2010
Brazil Low Carbon Case Study
Technical Synthesis Report
WASTE
Coordination: João Wagner Silva Alves, CETESB Christophe de Gouvello, The World Bank
Technical Team: João Wagner Silva Alves, Bruna Patrícia de Oliveira, George Henrique C. Magalhães Cunha. Tathyana Leite Cunha Alves, Francisco do Espírito Santo Filho, CETESB. Marcos Eduardo Gomes Cunha, Eduardo Toshio, Ciclo Ambiental Engenharia Ltda. THE WORLD BANK
Brazil Low Carbon Eduardo Toshio, Ciclo Ambiental Engenharia Ltda. Technical Synthesis Report Francisco do Espírito Santo Filho, CETESB. Christophe de Gouvello, The World Bank George Henrique C. Magalhães Cunha. WASTE João Wagner Silva Alves, CETESB Marcos Eduardo Gomes Cunha, Case Study Tathyana Leite Cunha Alves, Bruna Patrícia de Oliveira, João Wagner Silva Alves, Technical Team: 2010 Coordination:
Synthesis Report | WASTE 4 Synthesis Report | WASTE change work, please visit us at www.esmap.org or write to us at: poverty reduction and economic growth. increase know how and institutional capacity to achieve environmentally sustainable energy solutions assistance for program administered by the World Bank that assists low- and middle-income countries to email: [email protected] of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet:www.copyright.com information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and work will without normally permission grantmay be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance other of information such shown boundaries. on any map in this work do not imply responsibility any whatsoeverjudgment on for the any part consequence of of The their Worlduse. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and reflect the views of the Executive Directors The of WorldThe WorldBank. Bank The or findings,the interpretations,governments theyand represent.conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily For more information on the Low Carbon Growth Country Studies Program or about ESMAP’s climate The Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) is a global knowledge and technical All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office For permissions to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this Rights and Permissions The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work and accepts no This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction andAll Developmentrights reserved / Email: [email protected] Internet:www.worldbank.org Telephone: 202-473-1000 Washington DC 20433 1818 H Street, NW © 2010 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank web: www.esmap.org email:[email protected] Washington, DC 20433 USA 1818 H Street, NW The World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program . Sewage 4. 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. 3. .. Reference 4.2. 4.1. 3.4. 3.1. 3.3. 3.2. Executive summary Introduction Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 4.1.3. 4.1.2. 4.2.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.4. 4.2.3. 4.1.1. 3.4.4. 3.4.3. 3.2.7.Other Technologies and Events- 3.3.4. 3.3.3. 3.4.2. 3.4.1. 3.2.5. 3.2.4. 3.2.6. 3.2.8. 3.3.2. 3.3.1. 3.2.3. 3.1.2. 3.1.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.1. Treatment modes - Low Carbon Scenario - solid waste- Treatment methods- Other mitigation - options Reference scenario - solid waste- and Anaerobic reactors Anaerobic digesters Industrial effluents- Domestic sewage- Estimate of GHG emissions from sewage and effluent treatment Calculation Methods Anaerobic lagoons Barriers and proposed solutions- Results- Other benefits Biogas collection and burning- Consolidation Low Carbon Scenario for the MSW sector Estimate of GHG emissions from incineration- Estimated GHG emissions from landfill disposal- Results- Uncertainties (MSW)- Composting Reducing waste generation at source- Composting Incineration- Sanitary - landfills Calculation methods Municipal Solid Waste- effluent ------Scenario ------treatment------sewage ------and ------effluent ------treatment------55 13 18 19 58 55 46 42 19 24 60 57 56 56 58 59 59 52 50 47 37 43 43 47 44 33 34 36 37 41 42 32 22 20 24 5 Synthesis Report | WASTE 6 Synthesis Report | WASTE 5. 8. 6. 7. .. Costs 5.3. 5.2. 5.1. 7.3. 5.4. 7.4. .. CDM 7.2. 5.5. 4.3. 7.1. Low 4.4. Consolidation of Low Carbon Scenario Bibliography- Conclusion- Annexes- 5.3.1. 5.1.1. 5.3.3. 5.3.2. 4.4.4. 7.1.8. 7.1.7.Curitiba 5.4.2. 5.4.1. 7.1.4. 7.1.3. 4.3.1. 7.1.5. 4.4.3. 4.4.2. 4.4.1. 7.1.6. 7.1.2. 7.1.1. 4.2.6. 