DOCSLIB.ORG

Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009 Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Avoiding Methane Emissions from Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste and/or Agro-Industrial Wastewater Version 1.0 October 7, 2009 Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009 Acknowledgements Staff Syd Partridge Climate Action Reserve Derik Broekhoff Climate Action Reserve Tim Kidman Climate Action Reserve Nancy Kong Climate Action Reserve Heather Raven Climate Action Reserve Rachel Tornek Climate Action Reserve Workgroup Marcia Gowen Trump Atmosclear Keith Driver Blue Source Canada Nick Lapis Californians Against Waste Pierre Loots Cantor CO2e Kevin Eslinger California Air Resources Board Shelby Livingston California Air Resources Board Jack Macy City and County of San Francisco Rowena Romano City of Los Angeles Ronald Lew California Integrated Waste Management Board Rob Janzen Climate Check Paul Relis CR&R Inc. Stephanie Cheng East Bay Municipal Utility District Jay Wintergreen First Environment Adam Penque Greenhouse Gas Services, LLC. Juliette Bohn Humboldt Waste Management Authority Michael Hvisdos Microgy, Inc. Rachel Oster Recology, Inc. Derek Markolf Ryerson, Master and Associates, Inc. Peter Freed Terra Pass Charles Kennedy Tetra Tech Sally Brown University of Washington Chuck White Waste Management Paul Sousa Western United Dairymen Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009 Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................2 2 The GHG Reduction Project ......................................................................................3 2.1 Project definition.........................................................................................................3 2.2 The Project Developer ...............................................................................................3 3 Eligibility Rules ...........................................................................................................5 3.1 Location......................................................................................................................5 3.2 Project Start Date.......................................................................................................5 3.3 Project Crediting Period .............................................................................................6 3.4 Anaerobic Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................6 3.5 Additionality................................................................................................................6 3.5.1 The Performance Standard Test................................................................................7 3.5.2 The Legal Requirement Test......................................................................................8 3.6 Regulatory Compliance............................................................................................10 4 The GHG Assessment Boundary.............................................................................11 5 Quantifying GHG Emission Reductions ...................................................................18 5.1 Quantifying Baseline Emissions...............................................................................19 5.1.1 Baseline Emissions from Eligible Food Waste Streams (SSR 5).............................20 5.1.2 Baseline Emissions from Eligible Agro-industrial Wastewater Streams (SSR 7).....25 5.1.3 Baseline Emissions from Manure Treatment Systems (SSR 6)...............................27 5.2 Quantifying Project Emissions .................................................................................28 5.2.1 Project CO2 Emissions from On-Site Fossil Fuel Combustion and Grid Delivered Electricity (SSRs 4, 9, 14, 16, 18) ............................................................................29 5.2.2 Project Emissions from the Biogas Control System (SSRs 10,11,12,13,15) ...........30 5.2.3 Project Methane Emissions from Liquid Digester Effluent Storage and Treatment (SSR 17) ..................................................................................................................33 5.2.4 Project Emissions from Aerobic Treatment of Digestate (SSR 18)..........................34 5.2.5 Project Emissions from Anaerobic Disposal of Digestate produced in the digestion process (SSR 18).....................................................................................................36 5.2.6 Project Emissions from Manure Treatment Systems (SSR 6) .................................36 5.3 Calculating the Total Quantity of Methane Destroyed by the Project.......................37 6 Project Monitoring ....................................................................................................38 6.1 Organic Waste and Wastewater Monitoring Requirements .....................................38 6.1.1 Food Waste Monitoring ............................................................................................38 6.1.2 Agro-Industrial Wastewater Monitoring ....................................................................39 6.1.3 Digester Effluent and Digestate Monitoring..............................................................40 6.2 Biogas Control System Monitoring...........................................................................40 6.2.1 Biogas Measurement Instrument QA/QC.................................................................42 6.2.2 Missing Data ............................................................................................................43 6.3 Monitoring Parameters.............................................................................................43 7 Reporting Parameters ..............................................................................................49 7.1 Project Submittal