DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft/Proposed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft/Proposed Draft/Proposed OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION MEMORANDUM July 18, 2019 TO: Phillip Fielder, P.E., Chief Engineer THROUGH: Rick Groshong, Senior Environmental Manager, Compliance and Enforcement THROUGH: Phil Martin, P.E., Engineering Manager, Existing Source Permits Section THROUGH: Ryan Buntyn, P.E., Existing Source Permits Section FROM: Mark Chen, P.E., New Source Permits Section SUBJECT: Evaluation of TV Construction Permit Application No. 2018-1814-C (M-1) Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc. East Oak Recycling and Disposal Facility (Facility ID: 2061) 3201 Mosley Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Latitude N 35.50749°, Longitude W 97.41459° Section 21, Township 12N, Range 2W Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Directions: From downtown OKC, take Interstate I-35 north for 3 miles, take NE 36th Street exit, go east on NE 36th Street for 2.5 miles, then, turn south into the facility. SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc. (WM) has requested a Tier II construction permit for an operation at their East Oak Recycling and Disposal Facility (RDF) (SIC 4953, NAICS 562212). East Oak RDF is an active municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill under DEQ Land Protection Division (LPD) Solid Waste ID. No. 3555036. Currently, the facility is operating under Air Quality Division (AQD) Permit No. 2018-1814-TVR3, which was issued on June 10, 2019. The original landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) and flare were constructed under Permit No. 96-471-C, which was issued on February 25, 1997. The original Title V Permit No. 99-405- TV was issued on January 31, 2001. In this construction permit application, WM plans to construct/install a Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) facility to treat/refine landfill gas (LFG) and to produce good quality gas (purity of methane > 97%) for injection into a natural gas pipeline at the site. This RNG facility will also be used to replace a gas-to-liquid (GTL) facility, which was operated by ENVIA Energy LLC since October 2016, but was found no longer operable in the fourth quarter of 2018. This GTL facility will be removed before the RNG facility can be constructed. The proposed RNG facility will have a thermal oxidizer to combust the waste gas and tail gas from the LFG processing operations and a backup process flare for emergency purpose, such as, process PERMIT MEMORANDUM No. 2018-1814-C (M-1) Draft/Proposed Page 2 upset conditions. The East Oak RDF also proposes to add an additional 350 SCFM utility flare to combust LFG from the closed Mosley Road portion of the landfill. WM also uses this opportunity to revise the SO2 emission estimation. The sulfur-containing compounds concentration in the LFG will be revised to a more conservative assumption of 500 ppmv from previous 200 ppmv in the Permit No. 2018-1814-TVR3. Upon applicant’s request, this permit will proceed through concurrent public and EPA review. AQD also uses this opportunity to update applicable state rules and federal regulations related to the facility. SECTION II. FACILITY DESCRIPTION The facility is comprised of two adjacent landfills, one is the Mosley Road Landfill and the other is East Oak RDF. The Mosley Road Landfill operated from 1975 to 1987, while the East Oak RDF began operations in 1987. A minor Title V modification in 2003 permitted the expansion of the East Oak RDF and allowed the site to fill in the area between the two original sites, thus creating one large landfill, which is known as East Oak RDF. The total land area is approximately 200 acres for landfill operation, and 50 acres are originally from Mosley Road Landfill and 150 acres are developed by East Oak RDF. Currently, the facility operates 6 days a week and receives nonhazardous solid waste from Great Metropolitan Oklahoma City Area, including Edmond, Yukon, Mustang, Moore and Norman. The facility typically receives approximately 2,000 ton/day of municipal, commercial, and industrial nonhazardous waste. The facility also accepts nonhazardous liquid and semi-solid waste at its solidification area. The East Oak RDF has increased their design capacity from approximately 18.413 million cubic yard (or 14.612 million Mg) to 19.808 million cubic yard (or 15.144 million Mg) in 2015. At the end of 2018, the facility is estimated to have accepted total waste of 11.488 million Mg, which is estimated based on WMO’s record and the EPA’s LandGEM Version 3.02 Model conducted on December 17, 2018. The remaining permitted capacity is approximately 3.656 million Mg. LFG is usually generated by microbiological processes associated with waste decomposition and LFG is composed primarily of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2): CO2 content ranging from 30 to 50% and CH4 from 40 to 60%. Initial decomposition of the wastes is continuous and rapid until the