1lLle Creenhouse Cas Lmlsslons from wasLe managemenLassessmenL of quanLlflcaLlon meLhods

AuLhor(s) ChrlsLopher A kennedy PeaLher L MacLean and Lugene A Mohareb

Source lourno/ of the 4ir woste Monoqement 4ssociotion 613 (May 2011) p480
uocumenL 1ype 1echnlcal reporL
uCl hLLp//dxdolorg/103133/10473289613480
ABSTRACT
OI the many sources oI urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one
Ior which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments
themselves and is hence oIten the largest component oI cities' corporate inventories. It is
essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantiIication methodology and have an
appreciation oI methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares Iour
diIIerent waste emissions quantiIication methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation oI Canadian
Municipalities-Partners Ior Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantiIication tool. Waste
disposal data Ior the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used Ior all methodologies;
treatment options (including landIill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are
examined where available in methodologies. LandIill was shown to be the greatest source oI
GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters oI total emissions associated with
waste management. Results Irom the diIIerent landIill gas (LFG) quantiIication approaches
ranged Irom an emissions source oI 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (|CO.sub.2|e) (FCM-
PCP) to a carbon sink oI -53 kt |CO.sub.2|e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained
between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was Iound to be more appropriate Ior
inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a
methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements Ior WIP.
MC approaches were Iound to be useIul Irom a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty
associated with their projections oI Iuture parameter values limits their applicability Ior GHG
inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this
is case speciIic because oI similarity in assumptions oI present and Iuture landIill parameters
and quantities oI annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.
INTRODUCTION
The release oI landIill gas (LFG) resulting Irom anaerobic decomposition oI municipal solid
waste (MSW) is generally quantiIied in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories
conducted by cities. For 2007, this emissions source represented 21 Mt (~3) oI total
emissions tabulated in the Canadian national GHG inventory and 127 Mt (2) in the U.S.
inventory. (1), (2) Municipalities, which have been strong jurisdictional champions in
addressing climate change, play the principal role in managing these GHGs because their
decisions dictate diversion, treatment, and mitigation (such as LFG capture) practices. The
opportunity Ior reductions is large; an example Irom the 2004 City oI Toronto inventory
suggests solid waste contributed 3 oI community-wide emissions; however, its proportion
oI corporate emissions (those stemming strictly Irom municipal government activities) was
45. (3) Additionally, waste emissions generally contribute a larger proportion oI
community-wide municipal emissions in the developing world (e.g., up to 40 in Rio De
Janeiro (4)). The method selected Ior quantiIying waste-related emissions is important
because projects to mitigate MSW-related GHG emissions are likely to be a high priority;
Kennedy et al. (5) demonstrated that waste emissions reduction strategies tend to be the most
cost-eIIective oI municipal projects targeting GHGs regardless oI region, underscoring the
importance oI proper quantiIication Ior planning purposes.
GHG emissions are released through several waste management treatment options. However,
the greatest source oI waste-related GHGs in the 2007 Canadian National Inventory is
anaerobic digestion (AD) in landIills, contributing 95 oI all waste sector emissions.1 When
biogenic carbon is deposited in landIills, degradation processes become anaerobic aIter
oxygen is depleted in the Iill material, producing LFG that is approximately 50 methane
(|CH.sub.4|). This GHG is 25 times more potent over a 100-year time Irame than iI the same
biogenic carbon were aerobically degraded to carbon dioxide (|CO.sub.2|), which would
presumably be a carbon-neutral process. (6) Hence, whenever landIill |CH.sub.4| is oxidized
through combustion or a specially engineered landIill cover, a reduction in radiative Iorcing
is achieved (compared with a case in which |CH.sub.4| emissions are not controlled). Other
possible GHG sources Irom solid waste include (7)
* Combustion oI Iossil-derived carbon in incineration systems resulting in the release oI
|CO.sub.2|
* Production oI |CH.sub.4| Irom anaerobic conditions within composting operations
* Release oI nitrous oxide (|N.sub.2|O) during nitriIication in compost piles
* Leakage oI |CH.sub.4| Irom AD reactors
* Collection and transportation oI waste to transIer and treatment sites (indirect).
Although policy measures to reduce GHG emissions Irom MSW appear straightIorward
(such as improved recycling oI wood products and diversion oI Iood wastes), inaccurate
quantiIication oI these may distort the issue's scale (and economic Ieasibility iI carbon pricing
is part oI the rationale Ior a mitigation project). Comparison oI emissions totals is
complicated because two diIIerent temporal boundaries have been applied to MSW emissions
studies: GHGs can be quantiIied using the methane commitment (MC; or theoretical yield
gas) method or the waste-in-place (WIP) method. The MC method requires the Iorecast oI
any Iuture |CH.sub.4| emissions associated with MSW deposited in the inventory year,
basing this estimation on a projection oI Iuture landIill operation practices. The WIP method
attempts to quantiIy |CH.sub.4| released within the inventory year Irom all MSW waste
previously deposited in landIills.
The objective oI this paper is to quantiIy and compare GHG emissions associated with waste
management using various methodologies that are currently used in inventorying activities
Ior waste because diIIerent approaches are being used by cities globally (generally using MC
approaches including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |EPA| Waste Reduction Model
|WARM| and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |IPCC| 1996). (4) The importance
oI this exercise stems Irom the potential Ior comparisons between global cities' emissions,
which are likely to be made although boundaries used in their inventories may diIIer.
QuantiIication oI a single case study provides insight into the eIIect oI inconsistent
methodological selection between these cities. Additionally, comparing diIIerent
methodologies to quantiIy GHG emissions Irom MSW and analysis oI the eIIects oI
parameter selection is useIul Ior waste planners/managers. WIP and MC approaches are
examined looking at direct and indirect emissions associated with diIIerent MSW
management practices. Once the details oI the nuances oI quantiIication methodologies are
clearer, policy-makers will be able to select the approach that best suits their needs in a
particular application (i.e., inventorying vs. waste management planning) and apply it with
knowledge oI its strengths and weaknesses.
LandIill, incineration, AD, and/or composting GHG emissions are calculated, using the
greater Toronto area (GTA) as a case study, by applying Iour commonly used models: IPCC
1996, IPCC 2006, EPA WARM, and the Federation oI Canadian Municipalities-Partners Ior
Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantiIication tool Ior communities. (7-10) Additionally, two
modiIications oI the IPCC 2006 model are made to allow Ior Iurther analysis: one to provide
a MC calculation (henceIorth termed IPCC 2006 MC) and one to provide a limited liIe-cycle-
based inventory (IPCC 2006 LC). The IPCC 2006 LC predominantly includes
emissions/credits that would not be included in the IPCC 2006 MC but that occur within the
municipal boundary and may be relevant to a municipal emissions inventory. This results in a
comparison oI six diIIerent approaches.
BACKGROUND
Some inIormation must be provided on the methodologies used in this study to provide an
understanding oI where they originated, how they are designed, and their intended uses. In
1991, the IPCC initiated the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme to commence
work on methodologies Ior quantiIying GHG dynamics Ior member countries. (8) The
program aimed to attain consensus with its members by developing emissions/sink
inventories and established a task Iorce to aid nations in the quantiIication oI their GHG
emissions. (11) The result has been two guidelines (henceIorth reIerred to as IPCC 1996 and
IPCC 2006) that have two important diIIerences: The IPCC 1996 model uses a MC
calculation whereas the IPCC 2006 revision uses a WIP method (using ~10 yr oI detailed
landIill disposal data).
The other main diIIerence between the two models is the data requirement. Because the 1996
method uses the MC approach, it is based on a simple calculation that uses an estimate oI
waste carbon content that is dissimilated to |CH.sub.4| over an inIinite time period (assuming
no changes in landIill conditions). Only the tonnage deposited within the year oI inventory is
required, whereas deIault data can be applied to Iill in any missing inIormation. The IPCC
2006 WIP method requires the use oI a more complex Iirst-order decay model that estimates
the degree oI decomposition oI accumulated carbon in landIilled waste on the basis oI halI-
liIe data oI materials under given landIill conditions, which has a greater data requirement
(waste deposited Irom 50 yr prior is suggested).


