increased fuel costs could have on the system. However, the GVRD should be more concerned with future taxation on landfill methane emissions or the uncertain nitrous oxide releases for these have much greater quantities. 97 The Waste Mass Estimates of Table 3-1 are multiplied by the GHG Emission Factors of Table 3-2 to determine the GHG Emissions in Table 3-3 below. Table 3-3: GHG Emissions from the City of Vancouver (tCC^e) C a c h e Creek V a n c o u v e r B u r n a b y B a c k y a r d Cent ra l i zed Landf i l l Landf i l l Incinerator R e c y c l i n g C o m p o s t i n g C o m p o s t i n g TOTAL Newspr in t -5800 -22000 -1500 -29,300 Off ice P a p e r 1100 5800 -500 6,400 Metal 160 340 -4300 -40000 -43,800 G l a s s 96 210 35 -2000 -1,659 H D P E 31 68 1500 -3600 -2,001 L D P E 80 170 3900 -11000 -6,850 F o o d S c r a p s 2400 12000 56 110 2100 16,666 Y a r d T r i m m i n g s -660 -2400 58 -130 1500 -1,632 R e m a i n d e r -1200 13000 -580 11,220 TOTAL -3,793 7,188 -1,331 -56,600 -20 3,600 -50,956 The City of Vancouver's waste management in 1998 is estimated to have a GHG emission of -50,956 tC02e, or a GHG benefit of about -51,000 tC0 2 e . However, there is a range between +54,000 tC02e for the high estimate and -106,000 t C 0 2 e for the low estimate. The lion's share of the emission reduction is contributed by recycling operations -56,600 tC02e during the management of 155,414 tonnes of material. Of particular note is the fact that while 236,091 tonnes of waste was disposed at the Vancouver Landfill in 1998, only 7,188 tC02e is estimated to be emitted as greenhouse gases in the next 20 years. In fact, for the 61,290 tonnes of waste disposed at Cache Creek in 1998, a GHG benefit of-3,800 t C 0 2 e is estimated and for the 49,641 tonnes combusted at the Bumaby Incinerator, a GHG benefit of-1,300 tC02e occurs. Contrary to conventional understanding, the Cache Creek Landfill actually helps reduce the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases rather than contribute to their increases (except if full decomposition with low gas collection is modelled). Backyard composting is estimated to result in -20 tC02e during the management of 5,950 tonnes of food and yard waste. Centralized composting results in 3,600 tC02e during the processing of 44,949 tonnes of food and yard waste. It is important to recognize that centralized composting is estimated to be a GHG contributor while the Cache Creek Landfill and the Bumaby Incinerator are actually of GHG benefit. 98 The total G H G emission estimates for all of the 20 municipalities analyzed are presented in the following table. T a b l e 3-4: G H G E m i s s i o n s f o r t h e G V R D ( t C 0 2 e ) Cache Creek Vancouver Burnaby Backyard Centralized Landfill Landfill Incinerator Recycling Composting Composting TOTAL City of Abbotsford -3000 1.0 0 -4600 -5.0 210 -7,394 City of Burnaby -1,200 52 -1600 -20,000 -5.0 1,100 -21,653 City of Coquitlam -5,600 130 -21 -3,100 -2.0 270 -8,323 Corporation of Delta -350 370 -2.2 -5,700 -5.4 320 -5,368 City of Langley -880 10 -0.32 -1,000 -0.3 39 -1,832 Township of Langley -2,300 -5.0 40 -6,500 -2.4 240 -8,527 D. of Maple Ridge -1,500 6.0 1.5 -3,100 -2.3 150 -4,445 New Westminster -770 13 -210 -4,900 -1.2 190 -5,678 C. of North Vancouver -500 -1.6 40 -4,800 -1.4 290 -4,973 D. of North Vancouver -1,400 55 -620 -3,100 -4.5 470 -4,599 D. of Pitt Meadows -560 -7.4 -0.46 -240 -0.4 10 -799 City of Port Coquitlam -590 32 -1.6 -3,500 -3.1 170 -3,893 City of Port Moody -780 -9.1 0.07 -1,300 0.0 110 -1,979 City of Richmond -300 1,500 -140 -24,000 -4.3 1,400 -21,544 City of Surrey -12,000 -550 11 -19,000 -3.7 940 -30,603 City of Vancouver -3,800 7,400 -1300 -57,000 -13 3,600 -51,113 D. of West Vancouver -310 8.3 -23 -1,900 -1.7 230 -1,996 City of White Rock -14 320 0.03 -420 -1.1 20 -95 Electoral Area A 0.0 170 0.0 -890 0.0 38 -682 Electoral Area C -97 -0.9 19 -29 0.0 0.4 -108 TOTAL -35,951 9,493 -3,807 -165,079 -57 9,797 -185,604 The overall contribution of the GVRD's waste management system to Global Climate Change is a best-guess GHG emission of-184,970 tC0 2e, or about -180,000 tC0 2e, for the wastes of 1998. The high estimate for the GVRD is +116,000 tC0 2e and the low estimate is -325,000 tC0 2e. The overall total in the table above (-185,604) sums up the values for which only two significant figures are provided - this causes a slight difference. The system actually reduced GHG emissions by 180,000 tC0 2e in 1998. Of course this estimate is highly dependant on where the boundaries of the investigation are drawn and what assumptions are made. The GHG benefits (the negative emissions) are largely a result of the utilization of recyclables to offset virgin production by industry, landfill carbon sequestration and energy generation during incineration. These benefits more than compensate the landfill methane, nitrous oxide or diesel fuel-transportation emissions. Furthermore, installing electricity generation at the Burnaby Incinerator or increasing the gas collection at landfills (two of many possible examples), could even increase these GHG benefits. There are important caveats to the GVRD estimate presented above which require addressing. The future methane generation included in the previous table does not represent the ultimate decomposition of the organic materials but rather a time-dependent estimate for the 20 years after disposal. Based on the decay rate used, the Model calculates that just over half of the C A A D of the paper products and that just over three-99 quarters of the C A A D of food and yard waste decomposes in 20 years. As a result, there is a strong potential for methane emissions to occur after 20 years, thus causing the Model to underestimate the complete future impact. Another caveat regards the valuable contribution of recycling to the GVRD system. The GHG benefit of recycling at the GVRD was estimated at -165,079 tCC^e. One could argue that this benefit is outside the authority of the GVRD (it is realized by industry) and as such should not be included here. Without recycling acting as a strong counteracting force to C H 4 , N 2 0 , transportation-C02 and others, the importance of these emissions increases. These caveats serve as an excellent transition to the next section, Scenarios. In response to the first caveat an ultimate decomposition scenario is presented and because of the second issue, another scenario removes the GHG implications of recycling from the Model. 3.2 SCENARIOS The results of eight scenarios which can be programmed into the Model are presented in this section. The first five scenarios represent what could be future changes to the existing waste management system. These include such things as improvements in landfill methane collection, improvements in energy generation during incineration and allowing incineration to replace landfill disposal. The remaining scenarios demonstrate the response of the Model to changes in three controversial aspects of the G H G emission estimates. These aspects include allowing complete decomposition of the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD), the removal of landfill carbon sequestration from the Model and the removal of any GHG benefits from recycling activities from the Model. Each of these scenarios are presented and discussed in detail in this section. All of these scenarios are discussed by comparing them to the existing system which was estimated to have an overall GHG impact of-180,000 tC02e. However, the spreadsheet carries all values forward (not just significant figures) so the overall G H G emissions used for the existing system is actually -184,970 tC0 2 e . This existing system is the base-case against which the scenarios need to be analyzed so as to determine if the changes increase or decrease emissions. Units discussed in this section are tC02e/yr - while emissions were calculated for the wastes of 1998. By assuming that successive years have much the same masses and characteristics it is possible to extrapolate the emissions to future years as well. The actual programming changes necessary for the Model to determine these scenarios are described in Section 2.8.3 -Modelling Scenarios. Landfill gas collection for flaring or energy utilization is of vital importance from the perspective of methane gas emissions to the atmosphere. While the spreadsheet estimates the GHG emissions of GVRD waste management in 1998, it is necessary to model the future methane emissions resulting from anaerobic decomposition at the landfills. Not only is the estimated future methane generation important but so is the question of what happens to gas collection in the future. The Model assumes that gas collection, either for flaring or energy utilization, will increase over the current rate and that an increasing fraction is used for energy. This is a safe assumption given the current provincial and federal regulatory interest in L F G to cause reductions in the national GHG emissions 100 inventory. This increasing gas collection may be in response to new legislation or to avoid paying new GHG emission taxes. Currently, the Cache Creek Landfill collects and flares an estimated 43% of generated methane and the Vancouver Landfill collects and flares an estimated 22%. Both of these facilities are assumed in the Model to linearly increase their collection so that by the year 2020, 75% of generated methane is captured and used for energy. What happens if these assumed improvements do not actually occur? Letting the current collection efficiency remain constant for the next 20 years is Scenario #1. Scenario #1 results in +109,000 tC02e/yr, a difference of 290,000 tC0 2e just for the waste of one year, 1998. These are the emissions potentially available for emissions trading if the GVRD was to implement the L F G collection improvements as assumed in the Model. As indicated in Section 1.4, trading of emission reduction credits can be available to any organization that voluntarily reduces its own GHG emissions, i.e. it was not instructed to reduce by legislation. Assuming $5 will be the average market value for a tonne of C0 2 e over the next two decades, there could be almost $1.5 million available each year when an outside party purchases the emission credits of the GVRD. This could be a significant source of revenue to finance the actual L F G improvements. A very real modification to this 290,000 tC02e/yr credit for emission trading would be in the situation where legislation only goes part of the way to the methane collection improvements assumed. In this case, crediting would only be available to the voluntary emission reductions over and above that stipulated by regulations. This 290,000 tC02e/yr credit would be appropriately decreased by the L F G improvements already necessary by legislation. The second scenario, decreasing the fraction of steam sent to CPL from the current 56%> to 37%o, results from the fact that CPL has informed the GVRD that they will have a reduced need for steam in the future. Less steam used by CPL means reduced GHG benefits because this steam will no longer be displacing natural gas consumption. This scenario causes the total GVRD emissons to become -161,000 tC02e/yr, an increase of 24,000 tC02e/yr. Less steam offsetting the natural gas consumption at CPL logically removes part of the GHG benefit this Model had originally identified. The GVRD together with Montenay Inc., the organization contracted to operate the Burnaby Incinerator, is exploring the potential for electricity generation at the Incinerator. This includes installing a turbo-generator and improving the boiler efficiency by raising the steam temperature from the current 250\u00C2\u00B0C to 400\u00C2\u00B0C. Scenario #3 demonstrates the significant GHG ramifications of this electricity generation since it offsets low efficiency natural gas electricity generation by the Burrard Thermal facility of BC Hydro. Using the new steam utilization by CPL of 37%> and assuming about 6%> of steam is used internally for plant operation, there is a remaining 57% of the steam available to make electricity. This improvement results in the overall GVRD emissions becoming -216,000 tC02e/yr, a reduction of 55,000 tC02e/yr when compared to the -161,000 tC02e/yr GVRD emissions when 37% of steam went to CPL but no steam was used for electricity generation (Scenario #2). This entire emission reduction, 55,000 101 tC02e/yr, could all be claimed as a credit, for it resulted from a voluntary project. Assuming once again that these credits would be sold at $5/tC02, about $275,000 in revenue could be generated annually by implementing this project. While extensive modelling of 8 waste management components and the Remainder was performed to estimate this 55,000 tCC^e/yr emission reduction, it is also possible to back calculate this amount as an effective check. About 820,000 tonnes of steam is generated annually at the Bumaby Incinerator with an energy content of 2.85 GJ/tonne steam for a total energy production of 2,337,000 GJ (Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Allowing 57% of this steam to be converted to electrical energy, at an efficiency of 32%, as an offset against Burrard Thermal (with a GHG emission intensity of 0.147 tCC^e/GJ), results in a G H G benefit of 62,661 tC0 2e. The Model estimates the GHG benefit of generating electricity at the Incinerator as 55,000 tC0 2e while the back-calculation determines a slightly greater GHG benefit of 63,000 tCC^e, an increase of 15%>. Assuming that all the efficiencies at the Incinerator are correct, it is likely the energy content of the waste which is slightly off. The Model must be slightly underestimating the electrical energy which can be made at the Incinerator and therefore underestimating the GHG benefit. It is unclear where this energy content is being underestimated. This author hopes that future research will be able to tighten up these numbers so as to reduce any inaccuracies. For this thesis it will suffice to state that energy benefits of incineration may be slightly underestimated and could be larger in reality. The fourth scenario is also a potential management change for the future. This scenario entails replacing all landfilling with incineration. This scenario uses a hypothetical Bumaby Incinerator as the disposal method even though the current facility is operating at capacity and could not accept any additional waste. The assumption that only 37% of steam is used by CPL and no steam is used to make electricity has an important effect on this scenario. The GVRD emissions become -67,000 tC02e/yr when this scenario is implemented; an increase of 118,000 tC02e/yr from the base-case. As the GHG emissions respond by increasing when incineration replaces landfilling, it would appear that landfill disposal is the preferred management method. However, the landfill methane is only estimated for 20 years and does not model the full impact of potential methane. By modelling the ultimate (complete) decomposition of the C A A D , essentially Scenario #6, it is possible to estimate the life-cycle impacts of landfilling. (Though this discussion is jumping ahead, it will suffice to state that ultimate decomposition in the existing GVRD system causes overall emissions of+147,000 tCC^e/yr.) Now the difference between -67,000 tC0 2e/yr and +147,000 tC0 2e/yr is a substantial GHG increase of 214,000 tC02e/yr. As a result, switching from landfilling to incineration could result in a G H G benefit of 214,000 tC02e/yr. Furthermore, this is incineration in which only 37% of the steam is used for energy; 6% is assumed to be used internally and 57% of the steam is unutilized. What happens to the emissions when greater energy generation occurs? Scenario #5 demonstrates the answer. While still hypothetically having incineration replace landfilling and 37% of steam going to Crown, Scenario #5 includes allowing 57% of the steam to generate electricity. The overall G H G emissions drastically decrease to -303,000 tCC^e/yr; this is an emission 102 reduction of 118,000 tCC^e/yr from the existing GVRD system and an emission reduction of 450,000 tCC^e/yr from the ultimate decomposition variant discussed above. Both Scenarios #4 & #5 represent emissions trading opportunities well worth investigating. Depending on the baseline to compare against and still assuming $5/tCC>2e, Scenario #5 could realize between $1.3 million and $2.5 million each year just in credit trading revenue. While the result of Scenario #6 has already been used for comparison purposes, this scenario has not been properly discussed. Landfill methane generation is a highly uncertain issue to accurately model. A 20 year time period was arbitrarily chosen so that appreciable quantities of methane would result while still staying within what could be a foreseeable future. During this reference time period not all of the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD) will be realized. Thus, a limitation of this modeling is that it doesn't represent the complete impact of landfill disposal. Whereas incineration, composting and recycling are essentially immediate activities, the ultimate GHG implications of landfilling are not even ascertained after estimating 20 years of methane generation. Anaerobic decomposition of the organic waste, and methane/GHG emissions can result well beyond 20 years after disposal. To determine the complete life-cycle impact of landfilling, the decay rate constant needs to be increased so that all of the C A A D decomposes within the 20 years. This is Scenario #6; using the same assumed improvements in the L F G collection effectiveness at Cache Creek and Vancouver, it is estimated that the GVRD emissions are +147,000 tC02e/yr. This is an increase of 330,000 tC0 2 e/yr over the existing system and demonstrates a possible complete impact of landfilling. While in the base-case, the Cache Creek Landfill pathway resulted in overall emissions of-36,000 tCC^e/yr and the Vancouver Landfill pathway resulted in overall emissions of +9,500 tCC^e/yr, under complete decomposition these emissions significantly increase. Disposal at the Cache Creek Landfill causes GHG emissions of +180,000 tC02e/yr and disposal at the Vancouver Landfill causes GHG emissions of +120,000 tC02e/yr. The GVRD organization has complete freedom to model methane in whichever manner it deems appropriate. However, consideration is required when trying to claim credits for all the prevented future methane emissions (as the future is obviously highly uncertain). This author has become acutely aware of this important issue after being exposed to individuals attempting to claim GHG credits by the diversion of organic waste from landfill disposal. While preventing future methane emissions will indeed occur, potential abuse can be a problem because overestimating methane, and thus overestimating the GHG benefits of diversion, is easily performed. Scenario #7 is concerned with demonstrating the importance of the controversial landfill carbon sequestration issue to this model. If the GVRD was to decide that landfill carbon sequestration was an unacceptable GHG benefit to be included in the Model, it could be removed for the calculation of the GVRD's overall impact on the atmosphere. It requires noting that landfill carbon sequestration is still necessary to appropriately partition the organic-carbon into the fraction that can anaerobically decompose, the C A A D . Removing sequestration as a GHG benefit causes the GVRD system to have a GHG emission of 109,000 tCC^e/yr. Thus emissions increase by 294,000 tCC^e/yr; the Cache Creek Landfill goes from a previous -36,000 tCC^e/yr to 130,000 tC02e/yr and the \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00C2\u00A9 103 Vancouver Landfill goes from 9,500 tC02e/yr to 140,000 tC02e/yr. Landfill carbon sequestration and recycling (as demonstrated in the last scenario) are extremely important in enabling the GVRD waste management system to be a net negative emitter of greenhouse gases. The last scenario, Scenario #8, demonstrates the removal of any recycling GHG benefits from the Model. One could argue that emissions differences by manufacturing industries as a result of material choices are outside the authority of the GVRD waste management system. As a result, allowing the Model to include this GHG benefit to counteract such positive emissions like C H 4 , N 2 0 or transportation-C02, would be inappropriate. Removing this benefit, just as with landfill carbon sequestration, has a tremendous effect on the overall GVRD emissions. The emission of the system becomes -21,000 tC0 2e/yr for an increase of 164,000 tC02e/yr. Allowing a recycling benefit to be claimed by the organization which allowed it to become a reality is entirely valid, in this author's opinion. In fact, aggressive expansion of the existing recycling activities would result in GHG benefits which the GVRD should attempt to claim ownership of. This trading could partially or fully offset the cost for the recycling expansion. A number of conclusions and recommendations result from these eight scenarios. These are provided in the next chapter. 104 Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The GVRD waste management system is not a net emitter of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In fact, this research has estimated that the wastes of 1998 prevented 180,000 tC02e emissions. This can also be interpreted as a GHG benefit of 180,000 tC02e. This benefit largely results from landfill carbon sequestration and recycling activities with some benefit from energy generation at the Bumaby Incinerator. Important G H G emissions identified by this research include landfill CH4, CO2 released during the combustion of diesel fuel and plastics, and N 2 0 emissions. The scenarios of the previous chapter demonstrate the critical importance that future management changes can have on the overall GVRD emissions. This is of particular relevance when analyzed from the perspective of emissions trading. The conclusions derived from the scenarios are the following. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The difference between pursuing improvements in L F G collection and doing nothing could be almost 300,000 tC0 2e/yr - an enormous amount if all available for trading. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The initiation of electricity generation could reduce emissions by 55,000 tC0 2e/yr. There is no question about whether this can be claimed as a credit because the benefits result from a voluntary project. At $5/tC0 2e, this project could bring in nearly $300,000 annually just in credit trading; not to mention the value of the electricity when sold to BC Hydro. Furthermore, the Model may actually be slightly underestimating these benefits. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Considering incineration as a replacement for landfill disposal could bring in credits of 140,000 tC02e/yr when electricity generation is provided. Trading revenue well over $1 million each year is a very real possibility. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The future methane liability of landfilling requires extensive consideration, for when ultimate decomposition is modeled for the future, the full life-cycle environmental cost of landfill disposal is significant; an emission increase of over 300,000 tC02e/yr was estimated from ultimate decomposition. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Landfill carbon sequestration and recycling enable the GVRD to be a negative emitter of greenhouse gases but the former is controversial and the latter can be argued as an inappropriate for the GVRD to claim credit for. A final product of this research is a spreadsheet model to quantify the GHG emissions from GVRD solid waste management. This is a flexible Model which can illustrate the positive or negative impacts that management changes can have on GHG emissions to the atmosphere. The Model could be of great value in helping to identify emissions trading opportunities. 105 The following are a number of recommendations for the GVRD which result from this research. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To strongly encourage the GVRD to begin actively participating in emissions trading to generate revenue or to bank credits in anticipation of future regulatory requirements. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To investigate improving the L F G collection system at the Cache Creek Landfill (Engineers at the City of Vancouver are currently in the process of upgrading collection at the Vancouver Landfill) and claiming emissions credits for the voluntary portion of this project. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To investigate electricity generation at the Burnaby Incinerator to generate revenue from emissions trading and from the sale of energy. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To consider the transition away from landfill disposal, because of the long-term methane liability, and towards incineration, because of the bioenergy potential (this transition can also be facilitated by trading). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To expand the recycling of metal, glass and plastic materials of the waste stream. This could be funded by claiming the GHG credits from the emission benefits (while current recycling activities occurred without any GHG considerations, expansion of the activity is a fair opportunity to claim GHG credits). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To expand the backyard composting of food waste when landfilling is the disposal alternative. This is of particular relevance to municipalities such as the City of Vancouver and the City of Coquitlam where a high percentage of waste is historically landfilled. Expansion of the existing participation in backyard composting would also be available for trading. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To reevaluate the current emphasis on paper recycling. From a strictly GHG perspective, the Model has estimated that newsprint disposal or incineration is preferable to recycling and that the incineration of office paper is also preferable to recycling. The combustion of paper products for bioenergy generation or the landfill sequestering of newsprint maybe more valuable than recycling. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To assess other components of the MSW stream, such as corrugated cardboard or mixed paper, so as to decrease the size of the Remainder. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To initiate research on the potential for N 2 0 emissions at the wastewater treatment plants managing landfill leachate and the potential for thermal N2O formation during waste incineration. (In a side point, an investigation of the GVRD wastewater treatment plants for N 2 0 emissions and for potential bioenergy generation from the anaerobic digestors would also be valuable.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To initiate research in landfill carbon sequestration to increase the understanding of the local situation. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To evaluate what impact the carbon taxation of diesel fuel will have on the current economics of waste transport. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To consider bringing in new staff to identify and implement GHG reducing projects. Combined with emissions trading, these individuals could conceivably pay for themselves while resulting in environmental benefits. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To assess the aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion and the new ethanol synthesis technologies as solid waste management alternatives to landfilling or incineration. A final recommendation results from the author's opinion that the GVRD should remain cautious about selling valuable GHG credits too cheaply. Enormous potential exists for 106 these credits to drastically increase in value. While the trading value of C O 2 currently languishes at about $1 per tonne, it could rapidly rise to $5, $10 or even $20 once scarcity hits this new commodity. Extensive consideration should be given to the banking of these credits for future use and for limiting the length of trading contracts so as not to be locked in at a low price. In closing, it is important to recognize that there is uncertainty in the modelling performed for this research. The understanding of many of the issues in this report is its infancy. Research is necessary to decrease the uncertainty. It is hoped that a combination of future effort by the GVRD, university researchers, consultants and members of federal and provincial departments will expand upon these ideas. The environmental and economic benefits could be considerable indeed. 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY 5.1 R E F E R E N C E S Abbatt, J.P.D., and M.J. Molina. 1993. Status of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 18, 1-29. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. 1999. Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: Update on Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 1998 vs 1990. Submission to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry, available at www.vcr-mvr.ca Alcamo, J. and E. Kreileman. 1996. The Global Climate System: Near Term Action of Long Term Protection. Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. In: Rolfe, C. 1998. Turning Down the Heat. West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. American Geophysical Union. February 2, 1999. Position Statement: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. EOS: Transactions of the AGU, 80(5), 49. Aumonier, S. 1996. The Greenhouse Gas Consequences of Waste Management - Identifying Preferred Options. Energy Convers. Mgmt., 37(6-8), 1117-1122. Aylesford Newsprint Ltd. 1998. Newsprint: A Life Cycle Study. Prepared by Ecobalance UK. Summary Paper. Ayres, R.U., W.H. Schlesinger, and R.H. Socolow. 1994. Human Impacts on the Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles. Industrial Ecology and Global Change. Ed by R. Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhout & V.Thomas, Cambridge University Press, New York, 121-155. Ballestero, T.P. and E. Douglas. 1996. Comparison Between the Nitrogen Fluxes from Composting Farm Wastes and Composting Yard Wastes. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs., 39(5), 1709-1715. Baldwin, T.D., J. Stinson and R.K. Ham. 1998. Decomposition of Specific Materials Buried within Sanitaiy Landfills. Journal of Environmental Engineering., 124(12), 1193-1202. Barlaz, M.A. 1998. Carbon storage during bio degradation of municipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 12(2), 373-380. Barlaz, M.A., R.K. Ham and D.M. Schaefer. 1989a. Mass-Balance Analysis of Anaerobically Decomposed Refuse. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 115, 1088-1102. Barlaz, M.A., D.M. Schaefer and R.K. Ham. 1989b. Bacterial population development and chemical characteristics of refuse decomposition in a simulated sanitaiy landfill. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 55, 55-65. In: Bogner, J. and K. Spokas. 1995. Carbon Storage in Landfills. In: Soils and Global Change. Edited by R. Lai, J. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart, CRC Press Inc. Barton, P.K. and J.W. Atwater. 2000. Nitrous Oxide Emissions and the Anthropogenic Nitrogen in Wastewater & Solid Waste. Submitted to the Journal of Environmental Engineering (ASCE) for publication. Barton, P.K, D.N. Bird and J.W. Atwater. 1999. Composting: An Action that Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Proceedings of the International Composting Symposium, Halifax, Canada, September 19-23, 1999. BC Hydro. 2000. BC Hydro's Request for Greenhouse Gas Offset Proposals. Available at http://eww.bchydro.bc.ca/environment/ghg/index.html BC Hydro. 1998. 1998 Report on the Environment. Prepared by Corporate Environment Department. Beauchamp, E.G. 1997. Nitrous Oxide Emission from Agricultural Soils, Can. J. Soil Sci., 77(2), 113-123. Beline, F., J. Martinez, D. Chadwick, F. Guiziou, and C.-M. Coste. 1999. Factors affecting Nitrogen Transformations and Related Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Aerobically Treated Piggeiy Slurry. J. Agric. Engng. Res., 73, 235-243. Biermann, C.J. 1996. Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking. Second Edition, Academic Press Inc, U.S.A. Bleken, M.A., and L.R. Bakken. 1997. The Nitrogen Cost of Food Production: Norwegian Society. Ambio, 26(3), 134-142. Bogner, J. and K. Spokas. 1995. Carbon Storage in Landfills. In: Soils and Global Change. Edited by R. Lai, J. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart, CRC Press Inc. Bogner, J.E. 1992. Anaerobic burial of refuse in landfills: increased atmospheric methane and implications for increased carbon storage. Ecological Bulletins, 42, 98-108. 108 Borjesson, G., and B.H. Svensson. 1997. Nitrous oxide emissions from landfill cover soils in Sweden. Tellus, 49B, 357-363. BNMA (British Newsprint Manufacturer's Association). 1995. Recycle or Incinerate? The Future for Used Newspapers: An Independent Evaluation. BNMA, Swindon, UK. In: Collins, L. 1996. Recycling and the Environmental Debate: A Question of Social Conscience or Scientific Reason? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39(3), 333-355. CANFOR (Canadian Forest Products Ltd.) 1999. Progress report submission to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry, available at www.vcr-mvr.ca Cockram, R. 1994. Recycling and incineration: An ideal mix for wastepaper. Pulp & Paper International. 36(5), 73-75. Collins, L. 1998. Renewable energy from wood and paper: technological and cultural implications. Technology in Society, 20, 157-177. Collins, L. 1996. Recycling and the Environmental Debate: A Question of Social Conscience or Scientific Reason? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39(3), 333-355. CPPA (Canadian Pulp and Paper Association). 1999. Reference Tables: 1999. Published by CPPA. CRA (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates). 1999. Final Report: Vancouver Landfill Gas Management System Project I. Prepared for the City of Vancouver. CSR (Corporations Supporting Recycling, Environment and Plastics Industry Council and Environment Canada). 1999. Integrated Waste Management Workshop for Municipalities: Participants Manual and Model Disks. Held October 20, 1999, in London, Ontario. Cummings, S.P. and C.S. Stewart. 1994. Newspaper as a Substrate for Cellulolytic Landfill Bacteria. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 76, 196-202. Curtis, H. and N.S. Barnes. 1989. Biology. Fifth Edition. Worth Publishers, New York. Czepiel, P.M., B. Mosher, P.M. Crill and R.C. Harriss. 1996. Quantifying the effect of oxidation on landfill methane emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research. 101(D11), 16,721-16,729, Czepiel, P., E. Douglas, R. Harriss and P. Crill. 1996. Measurements of N20 from Composted Organic Wastes. Envir. Sci. & Tech., 30(8), 2519-2525. Czepiel, P., P. Crill, and R. Harriss. 1995. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Wastewater Treatment, Envir. Sci. & Tech., 29(9), 2352-2356. de Soete, G. 1993. \"Nitrous oxide from combustion and industry: chemistry, emissions, and control.\" Proceedings of an International IPCC Workshop on Methane and Nitrous Oxide: Methods in National Emissions Inventories and Options for Control, Ed by A.R. van Amstel, RIVM Report No. 481507003, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 287-337. Dunn, S. 1999. Scientific Society Speaks Out on Climate. WorldWatch,. 12(3), 10-11. Eleazer, W., W.Odle, Y.Wang and M.A.Barlaz. 1997. Biodegradative Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste in Laboratory-Scale Landfills. Environmental Science & Technology. 31(3), 911-917. Environment Canada. 1999. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1997 Emissions and Removals with Trends. Prepared by F. Neitzert, K. Olsen and P. Collas, Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate. En49-8/5-9E. Environment Canada. 1997a. Trends in Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1990-1995), Prepared by Jaques, A., F.Neitzert and P.Boileau, Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate. En 49-5/5-8E. Environment Canada. 1997b. A Matter of Degrees: A Primer on Climate Change. Enl-21/1-1997E. Environment Canada. 1978. Municipal Refuse Statistics for Canadian Communities over 100,000: 1976-1977. Prepared by Bird & Hale Inc for the Waste Management Branch of the Environmental Protection Service. Erisman, J.W., T. Brydges, K. Bull, E. Cowling, P. Grennfelt, L. Nordberg, K. Satake, T. Schneider, S. Smeulders, K.W. Van der Hoek, J.R. Wisniewski, and J. Wisniewski. 1998. Summary Statement -First International Nitrogen Conference. Environ. Pollut, 102(S1), 3-12. Eschenroeder, A. 1999. Greenhouse Gas Dynamics of Municipal Solid Waste Alternatives. Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Associations Second International Specialty Conference on Global Climate Change, Oct 13-16, 1998. Firestone, M.K., and E.A. Davidson. 1989. Microbiological Basis of NO and N20 Production and Consumption in Soil. Exchange of Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere, Ed by M.O. Andrae and D.S. Schimel, New York, Wiley, 7-21. 109 FAL (Franklin Associates Ltd.) 1994. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000. Prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Stamford, CT, USA. Gaines, L.L and M.M. Mintz. 1994. Energy Implications of Glass-Container Recycling. A joint effort of the Energy Systems Division of the Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States. Galloway, J.N. 1998. The Global Nitrogen Cycle: Changes and Consequences, Environ. Pollut., 102(S1), 15-24. Galloway, J.N. W.H. Schlesinger, H. Levy II, A. Michaels, and J.L. Schnoor. 1995. Nitrogen fixation: anthropogenic enhancement - environmental response, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 9(2), 235-252. GERT (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot Program). 1999. Information available at the website, www.gert.org GERT (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot Program). 1998. Information available at the website, www.gert.org GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 1999a. GVRD Solid Waste Flow Model. Obtained by personal communication with Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, GVRD. GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 1999b. GVRD Corporate: 1997 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and 1990 Backcast/2010 Forecast. Report prepared by the Air Quality Department. GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 1993. Waste Flow and Recycling Audit. Volume 1: Waste Generation and Flow Analysis. Prepared by Resource Integration Systems in association with CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd and KPMG Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg. Hamm, U. and L. Gottsching. 1993. The CO2 Balance - How is it affected by the German Pulp and Paper Industry? Appita, 46(3), 179-186. Hanaki, K., Z. Hong, and T. Matsuo. 1992. Production of Nitrous Oxide Gas During Denitrification of Wastewater. Water Sci. & Technol., 26(5-6), 1027-1036. Hanisch, C. December 1, 1998. Taking Stock Green Tax Reform Initiatives. Environmental Science & Technology. 540-544 Hellebrand, H.J. 1998. Emission of Nitrous Oxide and other Trace Gases during Composting of Grass and Green Waste. J. of Agric. Engng. Res., 69, 365-375. Hellmann, B. 1995. Freisetzung klimarelevanter Spurengase in Bereichen mit holier Akkumulation von Biomassen. AbschluBbericht fur die Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, (Release of greenhouse gases in areas of high accumulation of biomass. Research Report for the German Foundation for Environment). Osnabruck: Zeller Verlag. In Hellebrand, H.J. 1998. Emission of Nitrous Oxide and other Trace Gases during Composting of Grass and Green Waste. J. of Agric. Engng. Res., 69, 365-375. Henderson, J.P. and C. Underwood. 2000. The Vancouver Landfill: Planning for the Future. Proceedings of the SWANA Pacific Northwest Regional Solid Waste Symposium, April 13-14, 2000. Henderson, J.P, and J.W. Atwater. 1995. High ammonia landfill leachate treatment using anaerobic filter and rotating biological contactor. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 22, 992-1000. Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., R. Pradhan, K. Gunsch and J.L. Leskiw. 1998. A Methodology to Estimate the Carbon Off-Set Potential of Composting Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste (BMSW). Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 25(3&4), 119-127. Hong, Z., K. Hanaki, and T. Matsuo. 1993. Greenhouse gas-N20production during denitrification in wastewater treatment. Water Sci. & Technol., 28(7), 203-207. Hooper, A.B. 1984. Ammonium oxidation and energy transduction in the nitrifying bacteria. Microbial Chemoautotrophy. Ed by W.R. Strohl and O.H. Tuovinen, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 133-169. Houghton, J.T. 1997. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press. Hunt, R.G. 1995. LCA considerations of solid waste management alternatives for paper and plastics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 14, 225-231. Hutchinson, G.L., and E.A. Davidson. 1993. Processes for Production and Consumption of Gaseous Nitrogen Oxides in Soil. Agricultural Ecosystem Effects on Trace Gases and Global Climate Change. Ed by G.A. Peterson, P.B. Baenziger, R.J. Lawrence, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 79-93. USD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 1998. Incentives for Early Action on Climate Change. Foundation Paper. 110 Ince, P.J., K.E. Skog, L.S. Heath. 1995. Recycling in the big picture - the really big picture. Resource Recycling, 14(6), 41-45 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Three Volumes. Paris, France. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available on the website: www.unfccc.org Isermann, K., and R. Isermann. 1998. Food Production and Consumption in Germany: Nflows and N emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 298-301. Johnsson, J.E. 1994. Formation and reduction of nitrogen oxides in jluidized-bed combustion. Fuel. 73(9), 1398-1415. Khan, A.W. 1977. Anaerobic degradation of cellulose by mixed culture. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 23, 1700-1705. In: Wang, Y., C.S. Byrd and M.A. Barlaz. 1994. Anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and hemicellulose in excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 13, 147-153. Kimochi, Y., Y. Inamori, M. Mizuochi, K. Xu, and M. Matsumura. 1998. Nitrogen Removal and N20 Emission in a Full-Scale Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant with Intermittent Aeration. J. Ferment. Bioeng., 86(2), 202-206. Kinzig, A.P., and R.H. Socolow. 1994. Human Impacts on the Nitrogen Cycle. Phys. Today, November, 24-31. Kuroda, K., T.Osada, M.Yonaga, A.Kanematu, T.Nitta, S.Mouri and T.Kojima. 1996. Emissions of Malodorous Compounds and Greenhouse Gases from Composting Swine Feces. Bioresource Technol., 56, 265-271. Leach, M.A., A. Bauen and N.J.D. Lucas. 1997. A Systems Approach to Materials Flow in Sustainable Cities: A Case Study of Paper. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 40(6), 705-723 Logan, J.A. 1983. Nitrogen Oxides in the Troposphere: Global and Regional Budgets. J. Geophys. Res., 88(C15), 10,785-10,807. McElroy, M.B., J.W. Elkins, S.C. Wofsy, C.E. Kolb, A.P. Duran and W.A. Kaplan. 1978. Production and release of N20 from the Potomac Estuary. Limnol. Oceanogr., 23(6), 1168-1182. Mackenzie, F.T. 1998. Our Changing Plane: An Introduction to Earth System Science and Global Environmental Change, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersery, U.S.A. Mackenzie, F.T. 1995. Global Climatic Change: Climatically Important Biogenic Gases and Feedbacks. Biotic Feedbacks in the Global Climatic System, Edited by G.M Woodwell & F.T. Mackenzie, Oxford University Press, New York, 22-46. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1962. Pulp and Paper Science and Technology: Volume I, Pulp., Edited by C.E. Libby, New York. McMahon, P.B. and K.F. Dennehy. 1999. N20 Emissions from a Nitrogen-Enriched River. Envir. Sci. & Tech., 33(1), 21-25. Martikainen, P.J. 1985. Nitrous Oxide Emission associated with autotrophic ammonium oxidation in acid coniferous forest soil. Appl. Env. Microbiol., 50, 1519-1525. Matthews, E. 1994. Nitrogenous fertilizers: Global distribution of consumption and associated emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8(4), 411-439. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York. Micales, J.A. and K.E. Skog. 1997. The decomposition of forest products in landfills. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 39, 145-158. Mosier, A., C. Kroeze, C. Nevison, O. Oenema, S. Seitzinger, and O. van Cleemput. 1998. Closing the global N20 budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 225-248. Mosier, A.R., J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, and K. Minami. 1996. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields: Assessment, measurement and mitigation. Plant and Soil, 181, 95-108. I l l Natural Resources Canada. 2000. The State of Canada's Forests (1999-2000): Forests in the New Millenium. NCCP (National Climate Change Process - Environment Canada). 1998. A Survey of the Forest Sector and Forest Sector Operations. Foundation Paper of the Forest Sector Issue Table. NRAES (Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service). 1992. On-Farm Composting Handbook, Ed by R. Rynk, Ithaca, New York . Okayasu, Y., I. Abe, and Y. Matsuo. 1997. Emission of Nitrous Oxide from High-Rate Nitrification and Denitrification by Mixed Liquor Circulating Process and Sequencing Batch Reactor Process. Wat. Sci. &Tech., 36(12) 39-45. Olivier, J.G.J., A.F. Bouwman, K.W. Van der Hoek, and J.J.M. Berdowski. 1998. Global air emission inventories for anthropogenic sources ofNOx, NH3 and N20 in 1990. Environ. Pollut, 102(S1) 135-148. Osada, T., K. Kuroda, and M. Yonaga. 1995. Reducing Nitrous Oxide Gas Emissions from Fill-and-Draw Type Activated Sludge Process. Water Res., 29(6) 1607-1608. Pacifica Papers. 1998. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Action Plan: Years 1990,1994, 1995. 1996. 1997 and 1998. Progress reported submitted to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry of Environment Canada. PAPRICAN (Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada). 1999. Energy Cost Reduction in the Pulp and Paper Industry: A Monograph. Prepared by AGRA Simons, Duncan Industrial, Ecole Polytechnique, NLK Consultants, Sandwell Inc, SodeXpro and Walsh Automation. PAPTAC (Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada). 1999. A Guide to Energy Savings-Opportunities in the Kraft Pulp Industry. Prepared by AGRA Simons Ltd. Pearce, F. 1997. Burn Me. New Scientist. November, 22. Pels, J.R., M.A. Wojtowicz, F. Kapteijn, and J.A. Moulijn. 1994. The trade-off between NOx and N20 formation in fluidised-bed combustion of coal. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Nitrous Oxide Emissions, June, 1994, Turku, Finland, 79-93. Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook. 1984. Sixth Edition. PFPC(Pine Falls Paper Company). 1999. 1998 Progress Report: Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Submission to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry, available at www.vcr-mvr.ca Pipatti, R. and I. Savolainen. 1996. Role of Energy Production in the Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management. Energy Convers. Mgmt. 17(6-8). 1105-1110. Poth, M., and D.D. Focht. 1985. \" I 5 N kinetic analysis of N 2 0 production of Nitrosomonas europaea: An examination of nitrifier denitrification\" Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 49, 1134-1141. Rettenberger, G. 1998. Leachate Treatment Plants in Germany International Training Seminar: Management and Treatment of MSW Landfill Leachate, (CISA, Sanitary Environmental Engineering Centre, Cagliari, Italy), December 2-4, 1998, Venice, Italy. Revelle, R. and H.E. Suess. 1957. Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric C02 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9, 18-27. Robinson, H.D., C.K. Chen, R.W. Formby, and M.S. Carville. 1998. Leachate Treatment Plants at Hong Kong Landfill Sites. International Training Seminar: Management and Treatment of MSW Landfill Leachate, (CISA, Sanitary Environmental Engineering Centre, Cagliari, Italy), December 2-4, 1998, Venice, Italy. Rolfe, C. 1998. Turning Down the Heat. West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Sahrawat, K.L., and D.R. Keeney. 1986. Nitrous oxide emission from soils. Adv. Soil Sci., 4, 103-148. In: Curtin, D., F. Selles, C A . Campbell, and V.O. Biederbeck. 