NAWTEC GENERATING AND SELLING CARBON OFFSET CREDITS

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the 20 th Annual North Aerican Waste-to-Energy Conference NAWTEC20 April 23-25, 2012, Portland, Maine, USA NAWTEC GENERATING AND SELLING CARBON OFFSET CREDITS Michael Van Brunt Covanta Energy Corporation Morristown, New Jersey, USA Brigitte Kantor Lee County Solid Waste Division Fort Myers, Florida, USA Nate Johnson Public Utilities Dept., Hillsborough County BOCC Tapa, Florida, USA ABSTRACT New energy fro waste capacity is eligible to generate carbon offsets based on a Clean Developent Mechanis offset ethodology through the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). To date, two facilities in North Aerica have progressed through the carbon offset generation process, successfully validating and verifying their proects in accordance with the standard. The Lee County facility began generating carbon offsets with the 2007 eissions year, and the Hillsborough County facility has verified carbon offsets beginning with the 2009 eissions year. The credits are associated with the avoidance of landfill ethane and displaced grid-connected fossil fuel electricity generation. Due to extensive conservatis on the part of the CDM ethodology, approxiately tons of credits are generated per ton of waste processed, depending on the specific operation generating the offsets. This is in contrast to an overall net lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction of approxiately 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) per ton of waste processed relative to the business as usual practice of landfilling. More realistic ethodologies could generate offset credits at a rate approaching the life cycle benefits. However, even with the current ethodology, the energy fro waste carbon arket could exceed 800 thousand etric tonnes per year, with a value of $1.6 - $3 illion a year, based on current voluntary carbon offset pricing. Keywords: energy-fro-waste, greenhouse gas, ethane, landfill gas, carbon offsets INTRODUCTION Energy-fro-Waste (EfW), also known as waste to energy (WTE), is an internationally recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) itigation, avoiding approxiately one ton of GHG eissions as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) for every ton of unicipal solid waste processed, based on average United States landfills and fossil-based grid electrical generation [1,2]. EfW facilities achieve net GHG eission reductions priarily through four greenhouse gas related processes: 1. Avoidance of landfill ethane eissions fro waste, including factoring-in ethane capture, that would have been landfilled in the absence of the EfW facility; 2. Avoidance of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) eissions fro fossilfuel fired power plants on the local grid resulting fro the EfW facility generating renewable electrical power or stea; 1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

2 3. Avoidance of extraction and anufacturing CO 2 due to ferrous and non-ferrous (aluinu) etal recovery and recycling at EfW facilities relative to the production of these aterials fro virgin inputs; and 4. Avoidance of GHG eissions fro the transportation of MSW to distant landfills. Methane generation fro degradable organic waste can largely be avoided by adopting MSW anageent approaches including EfW [3]. The proxiate one hour EfW cobustion process eliinates 100% of the potential of MSW to generate ethane in a landfill for 100 years or ore. The Intergovernental Panel on Cliate Change (IPCC) has identified MSW cobustion with energy recovery as a key GHG eission itigation technology due to its avoidance of landfill ethane [4]. U.S. Environental Protection Agency and North Carolina State University scientists concluded EfW offered superior GHG reductions relative to landfill gas to energy [5]. The widespread use of EfW, coupled with aggressive recycling progras, has been identified by the European Environental Agency as the driver of significant reductions in GHG eissions fro the waste sector [6, 7]. As a result of their itigation potential, new, and expansions of existing, energy fro waste facilities are eligible to generate carbon offsets based on a Clean Developent Mechanis offset ethodology through the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). To date, two facilities in North Aerica have progressed through the carbon offset generation process, successfully validating and verifying their proects in accordance with the standard. The Lee County facility began generating carbon offsets with the 2007 eissions year, and the Hillsborough County facility has verified carbon offsets beginning with the 2009 eissions year. Buyers in the voluntary arket generally have two obectives in ind: 1) to secure a strea of offsets that can be used in a future andatory cap-and-trade progra, and/or 2) to reduce or entirely offset the organization s carbon footprint. A verified offset can help substantiate an organization s carbon footprint clais, either on a product or corporate level. The first obective, in particular, requires a robust voluntary offsets progra that stands a good chance of being incorporated into a andatory cap-and-trade progra. One of the key players in the voluntary arket is the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). 