4.2.5. Economic analysis- Synthesis of Low Carbon Scenario Government programs, plans and actions in the waste sector Marginal abatement costs and Break Even Carbon Price - Brazilian regulatory framework for the waste sector (in force in 2009) Financing requirements Mitigation options Metropolitan regions ------Solid waste - Results according to states Domestic sewage and industrial effluent- Incineration- Barriers and proposed solutions- Porto Alegre- Break Even Carbon Price Marginal abatement cost- Belo Horizonte- Recife- Other benefits Rio de Janeiro- Consolidation Low Carbon Scenario for Industrial Effluents- Low Carbon Scenario for domestic sewage- São Paulo Fortaleza- Salvador Uncertainties related to the estimates for the domestic sewage sector Results- Carbon ------projects and ------benefits------Scenario ------in ------the ------waste ------sewage ------and ------effluents and ------effluent sector ------treatment------in Brazil ------112 110 105 72 90 88 72 74 76 94 86 82 63 65 90 73 79 77 80 71 68 93 93 92 85 83 91 90 62 91 64 67 65 92 90 61 Equation 1 -Variation of L LIST OF EQUATIONS Equation 2 - CH4 emission by First Order Decay Method (FOD) – Tier 2- Equation 3 - Normalization factor for the sum- Equation 5 - Potential generation of CH4 Equation 4 - Quantity of waste buried Equation 7 - Fraction of decomposable DOC Equation 6 - Degradable organic carbon- Equation 13 - Estimate of emission factor for sewage and effluents- Equation 12 - Estimate of total organic sewage and effluent- Equation 11 - Estimate of total organic sewage and effluent- Equation 10 - Estimate of CH4 emissions from anaerobic treatment of sewage and effluents- Equation 9 - Estimate of N2O from solid waste incineration- Equation 8 - Estimate of CO2 emissions from solid waste incineration- Table 3 - IPCC (2000) default data for Methane Correction Factor (MCF) large geographic regions and estimated median L0 for whole country- Table 2 - Variation of L0 from 1970 to 2005 in Brazil’s Table 1 - Reference Scenario: Emissions resulting from treatment of effluents- LIST OF TABLES Equation 14 - Weighted mean of MCF Table 4 - Scenario versus technology or event- Table 7 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to sanitary landfills Table 6 - Low Carbon Scenario: Avoided MSW emissions Table 5 - Estimate uncertainties in the MSW sector Table 9 - Reference Scenario: Emissions due to sewage treatment Table 8 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to incineration- Table 10 - Estimate uncertainties in the domestic sewage sector Table 11 - Estimate uncertainties in the industrial effluent sector Table 12 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to effluent treatment Table 14 - Low Carbon Scenario: Emissions from waste, sewage and effluent treatment (by State)- Table 13 - Low Carbon Scenario: Total emissions from waste, sewage and effluent treatment mitigating emissions of CH4 in sanitary landfills in Brazil (2005) Table 16 - Investment costs related to systems for Table 15 - Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) -Sanitation (2007) Table 17 - Per capita cost (US$) of installing sanitary landfills (at 2030 adjusted prices) Table 19 - Per capita costs (US$) of installing incinerators in Brazil (at 2030 adjusted prices) Table 18 - Investment costs related to MSW incineration systems (2008) Table 20 - Cost of installing sewage treatment o from 1970 to 2005 ------30 34 35 35 35 35 60 60 36 36 36 60 61 30 25 61 31 52 42 38 53 52 62 62 62 71 72 73 75 78 80 78 80 81 7 Synthesis Report | WASTE 8 Synthesis Report | WASTE Figure 5 - Main components of a biogas collection system- Figure 8 - Precipiation levels in Brazil Figure 7 - Scenario 1-A: Reference Scenario for the MSW sector Figure 6 - Example of a fluidized bed incinerator Figure 4 - Greenhouse gases produced by the treatment and disposal of solid waste- Figure 3 - Low Carbon Scenario: total emissions from waste, sewage and effluents treatment Figure 2 - Population growth according to PNE (National Energy Plan) 2030 Price and scale of investment for 2030 Low Carbon Scenario Table 24 - Marginal abatement costs, Break Even Carbon Table 23 - Current abatement costs: 2030 Low Carbon Scenario Table 22 - Costs of installing sewage treatment (at 2030 adjusted prices) Table 21 - Investment costs of mitigating CH4 emissions in ETEs in 2008 Figure 11 Waste Production by municipality (quantity of trash in 2010, 100 tons) Figure 10 - Total population growth according to the PNE 2030 Figure 9 - Total Population Growth in Brazil 1950-2050 Figure 13 - Potential generation of CH4 – Lo Figure 12 - Waste generation- 2030 scenario for GHG emissions in the waste, sewage and effluents sectors Figure 1 - General strategy employed in elaborating the LIST OF FIGURES Table 30 - Federal level legal rulings applicable to the waste sector Table 29 - Government programs, plans and actions in the waste sector Table 28 - CDM rural waste projects- Table 27 - CDM liquid effluents projects- Table 26 - CDM composting projects- Table 25 - CDM sanitary landfill projects- Figure 14 - Fraction of fossil carbon in waste- Figure 15 - Operating standardes of landfills in Brazil