2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
Industrial Profile: Waste Sector
September 2019
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
CONTENTS
WASTE SECTOR 1
Highlights 1
About this Sector 1
Who Reports? 2
Reported Emissions 4
Waste Sector: Emissions Trends, 2011 to 2017 10
MSW Landfill Details 17
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Details 18
Industrial Waste Landfill Details 19
Calculation Methods Available for Use 21
Emission Calculation Methodology from Stationary Fuel Combustion Units 21
Emission Calculation Methodologies for Process Emissions Sources 22
MSW Landfill Emission Calculation Methodology 22
Industrial Waste Landfills Calculation Methodology 24
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Calculation Methodology 25
Data Verification and Analysis 26
Other Information 26
Glossary 27
i
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Waste Sector
Highlights
• The most prevalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted
by the Waste Sector is methane (CH4), and
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are the
largest emitter of CH4 in this sector.
• Reported emissions from the Waste Sector have
decreased from 2011 to 2017. Emissions in 2017
were 5.5% lower than in 2014, and 8.1% lower
than in 2011. The decrease in emissions is
primarily driven by MSW landfills. Methodological
changes to the emission calculation procedures for
MSW landfills were implemented in 2013 and
2016, and are a primary factor in these emission
reductions.
• The three states with the most CH4 emissions from MSW landfills (and across the Waste
Sector) are Texas, California, and Florida. The three states with the largest number of MSW
landfills are California, Texas, and Illinois.
• Seventy-four percent of the MSW landfills that reported have landfill gas collection and
control systems (GCCSs), compared to less than 1% of industrial waste landfills.
Emissions from industrial waste landfills, industrial wastewater treatment, and solid waste
combustion were lower in 2017 than in 2011, though the decrease during this timeframe was not
constant for any of these subsectors.
About this Sector
The Waste Sector comprises MSW landfills, industrial waste landfills, industrial wastewater
treatment systems, and solid waste combustion at waste-to-energy facilities.
• MSW landfills are landfills that dispose or have disposed of MSW. MSW includes, among
other components, solid-phase household, commercial/retail, and institutional wastes.
MSW landfills may also dispose of non-MSW wastes, including construction and demolition
debris and other inert materials. This subsector excludes dedicated industrial, hazardous
waste, and construction and demolition landfills. An MSW landfill comprises the landfill, the
landfill GCCS, and combustion devices that are used to control landfill gas emissions.
• Industrial waste landfills are landfills that accept or have accepted primarily industrial
wastes. This subsector excludes landfills that accept hazardous waste and those that receive
only construction and demolition or other inert wastes. An industrial waste landfill includes
the landfill, the landfill GCCS, and combustion devices that are used to control landfill gas
emissions. Less than 1% of facilities reporting under this Subpart have landfill GCCSs. The
organic composition of waste streams disposed of at industrial landfills tends to be similar
over time, leading to a relatively consistent emission rate, while the waste streams at MSW
landfills may fluctuate seasonally and/or annually.
All emissions presented here are as
of 8/19/2018 and exclude biogenic
carbon dioxide (CO2), unless
otherwise noted. All GHG emission
data displayed in units of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CC^e) reflect
the global warming potential
(GWP) values from Table A-1 of
40 CFR 98, which are generally
based on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's Fourth
Assessment Report (IPCC AR41.
1
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
• Industrial wastewater treatment systems comprise anaerobic lagoons, reactors, and
anaerobic sludge digesters at facilities that perform pulp and paper manufacturing, food
processing, ethanol production, and petroleum refining. This subsector does not include
anaerobic processes used to treat wastewater and wastewater treatment sludge at other
industrial facilities. It also does not include emissions from municipal wastewater treatment
plants, separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, oil and/or water
separators, or aerobic and anoxic treatment of industrial wastewater.
• Solid waste combustion at waste-to-energy facilities comprise combustors and
incinerators at facilities under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code 562213 that burn non-hazardous solid waste either to recover energy or to reduce the
volume of waste.
Who Reports?
For Reporting Year (RY) 2017,1,496 facilities in the Waste Sector reported emissions of
105.6 million metric tons (MMT) C02e. In 2017, the Waste Sector represented 3.6% of the facilities
reporting direct emissions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and 1.6% of total
U.S. direct emissions.1 Table 1 includes details of the applicability of each source category, their
corresponding reporting schedules, and estimates of the percent of facilities and emissions
covered by the GHGRP. Table 2 shows the number of GHGRP reporters by source category and
year.
Table 1: Waste Sector - Reporting Schedule and GHGRP Coverage by Subpart (2017)
Subpart
Source
Category
Applicability
First
Reporting
Year
Estimated %
of Industry
Facilities
Covered
Estimated %
of Industry
Emissions
Covered
HH
MSW
landfills
Facilities that accepted waste after
January 1,1980, and that generate CH4
that is equivalent to > 25,000 metric tons
(MT) C02e per year
2010
7 4%a'b
93.2%c
II
Industrial
wastewater
treatment
Facilities operating an anaerobic process
to treat industrial wastewater and/or
industrial wastewater treatment sludge,
and meeting one of the following:
Petroleum refineries: Facilities subject to
reporting under Subpart Y (Petroleum
Refineries]'1
2011
-
-
Pulp and paper manufacturing: Facilities
subject to reporting under Subpart AA
(Pulp and Paper Manufacturing)
5%e
3.7%f
Ethanol production: Facilities that emit
>25,000 MT C02e per year
45%e
12.7%f
Food processing facilities (as defined in
Subpart II) that emit > 25,000 MTCChe
per year
l%e
38.8%f
1. Total U.S. GHG emissions for 2017 were 6,456.7 MMT C02e, as reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. EPA 430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
https://www.epa.gOv/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.6456.7.
2
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Subpart
Source
Category
Applicability
First
Reporting
Year
Estimated %
of Industry
Facilities
Covered
Estimated %
of Industry
Emissions
Covered
TT
Industrial
waste
landfills
Accepted waste after January 1,1980;
design capacity > 300,000 MT and located
at a facility that emits > 25,000 MT C02e
per year
2011
7.%a'S
51%h
C
Solid waste
combustion
Facilities that reported only under
Subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion)
and reported NAICS code 562213 (Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators)
Such facilities that emit > 25,000 MT C02e
per year
2010
95%'
83%i
a Industry coverage estimates for MSW and industrial waste landfills are uncertain because the exact number of MSW and
industrial waste landfills in the United States is not known.
b Estimate of the size of the industry is based on the Environmental Research and Education (EREF] Municipal Solid Waste
Management in the U.S. 2010 & 2013 report published in 2016. Based on analysis of these data, an estimate of 1,540 MSW
landfills is used here (the 2013 count].
c Estimate of total industiy emissions is from the Inventoiy of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017.