entrained oxygen within the refuse is depleted. The second stage is anaerobic decomposition that can be divided into two separate and independent processes: non-methanogenic and methanogenic. CO2 is a byproduct of the non-methanogenic process and CH4 is a byproduct of the methanogenic process. LFG may contain small amounts of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), which include trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The production of LFG begins a few months after initial waste placement and continues until the microbial reactions are limited by substrate or moisture availability. LFG production is also affected by the solid waste disposal rate and varies over the life of the landfill. Generally, LFG production increases with time until a peak volume is reached shortly after landfill closure. In general, the LFG collection system consists of a network of vertical extraction wells, horizontal header pipes, and gas condensate sumps, and the collected LFG is processed and is either transported to off-site users or sent to an on-site flare. The RNG facility will be located at 3500 North Sooner Road on the same site as WM’s landfill operation (Section 21, Township 12N, Range 2W). The RNG facility will operate in a closed system with no atmospheric vents during normal operation. The LFG will first be treated by compression, dehydration, and filtration (which meets the definition of treatment for the NSPS) PERMIT MEMORANDUM No. 2018-1814-C (M-1) Draft/Proposed Page 3 after which it will pass through a gas processing system that removes water, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur compounds, oxygen, and other trace components from the LFG. The treated and processed methane is then compressed and delivered to the interstate pipeline. The waste gas stream from the processing system is routed to a thermal oxidizer for combustion. Because the facility has a landfill design capacity greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3) and has non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate greater than 50 Mg/yr, the facility is required to comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, NSPS, Subpart WWW and 40 CFR Part 63, NESHAP, Subpart AAAA and is required to install and operate a gas collection and control system (GCCS). The facility has an active GCCS that routes collected landfill gas (LFG) from current approximate 125 extraction wells to the existing dual utility flares. The number of LFG extraction wells will be increased to comply with 40 CFR Part 60, NSPS Subpart WWW. Currently, the flare system is capable of processing 4,500 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of LFG, which is limited by the capacity of the LFG blowers. SECTION III. EQUIPMENT Emission units (EU) have been arranged into Emission Unit Groups (EUG) in the Equipment Section. Table 1 lists the EUGs. Table 1. Emission Unit (EU) Information EU ID # Emission Sources EU Group Name EUG-1 Uncollectable LFG Fugitives & PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitives Landfill Operation From Earthmoving Operations EUG-2 Existing Dual Utility Flare System and New Utility Flare GCCS and LFG Flares EUG-3 Thermal Oxidizer and Process Flare RNG Processes There are three main sources of emissions at the facility. Once MSW is placed in the landfill, it is compacted and covered with soil/dirt/earth. The anaerobic decomposition of buried organic wastes within the covered landfill produces a biogas commonly referred to as LFG. EUG-1 includes uncollectable LFG fugitives and particulate matter emissions from fugitives, which is caused by earthmoving operation equipment, such as dozers, compactors, dump trucks, excavators, graders, and tractors. EUG-2 includes GCCS, existing LFG dual flare system (two 2,250 SCFM utility flares), and proposed 350 SCFM flare. The GCCS consists of a network of extraction wells (currently approximate 125 wells, with numbers changing over time) and collection pipes that collect LFG generated within the landfill. The GCCS is also comprised of a blower system which induces negative pressure within the landfill and transfers the collected LFG to the dual open flare system for burning or to the landfill gas treatment system that is part of the RNG processing facility. The East Oak RDF also proposes to add an additional 350 SCFM utility flare to combust LFG from the closed Mosley Road portion of the landfill. The GCCS is designed to operate continuously. EUG-3 includes all RNG processes and associated equipment. The treatment plant is part of RNG under this EUG. The RNG processes extract the methane (>97% purity in final product stream) from the LFG in a closed system with no atmospheric vents during normal operation. There are only two emission sources in RNG process, one is the thermal oxidizer (TO) and the other one is PERMIT MEMORANDUM No. 2018-1814-C (M-1) Draft/Proposed Page 4 the process flare.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • User’S Guide