Partners Ior Climate Protection (PCP), the Federation oI Canadian Municipalities program on
climate change action (in association with ICLEI's global Cities Ior Climate Protection
program), has developed a spreadsheet tool that can be used by municipalities to complete a
community and corporate GHG inventory. (10) This tool uses a MC approach because it
simply requires an estimate oI waste landIilled in a given year on the basis oI a Iixed
emissions Iactor (t |CO.sub.2| equivalents ||CO.sub.2|e| |t landIill waste|"1). It should be
noted that at the time oI writing, there are plans to update the FCM-PCP municipal
quantiIication tool. (12)
The EPA WARM model was created to assist municipal waste planners in making better
decisions with respect to GHG emission mitigation Irom waste. (9) The model allows the
quantiIication oI emissions Irom landIills (using a MC approach), composting, incineration,
and recycling. Because oI the liIe-cycle perspective taken, emissions credits are provided
using a system expansion approach that incorporates oIIsets. By expanding the system
boundary to include an estimated quantity oI emissions avoided because oI a component oI
the waste management activity (i.e., electricity generation Irom LFG), the EPA model
reduces emissions allocated to the waste activity by that quantity (i.e., emissions that would
have otherwise occurred had, Ior example, the electricity been produced Irom Iossil-based
electricity generation). Sources oI credits in the WARM model include (1) using recycled
(rather than virgin) content, (2) electricity generated Irom waste management practices, (3)
carbon stored in soil Irom compost, and (4) sequestration oI biogenic carbon in landIills.
These all have varying degrees oI uncertainty associated with them; Ior example, the model
assumes an inIinite time Irame Ior the landIill credit although Iuture disturbances to landIill
sites (such as landIill mining) may oxidize this carbon (such as through combustion or
biodegradation). Additionally, Irom a management perspective, credits can shiIt the Iocus
away Irom current |CH.sub.4| emissions, which is problematic because |CH.sub.4| is a
potent GHG with an intense, short-term eIIect on radiative Iorcing. (6)
The methodologies examined allow varying amounts oI Ilexibility Ior considering
jurisdiction-speciIic conditions. Generally speaking, average/deIault values are applied Ior
the comparison oI the models, leaving some uncertainty in the Iigures.
METHODOLOGY
GTA
The GTA is comprised oI Iive regional municipalities: City oI Toronto, Peel, Halton,
Durham, and York. The GTA is selected as the study region in contrast to solely examining
the City oI Toronto Ior two reasons. Firstly, waste is a regional issue with waste management
operations being utilized by multiple municipalities within the region. Secondly, this
complements a study perIormed by Kennedy et al. (4) on regional GHG emissions and
Iollows their methodology oI examining a major urban center along with its neighboring
communities Ior which the economies are interdependent. In 2006, the population oI the
GTA was estimated at 5,556,182, with 45 oI residents centrally located in the City oI
Toronto. It is estimated that, on average, GTA residents sent 210 kg oI MSW to landIill per
capita in 2005, compared with the national and provincial residential averages oI 290 and 305
kg, respectively (see Table 1). (13), (14)
Table 1. Waste disposal data applied to the IPCC 1996, IPCC 2006,
FCM-PCP, and/or EPA WARM for 2005 Waste GHG emission quantification.
(18-22)

Waste Disposal Tonnage Tons Comments
Method Per
Capita

Waste landfilled--MC 1,154,981 (a), (b), 0.210
approaches (c), (d)

Waste composted 188,700 (a), (d) 0.034

Waste incinerated 91,000 (a), (d) 0.016

Waste anaerobically 72,448 (d) 0.013 (a) Allocated to
digested "waste composted"

Backyard compost 69,888 (d) 0.013 (d) Assumed to be
carbon neutral

Recycled 446,719 0.080

Notes: (a) Applied to WARM model; (b) Applied to FCM-PCP model;
(c) Applied to IPCC 1996; (d) Applied to IPCC 2006.
BeIore the mid 1960s, waste management strategies were guided by a melange oI municipal
policies across the GTA. (15-16) Incineration was the primary means oI waste management
up until the mid-1960s; however, incinerator capacity Irequently did not match waste
production. Up until 1965, emergency landIills set up in public ravines were used in the City
oI Toronto to handle the excess waste. (16) In addition, private dumps, which oIten partook
in open burning, were prevalent. To address this patchwork disposal system, large periurban
landIills were planned and commenced operation in 1967. However, as a result oI the diverse
waste management schemes across the GTA, obtaining accurate waste disposal data Irom the
era beIore large-scale landIill sites is diIIicult.
The earliest landIill waste Iigures are Irom City oI Toronto archives, where waste data
disposed in the Iour major regional landIills between 1971 and 1979 are available (Beare
Road, South Thackeray, Brock West, and Brock North). (15) LandIilled waste data between
1955 and 1970 are extrapolated based on per capita waste produced in 1971 and census data.
Waste data Ior odd numbered years between 1981 and 1989 are obtained Irom Metro Toronto
Planning Dept publications (1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989) and gaps between these data and
1989-1999 are linearly interpolated (Figure 1). Data Irom 1999 to 2005 are obtained Irom
Kennedy and others, as well as Irom regional data. (17-22) All data obtained beIore 1999
include industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) waste; hence, a correction Iactor oI
0.36 (representing the proportion oI ICI waste reported in Ontario in 2006) is applied to
these. (13)
|FIGURE 1 OMITTED|
A drop in the quantity oI Peel landIill waste in 1993 is assumed because oI the introduction
oI a waste-to-energy incineration operation (assumed to have a capacity oI accepting 80 kt oI
waste per year). A steep upward slope in the growth oI waste emissions is observed during
the 1980s. This is likely attributable in part to population growth, coupled with the closure oI
incinerators during that period. However, given that incinerators accounted Ior 200,000 t oI
waste in 1981 and the rate oI population growth does not seem to diIIer much Irom other
decades, this may not provide a complete explanation. A similar spike is observed by
Anderson, (16) who looked at Metro Toronto and industrial waste; however, waste
production Irom the Iormer City oI Toronto (which represented the central component oI the
Iormer metropolitan area) did not rise as quickly, suggesting that this increase is mainly
attributable to the ICI sector, perhaps because oI the closure oI incineration Iacilities
previously accepting this sector's waste.
Waste GHG Emissions Models
LandIilling waste is the dominant treatment method in the GTA, Iollowed by recycling,
composting, incineration, and AD. The proportion oI waste that is Irom single-Iamily housing
compared with multiunit dwellings is obtained Irom census data. (14) Parameters applied to
the Iour methodologies and the two variations on IPCC 2006 are displayed in Table 2 along
with applicable sources (some oI which are discussed Iurther in the speciIic methodologies
below). Calculation methods Ior incineration- and composting-related emissions were only
available in IPCC 2006 and EPA WARM, whereas AD emissions calculations are only
possible Ior the Iormer; IPCC 1996 and FCM-PCP do not provide a means oI quantiIying
these. For the waste composition calculations, diIIerentiation is made between single-Iamily
and multiunit dwellings; these are taken Irom City oI Toronto data and assumed to be
uniIorm across the region (except Ior the Peel Region incineration calculation; see GTA
background above). (23) The smaller contribution oI waste ~10 yr old to current emissions
(see Results and Discussion) validates this assumption.



Table 2. Parameters applied to the IPCC 1996, IPCC 2006, and/or EPA
WARM for 2005 waste emission GHG quantification.

Parameter Value Sources/Comments

DJC fraction 0.169 (b), 0.161 (b), (c) Using IPCC 1996
(c) and IPCC 2006 DJC defaults
weighted based on waste
audits (23); carbon
content based on IPCC
defaults (7), (8)

DJC dissimilated 0.5 (b), (c) 7,8
(DJC.sub.f,)

Fraction of CH.sub.4, in 0.5 (b), (c) 7,8
LFG (F)

Fraction of LFG recovered 0.75 (a), (b), 40
(R) (c)

Half-life of waste, years 9.58 (c) Weighted based on waste
(t.sub.1/2,) stream calculations (see
DJC) using IPCC 2006
defaults for waste
half-lives

CH.sub.4, oxidized (JX) 0.1 (b), (c) 7,8

CH.sub.4, GWP 25 (b), (c) 6
(GWP.sub.100,)

Grid emissions factor 210 (c) 1
(g/kWh)

N.sub.2,J GWP.sub.100, 298 (c) 6

Incineration electricity 480 (c) 33
generation (kWh/t)

CH.sub.4, leakage, AD 5% (c) 7
facilities

Notes: (a) Applied to WARM model; (b) Applied to IPCC 1996; (c) Applied
to IPCC 2006.
OI the parameters listed above, deIault data are generally used with the exception oI those
relating to emission reduction credits discussed in the IPCC 2006 LC approach (speciIically,
average grid emissions and incineration electricity generation, which are calculated Ior GTA-
speciIic conditions). Electricity generation Irom waste treatment options assumes a 47
conversion eIIiciency oI total |CH.sub.4| captured (using a reciprocating engine) and a lower
heating value oI 50 MJ/kg. (24) |CH.sub.4| production is multiplied by capture eIIiciency to
provide the Iigure Ior total weight oI |CH.sub.4| captured, with landIills that have received
GTA waste being equipped with LFG capture systems (assumed to be collecting 75 oI
LFG) with electricity generation. GHG emission reduction credits (or oIIsets) are applied Ior
electricity produced Irom treatment options and generation is assumed to be continuous, (21)
allowing a 2005 provincial average emissions Iactor to be used. A summary oI parameters
used in the calculation oI emissions Irom transportation Ior the IPCC 2006 LC is provided in
Table 3.
Table 3. Relevant parameters applied in calculating GHG emissions from
waste collection. (3), (7)