EPA 430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https: //www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-
greenhouse-gases. Emissions were estimated to be 92.8 MMT CChe.
d No petroleum refineries reported industrial wastewater emissions.
e Number of facilities covered by the GHGRP for this subsector were determined using the 2007 U.S. economic census
(food processing], the Renewable Fuel Association's list of facilities from January 2013 (ethanol], and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's] Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Information Collection Requests
conducted in 2011 for purposes of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for pulp and paper,
along with GHGRP data as of February 2016.
f Emissions covered by the GHGRP were calculated using the U.S. GHG Inventory values for industrial
wastewater [Inventoiy of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. EPA430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Available: https: //www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gasesl and RY 2017 emissions
for Subpart II.
g Estimated size of the industiy based on 2,322 industrial waste landfills in the 1988 Report to Congress: Solid Waste
Disposal in the United States (U.S. EPA, 1988] for the year 1985. While the data from this report are from over 25 years
ago, it is the only comprehensive, published data source available on industrial waste landfills in the United States.
h Estimated size of industry emissions based on the industrial waste landfill emissions estimates from the Inventoiy of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. EPA430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. These emission estimates are based on nationwide
estimated amounts of annual waste generation and are not facility-specific emission estimates.
164 GHGRP facilities were classified as meeting the criteria for the Solid Waste Combustion subsector in 2015. MSW
combustion also takes place at facilities classified under the MSW Landfill subsector and Power Plant sector. According to
data provided by the Energy Recovery Council (ERC] (http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/ERC-2016-directory.pdf], there were 77 operating waste-to-energy facilities in the U.S. in
2016, with one starting operation in 2015. Three additional waste-to-energy facilities operated in 2015 but ceased
operation in 2016 and were not included in ERC's 2016 directory. In total, 79 facilities were assumed to be operating in
2015; 64 reported to the GHGRP for 2015 and are classified under the Solid Waste Combustion source category, 6 were
classified under the Power Plant sector, and 5 were classified under the MSW Landfill source category. Three facilities in
the ERC do not report to the GHGRP, and one facility reported waste combustion under subpart D (electricity generation]
rather than subpart C (stationaiy combustion].
i Estimate of total U.S. solid waste combustion emissions is from the Inventoiy of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2017. EPA430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
https: //www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Emissions were estimated to be 11.1 MMT CChe.
3
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 2: Waste Sector - Number of Reporters (2011-2017)3
Source Category
Number of Reporters
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Waste Sector
1,645
1,652
1,636
1,629
1,545
1,509
1,496
MSW landfills
1,240
1,252
1,240
1,237
1,166
1,142
1,134
Industrial wastewater treatment
169
162
159
154
148
140
137
Industrial waste landfills
176
176
176
178
174
171
171
Solid waste combustion
68
69
68
67
64
63
61
a The total number of reporters may be less than the sum of the number of reporters in each individual source categoiy
because some facilities contain more than one source categoiy.
MSW landfills made up the majority of Waste Sector reporters for all reporting years. The number
of reporters for MSW landfills decreased by 118 facilities between 2012 and 2017, after increasing
slightly from 2011 to 2012. This decrease is a result of facilities that qualified to discontinue
reporting (off-ramping from the program).2 Between 2011 and 2017, the number of reporters for
industrial wastewater treatment decreased by 32. The number of reporters for industrial waste
landfills had a net decrease of five facilities from 2011 to 2017, with a one-time slight increase in
reporters in 2014. The number of solid waste combustion facilities decreased by seven facilities
from 2011 to 2017.
Reported Emissions
CH4 is the primary GHG reported by MSW landfills, industrial waste landfills, and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. CH4 is generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste
in landfills and in anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. Landfill gas typically contains
approximately 50% CH4, 50% CO2, and less than 1% non-CH4 organic compounds. Industrial
wastewater treatment gas contains about 65—70% CH4, 25-30% CO2, and small amounts of N2, H2,
and other gases. Table 3 shows the reported emissions by subsector by year. Figure 1 shows the
breakdown of emissions by subsector in RY 2017. The emissions presented in Table 3 also include
CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from stationary fuel combustion units that are located at the
Waste Sector facilities that reported.
Table 3: Waste Sector - Emissions by Subsector (2011-2017)
Waste Sector
Emissions (MMT C02e)ab
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Waste Sector
114.9
115.0
111.2
111.8
110.3
107.6
105.6
MSW landfills
93.8
94.4
91.1
90.8
89.7
86.9
86.5
Industrial wastewater treatment
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
Industrial waste landfills
8.9
8.7
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.1
Solid waste combustion
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.2
a Biogenic emissions of CO2 are not included in the CChe emissions in this table. As landfill gas recovered from MSW
landfills and industrial waste landfills is considered biogenic, CO2 emissions from the combustion of landfill gas are not
included in the CCtee emissions in this table. Biogenic CO2 emissions from the combustion of the biogenic fraction of MSW
are also not included in the CCtee emissions in this table.
b Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
2 See FAQ: When is a Facility Eligible to Stop Reporting? Available:
http: / /www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2431392 71.
4
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 1: 2017 TOTAL REPORTED EMISSIONS FROM WASTE, BY
SUBSECTOR
Biogenic CO2 emissions result primarily from the combustion of landfill gas, MSW, and other
biogenic fuels in reciprocating internal engines, municipal waste combustors, and other combustion
units. As shown in Table 4, emissions of biogenic CO2 at Waste Sector facilities decreased by
1.1 MMT from 18.8 MMT in 2011 to 17.7 MMT in 2017.
Table 4: Waste Sector - Biogenic C02 Emissions (2011-2017)
Waste Sector
Biogenic CO2 Emissions (MMT C02)a
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total biogenic CO2 emissions
18.8
18.5
18.2
17.8
17.6
17.5
17.7
MSW landfills
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
Solid waste combustion
14.7
14.4
14.3
14.0
13.7
13.5
13.6
a Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
5
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Figure 1 illustrates the reported non-biogenic emissions by subsector. Figures 2 through 6 show the
location and range of emissions in the contiguous United States for the entire Waste Sector
(Figure 2) and each subsector individually (Figures 3 through 6), Sizes of each circle correspond to
a specified range of emissions in MT of C02e reported by that particular facility. Many large
industrial waste landfills are in southeastern states and along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico,
which is also where numerous petroleum refineries, pulp and paper, and chemical manufacturing
facilities are located. Locations of industrial wastewater treatment facilities are driven primarily by
the location of ethanol facilities, which account for more than half of all industrial wastewater
treatment reporters and tend to be in the Midwest Seventy-seven percent of solid waste
combustors are in the northeastern states and in Florida, and the remaining facilities are in the
Midwest and western states (Figure 7).