    United States Environmental Protection EPA-600/R-05/047 Agency May 2005 Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 User’s Guide EPA-600/R-05/047 May 2005 Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 User’s Guide by Amy Alexander, Clint Burklin, and Amanda Singleton Eastern Research Group Morrisville, NC Purchase Order No. 3C-R127-NALX Project Officer: Susan A. Thorneloe Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 Abstract The Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) is an automated estimation tool with a Microsoft Excel interface that can be used to estimate emission rates for total landfill gas, methane, carbon dioxide, nonmethane organic compounds, and individual air pollutants from municipal solid waste landfills. This guide provides step-by-step guidance for using this software application, as well as an appendix containing background information on the technical basis of LandGEM. LandGEM can use either site-specific data to estimate emissions or default parameters if no site-specific data are available. The model contains two sets of default parameters, CAA defaults and inventory defaults. The CAA defaults are based on federal regulations for MSW landfills laid out by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and can be used for determining whether a landfill is subject to the control requirements of these regulations. The inventory defaults are based on emission factors in EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) and can be used to generate emission estimates for use in emission inventories and air permits in the absence of site-specific test data.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill Gas to Energy Fact Sheet
    Landfill Gas to Energy Project Fact Sheet Developers AC Landfill Energy, LLC (ACLE), a joint venture of DCO Energy and South Jersey Industries. Project Cost $3 million Funding Assistance • $513,000 grant from New Jersey Board of Public Utilities • $2 million low interest loan from New Jersey Economic Development Authority • $375,000 grant from the New Jersey Department of The landfill gas to energy plant began powering operations in March 2005 at the Environmental Protection Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) Howard “Fritz” Haneman Environmental Park located in Egg Harbor Township. Environmental Impacts Landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Landfill gas is also a source of smog and odor problems. By capturing and using landfill gas, air pollution is reduced and an otherwise wasted source of energy is used. When working at full capacity this project can handle approximately 1,200 cubic feet per minute of gas produced by the landfill. With two generators fully operational, the 3.5 megawatt system is capable of generating 27,000,000 kWhs/yr, enough to power 2,757 homes. Using landfill gas reduces the need to use more polluting forms of energy, such as coal and oil. Landfill gas is also the only type of renewable energy that directly reduces pollution to the atmosphere. Since landfill gas occurs naturally, the Atlantic County Utilities Authority is putting to use a fuel that occurs naturally by collecting it and converting it to energy. Landfill gas to energy projects generate electricity more than 90 percent of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill and Wastewater Treatment RNG Chemical and Physical Profiling: Increasing the Database Set DOT Prj# 351 Contract Number: DTPH56-10-T-000006
    FINAL REPORT GTI PROJECT NUMBER 21078 Landfill and Wastewater Treatment RNG Chemical and Physical Profiling: Increasing the Database Set DOT Prj# 351 Contract Number: DTPH56-10-T-000006 Reporting Period: Final Closeout Report Issued (Period Ending): August 15, 2011 Prepared For: Mr. Robert Smith U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Technical Manager Office of Pipeline Safety 919-238-4759 [email protected] Prepared By: GTI Project Team: Karen Crippen, Monica Ferrer, Xiangyang Zhu, Russell Bora, Alan Janos, Katherine Buzecky, Amanda Harmon, Dianne Joves, Jim Soldenwagner Kristine Wiley, Team Project Manager [email protected] 847-768-0910 Gas Technology Institute 1700 S. Mount Prospect Rd. Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 www.gastechnology.org Legal Notice This information was prepared by Gas Technology Institute (“GTI”) for DOT/PHMSA (Contract Number: DTPH56-10-T-000006. Neither GTI, the members of GTI, the Sponsor(s), nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights. Inasmuch as this project is experimental in nature, the technical information, results, or conclusions cannot be predicted. Conclusions and analysis of results by GTI represent GTI's opinion based on inferences from measurements and empirical relationships, which inferences and assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which competent specialists may differ. b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report; any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at the third party's sole risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill, Compost Or Incineration?