Documentation.............................................................................49 7.2 Record Keeping .......................................................................................................49 7.3 Reporting Period & Verification Cycle ......................................................................50 8 Verification Guidance ...............................................................................................51 8.1 Standard of Verification............................................................................................51 8.2 Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................51 8.3 Verifying Project Eligibility ........................................................................................51 Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009 8.4 Core Verification Activities .......................................................................................52 8.5 OWD Verification Items............................................................................................53 8.5.1 Project Eligibility and CRT Issuance ........................................................................53 8.5.2 Quantification ...........................................................................................................54 8.5.3 Risk Assessment......................................................................................................56 8.6 Completing Verification ............................................................................................56 9 Glossary of Terms....................................................................................................57 10 References...............................................................................................................61 Appendix A Associated Environmental Impacts .....................................................................63 Appendix B Data Lookup Tables ............................................................................................64 Appendix C Summary of the Performance Standard Paper ...................................................70 C.1. Selected Waste Generating Industries.....................................................................70 C.2. Organic Waste Generation and Management and OWD Performance Standard Options 72 C.3. Regulatory Conditions and Regulatory Additionality Recommendations .................76 C.4. Digestion Economics................................................................................................76 Appendix D Data Substitution .................................................................................................79 Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol Version 1.0, October 2009 List of Tables Table 4.1. Description of all Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs. ....................................................13 Table 5.1. Combined methane and nitrous oxide emission factors for aerobic treatment of digestate. ....................................................................................................................................35 Table 6.1. Organic waste digestion project monitoring parameters...........................................43 Table 8.1. Summary of eligibility criteria for an organic waste digestion project.........................52 Table 8.2. Eligibility verification items. ........................................................................................54
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy from Waste
    Guideline: Energy from waste Publication 1559.1* July 2017. *This publication replaces 1559 released December 2013. Introduction As outlined in Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, (‘Getting Full Value Policy’) the Victorian Government is committed to an integrated, statewide waste and resource recovery system that protects the environment and public health, maximises the productive value of resources, and minimises the long-term costs to households, industry and government. The Victorian Government also outlined that it welcomes investments in energy from waste and other alternative technology that can convert waste into useful products, if it can be demonstrated that investment will deliver strong environmental, public health and economic outcomes. This guideline outlines how the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) and associated statutory policies and regulations are applied to the assessment of proposals that recover energy from waste. The document provides high- level guidance for industry, government and the community on EPA Victoria’s (EPA) expectations and requirements for the siting, design, construction and operation of such facilities. Efficient recovery of energy from the thermal or biological processing of waste is considered a resource recovery as opposed to a waste disposal option. Recovery of energy should not compete with avoidance, reuse or recycling. Legal status of this guideline This guideline provides a summary of the Act’s key principles and environment protection requirements as well as subordinate legislation. The technical details in this guideline describe measures to assist in meeting these requirements. The guideline does not represent a comprehensive statement of the law as it applies to either particular problems or individuals or serves as a substitute for legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste-To-Energy Communities