Readers can identify the largest emitting facilities by visiting the Facility Level Information on
Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT) website fhttps: //ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#I
FIGURE 2: WASTE SECTOR EMISSIONS BY RANGE AND LOCATION
(2017)
I Data Source: 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program]
6
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 3: MSW LANDFILL SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS BY RANGE AND
LOCATION (2017)
8 % ° °oc§8°
8 ° LCo
° -W ?t°«" - ^
cvj ^ © e°oo0 700,000
I Data Source: 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ]
- i « ¦ oy #~ cfe
o°0 #°° 0 "**1
° . ° a •_
o°®
7
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 4: INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SUBSECTOR
EMISSIONS BY RANGE AND LOCATION (2017)
O O O O o e # \ / - I p,
o<3>
9
5$^
jr
Wasterwater Treatment Emissions, 2017
• <100,000
o 100,000-300,000
Data Source: 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program I
8
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 5: INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILL SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS BY
RANGE AND LOCATION (2017)
Industrial Landfill Emissions, 2017
• <100,000
® 100,000-300,000
0 300,000-500,000
[ Data Source: 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program |
Sb
o
©
o • 1
ij
•14
O
~0
8°° o ® ° ®
oO °
9> ® * „ °
. • . 8
© ©
9
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 6: SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS BY
RANGE AND LOCATION (2017)
Industrial Landfill Emissions, 2017
o 100,000-300,000
O 300,000-500,000
Data Source: 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
O
1C9
oO®,
<$0 O
Waste Sector: Emissions Trends, 2011 to 2017
Reported emissions from the Waste Sector have decreased slightly from 114.9 MMT C02e in 2011
to 105.6 MMT CC>2e in 2017, a decrease of 8 %. Reported emissions peaked in 2012 at
115.0 MMT CC>2e and then generally decreased through 2017. The largest decrease in emissions
(3.3%) occurred between 2012 and 2013. Over 80% of reported emissions from the Waste Sector
were reported by MSW landfills in 2017. Changes in MSW landfill emissions were the most
important driver of emission trends in the Waste Sector. Figure 8 shows annual reported direct
emissions from 2011 to 2017 by subsector.
MSW Landfills. Emissions from MSW landfills decreased from 94.4 MMT C02e in 2012 to 86.5 MMT
CC>2e in 2017. The decrease in emissions from 2012 to 2013 may have been driven by
methodological changes in the rule for calculating CH4 emissions from MSW landfills - in particular,
the allowance for facilities to use higher oxidation fractions in their emission calculations, resulting
in lower emission values. In 2013, approximately 45% of facilities used these higher oxidation
fractions. The number of reporting facilities also had an impact on total reported emissions because
it peaked in 2012 and decreased in the years afterward. Of the facilities that stopped reporting, 29
qualified to stop reporting in 2013, 23 qualified to stop reporting in 2014, and 77 qualified to stop
reporting in 2015. For these years some landfills began reporting to the GHGRP for the first time,
but in each year the number of reporters decreased.
10
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 7: DIRECT EMISSIONS BY STATE FROM THE WASTE SECTOR
(2017)a
2017 Emissions (million metric tons C02e)
o.o
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Texas H
Florida -\
California ^
Georgia -\
Michigan -|
Ohio ^
North Carolina H
Alabama -|
Pennsylvania H
Virginia
Illinois
New York
Indiana
Tennessee
Louisiana
Kentucky
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Minnesota
South Carolina
Colorado
Arkansas
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Maryland
Arizona
Massachusetts
Iowa
Missouri
Washington
Kansas
Nebraska
Puerto Rico
Oregon
Alaska ~H
Connecticut H
New Mexico -fl
Utah -fl
West Virginia ~H
Idaho -fl
Hawaii
North Dakota -fl
Delaware ~H
Maine -|
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Nevada
Montana "H
Wyoming
Rhode Island H
Vermont -\
Guam-]
Virgin Islands -
Solid Waste Combustion
Wastewater Treatment
Industrial Landfills
Municipal Landfills
a Represents total emissions reported to the GHGRP in these industries. Additional emissions may occur at facilities that
have not reported (e.g., those below the 25,000 MT CChe reporting threshold for industries where the threshold applies).
Click here to view the most current information using FLIGHT.
11
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 8: ANNUAL REPORTED DIRECT EMISSIONS FROM THE WASTE
SECTOR, BY SUBSECTOR (2011 2017)
100-
90 —
^ 80 —
0)
CM
o
O 70-
co
c
o
o 60-
CD
E
c
0
1
CO
c
o
"to 30 -
CO
E
LU
50-
40-
Industrial Landfills
Wastewater Treatment
Municipal Landfills
Solid Waste Combustion
20-
10 —
o - ¦
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Industrial Waste Landfills. Reported emissions from industrial waste landfills decreased by
0.7 MMT CC>2e from 2012 to 2013, an 8% decrease. This decrease in emissions may have been
driven, in part, by the same methodological change for calculating CH4 emissions related to
oxidation fractions that occurred for MSW landfills. In 2013, approximately 10% of industrial waste
landfills used the higher oxidation fractions. Since 2013, emissions from industrial waste landfills
increased by 6% from 2013 to 2014 before decreasing by 6% from 2016 to 2017. The latter
decrease was driven by revisions that became effective with RY 2017, such that a facility would
now be able to further delineate its pulp and paper waste and apply waste stream-specific
degradable organic carbon (DOC) content and k values. The revision particularly impacted
industrial landfills collecting large amounts of near-inert waste streams (e.g., boiler ash), whose
DOC and k values are significantly lower than the previous pulp and paper waste default.
Table 5 shows the emissions by GHG emitted. Table 6 breaks down emissions by Waste Sector
processes and fuel combustion. Table 7 breaks down combustion emissions by fuel type.