Parameter Value

Truck capacity (t) 34 (3)
Fuel economy (L/100 km) 42 (3)
Energy density of diesel (MJ/L) 35.8 (7)
Diesel emissions factor (t/TJ) 74.1 (7)
Regarding speciIic treatment methods, it is assumed that no emissions result Irom backyard
composting (assumed aerobically degraded). All green bin waste is assumed to be
anaerobically digested at central processing Iacilities.
FCM-PCP


To assist municipalities to compile GHG inventories, a spreadsheet tool is provided entitled
"Inventory QuantiIication Support Spreadsheet," which is based on PCP GHG soItware. (10)
The calculation Ior annual GHG emissions is based on an emissions Iactor (see eq 1 below)
and is assumed to be based on national average data, although this could not be conIirmed.
Using a simple "emissions Iactor" calculation in a GHG emissions system as complex as
waste cannot provide the Ilexibility oI the other more detailed methodologies described
below. However, this is simply a preliminary Iigure Ior municipalities to use and it is oI
interest Ior comparison with other more rigorous methodologies.
GHG emissions t oI waste landIilled (t |CO.sub.2|e) * 0.4817 t |CO.sub.2|e/t oI waste
landIilled (1)
IPCC 1996
As stated earlier, the IPCC 1996 uses a MC approach Ior GHG emissions quantiIication.
Emissions can be calculated using (adapted Irom IPCC 1996) (8)
|CH.sub.4| emissions (W*MCF*DOC*|DOC.sub.F|*F*(Gg |yr.sup.-1|) 16/12) * (1 - R) *
(1 - OX) (2)
where W is the total weight oI waste deposited in landIills (Gg |yr.sup-1|), MCF is the
methane correction Iactor (Ior sanitary landIills - 1), DOC is degradeable organic carbon,
|DOC.sub.I| is the Iraction oI DOC dissimilated, F is the Iraction oI |CH.sub.4| in LFG, r is
the Iraction oI |CH.sub.4| recovered (i.e., LFG capture eIIiciency), and OX is the Iraction oI
|CH.sub.4| oxidation.
IPCC 2006
The IPCC 2006 method involves the most complex calculation oI the Iour landIill
methodologies examined. A Iirst-order decay model (Scholl-Canyon model; Tier 2) approach
is used with deIault parameters and region-speciIic landIill data. The WIP calculation uses
sequential calculations each year with the equations outlined below (7):
DDOCm W * DOC * |DOC.sub.I| * MCF (3)
where DDOCm is the mass oI decomposable DOC deposited,
|DDOCma.sub.T| |DDOCma.sub.T| (|DDOCma.sub.|T-1|| * |e.sup.-k|) (4)
where |DDOCma.sub.T| is the DDOCm accumulated in a given year (T), |DDOCmd.sub.T|
is the DDOCm deposited in year T, k is the reaction constant |ln(2)/|t.sub.|1/2|| (|yr.sup.-
1|)|, and |t.sub.|1/2|| is the halI-liIe oI waste (yr).
DDOCm |decomp.sub.T| |DDOCma.sub.|T-1|| * (1 - |e.sup.-k|) (5)
where DDOCm |decomp.sub.T| is the DDOCm decomposed in year T.


|CH.sub.4| generated DDOC |decomp.sub.T| * F * 16/12 (6)
|CH.sub.4| emitted (CH.sub.4| generated - R) * (1 - OX) (7)
Waste composition is assumed to be constant Ior historic data; hence, the degradable organic
carbon (DOC) content is the same Ior all years used Ior the WIP calculation. Disposal is
assumed to be at the beginning oI the year, with |CH.sub.4| emissions calculated at year's
end. DOC is weighted according to the IPCC 2006 Iractions Ior waste components.
Wastewater sludge deposited in landIills is assumed to be in the Iorm oI biosolids that are
stabilized to the extent at which Iurther decomposition is negligible.
In year 0 (i.e., 1955), |DDOCma.sub.|T-I|| and DDOCm |decomp.sub.T| are assumed to be
nil, giving a value oI |DDOCma.sub.T| that is simply the amount oI decomposable DOC
deposited in 1955. This was used as a basis Ior calculations in all Iollowing years. The
reaction constant (k) is estimated assuming a boreal region under dry conditions using
Environment Canada data on Toronto's mean annual precipitation and relating it to potential
evapotranspiration. (25)
A MC calculation is completed in the same manner (denoted IPCC 2006 MC), using the
above equations, except in this case year 0 is 2005, with a 100-yr Iorecast Ior resulting
|CH.sub.4| emissions (a 75 LFG capture eIIiciency is assumed Ior the liIetime oI the
waste). This is assumed to be a suIIiciently long Iorecast because by the year 2105
|CH.sub.4| emissions are estimated to be below 25 t |CO.sub.2|e |yr.sup.-1| (Figure 2).
|FIGURE 2 OMITTED|
Calculations oI IPCC 2006 Ior other disposal methods only require knowledge oI total waste
tonnage and composition (Tier 1). Equation 8 provides an estimate oI emissions Irom Iossil
carbon Irom incineration. Because only the Peel Region treats waste through combustion, and
this waste is generally sourced Irom multiresidential units, waste audits Ior Peel are used to
quantiIy the relevant waste composition. (19)
|CO.sub.2| emissions (t |CO.sub.2|e) MSW * |summation over j|(|WF.sub.j| * |dm.sub.j|
* |CF.sub.j| * |FCF.sub.j| * |OF.sub.j|) * 44/12 (8)
where MSW is the total wet weight incinerated (Gg |yr.sup.-1|), |WF.sub.j| is the Iraction oI
component j in the MSW, |dm.sub.j| is the dry matter in component j (Iraction), |CF.sub.j| is
the Iraction oI carbon in dry matter oI component j, |FCF.sub.j| is the Iossil carbon Iraction
oI component j, and 44/12 is the conversion Iactor Irom carbon to |CO.sub.2|. All
calculations Ior dm, CF, and FCF used IPCC 2006 deIaults.
The IPCC 2006 methodology suggests that |CH.sub.4| and |N.sub.2|O are released during
the composting process (speciIically large-scale operations, inIerred Irom reIerences cited
within the IPCC guidelines), whereas emissions Irom residential-scale compost (i.e., home
composting units) do not receive any explicit mention. Composting and AD calculations Ior
|CH.sub.4| and |N.sub.2|O emissions require only tonnage treated and IPCC deIaults and are
described in equation 9. According to this methodology, |N.sub.2|O emissions Irom
anaerobic digesters are assumed to be negligible; IPCC 2006 cautions that more data on these
emissions are needed. IPCC 2006 suggests using a 5 leakage rate Ior AD Iacilities.
GHG emissions (t |CO.sub.2|e) |(M * EF) * |10.sup.-3| - R| * |GWP.sub.100| (9)
where M is the wet weight oI waste treated (t), EF is the emissions Iactor (kg ||t waste
treated|.sup.-1|; 4 Ior |CH.sub.4compost|, 0.3 Ior |N.sub.2||O.sub.compost|, and 1 Ior
|CH.sub.4AD|), r is the gas recovered (0 Ior composting; 95 Ior AD), |GWP.sub.100| is the
global warming potential based on a 100-yr time Irame (25 Ior |CH.sub.4|; 298 Ior
|N.sub.2|O). (6)
EPA WARM


