The MSW Webinar Series Part II: Overview and Practical Implementation of Organics Waste Treatment Options
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISWA Main Sponsors: Welcome to the MSW Webinar Series Part II: Overview and Practical implementation of Organics Waste Treatment Options THE WEBINAR WILL START AT 10:00 CET PLEASE MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE AND KEEP YOUR WEBCAM SWITCHED OFF ISWA Main Sponsors: MSW Webinar Series Part II: Overview and Practical implementation of Organics Waste Treatment Options Mitigating SLCPs from the Municipal Waste Sector http://waste.ccac-knowledge.net/ Presenters •ARS ambiente srl •Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona •CIC – Italian Composting Michele Gemma Association Giavini Nohales Marco Ricci •ISWA •CIC – Italian Composting Association 3 CASE STUDIES: EUROPE 4 Current status of biowaste management in Europe Map focusing on food waste only Source: European Compost Network, updated by authors 5 Collection schemes The South-European ISSO (Intensive Source Separation of Organics) scheme is outperforming compared to the Central-European scheme in terms of food waste captures, also in metropolitan areas BIOTONNE scheme ISSO scheme 6 Italy: High captures with ISSO • The Italian intensive source separation of organics (ISSO): maximisation of foodwaste capture rate through intensive dedicated kerbside collection •High Food Waste amount sent to composting and AD •Low amount left in the residual • Central Europe: lower capture rates, collection of co-mingled food and garden waste, home composting for small municipalities. •Low Food Waste amount sent to composting and AD (mainly green waste) •High amount of Food Waste left in the residual THE CATALAN CASE STUDY: BARCELONA 8 Barcelona Collection scheme in Barcelona is a bring scheme based mainly on road containers (but also pneumatic, subterranean containers, etc.). At the end of 2009 a new collection service contract started and the biowaste collection service was expanded to all the population. The biowaste container allow residents to deliver commingled food and green wastes, and residents are advised to use biodegradable and compostable bags to collect their kitchen waste. Because of the urban context, most of the dwellings served by this scheme are the flats from multi-family buildings. There is a door-to-door specific service for big/singular producers. Population 1,620,943 (city limits) Density 15,991/km2 9 Citizens Big/singular producer Road container 34% inhabitants 33% impurities Door-to-door collection for big 4.164 bicompartimented+82 other generators and commercial axis types Capacity 2.718 m3 (since 2001) (since 2001-2004) 1st Nov 2009 to 28th Feb 2010 Road container 100% inhabitants Door-to-door collection for big generators and commercial axis 17% impurities + new service for important 5.401containers Capacity 9.722 m3. producer like restaurants, fruit stores Frequency daily 2009 Selective collection 34% (73.793 t:41% HH/59% BP) June 2010 Selective collection 43% 10 11 Impurities control and improvement Impurities average 17.6%; 5 districts < 15%; 4 districts>20-30% •Plan for improvement testing to reduce impurities: •Container location in relation to the other 4. •Location of the group of containers. •Type of cover, reduce the cover using a sized hole for bags •Inspection for big/singular producers collection •Characterizations for all circuits each 3 month (provided by ARC) •Incidences with the quality of biowaste in: subterranean containers and pneumatic collection schemes (particular zones of Barcelona) •Destination of the Biowaste: Ecoparcs (AD/Composting with pre- treatment) 12 INFORMATION POINTS to provide citizens with the vented caddy, compostable bags, magnet, receipt book, instructions for the separation at homes and delivery INFORMATION CAMPAIGN on the communication means: radio, newspaper, TV, etc. Specific actions for schools 13 1) Milan and the Italian scheme 2) A district managent experience BEST-PRACTISE CASES IN MIDDLE AND HIGH-DENSITY AREAS 15 Milan Metropolitan Area: intensive food waste collection . Video: link . Municipality of Milan Collection done mainly with non- compacting vehicles Transport to AD/composting plant done with packer-trucks Collection of foodwaste done 2/week Most HH live in flats and high-rise building Restaurants, canteens, etc served 4-6times/week . Municipality of Milan . Weekly captures of foodwaste 1.7 kg/capita.week = 90 kg/capita.year . Results: effectiveness and food waste diversion from residual waste FW from households FW from Ho.Re.C inside residual waste . Results: food waste quality Less than 5% contamination (non compostable materials) Quality is lasting over time 10,0% 9,0% 8,0% 7,0% 6,0% Downtown 5,0% Outer area 4,0% Popular dwellings 3,0% Average 2,0% % Non% compostable materials 1,0% 0,0% after 1 month from after 8 months from after 14 months AVERAGE the beginning the beginning from the beginning 23 PD1 District: semi-detached houses and small urban centers . PD1 District Geo-data: – 237.315 inhab – 28 municipalities – Semidetached situation with some larger towns up to 20.000 inhab – 435 inhab/km2 Key-Data about waste collection: – DtD collection of residual W (bags) 1/week (mixed MSW collected 3/week) FW (buckets and wheelyb.) 