12
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 5: Waste Sector - Emissions by GHG (MMT C02e)a
Waste Sector
Reporting Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of facilities
1,645
1,652
1,636
1,629
1,545
1,509
1,496
Total emissions (MMT CChe)
114.9
115.0
111.2
111.8
110.3
107.6
105.6
Emissions by GHG
C02
MSW landfillsb
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
Solid waste combustion
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.6
9.7
8.7
CH4
MSW landfills
92.8
93.4
90.0
89.6
88.4
85.4
85.0
Solid waste combustion
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Industrial waste landfills
8.9
8.7
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.1
Industrial wastewater treatment
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
N2O
MSW landfillsb
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Solid waste combustion
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
a Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
b Emissions shown for CO2 and N2O result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the non-biogenic portion of MSW that is
combusted.
** Total reported emissions are less than 0.05 MMT CChe.
Table 6: Waste Sector - Emissions from Waste Sector Processes and Fuel Combustion
Waste Sector
Emissions (MMT C02e)abc
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Waste Sector
114.9
115.0
111.2
111.8
110.3
107.6
105.6
MSW landfills
93.8
94.4
91.1
90.8
89.7
86.9
86.5
Fuel combustion
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.4
Waste Sector processes
92.7
93.3
90.0
89.6
88.4
85.4
85.0
Industrial wastewater treatment
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
Waste Sector processes
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
Industrial waste landfills
8.9
8.7
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.1
Waste Sector processes
8.9
8.7
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.1
Solid waste combustion
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.2
Fuel combustion
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.2
a These values represent total emissions reported to the GHGRP in these industry sectors. Additional emissions may occur
at facilities that have not reported (e.g., those below the reporting threshold].
b Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
c Emissions from fuel combustion are defined here as emissions reported under Subpart C.
13
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 7: Waste Sector - Combustion Emissions by Fuel Type
Fuel Type
Emissions (MMT C02e)abc
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
MSW landfills
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.4
Coal
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
**
Natural gas
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Petroleum products
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
Other fuels3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
Solid waste combustion
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.2
Natural gas
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Petroleum products
0.1
0.1
**
**
0.1
0.1
0.1
Other fuels3
9.5
9.6
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.8
8.8
a Excludes biogenic CO2.
b Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
c In cases where CO2 emissions were reported at the unit level [i.e.. Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS]
monitored sources], fuel-level CO2 emissions were estimated by the EPA based on other data directly reported by
facilities, as well as default emission factors. Fuel-level emission values presented may differ slightly from other publicly
available GHGRP data due to minor differences in the calculation methodology.
** Total reported emissions are less than 0.05 MMT CChe.
Figure 9 shows the average emissions per reporter from the waste subsectors compared with
average emissions from all GHGRP reporters. Figure 10 and Table 8 show the percentage and
number of reporters within each emission range, respectively.
14
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
P FIGURE 9: AVERAGE EMISSIONS PER REPORTER FROM THE WASTE
SECTOR (2017)
Solid Waste Combustion
5
Municipal Landfills
Wastewater Treatment
Industrial Landfills
GHGRP Average(Direct Emitters Only)
15
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 10: PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES IN THE WASTE SECTOR AT
VARIOUS EMISSION RANGES (2017)
30% -
Waste Sector
GHGRP (All Direct Emitters)
0-0.025 0.025-0.05 0.05-0.1 0.1-0.25 0.25-1
2017 Emissions Range (million metric tons C02e)
Table 8: Waste Sector - Number of Reporters by Emissions Range (2017)
Waste Sector
Number of Facilities within Emissions Range (MMT C02e)a
0-0.025
0.025-0.05
0.05-0.1
0.1-0.25
0.25-1
>1
Total Waste Sector
419
352
405
272
47
1
Industrial landfills
79
39
28
24
1
0
Municipal landfills
236
291
353
219
34
1
Solid waste combustion
0
8
15
26
12
0
Wastewater treatment
111
15
8
3
0
0
a Within this table, the total number of facilities shown in the Total Waste Sector row represents the number of unique facilities.
The totals in this row may not equal the sum of the rows below due to facilities reporting under multiple industry types.
16
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 9 shows the characteristics of MSW landfills in 2017, and Table 10 shows emissions by type
of MSW landfill.
MSW Landfill Details
Table 9: Characteristics of MSW Landfills in 2017
Operational Characteristic
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of reporting facilities
1,240
1,252
1,240
1,237
1,166
1,142
1,134
Number of open landfills
958
964
968
969
943
937
939
Number of closed landfills
282
288
272
268
223
205
195
Number of landfills with gas collection
915
926
926
923
863
848
843
Number of landfills without gas collection
325
326
314
314
303
294
291
Facilities are required to report under Subpart HH if their CH4 generation value meets or exceeds
25,000 MT of C02e. However, these facilities can cease reporting if their emissions are under
25,000 MT CC>2e for five consecutive years, or under 15,000 MT C02e for three consecutive years.
Nearly 40% of the facilities in 2017 that have ceased reporting in 2016 under Subpart HH are
closed landfills with a gas collection system in place.
Table 10: CH4 Emissions by Type of MSW Landfill in 2011-2017 (MMT C02e)
Operational Characteristic
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total emissions3
93.8
94.4
91.1
90.8
89.7
86.9
86.5
Emissions for open landfills
84.5
85.1
82.6
82.4
81.9
80.1
80.8
Emissions for closed landfills
9.3
9.3
8.5
8.4
7.7
6.8
5.7
Emissions for landfills with gas collection
70.1
70.9
69.2
69.1
68.1
65.7
66.2
Emissions for landfills without gas collection
23.6
23.5
21.9
21.7
21.6
21.1
20.2
a Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Figure 11 displays total CH4 emissions (in MMT C02e) and the operational status of the landfill
(i.e., open and closed) in 2017, grouped by the decade the landfill first accepted waste. The Waste
Sector is unique because emissions in the current RY are heavily impacted by the quantity of waste
already in place at the landfills and the age of that waste (i.e., the year, or decade in this case, that
the waste was first disposed of in the landfill). Figure 11 shows that most emissions in the current
RY result from landfills that first accepted waste between the 1970s and 1990s, and are still open in
2017. The largest number of reporting landfills first opened and started accepting waste in the
1970s. More than 300 of these landfills still accept waste in 2017, which explains why the 1970s-
era landfills contributed the most to current CH4 emissions.