from 19790-2030 2030 scenario for GHG emissions caused by waste treatment Figure 16 - General strategy employed in elaborating the Figure 20 - Scenario 5-A: Reduction by 20 percent of quantity of waste delivered to solid landfills waste in municipalities with populations of over 3 milliion inhabitants Figure 19 - Scenario 4A: Incineration of 100 percent of Figure 18 - Scenario 2-A: 20 percent increase of waste mass arriving at landfill Figure 17 - Scenario 3-A CH4 burning at 75 percent collection efficiency in landfill in landfills in municipalities with population between 100,000 and 3,000,000 - produced in municipalities with over 3 million inhabitants; CH4 burning Figure 21 - Scenario 6-A: Incineration of 100 percent of waste ------3 ------105 110 19 21 14 16 15 82 82 25 23 84 27 27 26 28 29 98 98 97 95 85 30 31 32 32 40 39 37 40 41 Figure 22 - Example of passive drainage well Figure 44 - Scenario 3-C: Burning CH4 generated by treatment of industrial effluents 2010-2030 collected and treated anaerobically without burning CH4. Figure 43 - Scenario 2-C: 50 percent of domestic sewage generated in some of the domestic sewage treatment systems from 2010-2030 Figure 42 - Scenario 3-B: collection and burning of biogas Figure 37 - Scenario 1-C or Reference Scenario for Industrial Effluents- Figure 36 - Scenario 1-B or Reference Scenario for Domestic Sewage- Figure 35 - Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB)- Figure 34 - Sources of sewage and effluents, treatment systems and potential CH4 emissions Figure 33 - Sources of GHG emissions caused by effluent treatment Figure 32: Emissions from Waste, Mt CO2e, by Municipality – Low Carbon 2030 Figure 31: Emission from Waste Mt CO2e, by Municipality – Reference Scenario 2030 Figure 30 - Low Carbon Scenario 2010-2030 Figure 29 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage distribution of MSW treatment services Figure 28 - Reference Scenario: Percentage distribution of MSW treatment services Figure 27 - Low Carbon Scenario: MSW services provision Figure 26 - Reference Scenario: MSW services provision Figure 25 - Scenario 3-A: CH4 burned with 75 percent collection efficiency in landfills Figure 24 - Example of a forced exhaustion system (equipment)- Figure 23 - Example of a forced exhaustion drainage well system - Figure 45 - Low Carbon Scenario: Domestic sewage treatment systems- Scenario regarding GHG emissions caused by effluent treatment Figure 38 - General strategy for elaborating the 2030 Figure 40 - Anaerobic lagoon with biogas collection- Figure 39 - Reference Scenario for Domestic and Industrial Effluent Emissions collected and treated anaerobically without burning CH Figure 41 - Scenario 2-B: 50 percent of domestic sewage Figure 46 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage distribution of domestic sewage treatment systems- Figure 47 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage distribution of industrial effluent treatment systems Figure 49 - Low Carbon Scenario: Total emissions from treatment of waste, sewage and effluents- Figure 48 - Low Carbon Scenario: treatment of sewage and effluents- Figure 54 - Scale of Investment - Figure 53 - Break Even Carbon Prices Figure 52 - Marginal Abatement Costs Figure 51 - Cost of landfill impelementation (R$/inhabitant) in the state of Minas Gerais- Figure 50: Total Emissions (MT CO2e) from Solid Waste, and Sewage and Effluents------4 ------67 66 66 56 49 57 55 51 51 50 49 44 43 47 58 50 48 44 68 59 61 59 63 68 69 70 70 74 87 77 72 86 84 9 Synthesis Report | WASTE 10 Synthesis Report | WASTE UNFCCC -United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change tCO2e -Ton ofCO2 equivalent SSE -Secretaria EstadualdeSaneamento eEnergia (State SanitationandEnergy Secretariat) SNIS -Sistema NacionaldeInformações deSaneamento (NationalSanitation Information System) retariat) EnvironmentPauloStateSec- Paulo(São São de Ambiente Meio do Estadual Secretaria - SMA MSW -MunicipalSolidWaste PROSAB - PPA -Plano Plurianual(Multi-Year Plan) UNDP -United NationsDevelopment Program PNSB -Pesquisa NacionaldeSaneamento Básico(NationalBasicSanitation Survey) PNMC -PlanoNacionaldeMudançadoClima(NationalClimate ChangePlan) Program) PMSS - Programa de Modernização do Setor de Saneamento (Sanitation Sector Modernization PNE -PlanoNacionaldeEnergia (NationalEnergy Plan) PLANSAB - PDD -Project DesignDocument PAC -Programa deAceleração doCrescimento (Growth Acceleration Program) MMA -Ministério doMeioAmbiente (Environment Ministry) MCT -Ministério daCiênciaeTecnologia (MinistryofScienceandTechnology) MCIDADES -Ministério dasCidades(MinistryofCities) IPCC -Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change INMET - isterial deMudança GlobaldoClima) ICGCC - Brazilian Interministerial Commission on Global Climate Change (Comissão Intermin IBGE -Instituto