1994. Canadian Prairie Agriculture as a Source and Sink of the Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide, Agriculture Canada Report 379M0082. Schenk, K., S.Appel, and D.Daum. 1997. N20 Emissions during Composting of Organic Waste (Refereed). Acta Hortic, 450, 253-261. Schulthess, R.v., and W. Gujer. 1996. Release of Nitrous Oxide from Denitrifying Activated Sludge: Verification and Application of a Mathematical Model. Water Res., 30, 521-530. Sommer, S.G. and P. Dahl. 1999. Nutrient and Carbon Balance During the Composting of Deep Litter. J. Agric. Engng. Res. 74, 145-153. Spector, M. 1998. Production and decomposition of nitrous oxide during biological denitrification. Water Environment Research, 70(5), 1096-1098. 112 Stinson, J.A. and R.K. Ham. 1995. Effect of Lignin on the Anaerobic Decomposition of Cellulose as Determined through the Use of a Biochemical Methane Potential Method. Environmental Science & Technology. 29(9), 2305-2310. Sumer, E., A. Weiske, G. Benekiser, and J.C.G. Ottow. 1995. Influence of environmental conditions on the amount of N20 released from activated sludge in a domestic waste water treatment plant. Exper. ,51, 419-422. Tanikawa, N., T. Imai, and K. Urano. 1995. Characteristics of continuous analyzers for nitrous oxide in flue gas from municipal incinerators. Sci. Total Environ., 175, 189-198. Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York. Tellus Institute. 1994. Energy Implications of Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems. Report prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Thorn, M., andF. Sorensson. 1996. Variation of Nitrous Oxide Formation in the Denitrification Basin in a Wastewater Treatment Plant with Nitrogen Removal. Water Res., 30(6), 1543-1547. Tong, X., L.H. Smith and P.L. McCarty. 1990. Methane Fermentation of Selected Lignocellulosic Materials. Biomass. 21, 239-255. Tsujimoto, Y., J. Masuda, J. Fukuyama, and H. Ito. 1994. \"N20 Emissions at Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Osaka City,\" J. Air & Waste Management Association, 44, 1313-1314. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas-Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1997, Report prepared by the Office of Policy, EPA236-R-99-003. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste. Report prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA530-R-98-013. Virtanen, Y. and S. Nilsson. 1992. Some Environmental Policy Implications of Recycling Paper Products in Western Europe. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Executive Report 22. Watanabe, M., M. Sato, M. Miyazaki, and M. Tanaka. 1992. Emission rate ofN20 from municipal solid waste incinerators. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on N 2 0 Emissions, July 1-3, 1992, Tsukuba, Japan In: de Soete, G. 1993. Nitrous oxide from combustion and industry: chemistry, emissions, and control. Proceedings of an International IPCC Workshop on Methane and Nitrous Oxide: Methods in National Emissions Inventories and Options for Control. Ed by A.R. van Amstel, RIVM Report No. 481507003, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 287-337. Wang, Y., CS. Byrd and M.A. Barlaz. 1994. Anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and hemicellulose in excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 13, 147-153. Weldwood of Canada Ltd. 1999. 1998 Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: A Progress Report. Submission to \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the Voluntary Challenge & Registry, available at www.vcr-mvr.ca Werther, J., T. Ogada, and C. Philippek. 1994. N20 Emissions from Fluidized Bed Combustion of Sewage Sludges. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Turku, Finland, June 1994, 139-154. Weyerhaueser. 1999. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Action Plan: 1999. Submission to the Voluntary Challenge & Registry, available at www.vcr-mvr.ca White, D.M., K.L. Nebel, and M. Gundappa, and K.R. Ferry. 1995. NOx Control Technologies Applicable to Municipal Waste Combustion. United States Environmental Protection Agency Summary Report. Wojtarowicz, M. 2000. Impact of Population Growth and Immigration on the Solid Waste Management System in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Prepared for Professor J.W. Atwater, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada. Wojtowicz, M.A., J.R. Pels, and J.A. Moulijn. 1994. N20 emission control in coal combustion. Fuel, 73(9), 1416-1422. Yasuda, K., M. Takahashi. 1992. Emissions of nitrous oxide from waste management systems. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on N 2 0 Emissions, July 1-3, 1992, Tsukuba, Japan. In: de Soete, G. 1993. Nitrous oxide from combustion and industry: chemistry, emissions, and control. Proceedings of an International IPCC Workshop on Methane and Nitrous Oxide: Methods in National Emissions Inventories and Options for Control. Ed by A.R. van Amstel, RIVM Report No. 481507003, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 287-337. Zheng, H., K. Hanaki, and T. Matsuo. 1994. Production of Nitrous Oxide Gas During Nitrification of Wastewater. Wat. Sci. & Tech., 30(6), 133-141. 113 5.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Jim Atwater, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, (604) 822-4694, jatwater@civil.ubc.ca Chantal Babensee, Project Engineer, Contracted Services, Engineering & Construction, Greater Vancouver Regional District, (604) 436-6853, chantal.babensee@gvrd.bc.ca Morton Barlaz, Associate Professor and Associate Head, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, (919) 515-7676, Barlaz@unity.ncsu.edu Mike Bradley, Director - Technology, Canfor Pulp and Paper Marketing, (604) 661-5264, mbradley@canfor.ca Ken Carrusca, Project Engineer - Regional Utility Planning, Policy and Planning Department, Greater Vancouver Regional District, (604) 436-6822, ken.carrusca@gvrd.bc.ca Dave Church, Canadian Pulp & Paper Association (514) 866-6621 ext.242 Louie DeVent, Operations Manager, Wastech Services Ltd, (604) 521-1715, ldevent@wastech.bc.ca John Duffy, Corporate Environment Department, B.C. Hydro Ltd, (604) 623 4391 Ray Dyer, Pacifica Papers - Powell River (B.C.), (250) 724-7483, RADyer@pacifica-papers.com Ali Ergudenler, Senior Project Engineer, Air Quality Department, Greater Vancouver Regaional District, (604) 436-6774, ali.ergudenler@gvrd.bc.ca Paul Henderson, Landfill Manager, Landfill Operations Branch, City of Vancouver, (604) 946-8049, paul_henderson@city. vancouver.be.ca Michael Innes, Vice-President - Environment, Health & Safety, Abitibi-Consolidated, (514) 875-2160 Tony Kaptien, Weyerhaeuser - Prince Albert (Saskatchewan), (306) 953-1856, tony.kaptein@weyerhaeuser.com Brian Kotak, Environment Director, Pine Falls Paper Company, Pine Falls, Manitoba, (204) 367-5353, bkotak@pfpc.mb.ca Al Lynch, Manager, North Shore Recycling Program, (604) 984-9730, LynchA@district.north-van.be.ca Andrew Marr, Senior Project Engineer, Greater Vancouver Regional District, (604) 436-6807, andrew.marr@gvrd.be.ca Pat Martin, Technical/Environmental Manager, Newstech Recycling, (604) 527-5734, pmartin@pro.net Fahimeh Mirminachi, Director of Research & Development, International Bio-Recovery Corp., North Vancouver, BC, (604) 924-1023, fahimeh@ibrcorp.com Tony Mouchachen, Merlin Plastics, (604) 522-6799 ext 11 Donna O'Dwyer, Consumers Glass, (250) 549-8205, dodwyer@consumersglass.com Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Greater Vancouver Regional District, (604) 436-6810, mike.stringer@gvrd.be.ca Chris Underwood, Landfill Operations Branch, City of Vancouver, (604) 946-3984, chris_underwood@city.vancouver.be.ca Bev Weber, Composting Program Manager, Greater Vancouver Regional District, (604) 436-6803, bev.weber@gvrd.bc.ca George Weinstein, Allied Salvage & Metal, (604) 322-6629 Mike Whybrow, Manager - Economics & Trade, B.C. Ministry of Forests, (250) 387-8613, mike.whybrow@gems7.gov.be.ca Bill Wilson, Director - Industry, Trade & Economics, Pacific Forestry Service, Canadian Forestry Service, Natural Resources Canada, (250) 363-0721, bwilson@pfc.forestry.ca 114 APPENDIXA: GENERAL CALCULATIONS This appendix contains the general calculations and parameters which are not specific to any municipality or to any waste material. This includes the fuel consumption estimates for waste transferred to transfer stations, subsequent transport to disposal facilities and the operation of equipment at the Vancouver or Cache Creek Landfill. These estimates also include the fuel consumption for equipment at recycling or composting facilities. These calculations are the same utilized in Worksheet #5 - General Parameters to estimate emission factors necessary for the model. This appendix can be separated into 8 separate sections: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the Coquitlam Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the North Shore Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the Vancouver Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the Matsqui Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the Langley Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Waste Delivered to the Maple Ridge Transfer Station \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Recycling Equipment \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Centralized Composting Equipment \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Diesel Fuel Combustion Emissions Emission factors for these 8 alternatives are developed in turn. An exception to the description above occurs in Worksheet #5 - General Parameters which represents this very appendix in the spreadsheet model. This worksheet contains all the waste flow data for 1998 as provided by the GVRD. These are all the masses of waste collected at the member municipalities and delivered to transfer stations and transferred to final disposal destinations. This data is necessary to determine the quantities of waste disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill, the Vancouver Landfill or the Burnaby Incinerator for each municipality. These tables are presented in the Worksheet #5 and are not provided in this appendix. So as to facilitate the explanations and calculations in the following sections, a number of abbreviations have been employed. These are listed below: C C L F - Cache Creek Landfill V L F - Vancouver Landfill BI - Burnaby Incinerator NSTS - North Shore Transfer Station CTS - Coquitlam Transfer Station VTS - Vancouver Transfer Station LTS - Langley Tranfer Station MTS - Matsqui Transfer Station MRTS - Maple Ridge Transfer Station FutLF - Future Landfill 115 FutLNC - Future Incinerator While this research has attempted to obtain fuel consumption data from as many sources as possible, the sheer number of potential transportation requirements causes assumptions to be necessary. These include that a typical heavy-duty diesel vehicle has a diesel fuel consumption of 45.OL per 100km, as published by Environment Canada (1997), and that each of these trucks has a capacity of 20 tonnes. Also, to assign fuel consumption to the appropriate transportation, it is also necessary to know whether the vehicle returns to the original location, therefore necessitating fuel for the entire round-trip, or whether the vehicle provided another task on the return trip, thereby necessitating fuel only for this a one-way distance. W A S T E D E L I V E R E D T O T H E C O Q U I T L A M T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y T r a n s f e r S ta t i on E q u i p m e n t : At the CTS approximately 279,495 litres of diesel fuel was consumed in 1998 for the processing of 319,651 tonnes of waste (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). GHG Emissions _ (Fuel Consumption, L (2 .854^ C \u00C2\u00B0^J ' -onn^ K J ^ tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions (279,495)(2.854) tCO,e/ _ -j r = 0.0025 ~ /, tonne (319,651) * 1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0025 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Tractor trailers transport waste the approximate 300 km distance from the GVRD to the Cache Creek Landfill (GVRD 1993b). A recent GVRD report has estimated the GHG emissions associated with this transport (GVRD 1999b). The total diesel fuel used in 1997 (both ways) was 4,440,000 L; of which half was estimated to be the responsibility of the GVRD (woodchips are transported to the Lower Mainland on the return trip). In 1998, 8,112 trips were taken from the CTS to the CCLF for the disposal of 303,608 tonnes of waste. Each tractor trailer trip consumes about 200 litres (one way) (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor for this transport is: Mass Hauled 303,608 tonnes tonnes/ tCO.e/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 37 4 Trip 8,112 trips /'\"P GHG Emissions (FUe,C\u00E2\u0080\u009Ensnmp,io\u00E2\u0080\u009E,/ri j2.854kSC0 ]^(> '\u00C2\u00B0n% 0 0 J tonne / , 0 n n e GHG Emissions (200)(2.854) 5tCO,e/ tonne \" (37.4) \u00C2\u00AB 1000 ~ \u00C2\u00B0' ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.015 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The diesel fuel combusted by equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill in 1998 was 812,499L. During this same time period, 474,873 tonnes of waste was disposed (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor is: GHG-Emissions- _ (Fuel Consumption, 1^2.854 k g C\u00C2\u00B0^' '\"\"\"^ oOO-kg) = t C 0 = / tonne t^onnesj tonne GHG-Emissions ,814;499j(4*54y tCO:> -0.0049 .\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E. 474,873>*1000 t 0 , m e 116 GHG Emission = 0.0049 tC02e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : Approximately 339 tractor-trailer trips were required to transport 8,189 tonnes of waste from the CTS to the V L F . The necessitated the consumption of 45 litres of diesel fuel per trip (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Trip 339 trips /'\"/> \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E . . f Fuel Consumption, L / . Y 2.854 k B C 0 ' ^ Y l t \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 ^ / . ) G H G Emissions _ I 1 /\u00C2\u00AB n,^r- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (FuelConsumption, V . Y2.854 k B C O i=/Yl tonne/ \ GHG Emissions _ I, /mpA / L A / 1 0 0 0 k B j _ tCO,e/ tonne (tonnes/ { /'rip. GHG Emissions = (23X2.854) = Q M 9 T C0 3 e/ tonne (22.6)\u00C2\u00AB1000 /tonne / tonne G H G emission = 0.0029 tC02e/tonne W A S T E D E L I V E R E D T O T H E N O R T H S H O R E T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y T r a n s f e r S ta t i on E q u i p m e n t : At the N S T S , 87,918 litres was consumed by equipment for the processing of 194,755 tonnes of waste (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). GHG Emissions (Fuel Consumption, L ( 2 . 8 5 4 k \u00C2\u00AB C \u00C2\u00B0 ^ ] ( \" < ' \" % 0 0 k J tonne (tonnes) \" / t o n n e GHG Emissions (g7,918)(2.854) tCO,e/ tonne \" (l94,755) * 1000 \"\" ' \" / t o n n e GHG Emissions = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 117 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Tractor trailers transport waste the approximate 300 km distance from the GVRD to the Cache Creek Landfill (GVRD 1993b). A recent GVRD report has estimated the GHG emissions associated with this transport (GVRD 1999b). The total diesel fuel used in 1997 (both ways) was 4,440,000 L; of which half was estimated to be the responsibility of the GVRD (woodchips are transported to the Lower Mainland on the return trip). In 1998, 2,283 trips were taken from the NSTS.to the CCLF for the disposal of 82,930 tonnes of waste. Each tractor trailer trip consumes about 215 litres (one way) (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor for this transport is: i tonnes/ / tonne Trip 2,283 trips / ' \" / ' GHG Emissions _ ( F \" e l Consumption. % ; fc.SM^0^' t o n n e ^ J ^ tonne [tonnes/^ j GHG Emissions (2I5)(2,854) t C O . e / tonne \" (36.3) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1000 \" Aotxx GHG Emission = 0.017 tC02e/tonne 3. Diesel Fuel Consumption b y Equipment at the Cache C r e e k Landfill: The diesel fuel combusted by equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill in 1998 was 812,499L. During this same time period, 474,873 tonnes of waste was disposed (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor is: G H G Emissions 'Fuel Consumption, L J I . B S A ^ 0 ^ ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" % 0 0 J _ tonne (tonnes) /tonne G H G Emissions (812,499)(2.854) tCO,e/ tonne ~~ (474,873) * 1000 \" ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0049 tC02e/tonne 4. Diesel Fuel Consumption fo r Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: A small percentage (less than 1%) of the waste delivered to the NSTS was disposed at the V L F in 1998 (GVRD 1999a). The trucks return empty. In this year, 71 trips delivered 1,754 tonnes and consumed 45 litres per trip (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Mass Hauled 1,754 tonnes = 24.7 tonnes/ Trip 71 trips / tnP G H G Emissions (Fuel Consumption, %-ip!2-854 ^ ' / L I ' '\u00C2\u00B0\"%00 kg) lC0,( tonne f tonnes/ ] V. /trip) /tonne G H G Emissions (45)(2.854) 0 005;'CO^/ tonne ~ (24.7)\u00C2\u00BB1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG emissions - 0.0052 tC02e/tonne 5. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : In 1998, approximately 335,000 litres was consumed by City operations (a small part of this also includes the composting equipment but cannot be differentiated) and 144,000 litres was consumed by a private contractor supplying cover materials. During this same time period, a total of 379,554 tonnes of waste was disposed at this site (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). kgCO:/Y, tonl,/ ^ GHG-Emissions- _ (Fuel Consumption, 1^ 2.854 \ ^ \u00E2\u0084\u00A2V,000,kg_j = ^ tonne (Tonnes j tonne GHG-Emissions- _ r33-5^000-t-444;OOOjf^854j- _ tCOz/ G H r E m i s s i o i i 3 ^ 1 ] m t C 0 2 e / t o n n e t 0 , , n e 118 6. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : Trucks transport waste from the NSTS to the B l and return empty. In 1998, 3,609 trucks trips delivered 89,942 tonnes of waste and used 23 litres per trip (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Mass Hauled 89,942 tonnes - = 24.9 tonnes/ Trip 3,609 trips /'\"/> GHG Emissions (F u e lConsumption, y ^ S S ^ 0 0 ^ = 1000kgJ = t C < W tonne (tonnes/ > /t0\"\"e V /trip) GHG Emissions (23)(2.854) tCO,e - = 0.0026 tonne (24.9) * 1000 ' /tonne G H G Emission = 0.0026 tC02e/tonne W A S T E D E L I V E R E D T O T H E V A N C O U V E R T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y T r a n s f e r S ta t i on E q u i p m e n t : At the Vancouver Transfer Station approximately 87,650 litres of diesel fuel was consumed in 1998 for the transfer of 273,691 tonnes of waste (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). The resulting emission factor is: ^ , , r , r . . . (FuelConsumptiai,L/2.854 k g C 0^Ylto |i 'V\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E r,, ] G H G Emissions _ ^ \ / L A . / lOOOkgJ _ t C O , e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne G H G Emissions = (87,650)(2.854) = 0 0 0 Q g t C O , e / tonne (273,691)* 1000 ' /tonne G H G Emission = 0.0009 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Tractor trailers transport waste the approximate 300 km distance from the GVRD to the C C L F (GVRD 1993b). A recent GVRD report has estimated the GHG emissions associated with this transport (GVRD 1999b). The total diesel fuel used in 1997 (both ways) was 4,440,000 L; of which half was estimated to be the responsibility of the GVRD (woodchips are transported to the Lower Mainland on the return trip). In 1998, no waste was transferred from the VTS to the CCLF. However, the inspection of a street map of Vancouver has determined the NSTS to be an approximate estimate for the hypothetical transfer from the VTS. In 1998, 2,283 trips were taken from the NSTS to the C C L F for the disposal of 82,930 tonnes of waste. Each tractor trailer trip consumes about 215 litres (one way) (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Mass Hauled 82,930 tonnes tonnes/ lCO,e / Trip ~ 2,283 trips\" 3 6 3 / Fuel Consumption _ 334,000 tonnes _ ^ , / Trip 12,500 trips ~ ' /1riP GHG Emissions ( F u e . C o n s u m p t i o n , ^ r i p ) ( 2 . 8 5 4 ^ C 0 ^ ) ( 1 ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" % 0 0 k g ) tonne (\"\"'\"%>) * GHG Emissions = (26.7X2.854) = Q QmtCO,e/ tonne (23.0)\u00C2\u00BB1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0033 tC02e/tonne 5. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : In 1998, approximately 335,000 litres was consumed by City operations (a small part of this also includes the composting equipment but cannot be differentiated) and 144,000 litres was consumed by a private contractor supplying cover materials. During this same time period, a total of 379,554 tonnes of waste was disposed at this site (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). GHG Emissions _ (Fuel Consumption. L ( 2 . 8 5 4 ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" % 0 0 J = tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions _ <335,000 + 144,00o)(2.854) _ q t C O \ e / tonne ~ (379,554) * 1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0036 tC02e/tonne 6. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r T r a n s p o r t to the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : No waste was transferred from the VTS to the Bl in 1998. However, a hypothetical assumption is calculated. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 22 km (estimated from map), the emission would be: ^,,^r- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ( fuelConsumption,L/\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E, )(Distance,km)f2.854ksC\u00C2\u00B02/^Yl tonne/n[^v ] GHG Emissions _ v H VlOOkmA \ /L)^ /1000kg; _ t C O , e / /tonne tonne (tonnes/ V 'trip GHG Emissions = ( 4 X o 0 ^ 2 2 ^ 2 ' 8 5 4 ^ = n 0 0 , 4 t C O 2 e / tonne (20)*1000 / t o n n e G H G Emission = 0.0083 tC02e/tonne 120 W A S T E D E L I V E R E D T O T H E M A T S Q U I T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N 1. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y T r a n s f e r S ta t i on E q u i p m e n t : At the MTS approximately 33,280 litres of diesel fuel was consumed in 1998 for the processing of 75,850 tonnes of waste (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The resulting emission factor is: . . (FuelConsumption.Lf2.854 k g C 0 ^Y'to\"\"e/ . . n , 1 GHG Emissions _ * v \ / L \ /1000 kg) _ t c o , e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (33.280X2.854) _ Q 0 Q [ 3 t C O , e / tonne (75,580)* 1000 /tonne G H G Emission = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r T r a n s p o r t to the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f d l : Tractor trailers transport waste the approximate 300 km distance from the GVRD to the C C L F (GVRD 1993b). A recent GVRD report has estimated the GHG emissions associated with this transport (GVRD 1999b). The total diesel fuel used in 1997 (both ways) was 4,440,000 L; of which half was estimated to be the responsibility of the GVRD (woodchips are transported to the Lower Mainland on the return trip). In 1998, 2104 trips were taken from the MTS to the CCLF for the disposal of 73,169 tonnes of waste. Each tractor trailer trip consumes about 185 litres (one way) (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Mass Hauled _ 73,169 tonnes _ ^ ^tonnes/ Trip\" ~ 2,104 trips \" / ' \" / \u00C2\u00BB . . f Fuel Consumption, W. Y 2 . 8 5 4 k S C 0 ^ Y H o n n e / \"| G H G Emissions _ I, H A ' l p A / L A / l O O O k g J _ i C O , e / tonne (, tonnes/ / tonne l 7'rlp) = 0.014\"\" tonne (34.8) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1000 GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The diesel fuel combusted by equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill in 1998 was 812,499L. During this same time period, 474,873 tonnes of waste was disposed (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor is: GHG Emissions _ (F I^ Consumption. L ( 2 . 8 5 4 k g C 0 ^ ] ( \" o \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E ^ o o o K J ^ tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions _ (812,49Q)(2.854) _ t C O , e / tonne \" (474,873) * 1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0049 tC02e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : No waste was transferred from the MTS to the V L F in 1998. This hypothetical emission factor is estimated by assuming 20 tonnes is hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 130 km (estimated from map). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (fuel Consumption, 1/\u00E2\u0084\u00A2, ]fDistanceJ\"P \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E . . (Fuel Consumption, W. . Y 2 - 8 5 4 k g C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / Y l t o n n \u00C2\u00AB / n m . ) GHG Emissions _ I. / t r i p / , / L \ /1000 kg) _ t co , e / tonne | tonnes/ ) { /trip) 'tonne GHG Emissions _ (185X2.854) _ Q Q | / ] t C O , e / tonne (34.8)* 1000 ' /tonne G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne Total G H G Emission = 0.0026 + 0.0013 + 0.014 = 0.018 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The diesel fuel combusted by equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill in 1998 was 812,499L. During this same time period, 474,873 tonnes of waste was disposed (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor is: GHG Emissions _ ^ Consumption, L ( 2 . 8 5 4 k \u00C2\u00B0 C 0 ^ ] ( \" o n n e / o o o j ^ tonne (tonnes) GHG Emissions (gl2,499)(2.8S4) t C O , e / tonne ~ (474,873)\u00C2\u00BB1000 \" ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0049 tC02e/tonne 'tonne 123 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : No waste was transferred from the LTS to the V L F in 1998. This hypothetical emission factor is estimated by assuming 20 tonnes is hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.OL per 100km and a round-trip distance of 85 km (estimated from map). (FuelConsumptiOT ) 1^ 0 0 k m)(Distance,km^2.854 k 8 C O2//Yl tonne/ GHG Emissions = V \" \" \" \" H ' /lOOkmA \ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 / L ) { /lOOOkgj = t C 0 2 e (tonnes/ { /trip. tonne I tonnes/ 1 ' t o n n e GHG Emissions = ( 4 XQQ ) ( 8 5 X 2 - 8 5 4 ) = 0 0 0 5 5 t C 0 2 e / tonne (20)*1000 ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0055 tC02e/tonne 5. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : In 1998, approximately 335,000 litres was consumed by City operations (a small part of this also includes the composting equipment but cannot be differentiated) and 144,000 litres was consumed by a private contractor supplying cover materials. During this same time period, a total of 379,554 tonnes of waste was disposed at this site (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). GHG Emissions ^ Con.ump.ion. L ^ S S ^ 0 ^ ' t o n n ^ J ^ tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions _ (335,000 + 144,OOo)(2.854) _ t C O , e / tonne ~ (379,554) * 1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0036 tC02e/tonne 6. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r T r a n s p o r t to the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : No waste is transferred from the MRTS to the Bl in 1998. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 90 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : . . (FuelConsumption,L/nm ^Distance,km/2.854k8C0=^/Yl tonne/ \"j GHG Emissions _ \ VlOOkmA \ /L)\ /1000kg; _ (co,e/ ( % o ) ( 9 0 X 2 - 8 5 4 ) GHG Emissions = V/\QQKJ^^V = Q Q 0 5 g tCO,e / tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0058 tC02e/tonne W A S T E D E L I V E R E D T O T H E M A P L E R I D G E T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N Most of the waste dropped off at the MRTS in 1998 was subsequently transferred to the MTS. This majority was 83% of total waste. The remaining 17% was transferred to the CTS. Both the MTS and the CTS transferred;most of their waste to the CCLF. As the MTS is the most important pathway, it will be used as representative of waste disposed in the C C L F which originated at the MRTS. However, the hypothetical disposal of waste disposed at the V L F or the Bl will be assumed to have been transferred there from the MRTS. 7. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y T r a n s f e r S ta t i on E q u i p m e n t : Analysis of other transfer stations have allowed estimates for waste processing: North Shore Transfer Station = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 124 Coquitlam Transfer Station = 0.0025 tC02e/tonne Vancouver Transfer Station = 0.0009 tC02e/tonne Matsqui Transfer Station = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne An average of these four estimates will be used here for the MRTS. GHG Emission = 0.0015 tC02e/tonne 8. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r T r a n s p o r t to the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The majority of waste Waste originating in the District of Maple Ridge is processed at the MRTS and subsequently transported to the MTS. From the MTS, waste is disposed in the CCLF. Therefore, the transport from MRTS to MTS, processing at MTS and finally transport to the C C L F must be included here. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 60 km, the emission would be: (Fuel Consumption, ^ 0 Q k J(Distance,km^2.854kgCOy/^l tonne/ GHG Emissions = V H\"\"\". 7mkm^\u00E2\u0084\u00A2\u00C2\u00B0\u00C2\u00BB\".\"\"v^-\"- y L ^ /'1000 kgj _ t C a e / tonne ~ Ramies/. j \" ' ^ { m n e GHG Emissions = (%Q ) ( 6 0 X 2 - 8 5 4 ) = Q 0 0 3 9 tC03e\u00E2\u0080\u00A2/ tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0039 tC02e/tonne At the Matsqui Transfer Station approximately 33,280 litres of diesel fuel was consumed in 1998 for the processing of 75,850 tonnes of waste (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The resulting emission factor is: r-ur-c \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (Fuel Consumption, L)(2.854kgC0^%/Yltoniie/ ) GHG Emissions _ \ / L A /lOOOkgJ tCO,e/ tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions ^ (33,28oX2.854) _ Q Q Q [ 3 tCO,e/ tonne (75,580)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne Tractor trailers transport waste the approximate 300 km distance from the GVRD to the Cache Creek Landfill (GVRD 1993b). A recent GVRD report has estimated the GHG emissions associated with this transport (GVRD 1999b). The total diesel fuel used in 1997 (both ways) was 4,440,000 L; of which half was estimated to be the responsibility of the GVRD (woodchips are transported to the Lower Mainland on the return trip). In 1998, 2104 trips were taken from the Matsqui Transfer Station to the Cache Creek Landfill for the disposal of 73,169 tonnes of waste. Each tractor trailer trip consumes about 185 litres (one way) (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). Mass Hauled _ 73,169 tonnes _ ^ ^tonnes/ Trip ~ 2,104 trips ~ ' /'\"P \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E fFuelConsumption, W- )(2.i54ksC0^lUomK/n[.n. ) GHG Emissions _ I /tnpA / L A /1000 kgj _ tCO,e/ tonne _ { ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" \" % i p ) _ GHG Emissions _ (185X2.854) _ Q Q[/[ tCO,e/ tonne (34.8)* 1000 /tonne G H G Emission - 0.014 tC02e/tonne Total GHG Emission = 0.0039 + 0.0013 + 0.014 = 0.019 tC02e/tonne 125 9. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The diesel fuel combusted by equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill in 1998 was 812,499L. During this same time period, 474,873 tonnes of waste was disposed (Pers. comm. Louie DeVent). The average emission factor is: G H G Emissions _ (Fue! Consumption. L ( 2 . 8 5 4 K \u00C2\u00AB C 0 ^ J ' ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" % 0 0 J _ tonne (tonnes) /tonne G H G Emissions (812,499)(2.854) t C O , e / = 7 S = 0.0049 - / \u00E2\u0080\u009E , , \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E tonne (474,873) * 1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0049 tC02e/tonne 10. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : No waste was transferred from the MRTS to the V L F in 1998. This hypothetical emission factor is estimated by assuming 20 tonnes is hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 110 km (estimated from map). GHG Emissions (^.Consumption,^k>istance,km(2.854kgC0^ tonnft^ J tonne (tonnes/ ^ / l 0 n n e I /trip GHG Emissions ('XoO^11 \u00C2\u00B0X2-854) UUA = Q 0 Q 7 , tiaj2e/ tonne (20)*1000 /tonne G H G Emission = 0.0071 tC02e/tonne 11. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : In 1998, approximately 335,000 litres was consumed by City operations (a small part of this also includes the composting equipment but cannot be differentiated) and 144,000 litres was consumed by a private contractor supplying cover materials. During this same time period, a total of 379,554 tonnes of waste was disposed at this site (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). G H G Emissions ^ Consumption, L ( 2 . 8 5 4 K * C 0 ^ J ' ' o n n e ^ J tonne = t C O , e / (tonnes) ~ ' / t o n n e G H G Emissions (335,000 + 144,000)(2.854) tCO,e / = 7 x = 0.0036 - / , tonne (379,554) * 1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0036 tC02e/tonne 12. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t to the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : No waste is transferred from the MRTS to the Bl in 1998. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 75 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : GHG Emissions (F-1 Consumption, L(00k>istance,km)(2.854kgCO )^(l t\u00C2\u00B0\"%00kg) _ tonne ( tonnes/ { /\"-'P. GHG Emissions = (^OpA^X2-854) _ Q 00<|gtCQ,e/ tonne (20)*1000 /tonne G H G Emission = 0.0048 tC02e/tonne 'tonne 126 R E C Y C L I N G E Q U I P M E N T F o s s i l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at R e c y c l i n g F a c i l i t i e s : Electricity and fossil fuels are required by equipment at recycling facilities. The low greenhouse gas emission intensity for electricity in this province (because of the predominance of hydroelectric generation) allows the electricity to be ignored. However, propane is required by forklifts and 'bobcat-like' loaders at the recycling depot in Surrey operated by E T L Recycling Services. Data was obtained for this organization and will be used as to represent all recycling depots in the GVRD. In 1998, the E T L facility consumed 0.45L of propane per tonne of materials recycled (Pers. comm. Brian Carrow). Propane has a greenhouse gas emission factor of 1.53 kgC0 2 /L combusted (Env Can 1999). GHG Emissions _( 0.45 L propane Y 1.53kgCQ2 Y tonne ^_ 0 Q Q tCO,e/ tonne t^onne Recyclables L propane JljOOOkgJ /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0007 tC02e/tonne C E N T R A L I Z E D C O M P O S T I N G E Q U I P M E N T D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n b y E q u i p m e n t at C o m p o s t i n g F a c i l i t i e s : Data cannot be obtained for the diesel consumed by the composting equipment at either Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle or the composting facility at the Vancouver Landfill since this consumption cannot be separated from other equipment. As a result, the diesel consumed by composting equipment will have to be estimated from available literature. Franklin Associates, in a 1994 report, estimated that 221,000 BTUs of energy was required from diesel fuel in order to compost a short ton of yard trimmings and that this fuel results in a greenhouse gas emission of 0.0763 tC02e/million BTUs (Franklin Associates 1994; USEPA 1998). GHG Emissions _ f 221000BTU y 0.0763 tCQ2ey 1.102short ton\") _ tCO^y tonne Vshort ton Yard WasteX 106 BTU A metric tonne J ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.019 tC02e/tonne D I E S E L F U E L C O M B U S T I O N E M I S S I O N S There are three greenhouse gases (C0 2 , C H 4 and N 2 0) emitted during the combustion of diesel fuel. All three of these gases have different 100 year Global Warming Potentials which can be used to calculate the GHG emission in terms of carbon dioxide. Heavy duty diesel truck (moderate control) emits (Environment Canada 1997): 2,730 g of C 0 2 / L fuel 0.20 g of C H 4 / L fuel 0.40 g of N 2 0 / L fuel Global Warming Potentials (GWP) based on a 100 year Timeframe (IPCC 1995): GWP o f C 0 2 = 1 G W P o f C H 4 = 21 GWP ofN 2 O = 310 127 GHG Emissions = 8 C 0 2 / > G g y + g C H 4 / + g W gC0 2 L of Diesel Fuel / L c \u00C2\u00B0 z / L CH< / L N'\u00C2\u00B0 GHG Emissions = C 0 2 / ^ + Q2Qg C H V ^ + Q M g N20/ n Q = ^ g CO L of Diesel Fuel / L / L / L G H G Emission from Diesel Fuel Combustion = 2.854 kgCC^e/L 128 APPENDIX B: MUNICIPALITY CALCULATIONS This appendix presents all the diesel fuel consumption data necessary for waste transportation issues specific to each municipality. With this data, greenhouse gas emission factors are estimated. While the Waste Mass Estimates, described in Section 2.9, are also specific to municipalities, this is not presented here - it is provided in Worksheet #5 of the spreadsheet. The discussion in Section 2.9 is deemed to be sufficient to provide an understanding of those calculations. All of the data and calculations for the 20 municipalities' Waste Mass Estimates are provided in Appendix L - Spreadsheet Program. This also includes the estimates of the masses of different waste components which are disposed or recycled. It was necessary to estimate waste masses specific to individual municipalities because of the highly variable contribution of wastes from ICI sources which are independent of the residential population of that jurisdiction. It requires noting that this appendix (and as previously discussed, the entire report) assumes that waste from Anmore and Belcarra are essentially from the City of Port Moody and that waste from the Village of Lions Bay can be included with Electoral Area C. So as to facilitate the explanations and calculations in the following sections, a number of abbreviations have been employed. These are listed below: C C L F - Cache Creek Landfill V L F - Vancouver Landfill BI - Burnaby Incinerator NSTS - North Shore Transfer Station CTS - Coquitlam Transfer Station VTS - Vancouver Transfer Station LTS - Langley Transfer Station MTS - Matsqui Transfer Station MRTS - Maple Ridge Transfer Station FutLF - Future Landfill FutlNC - Future Incinerator When dealing with the curbside collection of waste, recyclables and yard trimmings at the various single and multi-family residential and ICI sources of the materials in the member municipalities, assumptions are necessary. No municipality was able to provide the fuel consumption data for ICI collection as it handled by multiple private contractors with confidential customer lists, but municipalities can easily obtain data for the single-family residential collection and can frequently gather multi-family data. As a result of these complexities, the easily obtainable single-family residential collection has been used as representative of all collections (except where specified). Substantial effort has been undertaken to collect the necessary information for each municipality, yet much of the data is unavailable. As a result, the data which was 129 successfully acquired will be used to fill in the gaps where the actual numbers do not exist. For curbside waste collection, data has been acquired from 5 municipalities. Three municipalities provided fuel data on the curbside collection of recyclables. Data for the separate curbside collection of yard trimmings has been obtained from four municipalities. This emission factors estimated for this collection along with the fuel consumption and total mass of material collected is presented in the table below. An average of these emission factors is used with the municipalities for which data is unavailable. C u r b s i d e C o l l e c t i o n o f W a s t e , R e c y c l a b l e s & Y a r d T r i m m i n g s GENERAL WASTE Emission Factor (tC02e/tonne) Diesel Fuel Consumption (L) Mass Collected (tonnes) City of Burnaby 0.019 156,000 23,098 Corporation of Delta 0.006 134,000 67,110 City of New Westminster 0.023 50,331 6,309 City of North Vancouver 0.011 16,257 4,175 City of Vancouver 0.012 316,000 76,000 Average = 0.014 RECYCLABLES City of Burnaby 0.045 134,000 8,437 City of New Westminster 0.052 24,604 1,344 City of Vancouver 0.031 190,000 17,500 Average = 0.043 YARD TRIMMINGS City of Burnaby 0.024 58,000 6,798 Corporation of Delta 0.030 23,075 2,227 City of North Vancouver 0.023 10,020 1,223 Average = 0.027 An extensive analysis of recycling issues is provided in Section 2.6 of this report. Many emission factors developed by the USEPA (1998) and discussed in Section 2.6 are being used in this thesis. As these emission factors already include a transportation component, /it is appropriate not to include the curbside collection of recyclables for the table above. * Even the recyclable materials which are not using the USEPA estimates, newsprint and office paper, curb-side collection is not included so as to allow recycling to remain zero from a GHG emissions perspective (See 2.6.1 and 2.6.2). While this curbside collection of recyclables is presented in the table above and displayed in the spreadsheet model it is not used and does not have any effect on emission estimates. The following sections, B . l through to B.20, are the calculations for the 20 municipalies investigated. 130 B.l CITY OF ABBOTSFORD In 1998, the City of Abbotsford generated 48,949 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the MTS (48,031 tonnes) and to the LTS (162 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis it is assumed that all of the waste was delivered to the MTS. Approximately half of the general waste and recyclables generated in Abbotsford are collected by municipal crews. Their data will be used for all of Abbotsford. There is no separate collection of yard trimmings in this municipality, only residential drop-off. The emissions from residents dropping off yard waste individually will not be considered here. Furthermore, yard trimmings are ground up and used as a soil amendment directly; they are not composted in the traditional manner (Pers. comm. Roger Farrant). 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne B.2 CITY OF BURNABY In the City of Bumaby, collected waste was delivered to 3 different locations in 1998, the B l (91,666 tonnes), the CTS (27,081 tonnes) and the NSTS (10,342 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). These waste flows complicate the modelling of this municipality. For example, waste disposed at the Bl could have been directly delivered their by collection vehicles, could have been transferred from the NSTS or could have been transferred from the CTS. Of the total 129,089 tonnes of waste disposed in 1998, 71% was delivered to the Bumaby Incinerator, 21% was delivered to the CTS (96% of which was transferred to the CCLF) and 8%> was delivered to the NSTS (51.5% of which was transferred to the Bl and 47.5% was transferred to the CCLF). The transportation differences between the CTS and the NSTS are of relatively minor importance. To simplify matters, it is assumed that waste going to a transfer station will be delivered only to the CTS. As a result, it can be assumed that 71% of waste was directly delivered to the Bumaby Incinerator, 15% of waste was delivered to the Bumaby Incinerator via the CTS and 14% of waste was disposed at the CCLF. The CTS can allow subsequent transfer to the CCLF, the V L F and the Bl. Due to the fact that the vast majority of disposed waste is directly delivered to the Bl, the emission factor for this transport will have to be corrected to include the portion requiring equipment processing and transfer. These calculations are performed in Worksheet #7 - City of Burnaby. The collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings (all separate) are handled by municipal crews. Recyclables are delivered to a recycling depot operated by Crown Packaging Limited and yard trimmings are delivered directly to Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle (Pers. comm. Lambert Chu). 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : In 1999, municipal crews collected 23,098 tonnes of waste from single and two familiy residences and consumed 156,000 litres in the process. Actual fuel consumption data 131 between January and April was unavailable, therefore the annual fuel consumption data was extrapolated based on the May to December period (Pers. comm. Lambert Chu). \u00E2\u0080\u009E , . . \u00E2\u0080\u009E . . (FuelConsumption, L ) f 2 . 8 5 4 k g C 0 ^ Y l t o n n / A n n l ] GHG Emissions _ * H ' \ /lOOOkgJ _ t c 0 2 e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (l 56,000X2.854) = Q Q ) 9 t C O , e / tonne (23,098)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.019 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : In 1999, municipal crews collected 8,437 tonnes of recyclables from single and multi-family curbside collection and consumed 134,000 litres in the process. Actual fuel consumption data between January and April was unavailable, therefore the annual fuel consumption data was extrapolated based on the May to December period (Pers. comm. Lambert Chu). (FuelConsum P t ion ,L (2 .854 k g C 0 ^]( l tonn ; / o o o k J ^ GHG Emissions tonne (tonnes) / t o n n e GHG Emissions = (l34,000)(2.854) = Q Q 4 5 t C 0 2 e / tonne (8,437)* 1000 /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.045 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : In 1999, municipal crews collected 6,798 tonnes of yard trimmings by curbside collection and consumed 58,000 litres in the process. Actual fuel consumption data between January and April was unavailable, therefore the annual fuel consumption data was extrapolated based on the May to December period (Pers. comm. Lambert Chu). GHG Emissions = (FuelConsumption, L ( 2 . 8 5 4 k g C 0 ^ ) ( ' t o n n ^ J ^ tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (58,000X2.854) = Q ^ tCO,e/ tonne (6,798)* 1000 ' /tonne G H G Emissions = 0.024 tC02e/tonne B.3 CITY OF COQUITLAM In the City of Coquitlam, 93,925 tonnes of waste was generated and delivered to the CTS in 1998 and 78 tonnes was directly delivered to the BI (GVRD 1999a). It is assumed in this study that all waste originating in the City of Coquitlam is processed at the CTS. All three separate collections of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings are performed by contract with Canadian Waste. The recyclables are delivered to Best Recycling for processing and the yard trimmings are directly delivered to Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle depot in Pitt Meadows for subsequent transportation to the Richmond composting facility (Pers. comm. Mike Iviney). 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 132 2. Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Yard Trimmings Collection: Average G H G Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne 4. Diesel Fuel Consumption for Yard Trimmings Transport to Fraser Richmond Biocycle: The transport of the yard trimmings from the Pitt Meadows depot to the Richmond composting facility is calculated below. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 60 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 , ^ r - \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (Fuel Consumption, 1 / ^Distance, km/2.854 k&C02e/Yl tonne/ \"] G H G Emissions _ ^ VlOOkmA \ / L \ / l O O O k g j _ tco,e/ tomli \" (tonnes/ ^ ~ \" / t 0 n n e V /trip. G H G Emissions = ( ^ O p A ^ X 2 8 5 4 ) _ Q 0 0 3 g t C Q , e / tonne (20)*1000 ' /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0039 tC02e/tonne B .4 C O R P O R A T I O N O F D E L T A In 1998, the Corporation of Delta generated 69,104 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the V L F (64,428 tonnes), the CTS (3,973 tonnes) and the VTS (703 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, since the relatively minor amount delivered to the VTS will subsequently be transferred to the V L F , it is assumed that all the waste from this municipality is directly delivered to the V L F (except for waste which goes to the CTS). When assessing the emissions for transferrring waste to the Bl it will have been assumed to have been directly delivered there and when assessing the emissions from disposing waste at the C C L F it will be assumed to have been transferred from the CTS. A private contractor provides the separate collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings in this municipality. Yard waste is directly delivered to the composting facility at the V L F (Pers. comm. Sharon Horsburgh). 1. Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: The private contractor employed on behalf of this municipality collected 67,110 tonnes of waste in 1999 and consumed 134,000 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Sharon Horsburgh). GHG Emissions (Fue lConsunpt 1 on ,L( 2 . 