Tonnage, composition, and diversion rate details are integral to the use oI the WARM model.
Using waste audits and diversion rates Ior 2005, data are entered Ior the various required
component streams. Stewardship Ontario data are categorized according to the waste inputs
available in the EPA model. (9), (23) The data and method oI application are available in the
supplemental materials (published at http://secure.awma.org/onlinelibrary/samples/10.3155-
1047-3289.61.5.480supplmaterial.pdI).
LiIe-Cycle-Based Approach
A liIe-cycle-based approach (IPCC 2006 LC) is used to include more oI the upstream (liIe-
cycle) GHG emissions associated with waste management practices in the GTA Ior 2005
using the IPCC 2006 MC method, with the Iunctional unit being waste managed in 2005.
Although a larger proportion oI liIe-cycle emissions associated with waste management are
included in this method than with the IPCC 2006 MC, a Iull liIe-cycle inventory analysis is
not completed. The boundaries Ior the IPCC 2006 LC approach are presented in Figure 3
using credits/emissions applicable to the scope oI a municipal inventory (use oI incineration
residues Ior Iertilization in Iorestry has been reported by Toller et al. (26)). SpeciIically,
emissions included are those related to the collection and transportation oI waste to treatment
sites and those associated with the treatment options themselves. The exclusion oI upstream
emissions oI Iuels will have a negligible eIIect on results because transportation oI waste
materials is generally a lower proportion oI total waste-related emissions (Mohareb et al.
estimate a contribution oI 8 oI gross emissions or 15 oI net emissions including credits
Ior recycling) and combustion is the primary source oI these emissions when diesel is used as
a Iuel. (27-29) Emission reductions Irom co-products directly resulting Irom on-site activities
oI treatment methods (i.e., electricity production Irom incineration) are also included within
the LC boundary.
|FIGURE 3 OMITTED|
IPCC 2006 is selected Ior this approach because it allows Ior the quantiIication oI emissions
Irom landIill, AD, incineration, and large-scale composting. Using an IPCC method with
some scope Ior liIe-cycle emissions also allows comparison oI a designated emissions
inventorying with EPA WARM (which is explicitly stated to be incompatible with emissions
inventorying) because it uses a liIe-cycle approach. A point oI note is that WIP cannot be
used as the means to quantiIy emissions Irom landIilled waste because this would not
conIorm to the temporal boundary set by examining waste collected within 2005.
No GHG emissions reduction credits Ior recycling are allocated to GTA municipalities.
Although recycling credits may be suitable on a national level, there is little certainty that
materials diverted Ior recycling will actually be processed and used within the same spatial
boundary being assessed. (30) From a liIe-cycle inventory perspective, the location oI an
activity would not, in itselI, provide justiIication Ior exclusion, but this was deemed
appropriate in the context oI municipal inventories. Because this study Iocuses on emissions
and credits applicable to municipalities on the basis oI policy decisions, exclusion oI these
credits is reasonable because the decision on reuse oI recycled material is beyond municipal
jurisdiction. In addition to the uncertainty associated with where the co-products will be used,
Finnveden (31) illustrates complications that arise when materials are not recycled directly
into the same product (termed "open-loop recycling"). Allocation procedures diIIer Ior the
emissions related to the original product and those incorporating recycled content. Some
estimates on potential credits associated with recycling are provided in the Results and
Discussion section.
Emissions reductions Irom co-products serving as Iertilizer/soil conditioner are also excluded
because oI the uncertainty in their destination and Iinal use (i.e., potential contamination may
prevent their usage). Finnveden et al. (27) suggest that GHG emission beneIits Irom Iertilizer
displacement Irom AD and composting are also likely small.
Emissions Irom capital inIrastructure are ignored; there is precedence Ior this because Cleary
(32) states that only 3 oI the 20 waste liIe-cycle analysis studies he reviewed included these
emissions. However, energy requirements Irom operations are considered. Denison (33), (34)
provides a Iigure Ior net energy generated Ior incineration (see Table 2), while Franklin
Associates (34) suggest landIill operations utilize approximately 15 oI energy generated Ior
internal operations, which is applied to the IPCC 2006 methodology. It is assumed that the
latter Iigure is likely a mixture oI diesel, electricity, and natural gas in the GTA; however, Ior
simplicity, a 15 penalty is applied to LFG electricity generation and is also applied to
electricity generation at AD Iacilities (it should be noted that this penalty would be much
greater iI diesel had been used exclusively). Composting operations energy requirements are
assumed to be negligible.
The IPCC 2006 LC approach examined in this work includes transportation Ior waste and
grid emissions Iactors (applied during system expansion to include Ior oIIsets Ior electricity
production). Transportation distance calculations Iollow the methodology used by Mohareb
(28) using distances Irom the approximate geographic center oI an urban area (as opposed to
city hall) to landIills, incinerators, anaerobic digesters, and material recovery Iacilities (Ior
recycling).
Grid emissions Iactors applied in the system expansion approach Ior landIill, AD, and
incineration operations represent the marginal emissions that would have otherwise occurred
Irom the electricity generation. Finnveden suggests that a marginal source oI electricity (coal)
is displaced by electricity Irom waste, whereas Cleary observed an even split in 12 studies
between the use oI marginal and average electricity source emissions Iactors. (27), (32) In a
situation in which |CH.sub.4| storage is possible (or |CH.sub.4| is Ilared when demand does
not exist) and is used only to meet a Iluctuating load or as spinning reserve Ior the electrical
grid, use oI the emissions Iactor Ior the displaced marginal generation is logical. Conversely,
iI LFG is combusted as produced, then it supplies baseload generation and use oI the average
grid emissions Iactor is preIerred.
Sensitivity Analysis
Selection oI the parameters described in Table 2 is made based on deIault data used in other
literature, but regional speciIications (such as Iactors related to the GTA's climatic zone) are
applied where available. However, there is some uncertainty in many oI these quantities and
this is addressed in a sensitivity analysis.
Uncertain treatment-speciIic Iactors considered in this study include oxidation oI |CH.sub.4|
(landIill), concentration oI |CH.sub.4| in LFG, carbon content oI waste (landIill,
incineration), Iraction oI carbon dissimilated (degraded in landIills), reaction constant (k;
relevant to Iirst-order decay models Ior landIills), and |CH.sub.4| leakage (AD, landIill with
LFG capture). Oxidation oI |CH.sub.4| in LFG because oI use oI specialized covers (other
than clay) has reduced emissions Irom 10 to 100, varying because oI site and climatic
conditions. (35) An Alberta, Canada study suggested that the rate oI oxidation is dependent
on |CH.sub.4| Ilow rate, suggesting the value oI k may inIluence oxidation. (36) EPA and
IPCC (1996 and 2006) make the assumption oI 10 oxidation using aerating covering
material. Although this may seem low in light oI the range suggested above, the more
conservative estimate is prudent without site-speciIic data.