34% of the voluntary credits generated in 2010 were verified to the VCS (Figure 1) [8]. Proect types, such as EfW, that are eligible for credits under the CDM are also eligible to generate voluntary carbon credits under the VCS if they eet certain additionality tests. Additionality refers to the preise that any proect getting carbon credits ust be soething beyond business as usual practices. Figure 1. Utilization 2% 5% 8% 2% 3% 3% 16% Source: [8] 8% 2010 Voluntary Carbon Market Standard 19% 34% Clockwise,beginningwithlargestsegent VerifiedCarbonStandard(VCS) Cliate,Counity, andbiodiversity(ccb) CliateActionReserve GoldStandard BMVStandard ForestCarbonStandardInternational ChicagoCliateExchange(CCX) AericanCarbonRegistry(ACR) ISO14064 Other Voluntary and regulated offset progras alike have established a series of standards and principles to proote the rigor of their progra. Coon aongst the progras is an adherence to a basic set of principles. Under these principles, offset credits ust be real, easureable, additional, peranent, verifiable, and unique [9-11]. These principles are suarized as follows: Real All of the GHG eissions reductions and reovals ust have actually taken place due to the offset proect and shall be conservatively calculated. Unintended increases of GHG eissions occurring as a result of the proect, tered leakage ust be taken into consideration. Measurable GHG eission reductions ust be quantifiable using appropriate and recognized ethodologies. Reductions shall be calculated against an eissions baseline that quantifies the eissions that would have existed in the absence of the proect. Additional GHG eission reductions achieved by a proect ust be in addition to what would have likely happened under a business as usual scenario under which the proect was not copleted. To varying degrees, ost progras require deonstration that the proect is in itself not business as usual. In the ost extree case, soe progras require that a deonstration that the proect would not have occurred without the onetary benefit of carbon offset revenues. Peranent GHG eission reductions ust not be teporary or reversible within a reasonable tiefrae. If there is a potential for reversal, as exists with forest carbon sequestration which is subect to future fire risk, adequate safeguards ust be in place to ensure that the reductions are replaced or otherwise copensated. Verifiable All GHG eission reductions ust be verified by an external third party. 2 Copyright 2012 by ASME

3 Unique All GHG reductions ust be only be counted once and can only be associated with one offset proect. CREDITING METHODOLOGY EfW facilities generating offsets through the VCS do so through the application of the Clean Developent Mechanis ethodology AM0025 Avoided eissions fro organic waste through alternative waste treatent processes [12]. This ethodology is applicable to a wide variety of landfill ethane avoidance proects, including the incineration of fresh waste for energy generation, electricity, and/or heat. As recognized by the ethodology, EfW facilities actively avoid ethane eissions by diverting organic waste fro disposal at a landfill, where ethane eissions are caused by anaerobic process, and avoid fossil CO 2 eissions by displacing electricity through the utilization of heat generated in the cobustion process. The ethodology recognizes that waste is a ixture of biogenic and fossil-based coponents and requires that eissions fro the cobustion of fossil-based wastes are included as proect eissions. The GHGs covered by the ethodology include dioxide (CO 2 ), ethane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). As with all CDM ethodologies, eissions reductions are calculated as the difference between the GHG eissions of the proect (the proect eissions) and the eissions that would have occurred in the absence of the proect (the baseline eissions). The baseline eissions are generally calculated assuing that the waste would have been handled in a landfill. A suary of the greenhouse gases and eission sources included in the ethodology is presented in Table 1. Table 1. GHG Eissions and Sources in CDM Methodology Source Gases Eissions fro the CH 4 decoposition of waste at the landfill site Eissions fro electricity CO 2 generation On-site fossil fuel cobustion CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O (auxiliary fuel) Eissions fro the cobustion fossil CO 2, CH 4, of waste N 2 O Baseline Proect Activity A critical coponent is the calculation of avoided landfill ethane eissions. These eissions under the baseline scenario