17
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 11: MSW LANDFILL EMISSIONS (2017)
30
25-
815-
CO
c/)
£
LU
o
C\J
10 —
5 —
0—
Landfill Status in 2017
J Open Landfills
Closed Landfills
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Decade Landfill First Accepted Waste
Tables 11 through 13 show details of the industrial wastewater subsector. Table 11 shows
characteristics of the subsector from 2011 to 2017. Table 12 lists CH4 emissions from 2011 to 2017,
grouped by processes with and without biogas recovery. Table 13 shows facility counts and
emissions by NAICS codes. Tables 14 and 15 show additional details on the industrial landfills
subsector.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Details
Table 11: Characteristics of Industrial Wastewater Treatment in 2011-2017a
Data
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of processes with biogas recovery
161
130
136
130
121
116
113
Number of processes without biogas recovery
50
50
57
56
57
54
56
Number of lagoons
81
81
90
88
86
81
84
Number of reactors
124
93
100
93
86
82
75
Number of digesters15
6
6
3
5
6
7
10
a Facilities that report industrial wastewater treatment may report more than one industrial wastewater treatment
process (lagoon, reactor, or digester] at their facility.
b Assumes that all digesters for industrial wastewater treatment plants have biogas recovery.
18
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 12: CH4 Emissions from Industrial Wastewater Treatment in 2011-2017 (MMT C02e)
Emission Typea
2011c
2012c
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Emissions15
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
Emissions from processes with biogas recovery
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
Emissions from processes without biogas
recovery
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.6
a Subpart II does not account for facilities where the wastewater treatment is not co-located with the industrial facility or
digesters without biogas recovery, which may result in underestimated emissions.
b Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
c Data from 2011 and 2012 represent data as of 1/10/2017.
Table 13: Major NAICS Codes and Emissions for Industrial Wastewater Treatment in 2017
Major NAICS Code
Industry
Facility
Count
Facility
Percent
Emissions
(MMT C02e)
Emission
Percent
3114
Fruits and vegetables
14
10%
0.12
6%
3116,112340
Meat and poultry
55
40%
1.51
80%
221112, 311221, 311222, 312120,
312140,325193,325199
Ethanol
58
42%
0.03
2%
322110,322121,322130
Pulp and paper
10
7%
0.23
12%
Total
137
100%
1.89
100%
Industrial Waste Landfill Details
Table 14: Characteristics of Industrial Waste Landfills in 2011-2017
Data
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of reporting landfills
176
176
176
178
174
171
171
Number of open landfills
144
142
140
143
141
140
139
Number of closed landfills
32
34
36
35
33
31
32
Number of landfills with gas collection
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Number of landfills without gas collection
174
174
174
176
173
170
170
Table 15: CH4 Emissions for Industrial Waste Landfills in 2011-2017 (MMT C02e)a
Data
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total emissions
8.9
8.7
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.1
Total emissions for open landfills
8.1
8.0
7.4
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.5
Total emissions for closed landfills
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
Total emissions for landfills with gas collection
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
Total emissions for landfills without gas collection
8.5
8.3
7.6
8.0
8.2
8.3
7.9
a Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
19
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
FIGURE 12: INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILL EMISSIONS (2017)
3.0
2.5
Q)
C\J
O 2.0-
O
in
£=
o
CO
c/)
E
LU
o
C\J
1.5-
1.0 —
0.5 —
0.0-
Landfill Status in 2017
Open Landfills
Closed Landfills
1900 1910 1920
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Decade Landfill First Accepted Waste
Figure 12 displays total CH4 emissions (in MMT CC^e) and the operational status of industrial waste
landfills in 2017 (i.e., open and closed) by the decade the landfill first accepted waste. The majority
of 2017 emissions result from landfills that first accepted waste between the 1960s and 1980s, and
are still open in 2017. There are significantly more open landfills than closed landfills contributing
to total emissions in the current RY. Forty-six of the landfills that opened in the 1960s were still
accepting waste in 2017, which is why emissions from landfills that opened in that decade are
higher than in other decades.
Table 16 shows total emissions in the industrial waste landfill subsector and the number of
facilities (unique and combined) grouped by major NAICS code.
Table 16: Major NAICS Code Groups Represented by Reporting Industrial Waste Landfills
(2017)
Major
NAICS
Code
NAICS Code Description
Combined
Facility
Count3
Unique
Facility
Count
Percent of
Total
Facilities
Emissions
(MMT C02e)b
Percent of
Total
Emissions
111
Crop production
1
0
0%
C
C
112
Animal production and
aquaculture
1
1
0.58%
0.05
0.59%
212
Mining (except oil and gas)
1
1
0.58%
0.02
0.23%
20
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Major
NAICS
Code
NAICS Code Description
Combined
Facility
Count3
Unique
Facility
Count
Percent of
Total
Facilities
Emissions
(MMT C02e)b
Percent of
Total
Emissions
221
Utilities
9
5
2.92%
0.19
2.34%
311
Food manufacturing
12
12
7.02%
0.66
8.16%
321
Wood product manufacturing
4
2
1.17%
0.02
0.19%
322
Paper manufacturing
121
90
52.63%
4.52
55.71%
324
Petroleum and coal products
manufacturing
4
4
2.34%
0.05
0.63%
325
Chemical manufacturing
29
17
9.94%
0.53
6.60%
327
Nonmetallic mineral product
manufacturing
1
0
0%
C
C
331
Primary metal manufacturing
20
18
10.53%
0.58
7.11%
332
Fabricated metal product
manufacturing
1
1
0.58%
<0.01
0.01%
333
Machinery manufacturing
1
0
0%
C
c
335
Electrical Equipment, Appliance,
and Component Manufacturing
1
1
0.58%
0.004
0.05%
562
Waste management and
remediation services
21
19
11.11%
1.50
18.42%
Total
227
171
100%
8.12
100%
a Facilities may report multiple NAICS codes based on operations conducted at their facilities. The counts presented in this
column include all facilities that reported the relevant NAICS code as a primary, secondary, or additional NAICS code.
b The data presented in this column represent the total emissions for facilities that reported the relevant NAICS code as
their primary code so as not to double-count emissions. This column does not sum emissions from facilities that reported
their respective NAICS codes as secondaiy or additional.
c No facilities reported NAICS code 327 as their primary business.
The majority of industrial facilities that report emissions under the industrial waste landfill
subsector have dedicated onsite landfills. These landfills are presumed to only accept waste
generated by that particular facility. Some industrial waste landfills are not associated with any
particular industrial sector (i.e., NAICS code 562), and these facilities accept mixed industrial waste
from various industries.