LFG |CH.sub.4| Iractions axe also somewhat uncertain, with the IPCC deIault being 50
whereas the Iraction recorded at Brock West, Beare Road, and Keele Valley landIills in 2001
were approximately 40, 45, and 47. (37) The eIIects oI modiIying LFG |CH.sub.4|
concentrations are assessed in the sensitivity analysis.
The leakage rate oI LFG is also a point oI contention in literature. In the WARM model, a
deIault assumption oI 75 capture rate is assumed as the national average eIIiciency. The
Keele Valley landIill site (GTA) estimates a collection eIIiciency oI between 85 and 90
(high, but not inIeasible according to Barlaz et al.), whereas Mohareb reports 40 Ior the
Trail Road landIill in the Ottawa Region. (28), (38), (39) A value oI 50 is selected Ior
sensitivity analysis versus the 75 baseline suggested by EPA. (40)
The carbon content oI waste is region speciIic and can be approximated using waste audits
(such as those provided by Stewardship Ontario) and deIault values oI carbon contents oI
various waste components (provided in IPCC 1996 and 2006). (7), (8), (23) The range oI the
IPCC (1996) North American values is used Ior the sensitivity analysis.
The Iraction oI biogenic carbon that can actually be dissimilated is also a matter oI debate.
Barlaz suggests that approximately 40 oI carbon in MSW does not decompose under
anaerobic conditions, whereas the IPCC deIault suggests using a value oI 50 oI total
degradable carbon. (7), (41)
The reaction constant k is sensitive to the climatic conditions and composition oI the waste
deposited in landIill, among other Iactors. For example, some landIills have been operated as
bioreactors, with recirculation oI leachate to increase the reaction constant. (42) This
parameter has not been assessed because the latter has no impact on total emissions (such as
Ior the MC method).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Model Comparison--LandIill Waste
As the principal source oI GHG emissions, it is oI most interest to compare the results Ior
landIill emissions Irom the six approaches examined (Figure 4). Four MC calculations are
provided, as well as the IPCC 2006 LC and the IPCC 2006 WIP calculation. FCM-PCP,
IPCC 1996, and IPCC 2006 (MC & WIP) Iigures given below are gross site emissions
(without transportation emissions or oIIsets Ior electricity generation), whereas WARM and
IPCC 2006 LC calculations are net emissions. This is because WARM and IPCC 2006 LC
incorporate the oIIsets and transportation emissions. Total landIill GHG emissions estimates
vary Irom approximately 556 kt (FCM-PCP) to a net carbon sink oI 53 kt (WARM).
|FIGURE 4 OMITTED|
Figure 4 can be used to illustrate some oI the strengths, weaknesses, and applications oI each
model. Firstly, although the FCM-PCP model likely overestimates GHG emissions because
oI its inIlexibility and relatively high landIill waste emissions Iactor (0.4817 t |CO.sub.2|e ||t
waste|.sup.-1|, compared with 0.302 t |CO.sub.2|e ||t waste|.sup.-1| Irom the IPCC 2006
MC), it can be considered a reasonable "Iirst guess" given that emissions Irom the IPCC 2006
MC method are within the same order oI magnitude.
Secondly, IPCC MC methodologies provided similar results (with the 1996 calculation being
5 greater), suggesting that proIessional judgment be used in considering whether to use the
slightly more detailed waste stream quantiIication required in the IPCC 2006. As well, iI one
were to simply apply the median value oI the deIault DOC range provided Ior North America
in IPCC 1996 (0.18-0.21; i.e., using a DOC value oI 0.195), the diIIerence compared with the
IPCC 2006 MC method increases to 18. Using the median value could provide an
acceptable approximation in this case iI one were willing to tolerate a diIIerence oI this
magnitude. This allows the quantiIication oI the waste MC emissions without having to
quantiIy waste stream components using audit data iI municipal waste audit data were
unavailable or diIIicult to obtain. Assurance can be taken Irom greater diligence; however,
the degree oI accuracy that is necessary and cost limitations should be Iactored into the
decision iI a waste audit will be required to obtain waste stream inIormation.
Thirdly, diIIerences are evident in IPCC 2006 WIP and MC estimates, although WIP can be
given more weight Irom an inventorying perspective because it quantiIies emissions in the
inventory year rather than projecting Iuture emissions (there is also uncertainty in the historic
mass oI waste and its composition applied to WIP). It must be noted that the correspondence
oI these two values is case speciIic (as it would be in any oI these approaches); landIilled
waste tonnage has been relatively stable during the past decade (a slight decline in recent
years gives a lower MC value), coupled with other parameters being assumed constant (such
as LFG capture Ior MC or DOC Ior WIP), which results in the similar quantities obtained.
Uncertainty in the Iuture landIill management practices clouds the accuracy oI emissions
quantiIied by MC.
From an economic perspective (i.e., discounting), Iuture emissions may have less value than
GHGs released at present. From a climatic perspective, and within in the context oI a
municipality with an increasing organics diversion rate, using the MC projection Ior an
inventory underestimates |CH.sub.4| emissions occurring at present. However, developing
countries that increasingly use sanitary landIills Ior waste disposal will experience a rise in
waste-related GHG emissions (7); iI a MC method is selected Ior inventorying purposes
rather than WIP, a greater emission estimate will result. It Iollows that WIP-approach
quantiIication would give a lower estimate when compared with MC because oI the lower
contribution Irom waste deposited in previous years that may have occurred otherwise iI open
dumping or a semi-aerobic disposal were used.
The EPA WARM model is a clear outlier oI the models assessed. This is principally because
oI the provision oI carbon credits Ior the sequestration oI organic carbon. Under aerobic
conditions, it is assumed that biogenic carbon breaks down completely, releasing atmospheric
|CO.sub.2| that had been previously captured during photosyn-thetic processes. However, as
stated previously, not all carbon is dissimilated in the anaerobic environment present in an
undisturbed landIill. (7), (38) Hence a signiIicant carbon sink, compared with the aerobic
degradation base case, is created in landIills. When this is coupled with emissions oIIset by
electricity generation Irom captured LFG, a negative GHG emission scenario results.
The concern regarding diIIiculty in obtaining accurate historic waste data may be oI little
importance. The IPCC suggests that waste data Irom at least 10 yr prior are required Ior use
oI the 2006 method. Looking at the contribution Irom waste deposited beIore 1995, this is
approximately 12 oI 2005 WIP emissions, given the |CH.sub.4| generation rate calculated
Ior the GTA. This contribution will increase Ior regions where the reaction constant (k) is
lower (drier climates or where greater proportions oI slower degrading materials such as
wood and paper waste are landIilled). For example, iI using upper estimates Ior halI-liIe oI
waste in landIills located in boreal/dry climates, the contribution oI waste older than a decade
would increase to 16. For warmer, wetter climates, the eIIect oI this earlier data will
diminish, adding greater incentive Ior cities to use the WIP approach when used Ior
inventorying purposes. In cases in which obtaining historic waste disposal data is diIIicult,
estimations Ior waste deposited based on population trends (using per capita waste) will
likely meet the requirements oI most applications.
There is certain value Ior all oI the LFG models assessed above, such as ease oI use (FCM-
PCP) or increased rigor (IPCC 2006 WIP). The simplicity provided by the MC models can
deIinitely be appreciated in circumstances in which time or resources are constraints;
however, greater adherence to inventorying goals (i.e., consistent emissions temporal
boundaries) is achieved with the IPCC 2006 WIP model because there is more parameter
Ilexibility and Iewer assumptions inherent in its design.
LiIe-Cycle-Based Approach to Waste Emissions
The IPCC 2006 LC approach is used to quantiIy some key credits that are within municipal
spatial boundaries and Iurther emissions attributable to each waste management activity. This
approach underlines the relative importance oI landIill emission quantiIication because LFG
emissions provide the greatest share oI the total.
Under the IPCC 2006 LC approach, gross emissions Irom waste management practices in the
GTA are shown in Table 4 using the MC calculation Ior landIill. Total emissions in 2005
using this methodology were estimated to be 509 kt |CO.sub.2|e. When applying a credit Ior
carbon emissions oIIset by electricity generation Irom waste, net emissions are reduced to
441 kt |CO.sub.2|e, although this would not be included in standard GHG emission
inventorying practice (not to be conIused with liIe-cycle inventory practice); although
emissions may indeed be reduced, credits Ior emissions oIIsets are not applied toward totals
in GHG inventories, such as those provided in national inventory reports. (7)
Table 4. Gross and net 2005 emissions from waste management activities
using IPCC 2006.

Treatment Jption Gross Emissions Per Ton Disposed (t CJ.sub.2,e)
(t CJ.sub.2,e)

Landfill (MC) 348,300 0.302
AD 100 0.001
Incineration 29,800 0.327
Composting 75,100 0.398
Transportation 30,500 NA
Total 508,600

Treatment Jption Emissions Jffset Net Emissions (t CJ.sub.2,e)
(t CJ.sub.2,e)

Landfill (MC) 57,000 291,000
AD 320 -220
Incineration 9,200 20,600
Composting NA 75,100
Transportation NA 30,500
Total 67,600 441,100