    The Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste-to-Energy Communities Photo Courtesy of Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility - Ash Disposal DECEMBER 2010 CH SEAR FO E UN R D D A IE T L IO P P N A A N P P O I L T I E A SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION D D of North America R N E U S O E F A R H C www.swana.org The Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste-to-Energy Communities Ash Disposal – Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility Prepared for: SWANA Applied Research Foundation FY2010 Waste-to-Energy Group Subscribers December 2010 © Solid Waste Association of North America 2010 The Landfill Disposal Rates of Waste-to-Energy Communities TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 THE LANDFILL DISPOSAL INDEX (LDI) ................................................................... 2 3.0 THE LANDFILL DISPOSAL INDICES OF WTE COMMUNITIES ............................... 3 4.0 LANDFILL DISPOSAL INDICES FOR ZERO WASTE COMMUNITIES ..................... 5 5.0 SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MSW DIVERSION RATE METRIC .................................. 5 6.0 THE BIODEGRADABLE MSW-LDI ............................................................................ 7 7.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1 SWANA ARF FY2010 WTE Group.............................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5.21: Solid Waste
    General Plan Update Section 5.21: Solid Waste This section analyzes the potential solid waste impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035. Specifically, this section compares the solid waste generation of the proposed General Plan 2035 with the capacity of the existing landfills that accept solid waste from the City of Murrieta. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. Subsequent legislation changed the reporting requirements and threshold, but restated source reduction as a priority. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” The term “integrated waste management” refers to the use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and effectively handle the municipal solid waste stream with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment. AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy as follows: . Source Reduction; . Recycling; . Composting; . Transformation; and . Disposal. Local governments have an ongoing obligation to meet a 50 percent diversion goal, as mandated by AB 939. While Murrieta’s recycling program is voluntary, residents and businesses are strongly encouraged to make full use of these services. Recycling and reuse of materials extends the life of landfills, results in less use of natural resources and improves the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Digestate and the Liquid Fraction of Digestate As Chemical Fertiliser Substitutes Under the RENURE Criteria
    agronomy Article The Potential of Digestate and the Liquid Fraction of Digestate as Chemical Fertiliser Substitutes under the RENURE Criteria Gregory Reuland 1,2,* , Ivona Sigurnjak 1 , Harmen Dekker 2, Evi Michels 1 and Erik Meers 1 1 Department of Green Chemistry and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected] (I.S.); [email protected] (E.M.); [email protected] (E.M.) 2 European Biogas Association, Rue d’Arlon 65, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study assessed how digestate and the liquid fraction (LF) of digestate would perform as candidate RENURE fertilisers (recovered nitrogen from manure) in nitrate vulnerable zones under the proposed criteria of the Joint Research Centre, namely, (i) a mineral nitrogen to total nitrogen ratio ≥ 90% (Nmin:TN ≥ 90%) or a total organic carbon to TN ratio ≤ 3 (TOC:TN ≤ 3); (ii) limits of ≤300 copper (Cu) mg kg−1 and ≤800 Zinc (Zn) mg kg−1. These criteria were applied to unpublished data (n = 2622) on digestate compositional properties, further amended with data from the literature (n = 180); digestate analysis from seven full-scale biogas facilities (n = 14); and biogas industry stakeholders (n = 23). The results showed that Cu and Zn mostly met the criteria, with compliance rates of 94.7% (of 1035 entries) and 95.0% (of 1038 entries), respectively. Just above 5% (of 1856 entries) met the Nmin/TN ≥ 90% criterion, while 36% (of 1583 entries) met the TOC/TN ≤ 3 criterion, while total compliance was 32% (of 1893 entries).
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Management Plan Operational Services Division – Sanitation
    Solid Waste Management Plan Operational Services Division – Sanitation October 2007 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................3 Introduction .....................................................................................................................4 Solid Waste Diversion in Manitoba ..................................................................................5 Manitoba Product Stewardship Supported Recycling...................................................7 Household Hazardous Waste Generation in Manitoba.................................................9 Extended Producer Responsibility .............................................................................10 National Waste Diversion ..............................................................................................13 Avenues to Waste Diversion......................................................................................15 Trends for Manitoba ...............................................................................................22 Solid Waste Diversion as a System...............................................................................24 Solid Waste Management in Brandon ...........................................................................25 Landfill License..........................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Upcycling Wastes with Biogas Production: an Exergy and Economic Analysis