    Waste management options to control greenhouse gas emissions – Landfill, compost or incineration? Paper for the ISWA Conference, Portugal, October 2009 by Barbara Hutton, Research student, Master of Sustainable Practice, RMIT University, Ed Horan, Program Director, Master of Sustainable Practice, RMIT University, Melbourne and Mark Norrish, Mathematics, Australian National University, Canberra (Australia) Executive summary Methane (CH4) is predicted to cause as much global warming as carbon dioxide (CO2) over the next 20 years. Traditionally the global warming potential (GWP) of methane has been measured over 100 years. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007) warns that this under- estimates its immediate impact. Viewed over 20 years it has 72 times the GWP of CO2. The current study was prompted by concern about these emissions, and by a recent Government policy study in Melbourne, Australia, which recommended composting of municipal waste. Melbourne has not run out of landfill space, and has best-practice landfills with methane gas extraction. The mass composting of waste would reduce landfill gas, currently used as a fuel. Aim of the study This study uses recent information (2006 IPCC Guidelines) with local data to estimate: - How much greenhouse gas is emitted to the atmosphere from best practice landfill with methane capture pipes? How much can be captured to use as fuel? - Is aerobic composting or incineration better at controlling emissions than landfill with gas capture ? Method A spreadsheet was set up to compare emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide from compost, landfill and incineration, based on IPCC figures. The IPCC model allows for differences in temperature, humidity, dryness and aeration in the landfill, and different types of organic waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management
    10 Waste Management Coordinating Lead Authors: Jean Bogner (USA) Lead Authors: Mohammed Abdelrafie Ahmed (Sudan), Cristobal Diaz (Cuba), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Qingxian Gao (China), Seiji Hashimoto (Japan), Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Tianzhu Zhang (China) Contributing Authors: Luis Diaz (USA), Peter Kjeldsen (Denmark), Suvi Monni (Finland) Review Editors: Robert Gregory (UK), R.T.M. Sutamihardja (Indonesia) This chapter should be cited as: Bogner, J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang, Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Waste Management Chapter 10 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................. 587 10.5 Policies and measures: waste management and climate ....................................................... 607 10.1 Introduction .................................................... 588 10.5.1 Reducing landfill CH4 emissions .......................607 10.2 Status of the waste management sector ..... 591 10.5.2 Incineration and other thermal processes for waste-to-energy ...............................................608 10.2.1 Waste generation ............................................591 10.5.3 Waste minimization, re-use and
    [Show full text]
  • Landfills Are Bad, but Incinerators (With Ash Landfilling) Are Worse
    Landfills are bad, but incinerators (with ash landfilling) are worse Incinerators do not avoid landfills. For every 100 tons of trash burned, 30 tons become toxic ash that goes to landfills. The other 70 tons don’t turn into energy, but become air pollution. In terms of air pollution, and groundwater impacts, burning waste then burying ash is far worse than direct landfilling, and both are worse than a Zero Waste approach.1 A Zero Waste approach means zero incineration and at least 90% reduction from landfilling, with residuals biologically stabilized prior to landfilling, to minimize odors, leachate, gas formation and toxic migration. The most recent data comparing incinerators to landfills is from air emissions data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). For 2017, this includes data on all six trash incinerators in PA and 17 landfills in DEP’s southeast and southcentral regions. Incinerators are __ Pollutant (all data in tons) Incinerators Landfills times as polluting Greenhouse Gases (CO2e) 482,770 268,763 1.8 Total Health Damaging Pollution 1,975 1,236 1.6 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 119 22 5 Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) 17 1 21 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 625 6 105 Particulate Matter, Condensable 25 1 17 Particulate Matter (PM10) 26 17 1.6 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 17 4 5 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 55 3 19 Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) 2,178 2,486 0.88 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 3 9 0.34 This shows that incineration is 80% worse than landfills for the climate, and that other pollutants that directly harm human health are 60% worse from incineration.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilization of Biodegradable Wastes As a Clean Energy Source in the Developing Countries: a Case Study in Myanmar