Brasileiro deGeografia eEstatística(Brazilian Geography andStatisticsInstitute) GHG -Greenhouse Gases FOD -FirstOrder Decay EPA -Environment Protection Agency(US) EFDB - Emission Factor Database (IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ) BOD -BiochemicalOxygen Demand CDM -CleanDevelopment Mechanism Technology Company) CETESB zilian AssociationofPublicCleansingandSpecialWaste Companies) ABRELPE Acronyms - Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental (Environmental Sanitation (Environmental Ambiental Saneamento de Tecnologia de Companhia - - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais (BraResíduosEspeciais - e Pública Limpeza de BrasileiraEmpresas Associação de - Programa dePesquisas emSaneamento Básico(BasicSanitationResearch Program) Programa NacionaldeSaneamento Básico(NationalBasicSanitationProgram) Instituto NacionaldeMeteorologia (NationalMeteorological Institute) - 11 Synthesis Report | WASTE 12 Synthesis Report | WASTE Pacheco, Sebastien Pascual andMegan Hansen. Fernanda Azeredo, de Lopes Mauro Kossoy,Chaves,Alexandre Flavio Francisco Bosquet, Benoit Pinto, Sucre, Rogerio Farinelli, Barbara Jucá, Augusto Hassan, Fowzia Moreira, Adriana Batmanian, Garo Lundell, Mark Procee,Paul Timilsina, Govinda Chang, MeihuyJennifer vello, The World Bank supervision team of the whole Low Carbon Study included Christophe de Gou - and Eduardo Toshio, CicloAmbientalEngenhariaLtda. ma Aparecida Carrara, Rosimeire S. Magalhães Molina, CETESB, Marcos Eduardo Gomes Cunha VanuzziniTicianelli JosileneAlves, CunhaFerrer,Filho, Leite SantoFrancisco Espírito do Fáti - Wagner Silva Alves, Bruna Patrícia de Oliveira, George Henrique C. Magalhães João Cunha, Tathyanaof composed and Bank, World the Gouvello, de Christophe and CETESB Alves,Silva ner WagJoão Wastecoordinatedby- team on Treatment reporta preparedsynthesis wasby This sistance Program (ESMAP). As- Management Sector Energy Bank World the from support through and activities change through funds made available from the Sustainable Development Network for regional climate WorldBank the by supported was study This areas. main four the for reports synthesis four liquid urban waste. The present document is supported by more than 15 technical reports and energy production and use, particularly electricity, oil and gas and bio-fuels; and (iv) solid and (iii) systems; transport (ii) deforestation; including (LULUCF),forestry and change, land-use the Gouvello, de Christophe World byBank and covers lead four key team areas with large a potential for low-carbonby options: (i) prepared land use, was Study Carbon Low Brazil The COPPE, UFMG,UNICAMPandUSP. research centers participated or were consulted including EMBRAPA, INT, EPE, CETESB, INPE, and agencies public Trade.Several and Energy,Industry Development,and Mines Transport, Agriculture, Planning Finance, of representativesMinistries with of consult to organized also were seminars Several and Technology. Science and Environment Affairs, Foreign of istries Min- workthe the waswith of preparedscope the on discussions followingand consultations It excellences. of centers and efforts incremental for need the identify to availableliterature copious the surveyed and process consultative broad a undertook team study the effect this to and knowledgeavailable best the on builds study The development. term long promoting while gases greenhouse of emissions global and national reducing towards effort integrated Brazil’s support to initiative Low its in Brazil Bank World the study,the by broader undertaken a was whichStudy, of Carbon sector waste the for findings the synthesis report This Acknowledgments 1. burning CH of anaerobic treatment systems (anaerobic digestion) endowed with devices for capturing and described in the sewage and effluents sector Reference Scenario, together with the installment conditions present the of maintenance The sectors. effluents industrial and sewage domestic assess the impact of the individual technologies on greenhouse gas generation. technologiesfor reducing areemissions GHG orderin detail in discussed to readers enable to the considerations, Scenario Carbon Low to addition In produced. emissions the of estimates reduction of the amount of waste liable for disposal in landfills, are also discussed, together Lowthe Carbon waste solid Scenarioofthe sector. with technologies, Other suchasincineration or and the domestic sewage and industrial effluents sectors is illustrated in Figure 1. A series of of series A 1. Figure in illustrated is sectors effluents industrial and sewage domestic the and seventh sections contain bibliographical references and annexes respectively. sectors. effluents industrial and sewage domestic and waste solid the in Scenario Carbon Low the of implementation the of aspects examines Breakand Eventhe financial