854 k g C 0 ^ ) ( 1 to\"%00kg) , . tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (l34,000)(2.854) = 0 Q 6 t C O 2 e / tonne ~ (67,110)*1000 ~ ' /tonne G H G Emissions = 0.006 tC02e/tonne 2. Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 133 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : The private contractor employed on behalf of this municipality collected 2,227 tonnes of yard trimmings in 1999 and consumed 23,075 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Sharon Horsburgh). G H G Emissions = ( F U e l C o n s U m p t i a 1 , L ( 2 . 8 5 4 1 < g C 0 ^ ) ( l ' \u00C2\u00B0 \" % 0 Q k g ) = ^ tonne (tonnes) G H G Emissions = (23,075X2.854) = 0 3 ( ) t C O , e / tonne (2,227)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.030 tC02e/tonne tonne B.5 CITY OF LANGLEY In the City of Langley, 13,995 tonnes of waste was generated and delivered to the CTS (10,025 tonnes), the MTS (3,460 tonnes) and the LTS (510 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). As most of the waste (72%) was delivered to the CTS, this is used as a proxy for all of the waste generated in the City of Langley. Canadian Waste is the private contractor that provides the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings in this municipality. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tCC^e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tCChe/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tCC^e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r Y a r d W a s t e T r a n s p o r t to C o m p o s t i n g F a c i l i t y : As the yard trimmings collected separately is directly delivered to one of the several GVRD approved composting facilities, this emission factor is umiecessary. On any given day, yard trimmings may or may not be deposited at Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle but is assumed to be for this research. B.6 TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY In the Township of Langley, 27,521 tonnes of waste was generated in 1998. This was delivered to the LTS (11,744 tonnes), the BI (5,961 tonnes), the CTS (5,501 tonnes) and the MTS (4,315) (GVRD 1993a). Most of the waste delivered to the LTS is transferred to the MTS for subsequent disposal in the CCLF (87% in 1998) and most of the waste delivered to the CTS is transferred for disposal at the CCLF). To simplify these flows, waste to be disposed at the CCLF will be assumed to be delivered to the LTS and transferred to the MTS. In addition, waste disposed at the V L F is assumed to be transferred there from the LTS and waste disposed at the BI is assumed to be directly 134 delivered there. Canadian Waste is the private contractor that provides the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings in this municipality. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tCC^e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne From the perspective of recycling, transport within this municipality would be very similar to the City of Langley. Please refer to Section B.5 for the remaining emission factors. B.7 DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE In 1998, the District of Maple Ridge generated 21,355 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the MRTS (12,177 tonnes), the CTS (8,308 tonnes) and the MTS (870 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). Similar to the LTS, most of the waste at the MRTS (83%) is transferred to MTS, and is ultimately sent to the CCLF. For this analysis, it is therefore assumed that waste disposed in the CCLF was processed at the MRTS and waste disposed at the V L F or combusted at the BI was processed at the CTS. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tCC^e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne B.8 CITY OF NEW WESTMINSTER In 1998, the City of New Westminster generated 28,018 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the BI (14,411 tonnes) and to the CTS (13,607 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it will be assumed that waste disposed at the CCLF or V L F was processed at the CTS and that all waste combusted at the BI was directly transported there by collection vehicles. In this municipality, general waste and recyclables are collected by municipal crews. There is no separate collection of yard trimmings, however residents can drop off this waste at depots. Yard waste is subsequently transported to the Fraser Richmond BioCycle composting facility in Richmond (Pers. comm. Ron Trewern). 135 1. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : In 1999, municipal crews collected 6,309 tonnes of waste from residences and consumed 50,331 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Ron Trewern). r-ur- c \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (Fuel Consumption, L | 2.854*cg<\"^2/{ ,, , , \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E , , GHG Emissions _ V ' L A /lOOOkgJ tC0 2 e / tonne (tonnes) ~ /tonne GHG Emissions ^ (50,331X2.854) _ tCO,e/ tonne (6,309)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.023 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : In 1999, municipal crews collected 1,344 tonnes of recyclables from residences and consumed 24,604 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Ron Trewern). (Fuel Consumption, L^2.854 k g C 02//Y> tonne/ tonne/ GHG Emissions = v ^ ~ v ^ ^ ^ /lOOOkgJ = t C O j e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (24,604X2.854) ^ Q Q 5 2 t C O , e / tonne (l ,344)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.052 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 40 km, the emission would be: GHG Emissions ( F u e , C \u00C2\u00B0 n s u m P \u00C2\u00AB ^ tonne (45/ )(40X2.854) 0.0026 [tonnes/ | I /trip) t C O , e / 'tonne tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0026 tC02e/tonne B.9 CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER In the City of North Vancouver, 10,037 tonnes of waste was generated and delivered to the NSTS in 1998. The only other drop off site for waste was the CTS with only 136 tonnes (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that all of the waste generated in this municipality is deposited at the NSTS. In this municipality, municipal crews provide the curbside collection of general waste and yard trimmings for ground-level residences and small apartments while private haulers provide the waste collection at the large apartment and commercial buildings. While there may be differences between single and multi-family dwellings from the perspective of fuel efficiency, this investigation only uses the data obtained from the municipal crews. Recyclables are collected by contract with International Paper Industries, which also provides the subsequent processing (Pers. comm. Brent Mahood). The separate curbside collection of yard trimmings only started in 1998, so the most recent available data, the calendar year of 1999, is used here. 136 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : The municipal crews of the City of North Vancouver collected 4,175 tonnes of waste at single-family residences in 1999 and consumed 16,257 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Brent Mahood). . . (Fuel Consumption, h{2.854 ksC0*e/Yl tome/nnny. ) GHG Emissions _ * H \ /LjV /1Q00 kgj _ , co , e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions = (l6.275X2.854) _ t C O , e / tonne ~ (4,175)* 1000 ~ ' . / t o n n e GHG Emissions = 0.011 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : The municipal crews of the City of North Vancouver collected 1,223 tonnes of yard waste at single-family residences in 1999 and consumed 10,020 litres in the process (Pers. comm. Brent Mahood). (Fuel Consumption, 1^2.854 k S C 0 ^ { J l t o n % 0 0 k J G H G Emissions = v r - \u00E2\u0080\u0094 /Ljy /loookg; = t C Q . y tonne (tonnes) /tonne G H G Emissions = (lO,020X2.854) ^ Q 0 2 3 t C O 7 e / tonne (l ,223)* 1000 ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.023 tC02e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a one-way distance of 20 Ion (the trucks return to the NSTS with finished compost (Pers. comm. Steve Aujla) and therefore the return trip is not be included under waste management), the emission would be : GHG Emissions (F^IConsumption, ^ 0 0 k > i s , a n c e , k m ( 2 . 8 5 4 k ^ C 0 ^ ) ( l t o n n e ^ ^ ^ J tonne ( , o n n e s / > / t o n n e I /trip. GHG Emissions = (4Xoo)(20)(2-854) = n 0 0 , 3 t C O , e / tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0013 tC02e/tonne B.10 DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER In the District of North Vancouver, 73,521 tonnes of waste was generated and delivered to the NSTS in 1997. The only other drop-off location was the CTS with 379 tonnes (GVRD 1999a). It is assumed in this analysis that all of the waste generated in this municipality is delivered to the NSTS. In this municipality, municipal crews collect general waste and yard trimmings from all the residences (Pers. comm. Daryl Mielty). Recyclables are collected by contract with International Paper Industries, which also provides the subsequent processing. 137 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne From the perspective of recycling, transport within this municipality would be very similar to the City of North Vancouver. Please refer to Section B.9 for the remaining emission factors. B . l l DISTRICT OF PITT MEADOWS In 1998, the District of Pitt Meadows generated 3,821 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the CTS (3,595 tonnes), the MRTS (209 tonnes) and the MTS (17 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that all waste originating in this municipality is processed at the CTS. In this municipality, the private contractor, Canadian Waste provides the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings. Recyclables are delivered to Wastech in Coquitlam and yard trimmings are dropped off at the Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle depot in Pitt Meadows for subsequent transport to the Richmond composting facility (Pers. comm. Greg Cross). 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : The transport of the yard trimmings from the Pitt Meadows depot to the Richmond composting facility is calculated below. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 60 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : ^ . . ^ r - \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ( F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n , L / \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E , ^Distance, k m / 2 . % 5 4 k & C O - e / Y ] tonne/nnnv\u00E2\u0080\u009E1 G H G Emissions _ \ V l O O k m A \ / L ; \ / 1 0 0 0 k g ; _ t co,e / tonne \" (tonnes/ ) ~ \"/tonne I /fip) (45/^60X2.854) _ , n t C 0 , e / - = 0.00391 tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0039 tC02e/tonne 138 B.12 CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM In 1998, the City of Port Coquitlam generated a total of 17,895 tonnes of waste of which 100% was delivered to the CTS (GVRD 1999a). 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tCC^e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tCC^e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tCC^e/tonne From the perspective of recycling, transport within this municipality would be very similar to the City of Coquitlam. Please refer to Section B.3 for the remaining emission factors. B.13 CITY OF PORT MOODY In 1998, the City of Port Moody generated 5,670 tonnes of waste and all of this was delivered to the CTS (GVRD 1999a). As previously discussed, waste generated in Anmore or Belcarra is to be assumed as having originated in the City of Port Moody. In the GVRD's Solid Waste Flow Model for 1998 (GVRD 1999a), this is already assumed as the waste from Anmore & Belcarra is zero (Pers. comm.. Mike Stringer). Canadian Waste is the private contractor which provides the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings. Recyclables are delivered to Wastech Services in Coquitlam and the yard trimmings are delivered to the Fraser Richmond BioCycle depot in Pitt Meadows for subsequent transport to the Richmond composting facility. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.043 tCC^e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tCC^e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : The transport of the yard trimmings from the Pitt Meadows depot to the Richmond composting facility is calculated below. By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 60 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : 139 (Fuel Consumption, L^0 Q k m)(Distance,km/2.854 K G C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / ^ Y ' tonnV GHG Emissions = V \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \" ' \" H \" \" \" . / l O O k m A \" 1 \" - 1 \" ' - v ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 / L ^ /lOOOkgJ tCO,e tonne f tonnes/ { /trip f \u00C2\u00AB / V60)(2.854) t C Q e / = 0.0039 \" - U : V tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0039 tC02e/tonne B.14 CITY OF RICHMOND In 1998, the City of Richmond generated 64,364 tonnes of waste; most of which was delivered to the VTS (43,609 tonnes), however, waste was also delivered to the V L F (7,508 tonnes), the BI (7,280 tonnes) and the CTS (5,967 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that waste disposed in the V L F was processed through the VTS, that waste combusted at the BI was delivered directly there and that waste disposed at the C C L F was processed through the CTS. Yard waste is assumed to be directly delivered to Fraser Richmond Biocycle. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tCChe/tonne 2. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.043 tCC^e/tonne 3. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tCChe/tonne B.15 CITY OF SURREY In 1998, the City of Surrey generated 126,130 tonnes of waste which was delivered to the CTS (96,881 tonnes), the BI (21,286 tonnes), the V L F (7,471 tonnes) and the MTS (492 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that all waste generated in this municipality was processed through the CTS. Also, the curbside collection of waste will deliver to the CTS. Canadian Waste is the private contractor which handles the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings (Pers. comm. Richard Woo). Recyclables are delivered to the recycling depot operated by E T L Recycling Services. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.043 tCC^e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tCC^e/tonne 140 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : By assuming 20 tonnes hauled per trip, a diesel fuel consumption of 45.0L per 100km and a round-trip distance of 60 km (estimated from map), the emission would be : r . , , ^ r - \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (FuelConsumption,L/\u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E, ^Distance, km/2.854 ^ ^ / Y 1 T O N L L / N N N , ) GHG Emissions _ v K VlOOkmA \ / L A /lOOOkgJ _ tfjO,e/ toi^i ~ (tonnes/ ^ ~ 'tonne I /trip (45/.0)(40)(2.854) t C 0 , e / = 0.0026' tonne (20)*1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0026 tC02e/tonne B.16 CITY OF VANCOUVER In 1998, the City of Vancouver generated 346,991 tonnes of waste which was collected and delivered to the VTS (225,740 tonnes), to the NSTS (83,761 tonnes), to the CTS (22,374 tonnes) and directly delivered to the V L F (8,899 tonnes) and the BI (6,217 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). As 100% of the waste delivered to the VTS is transferred to the V L F , the small amount delivered directly to the V L F is insignificant and is assumed to have been transferred through the VTS. As approximately half of the waste delivered to the NSTS is transferred to the BI and the other half is transferred to the C C L F , and since the 83,761 tonnes at the NSTS is much greater than either the tonnage going to the CTS or BI, it is assumed that waste disposed in the CCLF or combusted at the BI was processed at the NSTS. In this municipality, city crews provide the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings for ground-level (single family) residences while private contractors provide collection of general waste and recyclable at apartment (multi-family) residences and commercial buildings. Canadian Waste, the largest private hauler, collected nearly as much waste in 1998 (72,900 tonnes) as the city crews did (76,000 tonnes) (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). As a result, data from this organization was also obtained for comparison. However, as a simplification, only the data for ground-level residences will used in the greenhouse gas estimates. The collected recyclables were delivered to a recycling depot in south Vancouver operated by Browning Ferris Industries. A separate collection of yard waste was recently been initiated in this municipality. Currently, yard waste is collected and delivered to the VTS for subsequent transport to the composting facility at the VLF. 1. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : In 1998, the city crews collected 76,000 tonnes of waste from ground level (single-family) residences and delivered it to the VTS. During this activity approximately 316,000 litres of diesel fuel was consumed (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). . . (Fuel Consumption, L ) f 2 . 8 5 4 k s C O : / Y l t o \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 e / \u00E2\u0080\u009E n n . ) GHG Emissions _ * H \ / L A / ' 0 0 0 k g ; _ tCO,e / tonne (tonnes) /tonne GHG Emissions _ (316,000X2.854) _ 0 0 | 2 tCQ,e / tonne ~ (76,000)* 1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.012 tC02e/tonne 141 2. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : The collection of recyclables from single-family residences (blue boxes) is perfonned by municipal crews. In the collection of 17,500 tonnes of recyclables in 1998, approximately 190,000 litres of diesel fuel was consumed (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). The average emission is calculated below: GHG Emissions = (F\u00C2\u00BBelConsumption. L ( 2 . 8 5 4 ^ C 0 ^ ] ( l t o n n ^ k J ^ tonne (tonnes) ' tonne GHG Emissions _ (l90,000X2.854) _ 0 Q 2 l tCO,e/ tonne ~ (l 7,500)* 1000 ~ ' /tonne GHG Emissions = 0.031 tCC^e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.027 tCC^e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to the V a n c o u v e r C o m p o s t i n g F a c i l i t y : Approximately 12,500 tractor-trailer trips were required to transport 271,431 tonnes of waste and 16,500 tonnes of yard trimmings from the VTS to the V L F . This necessitated the consumption of 334,000 litres of diesel fuel (Pers. comm. Kevin Van Vliet). Mass Hauled _ 271,431 tonnes _ ^ ^ tonnes/ Trip ~ 12,500 trips ~ ' /'\"P Fuel Consumption 334,000 tonnes = 26.7 L / Trip 12,500 trips ' /'\"P r.\u00E2\u0080\u009Er.r- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 fFuel Consumption, ^ . Y2 .854 k \u00C2\u00AB C 0 ^Yltonn^ n n n . 1 GHG Emissions _ ^ v / tnpj^ /lOOOkgj _ ,co,e/ tonne (tonnes/ \ \ /'rip) ' tonne GHG Emissions = (26.7X2.854) = Q Q m t CO,e/ tonne (23.0)* 1000 /tonne GHG Emission = 0.0033 tC02e/tonne B.17 DISTRICT OF WEST V A N C O U V E R In the District of West Vancouver, 15,733 tonnes of waste was generated and delivered to the NSTS in 1998 (GVRD 1999a). This is 100% of the waste stream collected that year. International Paper Industries (IPI) is the private contractor which provides the curbside collection of general waste, recyclables and yard trimmings. Recyclables are delivered to the recycling depot near the North Shore Transfer Station which is operated by IPI. Yard trimmings are delivered to the Green Waste Processing Yard at the North Shore Transfer Station for subsequent transport to the Richmond composting facility of Fraser Richmond Bio-Cycle. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tCOae/tonne 2. D iese l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : 142 Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne From the perspective of recycling, transport within this municipality would be very similar to the City of North Vancouver. Please refer to Section B.9 for the remaining emission factors. B.18 CITY OF WHITE ROCK In 1998, the City of White Rock generated 8,964 tonnes of waste which was collected and delivered to the V L F (8,635 tonnes), to the CTS (287 tonnes), and to the VTS (42 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that waste disposed in the V L F was delivered directly there, while waste to the CCLF or the Bl was first processed at the CTS. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne B.19 ELECTORAL AREA A (U.B.C. & U.E.L.) In 1998, Electoral A generated 3,349 tonnes of waste which was collected and delivered to the VTS (3,283 tonnes) and the V L F (66 tonnes) (GVRD 1999a). For this analysis, it is assumed that all waste generated will be processed through the VTS. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average G H G Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne 4. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r Y a r d T r i m m i n g s T r a n s p o r t to F r a s e r R i c h m o n d B i o c y c l e : B.20 ELECTORAL AREA C (BOWEN ISLAND & HOWE SOUND) In the 1998, Electoral C generated 1,266 tonnes of waste which was collected and delivered to the NSTS (GVRD 1999a). Th fuel consumption of the ferries associated with crossing Howe Sound is not included in this analysis. As previously discussed, 143 waste generated from the Village of Lions Bay is to be assumed as originating from Electoral Area C. In 1998, only a total of 23 tonnes of waste came from Lions Bay to the NSTS (GVRD 1999a). Obviously much of the generated waste is being managed outside of the GVRD and will not be subject to any analysis. 1. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l a b l e s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3. D i e s e l F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n fo r C u r b s i d e Y a r d T r i m m i n g s C o l l e c t i o n : Average GHG Emission = 0.027 tC02e/tonne From the perspective of recycling, transport within this municipality would be very similar to the City of North Vancouver. Please refer to Section B.9 for the remaining emission factors. 144 APPENDIX C: NEWSPRINT WASTE MANAGEMENT This appendix provides all the data and calculations to estimate emission factors for the landfilling, incineration or recycling of newsprint generated in the GVRD. The first three sections are devoted to the GHG implications of the Cache Creek Landfill (1-3). The next three sections assess the same implications for the Vancouver Landfill (4-6). Sections 7 and 8, assess the energy generation and GHG emissions from the Burnaby Incinerator. The last two sections of this appendix, 9 and 10, analyze the G H G ramifications of newsprint recycling. 1. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s of the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : As discussed in Section 2.4, a time-dependant model is used to estimate emissions for the next 20 years. In this model, calculations are used to estimate the future methane emissions from the anaerobic decomposition of disposed newsprint. These calculations estimate the emission for a 20 year period between 1999 and 2018 for waste deposited in the year 1998. As this estimate is strictly limited to these years, and anaerobic decomposition could continue after this period, the actual or total emissions could be greater. At the end of 20 years, the organic-carbon previously deposited in the landfill will have either been emitted as C H 4 , emitted as C O 2 , entered long-term storage or not yet decomposed. The Carbon Storage Factors estimated by Barlaz (and discussed in Section 2.4) are used here and revised to determine the fraction sequestered and the fraction of Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition. However, the decay rate will determine how much of the C A A D (carbon not being sequestered) will actually be decomposed during the 20 year time period. As a result, carbon not yet degraded, but not entering storage, will remain at the end of the time period. The Scholl Canyon Decay Model (EMCON Associates 1980) is recommended by the IPCC (IPCC 1997), and is also used by Environment Canada (1997), for estimating methane emission at landfills. The first order equation for this model is: where: Gj = methane generation rate from waste placed in the i 1 year k = methane generation first order rate constant (year\"1) L 0 = methane generation potential (tCH/tonne waste) Mj = mass of waste placed in the i\"1 year (tonnes) tj = age of the i t h section (years) This research uses this model to estimate landfill methane emissions. The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.04 y\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. Also of great importance with respect to methane generation, is what fraction of landfill gas escapes collection systems and is emitted to the atmosphere. Personal 145 communication with Wastech Services (Pers. comm.. Louie DeVent) has informed this author that 2.1 million m of CH4 gas was collected in 1998 and flared without any energy utilization. However, the GVRD has modelled that 4,931,000 m 3 of CH4 was generated in this same year (GVRD 1999b). While this generation estimate is by no means certain, when dividing the L F G collection by the L F G generation a landfill gas collection efficiency of 43% can be approximated. While this may be the current situation, it is likely that with the strong federal and provincial interest in stricter landfill gas regulations this efficiency will probably increase in the future. Not only will the collection efficiency be greater but the current flaring could adapt to allow for energy utilization. If utilization occurred, the consumption of landfill gas would be a replacement of fossil-based natural gas; thereby resulting in a GHG benefit. As a result of the potential for increasing regulations to improve landfill gas collection systems, this model will slowly ramp up, year after year, not only the collection efficiency but also the proportion utilized for energy (to replace fossil energy). The energy generation benefits of landfill methane derive from the assumption that they are the C O 2 prevented by the replacement of natural gas. By utilizing landfill gas for energy generation, the consumption of fossil fuel and a GHG emission is prevented. Lastly, there is also the potential for microorganisms in the cover material of the landfill to cause the oxidation of C H 4 to C O 2 . Research conducted in the U.S. has observed this factor to oxidize about 10%> of the methane which had escaped collection (Czepiel et al. 1996). This is the oxidation factor to be used for methane gas which bypassed collection systems. The calculations for landfill methane emissions and energy generation follow - starting with the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD): Estimated Methane Yield from Newsprint in reactors = 74.2 ml/dry gram (USEPA 1998) Assumed Carbon Dioxide Yield from newsprint = 74.2 ml/dry gram Molar gas constant=22.4 L/mol at standard temperature and pressure Typical Moisture Content of Newsprint = 6% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) 74.2 m l / MolesofCH 4 = 7 8\u00E2\u0084\u00A2m = 0.0033mo/C7/\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22,400m l/ , ' /mol 74.2 m l / MolesofCO, = /gram = Q 0 0 3 3 / \u00E2\u0080\u009E o / c o 22,400'\"/ , /mol TotalMolesofC = 0.0033 + 0.0033 = 0.0066\u00C2\u00BB;o/C CarbonAvailableforAnaerobicDecomposition = 0.0066mo/C * 12 Yinol = 0-0795gC / drygram CAAD(dry) = 0.0795gC I drygram = 0.0795/C / drytonne CAAD(wet) = 0.0795 * (1 - 0.06) = 0.075gC / wetgram = 0.075/C / weltonne 146 Carbon Content of Dry Newsprint = 49.1% (Barlaz 1998) RevisedCarbonStorageFactor = InitialCarbon - CAAD = gC Idry gram Re visedCarbonStorageFactor = 0.491 - 0.0795 = 0.41 gC I drygram b /drygram /drygram \u00C2\u00B0 RevisedCarbonStorageFactor = 0.4\gC I drygram = 0.4 k C / dry tonne This 0.075 tC per wet tonne of newsprint is available for anaerobic decomposition and will be assumed to be evenly split between C H 4 and C O 2 . Remember that since any C O 2 is neutral, it does not have to be considered further. / , tr/ V \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 /MolecularMassofCH. 1 tCH / Methane Generations ICarbon To Decompose l V \ i 7 I Methane Fraction I = %\u00E2\u0080\u009E . T V y /WetTonneA \ MolecularMassofC J /WetTonne MethaneGeneration = (0.075X0.5^j = 0.050l , t C H \u00E2\u0080\u009E / WefTonne Methane Generation Potential = 0.050 tCH4/tonne of food waste The calculations below demonstrate the estimate of the methane emissions for the year 1999 and the year 2010 for one tonne of newsprint deposited in the year 1998. The year 1999 is assumed as the first year, year zero, of decomposition. Y E A R 2001 Solving for the Methane Generation Rate (Gj): methane generation first order rate constant (k) = 0.04 year\"1 methane generation potential (L0) = 0.050 tCH4/tonne waste mass of waste placed in the i t h year (Mj) = 1 tonne age of the i t h section (tj) = 1999-1999 = 0 year G, = kL0Mpk'' G, = (omyyryfomOtCHy^onn^(\tonne)\u00C2\u00BB e{~0M/>r}M = 0 0 Q 1 9 9 t C H y y j , Solving for the Atmospheric Methane Emission: methane generation rate = 0.00199 tCH4/yr percentage oxidation by cover material = 10% percentage landfill gas flared = 43% percentage landfill gas for energy = 0% Methane Emission = (GenerationXl - %Flared - %Energy\\ - OxidationXGWP of C H 4 ) = t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / ^ o n n e Methane Emission = (O.OO 199^ - 0.43 - oXl - 0.10X21) = 0.0215 t C 0 2 e / tonne Solving for the Energy Generation: percentage landfill gas for energy = 0% GHG Benefit of Energy Generation = (CH 4 GenerationX%Energy)^ GHG Benefit of Energy Generation = (0.00199X0^ j = \u00C2\u00B0 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / t o n n e 147 Molecular Mass of C 0 2 ^ Molecular Mass of C H 4 tC0 2e/ tonne Y E A R 2010 Solving for the Methane Generation Rate (Gj): methane generation first order rate constant (k) = 0.04 year\"1 methane generation potential (L0) = 0.050 tCH4/tonne waste mass of waste placed in the i t h year (Mj) = 1 tonne age of the i\"1 section (tj) = 2010 -1999 = 11 year G, = kLgM^' G, = (0 .04^) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ( 0 . 0 5 / C W j / w J \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 {Uonne). = 0.00128 t C H/ y r Solving for the Atmospheric Methane Emission: methane generation rate = 0.00128 tCH 4/yr percentage oxidation by cover material = 10% percentage landfill gas flared = 25% percentage landfill gas for energy = 50% Methane Emission = (GenerationXl - %Flared - % EnergyXl - OxidationXGWP of CH 4) = t C 0 , e 2 \ tonne Methane Emission = (0.00128^ - 0.25 - 0.50Xl - 0.10X21) = 0.0061 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / Solving for the Energy Generation: percentage landfill gas for energy = 50% tonne GHG Benefit of Energy Generation = (CH 4 GenerationX%Energy] ' Molecular Mass of C 0 2 A Molecular Mass of C H 4 j tC0 2e/ tonne GHG Benefit of Energy Generation = (0 .00128Xo .50^j = 0.0019 tC02e/ tonne 148 Using these calculations, the model is presented below: B E S T - G U E S S : Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric G H G Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Y E A R Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (tCH 4/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tC0 2e/yr) (tCO ze/yr) 1998 - - - - - -1999 0.00199 10 43 0 0.0215 0.0000 2000 0.00191 10 50 0 0.0181 0.0000 2001 0.00184 10 50 10 0.0139 0.0005 2002 0.00177 10 50 15 0.0117 0.0007 2003 0.00170 10 45 20 0.0112 0.0009 2004 0.00163 10 40 25 0.0108 0.0011 2005 0.00157 10 35 35 0.0089 0.0015 2006 0.00151 10 30 40 0.0085 0.0017 2007 0.00145 10 25 50 0.0068 0.0020 2008 0.00139 10 25 50 0.0066 0.0019 2009 0.00134 10 20 55 0.0063 0.0020 2010 0.00128 10 20 55 0.0061 0.0019 2011 0.00123 10 15 60 0.0058 0.0020 2012 0.00118 10 15 60 0.0056 0.0020 2013 0.00114 10 10 65 0.0054 0.0020 2014 0.00109 10 10 65 0.0052 0.0020 2015 0.00105 10 5 70 0.0050 0.0020 2016 0.00101 10 5 70 0.0048 0.0019 2017 0.00097 10 0 75 0.0046 0.0020 2018 0.00093 10 0 75 0.0044 0.0019 TOTAL = 0.02799 0.171 0.030 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.171 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization^ -0.030 tC0 2 e/tonne For the 20 year period between 1999 and 2018, it is estimated that 0.028 tCH4/tonne would be generated. This represents 56% of the ultimate potential of 0.050 tCH4/tonne, the C A A D . This generation corresponds to, minus the collection and oxidation, an emission of 0.171 tC02e/tonne. Furthermore an energy benefit, via the replacement of fossil energy, of 0.030 tC02e/tonne would be realized. The calculations above are based on best-guess data. However, the first-order decay rate constant, the L F G collection for flaring or energy utilization and the oxidation by landfill cover materials are all uncertain. Rather than simply providing just best-guess estimates, high and low estimates are calculated to demonstrate a likely range for future methane 149 emissions. These estimates are developed by increasing and decreasing the important parameters involved in calculations above. The high estimate uses a first-order decay rate constant that is increased by 50% while the L F G collection for flaring and energy utilization is decreased to an appropriate level deemed by this author. The oxidation by landfill cover materials is also decreased by 50%. The low estimate uses a first-order decay rate constant that is decreased by 50% with the collection effectiveness increased appropriately. The oxidation by cover materials is also increased by 50% in the low estimate. These calculations presented in Worksheet 26 and the results are below. Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.171 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.030 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.079 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.020 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.321 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.007 tC0 2 e/tonne 2. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on in the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Since not all of the cellulose and hemicellulose and only a negligible portion of the lignin from newsprint is expected to anaerobically degrade in a landfill, organic-carbon will remain in long-term storage in the landfill. In this capacity, the organic-carbon, which was originally atmospheric C O 2 but was photosynthesized into biomass, will be sequestered. As a result, organic-carbon can perform a GHG benefit, a negative GHG emission. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. The Carbon Storage Factors, as determined by Barlaz (1998), and also discussed in Eleazer et al. (1997), are used here as representative of long-term storage in the CCLF. These experiments determined that the long-term carbon storage of newsprint in landfills is 0.42 kg C per kg of dry newsprint. The researchers observed that 31% of the cellulose and hemicellulose fraction and only a negligible portion of lignin decomposed. However, these factors were developed with laboratory research of idealized landfill decomposition conditions and are thus highly conservative. As a result, the actual storage in the C C L F could be greater than is indicated by these experiments. While there is great potential for uncertainty with this estimate, it is likely that the uncertainty would be skewed towards a greater value. By using this conservative estimate, the risk of overestimating this factor is probably minimal. For these reasons, only the best-guess estimate will be used in this analysis. In Section #1 of the Appendix a revised Carbon Storage Factor was developed to attempt to correct inconsistencies in the previous estimates by Barlaz. The new estimate is as follows: Revised Carbon Storage Factor for newsprint = 0.41 tC/dry tonne newsprint Typical Moisture Content of Newsprint = 6% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) 150 Carbon Sequestration = [ i C / D r y n e w s p r j n t ]0 - Moisture Content)| t ] t C 0 2 e / 44gC02 !2gC/ tonne Carbon Sequestration = (0.4 l)(l-0.06)|j|j = 1.41 / t o n n e Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Newsprint = -1.41 tC02e/tonne 3. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l As the nitrogen content of newsprint is negligible (<0.1% in Tchobanoglous (1993)), the potential for nitrous oxide emissions can be ignored. 4. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y Imp l i ca t i ons o f the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The only significant difference between this section and Section 1, Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill, is the estimated landfill gas collection efficiency and the first order decay rate constant. While at Cache Creek the current collection efficiency is estimated to be 43%, the current collection efficiency at the Vancouver Landfill is estimated to only be 22% (Pers. comm. Chris Underwood). However, engineers with the City of Vancouver are currently in the process of upgrading the collection equipment. As with the CCLF assessment, the collection efficiency is assumed to increase year after year in response to improving regulations. In this study, the first order decay rate constant used for the V L F in this report, 0.05 yr\"1, is assumed based on the discussion in Section 2.4 - Landfdl Carbon Sequestration. Based on these changes, the model is provided below: B E S T - G U E S S : Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric G H G Benef Methane C o v e r of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Y E A R Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (tCHVyr) (%) (%) (%) (tC0 2e/yr) (tC0 2e/yr) 1998 - - - - - -1999 0.00249 10 22 0 0.0367 0.0000 2000 0.00237 10 30 0 0.0313 0.0000 2001 0.00225 10 35 10 0.0234 0.0006 2002 0.00214 10 40 15 0.0182 0.0009 2003 0.00204 10 45 20 0.0135 0.0011 2004 0.00194 10 40 25 0.0128 0.0013 2005 0.00185 10 30 40 0.0105 0.0020 2006 0.00176 10 30 40 0.0100 0.0019 2007 0.00167 10 25 50 0.0079 0.0023 2008 0.00159 10 25 50 0.0075 0.0022 2009 0.00151 10 20 55 0.0071 0.0023 2010 0.00144 10 20 55 0.0068 0.0022 151 2011 0.00137 10 15 60 0.0065 0.0023 2012 0.00130 10 15 60 0.0061 0.0021 2013 0.00124 10 10 65 0.0058 0.0022 2014 0.00118 10 10 65 0.0056 0.0021 2015 0.00112 10 5 70 0.0053 0.0022 2016 0.00106 10 5 70 0.0050 0.0020 2017 0.00101 10 0 75 0.0048 0.0021 2018 0.00096 10 0 75 0.0046 0.0020 TOTAL = 0.032 0.229 0.034 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.229 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.034 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.107 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.023 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.408 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.007 tC0 2 e/tonne 5. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on i n the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The Revised Carbon Storage Factors is used here as representative of long-term storage in the V L F . Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Newsprint = -1.41 tC02e/tonne 6. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l As the nitrogen content of newsprint is negligible (<0.1% in Tchobanoglous (1993)), the potential for nitrous oxide emissions can be ignored. 7. E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n at the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : At the Bumaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998 to generate 816,916 tonnes of steam (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Of this steam produced, 56% was exported to Crown Packaging Ltd. - Paper Mill Division (CPL) for utilization in the pulping of corrugated cardboard into various recycled paper products (the remainder is used internally or condensed for disposal) (Pers. comm. John MacDowell). This steam, when utilized by CPL, offsets the combustion of natural gas which would otherwise be necessary. Of the remaining steam, a small portion is used internally for heating purposes at the Incinerator and the vast majority is condensed for disposal. There is currently no electricity generation at the Incinerator. For these calculations, it is assumed that 40% of the steam is used for electricity generation and the remaining 4% is used internally at the Incinerator. The calculations below determine the greenhouse gas implications of current energy generation at the Burnaby Incinerator and the potential for electricity generation in the future. 152 One of the most important parameters at a waste-to-energy facility like the Burnaby Incinerator, is the energy efficiency; what percentage of the energy embodied in the combusted waste is represented in the generated steam? This critical parameter is a valuable indication of the effectiveness of the facility in generating energy. After construction in 1988, the boiler efficiency was measured at 71%, but initial test runs this year have indicated that it may have decreased to 69% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter). This is still higher than the typical thermal efficiency reported in literature of 63% for a mass-fired incinerator-boiler (Tchobanoglous 1993). Furthermore, improvements to the boiler will be made in the future to increase this efficiency to between 75 and 77% when a planned turbo generator is installed for electricity generation. For this research, it is assumed that Incinerator currently has a boiler efficiency of 70% (conversion of waste energy to steam energy). The proposed turbo generator at the incinerator, together with improvements to current steam generation, will have a steam to electricity conversion efficiency of 32%> (Pers. comm. Ron Richter; it has been calculated by consultants that 24MW could result from the incinerator using all of its steam for electricity generation). To calculate an overall efficiency of waste energy to electrical energy, the two efficiencies, 70% for waste-to-steam and 32% for steam-to-electricity, can be multiplied. This results in an overall efficiency of 23% - slightly greater than the 18% efficiency recently assumed in an EPA analysis (USEPA 1998). This is logical considering that the EPA assumption is an average of the old low-efficiency and modern high efficiency waste-to-energy plants in the U.S. In order to determine the amount of GHG emissions prevented by this operation the energy produced by combustion in an Incinerator-Boiler to make steam must be determined (1). Next, the emission factor for natural gas that would otherwise be combusted to make steam is necessary (2). These results must then be multiplied to calculate the GHG emissions prevented per tonne of waste by the utilization of steam by CPL (3). In addition, the energy produced by the Incinerator which is used to make electricity needs to be calculated (4) and the emission factor for electricity production in British Columbia needs to be determined (5). Multiplying these two results will find the GHG benefit of replacing electrical generation by the provincial utility, B.C. Hydro (6). Both (3) and (6) are summed to calculate a total GHG emission prevention (7). These calculations are below: Net Energy Content of Newsprint = 7,950 BTU/lb = 18,435 kJ/kg (USEPA 1998) (7,950 BTU/lb* 1.054 kJ/BTU*2.20 lb/kg = 18,435 kJ/kg) (wet basis, correction for latent heat of water in this reference is assumed but not directly specified) From another source (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993): Gross Energy Content of Newsprint = 7,975 BTU/lb = 18,492 kJ/kg (wet basis) Typical Moisture Content of Newsprint =6% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Latent Heat of Water=2473 kJ/kg (Incropera and DeWitt 1990) Net Energy Content = [Gross Energy] - [Latent Heat of Vaporization] Net Energy Content = 18,492 k J , kg 2473 18,344*4 kg 153 An average of these two values will used as the estimate for the net energy content. \"18,435 + 18,344\" . 2 _ Best-Guess Estimate of the Net Energy Content of Newsprint = 18.4 GJ/tonne Net Energy Content = = 18,390k J/ = 18 .4 G j / / k g /tonne Steam Energy produced by the combustion of newsprint in an Incinerator-Boiler (1): Assumed Boiler Efficiency = 70% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Fraction of Steam Utilized by CPL = 56% (Montenay Inc. 1999) Utilized Energy = energy . E f f | c j e n c y ) , ( E n e r g y U t J H z a t i o n ) = k J / tonne Newsprint tonne ' t o n n e U t i H z e d E n e r g y = * (0.70) * (0.56) = 7.21 G J / tonne Newsprint tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Steam Energy per tonne of newsprint, (1) = 7.21 GJ/tonne Emission factor for natural gas that would otherwise be combusted by CPL (2): Typical Efficiency of Natural Gas Combustion to generate Steam = 80% (Fryling 1966) CO2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997a) Typical Energy of Natural Gas = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) (Energy=1020 BTU/ft 3 * 1.054 kJ/BTU * 35.2 ft3/m3 = 37,843 kJ/m3) Emission FactorforNaturalGas = j k g C O , / V tonnes /m'J Ij 000kg J _ t C O , e / ( N a t u r a l G a s k ^ / 3 ) \u00C2\u00BB (Efficiency)' k g C O , / V I tonnes GJ Y /GJ 10* kJ Emission Factor for Natural Gas = -/ r \u00E2\u0080\u0094v^^^Sy _ 0.062 ' ^ 2 < / , . (37843^/ J . ( o . r - r C J ^ J O \" kJ Emission Factor for Natural Gas, (2) = 0.062 tC02e/GJ G H G emission prevented per tonne of newsprint (3): G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized E n e r g y ( . . t C O , e / ^ tCO,e - ' * Emission Factor tor Natural Gas, - ' ' -tonne newsprint ^ tonne Newsprint) V / G J j /tonne G H G Emission Prevented U^QW Uo^' 0 0 ^/ , ] = 0.4477 t C 0 ^ e / tonne newsprint V /tonne/ ^ / G . I J /tonne GHG Emission Prevented from Natural Gas, (3) = 0.447 tC02e/tonne Electricity produced by the combustion of newsprint in an Incinerator-Boiler (4): Assumed Turbo Generator Efficiency = 32%0 (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Steam Fraction for Electricity Generation = 40% (assumed as discussed) UtiHzedEnergy = energy # ( B o i l e r E f f i c ) , ( r M r i o G e w e r a t o r ) , ( E n e r g y U t f l i z a t i o n ) = kJ/ tonne Newsprint tonne ' l o n n e Utilized Energy = l ^ G J . { q j q ) + ^ , { q a q ) ^ tonne Newsprint tonne 7 I o n n e Utilized Electrical Energy per tonne of newsprint, (4) = 1.65 GJ/tonne Emission factor for electricity that would otherwise be generated by B.C. Hydro (5): While electricity generation in British Columbia is predominantly from hydroelectric facilities, there are several thermal generation stations. The GHG emission intensity for 154 electricity production in this province, 30 tC0 2e/GWh (BC Hydro 1998), is a fraction of the Canadian average for fossil fuel electricity generation, 960 tC02e/GWh (Environment Canada 1997a). Of considerable note is that the emission intensity for the natural gas power plant, Burrard Thermal, is significantly higher than this BC average also. Burrard Thermal emits 530 tC02e/GWh (BC Hydro 1998), and if the Incinerator can replace this marginal electricity production, the GHG benefit would be much greater. Discussion with a representative of B.C. Hydro has informed this author that any new electricity generation would likely be replacing low-efficiency natural gas generation either at Burrard Thermal or in Washington state (Pers. comm. John Duffy). Thus the emission factor for Burrard Thermal is appropriate for use in these calculations. Burrard Thermal emission intensity = 530 tC0 2e/GWh = 0.147 tC0 2e/GJ [530 tC0 2e/GWh * (1/3600 GWh/GJ)=0.147 tC02e/GJ] Emission Factor for Electricity Generation, (5) = 0.147 tC02e/GJ Electrical GHG emission prevented per tonne of newsprint: (6) G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized Energy ^ ( . . n . t t C O , e / M t C O , e / = * Emission Factor tor Electricity, ~/ci\= \u00E2\u0080\u00A2/.,.