    energies Article Utilization of Biodegradable Wastes as a Clean Energy Source in the Developing Countries: A Case Study in Myanmar Maw Maw Tun 1,2,* , Dagmar Juchelková 1,* , Helena Raclavská 3 and Veronika Sassmanová 1 1 Department of Power Engineering, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15, 70833 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic; [email protected] 2 Department of Energy Engineering, Czech Technical University, Zikova 1903/4, 166 36 Prague, Czech Republic 3 Centre ENET, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15, 70833 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.M.T.); [email protected] (D.J.); Tel.: +420-773-287-487 (M.M.T.) Received: 12 October 2018; Accepted: 12 November 2018; Published: 16 November 2018 Abstract: Nowadays, waste-to-energy has become a type of renewable energy utilization that can provide environmental and economic benefits in the world. In this paper, we evaluated the quality of twelve biodegradable waste samples from Myanmar by binder laboratory heating and drying oven at 105 ◦C. The calculation methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) were used for the greenhouse gas emission estimation from waste disposal at the open dumpsites, anaerobic digestion, and waste transportation in the current situation of Myanmar. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and fossil fuel consumption of the improved biodegrade waste utilization system were estimated and both were found to be reduced. As a result, volume and weight of the biodegradable wastes with 100% moisture reduction were estimated at approximately 5 million cubic meters per year and 2600 kilotonnes per year, respectively, in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Methane Production by Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater and Solid Wastes
    4 Methane production by anaerobic digestion of wastewater and solid wastes T.Z.D. de Mes, A.J.M. Stams, J.H. Reith and G. Zeeman1 Abstract Anaerobic digestion is an established technology for the treatment of wastes and wastewater. The final product is biogas: a mixture of methane (55-75 vol%) and carbon dioxide (25-45 vol%) that can be used for heating, upgrading to natural gas quality or co-generation of electricity and heat. Digestion installa- tions are technologically simple with low energy and space requirements. Anaerobic treatment systems are divided into 'high-rate' systems involving biomass retention and 'low-rate' systems without biomass retention. High-rate systems are characterised by a relatively short hydraulic retention time but long sludge retention time and can be used to treat many types of wastewater. Low-rate systems are general- ly used to digest slurries and solid wastes and are characterised by a long hydraulic retention time, equal to the sludge retention time. The biogas yield varies with the type and concentration of the feedstock and process conditions. For the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and animal manure biogas yields of 80-200 m3 per tonne and 2-45 m3 per m3 are reported, respectively. Co-digestion is an impor- tant factor for improving reactor efficiency and economic feasibility. In The Netherlands co-digestion is only allowed for a limited range of substrates, due to legislation on the use of digested substrate in agri- culture. Maximising the sale of all usable co-products will improve the economic merits of anaerobic treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill Gas a Reliable, Renewable Energy Source
    LANDFILL GAS A RELIABLE, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE Waste Management has been actively developing landfill gas-to-energy projects for more than 15 years. Once viewed as an environmental concern, landfill gas is now a safe, economical and viable "green power" alternative to other fuels. Landfill gas is produced through the natural breakdown of waste deposited in a landfill. The gas, which would otherwise be wasted, is a readily available, renewable energy source that can be gathered and used directly as medium Btu gas for industrial use or can be sold to gas- to-energy plants to fuel engine generators, which, in turn, generate electricity. Several Waste Management landfills have been recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for innovation in landfill gas recovery. Waste Management currently supplies landfill gas to 69 gas-to-energy projects in 21 states. In all, the gas-to-electricity projects provide more than 185 megawatts of energy, enough to power 160,000 homes. Over the years, Waste Management’s commitment to capturing and using landfill gas has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its landfills by 50 percent. THE BENEFITS OF LANDFILL GAS Primarily as a result of its methane gas recovery projects, it has become one of the largest Landfill gas is a readily available, renewable private holders of greenhouse gas emissions reduction credits in the U.S. energy source that offsets the need for non- As a leading provider of comprehensive waste management services, Waste Management views renewable resources such as coal and oil. landfill gas projects as another step in the environmentally sound management of municipal Landfill gas can be converted and used solid waste.