2/week GW at municipal collection centers and DtD on demand – Home-composting at 32% of hh – Since 1996 door-to door collection of foodwaste and other recyclabels . PD1- District Collection of foodwaste done with non- compacting vehicles Transport to AD/composting plant done with packer-trucks Collection of foodwaste 2/week Collection of gardenwaste 1/week in summer only Most HH live in HH with gardens Restaurants, canteens, etc served 2 to 3 times/week . PD1- District . Results Road cont. Collection in Vigonza municipality collection (start-up) DtD MSW disposed collection (start-up) MSW sep. collection . PD1 District: Separate collection (as % o total MSW) PD 1 District: switching from road containers to DtD collection Non-compostables in Foodwaste Public awareness campaign on sep. collection of foodwaste 33 CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 34 General data Population: 825,000 & 1.3 million daytime Multilingual and multicultural: 40% don’t speak English at home Variable rates charged for garbage collection via City rate approval process 123 kg/capita of food waste 35 90% diversion 36 The Fantastic Three 37 Outreach www.SFEnvironment.org 38 Captures Total green bin 185 kg/capita.year –Food waste 123 kg/ca.y –Other is green waste and compostable packaging / fiber 80% diversion from landfill in 2010, including Construction and demolition waste Zero Waste target by 2020 Source: Jack Macy, personal communication to M. Giavini 39 QUESTION TIME 40 INSIGHT: CENTRALIZED VS. DECENTRALIZED COMPOSTING 41 Centralised vs. decentralised Centralised composting – Large scale: range 50 – 300 tonnes/day and more – Far from city dwellings, in low income countries usually close to the landfill Decentralised composting – Small scale: range 1-10 tonnes/day – Around 1,000 sq.m each – Inside urban areas - Examples: Surabaya, Dhaka – Borders of the urbans areas (Mexico) – In rural areas (e.g. the Austrian model, or SCOW Catalan model) More information on decentralized: urban in low income, Austrian, SCOW Decentralized vs. Centralized Could Could not The integrated solid waste management project at Guwahati, work… work… India, has been allotted 160,536 The decentralized sq. m of land for processing 300 approach can be a quick short term solution for MT of waste. transitional megacities The ‘Not in My Backyard If the same quantity of waste could help in changing Syndrome’ may hinder were to be processed by setting the mindset of people the provision of so many towards waste locations for waste up 150 decentralized facilities management, and management systems. (1,000 sq.m each, with a 2 MT engender a move away from the “Not in capacity), 150,000 sq. m of land my backyard” (NIMBY) would be required. mindset to embrace a more responsible and It needs high political sustainable solution of willingness and support waste management Source: PPP in MSWM. Link. Additional information: EAWAG, link and link Decentralised: feasibility Research approach for determining indicators of feasibility of decentralised composting Source: CWG – WASH workshop, link Decentralized urban composting in lower income countries: key factors Land price population density Compost value Informal sector involvement Competition with other uses: feeding animals, heating demand (especially green wastes). Legal requirements for facilities 45 Two key factors: compost value, land price See also Webinar part 1 Dhaka: difference in total costs, decentralized vs. centralized +$30 -30 $/t (decentralized +$20 compost: free, centralized: 30$/t) +$10 0 $/t (both decentr. And centr. @30 $/t) +$0 -$10 +30 $/t (decentr: 60, centr: 30) -$20 US$ per tonne)perUS$ +60 $/t (decentr: 90, -$30 centr: 30) Difference decentralized vs. -$40 centralized (collection+treatment, 100 300 500 700 Land price ($/sqm) M. Giavini, personal calculations and elaborations on Waste Concern data. To be further improved soon. Key factor: land price Real estate markets are highly cyclical. The demand for land, and the price of land parcels, fluctuates violently, even in urban areas experiencing strong, long-term growth. Land price can increase before GDP per capita raises, hampering decentralized solutions before more technological centralized options become affordable 1 USD = 6,25 CNY •2000: 100-150 USD/sqm •2008: 200-2500 USD/sqm Land price Source: link (year 2008) Key factor: compost value Explore all possibility of increased compost market value – Small