are calculated using the ulti-phase first order decay odel fro CDM ethodological tool, Tool to deterine ethane eissions avoided fro disposal of waste as a solid waste disposal site. [13] The CDM ethodological tool norally provides for year by year crediting, however, there does not appear to be an express requireent that the calculation be perfored on a year-by-year basis. The CDM Executive Board has concluded, that for the calculation of avoided ethane eissions fro biogenic waste that would have been disposed in a landfill [14]: (a) Only those eissions in the baseline that would have occurred over the crediting period should be considered in estiating the eissions reduction; and (b) In particular, the first order decay (FOD) odel shall be used in estiating the baseline ethane eissions for proects avoiding eission fro biogenic waste that would have been disposed either in landfills or left to decay in an uncontrolled anner. which would have resulted in ethane eissions. In addition, the VCS specifically allows for ten years of action year crediting in the case of GHG avoidance proects, such as landfill ethane avoidance [10]. Consistent with the VCS policy, the equation below has been odified fro the version in the ethodological tool to account for ten years of avoided landfill ethane at once, instead of a year by year calculation. This revised equation is fundaentally equivalent to the ethodological tool as it relies on the first order decay odel, and it does not allow for estiating the eission reduction beyond the crediting period, consistent with the CDM Executive Board conclusion. 16 BECH 4, SWDS GWPCH 4 1 OX F DOC f MCF 12 y x1 1 f x W DOC e k x1 k 1 e Where: BE CH4,SWDS = Baseline eissions fro the solid waste disposal site (landfill) = Model correction factor to account for odel uncertainties (0.9) GWP CH4 = Global Waring Potential (GWP) of ethane OX = Oxidation factor, reflecting the aount of ethane fro the landfill that is oxidized in the soil or other aterial covering the waste F = Fraction of ethane in landfill gas (volue fraction) DOC f = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decopose MCF = Methane correction factor (1.0 for sanitary anaerobic landfills) W = Aount of waste type prevented fro disposal in the landfill (tonnes) DOC = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type 3 Copyright 2012 by ASME

4 k = First order decay rate for the waste type ( / year) = Waste type category (index) x = Year of crediting period y = Years for which avoided ethane eissions can be credited (10 years) The second coponent of carbon offsets is the displaced grid electricity. The ethodology used attepts to quantify the eissions that would have been generated if the proect were not in place by looking at both the current grid connected generation assets that are ipacted by operation of the proect (i.e. the operating argin) and the prospective next generation asset whose construction and future operation are ipacted by the proect (i.e. the build argin) [15]. For the purposes of the operating argin, the U.S. EPA Eissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (egrid), non-baseload eission factors are used [16]. These factors were specifically designed to estiate the benefits of renewable energy proects and fit the CDM ethodology s requireents well for estiation of the operating argin [17]. The build argin eission factor is calculated by looking backwards at the ost recently constructed electric generating facilities in the grid region as a proxy for what is likely to be constructed in the future. A generation-weighted eissions factor of the ost recent group of power capacity additions in the grid that coprise 20% of the syste electrical generation as deterined using two U.S. Energy Inforation Adinistration (EIA) databases coprises the build argin. The EIA Annual Electric Generator Report (EIA 860) database allows for the identification of those ost recent units, as it contains inforation about individual generators at power plants, including initial date of operation, naeplate capacity, and fuel type. To obtain electrical generation inforation, as needed to ascertain which units coprise the 20% of generation built ost recently, the EIA 923 Power Plant Operations Report database is consulted. However, EIA 923 does not contain electrical generation by individual generator or unit installed at each facility. Therefore, to approxiate the generation per unit, the facility generation is prorated by the naeplate capacity for each unit. EF grid, BM EG, y EF EG EL, Where: EF grid,bm = Build argin CO 2 e eission factor (tco 2 e / MWh) EG = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit (MWh) EF EL, = CO 2 e eission factor of power unit, equivalent to CO 2 e eission factor of plant containing power unit (tco 2 e / MWh) = Power units included in the build argin The CDM ethodology places significant liits on the potential offsets generated by EfW facilities generally in an