\u00E2\u0080\u009E,.. tonne newsprint ^ tonne Newsprint J V /vi) /tonne G H G Emission Prevented = (, 6 5 G j / ) . f 0 .147 t C O = e / ,] = 0.243 l C 0 = e / tonne newsprint V /tonne/ ^ / G J J /tonne G H G Emission Prevented from Electricity, (6) = 0.243 tC02e/tonne Total GHG Emissions Prevented, (7) = 0.447 + 0.243 = -0.69 tC02e/tonne 8. G H G E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n at the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : At the Bumaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998. This process required the consumption of 7,516 GJ of natural gas, 16,011 MWh of electricity, and 3,369 tonnes of lime (CaO) and 295 tonnes of ammonia ( N H 3 ) for acid gas control (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Greenhouse gas emissions result from municipal solid waste incineration. This includes emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during incineration, the consumption of natural gas and electricity, and the consumption of lime for acid gas control (the production of lime from limestone results in C O 2 emissions). Since newsprint is biomass carbon and is therefore carbon-neutral, the C O 2 emissions can be ignored here. Environment Canada estimates that while a small methane emission is measurable during wastewater sewage sludge incineration there is negligible methane emissions during MSW incineration (Environment Canada 1999). That will also be assumed for this investigation. To begin, the emissions resulting from natural gas and electricity consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. C O 2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997) Typical Energy of Natural Gas = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) (Energy=1020 BTU/ft 3 * 1.054 kJ/BTU * 35.2 ft3/m3 = 37,843 kJ/m3) 155 G H G Emissions from Natural Gas = (Annual Energy Consumption, GJ) V / m ) (JOOOkgJ _ tCO,e / (AnnualWasteCombustecl . tonnes)( r s [ a t u r a iQ a s kl/ )* ' ^ V 7m-1 in 6 GJ \") / tonne 10\" kJ J] 8 S k g C O : / V tonnes r u f , c . . , M f , \u00E2\u0080\u009E (7519GJ) 1' / m ' J ^lOOOkgJ \u00E2\u0080\u009E n m . t C O , e / G H G Emissions from Natural Gas = \u00E2\u0080\u0094 5 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 r \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ; . , \\u00E2\u0080\u0094. y = 0.0015 : / (247075 tonnes) 3 7 8 4 3 k J / U - ^ - l . / l 0 , l n e \ 7 m 1 ( j0 r 'kj j GHG Emission from Natural Gas Consumption = 0.0015 tC02e/tonne Discussion with a representative of B.C. Hydro has informed this author that since the Burnaby Incinerator has been drawing load since the late 1980's it can be assumed to use the provincial average for electricity generation. In other words, the Burnaby Incinerator does not have to be assumed as using marginal electricity generation - it is an established user. Therefore, this analysis will assumse the B.C. average for electricity generation. BC Hydro emission intensity = 30 tC0 2e/GWh = 0.00833 tC0 2e/GJ [30 tC0 2e/GWh * (1/3600 GWh/GJ)=0.00833 tC02e/GJ] (Annual Electricity Consumption, GWh) * f B C HydroGHG A v e r a g e , 1 0 0 ? ' / / G W h ) (CO e / G H G Emissions from Electricity = -. c = : / (Annual Waste Combusted, tonnes) ' tonne ( l 6 . 0 G W h ) * f 3 0 t C ( M / / G W h ) t C O e / G H G Emissions from Electricity = -. ^ r 1 = 0.0019 1 - V (247075 tonnes) /tonne G H G Emission from BC Hydro electricity consumption = 0.0019 tC02e/tonne Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) is used at the Incinerator during air pollution control to neutralize acid gases which are produced during the combustion of waste. While the consumption of lime at the incinerator does not result in GHG emissions, the production of this material by the lime calcination process does result in emissions. In the production of lime, limestone (CaCCh) is heated so that it separates to CaO and C 0 2 . In addition to the fossil fuel energy required to perform this reaction there is the non-energy related GHG emission from the liberalization of the unwanted carbon dioxide gas. Environment Canada (1997) has estimated that 0.790 kg of C 0 2 is emitted during the production of each kg of lime. It is assumed that the incineration of food waste equally requires the use of lime for the neutralization of acid gases as any other waste. Therefore: GHG Emission from CaO Production = 0.790 tC02e/tonne CaO GHG Emissions from Lime = (0.790 t C C V r J * 3,369 tonnes of CaO = Q Q U tC02/ V /tonne CaO; 247,075 tonnes of waste /tonne GHG Emission from lime consumption at Incinerator=0.011 tC02e/tonne As a result of the combustion of waste, C 0 2 emissions occur. As the waste being investigated here is biogenic in origin (and thus considered \"neutral\") the C 0 2 emissions need not be considered. Nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of newsprint can result in one of the five following pathways. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the N 2 gas in air to N 2 0 during combustion (Immediate emis.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the nitrogen in waste to N 2 0 (Immediate emission) 156 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the ammonia injected in the flue gases (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 O conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (Future emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 O conversion of N H 3 injected but unreacted (Future emission) Each of these five pathways are evaluated in the following calculations. Unfortunately, the current lack of understanding in these issues result in much uncertainty associated with the following estimates. An extensive discussion of the issue is provided Section 2.5.5.3. The first two potential sources of nitrous oxide emissions result from the potential for the nitrogen in waste or the N2 gas in air to thermal convert to N 2 0 during incineration. There is limited and highly variable research of the N 2 O emissions resulting from municipal solid waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates being used are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IPCC Compilation (de Soete 1993) 11-293 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada Inventory (1997) 160 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA National Inventory (1999) 30 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA MSW Analysis (1998) 130 gN20/tonne of waste Research in the fluidized bed combustion of coal has determined that N 2 O emissions originate mainly from the oxidation of fuel nitrogen (Moritomi 1994), and since coal combustion is similar to that of waste incineration, it can be inferred that N 2 O emissions during incineration are likely a factor of the nitrogen content. This hypothesis is reinforced by one study (Tanikawa et al. 1995), and the observation that the incineration of high nitrogen content wastewater sludge produces much higher N 2 0 emission rates than MSW incinerators (Tanaka et al. 1994). Since newsprint has a negligible nitrogen content (<0.1%), this study will assume that the incineration of newsprint does not have to account for any of the nitrous oxide emissions measured during MSW incineration. However, there is still the possibility of alternative pathways for N 2 O emissions. The incineration of newsprint needs to take responsibility for the N 2 O emissions resulting from acid gas (NOx) control. As the nitrogen oxide releases can be from molecular nitrogen in the air, office paper incineration can contribute to this emission. This study assumes that the emissions from acid gas control should be evenly distributed across the mass of waste combusted. At the Burnaby Incinerator, 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) was used during the combustion of 247,075 tonnes of waste in 1998 to reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the lack of any available research on the propensity for injected ammonia to thermally convert to N 2 O , this study will assume the same conversion rate exhibited by the waste-nitrogen upon incineration. (See Appendix I #8) Therefore, approximately 1.7% of injected ammonia, and ranging between 0.3 and 3.1%, will be estimated to convert to nitrous oxide. Fraction of Injected-Ammonia emitted as N 2 O =1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Annual consumption of ammonia (1998) = 295 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes 157 ( N H , Injected, tonnes) f MgN, N , 0 from N H , Injection = -'mp l 1 7 g N H v 'mol . (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 1

=? Steam Fraction for Electricity Generation = 40% (assumed as discussed) UtilizedEnergy = energy + E f f i c ) + ( T u r b o G e n e m t o r ) * ( E utilization) = W tonne HDPE tonne /tonne UtilizedEnergy = 43JGJ , ( y ( ) # ( j = Gy tonneHDPE tonne V ' V ' V ' / t o n n e Utilized Electrical Energy per tonne of HDPE, (4) = 3.88 GJ/tonne Electrical G H G emission prevented per tonne of HDPE: (6) GHG Emission Prevented (Utilized Energy\f . . - , c 1 . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u009E tCO,e / ^ tCO\u00E2\u0080\u009Ee/ - ' '*! Emission pactorfor Electricity, \"/GJ I= / t tonneHDPE ( tonneHDPEr J V GHG Emission Prevented = / Qy U 4 J tC0 2 e / \ = t C O : e / tonneHDPE V /tonne/ ^ /G3J /tonne GHG Emission Prevented from Electricity, (6) = 0.57 tCC^e/tonne Total GHG Emissions Prevented, (7) = 1.05 + 0.57 = -1.62 tC02e/tonne 2. G H G E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n : At the Burnaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998. This process required the consumption of 7,516 GJ of natural gas, 16,011 MWh of electricity, and 3,369 tonnes of lime (CaO) and 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) for acid gas control (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Greenhouse gas emissions result from municipal solid waste incineration. This includes emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during incineration, the consumption of natural gas and electricity, and the consumption of lime for acid gas control (the production of lime from limestone results in CO2 emissions). Since newsprint is biomass carbon and is therefore carbon-neutral, the CO2 emissions can be ignored here. Environment Canada estimates that while a small methane emission is measurable during wastewater sewage sludge incineration there is negligible methane emissions during MSW incineration (Environment Canada 1999). That will also be assumed for this investigation. In the combustion of HDPE, the greatest GHG emission is associated with the fossil carbon emissions, of carbon dioxide. These are calculated first: The fossil carbon content of HDPE has been assumed to be 83% in one recent report (USEPA 1998). This is the mass of carbon divided by the total mass of the plastic. In a draft report available on the internet, USEPA (2000), the fossil carbon content was assumed to be 86%. This research will assume the fossil carbon content of HDPE as 85%o of the total mass of the plastic. Fossil carbon content of HDPE = 85% C 0 2 Emissions from HDPE combustion = (o.85 *Q/ (\u00C2\u00ABsC0'/\u00E2\u0080\u009EJ I, ' ^ /mol 3]2tC02e/ /tonne 'tonneHDPE G H G Emission of fossil-carbon from HDPE combustion = 3.12 tC02e/tonne The emissions resulting from natural gas and electricity consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. 168 Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) is used at the Incinerator during air pollution control to neutralize acid gases which are produced during the combustion of waste. While the consumption of lime at the incinerator does not result in GHG emissions, the production of this material by the lime calcination process does result in emissions. In the production of lime, limestone ( C a C 0 3 ) is heated so that it separates to CaO and CO2. In addition to the fossil fuel energy required to perform this reaction there is the non-energy related GHG emission from the liberalization of the unwanted carbon dioxide gas. Environment Canada (1997) has estimated that 0.790 kg of CO2 is emitted during the production of each kg of lime. It is assumed that the incineration of HDPE equally requires the use of lime for the neutralization of acid gases as any other waste. Therefore: GHG Emission from CaO Production = 0.790 tC02e/tonne CaO GHG Emissions from Lime = f0 .790 t C C V p J * 3,369 tonnes of CaO = Q m {tC02/ { /tonne CaO j 247,075 tonnes of waste / t o n m GHG Emission from lime consumption at Incinerator=0.011 tC02e/tomie Nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of HDPE can result in one of the five following pathways. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the N2 gas in air to N2O during combustion (Immediate emis.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the nitrogen in food waste to N 2 0 (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the ammonia injected in the flue gases (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N2O conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (Future emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 0 conversion of N H 3 injected but unreacted (Future emission) Each of these five pathways are evaluated in the following calculations. Unfortunately, the current lack of understanding in these issues result in much uncertainty associated with the following estimates. An extensive discussion of the issue is provided Section 2.5.5.3. The first two potential sources of nitrous oxide emissions result from the potential for the nitrogen in waste or the N2 gas in air to thermal convert to N2O during incineration. There is limited and highly variable research of the N 2 0 emissions resulting from municipal solid waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates being used are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IPCC Compilation (de Soete 1993) 11-293 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada Inventory (1997) 160 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA National Inventory (1999) 30 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA MSW Analysis (1998) 130 gN20/tonne of waste Research in the fluidized bed combustion of coal has determined that N2O emissions originate mainly from the oxidation of fuel nitrogen (Moritomi 1994), and since coal combustion is similar to that of waste incineration, it can be inferred that N2O emissions during incineration are likely a factor of the nitrogen content. This hypothesis is reinforced by one study (Tanikawa et al. 1995), and the observation that the incineration of high nitrogen content wastewater sludge produces much higher N 2 0 emission rates than MSW incinerators (Tanaka et al. 1994). Since polyethylene has a negligible nitrogen content (<0.1% on a dry weight basis (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993), this study 169 will assume that the incineration of HDPE does not have to account for any of the nitrous oxide emissions measured during MSW incineration. However, there is still the possibility of alternative pathways for N 2 0 emissions. The incineration of HDPE needs to take responsibility for the N 2 0 emissions resulting from acid gas (NOx) control. As the nitrogen oxide releases can be from molecular nitrogen in the air, HDPE incineration can contribute to this emission. This study assumes that the emissions from acid gas control should be evenly distributed across the mass of waste combusted. At the Bumaby Incinerator, 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) was used during the combustion of 247,075 tonnes of waste in 1998 to reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the lack of any available research on the propensity for injected ammonia to thermally convert to N 2 0 , this study will assume the same conversion rate exhibited by the waste-nitrogen upon incineration. (See Appendix I #8) Therefore, approximately 1.7% of injected ammonia will be estimated to convert to nitrous oxide (only the best-guess estimate is used here as the emission is greatly dominated by the fossil-carbon content). Fraction of Injected-Ammonia emitted as N 2 0 = 1.7% Annual consumption of ammonia (1998) = 295 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ( N H , Injected, tonnes 1 4 g N / / n i o 1 1 7 g N H v N , 0 from N H , Injection = -. ^ / m o l ; \u00E2\u0080\u009E ( N Q C o n v e r s i o n | (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 4 4 ^ \u00C2\u00B0 / / m o l , R g N , 0 - N 2 8 \" / m o U (GWP of N , 0 ) = t C ( M tonne (\A\ (2951 - , . N , 0 from N H , Injection = Q 7 ^ * ( \u00C2\u00B0 - \u00C2\u00B0 1 J ( 3 ' 0) = 0.0081 1 tonne N 2 0 Emission resulting from N H 3 Injection = 0.0081 (0.0014 - 0.015) tC02e/tonne In addition to the potential for injected NH3 to thermally convert to N 2 0 , there can also be the future denitrification of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases released. It has been estimated that 10-30% of waste-nitrogen is converted to NOx (NO + N0 2 ) during combustion (White et al. 1995). This report will evenly distribute NOx emissions across the total mass of waste incinerated even though HDPE has a negligible nitrogen content. Nitrogen oxides are short lived in the atmosphere as they are quickly rained out in the form of nitrate (NO3\") or nitric acid (HNO3). Thus the deposition as NO3\" will eventually require denitrification to N 2 , resulting in potential leakage of N 2 0 . The IPCC provides guidelines for these emissions and estimates that 1% of emitted NH3-N or NOx-N will be converted to N 2 0 . This value is used to develop this emission factor (only the best-guess estimate is used here as the emission is greatly dominated by the fossil-carbon content). In addition to the potential for the microbial conversion of nitrogen oxide to nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides are suspected to be indirect greenhouse gases for another reason -they deplete the tropospheric concentration of the OH radical, which would otherwise react and destroy CH4 (Mackenzie 1995). Thus NOx causes C H 4 to be a stronger GHG. (As it is too early for any methodology on this issue, it will have to be ignored in this report.) At the Bumaby Incinerator it is estimated that 449 tonnes of NOx was emitted in 1998 (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee). Nitric oxide (NO) is predominantly the nitrogen 170 oxide formed during incineration (Robinson 1986), and is assumed in the calculations below. Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of N O x = 1% N 2 0-N/NOx-N Annual NOx emission (1998) = 449 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ' 14^ / ( N O x Emission, tonnes! N , 0 Emission from N O x =-'mol 30 gNO, 'mol J (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 14N * ( N , 0 Conversion) 44 g N : 0 / ' m o l 28 \u00C2\u00BBN\u00E2\u0080\u009E0 - N , mol ( G W P o f N 2 0 ) ; tCO N , 0 Emission from N O x (449 tonne Future N 2 0 from NOx emission= 0.004 tC02e/tonne The last potential N 2 0 emission from waste incineration could occur when ammonia is injected into the flue gas but is emitted to the atmosphere, the so-called \"ammonia slip\". The ammonia will undergo wet or dry deposition to soils downwind where it can nitrify and denitrify. Communication with the GVRD (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee) has learned that ammonia slip is virtually negligible at the Incinerator largely because only the minimum amount is injected into the flue gas. As a result, the potential for ammonia slip to result in nitrous oxide emissions can be neglected in this study. Total GHG Emissions = C 0 2 + N 2 0 + Natural Gas + Electricity + Lime = tC02e/tonne Total Emissions =3.14 tC02e/tonne 3. G H G E m i s s i o n s o f R e c y c l e d H D P E U t i l i z a t i o n The assumption discussed in Section 2.6.5 - High-Density Polyethylene is that a GHG benefit of 1.7 tC02e/tonne exists with the recycling of HDPE. GHG Benefit of Recycled HDPE Utilization = 1.7 tC02e/tonne 171 APPENDIX H: LOW-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE MANAGEMENT Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is a plastic manufactured from petroleum products. Therefore, LDPE is an organic material which contains fossil-carbon; contrary to paper, food or yard waste which are organic materials but contain atmospheric carbon that was fixed by photosynthesis. Low-density polyethylene does not biodegrade therefore it cannot contribute to landfill methane emissions. The only emission factors required with the landfill disposal of LDPE are associated with transportation and processing and are thus not included here. Plastics, being organic, are readily combustible during incineration and generate significant amounts of energy. Importantly, the carbon dioxide emissions from plastics must be treated differently than the neutral carbon dioxide emissions from paper, food or yard trimmings as plastics contain fossil-carbon and any combustion results in greenhouse gas emissions. As LDPE exhibits all the same material properties as HDPE from the perspective of G H G emissions, the emission factors are identical for waste incineration. Only the GHG ramifications of LDPE recycling are provided in this Appendix. 1. G H G E m i s s i o n s o f R e c y c l e d L D P E U t i l i z a t i o n The assumption discussed in Section 2.6.6 - Low-Density Polyethylene is that a GHG benefit of 2.25 tC02e/tonne exists with the recycling of HDPE. GHG Benefit of Recycled HDPE Utilization = 2.25 tC02e/tonne 172 APPENDIXI: FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT This appendix only provides the data and calculations specific to estimating the emission factors for the landfilling, incineration or composting of food waste generated in the GVRD. For complete sample calculations, refer to Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management. The first three sections are devoted to the GHG implications of the Cache Creek Landfill (1-3). The next three sections assess the same implications for the Vancouver Landfill (4-6). Sections 7 and 8, assess the energy generation and GHG emissions from the Bumaby Incinerator. The last three sections of this appendix, 9 through 11, analyze the GHG ramifications of the backyard or centralized composting of food waste. Food waste in this thesis is treated as a single entity yet it is a highly heterogeneous mixture of fruits, vegetables, meats, fats, breads and other components. While all this mixture can be landfilled or incinerated it needs to be recognized that composting does not typically manage meats and fats due to the rodent problems which result. This is a limitation of this research. 1. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y Imp l i ca t i ons o f the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : The calculations for landfill methane emissions and energy generation follow - starting with the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD). However, as discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration, this C A A D is calculated from the CSF published by Barlaz (1998) and is not revised as the others are. The C A A D for food waste is the difference of the initial carbon content minus the fraction which is assumed to enter long-term storage. Typical Carbon Content of Dry Food Waste = 48.0% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Typical Moisture Content of Food Waste = 70% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Carbon Storage Factor (CSF) = 0.08 kg C/dry kg (Barlaz 1998) = 0.08*(l-MC)=0.08*(l-0.70)=0.024 kg C/fresh kg Carbon AvailableTo Decompose = ( l W e t T o n n /^/etTonne[^ ~ Moisture Content) D r y T o n n ^ e t T o n n e Carbon AvailableTo Decompose= (l|(l - 0.70)](0.48)- 0.024 = \u00C2\u00B0 - 1 2 o t % / e t T o n n e This 0.120 tC per wet tonne of food waste is available for anaerobic decomposition and will be assumed to be evenly split between C H 4 and C O 2 . Remember that since any C O 2 is neutral, it does not have to be considered further. \u00E2\u0080\u009E, , \u00E2\u0080\u009E / , \u00E2\u0080\u009E, ^ t r v V- , r, /Molecular MassofCH. ) tCH / Methane Generation = ICarbon To Decompose lV\i; t - r (Methane Fraction A = ^ V v /WetTonneA \ Molecular MassofC J /WetTonne Methane Generation = (0.120)(0.5^j|j = \u00C2\u00B0 - 0 8 0 t C H / ' W e t T o n r i e Methane Generation Potential = 0.080 tCH4/tonne of food waste The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.07 y\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. I CarbonContentM a s s% M I /DryMass 173 The model in Worksheet #32, estimates that for the 20 year period between 1999 and 2018, 0.050 tCH^tonne would be generated. This represents 77% of the ultimate potential of 0.064 tCHVtonne. This generation corresponds to, minus the collection and oxidation, an emission of 0.320 tCC^e/tonne. Furthermore an energy benefit, via the replacement of fossil energy, of 0.049 tCC^e/tonne was realized. Estimates are as follows: Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.320 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.049 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.162 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.037 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.547 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.009 tCQ 2e/tonne 2. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on i n the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Since not all of the cellulose and hemicellulose and only a negligible portion of the lignin from food waste is expected to anaerobically degrade in a landfill, organic-carbon will remain in long-term storage in the landfill. In this capacity, the organic-carbon, which was originally atmospheric C O 2 but was photosynthesized into biomass, will be sequestered. As a result, organic-carbon can perform a GHG benefit, a negative GHG emission. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. The Carbon Storage Factors, as determined by Barlaz (1998), and also discussed in Eleazer et al. (1997), are used here as representative of long-term storage in the CCLF. These researchers observed that food waste, with a measured lignin concentration of 11.4%, exhibited an 84% decomposition of the cellulose, hemicellulose and protein fraction but only a negligible breakdown of the lignin. These experiments determined that the long-term carbon storage of food waste in landfills is 0.08 tC/tonne of dry food waste. However, these factors were developed with laboratory research of idealized landfill decomposition conditions and are thus highly conservative. As a result, the actual storage in the C C L F could be greater than is indicated by these experiments. While there is great potential for uncertainty with this estimate, it is likely that the uncertainty would be skewed towards a greater value. By using this conservative estimate, the risk of overestimating this factor is probably minimal. For these reasons, only the best-guess estimate will be used in this analysis. In Section #1 of the Appendix a revised Carbon Storage Factor was developed to attempt to correct inconsistencies in the previous estimates by Barlaz. The new estimate is as follows: Revised Carbon Storage Factor for food waste = 0.19 tC/dry tonne Typical Moisture Content of Food Waste = 70% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) 174 Carbon Sequestration = Dry Food Waste j(l - Moisture Content) 44gC02 mol 12gC/ tCO,e/ tonne Carbon Sequestration = (0.19Xl - \u00C2\u00B0 - 7 0 ^ J ^ j = 0 : 2 0 9 mol j tCO,e/ tonne Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Food Waste = -0.209 tC02e/tonne 3. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 O E m i s s i o n s f r o m the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l The organic-nitrogen in food waste is predominantly anthropogenic in origin - almost all of the nitrogen was derived from synthetic fertilizers or the human-induced cultivation of legumes which perform biological nitrogen fixation. When disposed in landfills, most of the food waste undergoes anaerobic decomposition to C O 2 and C H 4 and at this point the organic-nitrogen is transformed to ammonia (NH3) or ammonium (NH 4 ). When in this form, the nitrogen is free to undergo nitrification and denitrification to be leached by water percolating through the fill or to be volatilized and vented with the landfill gas. However, as a result of the anaerobic conditions (specifically the lack of electron acceptors), there is likely very little opportunity for nitrification to occur and thus very little opportunity for denitrification or nitrous oxide emissions to occur. Therefore, nitrous oxide emissions from solubilized ammonia in the landfill leachate or volatilized ammonia in the landfill gas. An extensive discussion of this issue is provided in Section 2.5.5.1. It is assumed in this analysis that the anaerobic conditions present in landfills do not present the opportunity for ammonia compounds to nitrify to nitrate (this also prevents any denitrification). As a result, there is no potential for immediate nitrous oxide emissions at the landfill site. It is also assumed that all of the nitrogen contained in food waste which decomposes will eventually be solubilized and exit the landfill as leachate or vented gas. (This may be an overestimate due to the potential for Nitrogen Sequestration - discussed in Section 2.5.5.1) Since this leachate will be transferred to a wastewater treatment plant and the vented landfill gas is the emission of reactive nitrogen to the atmosphere, the IPCC estimates for these potential N 2 O sources are appropriate here. Therefore N 2 0 emissions estimated from nitrogen in food waste will be future emissions at the treatment plant managing the landfill leachate or the subsequent nitrification and denitrification of wet or dry deposited ammonia or nitrogen oxide gas. As a result of the uncertainty associated with the IPCC estimate, the high and low estimates provided by the IPCC will also be used here. While not all food waste will anaerobically decompose, the lignin fraction will resist decomposition, it will be assumed that the nitrogen is predominantly from the protein fraction of food waste and thus all nitrogen will be available for solubilization. There is no appreciable leachate at the Cache Creek Landfill due to the dry climatic conditions. Any leachate which is collected is spread on the active face to return the leachate back to the fill (Pers. comm.. Louie DeVent). As a result, it is assumed that ammonia only exits the landfill in the vented gas. Best-Guess Estimate of the N 2 O from vented nitrogen = 1.0% N20/emitted N H 3 or NOx 175 Low Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen = 0.2% N20/emitted N H 3 or N O x High Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen = 2.0% N20/emitted N H 3 or NOx Typical moisture content of food waste = 70% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen content of dry food waste = 2.6% N (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste = ^Dry N Contentkg ^ g d r y food j(l - MoistureConteni) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste = (0.026Xl - 0.70) = 0.0078 = 0.8%7V (GWPof N 2 0 ) I V I 4 4 g N 2 \u00C2\u00B0 / N , 0 Emission = Mass tonne/ V N ContentYN,0 Conversion 1 ^ /XMO.1 2 V /tonneA A 2 1 2 g g N 2 0 - N / /mo\) N 2 0 Emtssion = (itonn^/ ^ . O O S X o . O l ^ l O ) = O.OSS1 / t Q n n e Immediate & Future N 2 0 Emissions = 0.038 (0.008-0.076) tC02e/tonne 4. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s of the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The only significant difference between this section and Section 1, Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill, is the estimated landfill gas collection efficiency and the first order decay rate constant. While at Cache Creek the current collection efficiency is estimated to be 43%), the current collection efficiency at the Vancouver Landfill is estimated to only be 22% (Pers. comm. Chris Underwood). However, engineers with the City of Vancouver are currently in the process of upgrading the collection equipment. As with the C C L F assessment, the collection efficiency is assumed to increase year after year in response to improving regulations. The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.08 yr\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. From Worksheet #32: Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.404 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization^ -0.050 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.203 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.040 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.665 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.008 tC0 2 e/tonne 5. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on i n the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The Revised Carbon Storage Factors is used here as representative of long-term storage in the V L F . Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Food Waste = -0.209 tC02e/tonne 176 6. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The potential for nitrous oxide emissions at the Vancouver Landfill differ from the Cache Creek Landfill in that they are assumed to result from the solubilized ammonia in the leachate instead of the volatilized ammonia gas. It is assumed that all of the nitrogen contained in food waste which decomposes will eventually be solubilized and exit the landfill as leachate. (This may be an overestimate due to the potential for Nitrogen Sequestration - discussed in Section 2.5.5.1) The calculations for this emission are below: .Best-Guess Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 1.0% N20/influent-N Low Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 0.2% N2CV influent-N High Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 2.0% N 2 0 / influent-N Typical moisture content of food waste = 70% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen content of dry food waste = 2.6%o N (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste =^Dry N Contentkg / k g dry food)^ ~~ MoistureConteni) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste = (0.026)(l - 0.70) = 0.0078 = 0.8%// N 2 0 Emission = (ivlass t o n n /{onnJ N Content)(N,0 Conversion] N 0 - N I 28 2 m o l GWPof N2C>) 'moV N 2 0 Emtssion = J(0.008)(0.0l(g)(310) = 0.039 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 % , n n e Total Immediate & Future N 2 0 Emissions = 0.039 (0.008-0.078) tC02e/tonne 7. E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n at the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : Net Energy Content of Food Waste = 2,370 BTU/lb = 5,496 kJ/kg (USEPA 1998) (2,370 BTU/lb* 1.054 kJ/BTU*2.20 lb/kg = 5,496 kJ/kg) (wet basis, correction for latent heat of water in this reference is assumed but not directly specified) From another source (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993): Gross Energy Content of Food Waste = 1,797 BTU/lb = 4,167 kJ/kg (wet basis) Typical Moisture Content of Food Waste = 10% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Latent Heat of Water=2473 kJ/kg (Incropera and DeWitt 1990) Net Energy Content = [Gross Energy] - [Latent Heat of Vaporization] Net Energy Content = 4,167 kJ7 'kg. 2473% r )o.70) A = 2,436 kJ/ 'kg Because of the variation between these values, the average will be used as the best-guess estimate while the high and low estimates will be the high and low values respectively. NetEnergyContent= 5 4 9 6 + 2 4 3 6 = 3,966%g = 4.oG# o n n e Best-Guess Estimate of the Net Energy Content of Food Waste = 4.0 GJ/tonne Low Estimate of the Net Energy Content of Food Waste = 2.4 GJ/tonne High Estimate of the Net Energy Content of Food Waste = 5.5 GJ/tonne 177 Steam Energy produced by the combustion of food waste in an Incinerator-Boiler (1): Assumed Boiler Efficiency = 70% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Fraction of Steam Utilized by CPL = 56% (Montenay Inc. 1999) Utilized Energy _ energy ^ ^ j n e r m a | Efficiency)* (Energy Utilization) = M/ tonne Food Waste tonne ' t o n n e UtiHzedEnergy = ( 0 J 0 ) , ( 0. 5 6) = , . 5 7 G J / tonne Food Waste tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Steam Energy per tonne of food waste, (1) = 1.57 (0.94-2.16) GJ/tonne GHG emission prevented per tonne of food waste (3): G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized Energy ) ( . . t C O , e / \"i t C O , e / = \u00E2\u0080\u0094 * Emission Factor for Natural Gas, = / - , . = y . tonne food waste /tonne Newsprint) \ /yjjj /tonne G H G Emission Prevented = / Qy \J Q M 2 t C \u00C2\u00B0 V ,1 = 0.097 T C 0= E/ tonne food waste V /tonne/ ^ / G J J /tonne GHG Emission Prevented from Natural Gas, (3) = 0.097 (0.058-0.134) tC02e/tonne Electricity produced by the combustion of food waste in an Incinerator-Boiler (4): Assumed Turbo Generator Efficiency = 32% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Steam Fraction for Electricity Generation = 40% (assumed as discussed) UtiHzedEnergy = energy , ( B o i l e r E f f i c ) , ( r u r b o G e n e m t o r y ( E n e r g y utilization) = W tonne Food Waste tonne ' t o n n e UtiHzedEnergy = ^ O G J , ( o 7 o ) , ( o . 3 2 ) , ( o 4 0 ) = 0 3 6 G J / tonne Food Waste tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Electrical Energy per tonne of food waste, (4) = 0.36 (0.22-0.49) GJ/tonne Electrical GHG emission prevented per tonne of food waste: (6) G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized Energy ) ( . . . t C O , e / ) t C O , e / = \u00E2\u0080\u0094 * Emission Factor tor Electricity, ~/r\\= tonne food waste V tonne food wastetj V / U J ; /tonne G H G Emission Prevented = ( 0 ^% N N J<0. .47 T C \u00C2\u00B0=% J =0.053 ' C O , tonne food waste v ' /tonne/ ( ' /GSJ /tonne GHG Emission Prevented from Electricity, (6) = 0.053 (0.032-0.072) tC02e/tonne Total GHG Emissions Prevented, (7) = 0.097 + 0.053 = -0.15 (0.09-0.21) tC02e/tonne 8. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n : At the Bumaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998. This process required the consumption of 7,516 GJ of natural gas, 16,011 MWh of electricity, and 3,369 tonnes of lime (CaO) and 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) for acid gas control (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Greenhouse gas emissions result from municipal solid waste incineration. This includes emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during incineration, the consumption of natural gas and electricity, and the consumption of lime for acid gas control (the production of lime from limestone results in C 0 2 emissions). Since food waste is biomass carbon and is therefore carbon-neutral, the C 0 2 emissions can be ignored here. Environment Canada estimates that while a small methane emission is measurable during wastewater sewage sludge incineration there is negligible methane emissions during MSW incineration (Environment Canada 1999). That will also be assumed for this investigation. 178 The most important greenhouse gas emission associated with the incineration of food waste, and also the most uncertain, is the potential for significant nitrous oxide releases. This can result from one of five pathways: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the N 2 gas in air to N 2 0 during combustion (Immediate emis.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the nitrogen in food waste to N 2 0 (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the ammonia injected in the flue gases (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 0 conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (Future emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 0 conversion of NH3 injected but unreacted (Future emission) Each of these five pathways are evaluated in the following calculations. Unfortunately, the current lack of understanding in these issues result in much uncertainty associated with the following estimates. An extensive discussion of the issue is provided Section 2.5.5.3. The first two potential sources of nitrous oxide emissions result from the potential for the nitrogen in waste or the N 2 gas in air to thermal convert to N 2 0 during incineration. There is limited and highly variable research of the N 2 0 emissions resulting from municipal solid waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates being used are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IPCC Compilation (de Soete 1993) 11-293 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada Inventory (1997) 160 gN20/tomie of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA National Inventory (1999) 30 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA MSW Analysis (1998) 130 gN20/tonne of waste Research in the fluidized bed combustion of coal has determined that N 2 0 emissions originate mainly from the oxidation of fuel nitrogen (Moritomi 1994), and since coal combustion is similar to that of waste incineration, it can be inferred that N 2 0 emissions during incineration are likely a factor of the nitrogen content. This hypothesis is reinforced by one study (Tanikawa et al. 1995), and the observation that the incineration of high nitrogen content wastewater sludge produces much higher N 2 0 emission rates than MSW incinerators (Tanaka et al. 1994). For this research, it is deemed appropriate for food waste to account for its proportionate share of nitrous oxide rather than distribute it across a typical municipal solid waste, the individual components of which (excluding food) may be low in nitrogen. As a result, the immediate N 2 0 emissions measured during incineration will be assumed to be entirely a contribution of the nitrogen content and not the N 2 gas in air. These estimates below first determine the nitrogen emission during incineration as nitrous oxide and then determine the nitrogen of municipal solid waste. By dividing these two results it is possible to estimate the expected nitrous oxide conversion of waste-nitrogen, an important emission factor. For these calculations, the Environment Canada (1997) estimate will be used as the best-guess value (160 gN20/tonne). The IPCC compilation (de Soete 1993) will be used as the high estimate (300 gN20/tonne) and the USEPA national inventory (1999) will be used as the low estimate (30 gN20/tonne). Best-Guess Estimate for N 2 0 Emissions from Incineration =160 gN20/tonne of MSW Low Estimate for N 2 0 Emissions from Incineration = 30 gN20/tonne of MSW 179 High Estimate for N 2 0 Emissions from Incineration = 300 gN20/tonne of M S W Nitrogen Content of M S W = 0.8% N/dry tonne (Environment Canada 1978) Moisture Content of M S W = 24% (Environment Canada 1978) / m o l g N , 0 - N / \" \" / t o n n e M S W N , 0 E m i s s i o n = [ N,OfromInciiieratfan\u00C2\u00AE ^2 \u00C2\u00AE / , , \u00E2\u0080\u009E , \u00E2\u0080\u009E - \ - / t o n n e M S W N 2 O E m i s s i o n = (l60)(fO = 102 ^ \" ' ^ ^ \" ^ o n n e M S W Nitrogenin M S W incinerate! = ( l 0 0 0 % R n j N i t r o g e n C o n e n t % ^ a s { e J ( l - Mois tu reConten t ) l , I % e t ] = k 8 % n n e M S W Nitrogenin M S W incnerated = ( i f / ^ n n e ) ( 0 . 0 0 8 ) [ ( l - 0 . 2 4 ) % , ] = 6 0 8 0 % ^ ^ 1 0 2 g N : O - N / PercentageOf WasteNitrogen Emitted As N , 0 - N = / tonneMSW = 0 0 ] 7 g N , 0 - N / _ , J % c o n V e r s i o n o f Nitrogen to N , 0 6 0 8 \u00C2\u00B0 g / o n n e M S W / g Fraction of Waste-Nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 = 1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Therefore, it has been estimated that approximately 1.7% of the nitrogen in waste is emitted as N 2 0 during incineration but could likely range between 0.3 and 3.1%. The immediate N 2 0 emission from the conversion of food-nitrogen during combustion can now be estimated: Nitrogen Content of food waste = 0.8% N (wet basis) - see #3 ImmediateNjO Emission = (Mass t o n n^/o n nJ(NContent)(N2OEmission 8 g N 2 0 - N / V /moU 1 3 ) t C 0 2 e / ; /tonne ( G W P o f N 2 0 ) = t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / tonne Immediate N 2 0 Emission = (lXo.008Xo.017^ j(310) = 0.066 (0.012-0 Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.065 (0.011-0.12) tC02e/tonne The next potential pathway for N 2 0 emissions could result from the injection of ammonia into the flue gas to reduce NOx gases. Remember that at the Bumaby Incinerator, 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) was used during the combustion of 247,075 tonnes of waste in 1998 to reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the lack of any available research on the propensity for injected ammonia to thermally convert to N 2 0 , this study will assume the same conversion rate exhibited by the waste-nitrogen upon incineration. Therefore, approximately 1.8% of injected ammonia, and ranging between 0.3 and 3.4%, will be estimated to convert to nitrous oxide. There is a complicating factor which requires discussion. Does the NOx acid gases which require treatment by ammonia injection result from the incineration of nitrogen-rich materials or from municipal solid waste in general? If the former is true, food waste would need to take responsibility for its proportionate share of NOx/NH 3 while if the latter is true these emissions could be evenly divided among the waste incinerated. This is a difficult question to answer and for simplicity this investigation assumes that NOx/NH 3 is equally contributed by all waste. In the event that NOx/NH3 is a function of nitrogen content, the results here would be underestimating the contribution of food waste. Fraction of Waste-Nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 = 1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Annual consumption of ammonia (1998) = 295 tonnes 180 Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes (NHj Injected, tonnes) N 2 0 from N H , Injection = -14gN/ ' m o l 1 7 g N H v ' m o l . (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 14 * ( N , 0 Conversion) 44 g N 2 0 , ' m o l 28 g N 2 0 - N / 'mol ( G W P o f N 2 0 ) = t C 0 = / tonn N , 0 from N H , Injection = (295 ^\u00E2\u0080\u0094lil i*(0.017/-1(310)= 0.008 l t C 0 = e / (247,075) \ 2 8 j / t o n n e N 2 0 Emission resulting from N H 3 Injection = 0.0081 (0.0014 - 0.015) tC02e/tonne In addition to the potential for injected N H 3 to thermally convert to N 2 0 , there can also be the future denitrification of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases released. It has been estimated that 10-30% of waste-nitrogen is converted to NOx (NO + N0 2 ) during combustion (White et al. 1995). Nitrogen oxides are short lived in the atmosphere as they are quickly rained out in the form of nitrate (N03~) or nitric acid (HN0 3). Thus the deposition as N0 3\" will eventually require denitrification to N 2 , resulting in potential leakage of N 2 0 . The IPCC provides guidelines for these emissions and estimates that 1% of emitted N H 3 - N or NOx-N will be converted to N 2 0 . However they also provide low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. All three of these values are used in this study. In addition to the potential for the microbial conversion of nitrogen oxide to nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides are suspected to be indirect greenhouse gases for another reason - they deplete the tropospheric concentration of the OH radical, which would otherwise react and destroy C H 4 (Mackenzie 1995). Thus NOx causes C H 4 to be a stronger GHG. (As it is too early for any methodology on this issue, it will have to be ignored in this report.) At the Burnaby Incinerator it is estimated that 449 tonnes of NOx was emitted in 1998 (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee). Nitric oxide (NO) is predominantly the nitrogen oxide formed during incineration (Robinson 1986), and is assumed in the calculations below. Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of NOx = 1% N 2 0-N/NOx-N Low Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of NOx = 0.2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N High Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of NOx = 2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Annual N O x emission (1998) = 449 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ( N O x Emission, tonnes I N , 0 Emission from N O x =-'mol 30 gNO/ 'mol. (Waste Combusted, tonnes) * ( N , 0 Conversion) 44 g N 2 O y ' m o l 28 g N 2 0 - N , N , 0 Emission from N O x = (449)[ 'moU ( G W P o f N 2 0 ) : tCO 14 , - ^ * ( 0 . 0 n \u00E2\u0080\u0094 |(310) = 0.004 (0.001 -0.008) tC02e/ (247,075) V \ 2 8 j V ; / t o n n e N 2 0 from N H 3 Injection = 0.004 (0.001-0.008) tC02e/tonne The last potential N 2 0 emission from waste incineration could occur when ammonia is injected into the flue gas but is emitted to the atmosphere, the so-called \"ammonia slip\". The ammonia will undergo wet or dry deposition to soils downwind where it can nitrify 181 and denitrify. Communication with the GVRD (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee) has learned that ammonia slip is virtually negligible at the Incinerator largely because only the minimum amount is injected into the flue gas. As a result, the potential for ammonia slip to result in nitrous oxide emissions can be neglected in this study. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions during waste combustion result from the consumption of natural gas, electricity and lime by the Incinerator. This analysis will assume that the emissions resulting from natural gas, electricity and lime consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. These estimates are below: Natural gas consumption (1998) = 7516 GJ C O 2 Emission from Natural Gas Combustion = 1.88 kg/m3 (Environment Canada 1997) Typical Energy of Natural Gas = 1020 BTU/ft 3 = 37,843 kJ/m3 (Perry's 1984) (Energy=1020 BTU/ft 3 * 1.054 kJ/BTU * 35.2 ftVrn3 = 37,843 kJ/m3) D k g C O , / ^ . ( tonnes r u r c . . , , , t , r (7516GJ) V ' /\"v; U000kgJ t C O , e G H G Emissions from Natural Gas = 7\u00E2\u0080\u0094- \u00E2\u0080\u0094 r \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ; ;\u00E2\u0080\u0094;\u00E2\u0080\u0094 r - = 0.0015 * 1.8_ r-ura \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 f w , , r (AnnualEnergyConsumptim.GJ) V / m ' i v 1000kgJ t C O \u00E2\u0080\u009E e / G H G Emissions from Natural Gas = y -r-, ;\u00E2\u0080\u00947 r\u00E2\u0080\u0094 = - / \u00E2\u0080\u009E _ (Annual Waste Combusted,tonnes) ( N a t u r a i G a s k J / Uf ' / tonne ^ aura as y^) * f l . 