Notes: NA = not applicable.
Table 4 details the speciIics regarding gross and net emissions Ior each treatment option. The
data are in agreement with Finnveden and Mohareb in that transportation-related emissions
have a relatively minor impact on the total (contributing less than 10 to total emissions).
(27), (28) Even iI total transportation distance is doubled to account Ior any underestimation
made in distance traveled to waste Iacilities, it would only contribute slightly more than 13
to total net emissions.
AD is the only management option that produces net negative emissions (direct minus
electricity oIIsets); iI transportation emissions were disaggregated and added to AD Iacilities
emissions, net emissions would be revised to roughly zero. Although one might expect higher
emissions because oI the relatively high leakage rate suggested by IPCC 2006 guidelines, the
low emissions values resulting Irom deIault parameters are likely because oI the relatively
high moisture content oI the waste deposited in AD (predominantly source-separated
organics) when compared with landIilled waste that includes components with higher carbon
contents (e.g., greater proportion oI Iorestry products). Composting provides a very high
emissions result in relation to incineration and landIilling, especially when comparing net
emissions. Composting emissions could be even greater when considering that backyard
composting is suggested to result in |N.sub.2|O and |CH.sub.4| emissions that would not be
negligible; Amlinger et al. (43) suggest that each ton oI wet waste could result in the
emission oI 76-187 kg |CO.sub.2|e (or up to 0.45 kg |N.sub.2|O and 2.2 kg |CH.sub.4| per
ton oI wet waste deposited in backyard composting units). It is also possible that properly
managed composting systems would have lower GHG emissions than have been estimated
using IPCC deIault emissions Iactors.
Additionally, relatively high GHG emissions are associated with incineration. When one
considers that Ior direct (excluding transportation and electricity generation) emissions 90 kt
oI incinerated waste resulted in 29.8 kt oI gross GHG emissions, and 1150 kt oI landIilled
waste resulted in an IPCC 2006 MC calculation oI 348 kt oI GHG emissions, emissions per
unit oI waste treated are 9 higher Ior incineration compared with landIill. When including
oIIsets Ior energy generation Ior landIill and incineration, the net emissions Irom landIills are
only 11 higher per ton oI waste treated. This is a conservative estimate given that the
Ontario government has proposed the replacement oI all coal-Iired generating stations with
renewable and natural gas-Iired generation by 2014, as evidenced by the expected
decommissioning oI nearly one-third oI existing coal-Iired generating capacity in 2010. (44)
II using a lower emissions Iactor (i.e., reducing the emissions Iactor by 1/3), landIill
emissions are only 4 higher than incineration per ton oI waste treated.
It may be oI interest to brieIly examine the emissions reductions potential Irom recycling,
although this was beyond the scope oI the LC approach. Mohareb et al. suggest a virgin
material displacement credit oI approximately 1.04 t |CO.sub.2|e per ton oI mixed material
recycled, whereas EPA suggests 0.85 t |CO.sub.2|e (excluding transport and process non-
energy), giving a credit oI 464 and 380 kt |CO.sub.2|e, respectively, Ior the nearly 447,000 t
oI waste diverted Irom the GTA Ior 2005. (28), (40)
Comparison oI Net GHG Emissions
IPCC 2006 MC and the WARM model were used to calculate net annual GHG emissions
(including oIIsets Irom electricity generation and emissions Irom transportation) Ior diIIerent
waste treatment options (Figure 5). Net emissions Irom landIills increase marginally when
using a more conservative Iigure Ior the reciprocating engine eIIiciency; Lombardi suggests
an eIIiciency oI 35, which would cause the net eIIiciency Ior the IPCC 2006 methods to
increase by 5. (45)
|FIGURE 5 OMITTED|
The reduction in net emissions is Iar more substantial Ior the WARM model than IPCC.
WARM provides Iurther credits Irom the Iollowing:
* A larger credit Ior electricity oIIsets is assumed because oI the prevalence oI coal-Iired
generation in the United States (average emissions Iactor oI 1014 g |CO.sub.2|e ||kWh|.sup.-
1| is used and cannot be adjusted), whereas the IPCC calculation Ior the GTA scenario
examined uses the 2005 Ontario average emission Iactor (210 g |CO.sub.2|e ||kWh|.sup.-1|,
in which carbon-Iree electricity |e.g., nuclear, hydro| contributes a greater proportion (1)).
* A signiIicant credit is applied to landIills because oI undegraded biogenic carbon.
* Soil carbon credits are provided Ior composting (and no |CH.sub.4| or |N.sub.2|O
emissions penalty).
II credits Ior LFG electricity generation are removed, EPA WARM suggests that an 80-kt
|CO.sub.2| emissions source Ior landIill waste disposal will result.
The IPCC inventorying approaches calculate |CH.sub.4| emissions by assuming that only a
portion oI biogenic carbon deposited in landIills is degraded under anaerobic conditions
(using the Iraction oI carbon dissimilated, |DOC.sub.I|). (7), (8) II one were to assume that
all undegraded biogenic carbon Irom IPCC scenarios would have been oxidized under
aerobic conditions, the carbon sink provided by the anaerobic landIill conditions Ior waste
deposited in 2005 is calculated to be 170,300 t |CO.sub.2|e using the IPCC 2006 MC
method; this would result in a net emissions value oI 120,700 t |CO.sub.2|e, still greater than
the WARM Iigure. Greater Ilexibility on which sinks to incorporate and parameter values
used in the WARM model would improve accuracy and applicability.
The discrepancy in compost emissions also comes Irom the high deIault values oI the IPCC
2006 |CH.sub.4| and |N.sub.2|O emissions Iactors and the application oI carbon credits in
the WARM scenario. As stated earlier, Hobson et al. (46) suggest that GHG production is
likely when household waste is deposited in windrows, especially |CH.sub.4|. Quantities oI
|N.sub.2|O may be lesser; however, because oI its greater global warming potential over a
100-yr time Irame, its eIIect is more prominent (75 oI composting-related GHG emissions).
More research is needed on the production oI these two important GHGs Irom the
composting oI MSW in windrows to determine the most suitable approach.
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
As outlined in the background section, many variables in the quantiIication oI GHG
emissions Irom waste are uncertain. Table 5 provides several uncertain variables within the
methodology, along with the corresponding sensitivity oI ranges Ior these variables according
to literature or IPCC ranges (see Methodology Ior explanation oI parameter selection). There
is a Iocus on landIill-related emissions because oI their relative signiIicance compared with
other emissions sources and the ubiquity oI their quantiIication across multiple
methodologies. The FCM-PCP equation does not allow any modiIications oI parameters
other than waste deposited in landIills, which is a relatively certain quantity and hence is not
examined.
Table 5. Sensitivity to uncertain values of 2005 GHG emissions from
landfill.

Parameter Values IPCC 1996 (t CJ.sub.2,e)

LFG capture 0.75 365,518
0.5 731,037
% Change 100

Degradable carbon 0.17 368,150
0.21 454,774
% Change 24

Jxidation 0.1 365,518
0.2 324,905
% Change -11

Parameter IPCC 2006 (WIP)(t CJ.sub.2,e) WARM(t CJ.sub.2,e)

LFG capture 373,120 -52,841
746,239 270,346
100 612

Degradable carbon 394,381 NA
487,177 NA
23 NA

Jxidation 373,120 NA
331,662 NA
-11 NA
LFG capture eIIiciency has the greatest impact on landIill GHG emissions oI those
demonstrated above, with at least a doubling oI emissions Irom a one-third reduction in LFG
collected.
By applying waste audits Irom the City oI Toronto, degradable carbon content was estimated
to be 16.1 and 16.9 using deIault data Irom IPCC 2006 and 1996, respectively, Ior carbon
content Ior waste stream Iractions. This Iigure varies based on waste composition (i.e.,
greater organic content gives a greater degradable carbon content). The IPCC provides a
range oI DOC in North American waste oI 18-21. (8) The high end oI this range would
provide an increase in landIill GHG emissions by nearly 25.
Variation oI oxidation potential oI landIill cover is examined using data provided by Stein
and Hettiarat-chi, (36) who report a |CH.sub.4| oxidation rate oI 20 at a Ilow rate oI 400 g
|CH.sub.4| |(|m.sup.2| day).sup.-1|. Sensitivity to an increase oI 100 oI the amount oI
|CH.sub.4| oxidized reduced overall GHG emissions by 10. Lou and Nair (35) suggest that
oxidization oI |CH.sub.4| in landIill cover can range Irom negligible to 100, so importance
should be placed on quantiIying this value accurately. It is hence oI interest to use site-
speciIic measurements oI these parameters Ior reliable inventorying.
LFG capture eIIiciency, degradable carbon content, oxidation rate, Iraction dissimilated, and
|CH.sub.4| content oI LFG are examined in Table 6 on the basis oI the uncertainty
demonstrated Irom literature and methodologies. Values are grouped into quantities that
increase emissions and those that reduce emissions, providing a high and low case oI each.
The range oI values vary substantially, as demonstrated by the high case Ior the IPCC 2006
model, which is more than 450 that oI the low case.
Table 6. Estimates of 2005 Landfill GHG emissions for parameter
estimates.

LFG Capture Degradable LFG Fraction
Carbon CH.sub.4, Content Dissimilated

Base case 0.75 0.17/0.16 0.5 0.5
Low case 0.75 0.17/0.16 0.4 0.4
High case 0.5 0.21 0.5 0.5

Jxidation IPCC 1996 IPCC 2006 (WIP)
(t CJ.sub.2,e) (t CJ.sub.2,e)

Base case 0.1 365,500 373,100
Low case 0.2 207,900 212,300
High case 0.1 909,500 974,400
Assessment oI Models
A summary oI key model Ieatures is presented in Table 7. As stated in the introduction, those
involved in urban emissions inventorying use various models in their eIIorts to quantiIy GHG
emissions attributed to activities oI residents within their municipalities. (4) AIter examining
the issues associated with the methodologies presented above, a principal categorization can
be made: MC models are most valuable Irom a planning standpoint because oI their
predictive nature, whereas the W1P model used in IPCC 2006 is most appropriate Ior
conducting emissions accounting (emissions reduction credits Ior electricity generation must
be neglected when reporting Ior the purpose oI inventorying because inventories aim to
quantiIy direct sources and sinks, not assumed derivative impacts). Because planning
decisions can alter the values provided by MC models, they have limited useIulness Irom a
reporting standpoint because oI their greater degree oI uncertainty. However, MC models can
be helpIul in quantiIying the eIIects oI certain landIill management decisions (i.e., measures
to reduce LFG emissions) and Ior evaluating impacts on waste diversion Irom a global
warming perspective (i.e., impacts Irom diverting waste to incineration). A WIP model can
be used to provide similar inIormation to planners; however, it is temporally constrained to
emissions in the inventory year rather than the entire liIespan oI waste deposited in a given
year. An additional attraction toward the MC approach comes Irom its relative simplicity
because data requirements Ior the WIP model can seem onerous.
Table 7. Comparison of features of four models for quantifying GHGs
from landfills.