other and Price Carbon analysis cost economic an contains also section This key results. the and posited, hypotheses sewage and industrial effluents) are listed in domestic Sections waste, solid 2 (for practices and management 3. waste carbon low with associated benefits oxygen. The remaining technologies for of reducing absence of GHG basis emissions the on work are which considered processes separately.other or digestion The blanket sludge reactors, sector. Anaerobic digestion can be deployed with the use of anaerobic lagoons, anaerobic upflow Reference Scenario, with the addition of the capture and burning of landfill CH employed in the different scenarios. The maintenance of the existingScenario conditionsfor in2030 thefor solidthe waste solid waste sector, possible ways of mitigating GHG, and the technologies technical team. CETESB the by coordinated forum discussion online the to contribution valuable a make continues to and data relevant providing with assists network The established. was Inventory Network permanent a Report, Reference CETESB the of preparation the During required. if published be can and viewing public for available is information The exercise. this during 2030 scenario. The CETESB website (www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/biogas) contains key data obtained Brazil’s waste sector between 1990 and 2005 of emissions gas greenhouse on ReferenceReport the for assembled material the of some for de Saneamento Ambiental /Environmental Sanitation Technology Company Tecnologia de (Companhia CETESB Worldand the Bank between Cooperation prepared. was Brazil is divided into seven sections. The first section describes the context in which the report 1 The third section addresses the Reference Scenario and 2030 Low Carbon Scenario of the the of Scenario Carbon Low 2030 and Reference Scenario the addresses section third The The method employed for elaborating the Low Carbon Scenario in the solid waste sector sector waste solid the in Scenario Carbon Low the elaborating for employed method The The fifth section of the report presents the main conclusions of the study, while the sixth and various the 2030, for Scenario Carbon Low projected the discusses section fourth The The second section of the report addresses the Reference Scenario and the Low Carbon Carbon Low the and Scenario Reference the addresses report the of section second The The following report on the 2030 Low Carbon Scenario for the waste management sector in National Communication on GHG emissions. the of part and forms Report (UNDP). TechnologyThe Program Development Nations United the and effluent and waste by produced emissions gas treatment in the greenhouse period 1990-2005, countrywide was on prepared by Report CETESB In Reference cooperation The with the Ministry of Science Executive summary 4, basically definetheLow Carbon Scenariofor thesewage andeffluentstreatment 1 to be usefully employed in the preparation of the ) made it possible possible it made ) 4 , basically defines 13 Synthesis Report | WASTE 14 Synthesis Report | WASTE waste sector in Brazil. provided the basis for this study’s definition of the Reference and Low Carbon Scenarios of the data were then formulated for the period between 2010 and 2030. These data and assumptions the relevant Brazilian technical literature. Estimates of the behavior of the same retrospective in the Low Carbon Scenarios. the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2000) treatment method for operations, estimating emissions technologies landfill employed, of levels of methane recovery,standards etc. This data wasquality used in accordance with effluents, industrial and sewage waste, and sewage generated on a employing data which recorded the past behavior of the following: the quantities of solid waste emissions, GHG estimating roleplayedin major models a mathematical linear predominantly features (where available in the literature) for each of the approximately 5,500 this official data, a year-by-yearmunicipalities. estimate was made of the population and examined other key on Based 2030. by million 210 to rising 2), Figure (see Brazil in areas urban in living be will people million 168 2010, year by that example, for estimates, Energy and Mines of Ministry literature wherever available. The first factor considered was population growth. The Brazilian The IPCC method also provided The data employed in the preparation of this scenario were obtained from locally available D r e e t be r m f os i n ha ode i p t v e i on i c l or s t i
scenario for GHG emissions in the waste, sewage and effluents sectors v
e f
Figure 1 - General strategy employed in elaborating the 2030 e y E m e s a i t s 205. r G i s s m i 190 H ons a G t e per capita basis, industrial effluent loads, the composition of solid
o
f o f -
r