8 8 k S C O / 0 * f J = ] _ l /tn-J [] QQOkg J (247075 tonnes) ( 3 7 g 4 3 k J / V( _GJ_Y~ \" /l0\u00C2\u00BB\u00C2\u00BBe ^ /m,i {\0c'kS) GHG Emission from Natural Gas Consumption = 0.0015 tCC^e/tonne Electricity consumption (1998) = 16011 MWh While up for debate, this analysis will assume the B.C. average for electricity. BC Hydro emission intensity = 30 tC0 2e/GWh = 0.00833 tC0 2e/GJ [30 tC0 2e/GWh * (1/3600 GWh/GJ)=0.00833 tC02e/GJ] ( A n n u a l E l e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i a i , G W h ) * f B C H y d r o G H G A v e r a g e , t C O = / / w l ^ G H G Emissions from Electricity = r = 7 . (Annual Waste Combusted, tonnes) ' l u l l , l e ( l 6 . 0 G W h ) * f 3 0 t C a e / G H G Emissions from Electricity = -. ^ _ G W h J = Q O O I O t C 0 2 e / (247075 tonnes) / tonne GHG Emission from BC Hydro electricity consumption = 0.0019 tC02e/tonne Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) is used at the Incinerator during air pollution control to neutralize acid gases which are produced during the combustion of waste. While the consumption of lime at the incinerator does not result in GHG emissions, the production of this material by the lime calcination process does result in emissions. In the production of lime, limestone (CaC03) is heated so that it separates to CaO and C 0 2 . In addition to the fossil fuel energy required to perform this reaction there is the non-energy related GHG emission from the liberalization of the unwanted carbon dioxide gas. Environment Canada (1997) has estimated that 0.790 kg of C 0 2 is emitted during the production of each kg of lime. It is assumed that the incineration of food waste equally requires the use of lime for the neutralization of acid gases as any other waste. Therefore: GHG Emission from CaO Production = 0.790 tC02e/tomie CaO 182 G H G Emissions from Lime = {0.790 t C ( V r J * 3369 tonnes of CaO _ Q.011 t C C V I /tonne CaO; 247075 tonnes of waste /tonne The total greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the incineration of food waste are summed below. While there is little uncertainty with the emissions from natural gas, electricity and lime consumption, the nitrous oxide emissions are uncertain and cause the provision of best-guess, high and low estimates. The high and low estimates are the total of all the high and low estimates, respectively. Total G H G Emissions = N 2 0 + Natural Gas + Electricity + Lime = tCC^e/tonne Total Emissions= 0.092 (0.028 - 0.16) tC02e/tonne 9. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m B a c k y a r d C o m p o s t i n g : The backyard composting of food waste together with yard trimmings at ground-level dwellings is quite common in the GVRD. The participation has been strongly encouraged by the GVRD and others and can even exceed 25% of the single-family residences in some of the member municipalities. This section will evaluate the greenhouse gas implications of the backyard composting of food waste by residents. Research has observed emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide during composting. As food waste is photosynthetic in origin, any carbon dioxide emissions resulting during the composting process are considered neutral and therefore do not have to be considered as greenhouse gas emissions. However, methane emissions can occur from inadequately aerated composting piles. While the carbon in methane is originally from atmospheric carbon dioxide, returning the carbon as methane, with its Global Warming Potential 21 times that of C O 2 , has important greenhouse gas implications. The Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) investigated the extent to which composting might result in methane emissions by conducting a literature search of articles published between 1991 and 1995 and by contacting several researchers at universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their literature search was unproductive and the researchers contacted stated that well-managed compost operations usually do not generate methane because they typically maintain an aerobic environment with proper moisture content to encourage aerobic decomposition of the materials, \"...even if methane is generated in anaerobic pockets in the center of the compost pile, the methane is most likely oxidized when it reaches the oxygen-rich surface of the pile.\" As a result it was concluded from the available information that methane generation from composting is likely negligible. Contrary to this conclusion was that of consultants in a recent Environment Canada report (Proctor & Redfem Ltd. 1995). It was concluded by Proctor & Redfern, in association with Ortech International, that while no methane emissions result from mechanized composting, a small amount does result from backyard composting. They estimated that 7.3 kg of C H 4 is emitted for every tonne of waste backyard composted. These consultants concluded that without mechanical mixing, the process is partially 183 anaerobic and results in some CH4 production. It is not stated in this summary report how this value was determined. For this investigation, a literature search of any research which had quantified any methane emissions from composting operations was also conducted. Five research papers were found during this search. In a German study (Hellebrand 1998), 14.8 tonnes of green waste from land maintenance was passively composted in trapezoidal heaps for 194 days with turning at 32 and 70 days. They found that of 4.3 tonnes of initial carbon, 3.5 tonnes was lost as C O 2 and 75 kg as C H 4 , or a methane emission of 1.7% of the initial carbon. Sommer and Dahl (1999) only observed methane emissions from the compressed and unmixed treatments of their experimental dairy litter compost heaps between the 30 and 40 day period of a 197 composting duration. The highest emission observed was 40 g of C H 4 - C per day. Jackson and Line (1998), from the University of Tasmania, reported that at no time during the windrow composting of pulp and paper mill sludge was methane detected. This was despite the fact that tests indicated that the compost piles were oxygen starved for most of the trial. In a British study (Lopez-Real and Baptista 1996) of the composting of cattle manure and straw, the researchers found that the passive composting method produced high levels of methane (> 4 percent) while both the windrowing (mechanical turning) and the forced aeration method \"drastically reduced methane output.\" Samples taken from the top of the passive composting, windrow and forced aeration piles at 14 days into the 36 day experiment had C H 4 concentrations of 48,675\u00C2\u00B125,949, 39.6\u00C2\u00B139.4 and 3.69\u00C2\u00B10.38 parts per million volume, respectively. An investigation of the biosolids composting facilities (aerated static piles of biosolids + woodchips; 1:1 by weight) operated in conjunction with the City of Philadelphia's wastewater treatment plants has observed methane emissions (Hentz et al. 1996). They reported emissions of 42,060 lbs of CH 4/yr from the compost piles, 15,180 lbs of CH 4/yr from the biofilters and 1,700 lbs of CH 4/yr from the curing piles. Unfortunately it is not stated in this paper what was the annual throughput of organic wastes so as to convert these methane emissions into a percentage of decomposed carbon. Methanogenic bacteria are very sensitive to oxygen, pH and temperature and even when conditions are optimum, can still be quite problematic to culture. These methanogenic bacteria have to be in conditions completely devoid of oxygen, within a narrow pH range of 6.6 to 7.6 and a temperature of 30 to 38\u00C2\u00B0C (Metcalf & Eddy Inc 1991). Though some of the composting studies demonstrated methane emissions, these were from compost heaps much larger in size, with a greater potential for anaerobic zones to develop, than a relatively small (200-250L) backyard composter. As a result, it will be assumed that C H 4 emissions from backyard composting are negligible or non-existent. In the event that future research demonstrates the existence of C H 4 emissions, this assumption will be an underestimate of actual GHG emissions. During composting, seven research papers have been obtained which document immediate emissions of nitrous oxide during the composting of various organic wastes. These emission are N 2 O leaking from microorganisms during the nitrification and denitrification of reactive N in these wastes. These researchers have observed a 184 conversion of reactive N to N 2 0 ranging from 0.00005 to 2.2%. An extensive review of this issue is provided in Section 2.5.5.2. As a result of the available literature, this analysis will use a best-guess estimate that 0.8% of the initial nitrogen in the compost was converted to N 2 0 during the composting process. This study will assume high and low estimates of 2% and 0.2%. This data, while important, is not the full picture of N 2 0 emissions from composting. These research findings above are only the immediate releases of N 2 0; there will also be future releases of N 2 0 resulting from the future nitrification and denitrification of the ammonia or nitric oxide emissions during composting and from the future decomposition of the nitrogen contained in finished compost. These future emissions must also be assessed, thereby necessitating a nitrogen balance. The immediate N 2 0 emissions observed during composting were a result of nitrification and denitrification of the initial nitrogen present in the organic materials to be composted. It is therefore important to know what portion of the initial nitrogen underwent nitrification and denitrification to cause the observed N 2 0 emissions. This investigation assumes that 30% of the initial nitrogen actually decomposed. This assumption is uncertain and as a result, low and high estimates of 10 and 50% are utilized. Because of the assumption that 30% of the initial nitrogen actually decomposed, it is conversely assumed that 70% of the initial nitrogen present in the compost escaped nitrification/denitrification. This majority of the compost which did not nitrify or denitrify may have volatilized from the compost pile in the form of ammonia emissions (and been subject to downwind deposition), may have leached from the compost pile as ammonia, organic-nitrogen or nitrate, or may be contained in the finished compost. This nitrogen will be subject to future nitrification and denitrification and can therefore result in future emissions of N 2 0 . The potential for these future N 2 0 emissions are estimated using the IPCC guidelines for N H 3 or N O x emitted as gases (IPCC 1997). It is estimated that 1% of emitted N H 3 - N or NOx-N will eventually be converted to N 2 0 - N with low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. Nitrogen Content of food waste = 0.8% N (wet basis) - see #3 Best-Guess Estimate of the Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.8% of initial N Low Estimate of the Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.2% of initial N High Estimate of the Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 2.0% of initial N I , V f 4 4 ^ \u00C2\u00B0 / , \" ImmediateNjOEmission = (Mass t o n n % Q jNContentXN2OEmission) 7 \" 1 0 ' ^ 8 N < \u00C2\u00B0 - N / m o , (GWPofN20)= tCO,e/ tonne ImmediateN20 Emission = (lXo.008Xo.008^j(310) = 0 0 3 0 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / ^ n n e Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.030 (0.008-0.076) tC02e./tonne Nitrogen Content of food waste = 0.8% N (wet basis) - see #3 Best-Guess Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 0 Emissions = 70% Low Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 0 Emssions = 50% 185 High Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 0 Emssions = 90% Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion = 1% N 2 0-N/NOx-N Low Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion = 0.2% N 2 0-N/NOx-N High Estimate for the future N 2 O conversion = 2% N2O -N/NOX-N Massof Nitrogen Available for Future N , 0 = (Mass tonne/ IfNContentYFuture N Fraction) = M a s s \u00C2\u00B0f Future N / & 2 \ /tonne^ A 1 /tonne food waste Mass of Nitrogen Available for Future N 2 0 = (lXo.008Xo.70) = 0.0056 (0.0039 - 0 . 0 0 7 0 ) t o n n c F u t u r e N / Future N 2 0 Emission = (Mass of Future NXN 2 0 Conversion) tonne food waste m o 1 (GWP of N 2 0 ) = t C 0 ' e / 2 8 8 N 2 \u00C2\u00B0 \" / r n o l tonne Future N 2 0 Emission = (0 .0056)(0 .01^ j(310) = 0.027 (0.004 - 0.068) Future N 2 0 Emission = 0.027 (0.004-0.068) tC02e/tonne t C 0 2 e / /tonne Since the carbon dioxide emissions from composting can be ignored (GHG neutrality) and this study assumes that methane emissions from backyard composters are nonexistent, the only GHG emissions resulting from backyard composting of food waste is nitrous oxide. The potential for immediate and future N 2 O best-guess emission estimates are totalled below together with the total of the low and high estimates respectively. Total G H G Emissions from Backyard Composting = 0.057 (0.011-0.144) tC02e/tonne 10. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m C e n t r a l i z e d C o m p o s t i n g : The centralized composting of food waste does not currently occur in the G V R D , but is actively pursued in other jurisdictions such as Edmonton or Halifax. However, the centralized composting of yard trimmings collected from residents is performed at Fraser-Richmond Biocycle (FRBC) and at other composting facilities in the G V R D . FRBC uses passively aerated windrows and handles the yard trimmings for the three municipalities of the North Shore, Bumaby, Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows (Pers. comm. Steve Aujla). These windrows are roughly triangular in profile, about 25 feet in height, having a base of about 40 feet and several hundred feet in length. The composting process in these windrows is 4 to 5 months in duration. During this process, the windrows are turned 12 to 14 times to provide aeration for the decomposition (Pers. comm. Steve Aujla). This investigation assumes that centralized composting of food waste will occur in the same manner as is currently being performed at FRBC for yard trimmings. The important difference between backyard and centralized composting is the potential for methane emissions to occur (carbon dioxide emissions from food waste are greenhouse gas neutral [see Section 2.3 - Biomass Decompostion/Combustion] and there should be little difference between centralized and backyard composting from the perspective of nitrous oxide emissions). As discussed in the previous section, five research papers investigated methane emissions. Two of these papers reported methane being emitted during passive aerating composting with turning. In the German study (Hellebrand 1998) 186 it was observed that 1.7% of the initial carbon was emitted as methane and in the British study (Lopez-Real and Baptista 1996), the researchers found that the passive composting method produced high levels of methane (> 4 percent of initial carbon) while both the windrowing (mechanical turning) and the forced aeration method \"drastically reduced methane output.\" FRBC also performs windrow composting with turning every week or every two weeks, thus the intervals between turning can result in anaerobic conditions in the center of these large windrows. This author believes that methane emissions are a possibility. Given the scarcity of data, but the potential, this investigation will assume that 0.5% of the initial carbon in food waste will be emitting as methane during centralized composting. In addition, high and low estimates of 0.1% and 1% of initial carbon will also be utilized because of the uncertainty involved. Best-Guess Estimate of the Methane Emission = 0.5% of initial carbon Low Estimate of the Methane Emission = 0.1% of initial carbon High Estimate of the Methane Emission = 1.0% of initial carbon Typical Carbon Content of Food Waste = 48.0% (dry basis) (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Typical Moisture Content of Food Waste = 70% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) ( r.r-u / \ Methane Emission = ( M a s s t o n n ^ o n n J ( C C o n t e n t ) ( l - MoistureContent)(CH 4 Emission) ->gC/ 12 J / m o l ( C W P o f C H 4 ) = t C 0 - / ' Methane Emission = (l)(0.48)(l - 0.70)(0.005^y|j(2l) = 0.020(0.004- 0 . 0 4 0 ) t C \u00C2\u00B0 = % , n n e Methane Emission from Centralized Composting = 0.020 (0.004-0.040) tC02e/tonne The methane emission above needs to be combined with the nitrous oxide emissions previously estimated for backyard composting: Total G H G Emissions from Centralized Composting = 0.077 (0.015-0.185) tC02e/tonne 11. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on o f C o m p o s t : In a similar study to this one, the EPA assumed that the backyard composting of food scraps converts all of the carbon to C 0 2 and that none of the carbon becomes sequestered as humic substances (food waste has been demonstrated to be readily degradable to C0 2 ) (USEPA 1998). The same assumption is used here. It was previously discussed that 84%o of the non-lignin fraction of food waste anaerobically decomposes in landfills (Barlaz 1998), therefore it is likely a valid assumption that 100%, of food waste would aerobically decompose during composting. In this thesis, it is necessary to be consistent with the time frame used for Global Warming Potentials, a 100 year reference period. Therefore, this assumption of no carbon sequestered from food-waste-derived-compost after a 100 period is likely valid. The backyard composting of food scraps and yard trimmings probably results in primarily yard waste remaining in the finished compost. (It will be discussed in the next appendix what proportion of this finished compost, largely consisting of yard waste, will contribute to long-term carbon sequestration.) As a result, the potential for food waste to undergo long-term sequestration as compost will be assumed to be negligible. Carbon Sequestration of Composted Food Waste = 0 tC02e/tonne 187 APPENDIX J: YARD TRIMMINGS MANAGEMENT This appendix provides only the data and calculations specific to estimating the emission factors for the landfilling, incineration or composting of yard trimmings generated in the G V R D . Refer to Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management for the full sample calculations. The first three sections are devoted to the GHG implications of the Cache Creek Landfill (1-3). The next three sections assess the same implications for the Vancouver Landfill (4-6). Sections 7 and 8, assess the energy generation and G H G emissions from the Burnaby Incinerator. The last three sections of this appendix, 9 through 11, analyze the GHG ramifications of the backyard or centralized composting of yard trimmings. While this appendix contains many similarities with Appendix I, Food Waste Management, the distinctiveness of the three main components of yard waste (grass, leaves and branches) cause several differences. Each of these three main components of typical 'yard trimmings' have varying lignin concentrations and hence exhibit different responses to anaerobic decomposition. For the purpose of this investigation, it will be assumed that typical yard trimmings in the G V R D consists of 50% grass, 25% leaves and 25%o branches by mass. This distribution was used in a similar EPA analysis (USEPA 1998). However, when assessing the potential landfill methane emissions and landfill carbon sequestration implications of yard waste, these three components are analyzed individually. When not specified by one of the three components, readers can assume that yard waste is being treated as a total entity. 1. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s of the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f d l : The calculations for landfill methane emissions and energy generation follow - starting with the Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (CAAD): Grass: Estimated Methane Yield from Grass in reactors = 144.3 ml/gram (USEPA 1998) Assumed Carbon Dioxide Yield from grass = 144.3 ml/gram Molar gas constant=22.4 L/mol at standard temperature and pressure Typical Moisture Content of Grass= 60% (USEPA 1998) MolesofCO 2 MolesofCH 4 TotalMolesofC = 0.0064 + 0.0064 = 0.0129molC CarbonAvailableforAnaerobicDecomposition =0.0129molC * 12 ^/moi - 0-' 55gC / drygram CAAD(dry) = 0.155gC I drygram = 0.1 SStC I drytonne CAAD(wet) = 0.155 * (1 - 0.60) = 0.055gC / wetgram = 0.055/C / wettonne Carbon Content of Dry Grass = 44.9% (Barlaz 1998) 188 Re visedCarbonStorageFactor = InitialCarbon - CAAD = gC I drygram Re visedCarbonStorageFactor = 0A49gC/ -0.\55gC/, = 0.32 ?C / drygram /drygram /drygram a ' a Re visedCarbonStorageFactor = 0.32gC / drygram = 0.32/C / drylonne Leaves: Estimated Methane Yield of Leaves from Barlaz = 56 ml/gram (USEPA 1998) Assumed Carbon Dioxide Yield from leaves = 56 ml/gram Molar gas constant=22.4 L/mol at standard temperature and pressure Typical Moisture Content of leaves= 20% (USEPA 1998) Carbon Content of Dry Leaves = 44.9% (Barlaz 1998) With the same calculations above: Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (dry) = 0.060 tC/dry tonne Revised Carbon Storage Factor =. 0.43 tC/dry tonne Branches: Estimated Methane Yield from Branches in reactors = 76.3 ml/gram (USEPA 1998) Assumed Carbon Dioxide Yield from branches = 76.3 ml/gram Molar gas constant=22.4 L/mol at standard temperature and pressure Typical Moisture Content of branches= 40% (USEPA 1998) Carbon Content of Dry Branches = 49.4% (Barlaz 1998) With the same calculations above: Carbon Available for Anaerobic Decomposition (dry) = 0.082 tC/dry tonne Revised Carbon Storage Factor = 0.41 tC/dry tonne Mass averages can now be calculated for C A A D and CSF for yard waste as an entity: Mass A verageCAAD = (% *CAAD*[\- MC]) r a u s , . + (% *CAAD*[\- .UCJ),...,,,,. + (% *CAAD*[\- MC]} Mn^veragBC/ w e t T o n n e Methane Generation Potential = 0.037 tCHVtonne of yard trimmings The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.07 y\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. 189 F r o m the mode l in Worksheet #33: Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= 0.183 -0.028 0.092 -0.021 0.313 -0.005 tC0 2 e/tonne tC0 2 e/tonne tC0 2 e/tonne tC0 2 e/tonne tC0 2 e/tonne tC0 2 e/tonne 2. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on in the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Since not all of the cellulose and hemicellulose and only a negligible portion of the lignin from yard trimmings is expected to anaerobically degrade in a landfill, organic-carbon will remain in long-term storage in the landfill. In this capacity, the organic-carbon, which was originally atmospheric C O 2 but was photosynthesized into biomass, will be sequestered. As a result, organic-carbon can perform a GHG benefit, a negative G H G emission. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. The Carbon Storage Factors, as determined by Barlaz (1998), and also discussed in Eleazer et al. (1997), are used here as representative of long-term storage in the CCLF. These researchers observed that grass, with a lignin concentration measured at 28%, exhibited a 94% decomposition of the cellulose plus hemicellulose fraction and resulted in a carbon storage factor estimated at 0.32 kgC per dry kg. They also observed that leaves, with a 44% lignin content, exhibited a 28% decomposition of the cellulose plus hemicellulose fraction and resulted in carbon storage factor of 0.54 kgC per dry kg. These researchers also tested branches as well; branches, with a lignin content of 33%, exhibited a 28% decomposition of the cellulose plus hemicellulose fraction and resulted in a carbon storage factor 0.38 kg C per dry kg. However, these factors were developed with laboratory research of idealized landfill decomposition conditions and are thus highly conservative. As a result, the actual storage in the C C L F could be greater than is indicated by these experiments. While there is great potential for uncertainty with this estimate, it is likely that the uncertainty would be skewed towards a greater value. By using this conservative estimate, the risk of overestimating this factor is probably minimal. For these reasons, only the best-guess estimate will be used in this analysis. In Section #1 of the Appendix a revised Carbon Storage Factor was developed to attempt to correct inconsistencies in the previous estimates by Barlaz. The new estimate is as follows: Revised Carbon Storage Factor for yard waste = 0.206 tC/wet tonne , . c / f \" g C O s / Carbon Sequestration = Y A R D T R I M M N G S J 'mol 12gC/ / mol . t C O , e / /tonne Carbon Sequestration = (0.206)f\u00E2\u0080\u0094 =0.75 2 / 12 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Yard Trimmings = -0.75 tC02e/tonne 190 3. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l What portion of the reactive nitrogen contained in yard wastes is anthropogenic in origin? While the nitrogen portion that was fixed by human activity can contribute nitrous oxide emissions, the nitrogen portion that was fixed by nature can be considered as part of natural cycling and thus G H G neutral. Given that urban green spaces are frequently applied with fertilizers, compost or animal manures, it is probably safe to assume that most of the nitrogen is anthropogenic. Furthermore, the NOx released from automobile exhausts, also anthropogenic, probably serves as another nitrogen source for this urban vegetation. This report will assume that the reactive nitrogen in yard wastes are predominantly anthropogenic in origin; thus nitrous oxide emissions from this nitrogen are G H G emissions. When yard wastes are disposed in landfills, this material is available for anaerobic decomposition. If decomposed, the organic-nitrogen is transformed to ammonia (NH3) or ammonium (NH 4 + ) . When in this form, the nitrogen is free to undergo nitrification and denitrification to be leached by water percolating through the fill or to be volatilized and vented with the landfill gas. However, as a result of the anaerobic conditions (specifically the lack of electron acceptors), there is likely very little opportunity for nitrification to occur and thus very little opportunity for denitrification or nitrous oxide emissions to occur. Therefore, nitrous oxide emissions likely only result from solubilized ammonia in the landfill leachate or volatilized ammonia in the landfill gas. An extensive discussion of this issue is provided in Section 2.5.5.1. It is assumed in this analysis that the anaerobic conditions present in landfills do not present the opportunity for ammonia compounds to nitrify to nitrate (this also prevents any denitrification). As a result, there is no potential for immediate nitrous oxide emissions at the landfill site. It is also assumed that all of the nitrogen contained in the yard trimmings which decompose will eventually be solubilized and exit the landfill as leachate or vented gas. (This may be an overestimate due to the potential for Nitrogen Sequestration - discussed in Section 2.5.5.1) Since this leachate will be transferred to a wastewater treatment plant and the vented landfill gas is the emission of reactive nitrogen to the atmosphere, the IPCC estimates for these potential N 2 0 sources are appropriate here. Therefore N 2 0 emissions estimated from nitrogen in yard waste will be future emissions at the treatment plant managing the landfill leachate or the subsequent nitrification and denitrification resulting from wet or dry deposition of NH3 or NOx- As a result of the uncertainty associated with the IPCC estimate, the high and low estimates provided by the IPCC will also be used here. Since not all yard waste can be expected to anaerobically decompose, thus not all of the nitrogen can be expected to be released, a percentage decomposition factor is used to approximate the fraction of nitrogen converted to NH3. There is no appreciable leachate at the Cache Creek Landfill due to the dry climatic conditions. Any leachate which is collected is spread on the active face to return the leachate back to the fill (Pers. comm.. Louie DeVent). As a result, it is assumed that ammonia only exits the landfill in the vented gas. 191 Best-Guess Estimate of the N 2 O from vented nitrogen = 1.0% N20/emitted N H 3 or NOx Low Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen = 0.2% N20/emitted N H 3 or NOx High Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen = 2.0% N20/emitted N H 3 or N 0 X Typical moisture content of yard trimmings = 45% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen content of dry yard trimmings = 3.4% N (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Percentage Decomposition to be expected from yard trimmings=34% (Barlaz 1998) (mass weighted decomposition=grass+leaves+branches=35*0.5+37*0.25+28*0.25=34%) Nitrogen Content of Wet Yard Trimmings = ^ Dry N Content^ / k g dry food)^ ~ MoistureContent) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste = (0.034Xl - 0.45) = 0.019 = 1.9%7V ( 4 4 ^ \u00C2\u00B0 N 2 0 Emission = (ivlass t o n n X o n n e ^ N C o n t e n t X D e c o m P o s i t l o n X N 2 \u00C2\u00B0 Conversion) / m o J _ \" \" 2 8 g N 2 \u00C2\u00B0 \" N / . v / mol. N 2 0 Emission = (l t o n n X o n n e )[0 .019Xo .34Xo.01^j(310) = 0 . 0 3 1 t C O ^ n n e Immediate & Future N 2 0 Emissions = 0.031 (0.006-0.063) tC02e/tonne (GWP of N 2 0 ) 4. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s of the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The only significant difference between this section and Section 1, Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill, is the estimated landfill gas collection efficiency and the first order decay rate constant. While at Cache Creek the current collection efficiency is estimated to be 43%, the current collection efficiency at the Vancouver Landfill is estimated to only be 22% (Pers. comm. Chris Underwood). However, engineers with the City of Vancouver are currently in the process of upgrading the collection equipment. As with the C C L F assessment, the collection efficiency is assumed to increase year after year in response to improving regulations. The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.08 yr\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions^ 0.231 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.029 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.116 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization^ -0.023 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.381 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.005 tC0 2 e/tonne 5. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on in the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The Revised Carbon Storage Factors is used here as representative of long-term storage in the V L F . Long-Term Carbon Sequestration from Yard Waste = -0.75 tC02e/tonne 192 6. Immediate & Future N 2 0 Emissions from the Vancouver Landfill: The potential for nitrous oxide emissions at the Vancouver Landfill differ from the Cache Creek Landfill in that they are assumed to result from the solubilized ammonia in the leachate instead of the volatilized ammonia gas. It is assumed that all of the nitrogen contained in yard waste which decomposes will eventually be solubilized and exit the landfill as leachate. (This may be an overestimate due to the potential for Nitrogen Sequestration - discussed in Section 2.5.5.1) The calculations for this emission are below: Best-Guess Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 1.0% N 20/influent-N Low Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 0.2% N 2 0 / influent-N High Estimate of the N 2 0 from wastewater nitrogen = 2.0% N 2 0 / influent-N Typical moisture content of yard trimmings = 45%) (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Nitrogen content of dry yard trimmings = 3.4% N (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Percentage Decomposition to be expected from yard trimmings=34% (Barlaz 1998) (mass weighted decomposition=grass+leaves+branches=35*0.5+37*0.25+28*0.25=34%>) Nitrogen Content of Wet Yard Trimmings = ^ Dry N Contentkg / k g dry food)^ ~~ MoistureContent) Nitrogen Content of Wet Food Waste = (0.034Xl - 0.45) = 0.019 = 1.9%N \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 44gN20 N 2 0 Emission = (iVlass t o n n ^ o n n e ) ( N ContentXDecompositionXN20 Conversion N 2 0 Emission = (ltonn^/nnJ[o.oi9Xo.34Xo.Ol(^>](310) = 0.031 t C O ^ mol 2 8 g N 2 0 - N / Q i (GWP of N 2 0) 28 J ' / t onne Immediate & Future N 2 0 Emissions = 0.031 (0.006-0.063) tC02e/tonne 7. Energy Generation from Waste Incineration: Net Energy Content of Yard Trimmings = 2,800 BTU/lb = 6,493 kJ/kg (USEPA 1998) (2,800 BTU/lb* 1.054 kJ/BTU*2.20 lb/kg = 6,493 kJ/kg) (wet basis, correction for latent heat of water in this reference is assumed but not directly specified) From another source (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993): Gross Energy Content of yard trimmings = 2,601 BTU/lb = 6,031 kJ/kg (wet basis) Typical Moisture Content of Yard Trimmings = 45% (CALCS ABOVE?????) Latent Heat of Water=2473 kJ/kg (Incropera and DeWitt 1990) Net Energy Content = [Gross Energy]-[Latent Heat of Vaporization] Net Energy Content = 6,03 \H kg. ( 2 4 7 3 % ) ( 0 . 4 5 ) \u00E2\u0080\u009E c ] = 4 ,918% Because of the variation between these values, the average will be used as the estimate. \"6493 + 4918\" Net Energy Content = = 5 7 0 6 k V = 5 . 7 G J / / k g /tonne Estimate of the Net Energy Content of Wet Yard Waste = 5.7 GJ/tonne 193 Steam Energy produced by the combustion of yard waste in an Incinerator-Boiler (1): Assumed Boiler Efficiency = 70% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Fraction of Steam Utilized by CPL = 56% (Montenay Inc. 1999) Utilized Energy = energy ^ ( E f f i c j ) , ( & U t i | i z a t i o n ) = k J / tonne Yard Waste tonne V / t o n n e UtiHzedEnergy = S^TGJ , ( 0 J 0 ) , ( 0 . 5 6 ) = 2 . 2 3 G J / tonne Yard Waste tonne /tonne Utilized Steam Energy per tonne of yard waste, (1) = 2.23 GJ/tonne G H G emission prevented per tonne of food waste (3): G H G Emission Prevented _ ( Utilized E n e r g y \ ( , - . \u00E2\u0080\u009E , . \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E , . \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E c f \u00E2\u0080\u009E x , . , . . \u00E2\u0080\u009E i f : \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u009E t C O , e / ^ _ t C O , e / = i | * Emission Factor for Natural Gas, \" / r i i / m i p tonne yard waste /tonne yard waste J \ /KJJJ / tonne G H G Emission Prevented _ ^ U 0 . 0 6 2 t C 0 ^ , ) = 0.139 t C 0 = e tonne yard waste v /tonne/ v / G J j ' /tonne G H G Emission Prevented from Natural Gas, (3) = 0.139 tC02e/tonne Electricity produced by the combustion of yard waste in an Incinerator-Boiler (4): Assumed Turbo Generator Efficiency = 32% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Steam Fraction for Electricity Generation = 40% (assumed as discussed) Utilized Energy = energy + ( B o i l e r E f f i c ) . ( T u r b o Generator) * (Energy Utilization) = W tonne Yard Waste tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Energy = i \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 * \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (0.70)*(0.32)* (0.40) = 0.51 G J / tonne Yard Waste tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Electrical Energy per tonne of yard waste, (4) = 0.51 GJ/tonne Electrical G H G emission prevented per tonne of yard waste: (6) G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized E n e r g y ( . . r . , r l . . . t t C O , e / ^ t C O , e / = \u00E2\u0080\u0094 * Emission Factor for Electricity, /c\ = An tonne yard waste (tonne yard waste J V /(JJJ /tonne G H G Emission Prevented = / G J / U 0 . ,47 tC0^/r.) = 0.075 t C 0 ^ e / tonne yard waste V /tonne/ ^ / G J J /tonne GHG Emission Prevented from Electricity, (6) = 0.075 tCC^e/tonne Total G H G Emissions Prevented, (7) = 0.139 + 0.075 = -0.214 tC02e/tonne 8. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n : At the Bumaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998. This process required the consumption of 7,516 GJ of natural gas, 16,011 M W h of electricity, and 3,369 tonnes of lime (CaO) and 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) for acid gas control (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Greenhouse gas emissions result from municipal solid waste incineration. This includes emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during incineration, the consumption of natural gas and electricity, and the consumption of lime for acid gas control (the production of lime from limestone results in CO2 emissions). Since yard waste is biomass carbon and is therefore carbon-neutral, the CO2 emissions can be ignored here. Environment Canada estimates that while a small methane emission is measurable during wastewater sewage sludge incineration there is negligible methane emissions during M S W incineration (Environment Canada 1999). That will also be assumed for this investigation. 194 The most important greenhouse gas emission associated with the incineration of yard waste, and also the most uncertain, is the potential for significant nitrous oxide releases. This can result from one of five pathways: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the N 2 gas in air to N 2 0 during combustion (Immediate emis.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the nitrogen in food waste to N 2 0 (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the ammonia injected in the flue gases (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 0 conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (Future emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N 2 0 conversion of NH3 injected but unreacted (Future emission) Each of these five pathways are evaluated in the following calculations. Unfortunately, the current lack of understanding in these issues result in much uncertainty associated with the following estimates. An extensive discussion of the issue is provided Section 2.5.5.3. The first two potential sources of nitrous oxide emissions result from the potential for the nitrogen in waste or the N 2 gas in air to thermal convert to N 2 0 during incineration. There is limited and highly variable research of the N 2 0 emissions resulting from municipal solid waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates being used are: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IPCC Compilation (de Soete 1993) 11-293 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada Inventory (1997) 160 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA National Inventory (1999) 30 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA M S W Analysis (1998) 130 gN20/tonne of waste Research in the fluidized bed combustion of coal has determined that N 2 0 emissions originate mainly from the oxidation of fuel nitrogen (Moritomi 1994), and since coal combustion is similar to that of waste incineration, it can be inferred that N 2 0 emissions during incineration are likely a factor of the nitrogen content. This hypothesis is reinforced by one study (Tanikawa et al. 1995), and the observation that the incineration of high nitrogen content wastewater sludge produces much higher N 2 0 emission rates than M S W incinerators (Tanaka et al. 1994). For this research, it is deemed appropriate for yard waste to account for its proportionate share of nitrous oxide rather than distribute it across a typical municipal solid waste, the individual components of which (excluding yard waste) may be low in nitrogen. As a result, the immediate N 2 0 emissions measured during incineration will be assumed to be entirely a contribution of the nitrogen content and not the N 2 gas in air. These estimates below first determine the nitrogen emission during incineration as nitrous oxide and then determine the nitrogen of municipal solid waste. By dividing these two results it is possible to estimate the expected nitrous oxide conversion of waste-nitrogen, an important emission factor. For these calculations, the Environment Canada (1997) estimate will be used as the best-guess value (160 gN20/tonne). The IPCC compilation (de Soete 1993) will be used as the high estimate (300 gN20/tonne) and the USEPA national inventory (1999) will be used as the low estimate (30 gN20/tonne). Best-Guess Estimate for N 2 0 Emissions from Incineration =160 gN20/tonne of M S W Low Estimate for N 2 0 Emissions from Incineration = 30 gN20/tonne of M S W 195 High Estimate for N2O Emissions from Incineration = 300 gN20/tonne of M S W Nitrogen Content of M S W = 0.8% N/dry tonne (Environment Canada 1978) Moisture Content of M S W = 24% (Environment Canada 1978) N,0Emiss ion = I N-.OfromlncineratbnS^Sv M C , , , - 1 2 / tonne M S W Z S / m o l . g N , 0 - N / / t onneMSW N 2 O E m i s s i o \u00E2\u0080\u009E = ( l 6 0 ) g ] = 102 0 9 - 1 9 1 ) g N = \u00C2\u00B0 - % n n e M S W N i t r o g e n i n M S W i n c i n e n i t d ^ ^ Nitrogenin M S W incinerated = ( l 0 ' /< 0 1 1, J(0.008)[(l - 0.24)%] = 6 0 8 0 % ^ ^ , 0 2 g N : O - N / PercentageOf Was teNi t rogenEmi t t edAsN,0-N = / tonneMSW = 0 0 1 7 g N ; O N / = 1.7%Conversionof Nitrogen to N , 0 6 0 8 \u00C2\u00B0 S / ( O n n e M S W ^ Fraction of Waste-Nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 = 1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Therefore, it has been estimated that approximately 1.7% of the nitrogen in waste is emitted as N2O during incineration but could likely range between 0.3 and 3.1%. The immediate N2O emission from the conversion of food-nitrogen during combustion can now be estimated: Nitrogen Content of wet yard waste = 1.9% N (wet basis) - see #3 ImmediateN20 Emission = (Mass t o n n /^ n n e )(NContentXN ,OEmission ( G W P o f N 2 0 ) = t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / tonne Immediate N 2 0 Emission = (lXo.019X0.017^j(310)= 0.157 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 % ) n n e Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.157 (0.028-0.29) tC02e/tonne The next potential pathway for N2O emissions could result from the injection of ammonia into the flue gas to reduce NOx gases. Remember that at the Burnaby Incinerator, 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) was used during the combustion of 247,075 tonnes of waste in 1998 to reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the lack of any available research on the propensity for injected ammonia to thermally convert to N2O, this study will assume the same conversion rate exhibited by the waste-nitrogen upon incineration. Therefore, approximately 1.7% of injected ammonia, and ranging between 0.3 and 3.1%>, will be estimated to convert to nitrous oxide. There is a complicating factor which requires discussion. Does the NOx acid gases which require treatment by ammonia injection result from the incineration of nitrogen-rich materials or from municipal solid waste in general? If the former is true, yard waste would need to take responsibility for its proportionate share of NOx/NH3 while if the latter is true these emissions could be evenly divided among the waste incinerated. This is a difficult question to answer and for simplicity this investigation assumes that NOx/NH3 is equally contributed by all waste. In the event that NOx/NH 3 is a function of nitrogen content, the results here would be underestimating the contribution from yard waste. Fraction of Injected-Ammonia emitted as N 2 0 =1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Annual consumption of ammonia (1998) = 295 tonnes 196 Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ( N H , Injected, tonnes ( 14gN 7 'mo l 1 7 g N H 3 / N , 0 from N H , Injection = N , 0 f r o m N H , Injection = ymo\J (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 14 ( 4 4 \u00C2\u00A7 N = 0 / * ( N , 0 Conversion! 28 g N 2 0 - N 7 (GWP of N 2 0 ) = lC\u00C2\u00B02e/ (295,. . , , : U?j , ( 0 0 , 7j 44 V } = t C 0 2 e , 247,075 V \ 2 8 j V ' / t o n n e N 2 0 Emission resulting from N H 3 Injection = 0.0081 (0.0014 - 0.015) tC02e/tonne In addition to the potential for injected NH3 to thermally convert to N 2 0 , there can also be the future denitrification of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases released. It has been estimated that 10-30% of waste-nitrogen is converted to NOx (NO + N 0 2 ) during combustion (White et al. 1995). Nitrogen oxides are short lived in the atmosphere as they are quickly rained out in the form of nitrate (NO3\") or nitric acid (HNO3). Thus the deposition as NO3\" will eventually require denitrification to N 2 , resulting in potential leakage of N 2 0 . The IPCC provides guidelines for these emissions and estimates that 1% of emitted N H 3 - N or NOx-N will be converted to N 2 0 . However they also provide low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. A l l three of these values are used in this study. In addition to the potential for the microbial conversion of nitrogen oxide to nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides are suspected to be indirect greenhouse gases for another reason - they deplete the tropospheric concentration of the OH radical, which would otherwise react and destroy C H 4 (Mackenzie 1995). Thus NOx causes CH4 to be a stronger GHG. (As it is too early for any methodology on this issue, it will have to be ignored in this report.) At the Bumaby Incinerator it is estimated that 449 tonnes of NOx was emitted in 1998 (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee). Nitric oxide (NO) is predominantly the nitrogen oxide formed during incineration (Robinson 1986), and is assumed in the calculations below. Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of NOx = 1% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Low Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of N O x = 0.2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N High Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of N O x = 2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Annual NOx emission (1998) = 449 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ( N O x Emission, tonnes) 'mol 30 gNO, N , O Emission from N O y /mol) * (N.,0 Conversion) 44 g N 2 0 / 'mol N . , 0 Emission from N O x = (Waste Combusted, tonnes) 2 2 g gN 2 0 - N (247 075) *'\SJ^3'\u00C2\u00B0^= 00074(0'\u00C2\u00B0\u00C2\u00B0*2\"\u00C2\u00B0'\u00C2\u00B0'4)\"6 mol. (GWP o f N 2 0 ) = t C O - / / tonne N 2 0 from N H 3 Injection = 0.004 (0.001-0.008) tC02e/tonne The last potential N 2 0 emission from waste incineration could occur when ammonia is injected into the flue gas but is emitted to the atmosphere, the so-called \"ammonia slip\". The ammonia will undergo wet or dry deposition to soils downwind where it can nitrify 197 and denitrify. Communication with the GVRD (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee) has learned that ammonia slip is virtually negligible at the Incinerator largely because only the minimum amount is injected into the flue gas. As a result, the potential for ammonia slip to result in nitrous oxide emissions is neglected in this study. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions during waste combustion result from the consumption of natural gas, electricity and lime by the Incinerator. This analysis will assume that the emissions resulting from natural gas, electricity and lime consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. These estimates are in Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management. The total greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the incineration of yard trimmings are summed below. While there is little uncertainty with the emissions from natural gas, electricity and lime consumption, the nitrous oxide emissions are uncertain and cause the provision of best-guess, high and low estimates. The high and low estimates are the total of all the high and low estimates, respectively. Total G H G Emissions = N 2 0 + Natural Gas + Electricity + Lime = tC02e/tonne Total Emissions= 0.18 (0.045-0.33) tC02e/tonne 9. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m B a c k y a r d C o m p o s t i n g : The backyard composting of yard trimmings together with food waste at ground-level dwellings is quite common in the GVRD. The participation has been strongly encouraged by the G V R D and others and can even exceed 25% of the single-family residences in some of the member municipalities. This section will evaluate the greenhouse gas implications of the backyard composting of food waste by residents. Research has observed emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide during composting. As food waste is photosynthetic in origin, any carbon dioxide emissions resulting during the composting process are considered neutral and therefore do not have to be considered as greenhouse gas emissions. However, methane emissions can occur from inadequately aerated composting piles. While the carbon in methane is originally from atmospheric carbon dioxide, returning the carbon as methane, with its Global Warming Potential 21 times that of C 0 2 , has important greenhouse gas implications. The potential for methane emissions during composting is reviewed in Appendix I -Food Waste Management. Though some of the composting studies demonstrated methane emissions, these were from compost heaps much larger in size, with a greater potential for anaerobic zones to develop, than a relatively small (200-250L) backyard composter. As a result, it will be assumed that C H 4 emissions from backyard composting are negligible or non-existent. In the event that future research demonstrates the existence of C H 4 emissions, this assumption will be an underestimate of actual GHG emissions. 198 During composting, seven research papers have been obtained which document immediate emissions of nitrous oxide during the composting of various organic wastes. These emission are N 2 O leaking from microorganisms during the nitrification and denitrification of reactive N in these wastes. These researchers have observed a conversion of reactive N to N 2 0 ranging from 0.00005 to 2.2%. An extensive review of this issue is provided in Section 2.5.5.2. As a result of the available literature, this analysis will use a best-guess estimate that 0.8%) of the initial nitrogen in the compost was converted to N 2 O during the composting process. This study will assume high and low estimates of 2% and 0.2%. This data, while important, is not the full picture of N 2 0 emissions from composting. These research findings above are only the immediate releases of N 2 O ; there will also be future releases of N 2 0 resulting from the future nitrification and denitrification of the ammonia or nitric oxide emissions during composting and from the future decomposition of the nitrogen contained in finished compost. These future emissions must also be assessed, thereby necessitating a nitrogen balance. The immediate N 2 0 emissions observed during composting were a result of nitrification and denitrification of the initial nitrogen present in the organic materials to be composted. It is therefore important to know what portion of the initial nitrogen underwent nitrification and denitrification to cause the observed N 2 0 emissions. This investigation assumes that 30% of the initial nitrogen actually decomposed. This assumption is uncertain and as a result, low and high estimates of 10 and 50% are utilized. Because of the assumption that 30% of the initial nitrogen actually decomposed, it is conversely assumed that 70%> of the initial nitrogen present in the compost escaped nitrification/denitrification. This majority of the compost which did not nitrify or denitrify may have volatilized from the compost pile in the form of ammonia emissions (and been subject to downwind deposition), may have leached from the compost pile as ammonia, organic-nitrogen or nitrate, or may be contained in the finished compost. This nitrogen will be subject to future nitrification and denitrification and can therefore result in future emissions of N 2 O . The last important consideration when assesssing the potential for N 2 0 emissions from yard waste is the anthropogenic/natural nitrogen complication. What are the relative fractions of the anthropogenic reactive nitrogen and natural reactive nitrogen in yard waste to be nitrified and denitrified? This question is also discussed in Section 2.5.5.2. Due to the inherent difficulty in separating chemical fertilizer-based reactive nitrogen from the naturally reactive existing in yard wastes contained in a community, this research assumes a 50:50 split. Therefore 50% of the nitrogen is assumed to be human-induced and the remaining 50% would exist regardless of human interference. This assumption results in only half of the actual N 2 O emitted to be considered as a G H G emission to the atmosphere - the natural nitrogen is simply participating in natural N 2 0 cycling. 199 The potential for these future N 2 0 emissions are estimated using the IPCC guidelines for N H 3 or N O x emitted as gases (IPCC 1997). It is estimated that 1% of emitted N H 3 - N or NOx-N will eventually be converted to N 2 O - N with low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. Nitrogen Content of yard waste = 1.9% N (wet basis) - see #3 Anthropogenic Fraction of the Nitrogen Content = 50% Anthropogenic Nitrogen Content of Yard Waste = 1.9% * 0.50 = 0.95% Anthro N Best-Guess Estimate of the Immediate N 2 O Emission = 0.8% of initial N Low Estimate of the Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.2% of initial N High Estimate of the Immediate N 2 O Emission = 2.0% of initial N / V I 4 4 ^ \u00C2\u00B0 / ImmediateN,0 Emission = Mass tonne/ VNContentXN2OEmissionl \u00E2\u0080\u009E, ^ / m o ' 2 v / tonne A A 2 ^ _ _ oW O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 NI / 2 8 g N 2 0 - N V / m o l (GWPofN20): . tC0 2e, tonne ImmediateN20 Emission = (lXo.0095Xo.008)|^ j(310) = 0 . 0 3 6 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 ^ n n e Immediate N 2 0 Emission = 0.036 (0.009-0.091) tC02e./tonne Anthropogenic Nitrogen Content of Yard Waste = 0.95% N (wet basis) Best-Guess Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 0 Emissions = 70% Low Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 O Emssions = 50% High Estimate of Fraction Undergoing Future N 2 O Emssions = 90% Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion = 1% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Low Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion = 0.2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N High Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion = 2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Mass of Nitrogen Available for Future N 2 0 = (Mass tonne/ ](NContentXFuture N Fraction) = Mass of Future N / 6 2 v / t o n n e A A ' / tonne food waste Mass of Nitrogen Available for Future N 2 0 = (lX0.0095X0.70)= 0.0065 (0.0047 - 0.0084) t o n n e F u t u r e % n n e f o o d w a s t g Future N 2 0 Emission = (Mass of Future NXN20 Conversion) j g N 2 0 - N / 28 , , , / moty (GWP of N 2 0) = tC0 2 e, tonne , tC0 2e, Future N 2 0 Emission = (0.0065X0.01^j(310) = 0.032' / t o n n e Future N 2 0 Emission = 0.032 (0.0005-0.082) tC02e/tonne Since the carbon dioxide emissions from composting can be ignored (GHG neutrality) and this study assumes that methane emissions from backyard composters are nonexistent, the only GHG emissions resulting from backyard composting of yard waste is nitrous oxide. The potential for immediate and future N 2 O best-guess emission estimates are totalled below together with the total of the low and high estimates respectively. Total G H G Emissions from Backyard Composting = 0.068 (0.014-0.173) tC02e/tonne 200 10. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m C e n t r a l i z e d C o m p o s t i n g : The centralized composting of food waste does not currently occur in the G V R D , but is actively pursued in other jurisdictions such as Edmonton or Halifax. However, the centralized composting of yard trimmings collected from residents is performed at Fraser-Richmond Biocycle (FRBC) and at other composting facilities in the G V R D . FRBC uses passively aerated windrows and handles the yard trimmings for the three municipalities of the North Shore, Burnaby, Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows (Pers. comm. Steve Aujla). These windrows are roughly triangular in profile, about 25 feet in height, having a base of about 40 feet and several hundred feet in length. The composting process in these windrows is 4 to 5 months in duration. During this process, the windrows are turned 12 to 14 times to provide aeration for the decomposition (Pers. comm. Steve Aujla). The important difference between backyard and centralized composting of yard wastes is the potential for methane emissions to occur (carbon dioxide emissions from yard wastes are greenhouse gas neutral [see Section 2.3 - Biomass Decompostion/Combustion] and there should be little difference between centralized and backyard composting from the perspective of nitrous oxide emissions). As discussed in Appendix I, five research papers have investigated methane emissions with mixed results being reported. In the German study (Hellebrand 1998) it was observed that 1.7% of the initial carbon was emitted as methane and in the British study (Lopez-Real and Baptista 1996), the researchers found that the passive composting method produced high levels of methane (> 4 percent of initial carbon) while both the windrowing (mechanical turning) and the forced aeration method \"drastically reduced methane output.\" FRBC also performs windrow composting with turning every week or every two weeks, thus the intervals between turning can result in anaerobic conditions in the center of these large windrows. This author believes that methane emissions are a possibility. Given the scarcity of data, but the potential, this investigation will assume that 0.5% of the initial carbon in food waste will be emitting as methane during centralized composting. In addition, high and low estimates of 0.1% and 1%> of initial carbon will also be utilized because of the uncertainty involved. Best-Guess Estimate of the Methane Emission = 0.5% of initial carbon Low Estimate of the Methane Emission = 0.1% of initial carbon High Estimate of the Methane Emission = 1.0% of initial carbon Typical Carbon Content of Yard Waste = 47.0% (dry basis) (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) Typical Moisture Content of Yard Waste = 45% (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993) 1 6 g C H 4 / ' mol j ( G W P o f C H 4 ) = l C \u00C2\u00B0 : / Methane Emission = ( M a s s T O N N ^ O N N J ( C C o n t e n t ) ( l - MoisttireContent)(CH 4 Emission] '16 ,12 Methane Emission from Centralized Composting = 0.036 (0.007-0.072) tC02e/tonne Methane Emission = 0XO-47X1 - 0.45X0.005)[ \u00E2\u0080\u00941(21)= 0 . 0 3 6 t C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / / n p v 12 J ' l o n n e The methane emission above needs to be combined with the nitrous oxide emissions previously estimated for backyard composting: Total G H G Emissions from Centralized Composting = 0.105 (0.021-0.245) tC02e/tonne 201 11. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on o f C o m p o s t : The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) developed an estimate that between 0.004 and 0.20 tC02e/tonne yard waste is sequestered when yard trimmings are managed by centralized composting. This is believed to result because \"the heat generated within the compost piles favors \"thermophilic\" (heat-loving) bacteria, which tend to produce a greater proportion of stable, long-chain carbon compounds than do bacteria that predominate at ambient surface temperatures.\" These humic substances provide carbon sequestration in excess of yard trimmings left directly on the ground to naturally rot. The USEPA did not consider the alternative backyard composting of yard wastes. Due to the lack of research in these issues and the high degree of uncertainty which exists, the USEPA report identifies this as an area which could benefit from further study. The estimates developed by the USEPA, 0.004 and 0.20 tC02e/tonne yard waste, are used in this thesis as high and low estimates of the carbon sequestration resulting from the centralized composting of yard waste. The average of these values, 0.10 tC02e/tonne, is used as the best-guess estimate. Since the backyard composting of yard waste (individually or together with food scraps) does not typically reach the high temperatures observed during centralized operations, the conditions are likely not conducive to the formation of the humic substances important for carbon sequestration. As a result, this thesis assumes that no carbon sequestration occurs when yard waste is backyard composted. Best-Guess Estimate of Carbon Sequestration of Centralized Composted Yard Waste = 0.10 tC02e/tonne Low Estimate of Carbon Sequestration of Centralized Composted Yard Waste = 0.004 tC02e/tonne High Estimate of Carbon Sequestration of Centralized Composted Yard Waste = 0.20 tC02e/tonne Estimate of Carbon Sequestration of Backyard Composted Yard Waste = 0 tC02e/tonne 202 APPENDIXK: REMAINDER WASTE MANAGEMENT This appendix provides all the data and calculations to estimate emission factors for the landfilling or incineration of the Remainder. The first three sections are devoted to the G H G implications of the Cache Creek Landfill (1-3). The next three sections assess the same implications for the Vancouver Landfill (4-6). Sections 7 and 8, assess the energy generation and G H G emissions from the Burnaby Incinerator. The issues surrounding the Remainder are extensively discussed in Section 2.10 and readers are encouraged to examine that section prior to this appendix. The following data are developed in that section and are used in the calculations: |Ca rbonContentMassC^ r y M a s s j_cSF Carbon Storage Factor for wet Remainder = 0.09 tC/wet tonne Remainder Carbon Content of Biodegradable Organic Carbon in Remainder = 50% Biodegradable Fraction of Remainder = 70% Moisture Content of Biodegradable Carbon in Remainder = 30% Net Energy Content of Remainder = 11,600 kJ/kg Fossil Carbon Content of Remainder = 0.060 tC/tonnes Remainder Nitrogen Content of Remainder = 0 %> 1. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s of the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : Biodegradable Carbon Content of Remainder = 50%> Moisture Content of Biodegradable Carbon in Remainder = 30% Carbon Storage Factor for wet Remainder = 0.09 tC/wet tonne Remainder Carbon To Decompose = ( l W E T T O N N ^ W E T T J(Biodegraddble Fraction) (l - M C ) 0 ^ ^ Carbon To Decompose= (l)(0.70Xl - 0.30X0.50)- 0.09 = 0155 l9we tTonne This 0.155 tC per wet tonne of Remainder is available for anaerobic decomposition and will be assumed to be evenly split between C H 4 and C O 2 . Remember that since any C O 2 is neutral, it does not have to be considered further. , \u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 , ,r, ^ t r / V., . / Molecular MassofCH. ^ tCH MethaneGeneratton = ICarbonToDecomposeLV\\/ *-r I Methane Fraction I = V ^ /WetTonneA ^ MolecularMassofC J MethaneGeneration = (0 .155X0 .5^ j = 0.103 t C HXyefTonne Methane Generation Potential = 0.103 tCH4/tonne of food waste The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.04 yr\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. From Worksheet #34: Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.312 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.050 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.164 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.041 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.666 tC0 2 e/tonne Wet Tonne 203 High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization^ -0.014 tC0 2 e/tonne 2. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on in the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l : As discussed in Section 2.10 - Remaining Wastes, the Carbon Storage Factor used for Remainder in this thesis will be that for mixed MSW published in USEPA (1998). This CSF is 0.18 tonnes of carbon sequestered per wet tonne of MSW. 3. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the C a c h e C r e e k L a n d f i l l The nitrogen content of the Remainder is assumed to be negligible, therefore there is no potential for N 2 0 emissions. 4. M e t h a n e & E n e r g y I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The only significant difference between this section and Section 1, Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill, is the estimated landfill gas collection efficiency and the first order decay rate constant. While at Cache Creek the current collection efficiency is estimated to be 43%, the current collection efficiency at the Vancouver Landfill is estimated to only be 22% (Pers. comm. Chris Underwood). However, engineers with the City of Vancouver are currently in the process of upgrading the collection equipment. As with the CCLF assessment, the collection efficiency is assumed to increase year after year in response to improving regulations. The first order decay rate constant used here is 0.05 yr\"1 and the assumptions behind it are discussed in Section 2.4 - Landfill Carbon Sequestration. From Worksheet #34: Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.476 tC0 2 e/tonne Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.070 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= .0.223 tC0 2 e/tonne Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.048 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= 0.846 tC0 2 e/tonne High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization= -0.015 tC0 2 e/tonne 5. L o n g - T e r m C a r b o n Seques t ra t i on in the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : As discussed in Section 2.10 - Remaining Wastes, the Carbon Storage Factor used for Remainder in this thesis will be that for mixed M S W published in USEPA (1998). This CSF is 0.18 tonnes of carbon sequestered per wet tonne of MSW. 6. I m m e d i a t e & F u t u r e N 2 0 E m i s s i o n s f r o m the V a n c o u v e r L a n d f i l l : The nitrogen content of the Remainder is assumed to be negligible, therefore there is no potential for N 2 0 emissions. 204 7. E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n f r o m W a s t e I nc i ne ra t i on at the B u r n a b y I n c i n e r a t o r : Net Energy Content of Remainder = 11.6 GJ/tonne Steam Energy produced by the combustion of Remainder in an Incinerator-Boiler (1): Assumed Boiler Efficiency = 70% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Fraction of Steam Utilized by CPL = 56% (Montenay Inc. 1999) Utilized Energy = energy # E f f i c i e n c y ) , ( E n e r g y U t i , i z a t i o n ) = W tonne Remainder tonne x l 0 l l I l c Utilized Energy 11.6GJ (0.70)*(0.56) = 4.54GJ/ o tonne Remainder tonne /tonne Utilized Steam Energy per tonne of Remainder, (1) = 4.54 GJ/tonne G H G emission prevented per tonne of Remainder (3): G H G Emission Prevented ( UtiHzedEnergy\") ( . . t C O , e / ^ t C O , e / - ' * Emission Factor tor Natural Gas, \" / G J J /tonne tonne Remainder ^ tonne Newsprint G H G Emission Prevented = I Qy \ f 0 6 2 t C O 2 e / ) = t C 0 2 e / tonne Remainder V /tonne/ ^ / G J J /tonne G H G Emission Prevented from Natural Gas, (3) = 0.281 tC02e/tonne Electricity produced by the combustion of Remainder in an Incinerator-Boiler (4): Assumed Turbo Generator Efficiency = 32% (Pers. comm. Ron Richter) Steam Fraction for Electricity Generation = 40% (assumed as discussed) UtiHzedEnergy = energy ^ E f f i c ) , ^ T u r h o G e n e r a t o r ) * ( E n e r g y U t i l i z a t i o n ) = k J / tonne Remainder tonne 7 t o n n e Utilized Energy = 1L6GJ , ( o 7 o ) , ( o 3 2 ) , ( o 4 o ) = 1 0 4 G I / tonne Remainder tonne ' t o n n e Utilized Electrical Energy per tonne of Remainder, (4) = 1.04 GJ/tonne Electrical G H G emission prevented per tonne of Remainder: (6) G H G Emission Prevented ( Utilized Energy\") ( . . t C O , e / \") t C O , e / = \u00E2\u0080\u0094 * Emission Factor for Electricity, - / r . = / \u00E2\u0080\u009E , , . , \u00E2\u0080\u009E tonne Remainder V tonne Remainder^! v / U J ^ /tonne G H G Emission Prevented I^QJ/ \ J , 4 ? t C 0 2 e / \ t C 0 2 e / tonne Remainder V /tonne/ ^ / G J J /tonne G H G Emission Prevented from Electricity, (6) = 0.153 tCC^e/tonne Total G H G Emissions Prevented, (7) = 0.281 + 0.153 = -0.434 tC02e/tonne 8. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s f r o m W a s t e I n c i n e r a t i o n : At the Bumaby Incinerator, 247,075 tonnes of waste was combusted in 1998. This process required the consumption of 7,516 GJ of natural gas, 16,011 MWh of electricity, and 3,369 tonnes of lime (CaO) and 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH3) for acid gas control (Montenay Inc. 1999; Pers. comm. Richard Holt). Greenhouse gas emissions result from municipal solid waste incineration. This includes emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during incineration, the consumption of natural gas and electricity, and the consumption of lime for acid gas control (the production of lime from limestone results in CO2 emissions). Part of Remainder is fossil carbon and is therefore important from a 205 G H G perspective when combusted and must be assessed. However, the biomass carbon fraction is carbon-neutral, and is ignored From Section 2.10: Fossil Carbon Emissions during Incineration of Remainder = 0.060 tC/tonnes Remainder 44^ CO, Emissions from Remainder combustion = 10.060*0/ 2 \ /tonne-( SCO, mol V ' Z /mol J = 0.22 tCO,e, 'tonne G H G Emission of fossil-carbon from Remainder combustion = 0.22 tCC^e/tonne The emissions resulting from natural gas and electricity consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) is used at the Incinerator during air pollution control to neutralize acid gases which are produced during the combustion of waste. While the consumption of lime at the incinerator does not result in GHG emissions, the production of this material by the lime calcination process does result in emissions. In the production of lime, limestone (CaCOa) is heated so that it separates to CaO and CO2. In addition to the fossil fuel energy required to perform this reaction there is the non-energy related G H G emission from the liberalization of the unwanted carbon dioxide gas. Environment Canada (1997) has estimated that 0.790 kg of CO2 is emitted during the production of each kg of lime. It is assumed that the incineration of HDPE equally requires the use of lime for the neutralization of acid gases as any other waste. Therefore: G H G Emission from CaO Production = 0.790 tC02e/tonne CaO ^ i _ r ^ c \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 f r- f n W C O , / V 3,369 tonnes of CaO n m i t C O , / GHG Emissions from Lime = 0.790 2 / r\u00C2\u00BB * = u-01 1 / I /tonne CaO J 247,075 tonnes of waste / t o n n ' G H G Emission from lime consumption at Incinerator=0.011 tC02e/tonne Nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of Remainder can result in one of the five following pathways. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the N2 gas in air to N2O during combustion (Immediate emis.) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the nitrogen in food waste to N 2 0 (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Thermal conversion of the ammonia injected in the flue gases (Immediate emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N2O conversion of NOx emitted and later denitrified (Future emission) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Microbial N2O conversion of NH3 injected but unreacted (Future emission) Each of these five pathways are evaluated in the following calculations. Unfortunately, the current lack of understanding in these issues result in much uncertainty associated with the following estimates. An extensive discussion of the issue is provided Section 2.5.5.3. The first two potential sources of nitrous oxide emissions result from the potential for the nitrogen in waste or the N2 gas in air to thermal convert to N2O during incineration. There is limited and highly variable research of the N 2 0 emissions resulting from municipal solid waste incineration. Examples of emission estimates being used are: 206 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IPCC Compilation (de Soete 1993) 11-293 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Environment Canada Inventory (1997) 160 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA National Inventory (1999) 30 gN20/tonne of waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 USEPA M S W Analysis (1998) 130 gN20/tonne of waste Research in the fluidized bed combustion of coal has determined that N 2 0 emissions originate mainly from the oxidation of fuel nitrogen (Moritomi 1994), and since coal combustion is similar to that of waste incineration, it can be inferred that N 2 0 emissions during incineration are likely a factor of the nitrogen content. This hypothesis is reinforced by one study (Tanikawa et al. 1995), and the observation that the incineration of high nitrogen content wastewater sludge produces much higher N 2 0 emission rates than M S W incinerators (Tanaka et al. 1994). Since Remainder is assumed to have a negligible nitrogen content, this study will assume that this incineration does not have to account for any of the nitrous oxide emissions measured during M S W incineration. However, there is still the possibility of alternative pathways for N 2 0 emissions. The incineration of Remainder needs to take responsibility for the N 2 0 emissions resulting from acid gas (NOx) control. As the nitrogen oxide releases can be from molecular nitrogen in the air, Remainder incineration can contribute to this emission. This study assumes that the emissions from acid gas control should be evenly distributed across the mass of waste combusted. At the Burnaby Incinerator, 295 tonnes of ammonia (NH 3) was used during the combustion of 247,075 tonnes of waste in 1998 to reduce NOx emissions. As a result of the lack of any available research on the propensity for injected ammonia to thermally convert to N 2 0 , this study will assume the same conversion rate exhibited by the waste-nitrogen upon incineration. (See Appendix I #8) Therefore, approximately 1.7% of injected ammonia, and ranging between 0.3 and 3.1%, will be estimated to convert to nitrous oxide. Fraction of Injected-Ammonia emitted as N 2 0 = 1.7 (0.3-3.1) % Annual consumption of ammonia (1998) = 295 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes ( 14gN ( N H , Injected, tonnes! N , 0 from N H , Injection = N , 0 from N H , Injection = ' m o l I 7 g N H 3 / 'mol . (Waste Combusted, tonnes) * ( N , 0 Conversion) (295 _ ^ k i Z i * (o.o 17)f ^ ](310) = 0 . 0 0 8 1 t C 0 ^ (247,075) V \2&P ' / tonne 4 4 ^ 0 mol 2 8 ^ \u00C2\u00B0 - N / o l ( G W P o f N : 0 ) = l C \u00C2\u00B0 2 / tonne N 2 0 Emission resulting from N H 3 Injection = 0.0081 (0.0014 - 0.015) tC02e/tonne In addition to the potential for injected NH3 to thermally convert to N 2 0 , there can also be the future denitrification of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases released. It has been estimated that 10-30%) of waste-nitrogen is converted to N O x (NO + N 0 2 ) during combustion (White et al. 1995). This report will evenly distribute NOx emissions across the total mass of waste incinerated even though Remainder has a negligible nitrogen content. Nitrogen oxides are short lived in the atmosphere as they are quickly rained out in the form of nitrate (NO3\") or nitric acid (HNO3). Thus the deposition as NO3\" will 207 eventually require denitrification to N2, resulting in potential leakage of N2O. The IPCC provides guidelines for these emissions and estimates that 1% of emitted N H 3 - N or NOx-N will be converted to N2O. However they also provide low and high estimates of 0.2 and 2% respectively. A l l three of these values are used in this study. In addition to the potential for the microbial conversion of nitrogen oxide to nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides are suspected to be indirect greenhouse gases for another reason - they deplete the tropospheric concentration of the OH radical, which would otherwise react and destroy CH4 (Mackenzie 1995). Thus NOx causes C H 4 to be a stronger GHG. (As it is too early for any methodology on this issue, it will have to be ignored in this report.) At the Bumaby Incinerator it is estimated that 449 tonnes of NOx was emitted in 1998 (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee). Nitric oxide (NO) is predominantly the nitrogen oxide formed during incineration (Robinson 1986), and is assumed in the calculations below. Best-Guess Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of NOx = 1% N2O-N/NOX-N Low Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of N O x = 0.2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N High Estimate for the future N 2 0 conversion of N O x = 2% N 2 0 - N / N O x - N Annual NOx emission (1998) = 449 tonnes Annual mass of waste combusted (1998) = 247,075 tonnes (NO \u00E2\u0080\u009E Emission, tonnes] \u00E2\u0080\u009E . t 3 0 * /noU N , 0 Emission from N O . . = -, r * ( N , 0 Conversion J 2 >\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A l 7 . . \u00E2\u0080\u009E * . . r~\u00C2\u00AB 1 .\u00E2\u0080\u00941 * \ X - '\ 'mol 4 4 S N : \u00C2\u00B0 / , / m o l 2 8 g N : 0 \" / m o l (GWP of N : 0 ) = t C O - / / (Waste Combusted, tonnes) (449/H N , 0 Emission from N 0 X . = * (0-0l)gJ(310) = 0.0074 (0.0012 - 0.014) t C \u00C2\u00B0 = / t o n n e Future N 2 0 from N O x emission= 0.004 (0.001-0.008) tC02e/tonne The last potential N2O emission from waste incineration could occur when ammonia is injected into the flue gas but is emitted to the atmosphere, the so-called \"ammonia slip\". The ammonia will undergo wet or dry deposition to soils downwind where it can nitrify and denitrify. Communication with the GVRD (Pers. comm. Chantal Babensee) has learned that ammonia slip is virtually negligible at the Incinerator largely because only the minimum amount is injected into the flue gas. As a result, the potential for ammonia slip to result in nitrous oxide emissions can be neglected in this study. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions during waste combustion result from the consumption of natural gas, electricity and lime by the Incinerator. This analysis will assume that the emissions resulting from natural gas, electricity and lime consumption will be equally distributed over the entire solid waste combusted in 1998. These estimates are in Appendix C - Newsprint Waste Management. Total G H G Emissions = C 0 2 + N 2 0 + Natural Gas + Electricity + Lime = tC02e/tonne Total Emissions = 0.25 (0.24-0.26) tC02e/tonne 9. G H G E m i s s i o n s o f R e c y c l e d R e m a i n d e r U t i l i z a t i o n : The assumption discussed in Section 2.10 - Remaining Wastes is that a GHG benefit of 0 tC02e/tonne exists with the recycling of Remainder. 208 G H G Benefit of Recycled Remainder Utilization = 0 tCC^e/tonne 10. E f f ec t o f R e c y c l i n g R e m a i n d e r on F o r e s t C a r b o n S to rage The assumption discussed in Section 2.6.7 - Forest Carbon Sequestration is that no G H G benefit exists with Remainder recycling. G H G Benefit of Recycled Remainder Utilization = 0 tC02e/tonne 209 APPENDIX L: SPREADSHEET PROGRAM The appendix contains print-outs of each of the 34 worksheets which create the spreadsheet model. These worksheets are presented in the following pages in the same order they are on the spreadsheet and as listed in Table 2-5 : List of Worksheets. This table is reprinted below along with the page numbers where these worksheets can be found. List of Worksheets G R O U P # N A M E O F W O R K S H E E T P A G E N U M B E R S Results Group 1 GHG Emissions 211 2 Waste Tonnages 213 3 Emissions Factors 214 4 Factor List 216 General Group 5 General Parameters 218 Municipality Group 6 City of Abbotsford 225 7 City of Burnaby 226 8 City of Coquitlam 227 9 Corporation of Delta 228 10 City of Langley 229 11 Township of Langley 230 12 District of Maple Ridge 231 13 City of New Westminster 232 14 City of North Vancouver 233 15 District of North Vancouver 234 16 District of Pitt Meadows 235 17 City of Port Coquitlam 236 18 City of Port Moody 237 19 City of Richmond 238 20 City of Surrey 239 21 City of Vancouver 240 22 District of West Vancouver 241 23 City of White Rock 242 24 Electoral Area A 243 25 Electoral Area C 244 Waste Group 26 Newsprint Waste Management 245 27 Office Paper Waste Management 247 28 Ferrous Metal Waste Management 249 29 Glass Waste Management 250 30 HDPE Waste Management 251 31 LDPE Waste Management 252 32 Food Waste Management 253 33 Yard Waste Management 256 34 Remainder Waste Management 259 210 S s I \u00C2\u00B0 \u00C2\u00B0 s? SS~ 3Sjj \u00C2\u00AB? 3 g \u00C2\u00A7SS \u00C2\u00A7 S s 3 s sg| i? s | i s S S Si: 3 a si: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2? S s 5 ? 2 s s S S S 6 ? S | it I i s S \" a ; S S \" R S 3 3 3 i ss\u00C2\u00BB ss 6 6 ? o \u00C2\u00A33 2 2 s s I Hi p ^ \" n i s i s \u00C2\u00A7 I = B 15 l s | l l 1 5 | i i 5 s g g 3 8 S s S a ? SS * 3 PI; P 5 o 3 o g SS 3jj l l |5 si || i | 11 l l | |1 i l l H \u00C2\u00B0 5 S \u00C2\u00BB 3 a s \u00E2\u0080\u00A2? Ss *3 U || s 3|S S ' i \u00C2\u00A7 ? 1 \u00C2\u00A3 I 9X3L i S S * g s 5 s - \u00C2\u00BB ; s \" s s - a '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2pi ' I' 1 >|si ' 3 a \u00C2\u00A7 s s s s h- i ~ o o \" i O * in o S O 1 0 u i c\ | 0 \u00C2\u00BB - 0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-5? Ii 3 | Is la s5 5 s si \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 il-l s z . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2B S 2 6 z s Si i s 5. I* \u00C2\u00AE1 II 1= 3 \u00C2\u00A7 ll \u00C2\u00A3 2 \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 p S ^ 0 \u00C2\u00B0 \u00C2\u00A3 1 0 S 5 \u00C2\u00B0 I- 5 ^ 3 P 2 5 K j5 O (M_ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 |3 \" 0 s - o a p> S \u00C2\u00B0 i S ^ s 0 5 8 \" 1S | I s I s ! i Ss; s s | is 1 3 \u00C2\u00B0 I r~ O 1^ \" s J = s\u00C2\u00A7 | 2 5.5. 3. \u00C2\u00A7 is l i e 5 51 O ~ id m sSs | R P \u00C2\u00A3 \u00C2\u00A3 P P <*> P 5 gj P 0 0 , , i - i O o o o j N 5 0 ISI p as: 5 s x Is I 5 P S J O Ji S s s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 0 pi sss IS g g si i s l \u00C2\u00A3 s \u00C2\u00BB r - o p S S s i 2 P S 5 0 \u00C2\u00A3 5 o S o o S o o o o > I S S o $ [ o R \u00C2\u00A7 J o E o J J. \u00C2\u00A7 o \u00C2\u00A7 O 9 i I\" 5 * ^ s - S 1 i ; \u00C2\u00A3 3 is -\u00C2\u00A7 15 1 | i > o 1-1 P 10 o o P o ? o 0 o 1 S S ? S jjj i = Si i 2 g S = 11 $ * O O P P P S o o r . fi 5 P S g 2 s 0 ~ \u00C2\u00A3 -IS g S3 n o \" 1 ] ^ 10 - O ^ \u00C2\u00BB Pj 0 0 \u00C2\u00A3 c \u00C2\u00A3 is I | | m * \" I i -6 \* i j ! Ill I f ; | o & 8,5\" | i | J 3 I 3* J J i \u00E2\u0080\u00A26 3 if 9 i i a. i a> z P T' 9 ' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^ 2; r T 9 ( i 8 ; : r T 9 < ! R j : ! 8 S S r T 9 <; s 8 ; ; : T 9' <; ! R ; : r v 9 < SS5I \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 7 9 1 ? 7 9 < 5 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2:' \u00C2\u00A7 < ; ? c r T 9 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2= r T 9 : S | j HI ! 8 9 l I d d i i d S <; ; s s f j ss s; i d d < i S 8 f i S f j ! '. B 8 ; i S S I i 8 S ; ! I d ' j 10 ( 0 u J - O O ~1 \u00C2\u00B0 p \u00C2\u00B0 - ao g j 1 \u00C2\u00B0 o \u00C2\u00B0 ; g g \u00C2\u00A3 > d d d 5 <= : 2 \u00C2\u00A3 ; 8 5 ; ; S s j 9 o o o o 9 9 o o o o T T v 0 0 0 0 0 9 o o o IN IN *7 O o o I ' s l l l S I * 11112* 11111- l | ? s SSS2$5 < 5 | s * ? e g g * ; o | S $ ? ags > 1 5 i J i \" S 1 1 1 ! l l \u00C2\u00B0 \" \u00C2\u00A3 I 1 | | > 1 I I I S I ! i l l ! ! C C U O \u00E2\u0080\u0094J \u00E2\u0080\u0094J 7lf H i s i H I S 2 S S S 8 d p 9 9 9 o S IS R | | S \u00C2\u00A3 - 2 S S 8 9 9 9 9 9 d P S p P p g 8 Si S 5 = g 0 6 6 9 9 0 - . \" \" 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 2 o o o g 9 0 9 9 9 0 K 3 $ 8 8 8 d d d d o d S 5- \" \u00C2\u00B0 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 o 9 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 9 0 9 0 0 c O 2 O O O g 9 0 9 9 9 0 S S S 9 9 8 0 0 0 9 9 0 t - 2 S 8 8 9 9 0 0 o 0 0 S o o o 8 9 d 9 9 9 d S 8 S 9 9 8 0 0 0 9 9 0 9 9 9 9 ? = 0 2 o o o g 9 0 9 9 9 0 \u00C2\u00A3 \u00C2\u00A3 3 o 2 g S 2 8 3 3 g 9 9 9 9 9 0 3 g S S S g d d 9 9 9 o 8 K 3 q q g - \" \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 o o 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 2 o o o g 9 0 9 9 9 0 S S S 8 8 8 d d d d d d \" * S o 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 0 9 9 9 ! K S 3 8 9 g 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 o \u00C2\u00B0 o o o 8 o o 9 9 9 o l\u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00AB1 i i i : I > Q> g C ^ ^ I S 1 1 \u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00BB 5 ^ O 0 p \u00C2\u00A3 5 % Newsprint Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Bumaby Incinerator Future Incinerator Recycling Office Paper Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Bumaby incinerator Future Incinerator Recycling Metal Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Indnerator Future Incinerator Recycling Glass Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Incinerator Future Incinerator Recycling HDPE Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Incinerator Future Incinerator Recycling LDPE Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Indneralor Future Incinerator Recycling Food Scraps Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Incinerator Future Incinerator Backyard Composting < Cenlr alized Compo s ting Yard Trimmings Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Burnaby Incinerator Future Incinerator Backyard Composting Centralized Composting Remainder Cache Creek Landfill Vancouver Landfill Future Landfill Bumaby Indnerator Future Incinerator Recycling -1.06 -0.99 -1.16 -0.39 -0.40 0.00 1.40 1.79 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0,04 0.02 2.11 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0.02 0.02 2.11 2,10 -2,25 0.69 0.83 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.53 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0,00 6 J -1.32 -1.30 -0.41 -0.42 0.00 0.21 0.31 -0.35 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.35 0.00 0.04 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0,02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.25 0,11 .0.15 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0 06 -0.17 -0.13 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 \u00E2\u0080\u00A21.24 -1.19 -1.26 -0.40 -0.41 0.00 0.59 0.B3 0.57 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -1,16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0,04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22,25 0.32 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.53 -0.50 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0 05 -0.03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 -1.06 -0.99 -1.16 -0.39 -0.40 0.00 1.40 1.79 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0,37 0.04 0.02 0.01 2.11 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0.02 0.01 2.11 2.10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.25 0.69 0.83 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.52 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 u -1.32 -1.31 -0.42 -0.42 0.00 0.21 0.31 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.02 -1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2,11 2.10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.25 0.11 0.14 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.07 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.17 -0.13 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 i \u00C2\u00A3 -1.24 -1.20 -0.41 -0.41 0.00 0.59 0.83 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.11 2,10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2225 0.32 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 -0.53 -0.50 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -0,03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 oek High ! -1.06 -1.00 -1.16 -0.39 -0.39 0.00 1.40 1,78 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -235 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0,37 0.04 0.01 0.02 2.11 0.01 -J.70 0.04 0.01 0.02 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.69 0.82 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.30 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.36 0,52 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 of Whlta f Low -1.32 -1.31 -0.41 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.41 0.00 0.21 0.30 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.01 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0.01 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.11 0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.64 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.06 -0.17 -0.14 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 City Best -1.24 -1.20 -0.40 -0,40 0.00 0.59 0,82 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.01 0.02 0,02 -0.37 0.04 0.01 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0.01 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.32 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.53 -0.51 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -0.03 0.09 -0.02 -0.02 000 High -1.06 -0.99 -1.16 -0.39 -0.40 0.00 1.40 1.79 1.33 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20,37 0.04 0.02 0.02 2.11 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0,02 0.02 2.11 2.10 -2.25 0.69 0.83 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.53 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 u -1.32 -1.30 -0.41 -0.42 0.00 0.21 0.31 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -2.25 0.11 0.15 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.06 -0.17 -0.13 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2. of 1 Besl -1.24 -1.19 -0.40 -0.41 0.00 0.59 0.83 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 002 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.11 2.10 -2.25 0.32 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.53 -0.50 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -0.03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 i_ I I h -1.06 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.99 -1.16 -0.39 -0.40 0.00 1.40 1.79 1.37 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.37 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 0.01 -1.70 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.10 -2.25 0.69 0.82 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.14 023 -0.35 -0.30 -0.37 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.52 0,33 -O.01 -0.01 0.00 -1.32 -1.31 -1.29 -0.42 -0.42 0.00 0.21 0.31 0.19 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0,01 -0.37 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.10 -1.70 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.10 -2.25 0.11 0.14 0.09 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.66 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.07 -0.17 -0,14 -0,19 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 Cttyt Besl -1.24 -1.20 -1.26 -0.41 -0.41 0.00 0.59 0.83 0.57 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.03 0.02 0,01 0.02 0.01 -0.37 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.10 -1.70 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.10 -2.25 0.32 0.41 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 -0.53 -0.50 -0.55 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.033 0.095 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.025 -0.020 -0.023 0.00 \u00C2\u00A3 -1.06 -1.00 -0.40 -0.39 0.00 1.40 1.78 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.01 0,01 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.01 2.10 0.01 -1.70 0.04 001 2.10 2.11 -2.25 0.69 0.82 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.30 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.36 0.52 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.01 -0.01 0.00 -1.32 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.31 -1.29 -0.42 -0.41 0.00 0.21 0.30 0.19 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.01 2.10 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0,01 2.10 2.11 -2.25 0.11 0.14 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.64 -0.08 -0.06 0.01 0.07 -0.17 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.14 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 -1.24 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.20 -0.41 -0.40 0.00 0.59 0.82 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.01 0.01 0,02 -0.37 0.04 001 2.10 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0,01 2.10 2.11 -2.25 0.32 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 -0.53 -0.51 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.03 0.09 -0.02 -0.02 0,00 ft \u00E2\u0080\u00A2o r \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.06 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.99 -1.16 -0.40 -0.40 0.00 1.40 1.79 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0,01 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.37 0.04 0.02 2.10 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.10 2.10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.25 0.69 0.83 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.52 0.34 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 of Richnv -1.32 -1.31 -0.42 -0.42 0.00 0,21 0.31 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.35 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.10 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2,10 2,10 -2.25 0,11 0.14 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.06 -0.17 -0.13 -0.03 -0.03 0,00 City Best -1.24 -1.20 -0.41 -041 0.00 0.59 0.63 -0.34 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.35 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.37 0.04 0.02 2.10 2.10 -1.70 0.04 0.02 2.10 2.10 -2,25 0.32 0,41 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.53 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.50 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -0,03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 High | -1.06 -0.99 -1.16 -0.39 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.39 0.00 1,40 1.79 1.38 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0,03 0,02 2.11 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0.03 0.02 2,11 2,11 -2,25 0.69 0.83 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0,10 0,36 0.53 0,34 -0.01 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.01 o.oo of Port Mc Low -1,32 -1.30 -0.41 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.41 0,00 021 0.32 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.35 -0.35 0.00 0,04 0,03 -1.16 -1,16 -2,35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -2,25 0,11 0.15 -0,01 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2O.OI 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.07 -0.17 -0.13 -0.03 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.03 0.00 City Best -1.24 -1.19 -0.40 -0.40 0.00 0.59 0.83 -0.34 -0,34 0,00 0,04 0,03 -1.16 -1.16 -2,35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.03 2.11 2,11 -1.70 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0,32 0,42 0,01 0,01 0.06 0,13 -0.53 -0.49 0,06 0.06 -0,03 0,05 -0.03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 High | -1.06 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.99 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -0.39 -0.39 0.00 1.40 1,79 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0,04 0,03 0,02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.03 0.02 2.11 0,01 -1,70 0,04 0.03 0.02 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.69 0.63 0.67 0,04 0,04 0,14 0,23 -0,35 -0,29 -0,37 0,20 0,20 0.17 0,09 0.36 0.53 0.34 -0.01 -O.01 0.00 Port Coq) Low \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.32 -1,30 -0.41 -0.41 0.00 0.21 0.32 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.03 -1.16 -1.16 -2.35 0.04 0.03 0,02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0,03 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.11 0.15 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.06 -0.17 -0.13 -0,03 -0.03 0.00 City ol Best -1.24 -1.19 -0.40 -0.40 0.00 0.59 0.83 -0.34 -0.34 0.00 0.04 0.03 -1.16 -1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0.03 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.32 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.53 -0.49 0.06 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -0.03 0.10 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 adows j High 1 -1,06 -0.99 -1.16 -0.39 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.39 0,00 1.40 1.79 1.38 -0.33 -0.33 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1.16 -1.16 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0,37 0.04 0.03 0.02 2.11 0.01 -1.70 0.04 0.03 0.02 2.11 2,11 \u00E2\u0080\u00A22.25 0.69 0.83 0.67 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.23 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.10 036 0.53 034 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 t of Pitt Me Low -1.32 -1.30 -1,29 -0,41 -0,41 0,00 0.21 0.32 0.19 -0.35 -0.35 0.00 0.04 0.03 0,02 -1.16 -1,16 -2,35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.37 0.04 003 0.02 2.11 2.11 -1.70 0.04 0.03 0.02 2.11 2.11 -2.25 0.11 0.15 0.09 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.64 -0.63 -0.66 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.07 -0.17 -0.13 -0.19 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 l l l i i l l i l l l l l l l l i i i l l i l l l i l l l l l l l l i i l l l i i l l i l l l l l l l l i i Yard Trlmmingi Best Low Hiqh | 0.183 0.092 0.313 -0.028 -0.021 -0.005 -0.754 -0.754 -0754 0.031 0.006 0.062 ; 0.231 0.116 0.381 j -0.029 -0.023 -0.005 | -0.754 -0.754 -0.754 0,031 0.006 0.062 I 0.183 0.092 0.313 i -0.028 -0.021 -0.005 -0.754 -0.754 -0.754 0.031 0.006 0.062 -0,139 -0.139 -0.139 0.181 0.044 0.320 -0.139 -0.139 -0.139 0.181 0.044 0.320 0.068 0.014 0.173 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.021 0.246 -0.100 -0.004 -0.200 i| 0.398 0.201 0.680 -0.060 -0.046 -0.011 -0.068 -0.088 -0.088 0 038 0.O08 0.076 0.502 0.253 0.826 -0.062 -0.049 -0.010 -0.088 -0.088 -0.088 0.038 0.008 0.076 0.398 0.201 0.680 -0.060 -O.046 -0.011 -O.088 -0.068 -0.088 0.038 0.008 0.076 -0.097 -0.058 -0.134 0.091 0.028 0.155 -0.097 -0.058 -0.134 0.091 0.028 0.155 0.057 0.011 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.015 0.