    Venice 2012, Fourth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Upcycling wastes with biogas production: An exergy and economic analysis M. Martin*, A. Parsapour* *Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden SUMMARY: The massive consumption of finite resources creates high economical and environmental costs due to material dispersion and waste generation. In order to overcome this, by-products and wastes may be used, to avoid the use of virgin materials and benefit from the useful inherent energy of the material. By adding value to the material, economic and environmental performance can be improve, which is called upcycling. In this paper, an exergy and economic analysis of a biogas process is examined. In order to investigate if biogas production from wastes can upcycle materials, biogas production from a by- product from the brewing process is examined. From the analysis, the process is found to upcycle the by-product with an increase in exergy and economic benefit due to the generation of biomethane and biofertilizer. This analysis thus shows that by using by-products as such, the sustainability of the system may improve. 1. INTRODUCTION Given the concerns for sustainable development, the availability of energy from fossil sources and their environmental effects continues to produce problems for nations worldwide. With the current availability of alternative energy sources, our dependence on fossil sources can thus be questioned. Among these, bioenergy and biofuels have great potential for development and improvement. However, many experts have criticized the environmental performance and energy efficiency of biofuel production (Wibe, 2010; Akinci, 2008; Searchinger, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Program Landfill Diversion Update
    Landfill Diversion Update County of Maui Department of Environmental Management October 14, 2013 October 14, 2013 County of Maui Landfill Diversion Update Solid Waste Program • $6.6 million of General Fund subsidy (26%) • -$100/ton landfill cost, $75/ton LF revenue • $40/mo refuse cost, $18/mo refuse revenue • Residential landfill tip fee is zero • Residential green waste tip fee is zero • Recyclable materials markets are overseas Disposal alternatives prevent self-sufficiency. October 14, 2013 2 County of Maui 6///4/ RECEIVED AT MEETING ON / 1 vi/fr&4"94.4.,.//e(a*e_WA.,,7t. /5,7 —/1 /c Xtc.-7-c,tof Landfill Diversion Update C Why divert? • Landfilling leads to fugitive methane, wasted resources, high costs, trash-filled saina • Reduce, reuse, recycle, and repurpose - Landfilling - "re-nothing" • Recycling — strive for the highest and best use of materials and preserve natural resources - Plastic4plastic, metal metal, paper paper, etc. Cost of diversion versus landfill impacts. October 14, 2013 3 County of Maui Landfill Diversion Update -,-, Maui County Solid Waste Flows County grants EKO Compost / dropboxes 155,578 tons 22% Residential 7 > 1.7% 17.3% County of Maui Landfills 53% Commercial --> 14.9% 9.0% Recyclables, Metal and 58,489 tons \ food waste, concrete metals, etc. Maui Demolition Const. & and 25% Demolition Construction 42.9% Countywide Diversion Rate Landfill (Private) Maui County total solid waste -375,000 tons/yr. October 14, 2013 4 County of Maui 2 Landfill Diversion Update 0 Maui County Landfill Diversion Food waste 1.4% Compost 0.2% C&D 9.0% Metals 7.5% Tires, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits of Composting Digestate
    Zero Waste Energy Turns Waste to Profit Composting of Anaerobically Digested Organics (Digestate) is the actively managed process of further decomposing the organic residuals from the Anaerobic Digestion process. A range of composting systems are designed to manage this decomposition process to yield a high quality compost product without creating negative public or environmental impacts. Benefits of Composting Digestate Characteristics Operational Savings & Benefits High moisture content Reduced water commodity charges, less water application time, lower labor cost Low odor generation Reduction in impacts to surrounding receptors Homogeneous Consistent compost pile structure Easy to blend with bulking agent Reduced loader and labor time High anaerobic microbial activity Reaches temperature quickly Reaches thermophilic temperatures swiftly Reduced resident time for more efficient use of space High weight to volume ratios Higher revenue to footprint ratios Produces higher nitrogen values in compost than Enhanced value to end user markets green waste compost Consistent residual ratios Predictable cost to manage residual The following are three composting methodologies used in North America. Historically, windrow, static pile and in-vessel composting have been viewed as the most simplistic and least costly approaches to processing municipal organics. Each has tradeoffs in terms of overall costs (e.g., a windrow system may have less upfront investment in equipment and structures. This can create higher operating and management costs to address environmental impact and public nuisance factor considerations). Therefore, each methodology must be evaluated considering the following factors: • Maximizing control of public health/nuisance factors • Optimizing throughput to yield positive project economics • Producing a high quality compost product From Waste, Nothing is Wasted.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Smarter to Separate