default emission factors when these could not be located in E be s m t f i ut ha m ode u a v r t i e e l or s
o
f
c e poul api f G f g l D t e e ue e t ne ne e a c s de n l or , s a hn c phi r r t t e a a g i ot f e na on, i l t i qu da w i e ni s on he ne r a u ng i e os g t M r r f r a p v e
a
o
e e S a on t i r r y W on nd
S
c
E e na m L i r
ow s i o s i s on
t o ol
the proposed Low Carbon Scenario is successfully adopted, 75 percent However, if 2010. year for observed emissions of level the in percent 40 over of increase an in the waste sector from 99.26 MtCO reach, according to theReference Scenario, around 99.26 the basis of a discount rate of 8 percent or 12 percent a were relevant examined.methods The on valuesabatement were GHG calculated introducing year. once the Low Carbon emissions had been identified, the costs and investment requirements for GHG emissions resulting possible of the from differentthe employedtechnologies and, finally, made of the waste, sewage and effluents sector Reference Scenario. Estimates were also made 20 years. Using Figure 1 again, together with some of the data from Figure 2, projections were etc. waste, of population growth, urbanization,composition rates of per capitageneration, waste expectedis It defined. behavior that over models next the affectedfew be also will decades by were policies sanitation current impact which and emissions past influenced which variables sewage by collecting and destroying CH treating for systems anaerobic constructing by avoided be could emissions the of percent 5 further a while systems, burning and collection installing simply by abated be could landfills 2 The results in Figure 3 below show that the total GHG emissions of the waste sector could could waste sector the of emissions GHG total the that show below 3 Figure in results The Estimates were made of GHG emissions relating to waste management in Brazil over the past of behavior the tracking models the 1, Figure in depicted map road the of basis the On percent. 75 of order the of is efficiency capture biogas (MCT, 2009), projects landfill MDL the to According Figure 2 - Population growth according to PNE (National Energy Plan) 2030 Source: IBGE, 1970, 1980, 1991 e 2000 e PNE, 2007 2 e/ year to under 18.36 4 . The result would be an overall reduction of emissions
MtCO
MtCO 2 2 e/year by 2030, representing representing e/yearby 2030, e/ year by 2030. 2 of the emissions from emissions the of 15 Synthesis Report | WASTE 16 Synthesis Report | WASTE sewage andapproximately US$103.30/tCO collection and disposal using current practices would produce higher GHG emissions (see (see emissions GHG Figure higher 18). produce would practices current using disposal and collection According to ABRELPE (2008) 15 percent services. of other waste and is currentlycollection waste not expanding collected. at Increases aimed in sector waste sanitation the in investment government heavier from result also could disposal landfill Increased generation. waste of levels income in of rise the a population from leading result to could increased This consumption levelsScenario. and Reference consequentlythe in higher levelsindicated ones the above levels over at and was included, landfills in waste disposal for of quantities the in increase an the domestic sewage and industrial effluents produced. Scenario is maintained, involving the non-treatment and collection of around 50 percent of all Reference the if continue inevitably will and Brazil in widespread is effluents industrial and dumping of substantial organic loads into water bodies. Water pollution caused by raw sewage not take into account the benefits associated with the reduced pollution resulting from the non- total, amounting to 30.40 tCO result of the treatment of domestic sewage and industrial effluents account for 22 percent of the burning systems in landfills, the costs of installing anaerobic systems for sewage/effluent sewage/effluent for systems CH anaerobic installing of costs the landfills, in systems burning avoided atacostofUS$1.3/tCO methods. Seventy eight percent of such emissions are avoidable (in all, 962.69tCO 4 Among the alternatives considered for for the future waste management scenario in Brazil, However, compared to thelow costsassociated withtheinstallation ofCH The majority of emissions in the solid waste sector arise from current waste management waste fromcurrent management waste arise sector solid the in emissions of majority The collection andmethaneburningare collection estimated ataround US$930.38/tCO Figure 3 - Low Carbon Scenario: total emissions from waste, sewage and effluents treatment 2 e and 238.35tCO 2 e). Ontheother hand, theemissions thatcanbeavoided as a 2 e for industrial effluent treatment. These costs do do costs These treatment. effluent for e industrial 2 e respectively.