Paper manufacturing facilities contributed the majority of industrial waste landfill emissions in
2017 (5.10 MMT C02e or 59.9%). Waste management and remediation facilities (1.27 MMT C02e or
14.9%) and primary metal manufacturing sector facilities (0.62 MMT C02e or 7.3%) comprise the
next largest shares.
Calculation Methods Available for Use
Facilities in the Waste Sector emit CH4 from the decomposition of organic matter in wastes and emit
CO2, CH4, and N2O from the combustion of solid wastes, captured CH4, and other fuels.
Emission Calculation Methodology from Stationary Fuel Combustion Units
For MSW and industrial landfills, emissions from the combustion of any collected biogas are
included with emissions for the landfill facility if the landfill is not co-located with a process in
another industry sector that is covered by the reporting rule (e.g., a petroleum refinery or pulp and
paper facility). If the landfill is co-located, then the combustion emissions are included with the
21
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
emissions from the co-located industry sector. For industrial wastewater, combustion emissions
are included with the emissions from the pulp and paper, ethanol manufacturing, food processing,
or petroleum refining industry sector, as appropriate. The calculation methodology for stationary
fuel combustion sources (Subpart C) is explained here.
Emission Calculation Methodologies for Process Emissions Sources
MSW Landfill Emission Calculation Methodology
Because there is no internationally agreed-upon and cost-effective approach to directly measure
the amount of CH4 emitted from landfills, the emission estimation methodology uses a combination
of gas measurements, models, and calculations. The calculation procedure for MSW landfills
depends on whether the landfill has an active landfill GCCS.
• Landfills without a GCCS. MSW landfills without an active landfill GCCS must calculate CH4
generation using a first-order decay model for CH4 generation in the landfill (Equation HH-1
of the rule, which is based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Volume 5). Equation HH-1 uses the quantities and types of wastes disposed in
the landfill, a default or measured CH4 fraction in the landfill gas, and other characteristics
of the landfill as model inputs. The CH4 generation is corrected using Equation HH-5 to
account for CH4 that oxidizes (and therefore is not emitted) as it passes through the landfill
cover material.
• Landfills with an active GCCS. MSW landfills with an active GCCS must calculate emissions
using Equations HH-6 and HH-8 of the rule, and specify which method they consider most
accurate for their facility. FLIGHT displays emissions from both methods but uses the
facility-specified value to calculate total emissions from the MSW landfills subsector. If the
facility does not specify which equation to use, FLIGHT uses the higher value.
o Equation HH-6 estimates emissions using the modeled CH4 generation rate (Equation
HH-1, described above) minus the measured amount of CH4 recovered and destroyed.
CH4 generated in excess of the measured CH4 recovery is corrected to account for CH4
oxidation in the landfill cover material.
o Equation HH-8 estimates emissions based on the measured quantity of CH4 recovered
for destruction and an estimated landfill gas collection efficiency, which varies by type
of landfill cover material used. This equation back-calculates the quantity of uncollected
gas, which is then corrected to account for CH4 oxidation in the landfill cover material.
Emissions from the gas collected and intended for destruction are estimated based on
the CH4 destruction efficiency of the combustion device.
The values resulting from Equations HH-6 and HH-8 may vary significantly, depending on the
characteristics of the landfill. For example, the amount of recovered CH4 can vary by year, and the
landfill gas collection efficiency will change yearly for open landfills. The collection efficiency will
change yearly because it is estimated using an area-weighted approach that is dependent on the
surface area of each stage of cover (daily, intermediate, or final). While Equation HH-8 incorporates
more site-specific information, it might not provide the most accurate GHG emission estimate for
every landfill due to the many variables that affect landfill GHG emissions.
Until 2013, all landfills were required to use a CH4 oxidation fraction of 0.10 in their CH4 emission
equations. In 2013, a rule change allowed for the use of different default CH4 oxidation fractions
22
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
each year if the facility opted to calculate its landfill CH4 flux using the provided methodology. A
default value of 0.10 must be used if the facility chooses not to calculate landfill CH4 flux. The results
of the CH4 flux calculations, combined with the extent of soil cover at the landfill, direct the reporter
to the appropriate oxidation fraction to use. The CH4 oxidation fraction values available for use are
0.0, 0.10, 0.25, and 0.35. Using a higher oxidation fraction value results in lower CH4 emissions than
when a lower oxidation fraction value is used.
Beginning in 2013, facilities were required to report the oxidation fraction used for each relevant
emission equation. Table 17 shows the oxidation fraction value used in each equation.
Approximately 42% of facilities without a GCCS used the higher oxidation fractions of 0.25 or 0.35,
and 3% used a value of zero. A larger percentage of facilities with landfill gas collection (51-71%)
used the higher oxidation values (25-35%), while approximately 1% used a value of zero.
Table 17: MSW Landfills - CH4 Oxidation Fraction Values Used by MSW Landfills (2017)
Oxidation
Factor
Default
Value
Emission Equation3
Without GCCS
With GCCS
HH-5
HH-5a
HH-6
HH-7b
HH-8
Count
0s
Count
0s
Count
0s
Count
0s
Count
0s
0
10
3.4
11
1.3
11
1.3
11
1.3
11
1.3
0.1
159
54.6
401
47.6
263
31.2
353
41.9
237
28.1
0.25
112
38.4
419
49.7
439
52.1
426
50.5
347
41.2
0.35
10
3.4
12
1.4
130
15.4
53
6.3
248
29.4
Total
291
100
843
100
843
100
843
100
843
100
a Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
b Landfills with GCCSs must report landfill gas generation using both Equations HH-5 and HH-7, in addition to calculating
emissions using both Equations HH-6 and HH-8.
Table 18 presents the percentage of emissions monitored by method and type. A larger percentage
of process and combustion emissions are emitted by facilities with a GCCS because there are
significantly more facilities with a GCCS than without (a 3:1 ratio).