effort to be conservative. For exaple, only the landfill ethane avoided during the first 10 years of the waste s life in a landfill is credited. The later 90 years worth of avoided ethane is ignored. When cliate ipacts are evaluated on a 100 year basis, as is the coon policy fraework given the universal choice of a 100 year global waring potential, the ipact of a ton of ethane eissions today is the sae as a ton eitted over tie fro a landfill. Figure 2. Coparison of Potential Offset Credits under Current and More Realistic Methodologies Source: [19] ton CO2e / ton MSW VCS Method Realistic Method CO2 fro cobustion Fe and non-fe Recovery Avoided Landfill CH4 (1st 10 Years) Avoided Landfill CH4 (Yrs ) Avoided Grid Elec (Upstrea) Avoided Grid Electricity Net Offset In addition, the ethodology does not consider the GHG benefits generated by the recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous etals for recycling; uses an outdated ethane global waring potential (GWP), and fails to recognize the synergistic effects of ethane in the atosphere that aplify its ipact [18]. This conservatis has in effect, yielded a ethodology that reflects 4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

5 only a inor portion of the itigation afforded by EfW [19]. A recent Science article calls for a change to the calculation of avoided landfill ethane under the CDM to ore accurately reflect the benefits of avoided landfill ethane proects, including EFW [20]. CREDITING PROCESS Generating saleable carbon offset credits for facility is a ulti-step process involving several different parties and a rigorous 3 rd party audit all perfored in line with VCS requireents [21]. Step 1: Proect Description Docuent The first step is the developent of a coprehensive docuent that outlines all aspects of the proect, including a description, details on proect ownership and operation, eission reduction calculation ethodologies, data collection and onitoring procedures and ethods, and expected eission reductions. Step 2: Proect Validation After the proect description is copleted, proect validation can begin. This is the ost critical part of the process, and involves a 3 rd party evaluation by an approved validation / verification body (VVB) to deterine if the proect eets the requireents of the standard, including the six key principles described above. This step ust be copleted within 2 years of the proect becoing operational. Step 3: Monitoring Plan Each year, a onitoring plan is developed to docuent the key variables and the calculation of carbon offsets achieved by the proect. Step 4: Eissions Reduction Verification The verifier reviews the eissions reductions presented in the onitoring plan to ensure that they are calculated correctly, and in accordance with the ethods outlined in the proect description. The auditor will look for aterial isstateents in the eissions reductions, which are defined as being a difference of ore than 5% of the actual reductions achieved. Verification is required for every year of the proect operation. Step 5: Offset Registration Much like a stock exchange, offset credits need to be listed to enable their tracking. In the VCS, offset credits can be registered through one of three registries, NYSE Blue, Markit, or Caisse des Dépôts. Once the eissions reductions are registered, they becoe saleable offsets, tered verified carbon units (VCUs) under the VCS progra. SELLING CREDITS Once the credits are registered, they can be transferred to a buyer. As described earlier, buyers in the voluntary arket are generally looking to itigate their carbon footprint or to develop a source of pre-copliance credits. Those buying for pre-copliance purposes are aking a bet that a future regulatory progra will recognize credits under a voluntary progra, such as VCS, as eligible to eet copliance obligations. This ay or ay not turn out to always be the case. For exaple, credits under the Cliate Action Reserve (CAR) typically earned a preiu over other voluntary progras, out of an assuption that they would be eligible as offset credits under California s cap and trade progra. This, however, did not ultiately turn out to be the case. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) ultiately created its own progra, and has been reviewing the CAR protocols prior to their inclusion in the California progra. Many CAR protocols, including the popular landfill gas protocol, have not been accepted [22]. Transactions with buyers are generally bilateral or over the counter (OTC), in that there is no central exchange for VCUs as exists for stocks. This lack of a central exchange, the relatively sall transaction volue, and the relative scarcity of investors in the arket, lead the voluntary carbon offset arket to be rather illiquid. Exchanges have, and do, exist for soe other fors of carbon offsets, generally for those that are part of andatory progras. For exaple, active arkets exist for the European Union Allowances (EUAs) under the European Union Eission Trading Schee (EU-ETS), Certified Eissions Reductions (CERs) under the Clean Developent Mechanis of the Kyoto Protocol, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allowances, and California Carbon Allowances (CCAs), all of which are associated with andatory progras. The Chicago Cliate Exchange operated a voluntary arket for several years, but this was eliinated at the end of Carbon offset buyers will typically either purchase registered VCUs, or several years of future reductions, tered a strip, under contract. The priary advantages to the seller of a strip of offsets are the establishent of a steady buyer and the itigation of downside arket risk. The corresponding disadvantage is that the seller does not reap any of the benefits of potential future price increases in the carbon arket; however, buyers are typically willing to pay a slight price preiu over today s arket rates to lock in a strip of future carbon reductions. Contracts ay extend for up to a 10 year period. These transactions ay be pre-paid, or require payent on delivery of the VCUs over the life of the contract. Bilateral trades of offsets are generally handled through a broker, who will take a coission on the noinal value of the trade. Brokers are especially helpful in an illiquid arket, such as the voluntary carbon arket, since they often have preexisting relationships with buyers. In addition, they can help 5 Copyright 2012 by ASME

6 asseble a variety of different saller VCU sources so as to eet the purchase needs of the buyer, as needed. In addition to brokers, there are several offset aggregators who can purchase credits directly fro proect owners. These organizations differ fro brokers in that they aintain their own portfolio of offset credits, which they anage with a goal of aking a profit. While these organizations can be a ready and reliable buyer of credits, they are interested in purchasing credits at the lowest price possible. Brokers, on the other hand, are paid based on the notional value of the trade, and are thereby incentivized to seek the highest price possible for the seller. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION Carbon offsets can provide iportant benefits to new energy fro waste proects. In addition to the onetary benefit, carbon offsets can provide iportant third party recognition of the GHG itigation value of EfW. In developing carbon offsets for EfW, a potential proect proponent should be aware of several key issues: ownership of the environental benefits associated with the electrical generation, additionality requireents, and proect age requireents. Ownership of the environental benefits attributable to the power generated by the facility can ake the difference between generating carbon offsets or not. Given the extree conservatis in the calculation of avoided landfill ethane in existing ethodologies, the displaced grid electricity is a key coponent of developing credits for energy fro waste proects. However, any power purchase agreeents contain clauses which can prevent the proect developer fro including the displaced grid electricity in the offset calculation. For exaple, selling renewable energy credits or certificates (RECs), or even the rights to RECs, can prevent counting the carbon benefits of exported electricity. In the case of the transfer of REC rights, the proect developer ay still be able to count the GHG benefit if the power purchaser does not exercise its rights to the RECs. In addition, the proect proponent ay need to seek perission fro the power purchaser in those cases where the power purchaser is given the right of first refusal to RECs potentially developed by the proect. Deonstration of additionality is a key barrier that should be addressed as soon as possible in the offset proect developent process. Under the CDM ethodology, the proect proponent ust deonstrate that carbon offsets help overcoe one or ore barriers to developent. This is done through a barriers analysis that assesses investent barriers, technical barriers, and coon practice. For EfW proects, the additionality requireent can be et by deonstrating that EfW is not the lowest cost option for the anageent of postrecycled waste [10]. The siplest approach is to assess tip fees charged at the EfW facility and available landfills. However, tip fees ay not be the best indicator of the actual costs, particularly if tip fees have been equalized across a urisdiction regardless if the waste is sent to a landfill or the energy fro waste facility. In this instance, the financial additionality will need to review the actual operating and annualized capital costs of both landfilling and EfW. It is iportant to consider that the operating costs of the landfill ay be artificially high with the aority of tonnage destined for the EfW facility, in which case the financial analysis should consider the price of waste anageent at the landfill if the EfW facility, or its