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 ii nm ii nm II i I-i !ii!SilI!iiI?I?HI mimmmmii i !\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I mmmmmm l l l i i l l i l l l l l l l l i i l l l i i l l i l l l l l l l l i i III ll lllll >l W i l l \u00E2\u0080\u00A2,!-; 1 1 W i l l i ! : , i l l l i l . . a i6 GENERAL PARAMETERS: 1998 Waste Flow DIRECT HAUL (TONNES): Cache Creek Vancouver Future Burnaby Future Coquitlam North Shore Vancouver Matsqui Langley Maple Ridge Landfill Landfill Landfill Incinerator Incinerator TS TS TS TS TS TS TOTAL: Abbot sford 0 0 0 0 0 756 0 0 48,031 162 0 48.949 Burnaby 0 0 0 91,666 0 27.081 10,342 0 0 0 0 129,089 Coquitlam 0 0 0 78 0 93,925 0 0 0 0 0 94,003 Delta 0 64,428 0 0 0 3,973 0 703 0 0 0 69,104 Langley (City) 0 0 0 0 0 10.025 0 0 3.460 510 0 13,995 Langley (Town) 0 0 0 5.961 0 5,501 0 0 4.315 11.744 0 27,521 Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 8,308 0 0 870 0 12.177 21.355 New Westminster 0 0 0 14.411 0 13,607 0 0 0 0 0 28,018 N, Van, (City) 0 0 0 0 0 136 10,037 0 0 0 0 10.173 N. Van. (District) 0 0 0 0 0 379 73,521 0 0 0 0 73.900 Pit) Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 3,595 0 0 17 0 209 3,821 Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 17,895 0 0 0 0 0 17,895 Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 5,670 0 0 0 0 0 5,670 Richmond 0 7,508 0 7,280 0 5,967 0 43,609 0 0 0 64,364 Surrey 0 7.471 0 21.286 0 96,881 0 0 492 0 0 126.130 Vancouver 0 8,899 0 6.217 0 22.374 83,761 225,740 0 0 0 346,991 West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,733 0 0 0 0 15.733 White Rock 0 8.635 0 0 0 287 0 42 0 0 0 8,964 Elecl A ( U . E . L ) 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 3.283 0 0 0 3,349 Elect C (Bowen) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.289 0 0 0 0 1,289 TOTAL: 0 97.007 0 146.899 0 316,360 1 94,663 273,377 57,185 12.416 12.386 TRANSFER FLOWS (TONNES) TRANSFER FLOWS (PERCENTAGES) Cache Creek Vancouver Future Burnaby Future Coquitlam Matsqui transfers to ~) Landfill Landfill Landfill Incinerator Incinerator TS TS T O T A L Coquitlam TS 303,608 8,189 0 3,981 0 0 0 315.778 North Shore TS 82,930 1,754 0 89.942 0 0 0 174.626 Vancouver TS 0 271.431 0 0 0 0 0 271.431 Matsqui TS 73.169 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.169 Langley TS 0 0 0 0 0 1.217 8.172 9,389 Maple Ridge TS 0 0 0 0 0 2,030 10,070 12.100 T O T A L - 459.707 281.374 0 93,923 0 3.247 18.242 Cache Cree Vancouve Future Burnaby Future TOTAL transfers to \u00E2\u0080\u0094} Landfill Landfill Landfill Incinerator ncinerator Coquitlam TS 96.1 2.6 0.0 1.3 0 0 100.0 North Shore TS 47.5 1.0 0,0 51.5 0.0 100.0 Vancouver TS 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Matsqui TS 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Langley TS 99.5 0.3 0.0 0,2 0.0 100.0 Maple Ridge TS 99.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 TOTAL MASS FLOWS (TONNES) Cache Creek Vancouver PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE DISPOSAL Cache Creek Vancouver Future Burnaby F Landfill Landfill Landfill Incinerator Incinerator TOTAL Landfill Landfill Landfill Incinerator Incinerator TOTAL Abbot sford 48,919 20 0 10 0 48.949 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Burnaby 30,049 806 0 97,334 0 129,089 24.0 0.6 0.0 75.4 0.0 100 Coquitlam 90.305 2.438 0 1.262 0 94.003 96.1 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 100 Delta 3.820 65.234 0 50 0 69.104 5.5 94.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 100 Langley (City) 13,606 262 0 127 0 13.995 97.2 1.9 0.0 0.9 0,0 100 Langley (Town) 21.289 182 0 6,050 0 27.521 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 100 Maple Ridge 20.956 268 0 130 0 21,355 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 100 New Westminster 13.083 353 0 14,583 0 28.018 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0,0 100 N. Van, (City) 4,897 104 0 5,171 0 10,173 48.1 1.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 100 N. Van. (District) 35.280 748 0 37,872 0 73,900 47.7 1.0 0.0 51.2 0.0 100 Pitt Meadows 3,681 94 0 46 0 3,821 96.3 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 100 Port Coquitlam 17.205 464 0 226 0 17,895 96.1 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 100 Port Moody 5,451 147 0 71 0 5,670 96.1 2.6 0.0 1.3 0,0 100 Richmond 5,737 51.272 0 7.355 0 64,364 8,9 79.7 0.0 11.4 0.0 100 Surrey 93.639 9,983 0 22,507 0 126.130 74.2 7.9 0.0 17.8 0.0 100 Vancouver 61.290 236.061 0 49,641 0 346.991 17.7 68.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 100 West Vancouver 7.472 158 0 8.103 0 15.733 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 100 White Rock 276 8,684 0 4 0 8,964 3.1 96.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Elec lA(U.E.L) 0 3,349 0 0 0 3,349 0,0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Elect C (Bowen) 612 13 0 664 0 1,289 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 100 TOTAL: 478,468 380,639 0 251.206 0 PHYSICAL CONSTANTS & DATA F R O M LITERATURE: Global Warming Potential of CH\u00C2\u00AB= Global Warming Potential of N zO= Molecular mass of methane (CH4)= Molecular mass of carbon (C)= Molecular mass of carbon dioxide (C0 2)= Molecular mass ol nitrous oxide (NjO) 3 Molecular mass of nitrogen in nitrous oxide (NaO-N)= Molecular mass of ammonia (NH3)= Molecular mass of nitrogen in ammonia (NHj-N)= Molecular mass of nitric oxide (NO)= Molecular mass of nitrogen in nitric oxide (NO-N)= Latent heal of water= Fraction of anaerobically decomposed carbon to be CH 4= C O ; emission from natural gas combustion Energy of natural gas (typically) = GHG emission from diesel fuel combustions GHG emission from diesel fuel combuslion= GHG emission from propane combustion2 37,843 2.854 0.076 1.530 3 g/mol ! g/mol t g/mol t g/mol J g/mol r g/mol 1 g/mol ) g/mol 1 g/mol i kJ/kg ) % 1 kgCOj/m 3 kJ/m3 kgC0 2e/L ICO^/loVm kgCO^/L DATA FOR THE C A C H E C R E E K LANDFILL: BEST-GUESS LOW-ESTIMATE HIGH-ESTIMATE Oxidation Oxidation Oxidation by Cover % LFG % LFG by Cover V. LFG % LFG by Cover % LFG % LFG YEAR Material Flared Energy Material Flarod Energy Material Flared Energy {%) (%) (%) (%) {%> {%) (%l (%) 1999 10 43 0 15 43 0 5 43 0 2000 10 50 0 15 50 0 5 50 0 2001 10 50 10 15 50 10 5 50 0 2002 10 50 15 15 55 15 5 50 0 2003 10 45 20 15 55 20 5 50 0 2004 10 40 25 15 50 25 5 55 0 2005 10 35 35 15 40 35 5 55 0 2 \ 3 2006 10 2007 10 2008 10 2009 10 2010 10 2011 10 2012 10 2013 10 2014 10 2015 10 2016 10 2017 10 2018 10 30 40 25 50 25 50 20 55 20 55 15 60 15 60 10 65 10 65 5 70 5 70 0 75 0 75 15 35 15 25 15 30 15 25 15 25 15 20 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 10 15 10 15 0 15 0 40 5 50 5 50 5 55 5 55 5 60 5 60 5 65 5 65 5 70 5 70 5 85 5 85 5 55 5 55 5 50 10 50 10 50 10 45 15 45 15 45 15 40 20 40 20 35 25 35 25 35 25 DATA FOR THE V A N C O U V E R LANDFILL: BEST-GUESS LOW-ESTIMATE HIGH-ESTIMATE Oxidation Oxidation Oxidation by Cover % LFG % LFG by Cover % LFG % LFG by Cover % LFG % LFG YEAR Mat o rial - Flared Energy Material Flared Energy Material Flared Energy {%) (%) (%) (V.) (%) (V.) (%) (%) (V.) 1999 10 22 0 15 22 0 5 22 0 2000 10 30 0 15 35 0 5 30 0 2001 10 35 10 15 40 10 5 35 0 2002 10 40 15 15 45 15 5 40 0 2003 10 45 20 15 55 20 5 50 0 2004 10 40 25 15 50 25 5 55 0 2005 10 30 40 15 40 35 5 55 0 2006 10 30 40 15 35 40 5 55 5 2007 10 25 50 15 25 50 5 55 5 2008 10 25 50 15 30 50 5 50 10 2009 10 20 55 15 25 55 5 50 10 2010 10 20 55 15 25 55 5 50 10 2011 10 15 60 15 20 60 5 45 15 2012 10 15 60 15 20 60 5 45 15 2013 10 10 65 15 15 65 5 45 15 2014 10 10 65 15 15 65 5 40 20 2015 10 5 70 15 10 70 5 40 20 2016 10 5 70 15 10 70 5 35 25 2017 10 0 75 15 0 85 5 35 25 2018 10 0 75 15 0 85 5 35 25 DATA FOR A F U T U R E LANDFILL: BEST-GUESS LOW-ESTIMATE HIGH-ESTIMATE Oxidation Oxidation Oxidation by Cover \u00E2\u0080\u00A2A LFG % LFG by Cover % LFG % LFG by Cover % LFG v. LFG YEAR Material Flared Energy Material Flared Energy Material Flared Enorgy {%) (*/.) ('/.) (%) (V.) (%) (%) (%) 1999 10 43 0 15 43 0 5 43 0 2000 10 50 0 15 50 0 5 50 0 2001 10 50 10 15 50 10 5 50 0 2002 10 50 15 15 55 15 5 50 0 2003 10 45 20 15 55 20 5 50 0 2004 10 40 25 15 50 25 5 55 0 2005 10 35 35 15 40 35 5 55 0 2006 10 30 40 15 35 40 5 55 5 2007 10 25 50 15 25 50 5 55 5 2008 10 25 50 15 30 50 5 50 10 2009 10 20 55 15 25 55 5 50 10 2010 10 20 55 15 25 55 5 50 10 2011 10 15 60 15 20 60 5 45 15 2012 10 15 60 15 20 60 5 45 15 2013 10 10 65 15 15 65 5 45 15 2014 10 10 65 15 15 65 5 40 20 2015 10 5 70 15 10 70 5 40 20 2016 10 5 70 15 10 70 5 35 25 2017 10 0 75 15 0 85 5 35 25 2018 10 0 75 15 0 85 5 35 25 DATA & CALCULATIONS FOR THE BURNABY INCINERATOR: Mass of waste combusted (1996) - 247,075 tonnes of MSW Fraction of steam sold to Crown Pa per board\" 56 % Fraction of steam to generate electricity in Turbogenerators 0 % Thermal efficiency of a mass-fired incinerator-boiler0 70 V* Electric efficiency of a turbo-gone rat or - 32 % Efficiency of natural gas combustion to generate steam\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Emission factor for natural gas consumption at Crown= Burrard Thermal Emission Average for Electricity Generation\" 80 % 0.0621 tC02e/GJ 0.147 tC02e/GJ Best-guess estimate of fraction of waste-nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 \u00C2\u00BB Low estimate of fraction of waste-nitrogen emitted as NjO-High estimate of fraction of waste-nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 \u00C2\u00B0 1.7 MNjO/waste-nitrogen 0.3 ViNiO/waste-nitrogen 3.1 %N;0/waste-nitrogen Ammonia Injected into flue gases (1998) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Besl-guess eslimate immediate N 2 0 emission from NHj= Low estimate immediate N 2 0 emission from NH3= High estimate immediate N 2 0 emission (rom NH3= 295 tonnes NH, 0.0081 ICOje/tonne 0.0014 tCO^e/lonne 0.015 tCOje/lonne Best-Guess Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen- 1.0 V.N20/emitted NH, or N O x Low Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen\" 0.2 %N20/emitted NH, or N O x High Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen\" 2.0 %N20/emitted NH, or N O x Nitrogen oxide (NO*} emission (1998) - 449 tonnes NO Best-guess estimate for future N 2 0 conversion of NOH= 0.0041 ICOje/tonne Low eslimate for future N;0 conversion of NO\u00C2\u00BB= 0.0008 IC02e/tonne High estimate (or future U20 conversion of NO,= 0.0083 tCOie/tonne Natural gas consumption (1998)\" 7516 GJ C 0 2 emission from natural gas consumplion= 0,0015 tC02e/lonne BC Hydro electricity consumption (1998)- 16011 MWh Provincial average of BC Hydro emission intensity- 30 tC0 2 e/GWh CG> emission from electricity consumption^ 0,0019 lC0 2e/lonne Lime consumption (1998)- 3369 tonnes CaO GHG emission from Industrial CaO (lime) production* 0.790 tC0 2e/tonne CaO GHG emission from Incinerator lime consumptions 0 011 tCO?e/lonne DATA & CALCULATIONS FOR A FUTURE INCINERATOR: Mass of waste combusted (1998) \u00C2\u00BB 247,075 tonnes of MSW Fraction of steam sold to Crown Paperboard- 56 % Fraction of steam to generate electricity In Turbogenerator- 0 V. Thermal efficiency of a mass-fired incinerator-bollor- 70 % Eloctric efficiency of a turbo-generator \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 8B % Efficiency of natural gas combustion to generate steam- . 80 % Emission I act or for natural gas consumption al Crown 3 0,0621 ICO^/GJ Burrard Thermal Emission Average for Electricity Generatlon- 0.147 tC02e/GJ Best-guess estimate of fraction of waste-nltrogon emitted as N 2 0 - 1.7 %NjO/waste nitrogen Low estimate of fraction of waste-nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 - 0.3 %N;0/waste nitrogen High estimate of fraction of waste-nitrogen emitted as N 2 0 - 3.1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2/\u00E2\u0080\u00A2NjO/waste nitrogen Ammonia Injected into flue gases (1998) - 295 tonnes NH, Best-guess estimate immediate N 2 0 emission from NH3= 0,0081 ICOje/tonne Low estimate immediate N 2 0 emission from NH3= 0.0014 ICOje/tonne High estimate immediate N 3 0 emission from NH3= 0.015 ICO^/tonne Best-Guess Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen-Low Estimate of the N 9 0 from vented nitrogen-High Estimate of the N 2 0 from vented nitrogen-Nitrogen oxide (NO*) emission (1998) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Best-guess estimate for future N 2 0 conversion of NO*= Low estimate for future NjO conversion of NO x= High estimate for future N 2 0 conversion of NO x = Natural gas consumption (1990)-C 0 2 emission from natural gas consumptions BC Hydro electricity consumption (1998)-Provinciat average of BC Hydro emission intensity-COj emission from electricity consumption2 1.0 % N j O / e m l l t o d N H , o r N O \u00E2\u0080\u009E 0.2 V.NjO/emlttodNH 3 orNO x 2.0 %N 20/emlttedNH, orNO* 449 tonnes NO 0.0041 ICO^/lonne 0.0008 tCOje/tonne 0.0083 ICO^/tonne 7516 GJ 0.0015 tCO^/tonne 16011 MWh 30 tCOje/GWh 0.0019 tCO^/tonne Lime consumption (1998)-GHG emission from Industrial CaO (lime) production-GHG emission from Incinerator lime consumption* 3369 tonnes CaO 0.790 tCOjd/tonne CaO 0.011 ICOje/tonne WASTE DELIVERED TO THE COQUITLAM TRANSFER STATION 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Diesel fuel consumption by equipment (1998)- 279,495 L Mass of waste managed (1998)- 319,651 tonnes GHG emission from equipment =\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0.0025 ICO^e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (only one way)- 200 L # of round trips in 1998- 8112 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 303,608 tonnes Average mass of waste transported: 37.4 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.015 tCOje/tonne 3 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill: Dlosel fuel consumption during disposal (1996)-Mass collectod during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from waste collection = 812,499 L 474,873 tonnes 0.0049 tCOie/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (round-trip)- 45 L # of round trips In 1996- 339 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 8,189 tonnes Average mass of waste transported = 24.2 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0053 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from waste collection = 479.000 L 379,554 tonnes 0.0036 tC02e/tonne 6 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (round-trip)- 0 L U of round trips In 1998* 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transporled = 1.0 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0000 ICO^/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1996)-GHG emission from waste collection = 0 L 1 tonnes 0,0000 ICO^/tonne 770 8 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Diesel fuel consumption per round trip* 23 L V of round trips in 1998- 176 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 3.981 tonnes Average mass of waste !ransported= 22.6 tonnes/trip GHG emission from wasle transport = 00029 lC02e/!onne 9 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Diesel fuel consumption per round trip- 0 L # of round trips in 1996- 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported3 1.0 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0000 tCOje/lonne Total for Wasle Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill= Total for Wasle Disposed al Ihe Vancouver Landfill2 Tola! for Waste Disposed al a Future Landfill? Total for Waste Disposed al the Burnaby Incinerator2 Total for Waste Disposed at a Future Incinerator* 0.0226 tCOje/tonne 0.0114 ICOje/tonne 0,0025 ICO^e/tonne 0.0054 tCO^/tonne 0.0025 ICOze/lonne WASTE DELIVERED TO THE NORTH SHORE TRANSFER STATION 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Diesel fuel consumption by equipment (1998)- 87.918 L Mass of waste managed (1998)- 194,755 tonnes G H G emission from equipment 2 0.0013 tCOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Cache Creek Landfill: Dlesol fuel consumption per trip (only one way)- 215 L \u00C2\u00BB of round trips in 1998* 2,283 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 82,930 tonnes Average mass of wasle transported2 36.3 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport * 0.017 tC02e/lonne 3 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from waste collection -612,499 L 474,873 tonnes 0.0049 ICO2e/t0nne 4 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (round-trip)-tt of round trips In 1996-Mass of waste transported (1998)-Average mass of waste transported = GHG emission from waste transport = 5 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from wasle collection = 45 L 71 trips 1,754 tonnes 24.7 tonnes/trip 0.0052 tCOje/tonne 479,000 L 379.554 tonnes 0.0036 tCOje/tonne 6 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (round-trip)* 0 L tt of round trips in 1998- 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)* 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported = 1.0 tonnes/trip GHG emission from wasle transport = 0.0000 tC02e/lonne 7 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from waste collection = 0 L 1 tonnes 0.0000 tCOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Diesel fuel consumption per round trip- 23 L tt of round trips In 1998- 3609 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 89,942 tonnes Average mass of waste transported* 24.9 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0026 IC02e/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Diesel fuel consumption per round trip- 0 L # of round trips in 1998* 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported2 1.0 lonnes/lrip GHG emission from waste transport = 0,0000 ICO^ e/tonne Total (or Waste Disposed al the Cache Creek Landfill3 Total for Waste Disposed al the Vancouver Landfill= Tola! for Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill3 Total for Waste Disposed at the Burnaby Incinerator2 Total for Waste Disposed at a Future Incinerator2 0,0231 ICOze/lonne 0.0101 tCOje/lonne 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 0.0039 tCOje/tonne 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 2 WASTE DELIVERED TO THE VANCOUVER TRANSFER STATION 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Diesel fuel consumption by equipment (1998)- 87,650 L Mass of waste managed (1998)* 273,691 tonnes GHG emission from equipment = 0.0009 tCCVJ/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (only one way)- 215 L tt of round trips in 1998- 2.283 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 82.930 tonnes Average mass of wasle transported2 36.3 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.017 ICO^/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 812.499 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 474.873 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0049 tCOse/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: Total diesel fuel consumption - 334.000 L # of round trips In 1998- 12500 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 287,931 tonnes Average mass of waste transported 2 230 tonnes/trip Average fuel consumption per trip = 26.7 L/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0033 ICOje/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 479.000 L Mass colloctod during this consumption (1998)- 379.554 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0036 ICOje/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Landfill: Total diesel fuol consumption - 0 L 0 of round trips In 1998- 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported = 1.0 lonnes/trip Average fuel consumption per trip = 0.0 L/lrip GHG emission from waste transport 2 0.0000 ICOje/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuol consumption during disposal (1998)= 0 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 1 tonnes GHG emission Irom wasle collection = 0.0000 ICOse/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip - 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 22 km Dlesol Fuel Consumption - 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.0014 ICOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip - 1 tonnes/trip Distance per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0 0000 ICO^/tonne Total for Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill= 0.0227 ICOze/tonne Total for Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill2 0.0078 ICOje/tonne Tolal for Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill2 0.0009 ICOje/tonne Total lor Wasle Disposed at the Burnaby Incinerator2 0 0023 ICOje/tonne Total for Wasle Disposed at a Future Incinerator2 0.0009 ICG^e/tonne WASTE DELIVERED TO THE MATSQUI TRANSFER STATION 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Diese) fuel consumption by equipment (1998)-Mass of waste managed (1998)-GHG emission from equipment 2 33.280 L 75,850 tonnes 0.0013 tCO;*/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption per trip (only one way)- 185 L ff of round trips in 1998- 2.104 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 73,169 tonnes Average mass of waste transported- 34.8 tonnes/trip GHG emission from wasle transport = 0.015 ICO^e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)-Mass collected during this consumption (1998)-GHG emission from waste collection = 812,499 L 474,673 tonnes 0.0049 ICOje/tonne 4 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: Tonnes hauled per trip - 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 130 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.0083 ICO^e/tonne 2. 5 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 479,000 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 379,554 tonnes GHG emission from wasle collection = 0.0036 tCO?e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Landfill: Total diesel fuel consumption - 0 L tt of round trips In 1998-1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported = 1.0 tonnes/trip Average fuel consumption per trip = 0,0 Ulrip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0000 IC02e/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 0 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 1 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0000 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 120 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.0077 tCOje/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Tonnes hauted per trip = 1 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 0 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 U100 km GHG emission = 0.0000 ICO^/tonne Total for Wasle Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill* 0.0213 (CO^/tonne Total for Wasle Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill* 0,0132 ICO^/tonne Total for Waste Disposed at a Future Land fill= 0.0013 ICO^/tonne Total for Waste Disposed at the Burnaby Incinerator* 0,0090 ICO^/tonne Total lor Waste Disposed at a Future Incinerator* 0,0013 iCOze/tonne WASTE DELIVERED TO THE LANGLEY TRANSFER STATION Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Average GHG emission from equipment = 0.0015 ICO^e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Cache Creek Landfill: Transfer to the Matsqui Transfer Station Tonnes hauled per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 40 km Diesel Fuel Consumption * 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.0026 tCOje/tonne Processing at the Matsqui Transfer Station Diesel fuel consumption by equipment (1998)- 33,260 L Mass of waste managed (1998)- 75,850 tonnes GHG emission from equipment \u00C2\u00BB 0.0013 tCO>e/tonne Transfer to the Cache Creek Landfill Diesel fuel consumption per trip (only one way)- 185 L tt of round trips in 199B- 2,104 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 73,169 tonnes Average mass of waste transported2 34.8 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.015 tC02e/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Cache Creek Landfill: Diesol fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 812,499 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 474,873 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0049 ICOje/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Vancouver Landfill: Tonnos hauled per trip - 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 85 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 U100 km GHG emission = 0.0055 ICOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at the Vancouver Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 479.000 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 379,554 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0,0036 ICOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Landfill: Total diesel fuel consumption - 0 L # of round trips in 1998- 1 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 1 tonnes Average mass of waste transported = 1.0 tonnes/trip Average fuel consumption per trip = 0.0 L/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0000 IC02e/tonne 7 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)* 0 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)* 1 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0000 ICG^e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip - 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 90 km Diesel Fuel Consumption \u00C2\u00B0 45.0 LM00 km GHG emission = 0.0058 ICO^/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip - 1 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 0 km Diesel Fuel Consumption <* 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.0000 ICOje/tonne Total for Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill\" 0.0254 ICOje/lonne Total for Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill3 0.0106 tCO,e/lonne Total (or Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill- 0.0015 tC02e/lonne Total for Wasle Disposed at (he Burnaby Incinerators 0.0073 tCOje/tonne Total (or Waste Disposed at a Future lncinerator= 0.0015 tCOje/lonne WASTE DELIVERED TO THE MAPLE RIDGE TRANSFER STATION 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption by Transfer Station Equipment: Average GHG emission from equipment = 0.0015 tC02e/lonne Diesel Fue l Consumpt ion for Transport to the C a c h e C r e e k Landfill: Transfer to (he Malsqui Transfer Station Tonnes hauled per trip - 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 60 km Diesel Fuel Consumption \u00C2\u00AB 45.0 U100 km GHG emission = 0.0039 IC02e/tonne Processing al the Malsqui Transfer Station Diesel fuel consumption by equipment (1998)-= 33,280 L Mass of waste managed (199B)\u00C2\u00BB 75,850 tonnes GHG emission from equipmenl = 0.0013 ICOje/tonne Transfer lo the Cache Creek Landfill Diesel fuel consumption per trip {only one way)- 185 L # of round trips in 1998= 2,104 trips Mass of waste transported (1998)- 73,169 tonnes Average mass of waste transported3 34.8 tonnes/trip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.015 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fue l C o n s u m p t i o n by Equipment at the C a c h e C r e e k Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1998)- 812,499 L Mass collected during this consumption {1998)- 474,873 tonnes GHG emission from wasle collection = 0.0049 tCOze/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumpt ion for Transport to the V a n c o u v e r Landfill: Tonnes hauled per trip * 20 tonnes/trip Distance par trip n 110 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 U100km GHG emission = 0.0071 ICOje/tonne Diesel Fue l Consumpt ion by Equipment at the V a n c o u v e r Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1996)= 479,000 L Mass collected during this consumption (199B)* 379.554 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.0036 ICOje/tonne Diesel Fue l Consumpt ion for Transport to a Future Landfill: Total diesel fuel consumption - 0 L # of round trips In 1998= 1 trips MasB of waste transported {1998)a 1 tonnes Average mass of wasle transported = 1.0 tonne s/lrip Average fuel consumption per trip = 0.0 L/irip GHG emission from waste transport = 0.0000 tCOje/tonne Diesel Fue l C o n s u m p t i o n by Equipment at a Future Landfill: Diesel fuel consumption during disposal (1996)- 0 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)- 1 tonnes GHG emission from wasle colleclion = 0.0000 ICOze/lonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to the Burnaby Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip * 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 75 km Diesel Fuel Consumption - 45.0 U100km GHG emission = 0.0048 tC02e/lonne 9 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Transport to a Future Incinerator: Tonnes hauled per trip \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 tonnes/trip Distance per trip - 0 km Diesel Fuel Consumption \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 GHG emission = 45.0 L/100km 0 0000 ICAe/lonne Total (or Wasle Disposed al the Cache Creek Landfi!l= Total (or Waste Disposed al the Vancouver Landfill= Total (or Waste Disposed al a Future Landfill= Total (or Wasle Disposed al the Burnaby Incinerator3 Total (or Waste Disposed al a Future lncineraIor= 0.0267 ICO^/lonne 0.0122 lC0 2e/lonne 0.0015 ICOje/tonne 0.0063 lC0 2e/lonne 0.0015 ICO^/tonne RECYCLING EQUIPMENT Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at Recycling Facilities: Propane fuel consumption during processing (199fl)\u00C2\u00BB GHG emission from waste collection = 0.45 Utonne recyclables 0.0007 ICO^/tonne CENTRALIZED COMPOSTING EQUIPMENT Diesel Fuel Consumption by Equipment at Composting Facilities: Diesel fuel consumption composting-GHG emission from waste collection = 221,000 BTU/short ton of yard trimmings 0.019 ICO^/lonne CITY OF ABBOTSFORD: Variables that can be changed by users are in bold. M A S S O F W A S T E G E N E R A T I O N (M G E N ) : Waste Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Total Material Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Generation 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap*yr) (kg/cap'yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 4,737 585 84,687 56 7 113,375 6342 783 7125 Mixed Paper 5,782 3,291 84,687 113,375 Office Paper 809 461 84,687 10 5 113,375 1084 617 1701 Ferrous Metal 493 1,899 84,687 6 22 113,375 660 2542 3202 Glass 1,081 528 84,687 13 6 113,375 1447 707 2154 HDPE 297 222 84,687 4 3 113,375 398 297 695 Mixed Plastics 2,084 1,333 84,687 113,375 LDPE 938 600 84,687 11 7 113,375 1255 803 2059 Food Waste 3,110 2,146 84,687 37 25 113,375 4164 2873 7036 Yard Waste 2,537 791 84,687 30 9 113,375 3396 1059 4455 Total ICI waste generated In 1998= Total ICI waste recycled in 1998= ICI Recycling Rate= # of backyard composters = 55,397 tonnes 21,797 tonnes 39 % 8,947 M A S S O F W A S T E R E C Y C L E D (MREC) & C O M P O S T E D (M C 0 M ) : Waste Residential ICI Residential Backyard Centralized ICI Total Backyard Centralized Material Generation Generation Recycling Composting Composting Recycling Recycling Composting Composting 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 6.342 783 3,104 308 3,412 Mixed Paper 553 Office Paper 1,084 617 77 243 320 Metal 202 Ferrous Metal 660 2,542 101 1.000 1,101 Glass 1,447 707 318 278 596 Plastics 119 HDPE 398 297 39 117 156 LDPE 1,255 803 39 316 355 Food Waste 4,164 2,873 743 0 1,130 743 1,130 Yard Waste 3,396 1.059 1,494 3,780 417 1,494 4,197 Total waste disposed En 1998= 48,949 tonnes Total waste recycled In 1998= 34,959 tonnes M A S S O F W A S T E D I S P O S E D (MD, S): Waste Total Total Waste % OF M D I S % OF MD,s % OF M D 1 S % OF M D I S % OF M D , S Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Material Generation Recycling Disposal to CCLF to VLF to FutLF to Burlnc to Futinc CCLF VLF FutLF Burlnc Futinc 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 7125 3,412 3,713 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,710 2 0 1 0 Office Paper 1701 320 1,380 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,380 1 0 0 0 Ferrous Metal 3202 1.101 2,101 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,100 1 0 0 0 Glass 2154 596 1,558 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,557 1 0 0 0 HDPE 695 156 539 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 538 0 0 0 0 LDPE 2059 355 1,703 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,702 1 0 0 0 Food Waste 7036 1,873 5.163 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,160 2 0 1 0 Yard Waste 4455 5.691 0 ' 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder 21,454 32.792 | 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32,772 13 0 7 0 TOTAL= 48,919 20 0 10 0 EMISSION F A C T O R S : Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.014 tC0 2e/tonne 2 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.043 tCO.e/tonne Emission Factor for Waste Disposal: All waste is assumed to be delivered to the Matsqui Transfer Station. Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill= Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill= Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill= Waste Disposed at the Burnaby lncinerator= Waste Disposed at a Future lncinerator= 0.0213 tC02e/tonne 0.0132 tC02e/tonne 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 0.0090 tC02e/tonne 0.0013 tC02e/tonne 22S CITY O F B U R N A B Y : Variables that can be changed by users are in bold. MASS OF WASTE GENERATION (MGEN): Waste esidenti ICI opulation o Residential ICI opulation o Residenfia ICI Total Material eneratio eneratio Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generatio Generation Generatio 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap'yr) (kg/cap'yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 8,279 3,602 158,858 52 23 191,600 9985 4344 14330 Mixed Paper 13,025 19,112 158,858 191,600 0 Office Pap 1.824 2.676 158,858 11 17 191,600 2199 3227 5426 Ferrous Met 1,061 10,914 158,858 7 69 191,600 1280 13163 14443 Glass 2,069 2,979 158,858 13 19 191,600 2495 3593 6088 HDPE 690 1,213 158,858 4 8 191,600 832 1463 2295 Mixed Plasti 3,695 8.541 158.858 191.600 LDPE 1,663 3.B43 158,858 10 24 191,600 2005 4636 6641 Food Waste 5,451 11,116 158,858 34 70 191.600 6574 13407 19982 Yard Wasle 5,433 4,261 158,858 34 27 191,600 6553 5139 11692 Total ICI waste generated In 1998= 164,172 tonnes Total ICI waste recycled In 1998= 67,479 tonnes ICI Recycling Rate= 41 % # of backyard composters = 8,968 MASS OF WASTE RECYCLED (MREC) & COMPOSTED (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 5869 3,100 2,769 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 2,142 18 0 609 0 Office Paper 1595 450 1,145 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 886 8 0 252 0 Ferrous Metal 3958 1,864 2.094 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 1.620 14 0 460 0 Glass 2142 1,071 1,071 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0,0 829 7 0 235 0 HDPE 696 220 476 77.4 0.7 0,0 22.0 0.0 368 3 0 105 0 LDPE 2053 559 1,495 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 1,156 10 0 329 0 Food Waste 6657 2,038 4,619 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 3,573 31 0 1.015 0 Yard Waste 4437 1,357 3,080 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 2,383 20 0 677 0 Remainder 12,944 10,772 | 77.4 0.7 0.0 22.0 0.0 8,333 71 0 2,368 0 TOTAL= 21,289 182 0 6.050 0 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.014 tCO.e/tonne 2 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Yard Trimmings Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.027 tC02e/tonne Emission Factor for Waste Disposal: Waste to the CCLF is first delivered to the LTS and transferred to the MTS. Waste disposed at the VLF. FutLF or FutINC is transferred through the LTS. Waste disposed at the Bl is directly delivered there (thus no emission factor below). Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill* 0.0254 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill= 0.0106 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill= 0.0015 tC02e/lonne Waste Disposed at the Bumaby lncinerator= 0.0000 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Incinerator* 0.0015 tC02e/lonne Refer to City of Langley for recycling transportation issues. 230 DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE: Variables that can be changed by users are in bold. MASS OF WASTE GENERATION (M G E N ): Waste Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Population ol Residential ICI Total Material Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Generation 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap'yr) (kg/cap'yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 2,524 391 48,422 52 8 60,987 3179 492 3671 Mixed Paper 3,371 1,959 48,422 60,987 Office Paper 472 274 48,422 10 6 60,987 594 345 940 Ferrous Metal 580 1,173 48,422 12 24 60,987 731 1477 2208 Glass 681 323 48,422 14 7 60,987 858 407 1265 HDPE 176 147 48,422 4 3 60,987 222 185 407 Mixed Plastics 1,192 765 48,422 60,987 LDPE 536 344 48,422 11 7 60,987 676 434 1109 Food Waste 1,736 1,440 48,422 36 30 60,987 2186 1814 4000 Yard Waste 1,772 517 48,422 37 11 60,987 2232 651 2883 Total ICI waste generated in 1998= 15,661 tonnes Total ICI waste recycled in 19 98= 5,853 tonnes ICI Recycling Rate= 37 % # of backyard composters = 4,100 MASS OF WASTE RECYCLED (M R E C) & COMPOSTED (M COM) : Waste Residential ICI Residential Backyard Centralized ICI Total Backyard Centralized Materia) Generation Generation Recycling Composting Composting Recycling Recycling Compostin Composting 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 3,179 492 1,644 184 1,828 Mixed Paper 466 Office Paper 594 345 65 129 194 Metal 965 Ferrous Metal 731 1,477 483 552 1,035 Glass 858 407 333 152 485 Plastics 25 HDPE 222 185 8 69 77 LDPE 676 434 8 162 170 Food Waste 2,186 1.814 340 0 678 340 678 Yard Waste 2,232 651 685 1,049 243 685 1,292 Total waste disposed in 1998= Total waste recycled in 1998= MASS OF WASTE DISPOSED (M r a s): 21,355 tonnes 14,992 tonnes Waste Material Newsprint Office Paper Ferrous Metal Glass HDPE LDPE Food Waste Yard Waste [Remainder Total Total Waste Generation Recycling Disposal to CCLF 1998 (tonnes) 3671 940 2208 1265 407 1109 4000 2883 1998 (tonnes) 1,828 194 1,035 485 77 170 1,018 1,977 1998 (tonnes) 1,843 745 1,173 779 329 939 2.982 906 3,207 11,657 % OF M D I S % OF M D B % OF M 0 1 S % OF M D 1 S % OF M D I S Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal to VLF to FutLF to Burlnc to Futinc CCLF VLF FutLF Burlnc Futinc 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (%) (%) <%) (%) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 1,809 23 0 11 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 732 9 0 5 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 1,151 15 0 7 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 765 10 0 5 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 323 4 0 2 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 921 12 0 6 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 2,926 37 0 18 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 B89 11 0 6 0 98.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 11,439 147 0 71 0 TOTAL= 20,956 268 0 130 0 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.014 tC02e/tonne 2 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.043 tC02e/tonne 3 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Yard Trimmings Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.027 tC02e/tonne Emission Factor for Waste Disposal: Waste to the CCLF is first delivered to the MRTS and transfened to the MTS. Waste disposed at the VLF. BI, FutLF or Futl is transferred through the CTS. Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill= 0.0267 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill= 0.0114 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill= 0.0025 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Burnaby Inclnerator= 0.0054 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Incinerator* 0.0025 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Yard Trimmings Transport to Fraser-Richmond BioCycle: Tonnes hauled per trip = 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip = 0 km Diesel Fuel Consumption = 45.0 L/100 km GHG emission = 0.000 tC02e/tonne CITY O F N E W WESTMINSTER: Variables that can be changed by users are in bold. MASS OF WASTE GENERATION (M0 6 N): Waste Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Total Materia! Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Generation 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap'yr) (kg/cap'yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 2,184 920 43,585 50 21 53,575 2685 1131 3815 Mixed Paper 3,050 5,346 43,585 53,575 Office Paper 427 748 43,585 10 17 53,575 525 920 1445 Ferrous Metal 212 2,715 43,585 5 62 53,575 261 3337 3598 Glass 548 760 43,585 13 17 53,575 674 934 1608 HDPE 126 272 43,585 3 6 53,575 155 334 489 Mixed Plastics 917 2,041 43,585 53,575 LDPE 413 918 43,585 9 21 53.575 507 1129 1636 Food Waste 1,391 2,826 43.585 32 65 53.575 1710 3474 5184 Yard Waste 2,018 1.140 43.585 46 26 53.575 2481 1401 3882 Total ICI waste generated in 1998= 36,117 tonnes Total ICI waste recycled in 1998= 13,972 tonnes ICI Recycling Rate= 39 % # of backyard composters - 2,200 MASS OF WASTE RECYCLED (MREC) & COMPOSTED (MC 0 M): Waste Residential ICI Residential Backyard Centralized ICI Total Backyard Centralized Material Generation Generation Recycling Composting Composting Recycling Recycling Compostin Composting 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 2.685 1,131 1.176 437 1,613 Mixed Paper 738 Office Paper 525 920 103 356 459 Metal 386 Ferrous Metal 261 3,337 193 1.291 1.484 Glass 674 934 29 361 390 Plastics 17 HDPE 155 334 6 129 135 LDPE 507 1.129 6 437 442 Food Waste 1,710 3,474 183 0 1,344 183 1.344 Yard Waste 2,481 1.401 367 1,751 542 367 2,293 Total waste disposed in 1998= 28,018 tonnes Total waste recycled in 1998= 18,784 tonnes MASS OF WASTE DISPOSED (M0IS): Waste Total Total Waste % OF M 0 , s % OF M m s % OF M m s % OF M D I S % OF MD,s Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal Material Generation Recycling Disposal to CCLF to VLF to FutLF to Burlnc to Futinc CCLF VLF FutLF Burlnc Futinc 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 3815 1,613 2.202 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 1.028 28 ' 0 1.146 0 Office Paper 1445 459 986 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 460 12 0 513 0 Ferrous Metal 3598 1.484 2.114 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 987 27 0 1.100 0 Glass 1608 390 1,217 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 568 15 0 634 0 HDPE 489 135 354 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 165 4 0 184 0 LDPE 1636 442 1.194 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 557 15 0 621 0 Food Waste 5184 1.526 3.657 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 1,708 46 0 1,903 0 Yard Waste 3882 2.660 1.221 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 570 15 0 636 0 Remainder 10.073 15,073 | 46.7 1.3 0.0 52.0 0.0 7,038 190 0 7,845 0 TOTAL= 13.083 353 0 14,583 0 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: Diesel fuel consumption during collection (1998)= 50,331 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)= 6,309 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.023 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Diesel fuel consumption during collection (1998)= 24,604 L Mass collected during this consumption (1998)= 1,344 tonnes GHG emission from waste collection = 0.052 tC02e/tonne Emission Factor for Waste Disposal: Waste to the CCLF, VLF, FutLF or Futl is transferred through the CTS, Waste disposed at the BI is directly delivered there (thus no emission factor below). Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek Landfill= 0.0226 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill= 0.0114 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill= 0.0025 tC03e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Burnaby Incinerator^ 0.0000 tCOze/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future lncinerator= 0.0025 tC02e/tonne Diesel Fuel Consumption for Yard Trimmings Transport to Fraser-Richmond BioCycle: Tonnes hauled per trip = 20 tonnes/trip Distance per trip = 40 km Diesel Fuel Consumption = 45.0 U100 km GHG emission = 0.003 tCOae/tonne C I T Y O F N O R T H V A N C O U V E R : Variables that can be changed by users are in bold. MASS OF W A S T E GENERATION (M GEN)-Waste Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Population of Residential ICI Total Material Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Municipality Generation Generation Generation 1991 1991 1991 per capita per capita 1998 1998 1998 1998 (tonnes) (tonnes) (kg/cap'yr) (kg/cap*yr) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 2,572 495 38,436 67 13 44,428 2973 572 3545 Mixed Paper 2,483 2,698 38,436 44,428 Office Paper 348 378 38,436 9 10 44,428 402 437 838 Ferrous Metal 230 1,472 38,436 6 38 44,428 266 1701 1967 Glass 736 428 38,436 19 11 44,428 851 495 1345 HDPE 118 177 38,436 3 5 44,428 136 205 341 Mixed Plastics 854 1,015 38,436 44,428 LDPE 384 457 38,436 10 12 44,428 444 528 972 Food Waste 1,293 1,531 38,436 34 40 44,428 1495 1770 3264 Yard Waste 1,113 540 38,436 29 14 44,428 1287 624 1911 Total ICI waste generated in 1998= Total ICI waste recycled in 1998= ICI Recycling Rate= # of backyard composters = 14,108 tonnes 11,571 tonnes 82 % 2,548 MASS OF W A S T E R E C Y C L E D (%) (%) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Newsprint 3867 2,647 1,219 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 579 12 0 628 0 Office Paper 688 234 453 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 215 5 0 234 0 Ferrous Metal 1565 547 1.018 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 484 10 0 525 0 Glass 1291 252 1,039 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 494 10 0 535 0 HDPE 366 92 274 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 130 3 0 141 0 LDPE 766 143 623 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 296 6 0 321 0 Food Waste 3290 995 2,295 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 1,090 23 0 1,182 0 Yard Waste 2110 3,206 }\" o :\" ) 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 | Remainder 10,050 8,810 | 47.5 1.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 4,184 88 0 4,537 0 TOTAL= 7,472 158 0 8,103 0 Calculation/Results are in bold: 1 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Waste Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.014 tC0 2e/tonne 2 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Recyclables Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.043 tC0 2e/tonne 3 Diesel Fuel Consumption for Curbside Yard Trimmings Collection: Average GHG emission from waste collection = 0.027 tC0 2e/tonne Emission Factor for Waste Disposal: All waste through the NSTS. Waste Disposed at the Cache Creek LandfilN 0.0231 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Vancouver Landfill* 0.0101 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future Landfill* 0.0013 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at the Burnaby lncinerator= 0.0039 tC02e/tonne Waste Disposed at a Future lncinerator= 0.0013 tC02e/tonne Refer to the City of North Vancouver for recycling transportation issues. CITY OF WHITE ROCK: Variables thai can be changed by users are in bold. M A S S O F W A S T E G E N E R A T I O N (tCO,e/yr) 0 0340 0.0281 00264 0.0249 0.0235 00199 0 0187 0.0157 0.0148 00139 0.0131 0.0123 0 0116 0 0109 00103 0.0097 0.0091 0.0086 0.0081 0.0076 0.321 Besl-Guaas of Atmospheric Mathana Emissions' Best-GuaH of Benefit of Energy Utilisation* Low Estimate of Atmospheric Mathana Emission** Low Estimate of Benefit of Enargy UUuetJon\" High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions\" High Estimate of Benefit of Enargy Utilization! 