Table 18: MSW Landfills - Methodologies
Type of
Emissions
Methodology
Percentage of Emissions Monitored by Method
[by type)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Process
emissions
Landfills without a GCCS: All
landfills without a GCCS use
modeled CH4 generation
adjusted for oxidation
34.8%
30.7%
32.4%
32.7%
33.8%
34.0%
Landfills with a GCCS: Equation
HH-6: Modeled CH4 generation
and measured CH4 collection3
40.7%
45.7%
44.2%
43.6%
42.3%
42.9%
Landfills with a GCCS: Equation
HH-8: Measured CH4 collection
and a default factor for
collection efficiency3
24.5%
23.6%
23.5%
23.7%
23.9%
23.1%
23
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Type of
Emissions
Methodology
Percentage of Emissions Monitored by Method
[by type)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Combustion
emissions
CEMS (Tier 4)b
45.6%
38.5%
43.6%
49.9%
56.5%
58.2%
Measured carbon content and,
if applicable, molecular weight
(Tier 3)
0%
**
0%
**
0%
0%
Measured high heating values
(HHVs] and default emission
factors (Tier 2)
15.4%
13.1%
12.4%
11.3%
10.6%
9.9%
Default HHVs and emission
factors (Tier 1)
39.0%
48.4%
44.0%
38.9%
33.0%
31.9%
a Facilities report both measured and modeled emissions, and identified the most accurate emissions value for their
facility. For FLIGHT and this report, EPA selected the emission value that was identified by the facility.
b CEMS emissions include CO2 from fossil fuel combustion plus, if applicable, CO2 from sorbent.
** Total reported emissions are less than 0.05% of the total.
Table 19 presents the number of facilities with a GCCS and the calculation method used (either
Equation HH-6 or HH-8) for each RY. Facilities may use the equation they feel is most appropriate
based on their facility operations. Facilities are not required to use the same equation across RYs,
but most facilities did use the same equation for multiple years. Most facilities used Equation HH-8
for all five reporting years. Equation HH-8 is based on the measured quantity of recovered CH4,
while Equation HH-6 is based on the amount of modeled CH4 generation.
Table 19: MSW Landfills - Use of Equation HH-6 versus HH-8 by RYa
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Facilities with a GCCS
926
926
923
864
849
846
Facilities that used Equation HH-6
271
274
285
274
270
265
Facilities that used Equation HH-8
640
650
633
583
578
579
a Updated January 2022 with data as of August 7,2021.
Industrial Waste Landfills Calculation Methodology
The calculation methodology for industrial waste landfills parallels the methodology for MSW
landfills. A change was made in 2013 to add a default factor for DOC content and a decay rate for
industrial sludge. These changes directly impact the modeled CH4 generation and CH4 emissions for
facilities that dispose of industrial sludges. Table 20 shows the percent of emissions by calculation
methodology (grouped by type of emission) from 2011 to 2017.
24
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Table 20: Industrial Landfills - Methodologies
Type of
Emissions
Methodology
Percentage of Emissions Monitored by Method (by type)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Landfills
without a
GCCS
All facilities use modeled CH4
generation adjusted for
oxidation
97%
97%
96%
96%
97%
97%
98%
Landfills
with a GCCS
Equation HH-6: Modeled CH4
generation and measured CH4
collection
3%
3%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
Equation HH-8: Measured CH4
collection and a default factor
for collection efficiency
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Note: Only two industrial waste landfills (1% of reporters for that subsector] have a GCCS.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Calculation Methodology
The calculation procedure of industrial wastewater treatment depends on whether biogas is
recovered from the anaerobic reactor(s) or lagoon(s) operating at the facility. All anaerobic sludge
digesters are assumed to recover biogas. The methodology for sludge digesters does not include
calculating CH4 generation using chemical oxygen demand (COD) or the five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5), because it is assumed that all generated CH4 is recovered.
• No biogas recovery. All facilities with anaerobic reactors or lagoons calculate emissions
using measurements of the volume of wastewater, measurements of the average weekly
concentration of either COD or BOD5, and a default CH4 conversion factor. All CH4 generated
during the process is emitted (Equation II-3).
• With biogas recovery. All facilities with anaerobic reactors, lagoons, or sludge digesters
that recover biogas calculate emissions using measurements of the flow of recovered
biogas; CH4 concentration, temperature, pressure, and moisture; and default values for
biogas collection efficiency and CH4 destruction efficiency. Equation II-4 determines the
amount of CH4 recovered in the process and Equation II-5 uses the collection efficiency to
estimate the amount of CH4 that leaks out of equipment. Equation II-6 determines total CH4
emissions by summing CH4 leakage and CH4 not destroyed in the destruction device.
Table 21 shows the percentage of emissions and calculation methodology by type of industrial
wastewater treatment system.
Table 21: Industrial Wastewater - Methodologies and Percentage of Emissions by Type of
Treatment System (2017)
Types of Industrial
Wastewater Treatment
Systems
Percentage of
Emissions
Monitored by Type
Methodology
No
biogas
Anaerobic reactors
0.3%
Monitor either the BODs or the COD of the material
entering the reactor or lagoon, and use default values for
the CH4 generation potential and CH4 conversion factor
Anaerobic lagoons
82.2%
With
biogas
Anaerobic reactors
2.3%
Monitor biogas flow rate and CH4 concentration, and use
default values for biogas collection efficiency and the
efficiency of the biogas destruction device
Anaerobic lagoons
14.0%
Sludge digesters
1.2%
25
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Solid waste combustion facilities must report under Subpart C, and the reporter generally must use
one of four calculation methodologies (tiers) to calculate CO2 emissions (Table 22), depending on
fuel type and unit size. The calculation methodologies for Subpart C are explained in more detail
here. Units that are not subject to Subpart D but are required by states to monitor emissions
according to Part 75 can report CO2 emissions under Subpart C using Part 75 calculation methods
and monitoring data that they already collect under Part 75 (e.g., heat input and fuel use). CH4 and
N2O mass emissions are also required to be reported for fuels that are included in Table C-2 of
Part 98 and are calculated using either an estimated or measured fuel quantity, default or measured
HHV, and default emission factors.
Table 22: Solid Waste Combustion - Methodologies
Type of
Emissions
Methodology
Percentage of Emissions Monitored by Method (by type)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Combustion
emissions
CEMS (Tier 4)a
58.2%
57.5%
59.1%
58.5%
61.3%
61.6%
58.9%
Measured carbon content
and, if applicable, molecular
weight (Tier 3)
**
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Measured HHVs and default
emission factors (Tier 2)
40.7%
41.5%
38.6%
38.0%
37.7%
37.8%
40.5%
Default HHVs and emission
factors (Tier 1)
1.1%
1.0%
2.2%
3.5%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
a CEMS emissions include CO2 from fossil fuel combustion plus, if applicable, CO2 from sorbent.
** Total reported emissions are less than 0.05% of the total.
Data Verification and Analysis
As a part of the reporting and verification process, EPA evaluates annual GHG reports with
electronic checks and staff review as needed. EPA contacts facilities regarding potential substantive
errors and facilities resubmit reports as errors are identified. Additional information on EPA's
verification process is available here.