4 2 collection and and collection e for domestic domestic for e 2 e can be be can e Reference Scenario, and adds the burning of CH mechanisms impacting the waste sector developments between 2010 and 2030. waste management area. Finally, consideration is given to some of the obstacles and facilitating the from implementation emerge of could the which Federal outcomes Government’s current beneficial public the policies, programs,reflects also and plans in scenario the the emissions, drawsScenario onprojections ofspecificwaste behavior management patterns likelyCarbon to GHG influence disposal) Low the While landfill benefits. for waste environmental of and sanitation positive quantities more with increased (e.g. report this in considered factors The suggested Low Carbon Scenario which maintains the conditions defined in the the in defined conditions the maintains which Scenario Carbon Low suggested The 4 , could combine some of the downside downside the of some combine could , 17 Synthesis Report | WASTE 18 Synthesis Report | WASTE 2. the fossil fraction of incinerated solid waste, and from N organic material contained in solid wastes, domestic sewage and industrial effluents, CO network. IPCC (2000) method, the resulting data is the still in the used subject of variables the discussion of by behavior the the above evaluate mentioned better to view a With treatment. waste by biogas for more details), CETESB has developed tools for estimating GHG emissions produced greenhouse gas emissions and the additional financial resources necessary. 2030 were also taken into consideration. mechanisms likely to influence developments in the country’s waste sector between 2010 and current Government’s policies, Federal programs,the of and results plans possible in the the wastereflects also management sector.scenario The period. Obstacles and 25-year facilitating population of 209,918,700 by 2030- representing demographic growth of 36 percent over the (2007) estimated that PNE the The country’s urban used. population were in 2005 was 154,343,300 projections and forecasts an population urban urban (2030) / National Energy Plan) treatment technologies to be applied in Brazil. environmental aspects are taken into account when key decisions are being important made that on the ensure to wasteand waste treating for methods and approaches different the from waste and its policies, components over the sanitation next 20 current years. estimates), anticipated demographic growth, thespread ofurbanization andrisinglevels ofpercapita emission past on bearing a have (which involved TheGHGproduced by waste treatment consistsofCH With thesupport ofawaste sector-related Inventory Network (see www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/ The purpose of the present report is to assist in the preparation of public policy proposals regarding For the 2030 Low Carbon Scenario on waste treatment, the PNE (Plano Nacional de Energia The main purpose of the scenarios is to provide an evaluation of the GHG emissions arising The estimated scenarios draw upon a number of factors such as the evolution of the variables Introduction 2 0, also produced by waste incineration. 4 from the anaerobic digestion of of digestion anaerobic the from 2 from
3. amounts of GHG emitted (or avoided) in the 2030 Scenario. incinerators explain why each of them produces different GHG emissions data. be switched on and off at least once a day. The operational differences among the three types of off on a daily basis. On the other hand, ‘semi-continuous’ or batch load incinerators must‘Continuous’ usually incineration involves the technologies. use bed of incinerators which fluidized do or not grid require switching employing batch and (batelada load semi-continuous ) on and material and the possibility of using the CH waste organic of decomposition the landfills, sanitary in digestion anaerobic for As Brazil. in through high temperature thermal treatment. Incineration is the most commonly used method Composting is considered to be one of the methods for mitigating or sequestering frequency,GHG. etc. involve increased collection reducedor waste incinerated.or deposited landfills in either increasing recycling, as such methods alternative Other 4). Figure emissions(see treatment technologies considered in this study are outlined below. established emission factors for each type of waste treatment technology can be calculated. The GHG emissions,andwhere existence the ofdefault values canbeverified, andtherefore pre- calculating for guidance and/or data provide methods 2006) and (2000 IPCC the which for technologies treatment waste solid municipal those to only relate study this in descriptions a sample of the numerous ways of treating solid waste available in the scientific literature. The (ii) In addition to disposal in a sanitary landfill ortreatment(ii) Inadditionto disposal inasanitary inanaerobic