expansion, were not in place. Tiing is also a critical factor. As referenced earlier, validation of a carbon offset proect ust be copleted within 2 years of the proect start-up date, otherwise the proect is ineligible under the VCS progra. Other voluntary progras have siilar requireents. In addition, carbon offset buyers often value quick response ties, which can be difficult to achieve within governent procureent processes. In ters of broker arrangeents to sell credits, contracts can be arranged to take the broker s coission out of the proceeds of the credit sale, prior to the payent to the local authority. However, the broker itself ay still be subect to procureent processes. The biggest hurdle to ore widespread developent of carbon offset proects fro EfW is the proect tiefrae established by VCS and other standards. In order to be eligible to generate carbon offsets, proect validation ust be copleted within two years of the proect start-up date. In effect, this liits the potential only to new expansion proects. Because of this liit, only newly installed capacity, such as the Olstead County expansion; capacity under construction, such as the Durha York and H-Power proects; or proposed proects, including the West Pal Beach, Baltiore, and Frederick / Carroll County proects are potentially eligible. Despite this liitation, the EfW segent could reach approxiately 800,000 etric tonnes CO 2 e per year, with a value of $1.6 - $3 illion a year, based on current voluntary carbon offset pricing. REFERENCES [1] B. Bahor, M. Van Brunt, K. Weitz, A. Szurgot, Life Cycle Assessent of Waste Manageent Greenhouse Gas Eissions Using Municipal Waste Cobustor Data J. Envir. Engrg. 136:8, [2] U.S. EPA, Air Eissions fro MSW Cobustion Facilities Webpage ht#7, accessed 12/2/ Copyright 2012 by ASME

7 [3] IPCC. Cliate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessent Report of the Intergovernental Panel on Cliate Change. wg3-chapter10.pdf [4] IPCC, Cliate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessent Report of the Intergovernental Panel on Cliate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. [5] Kaplan, Ozge P., et al., Is it Better to Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?, Environ. Sci. Technol., (2009). [6] European Environent Agency, 2009, Greenhouse gas eission trends and proections in Europe 2009: Tracking progress towards Kyoto targets, Copenhagen. [7] European Environental Agency, 2008, Better anageent of unicipal waste will reduce greenhouse gas eissions, Copenhagen. fing_ pdf [8] Peters-Stanley, M., K. Hailton, T. Marcello, and M. Sardin, Back to the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Ecosyste Marketplace and Blooberg New Energy Finance, New York and Washington, D.C. [9] Cliate Action Reserve, 2009, Progra Manual, February 23, 2009 [10] VCS Association, 2011, VCS Standard, Version 3.1 Requireents Docuent, Washington, D.C. [14] United Nations Fraework Convention on Cliate Change. Executive Board of the Clean Developent Mechanis, 23 rd Meeting. Report. February 24, [15] CDM (Clean Developent Mechanis) Executive Board, Methodological tool: Tool to calculate the eission factor for an electricity syste, Version 2 [16] U.S. EPA (2011) The Eissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2010, Version 1.1 Year 2007 Suary Tables, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. [17] U.S. EPA (2010) The Eissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2010 (egrid 2010) Technical Support Docuent, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. [18] Shindell, Drew T., Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch, Gavin A. Schidt, Madine Unger, Susanne E. Bauer, Iproved Attribution of Cliate Forcing to Eissions, Science, 326, [19] Van Brunt, M., B. Bahor, 2010, Potential for Energy-Fro- Waste Carbon Offsets in North Aerica, Proceedings of the 18 th Annual North Aerican Waste-to-Energy Conference. [20] Weaver, A. J., Toward the Second Coitent Period of the Kyoto Protocol, Science, 332, (13 May 2011). [21] VCS Association, 2011, VCS Progra Guide, Version 3.1, Washington, D.C. [22] California Air Resources Board, 2011, California Cap and Greenhouse Gas Eissions and Market-Based Copliance Mechaniss, California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 10 Cliate Change, Article 5, Sections to 96023, Title 17. [11] World Business Council for Sustainable Developent and World Resources Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2005, The GHG Protocol for Proect Accounting, Switzerland & Washington. [12] CDM (Clean Developent Mechanis) Executive Board, 2010, Approved Baseline and Monitoring Methodology AM0025 Avoided Eissions fro Organic Waste Through Alternative Waste Treatent Processes, Version 12. [13] CDM (Clean Developent Mechanis) Executive Board, Methodological tool: Tool to deterine ethane eissions avoided fro disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site, Version 5. 7 Copyright 2012 by ASME