FCM-PCP EPA WARM IPCC 1996 IPCC 2006

Stated Inventorying Planning Inventorying Inventorying
purpose

Model type MC MC MC WIP

Scope Direct LC emissions Direct Direct
emissions emissions emissions

LFG capture Fixed Variable Variable Variable
efficiency

Waste DJC Fixed Variable Variable Variable
composition

Carbon sinks Not Quantified Quantifiable Quantifiable
quantified

Waste data 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr 10-50 yr
required
As discussed in the Model Comparison--LandIill Waste section, there are circumstances in
which WIP and MC may coincide: II waste deposited in landIills has been relatively stable
Ior recent years and similar parameters are used, the two methods will tend to agree with one
another. However, iI there has been a marked decline in waste being landIilled (examples
being the introduction oI an incinerator or new diversion programs to process organics), the
WIP model will exceed MC. Conversely, iI there is an increase in waste deposited in landIills
(possible causes being the closure oI an incinerator or reduced usage oI aerobic waste
treatment options), emissions Irom the MC method would exceed WIP. Greater complication
in this relationship will be observed iI projected values Ior parameters in the MC model such
as oxidation, LFG capture eIIiciency, and electricity generation (iI considering oIIsets) diIIer
Irom those used in a WIP model.
EPA WARM is unique in its consideration oI carbon emissions and sinks. This provides a
simpliIied method Ior gaining insight into the carbon balance oI waste operations. The
developers oI the model directly state that the tool should not be used in inventorying or
accounting activities. Although providing interesting inIormation, various constraints limit
rigor, such as those on recyclable material inputs ( virgin: recycled), eIIiciency oI energy
conversion to electricity, oxidation Irom landIill cover, and grid emission Iactor. Examining
the WARM method Ior composting emissions quantiIication, |N.sub.2|O/|CH.sub.4|
emissions are ignored, which is contrary to research presented in other literature. (43), (46-
48) Considering these limitations and the credits provided Ior undegraded carbon, it is
unbalanced to compare absolute quantities obtained Irom WARM with other landIill MC and
composting approaches. It may still be oI interest to compare variation in WARM with other
models, keeping in mind that the results are relative to the limitations imposed by each.
The other three MC methodologies (FCM-PCP, IPCC 1996, and IPCC 2006) vary in
thoroughness. As stated earlier, because oI the rigidity oI the FCM-PCP model, it can only be
considered a simpliIied Iirst step to LFG emissions quantiIication. Additionally, the FCM-
PCP tool calculates only emissions associated with landIill disposal and provides no
allowance Ior including those Irom composting or incineration, which added over 100 kt
|CO.sub.2|e oI emissions to the IPCC 2006 total in the GTA example. Allowing Ior the input
oI other waste-related variables such as those mentioned above will improve this approach.
The IPCC 1996 MC landIill calculation is simpler than what was perIormed Ior IPCC 2006
because the Iormer aggregated various organic components oI waste streams to a greater
degree than latter. The diIIerence in the results Irom the two methods was approximately 7,
which may be acceptable Ior purposes in which such a disparity in approximations is
suIIicient.
The IPCC 2006 methodology can be improved through greater research on emissions Iactors
and by the inclusion oI guidelines on emissions Irom small-scale composting; however, the
pursuit oI higher tier methods by cities would also address some oI the uncertainty. Whether
or not this endeavor is relevant to cities that may not have the means to pursue higher tiers is
a matter Ior debate. An ideal approach Ior municipalities would include climate-speciIic
emissions Iactors or |CH.sub.4| generation reaction constants, site-speciIic recovery
eIIiciency and oxidation data, and region-speciIic waste composition. The IPCC 2006 method
could also be improved through Iurther research on the Iraction oI carbon dissimilated in
landIills and composting emissions.
Ultimately, the use oI the MC methods Ior GHG inventory work must be avoided. It is
suggested that 10 yr oI historical data with deIault IPCC 2006 coeIIicients be used to provide
the most accurate picture oI emissions in an inventory year, rather than quantiIying Iuture
emissions, which are Iar more uncertain. II 10 yr oI data are not available, landIilled waste
can be extrapolated using an average waste per capita Iigure (or the oldest Iigure available)
Ior the city/region.
CONCLUSIONS
Empirical data are always ideal in quantiIying GHG emissions Irom waste. However, iI
measured data are unavailable, modeling approaches can provide an estimate oI emissions
within the inventory year. In instances in which data and parameters are more uncertain Ior a
WIP approach, MC models can be used in GHG inventorying, although they are more
appropriate when used Ior planning purposes. It is important to obtain the earliest possible
annual landIill disposal data (composition and tonnage) to ensure greater accuracy oI IPCC
2006 WIP calculations; however, this should not be a barrier to attempting WIP
quantiIication.
Because landIilled waste oIten represents the largest single urban emissions source managed
by municipal governments, it is also an opportunity Ior GHG reductions. In proper
accounting oI these emissions, the best approach would be to use the IPCC 2006
methodology Ior quantiIication and gauging the impacts oI waste management decisions.
This approach also provides the means to assess emissions Irom all waste management
options examined here, unlike the other methodologies assessed.
Without standardizing the methodology selected Ior corporate waste GHG emissions
inventorying, it is inappropriate to compare these emissions between cities. II it is assumed
that IPCC 2006 WIP provides the most accurate estimate Ior LFG emissions inventorying,
deviations by the other models Ior landIills would be 13, 114, and 49 Ior IPCC 1996, EPA
WARM, and FCM-PCP, respectively. When comparing waste emissions between cities, care
must be taken to assess the methodology used and the selection oI major parameters in each
case. The same can be said Ior decision-making related to treatment options.
In selecting a model Ior waste GHG measurement, Iive primary considerations aIIect the
decision-making process: (1) assessment oI disposal versus diversion practices (WIP vs.
MC), (2) motivation behind quantiIication (Iormal inventorying vs. planning), (3) data
quality/availability, (4) acceptance and applicability oI model assumptions/key inputs, and (5)
proportion oI total (direct and indirect) emissions categories to be included.
Cities will likely continue to be leaders in eIIorts to address anthropogenic climate change,
especially in the absence oI binding international agreements or strong, unilateral action by
national or state/provincial governments. Through diligent examination oI the various
quantiIication methods Ior municipal emissions, the most appropriate tool may be selected
Ior successIully targeting important emissions sources on the path to a low-carbon Iuture.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Ior its Iinancial
support, Adrian Mohareb and Julian Cleary Ior their assistance, and ProIessor Danny Harvey
and three anonymous reviewers oI this work Ior their very helpIul comments. Additionally,
the authors are appreciative oI all assistance provided by the GTA regional municipalities,
especially Trevor Barton (Peel Region), Laura Darnell-Omotani (York Region), Irene Ford
and Brian Van Opstal (City oI Toronto), and Walter Scattolon and John Watson (Halton
Region).
REFERENCES
(1.) National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990-2007;
Environment Canada: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2009; available at
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventoryreport/2007/som-sumeng.cIm (accessed October 8,
2009).
(2.) Inventory oI US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990-2008; EPA 430-R-10-006; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2010; available at
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (accessed May 20, 2010).
(3.) Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollutants in the. City oI Toronto; Prepared by ICF
International Ior the City oI Toronto: Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2007; available at
http://www.toronto.ca/teo/pdI/ghg-aq-inventory-june2007. pdI (accessed October 12, 2009).
(4.) Kennedy, C; Ramaswami, A.; Carney, $.; Dhakal, S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Baselines Ior Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions; 2009; available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-
1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Kennedy Comm.pdI (accessed May 20, 2010).
(5.) Kennedy C; Bristow D.; Derrible S.; Mohareb E.; Saneinejad S.; Stupka R.; Sugar L.;
Zizzo R.; McIntyre B. Getting to Carbon Neutral: a Review oI Best Practices in InIrastructure
Strategy. In Proceedings oI the FiIth Urban Research Symposium; Marseille, France, June
28-30, 2009; available at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,
,contentMDK:22446625~menuPK: 3607S7~pagePK:2l0058~piPK:210062~-
theSitePK:337178,00.html (accessed May 20, 2010).
(6.) Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution oI Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report oI the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon,