    [Show full text]
  • The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-To-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It
    C LI E: UB R P WA BE The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs B L I C P U RE: BEWA The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs A report by: Recycling Works! Campaign www.recyclingworkscampaign.org Sierra Club www.sierraclub.org International Brotherhood of Teamsters www.teamster.org Public Beware: The Danger of Corporate Landfill Gas to Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs Introduction The United States is at a turning point, both economically and environmentally, and the policy choices we make in the near future will have a long-term impact on protecting our climate and reviving our economy. While the planet approaches a climate change tipping point, after which severe damages from global warming will be irreversible, millions of Americans are seeking quality employment. Clean energy solutions are available to both of these problems, but corporate landfill owners’ narrow self-interests can stand in the way of the public good and the de - votion of resources to the most effective solutions. While major waste companies promote landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects that purport to capture methane released from landfills and convert it to elec - tricity, a better solution lies in organics recycling. As part of a 21st century re - source recovery infrastructure, organics recycling diverts methane-generating waste from landfills and has the potential to significantly curtail dangerous land - fill methane emissions in the near term and going forward, create quality em - ployment in the organics recycling and clean energy industries—allowing a truly sustainable and renewable source of energy to thrive.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Industrial Profile: Waste Sector
    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
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Solid Waste Characterization and Landfill Gas
    sustainability Article Municipal Solid Waste Characterization and Landfill Gas Generation in Kakia Landfill, Makkah Faisal A. Osra 1,* , Huseyin Kurtulus Ozcan 2, Jaber S. Alzahrani 3 and Mohammad S. Alsoufi 4 1 Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Islamic Architecture, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia 2 Engineering Faculty, Department of Environmental Engineering, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Avcilar, Istanbul 34320, Turkey; [email protected] 3 Industrial Engineering Department, Al-Qunfudhah Engineering College, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 4 Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Islamic Architecture, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia; mssoufi@uqu.edu.sa * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In many countries, open dumping is considered the simplest, cheapest, and most cost- effective way of managing solid wastes. Thus, in underdeveloped economies, Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) are openly dumped. Improper waste disposal causes air, water, and soil pollution, impairing soil permeability and blockage of the drainage system. Solid Waste Management (SWM) can be enhanced by operating a well-engineered site with the capacity to reduce, reuse, and recover MSW. Makkah city is one of the holiest cities in the world. It harbors a dozen of holy places. Millions of people across the globe visit the place every year to perform Hajj, Umrah, and tourism. In the present study, MSW characterization and energy recovery from MSW of Makkah was determined. The average composition of solid waste in Makkah city is organic matter (48%), plastics (25%), paper and cardboard (20%), metals (4%), glass (2%), textiles (1%), and wood (1%).
    [Show full text]