0.079 -0.020 tCOja/loona tCO!e/lonne tCOzeAonn* tCOja/lonna tCOja/lonne tCOjeflonne Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Cache Creek Landfill: From research by Bedaz: Long term carbon sequestration from newsprint* Immediate & Future Nz0 Emissions from the Cache Creek Landfill: The potantial of this amission is ignored. Estimate of the N,0 emission\" 4 Methane & Energy Implication! of the Vancouver Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition! Mathana generation potential. L,\" Best-guess first order dacay rata constant, ka Low estimate first ordar dacay rale conatant, ka High estimate first order dacay rale constant, ka 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2012 2011 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0.00249 0.00237 0.00225 0.00214 0.00204 0.00194 0.00165 0.00176 0.00167 0.OOIS9 0.00151 0.00)44 0.00137 0.00130 0.00101 0.00096 0.032 Malarial Parcantaga Parcantaga Atmospheric GHG Benefit of LFG of LFG for Methane of Enargy Flared Energy Emissions Utakalnn (%) (%) (lC02e/yr) (ICOjo/yr) 0.0234 0.0182 0.0135 0.0100 0.0079 0,0075 0.0071 0.0068 0.0065 0.0061 0.0058 0.0056 0.0053 00000 0.0006 0.0009 0 0011 0.0013 0.0020 o.oo tg 0.0023 0.0022 0.0023 0.0022 0.0023 0.0021 0.0022 0.0020 0.0021 LOW-ESTIMATE: Oiidatian by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Generation Material Flared Energy Emission: (ICH^ yr) 0.00125 0.00121 0.00068 0.00083 0.00081 0.00079 0.00077 0.020 0.0173 0 0141 0.0047 0.004G 0.0033 0O032 [tCOje'yrJ (tC0:s/yr) 00000 0 0000 00003 0 0005 HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oiidation by Percentage Cover of LFG Malarial Flared (ICH, 0.00296 0.00277 Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit] ol LFG for Melhane of Enargy Energy Emission* Utilization (%) (ICOje/yr) (ICOje/yr) 0.0561 0.0464 0.0417 0.O357 0.0276 0.0231 0 0214 00tt2 0 0104 0.0097 0 0090 0.0083 0.0077 0.0072 0,406 00000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00003 00003 0.0005 0 0005 0 0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 Best-Gue Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilizations Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emits ions' Low Estinala of Benefit of Enargy Utilization^ High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions\" High Estimate of Benefit of Energy U 0229 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.034 0.107 -0.023 0.408 tCOje/tonne tCOje/tonne tCO^ e/lonne COjatonne tCOje/tonne tCOje/tonne 5 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Vancouver Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long lerm carbon sequestration from newipreit* -1.41 tCOje/tonne 2TS 6 Immediate 4 Future N20 Emissions from the Vancouver Landfill: The potential of this ernbtbn a ignored. Estimate of th* N]0 Emit \u00E2\u0080\u00A2ion-Ma thanB & Energy Implications at a Future Landfill Carbon available fo> anaerobic decomposition* i i rlnit order decay n 0.075 tC/wet tonne 0.050 tCtVwM tonne 0.04 year\"' 0.02 year'1 0.0S year' BEST-GUESS: in by Percentage Percentage 2004 2005 2006 2007 20oa 2015 2016 2017 2010 TOTAL -(ICHi/yr) 000199 0.00191 0 00104 000177 0.00170 0 00163 0 00157 0 00151 000145 0.00139 0.00134 0 00120 000123 0.00110 0.00114 0.00109 0.00105 0.00101 0.00097 000093 Malarial Emissions IM&iBtion (tCO,e/yr) (IC03e/yr) 0.0215 0.0000 0 0101 0.0000 0 0139 0.0005 00009 0.0011 0 0015 0 0017 0.0020 0.0019 0.0020 00019 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 00020 00020 0.0019 0.0060 00066 0 0063 0.0061 0.0050 0.0056 00054 00052 0.0050 0.0040 0.0046 0.030 LOW-ESTIMATE: Oiktauon by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Cover of LFG of LFG few UaUiana of Eneigy Malarial Flared Energy Emotions UlAzatbn (1CH,/yrJ <%) (%) (%) (tCOje/y'l (ICC-2e/yr) 4} 0 0.0203 00000 0 009S 0.0076 0.0073 0.0070 0.0067 0.0065 0.0050 0.0040 0 0046 0.0044 0.0042 0 0011 0.0015 00017 0 0020 0.0019 0.0019 0.0020 00020 0.0020 0 0020 0.0020 0.0019 0 0023 00022 0.031 HIGH-ESTIMATE: 0 00097 000093 0.020 Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit of LFG ol LFG for Methane of Enargy Flaied Energy Emistioiu Utilization (\u00C2\u00AB.) f%) (tCO^ /yr) (IC02e/yr) 00000 0.0000 0 0000 00002 00002 0091 .0007 .0094 0.0005 00005 00005 00006 0 0006 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Mathana Emissions* Bett-Guett of Benefit of Energy Utilization* Low Estimate of Atmospheric Mathana Emnstona* Low Estimate of Benefit of Enargy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Mathana Emissions= High EtUnat* of Benefit of Energy Ulibations -0.031 0.240 -0.006 tCOje/tonna tCOja/tonna tCOjaAonna tCOje/lonne tC02e/tonne tC02e/tonne 8 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration ot a Future Landfill From test arch by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from news print* S Immediate- & Future N;0 Emissions at a Future Landfill: The potential of this \u00E2\u0080\u00A2motion is ignored. Eatimate of tha M,0 Emission* 10 Energy Generation from Waste Incineration at tha Burnaby Incinerator: Net energy content of wel newsprint* 10,4 GJ/tonne Utifeed steam energy by Crown\" Turbogenerator electricty produced* m prevention by steam uUization at Crown* m prevention by offsetting BC Hydro (Burrard Thermal)' 0.440 tCO?e/lonn 0.000 tC02e/tonn is ton prevented by energy production\" \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.45 tCOj\u00C2\u00AB/tonne 11 GHG Emissions from Waste Incineration at the Burnaby Incinerator: Besl-guess eslimate of total GHG a ma \u00E2\u0080\u00A2torn from waste incineretion* 0 Low estimate of total GHG emotion* from waste incineration* 0.0IS K High esbmeta of total GHG amission* from waste hcawationa 0.037 tCOje/tonne 12 Enargy Oenaralion from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator: Net energy content of wet newsprint* 18.4 GJ/tonne Utlzed steam energy by Crown* Turbogenerator electricity produced \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 7.21 GJ/tonne 0.00 GJ/tonne Emission prevention by steam utilization al Crown= Emission prevention by offsetting 8C Hydro (Burrard Thermal)* 0.44 S tCOja/tonne 0.000 tCO,e/lonne Total GHG amotion prevented by energy production* .Q 443 tCOje/lonne 13 GHG Emissions from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator: Best-guess eiUmela of total GHG emissions from waste Incineration* 0 027 ICOje/lonne Low estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration* 0 0I6 IC02e/lonne High estimate of total GHG emitsioni from waste generation* 0.037 ICOje/lonne 14 GHG Emissions of Recycled Newsprint Utilization: GHG benefit of recycled versus virgin manufacturing* IS Effecl of Recycling Newsprint on Forest Carbon Storage: GHG Implications of recycled neweprint on Forestry* 7% OFFICE PAPER MANAGEMENT: Variables that can be cl rein b. Carbon Available tor Anaerobic Decomposition* Carbon storage factor lor office paper (dry)\" Moisture content of office paper\" Nitrogen content ol office paper (dry maas basis)\" Nat energy content ol office paper\" 1 Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill Carbon avalabte for anaerobic decomposition* Methane generation potential. L,\" Best-guess first order decay rata constant, k\" Low estimate first ordar dacay rate constant, ha High est Inula first ordar decay rate constant, ka 1S.T GJ/tonne 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2015 2018 2016 TOTAL -BEST-GUESS: Oxidation by Percentage 0.00929 0.00893 0.00S56 O.0OS24 0.00792 0.007Bt 0.00731 0.00702 0.00675 0.O064S 0 00623 000596 0.00575 000552 0.00531 000510 000490 0.00471 0.00452 0.00435 0.130 j LOW-ESTIMATE: | HIGH-ESTIMATE: GHG Benefit | of Energy | 0.1001 0.0644 0 0648 0.0545 0.0524 0.0503 0.0414 0.0319 0.0306 0.0294 0.0272 0.0261 0.0251 0.0241 0.0232 00222 0.0214 0.0205 0,796 0052 ,0070 .0077 .0093 .0095 0091 0095 .0091 .0094 .0091 .0093 0.00455 0.00446 000436 0.00429 0.00420 000412 0.00404 0.00396 0 00386 0.00380 0.00373 0.00365 0 00356 0.00351 0.00331 000324 0 00316 Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit! of LFG for Methane of Energy Energy Emissions L>dotation I O) (ICOie/yr) (ICO^ yt) entage Atmospheric GHG Benefit! 0.0406 0.0319 00234 0 0191 00166 0.0164 00160 0 0177 0 0139 00136 0 0133 00130 0 0126 0 0125 0 0123 0.0120 0 0118 0.0067 0 0065 0.366 0.0012 0 0016 0.0024 0.0029 0.0040 0.0044 0O0S4 0 00S3 0.0056 0.0056 00060 00059 00063 00062 00065 0.0064 0 0076 0 0074 0.091 0.01394 0.01313 0.01236 O.OOS62 0.00612 0.00765 0.00720 0.00676 0.00639 0.00602 0.O0S67 0 00534 0.00503 of LFG Flared Emissions (ICOjeVyr) Utilisation (tCO^ yr) 0 0510 0.0480 0.0452 0.0426 0.0012 0.0022 0.0021 0,0020 0.0026 0.OO26 0.0025 0.0031 0.0029 0.0035 0.0033 00031 0,033 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization a Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emotions\" Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utfoetion* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* 0.798 tCOze/tonne -0.141 tCOte/tonne 0.366 tCOje/tonne -0.091 lCOIe/tonne 1.498 tCOie/tonne -0.033 tCO^ e/tonne 2 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration In (he Cache Creek Landfill; Long term carbon sequestration from newsprint* -0.10 tCOze/tonne 3 Immediate & Future NjO Emissions from the Cache Creek Landfill; The potential of this amission is ignored. Estimate of the NjO Emission* 4 Methane & Energy Implications of (he Vancouver Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition* Methane generation potantial, U* Best-guess first order dacay rata constant, fc\" Low estimate first order decay rata constant, k* High estimate first order decay rate constant, ka 0.346 tCnvet tonne 0.232 tCH4/wol tonne 2002 2003 2004 2012 2013 2016 2017 2016 TOTAL a BEST-GUESS; Oiidation by 0.01162 0.01105 0.01051 0.01000 0.009S1 0.00905 0,00860 0.00619 0 00779 0 00741 0 00606 0,00577 0.00549 0.OOS22 000496 0.00472 0.00449 0.151 Parcantaga Atmospheric GHG Benefit of LFG for Methane of Energy Energy Emissions Utilization (%J (tCO^ yr) <%> (tCOje/yr) (tCOje/yr) (iCrVyr) (%) <%) (%) (ICOje/yr) (iC02o/yr> (ICiVyr) <*) (%> (*\u00C2\u00BB (tCOje/yr) (tCOje/yr) 1999 0,00560 10 43 0 0.0603 0.0000 0.00280 15 43 0 0.0285 0.0000 0.00840 5 43 0 0.0955 0.0000 2000 0,00522 10 50 0 0.0493 0.0000 0.00270 15 50 0 0.0241 0.0000 0.00756 5 50 0 0.0754 0.0000 2001 0.00487 to 50 10 0.0368 0.0013 0.00261 15 50 10 0.0186 0.0007 0.00681 5 50 0 00679 0.0000 2002 0,00454 10 50 15 0.0300 0.0019 0.00252 15 55 15 0.0135 0.0010 0.00613 5 50 0 0.0611 0.0000 2003 0.00423 10 45 20 0.0280 0.0023 0.00243 15 55 20 0.0109 0.0013 0.00552 5 50 0 0,0551 0.0000 2004 0.00395 to 40 25 0.0261 0.0027 0.00235 15 50 25 0.0105 0.0016 0.00497 5 55 0 0.0446 0.0000 2005 0.00368 10 35 35 0.0209 0.0035 0.00227 15 40 35 0.0101 0.0022 0.00447 5 55 0 0.0402 o.oooo 2006 0.00343 to 30 40 0.0195 0.0036 0.00219 15 35 40 0.0098 0.0024 0.00403 5 55 5 0.0321 0.0006 2007 0.00320 10 25 50 0.0151 0.0044 0.00212 15 25 50 0.0094 0 0029 0,00363 5 55 5 0.0289 0.0005 2008 0.00298 10 25 50 0.0141 0.0041 0 00204 15 30 50 0.0073 0.0028 0.00326 5 50 10 0.0261 0.0009 2009 0.00278 10 20 55 0.0131 0.0042 0.00197 15 25 55 0.0070 0.0030 0.00294 5 50 10 0.0235 0.0008 2010 0.00259 10 20 55 0.0123 0.0039 0.00191 15 25 55 0.0068 0.0029 0.00265 5 50 10 0,0211 0,0007 2011 0.00242 10 15 60 0.0114 0.0040 0.00184 15 20 60 0.0066 0.0030 0.00238 5 45 15 0.0190 0.0010 2012 0.00225 10 15 60 0.0107 0.0037 0.00178 15 20 60 0.0063 0.0029 0.00215 5 45 15 0.0171 0.0009 2013 0.00210 10 10 65 0.0099 0.0038 0.00172 15 15 65 0.0061 0.0031 0.00193 5 45 15 0.0154 0.0008 2014 0.00196 10 10 65 0.0093 0.0035 0.00166 15 15 65 0.0059 0.0030 0.00174 5 40 20 0.0139 0.0010 2015 0.00183 10 5 70 0.0086 0.0035 0.00160 15 10 70 0.0057 0.0031 0.00157 5 40 20 0,0125 0.0009 2016 0.00170 10 5 70 0.0080 0.0033 0.00154 15 10 70 0.0055 0.0030 0,00141 5 35 25 0.0112 0.0010 2017 0.00159 10 0 75 0,0075 0 0033 0.00149 15 0 85 0.0040 0.0035 0.00127 5 35 25 0.0101 0.0009 2018 0.00148 10 0 75 0.0070 0.0031 0.00144 15 0 85 0.0039 0.0034 0.00114 5 35 25 0.0091 o.oooe TOTAL - 0.062 0.398 0.060 0.041 0.201 0.04G 0.074 0.680 0.011 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions\" Best-Guess of Benefit of Enetgy Utilizations Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions^ Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Eslimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization\" 0.398 -0.060 0.201 -0 046 ICO e^/tonne tCOje/tonne tCO^/tonne tCOje/tonne tCO^/tonne tC02e/tonne 2 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Cache Creek Landfill: From rose arch by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from food waste' Immediate & Future N20 Emissions from the Cache Creek Landfill: Best-Guest Estimate of the N30 from vented nitrogens Low Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen* High Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen\" Nitrogen content of wet food wasto= Best-Guess Estimate, of the NjO Emission\" Low Estimate of the NjO Emission* High Estimate o' the tifi Emission* 1.0 %N,0/emltted NH, or NO\u00E2\u0080\u009E 0.2 V.NjO/emltled NH, or NO, 2.0 V.NjO/emitted NH, or NO, 0.78 %N 0.036 ICOje/lonne 0.008 tCOje/tonne 0.076 tCOje/tonne 4 Methane & Energy Implications of the Vancouver Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition\" 0.120 IC/wet tonne Methane generation potential, L,* O.08O ICH./wel tonne Best-guess first order decay rate constant, k\" 0.08 year'1 Low estimate first order decay rate constant, k\u00C2\u00BB 0.04 year 1 High estimate first order decay rat* constant, k\" 0.12 year'1 BEST-GUESS: LOW-ESTIMATE: HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percenlag Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane o( Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG (or Methane of Energy Methane Covei of LFG of LFG (or Methane o( Energy YEAR Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (tCH./yr) (*\u00C2\u00BB (%> (%) {tCO,\u00C2\u00AB/yr) (ICO e^/yr) (ICrVyr) (*) (%) (*) (tCOje/yr) (tCOje/yr) (ICH4/yr) (%) {%) (%> (lCOje/yi) (tCOze/yr) 1999 0 00640 10 22 0 0.0943 0.0000 0.00320 15 22 0 0.0446 0.0000 0.00960 5 22 0 0.1494 0.0000 2000 0.00591 10 30 0 0.0782 0.0000 0.00307 15 35 0 0.0357 0.0000 0.00851 5 30 0 0.1189 0.0000 2001 0.00545 10 35 10 0.0567 0.0015 0.00295 15 40 10 0,0264 0.0008 000755 5 35 0 00979 0.0000 2002 0.00503 10 40 15 0,0428 0.0021 0.00284 15 45 15 0.0203 0.0012 000670 5 40 0 0.0802 0.0000 2003 000465 10 45 20 0,0307 0.0026 0,00273 15 55 20 0.0122 0.0015 0 00594 5 50 0 0.0593 0.0000 2004 0.00429 10 40 25 00284 0.0029 0,00262 15 50 25 0.0117 0.0018 0.00527 5 55 0 0.0473 0.0000 2005 0.00396 10 30 40 0.0225 0.0044 0.00252 15 40 35 0.0112 0,0024 0,00467 5 55 0 0.0420 0.0000 2006 0.00366 10 30 40 0.0207 0.0040 0.00242 15 35 40 0.0108 0,0027 0.00414 5 55 5 0.0331 0.0006 2007 0.00337 10 25 50 0.0159 0.0046 0.00232 15 25 50 0,0104 0,0032 0.00368 5 55 5 0.0293 0.0005 2008 0.00312 10 25 50 00147 0.0043 0.00223 15 30 50 0.0080 0,0031 0.00326 5 50 10 0.0260 0.0009 2009 0.00288 10 20 55 0.0136 0.0043 0.00215 15 25 55 0.0077 0,0032 0.00289 5 50 10 0.0231 0.0008 2010 0.00265 10 20 55 0.0125 0.0040 0.00206 15 25 55 0 0074 0,0031 0.00256 5 50 10 0.0205 0.0007 2011 0,00245 10 15 60 0.0116 0.004Q 0.00198 15 20 60 0.0071 0.0033 0.00227 5 45 15 0.01B2 0.0009 2012 000226 10 15 60 0,0107 0.0037 0.00190 15 20 60 0.0068 0.0031 0.00202 5 45 15 0.0161 0.0008 2013 0.00209 10 10 65 0.0099 0.0037 0.00183 15 15 65 0.0065 0.0033 0.00179 5 45 15 0.0143 0.0007 2014 0,00193 10 10 65 0.0091 0.0034 0.00176 15 15 65 0.0063 0.0031 0.00159 5 40 20 0.0127 0.0009 2015 0.00178 10 5 70 0.0084 0.0034 0.00169 15 10 70 0.0060 0.0032 0.00141 5 40 20 0.0112 0.0008 2016 0.00164 10 5 70 0.0078 0.0032 0.00162 15 10 70 0.005B 0.0031 0.00125 5 35 25 0.0100 0.0009 2017 0.00152 10 0 75 0.0072 0.0031 0.00156 15 0 85 0.0042 0.0036 0.00111 5 35 25 0.0088 0.0008 251 2018 TOTAL-0.0066 0.502 0.0029 0.062 0.00150 0,043 0.0040 0.0035 0.00090 0.2S3 0.049 0.07T 0.0078 0.0007 0.B2G 0.010 Besl-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Besl-Guess of Benefit or Energy Utilization\" Low Estimate of Atmospheric Melhane Emissions* Low Estimate ol Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* 0 502 -0.062 0253 -0.049 0826 -0.010 (COje/lorme ICOje/lonne IC020/tonno (COjo/lonno ICOje/lonno tCOje/tonne 5 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Vancouver Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration Itom food waste* -0.088 tCOje/tonne 6 Immediate & Future N30 Emissions from the Vancouver Landfill: Best-Guest Estimate of the NjO from wastewater nitrogen* Low Estimate of the N 20 from wastewater nitrogen\" High Estimate of the N,0 from wastewater nitrogen\" Nitrogen content of wet food waste* Besl-Guess Estimate of the N 20 Emission* Low Estimate o( the N 30 Emission* High Estimate of the N;0 Emission* 1.0 y.NjO/lnfluent-N 0.2 V.N]Of1nfluent-N 2.0 %N,Ofinf]uant-N 0.78 %N 0.038 iCO e^/lonne 0.O08 ICOje/lonne 0.076 ICOie/tonne 7 Methane & Energy Implications at a Future Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition* Methane generation potantial, L,\" Best-guess first order decay rate constant, k\" Low est!mats first order decay rate constant. k* High estimate first order decay rate constant, k\" 0.120 IC/wet tonn 0.080 tCHywello 0.07 year'1 0.035 year\"' 0.105 year\"' BEST-GUESS: LOW-ESTIMATE: HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG (or Methane ol Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG (or Methane of Energy Methane Covei of LFG of LFG for Melhane of Energy YEAR Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Fla-ed Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Malarial Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (ICH,/yr) (%) (%) <%> (tCOjo/yi) (tCOje/yO (CH,/yr) <%) {%) <*> (iCOje/yr) (iCOje/yr) (tCrVyt) (V.) (%) (%) (ICOjo/yr) (tCO;e/yf) 1999 000560 10 43 0 0.0603 0.0000 0.00280 15 43 0 0.0265 0.0000 0.00840 5 43 0 0.0955 0.0000 2000 0.00522 10 50 0 0.0493 0.0000 0.00270 15 50 0 0.0241 0.0000 0.00756 5 50 0 0,0754 0.0000 2001 0.00487 10 50 10 0.0368 0.0013 0.00261 15 50 to 0,01B6 0.0007 0.00681 5 50 0 0.0679 0.0000 2002 0.00454 10 50 15 0.0300 0.0019 0.00252 15 55 15 0,0135 0.0010 0.00613 S 50 0 0.0611 0.0000 2003 0.00423 10 45 20 0.0280 0.0023 0.00243 15 55 20 0,0109 0.0013 0.005S2 5 50 0 0.0551 0.0000 2004 0.00395 10 40 25 0.0261 0.0027 0.00235 15 50 25 0.0105 0.0016 0.00497 5 55 0 0.0446 0.0000 2005 0.00368 10 35 35 0.0209 0.0035 0.O0227 15 40 35 0.0101 0.0022 0.00447 5 55 0 00402 0.0000 2006 0.OO343 10 30 40 0.0195 0.0038 0.00219 15 35 40 00098 0.0024 0.00403 5 55 5 00321 0.0006 2007 0.00320 10 25 50 0.0151 0.0044 0.00212 15 25 50 0,0094 0.0029 0.00363 5 55 5 00289 0.0005 2008 0.00298 10 25 50 0.0141 0.0041 0.00204 15 30 50 0,0073 0.0028 0.00326 5 50 10 0.0261 0.0009 2009 0.00278 10 20 55 0.0131 0.0042 0.00197 15 25 55 0.0070 0.0030 0.00294 5 50 10 0.0235 0.0008 2010 0.00269 10 20 55 0.0123 0.0039 0.00191 15 25 55 0.0068 0,0029 0.00265 5 50 10 0.0211 0.0007 2011 0.00242 to 15 60 0.0114 0.0040 0.00184 15 20 60 0,0066 0,0030 0.00238 5 45 15 0.0190 0.0O10 2012 0.00225 10 15 60 0.0107 0.0037 0.00178 15 20 60 0.0063 0.0029 0.00215 5 45 15 0.0171 0.0009 2013 0.0O210 10 10 65 0.0099 0.0038 0.00172 15 15 65 0.0061 0.0031 0.00193 5 45 15 0.0154 0.0008 2014 000196 10 10 65 0.0093 0.0035 0.00166 15 15 65 0,0059 0.0030 0.00174 5 40 20 0.0139 0.0010 2015 0.00183 10 5 70 0.0086 0.0035 0.00160 15 10 70 0.0057 0.0031 0.00157 5 40 20 0.0125 0.0009 20)6 0.00170 10 5 70 0.0080 0.0033 0.00154 15 10 70 0.0055 0.0030 0.00141 5 35 25 0.0112 0.0010 2017 0.00159 10 0 75 0.0075 0.0033 0.00149 15 0 85 0,0040 0.0035 0,00127 5 35 25 0.0101 0.0009 2018 0.00148 10 0 75 0.0070 0.0031 0.00144 15 0 85 0.0039 0.0034 0.00114 5 35 25 0.0091 0.0O08 TOTAL * 0.062 0.390 0.060 0.041 0.201 0.046 0.074 0.690 0.011 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization* Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* 0,398 -O.060 0.201 -0.046 0680 -0.011 ICOje/tonne tCOje/tonne (COie/tonne (CO e^/tonne iCO^e/tonne (COje/tonne 8 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration at a Future Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from food waste? 9 Immediate & Future N20 Emissions at a Future Landfill: Bsst-Guess Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen- 1.0 V.NjO/emltted NH, r NO Low Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogens' 0.2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2UNjO/emltted NH, rNO High Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen* 2.0 %N,0/emitted NH, (NO Nitrogen content of wet food waste* 0,78 %N Best-Guess Estimate of the NzO Emission* 0.038 tCOje/tonne Low Estimate of the N;0 Emission* 0.008 tCOje/tonne High Estimate of Ihe N 20 Emission* 0.076 tCOje/tonne Energy Generation from Waste Incineration at the Burnaby Incinerator: Best-Guess Estimate of the net energy content of wet food waste* 4.0 GJ/lonne Low Estimate of the net energy content of wet food wastes 2.4 GJ/lonne High Estimate of the net energy content of wet food waste* 5,5 GJ/tonne Best-guess estimate of utilized steam energy by Crown* 1.57 GJ/tonne Low estimate utilized steam energy by Crown * 0.94 GJ/tonne High estimate utilized steam energy by Crown * 2.16 GJ/tonne Best-guess estimate of turbogenerator elecdIcily produced* 0.00 GJ/tonne Low estimate of turbogenerator electricity pioduced* 0.00 GJ/tonne High estimate of turbogenerator electricity produced* o.oo GJ/lonne Besl-Guess of emission prevention by steam utilization at Clown\" 0.097 (COjo/lonne Low Estimate of emission prevention by steam utilization al Crown* 0058 iCO^e/tonne High Estimate of emission prevention by steam utilization at Crown\" 0.134 ICOje/lonne Best-Guess of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* 0.000 IC Ova/tonne Low Estimate of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* 0.000 tCOje/tonne High Estimate of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* 0.000 tCO e^/tonne Best-Guess Total GHG emission prevented by energy productions -0.097 tCOjo/tonne Low Estimate Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* -0.058 tCO e^/tonne High Estimate Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* -0.134 tCOje/tonne 11 G H G Emissions from Waste Incineration at the Burnaby Incinerator: Nittogen content of wet food waste* 0,78 V.N Best-guess estimate Immediate N,0 emission from waste-N= 0.065 lCO;e/tonrve Low estimate immediate N 20 emission from waste-N* 0.011 ICOje/tonne High estimate immediate N?0 emission from wasle-N* 0.1 IS ICO e^/tonne Best-guess estimate of total GHG emissions from waste Low estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration\" High estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration^ 0.091 tCO^e/lonne 0.028 tCOje/tonne 0.155 tCOjo/lonne 12 Energy Generation from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator: Besl-Guess Estimate of the net energy content of wet food waste* 4.0 GJ/tonne Low Estimate of the net energy content of wet food wastes 2.4 GJftonne High Estimate of the net energy content of wet food waste* 5,5 GJ/lonne Betl-guess estimate of utilized steam energy by Crown* Low estimate utilized steam energy by Crown * High estimate utilized steam energy by Crown * Best-guess estimate of turbogenerator electricity produced* Low estimate of turbogenerator electricity produced* High estimate of turbogenerator electricity produced= 1.57 GJ/tonne 0.94 GJ/tonne 2.16 GJ/tonne 0.00 GJ/tonne 0.00 GJ/tonne 0.00 GJ/tonne Besl-Guess of emission prevention by steam utilization at Crown* Low Estimate of emission prevention by steam utilization al Crown* High Estimate of emission prevention by steam utilization at Crown* Best-Guess of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* Low Estimate of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* High Estimate of emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro* 0.097 tCO^lonne 0.058 ICO^tonne 0.134 lCO;e/tonne 0.000 tCO;e/tonne 0.000 tCOje/tonne 0.000 tCQie/tonne Best-Guess Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* Low Estimate Total GHG emission prevented by energy production\" High Estimate Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* -0.097 tCOje/tonne -0.058 lCO?e/tonno -0.134 tCOje/tonne 13 G H G Emissions from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator; Nitiogen content ol wet food waste* 0,78 %N Best-guess estimate immediate N70 emission from waste-N* 0.065 tCOje/tonno Low estimate immediate H20 emission from waste-N= 0.011 tCOTO/tonne High estimate Immediate NjO emission from waste-N* 0.118 tCOje/lonne Best-guess estimate of total GHG emissions fiom waste Low estimate of lotal GHG emissions from waste incineration' High estimate of total GHG emissions from wasle incineration' 0.091 ICOjO/tonne 0.028 tC02e/tonne 0,155 ICOje/tonne 14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Backyard Composting Nitrogen content of wet food waste* 0,78 %N Beat-guess estimate of the Immediate NaO emission factor* 0,8 */\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 of Inltial-N Low estimate of the Immediate NjO emission factor* 0.2 V. of inltlal-N High estimate of the Immediate N20 emission factor* 2 V, of inltlal-N Best-guess estimate of the immediate N 20 emission * 0.030 tCOje/ionne Low estimate ol the immediate N 20 emission * 0 008 ICO]\u00C2\u00AB/tonne High estimate of the immediate NjO emission \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0,076 iCOje/tonna Nitiogen content of wet food wasle* Best-guess estimate of the fraction to future NjO emissions\" Low estimate of the fraction undergoing future H20 emissions* High estimate of the fraction undergoing future NjO emissions\" Besl-guess estimate mass of nitrogen available for future NjO= Low estimate mass of nitrogen available for future NjO= High estimate mass of nitiogen available for future NjO\u00C2\u00AB Best-guess estimate of the future N]0 emission factor* Low estimate of the future NjO emission factor* High estimate of the future N 30 emission factor* Besl-guess estimate of the future NjO ei Low estimate of the future N zO emission * High estimate of the future NjO emission = 0.0055 0.0039 0.0070 0.027 0.004 0,068 % of Inltial-N % of Inltlal-N % of inltlal-N tonne Future N/tonne food w tonne Future N/tonne food w tonne Future N/tonne food w '/. of inltlal-N % of inltlal-N % of Inltial-N ICOje/loruie 1CO;B/Ionno tCOje/tonne Besl-guess estimate Total GHG emissions from backyard composting* 0.057 tCO;e/tonne Low estimate Total GHG emissions from backyard composting* 0.011 iCOjo/tonne High estimate Total GHG emissions from backyard composting* 0.144 tCOje/tonne 15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Centralized Composting Best-guess estimate of the methane amission factor* Low estimate of the methane emission factor* High est!mats of the methane emission factor* Besl-guess estimate of the CH< emission from centralized composting* Low estimate of the CH, emission from centralized composting* High estimate of the CH* emission from centralized composting* 0.5 % of initial carbon 0.1 % of initial carbon 1.0 % of Initial carbon 0.020 tCO e^/tonne 0.004 tCOje/tonne 0.040 tCOje/tonne Best-guess estimate Total GHG emissions from centtafizod composting* 0,077 ICOjo/ionne Low estimate Total GHG emissions from centralized composting* 0.015 tCOje/tonne High estimate Total GHG emissions from centralized composting* 0,185 tCOje/tonne 16 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration of Compost Carbon sequestration of composted food waste \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 GHG benefit fiom composting food waste via sequestiation* 0 t CO j*/tonne 0 tCOie/tonne Y A R D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T : Variables that can ba changed by u Mass Fraction of Grass in Yard Waste* SO Mass Fraction of Leave* In Yard Waste* 23 % Mass Fraction of Branches In Yard Waste\" 2S % Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition in Grass* 0.1SS kg Cfdry kg Carbon avail able for anaerobic decomposition In Leaves\" 0.060 kg Cfdry kg Carbon aval labia for anaerobic decomposition in Branches\" 0.082 kg C/dry kg Carbon storage factor for grass (dry)\" 0.29 kg C/dry kg Carbon storage factor for leaves (dry)* 0.43 kg C/dry kg Carbon storage factor far branches (dry)* 0.41 kg C/dry kg Moisture content of grass * 60 % Moisture content of leaves* 20 % Moisture content of branches* 40 % Nitrogen content of yard waste (dry basts)\" 3.4 %N Nitrogen content of yard waste (wet basis)* 1.9 %N Assumed anthropogenic fraction of the nitrogen content\" 30 V. Anthropogenic nitrogen content of yard waste (wet basis)\" 0.94 % Net energy content of wet yard waste* S.7 GJ/tonn Mass Averaged Carbon storage factor for yard waste (wet)\" 0.206 kg C/wet kg Mass Averaged Carbon lor decomposlion in yard waste (wet)\" 0.055 kg CAwet *g Mass Averaged Moisture content of yard waste= 45 % Mass Averaged Carbon Content of yard waste (dry)\" 47.1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2A Methane & Energy Implications of the Cache Creek Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition* 0.055 tCAvelloi Methane generation potential, L,* 0,037 tCK,/wet lonn Best-guess first order decay rate constant, k\" 0.070 year'' Low estimate first order decay rote constant, k\" 0.03S year'1 High estimate first order decay rate constant, k\" 0.103 year\" BEST-GUESS: LOW-ESTIMATE: HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Methane Covet of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy YEAR Generalio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generatio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (ICrVyr) (%) (%> (%) (iCOje/yr) (tCOje/yr) (ICH./yr) (%) (%) (%) (tCOje/yr) (ICOzo/yr) <'CH\u00C2\u00AB/yr) (%) (%> (%> (ICOjO/yr) (tCOje/yr) 1999 000258 10 43 0 0.0278 0.0000 0.00129 15 43 0 0.0131 0.0000 0.00387 5 43 0 0.0440 0.0000 2000 0.00241 10 50 0 0,0227 0.0000 0.00125 15 50 0 o.ottt 0.0000 0.00349 5 50 0 0.0348 0,0000 2001 0.00224 10 50 10 ' 0.0170 0.0006 0,00120 15 50 10 0.0086 0.0003 0.00314 5 50 0 0.0313 0.0000 2002 0.00209 10 50 15 0,0138 0.0009 0.00116 15 55 15 0.0062 0.0005 0.00283 5 50 0 0.02B2 0.0000 2003 0.00195 10 45 20 0.0129 0.0011 0.00112 15 55 20 0.0050 0.0006 0.00254 5 50 0 0.0254 0.0000 2004 0.00182 10 40 25 00120 0.0013 0.00108 15 50 25 0.0048 0.0007 0.00229 5 55 0 0.0206 0.0000 2005 0.00170 10 35 35 0.0096 0.0016 0.00105 15 40 35 0.0047 0.0010 0.00206 5 55 0 0.0185 0.0000 2006 0.00158 10 30 40 0.0090 0.0017 0.00101 15 35 40 0.0045 0 0011 0.00186 5 55 5 0.0148 0.0003 2007 0.00147 10 25 50 0.0070 0.0020 0.00099 15 25 50 0.0044 0.0013 0.00167 5 55 5 0.0133 0,0002 2008 0.00137 10 25 50 0.0065 0.0019 0,00094 15 30 50 0.0034 0.0013 0.00150 5 50 to 0.0120 00004 2009 0 00128 10 20 55 0.0061 0.0019 0.00091 15 25 55 0.0032 0.0014 0 00135 5 50 10 0.0108 0.0004 2010 0.00119 10 20 55 0.0056 0.0018 0.00088 15 25 55 0.0031 0.0013 0.00122 5 50 10 00097 00003 2011 0.00111 10 15 60 0.0053 0.0018 0.00085 15 20 60 0.0030 0.0014 0.00110 5 45 15 0 0088 00005 2012 0.00104 10 15 60 0.0049 0.0017 0.00082 15 20 60 0.0029 0.0014 0.00099 5 45 15 0.0079 0.0004 2013 0.00097 10 10 65 00046 0.0017 0.00079 15 15 65 0.0028 0.0014 0.00089 5 45 15 0.0071 0.OO04 2014 0.00090 10 10 65 0.0043 0.0016 0.00076 15 15 65 0,0027 0 0014 0.00080 5 40 20 0.0064 0.0004 2015 0.00084 to 5 70 0.0040 0.0016 0.00074 15 10 70 0.0026 0.0014 0.00072 5 40 20 0.0058 0.0004 2016 0.00079 10 5 70 0,0037 0.0015 0.00071 15 10 70 0.0025 0.0014 0.00065 5 35 25 0.0052 0.0004 2017 0.00073 10 0 75 0.0035 0.0015 0.00069 15 0 85 0.0018 0.0016 0.00058 5 35 25 0.0047 0,0004 2018 0.00068 10 0 75 0.0032 0.0014 0.00066 15 0 85 0.0018 0.0016 0.00053 5 35 25 0,0042 0,0004 TOTAL - 0.029 0.1S3 0.028 0.019 0.092 0.021 0.034 0.313 0.003 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization\" Low Eslimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions= High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* 0.092 -0.021 0.313 -0.005 lC02e/tonne lC02e/tonne tCOja/tonne ICO^tonne tCOje/tonne tCOze/tonne Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Cache Creek Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from yard wasle* -0.75 tCOje/Ionne 3 Immediate & Future N20 Emissions from the Cache Creek Landfill: Best-Guess Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen\" 1.0 VtNiORemitted NH, or NO, Low Estimate of the N,0 from vented nitrogen* 0.2 V.NjOremitted NH, or NO, High Estimate of the N,0 from vented nitrogen* 2.0 %N,0fsmitted NH, or NO, Decomposition of the yard waste* 34 % Nitrogen content of wet yard waste* 1.9 %N Best-Guess Eslimate of the N?0 Emission\" 0,031 tCO e^/tonne Low Estimate of Ihe NjO Emission\" 0.006 tCOje/tonne High Eslimate of the N 20 Emission* 0.062 tCOje/tonne 4 Methane & Energy Implications Of the Vancouver Landfill Carbon available for anaerobic decomposition* Methane generation potential, L,\" Best-guess first order decay rate constant, k\" Low estimate first order decay rata constant, k\" High estimate first order decay rate constant, k\u00C2\u00BB 0.055 tC/tonne food waste 0.037 tC Hi/raw tonne 0.0B yesr\"1 0.04 year\"1 0.12 year\"' BEST-GUESS: LOW-ESTIMATE: HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Covet of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG tor Methane of Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy YEAR Generalio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generatio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (ICrVyr) (%) (*> <%) (tCOae/yr) (tCO^yr) (tCrVyr) (%> <%) 1%) (tCO^yr) (tCOje/yr) (ICrVyr) (%) I*) <%) (COWvr) (lCOje/yi) 1999 0.00295 10 22 0 0.0435 0.0000 0.00147 15 22 0 0.0205 0.0000 0.00442 5 22 0 0.0688 0.0000 2000 0.00272 10 30 0 0.0360 0.0000 0.00142 15 35 0 0.0164 0.0000 0.00392 5 30 0 0.0548 0.0000 2001 0.00251 10 35 10 0.0261 0.0007 0.00136 15 40 10 0.0121. 0.0004 0.00348 5 35 0 0.0451 0.0000 2002 0.00232 10 40 15 0.0197 0.0010 0.00131 15 45 15 0.0093 0.0005 0.00309 5 40 0 ' 0.0369 0.0000 2003 0.00214 10 45 20 0.0142 0.0012 0,00126 15 55 20 0.0056 0.0007 0,00274 5 50 0 0.0273 0.0000 2004 0.00196 10 40 25 0,0131 0,0014 0.00121 15 50 25 0.0054 0.0008 0.00243 5 55 0 0.0218 0.0000 2005 0.00162 10 30 40 0.0103 0.0020 0.00116 15 40 35 0.0052 0.0011 0.00215 5 55 0 0.0193 0.0000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0.00168 0.00156 0.00144 0.00133 0.00122 0.00113 0.00104 0.00096 0.00089 0.00082 0.00076 0.0O07O 0.00065 0.0096 0.0073 0.0068 0.0063 0.0058 0.0053 0.0049 0.0O45 0.0042 0.0039 0.0036 0.0033 0.0030 0.231 0.0019 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0019 0.0019 0,0017 0.0017 0.0016 0,0016 0.0015 0,0014 0.0013 0.029 0.00111 0.00107 0.00103 0.00099 0.00095 0.00091 0.00088 0.O0084 0.00081 0.O0078 0.00075 0.00072 0.00069 0.021 0.0050 0.0048 0,0037 0.0035 0.0034 0.0033 0.0031 0.0030 0.0029 0.0028 0.0027 0.0019 0.0018 0.116 0.0012 0,0015 0,0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0,0017 0.0016 0,023 0.00191 0,00169 0,00150 0,00133 0.00118 0.00105 0.00093 0.00062 0.00073 0.00065 0.00058 0.00051 0.00045 0.036 0.0152 0.0135 0.0120 0.0106 0.0094 0.O084 0.0074 0.0066 0.0058 0.0052 0.0046 0.0041 0.0036 0.381 0.0003 0,0002 0,0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.005 Best-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Best-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization* Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* 0.231 -0.029 0.116 -0.023 0.381 \u00E2\u0080\u00A20.005 tC02e/tonne tCOve/tonne tCO^ tonne tC02e/tonne tCOje/tonne tCO;e/lonne 5 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Vancouver Landfill: From research by Barlaz; Long term carbon sequestration from yard waste* 6 Immediate & Future N20 Emissions from the Vancouver Landfill: Besl-Guess Estimate of the NjO from wastewater nitrogen* Low Estimate of the NjO from wastewater nitrogen* High Estimate of the N30 from wastewater nitrogen* Decomposition of the yard wastes Nitrogen content of wet yard waste* Best-Guess Estimate of the N20 Emission* Low Estimate of the N20 Emission* High Estimate of the N20 Emission* 1.0 %N,0/influent-N \" 0.2 V.NjO/influent-rJ 2.0 \"ANjO/influent-N 34 % 1,9 *N 0.031 tCOje/tonne 0.006 tC02e/tonne 0.062 tCOje/tonne Methane & Energy Implications at a Future Landfill Carbon available for anaeiobic decomposition* Methane generation potential. L,* Best-guess first order decay rate constant, k* Low estimate first order decay rate constant, k* High estimate first order decay rats constant, k* 0.055 tC/wet tonr 0.037 tCHj/weltc 0.070 year'' 0.033 year'1 0.105 year\"' BEST-GUESS: LOW-ESTIMATE: HIGH-ESTIMATE: Oxidation by Percentage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percenlage Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Oxidation by Percentage Percenlage Atmospheric GHG Benefit Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy Methane Cover of LFG of LFG for Methane of Energy YEAR Generatio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generatio Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization Generation Material Flared Energy Emissions Utilization (tCH,/yr) <*> (%) (*) (tCOje/y.) (ICOje/yr) (tCHVyr) (%) (%> <*> (lC02e/yr) (tCOje/yr) {%) (%) (iC02e/yr) (tC02e/yrJ 1999 0.00258 10 43 0 0.0278 0.0000 0.00129 15 43 0 0.0131 0.0000 0.00387 5 43 0 0.0440 0.0000 2000 0.00241 10 50 0 0.0227 0.0000 0.00125 t5 50 0 0.0111 D.0000 0.00349 5 50 0 0.0348 0.0000 2001 0.00224 10 50 10 0.0170 0.0006 0.00120 15 50 10 0.0086 0.0003 0.00314 5 50 0 0.0313 0.0000 2002 0.00209 10 50 15 0.0138 0.0009 0.00116 15 55 15 0,0062 0.0005 0.00283 5 50 0 0.0282 0.0000 2003 0.00195 10 45 20 0.0129 0.0011 0.00112 15 55 20 0.0050 0.0006 0.00254 5 50 0 0.0254 0.0000 2004 0.00182 10 40 25 0.0120 0.0013 0.00108 15 50 25 0.0048 0.0007 0.00229 5 55 0 0.0206 0.0000 2005 0.00170 10 35 35 0.0096 0.0016 0.00105 15 40 35 0.0047 0.0010 0.00206 5 55 0 0 0185 0.0000 2006 0.00158 10 30 40 0.0090 0.0017 0.00101 15 35 40 0.0045 0.0011 0.00186 5 55 5 0,0148 0.0003 2007 0.00147 10 25 50 0.0070 0.0020 0.00098 15 25 50 0,0044 0.0013 0.00167 5 55 5 0.0133 0.0002 2008 0.00137 10 25 50 0.0065 0.0019 0.00094 15 30 50 0.0034 0,0013 0,00150 5 50 10 0.0120 0.0004 2009 0.00128 10 20 55 0.0061 0.0019 0.00091 15 25 55 0.0032 0,0014 0.00135 5 50 10 0.0108 0.0004 2010 0.00119 10 20 55 0.0056 0.0018 0.00088 15 25 55 0,0031 0,0013 0,00122 5 50 to 0.0097 0.0003 2011 0.00111 10 15 60 0.0053 0.0018 0.00085 15 20 60 0.0030 0.0014 0.00110 5 45 15 0.0088 0.0005 2012 0.00104 10 15 60 0.0049 0.0017 0.00082 15 20 60 0.0029 0,0014 0,00099 5 45 15 0.0079 0.0004 2013 0.00097 10 10 65 0.0046 0.0017 0.00079 15 15 65 0.0028 0,0014 0.00069 5 45 15 0.0071 0.00O4 2014 0.00090 10 10 65 0.0043 0.0016 0.00076 15 15 65 0.0027 0.0014 0.00060 5 40 20 0.0064 0.0004 2015 0.00084 10 5 70 0.0040 0.0016 0.00074 15 10 70 0,0026 0.0014 0,00072 5 40 20 0.0058 0.0004 2016 0.00079 10 5 70 0.0037 0.0015 0.00071 15 10 70 0.0025 0.0014 0.00065 5 35 25 0.0052 0.0004 2017 0.00073 10 0 75 0.0035 0,0015 0.00069 15 0 65 0,0018 0.0016 0.00056 5 35 25 0.0047 0.0004 2018 0.00068 10 0 75 0.0032 0.0014 0.00066 15 0 85 0.0018 0 0016 0,00053 5 35 25 0.0042 0.0004 TOTAL - 0.029 0.183 0.028 0.019 0.092 0.021 0.034 0.313 0.005 Besl-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Besl-Guess of Benefit of Energy Utilization* Low Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* High Estimate of Benefit of Energy Utilization* -0.021 0.313 -0.005 tCOje/tonne ICO^ /tonne ICOie/lonne tC02o;ionne ICO^ /tonne tCOje/tonne 8 Long-Term Carbon Sequestration at a Future Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from yard waste* Immediate & Future N20 Emissions at a Future Landfill: Best-Guess Estimate of the N20 from vented nitrogen* Low Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen* High Estimate of the NjO from vented nitrogen* Decomposition of the yard waste* Nitrogen content of wet yard waste* Best-Guess Estimate of the N20 Emissions Low Estimate of the NzO Emission* High Estimate of the NjO Emission* 1.0 %N,0/emitted NH, or NO* 0.2 V.NjO/emitted NH, or NO* 2.0 %N,0/emitted NH, or NO* 34 % 1,9 %N 0,031 tC02e/tonne 0.006 tCOje/tonne 0,062 tCOze/tonne 10 Energy Generation from Waste Incineration at the Burnaby Incinerator: Net energy content of wel yard wastes 5.7 GJ/tonne 2S7 Utilized steam energy by Crown* 2.23 GJ/tonne Turbogenerator electricity produced* 0.00 GJ/tonne Emission prevention by steam utilization at Crown= 0.139 ICOze/tonne Emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro (Burrard Thermal)* 0.000 ICOjB/tonne Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* -0,139 iCO^ e/tonne GHG Emissions from Waste Incineration at the Burnaby Incinerator: Nitrogen content of wet yard waste* 1.9 %N Besl-guess estimate immediate N;0 emission from waslo-N* 0.155 tCC-20/tonne Low estimate immediate N20 emission from waste-N= 0.027 tCOze/tonne High estimate immediate N20 emission from waste-N* 0.282 tCO,e/tonno Besl-guess estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration 0.181 tCOje/tonne Low estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incinerations 0.044 tCOje/tonne High eslimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration* 0.320 tCOje/tonne Energy Generation from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator: Net energy contenl or wet yard wasle* 5.7 GJ/tonne Utilized steam energy by Crown* 223 GJ/tonne Turbogenerator electricity produced* 0.00 GJ/tonno Emission prevention by steam utilization at Crown= 0.139 tCOze/tonne Emission prevention by offsetting BC Hydro (Burrard Thermal)\" 0000 tCOje/tonne Total GHG emission prevented by energy production* -0.139 tC03e/lonne GHG Emissions from Waste Incineration at a Future Incinerator: Nitrogen contenl of wet yard waste* 1.9 %N Besl-guess estimate immediate N?0 emission from wasla-N* 0,155 tCOje/tonne Low estimate immediate NjO emission from waste-N* 0.027 tCOjc/lonne High estimate immediate NjO emission from wasle-N* 0.282 tCOje/lonne Best-guess estimate of total GHG emissions from wasle incineration 0.181 tCOje/tonne Low estimate of total GHG emissions from waste incineration* 0.044 tCOjo/tonne High estimate of total GHG emissions from wasle incineration* 0.320 tCOje/tonne Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Backyard Composting Anthropogenic Nitrogen content of wet yard waste* 0.94 %N Best-guess estimate of the Immediate NjO emission factor* 0.8 \"/.of Initial-N Low estimate of the tm medial* NjO emission factor* 0.2 % of Initial-N High estimate of the immediate NjO emission factor* 2 Soflnltlal-N Besl-guess eslimate of Ihe immediate NjO emission * 0.036 tCOje/tonne Low estimate of Ihe immediate NjO emission * 0.009 tCOje/tonne High eslimate of the immediate NjO emission * 0.091 tCOjO/lonne Nitrogen content of wel yard wastes 0.94 %N Best-guess estimate of the fraction to future NjO emissions* 70 % of Initiol-N Low estimate of the fraction undergoing future N,0 emissions* SO % of Initial-N High estimate of the fraction undergoing future NjO emissions* 90 % al Initial-N Besl-guess estimate mass of nitrogen available (or future NjO* 0.0065 tonne Future N/tonne yard Low estimate mass of nitrogen available for future NzO* 0.0047 tonne Future N/tonne yard High eslimate mass of nitrogen available for future NjO* 0.0084 tonne Future N/tonne yard Best-guess estimate of the future NjO emission factor* 1.0 % of Initial-N Low estimate of the future NjO emission factor* 0.2 V. of Initial-N High estimate of the future NjO emission factor* 2 V. of inltial-N Besl-guess eslimate of Ihe future NjO emission * 0.032 ICOje/lonne Low estimate of the future NjO emission * 0.005 tCOjo/tonne High estimate of the future NjO emission \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0082 ICOjft/tonne Best-guess Estimate Total emissions from backyard composting* 0.068 ICOje/tonne Low Estimate Total emissions from backyard composting* 0.014 ICOja/tonne High Estimate Total emissions from backyard composting* 0.173 iCOja/lonne Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Centralized Composting Best-guess estimate of the methane amission factor* 0.5 V. of initial carbon Low estimate of Ihe methane emission factor* 0.1 % of initial carbon High estimate of the methane emission factor* 1.0 % of Initial carbon Besl-guess estimate of the CH, emission from centralized compost* 0.036 tCOja/lonno Low estimate of the CHj emission from centralized composting* 0.007 ICOje/tonne High estimate of Ihe CH, emission from centralized composting* 0.073 ICOje/tonne Best-guess estimate N70 emissions from composting* 0.068 iCOfa/tonne Low estimate N70 emissions from composting* 0.014 ICOje/lonna High estimate NjO emissions from composting* 0.173 iCOje/tonne Best-guess estimate Total GHG emissions from centralized compost 0.105 tCOje/tonne Low eslimate Total GHG emissions from centralized composting* 0021 tCOje/tonne High estimate Total GHG emissions from centralized composling* 0.246 tCOje/tonno Long-Term Carbon Sequestration of Compost Basl-Gueu of Carbon Saq. ol Centr allied Compeled Yard W*li \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 -0.10 tC Oj*/tonne Low E\u00C2\u00BBtlm\u00C2\u00ABte of Carbon Seq. of Cenlralllad Composted Yard Wasle1 -0.004 tC03e/tonne Woh Ellbnue of Carbon Seq. el Cenlf allied Concealed Yard Wasle \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 -0.20 tCOje/tonne Estimate of Carbon Seq. ol Backyard Composted Yard Wule - 0 t CO :e/tonne REMAINDER WASTE MANAGEMENT: ibles that on be changed by uaara aia In bold. Biodegradable fraction of Remainder* Moisture conlant of biodegradable organic-C In Remainder* Carbon content of biodegradable C In Remainder (dry)* Carbon storage factor for Remainder (wet)* Nitrogen content of Remainder* Estimate of the net energy content of Ri Foasll Carbon Content of Remainder a 30 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2* SO * 0.09 kgCfwotkg 0 KN 11.6 GJrtonne 0.060 tCftonne Remalr Methane & Energy Implications of (he Cache Creek Landfill Carbon storage factor for Remainder (wet)* Carbon avalable For ai K decay rata constant. k* \u00E2\u0080\u00A2der dacay rata constant, k rdar decay ra 0.01 year 0,06 year'1 2000 2001 2002 2007 2000 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2017 BEST-GUESS; OiUatkmby Methane Cover 0.00413 0.00389 0.00367 000345 0.00325 0.00286 0.00272 0.00256 0.00241 0.00227 0 00214 0.00201 0.00169 0.00176 0.00166 0.00156 0.00140 0.00140 0.00132 Percentage of LFG Percentage Atmospheric GHQ Benefit | of LFG for Methane Energy Emit tons (%) (ICOja/yr) 0 0445 0.0366 0.0277 0.0226 00215 0.0203 0 0164 0.0154 0 0121 0.0114 0.0107 0.0101 0 0095 0 0090 0.0064 00079 0.0075 00000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0014 0.001 s 00021 0.0028 0.0030 0.0035 0.0033 0.0034 0.0032 0.0033 0.0030 0.0026 00029 0.0027 LOW-ESTIMATE: .00207 .00203 .00199 .00195 00191 .00167 .00163 .00160 .00176 .00166 .00163 .00159 .00156 .00153 .00150 Percenlage Atmospheric GHG Benefit of LFG for Melhane of Energy Energy Emis lions Utilization (*> (tCOje/yr) (tCOjeV) 0.0142 0 0104 0.0056 0.0057 0.0056 0.0055 0.0054 0.0053 00039 0.0036 0.164 0.0000 0.0005 0.0024 0.0024 0.0026 0.0025 00027 0.0026 0.0026 0 0027 0 0029 0.0026 0.0034 00033 HIGH-ESTIMATE; Oiidotion 0.00620 0 00564 0 00550 0 0051B .00433 .00407 .00364 .00361 .00302 .00284 .00268 .00252 .00237 .00224 of LFG cf LFG !\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ' Atmospheric GHG Benefi Methane of Energy Emissions Utilization (tCO r^) (tCO,e/yr> 0.0705 0.0000 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 05S2 0 0000 0.0549 O.OOOO 0.0517 0.0000 0.0466 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0005 00010 0 0009 00009 0 0412 0.0336 0.0325 0.0306 0 02GB 0.0272 0.0256 0 0241 0.0227 0.0214 0.0201 0 0189 0.0178 0.0168 Bait-Guess of Atmospheric Methane Emissions* Besl-Guesi of Benefit of Energy Utilization' Low Estimate of Atmospheric Melhane Emissions* Low Estimate of Benefit of Energy Uu&Eation* High Estimate of Atmospheric Methane Emissions\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 High Estimate of Benefit of Enargy Ulliation* 0.312 tCOieAonne -0.050 tCOja/lonne 0.164 lC02ertonne -0041 tCOIe/tonne 0 6G6 tCOje/tonne 4014 tCOjeAonrve Long-Term Carbon Sequestration in the Cache Creek Landfill: From research by Barlaz: Long term carbon sequestration from Remainder\" Immediate & Future N20 Emission The potantial of this emission is ignored. Estimate of the HjO Emission* from the Cache Creek Landfill; Methane & Energy Implications of the Vancouver Landfill Carbon storage (actor for Remainder (wet)* Methane generation potential. L,* Best-guest first ordar dacay rata conatant. k* Low estimate first order decay rate constant, k* High estimete first ordar decay rate constant, k* 0.090 tC/tonne 0,155 tC/tonne 0.103 tCHj/lonne 0,05 year\"1 0,025 year*' 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.00517 0.00491 0.00467 0.00445 000423 0.00402 0.00363 0.00364 0.00346 0.00329 0.00313 000298 000284 0,00270 0,00257 0.00244 0.00232 0.00221 0.00210 0.00200 0.067 Percentage Atmospheric GHG Benefit of LFG for Methane of Energy Energy Emissions UliSzetion (%) "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "2000-11"@en . "10.14288/1.0063750"@en . "eng"@en . "Civil Engineering"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "A greenhouse gas analysis of solid waste management in the Greater Vancouver regional district"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/10537"@en .