S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor M., Miller, H.L., Eds;
Cambridge University: New York, 2007.
(7.) Guidelines Ior National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5-Waste;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
(8.) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines Ior National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Module 6-
Waste; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
(9.) Waste Reduction Model (WARM); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2009;
available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warmhome.html
(accessed November 2, 2009).
(10.) Inventory QuantiIication Support Spreadsheet; Federation oI Canadian Municipalities:
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2009; available at
http://www.sustainablecommunities.Icm.ca/Iiles/CapacityBuildingPCP/GHG-inventory-
quantiItcation-spreadsh.xls-En.xls (accessed October 10, 2009).
(11.) IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme: Geneva, Switzerland,
2009; available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp (accessed September 17, 2009).
(12.) Connor, J. ICLEI Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Personal Communication, June 2010.
(13.) Waste Management Industry Survey-Business and Government Sectors; Catalogue No.
16F0023X; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
(14.) 2006 Community ProIiles; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2010; available
at http://www.12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/proI/92-591/index.cIm?LangE
(accessed May 17, 2010).
(15.) Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Toronto--an Outline oI the Function and
Facilities oI the Works Department; File No. 51; City oI Toronto Archives: Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, 1980.
(16.) Anderson R. In Environmental Geology oI Urban Areas; Eyles, N., Ed.; Geological
Association oI Canada: St. John's, NewIoundland, Canada, 1997; pp 323-330.
(17.) Kennedy, C; Cuddihy, J.; Engel-Yan, J. The Changing Metabolism oI Cities; J. Ind.
Ecol. 2007, 11, 43-59.
(18.) Residential Waste Diversion Rate; City oI Toronto: Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2005;
available at http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/residential-diversion.htm (accessed February
2008).
(19.) Barton T. Region oI Peel, Mississauga, Ontario. Personal Communication, November
2009.
(20.) Darnell-Omotani, L. Region oI York, Newmarket, Ontario. Personal Communication,
November 2009.
(21.) Watson, J. Region oI Halton, Oakville, Ontario. Personal Communication, November
2009.
(22.) Waste Reports; Durham Region; 2009; available at
http://www.region.durham.on.ca/extcontent.asp?nr/departments/works/waste/wastgeninIo.ht
m& setFooter/includes/wasteFooter.inc#Reports (accessed October 8, 2009).
(23.) Toronto Waste Audits, 2005-2006; Stewardship Ontario; 2009;
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/bluebox/eeIund/projects/audits/wasteaudit.htm (accessed
October 23, 2009).
(24.) Harvey, L.D.D. Energy and the New Reality--Volume 1; Earthscan: London, United
Kingdom, 2010.
(25.) Canadian Climate Normals or Averages, 1971-2000; Environment Canada: Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, 2008; available at
http://climate.weatheroIIice.gc.ca/climatenormals/indexe.html (accessed November 1,
2009).
(26.) Toller, S.; Karrman, E.; GustaIsson, J.P.; Magnusson, Y. Environmental Assessment oI
Incinerator Residue Utilisation; Waste Manage. 2009, 29, 2071-2077.
(27.) Finnveden, G.; Johansson, J.; Lind, P.; Moberg, A. LiIe Cycle Assessment oI Energy
Irom Solid Waste--Part 1: General Methodology and Results; J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 213-
229.
(28.) Mohareb, A.K.; Warith, M.A.; Diaz, R. Modelling Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ior
Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Resour. Conserv.
Recycling 2008, 52, 1241-1251.
(29.) MacLean, H.L.; Lave, L.B. LiIe Cycle Assessment oI Automobile/Fuel Options;
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5445-5452.
(30.) Cleary, J. Department oI Geography, University oI Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Personal
Communication, October 2009.
(31.) Finnveden, G. Methodological Aspects oI LiIe Cycle Assessment oI Integrated Solid
Waste Management Systems; Resour. Conserv. Recycling 1999, 26, 173-187.
(32.) Cleary, J. LiIe Cycle Assessments oI Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems--a
Comparative Analysis oI Selected Peer-Reviewed Literature; Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 1256-
1266.
(33.) Denison, R.A. Environmental LiIe-Cycle Comparisons oI Recycling, LandIilling and
Incineration: a Review oI Recent Studies; Arum. Rev. Energy Environ. 1996, 21, 191-237.
(34.) The Role oI Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000.
StamIord, CT; Franklin Associates: Prairie Village, KS, 1994
(34a.) Denison, R.A. Environmental LiIe-Cycle Comparisons oI Recycling, LandIilling and
Incineration: a Review oI Recent Studies; Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1996, 21, 191-237.
(35.) Lou, X.F.; Nair, J. The Impact oI LandIilling and Composting on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions--a Review; Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 3792-3798.
(36.) Stein, V.B.; Hettiaratchi, J.P.A. Methane Oxidation in Three Alberta Soils: InIluence oI
Soil Parameters and Methane Flux Rates; Environ. Technol. 2001, 22, 101-111.
(37.) LandIill Gas-Brock West Gas-to-Energy Project; Environment Canada: Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, 2003; available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/lIg/en/issue5.cIm (accessed
November 6, 2009).
(38.) C40 Cities-Best Practices--Waste: City oI Toronto Organic Waste; C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group; 2009; available at
http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/waste/torontoorganic.jsp (accessed November 21,
2009).
(39.) Barlaz, M.A.; Chanton, J.P.; Green, R.B. Controls on LandIill Gas Collection
EIIiciency: Instantaneous and LiIetime PerIormance; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2009,
59, 1399-1404; doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.59.12.1399.
(40.) Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases--a LiIe-Cycle Approach to Sources
and Sinks; 3rd ed.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2006.
(41.) Barlaz, M.A. Carbon Storage during Biodegradation oI Municipal Solid Waste
Components in Laboratory-Scale LandIills; Global Biogeochem. Cycles 1998, 12, 373-380.
(42.) Benson, C.H.; Barlaz, M.A.; Lane, D.T.; Rawe, J.M. Practice Review oI Five
Bioreactor/Recirculation LandIills; Waste Manage. 2007, 27, 13-29.
(43.) Amlinger, F.; Peyr, S.; Cuhls Carsten, C. Green House Gas Emissions Irom Composting
and Mechanical Biological Treatment; Waste Manage. Res. 2008, 26, 47-60
(44.) Ontario's Coal Phase Out Plan-Newsroom; Government oI Ontario; 2009; available at
http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2009/09/ontarios-coal-phaseout-plan.html (accessed June 10,
2010).
(45.) Lombardi, L.; Carnevale, E.; Corti, A. Greenhouse EIIect Reduction and Energy
Recovery Irom Waste LandIill; Energy 2006, 31, 3208-3219.
(46.) Hobson, A.M.; Frederickson, J.; Dise, N.B. |CH.sub.4| and |N.sub.2|O Irom
Mechanically Turned Windrow and Vermicomposting Systems Iollowing In-Vessel Pre-
Treatment; Waste Manage. 2005, 25, 345-352.
(47.) Andersen, J.K. QuantiIication oI Greenhouse Gas Emissions Irom Windrow
Composting oI Garden Waste; J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 713-724.
(48.) Brown, S.; Kruger, C; Subler, S. Greenhouse Gas Balance Ior Composting Operations;
J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1396-1410.
IMPLICATIONS
This paper provides insight Ior municipalities, consultants, and others involved in GHG
quantiIication Irom waste management with regard to emissions Irom various treatment
options and variation due to methodological selection. By examining the diIIerences in
emissions Irom the quantiIication tools and guidelines examined in this research, these
proIessionals will gain insight on where shortcomings and methodological diIIerences exist
and how these may be addressed. It also provides an illustration oI how theoretical yield gas
calculations can be similar in magnitude to those calculated using a WIP approach.
About the Authors
Eugene Mohareb is a Ph.D. candidate, Heather MacLean is an associate proIessor, and
Christopher Kennedy is a proIessor in the Department oI Civil Engineering at the University
oI Toronto. Please address correspondence to: Eugene Mohareb, University oI Toronto, 35
St. George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4 Canada; phone: 1-416-828-2357; Iax 1-416-978-
7046; e-mail: eugene.moharebutoronto.ca.
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.61.5.480
Mohareb, Eugene A.`MacLean, Heather L.`Kennedy, Christopher A.
Source Citation
Kennedy, Christopher A., Heather L. MacLean, and Eugene A. Mohareb. "Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Irom waste management--assessment oI quantiIication methods." Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association 61.5 (2011): 480. Gale Art and Engineering Lite
Package. Web. 17 Aug. 2011.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&idGALE7CA256938217&v2.1&uptn046&itr&pS
PJ.SP00&sww

ale Document Number: GALE,A256938217