Other Information
EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary assistance program that promotes
the reduction of CH4 emissions from landfills by encouraging the recovery and beneficial use of
landfill gas as an energy resource. By joining LMOP, companies, state agencies, organizations,
landfill operators, and communities gain access to a vast network of industiy experts and
practitioners, as well as various technical and marketing resources that can help with landfill gas
energy project development. LMOP maintains a list of candidate landfills where available data
indicate that installing a landfill gas-to-energy project is likely to provide financial benefits. LMOP
defines a candidate landfill as one that is accepting waste or has been closed for five years or less;
has at least one million tons of waste; and does not have an operational, under-construction, or
planned landfill gas-to-energy project
EPA's U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory (hereafter referred to as the Inventory) estimates total
U.S. GHG emissions from Waste Sector sources. National-level emissions presented in the Inventory
report differ from the total emissions reported to the GHGRP for several reasons:
• The Inventory accounts for emissions from all facilities in a given sector. The GHGRP, on the
other hand, includes only those facilities that meet the reporting thresholds. The coverage
26
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
and the emissions methodologies differ between the two programs (see Table 3 for
estimated coverage across the Waste Sector).
• The Inventory estimates for MSW landfills are a combination of top-down and bottom-up
estimates for certain years in the Inventory time series, representing national emissions
that are intended to be inclusive of all facilities within a given sector. The 1990-2017
Inventory for MSW landfills incorporated directly reported CH4 emissions from facilities
reporting to the GHGRP (for years 2010 to 2017), with a scale-up factor to account for
emissions from MSW landfills that do not meet GHGRP's reporting threshold.3
• The Inventory estimate for industrial waste landfill emissions includes only the pulp and
paper and food and beverage sector facilities, whereas subpart TT of the GHGRP covers
many more industries. Due to a lack of industrial waste disposal data for all facilities within
each industrial sector, the inventory uses proxy data (i.e., annual production data multiplied
by a disposal factor) to estimate the amount of waste disposed of by the pulp and paper and
food and beverage sectors. The GHGRP uses a bottom-up calculation approach and requires
facilities to report the amount of waste disposed.
• The Inventory estimate for industrial wastewater treatment includes aerobic ponds with
anaerobic portions, but under the GHGRP, only emissions from strictly anaerobic processes
are required to be reported.
• The Inventory does not capture emissions from wastewater sludge digesters or CH4
recovered from anaerobic treatment processes, while the GHGRP does.
Glossary
Anaerobic process refers to a procedure in which organic matter in wastewater, wastewater
treatment sludge, or other material is degraded by micro-organisms in the absence of oxygen,
resulting in the generation of CO2 and CH4. This source category consists of the following: anaerobic
reactors, anaerobic lagoons, anaerobic sludge digesters, and biogas destruction devices
(e.g., burners, boilers, turbines, flares, or other devices) (40 CFR Part 98.350).
Biogenic CO2 emissions means carbon dioxide released from the combustion or decomposition of
biologically based materials other than fossil fuels.
Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the total equipment required to sample,
analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes, a
permanent record of gas concentrations, pollutant emission rates, or gas volumetric flow rates from
stationary sources (40 CFR Part 98.6).
Ethanol production means an operation that produces ethanol from the fermentation of sugar,
starch, grain, or cellulosic biomass feedstocks; or the production of ethanol synthetically from
petrochemical feedstocks, such as ethylene or other chemicals.
FLIGHT refers to EPA's GHG data publication tool, named the Facility Level Information on
Greenhouse Gases Tool fhttps://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#).
3. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. EPA 430-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Available: https: //www.epa.gOv/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.6456.7.
27
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Food processing means an operation used to manufacture or process meat, poultry, fruits, and/or
vegetables as defined under NAICS 3116 (Meat Product Manufacturing) or NAICS 3114 (Fruit and
Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing). For information on NAICS codes, see
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
GCCS means a landfill's gas collection and control system.
GHGRP means EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (40 CFR Part 98).
GHGRP vs. GHG Inventory: EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) collects and
disseminates annual GHG data from individual facilities and suppliers across the U.S. economy. EPA
also develops the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (GHG Inventory) to
track total national emissions of GHGs to meet U.S. government commitments to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. The GHGRP and Inventory datasets are complementary;
however, there are also important differences in the data and approach. For more information,
please see https: //www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/greenhouse-gas-reporting-program-and-us-
inventory- greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
IPCC AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team,
Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland2007. The AR4 values also can be
found in the current version of Table A-l in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 98.
Industrial wastewater means water containing wastes from an industrial process. Industrial
wastewater includes water that comes into direct contact with or results from the storage,
production, or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or
waste product Examples of industrial wastewater include, but are not limited to, paper mill white
water, wastewater from equipment cleaning, wastewater from air pollution control devices, rinse
water, contaminated stormwater, and contaminated cooling water.
Industrial waste landfill means any landfill other than a MSW landfill, a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, or a Toxic Substances Control Act
hazardous waste landfill, in which industrial solid waste, such as RCRA Subtitle D wastes
(nonhazardous industrial solid waste, defined in §257.2 of this chapter), commercial solid wastes,
or conditionally exempt small quantity generator wastes, is placed. An industrial waste landfill
includes all disposal areas at the facility.
Industrial wastewater treatment sludge means solid or semi-solid material resulting from the
treatment of industrial wastewater, including, but not limited to, biosolids, screenings, grit, scum,
and settled solids.
Landfill Methane Outreach Program or LMOP is a voluntary assistance program run by EPA to
help reduce CH4 emissions from landfills by encouraging the recovery and beneficial use of landfill
gas as an energy resource fhttp://www, epa.gov/lmop/).
MT means metric tons.
MMT means million metric tons.
28
-------
2011-2017 GHGRP Industrial Profile
Waste Sector
Municipal solid waste landfill, as defined by the GHGRP, means an entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may
also receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (40 CFR 257.2) such as commercial solid waste,
nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid
waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access roads, public roadways, or other
public right-of-ways. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned (40 CFR Part 98.6).
NAICS means the North American Industry Classification System, the standard used by federal
statistical agencies to classify business establishments into industrial categories for collecting and
publishing statistical data related to the U.S. economy.
Wastewater treatment systems are the collection of all processes that treat or remove pollutants
and contaminants, such as soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and
chemicals from wastewater prior to its reuse or discharge from the facility.
29
------- |