    1. Executive Summary As communities across the United States seek ways to protect their environment, conserve raw materials and lower the cost of waste disposal, innovations that keep waste out of landfills are increasingly attractive. Even in Texas, where low costs have created one of the largest landfilling economies in the world, the case for landfill diversion is a no-brainer: every 10,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) that goes to the landfill creates 1 job, while recycling the same amount of waste creates 20-100 jobs. Reuse or remanufacture from 10,000 tons of waste creates on average over 180 jobs.1 Recycling, reuse, and remanufacture also generate Leaking Landfill revenue for governments and Major River Aquifer firms that collect the materials, 2012 Data "Joint Groundwater Monitoring and Contamination Report 2012" www.tceq.texas.gov while landfilling creates potential financial and environmental liability: in Texas in 2012, 66 of nearly 200 active landfills reported they leaked toxins underground.2 Landfills also account for 18% of U.S. methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.3 Public demands for action on climate justice, job creation and fiscal responsibility are often seen as competing interests— but waste reduction and recycling work on all accounts. However, not all landfill diversion methods result in equivalent jobs, conservation and cost efficiency. In recent years, a number of firms have proposed technologies such as refuse derived fuel (RDF), gasification and other incineration methods that environmentalists and recycling advocates find to be destructive— especially when paired with “mixed waste processing” or facilities that encourage residents to throw all trash and recycling into one bin for subsequent separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Paper Methane Avoidance from Composting
    ISSUE PAPER METHANE AVOIDANCE FROM COMPOSTING An Issue Paper for the: Climate Action Reserve Prepared By: SAIC Sally Brown, Matthew Cotton, Steve Messner, Fiona Berry, David Norem Final – 15 September 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Relationship to OWD Protocol......................................................................................1 1.2. GHG Emissions from Organic Waste...........................................................................1 1.3. Composting Facility Types and Methods....................................................................3 1.4. Compost Feedstocks .......................................................................................................8 2.0 Existing Quantification Methodologies............................................................................ 15 2.1. Clean Development Mechanism...................................................................................15 2.2. Chicago Climate Exchange ............................................................................................17 2.3. Alberta Aerobic Composting Protocol.........................................................................18 2.4. Other .................................................................................................................................19 3.0 Scientific Uncertainty.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste
    Global Methane Initiative Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste Updated: October 2016 1 About This Presentation . Introduces the process of anaerobic digestion (AD) for municipal solid waste (MSW) . Provides an overview of anaerobic digestion microbiology . Helps you understand how you might benefit from AD . Guides you through the key areas to consider when developing an AD project . Reviews the status of AD globally and provides selected case studies Using Bookmarks to Navigate This presentation contains bookmarks to help you navigate. Using the panel on the left, click the bookmark to jump to the slide. For Chrome users, the bookmarks can be viewed by clicking on the bookmark icon ( ) at the top right of the screen. 2 Global Methane Initiative GMI is a voluntary, multilateral partnership that aims to reduce global methane emissions and to advance the abatement, recovery and use of methane as a valuable clean energy source. OBJECTIVES BENEFITS . Reduce anthropogenic methane . Decline in methane concentrations emissions and advance the and methane utilization will result recovery and use of methane in: while: – Sustainability – Enhancing economic growth – Energy security – Promoting energy security – Health and safety – Improving local air quality – Profitability and public health. 3 GMI Partners . Grew from 14 to 42 Partner governments, plus the European Commission . Accounts for nearly 70% of global anthropogenic methane emissions 4 Main Menu 1. Introduction – what is AD and why should it interest me? Click here for an introduction to AD 2. Is AD suitable for me? Click here for more info about the potential for AD 3. Step-by-step guide Click here for detailed information about the key issues to consider when developing an AD project 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Digestates: Quality and Use
    Digestates: Quality and Use Anne Trémier Dr-Ing., Cemagref, Rennes, France Cécile Teglia PhD student, Cemagref, Rennes, France Cemagref Public research institute (EPST) 9 centres + 2 branches (Strasbourg and Martinique) Workforce of 1400 including 500 scientists, 200 doctorate and 40 post-doctorate students 110 M€ budget including 79 M€ Core Budget (salaries) and 31 M€ contracts (2010) 2 Summer school, Naples, 5th of May 2011 Competences Land, water and environmental technologies Scientific and technical Fields directly related to the support for public policy needs of Society An engineering in the form of research, approach that includes science advice, models and multi-disciplinary operational tools components 3 Summer school, Naples, 5th of May 2011 Research group SOWASTE – Cemagref Rennes Management and biological treatment of solid waste From collection to treatment: Composting: process design and environmental, technical and optimisation economical efficiency . Characterization of waste, compost . Biodegradation, respirometry. and digestate. Porosity and permeability of waste porous . Study of collection efficiency. medium. Expertise of treatment plants. Composting pilot. Assessment of process costs. Heat and mass transfer, link with gaseous . Financing terms. emissions. LCA, Carbon footprint, etc. Modelling and process engineering. Collection costs Transport costs Basic scheme Modif. 1 Modif. 2 4 Summer school, Naples, 5th of May 2011 Context: Waste, Legislation ► Production of waste in Europe 2.9 109 T of waste produced in 2006
    [Show full text]