reactor for subsequentlandfill Figure 4 illustrates the alternatives considered which provide the basis for estimating the the estimating for basis the provide which considered alternatives the illustrates 4 Figure continuous, incineration: of types following the covers method (2006) IPCC The The possibility also exists of treating MSW with anaerobic digestion in sanitary landfills or GHG produces wastes solid incinerating and burying (2000) IPCC the to According The various technical methods for waste treatment mentioned in this report represent only 3.1. (i) Theincineration techniques are listed according to the equipmentemployed, asfollows: Figure 4 - Greenhouse gases produced by the treatment and disposal of solid waste Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) - semi-continuous grate orfluidized bedincinerator (fossil CO disposal with areduction ofthe Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ofthe MSW: - batch loadgrate or fluidized bed incinerator (fossil CO - continuous grate orfluidized bedincinerator (fossil CO F osi Treatment methods I n c l C i ne e O m r a 2 i
t t a i s on ( nd N
1) 2 O
- anaerobic digestion (emissionofCH S a ni t MS a e C r m y H l i W t 4 a s
nd
f i 4 l Comment: l for power generation purposes is discussed. ( 2) R R e e duc c y c l t i i no e ng on C om
m post i si ons i ng
4 2 2 ). andN andN 2 andN U no m nc 2 2 0 emissions). 0 emissions) ol e l t 2 e hod 0 emissions) c t e
d
19 Synthesis Report | WASTE 20 Synthesis Report | WASTE dioxide (CO decomposition. to leading processes bacteriological through present material organic the of digestion free) solid waste as follows: movement by the various vehicles and other machines on the the wastesite, withalayer isto ofsoil avoid theproliferationand ofdisease-carrying insects,to facilitate to render the surface of the “cell”. a covering of called coveraim is The soil the and wastelayer of the of combination The waste must be covered with an appropriate layer of earth which tractorson average or landfill shouldtractors be with0.2m compaction thick. wheels. At the end of the working day the deposited the on zoning depending arrangements position in the disposal the landfill. to Finally,directed then the and trucks loads are their of weighed again inspection at an to the exit. with garbage trucks being weighed at the site entrance. After weighing, the trucks are subjected types depending on the way in which they are constructed: (ALVES, 2000). to natural combustible gas and is therefore a worthwhile alternative for use accounts as for a between source 5 of percent energy and 20 percent. The composition of the purified averagebiogas is between 50 similar percent and 80 percent of the total volume of gas, while carbon dioxide gas 3) 2) 1) Anaerobic digestionof waste produces biogas -amixture ofdifferent gases: CH Treatment of municipal solid waste in sanitary landfills is based upon the anaerobic (oxygen The Brazilian Technical Norms Association (ABNT) defines a sanitary landfill for municipal After the waste is deposited, compacting and leveling the waste should be done by crawler According to IPT/CEMPRE (2000) the operating sequence of a sanitary landfill commences According to the IPT/CEMPRE (2000), sanitary landfills can be classified into three different 3.1.1. (ABNT NBR8419,1984). if necessary…” intervals shorter at or day workingeach of end the at earth of layer a with it coveringthereafter volume, permissible lowest the to it reduce to and possible area smallest the to waste the restrict to order in ples princi- engineering employs method This impacts. environmental ing safety,minimiz and health public to risks hazardsor causingwithout “… table. water shallow a and topography flat with places in used method, “area” the vated andwhere soilcanbeusedto provide acovering layer; and coveredthen and areasexcain be used whichis can method This earth. with - tractor by compacted subsequently is which waste, of disposal the and ramp excavationaccess upon an based of progressive“ramp”method, or slope the easily excavated; be can subsoil the where areas in employed usually is It site. disposal the at “trench”the “ditch”or wheremethod wastethe depositedis trenches open in a sanitary landfill is a method for disposing of MSW in the ground the in MSW of disposing for method a is landfill sanitary a 2 ), hydrogen (H Sanitary landfills Sanitary 2 ) andsulphuricacid(H 2 S). TheCH 4 component represents on on represents component - 4 , carbon carbon , operators having to wait forthe without the upwards) landfill landfill to the of layers be lowest the completely (from operation covered disposal waste (CEMPRE, the of 2000). of waste. The main advantage of this process is that biogas can be collected from the beginning levels different the down laying of time the at installed ‘drains’ horizontal through biogas the of capturing biogas, although Henriques (2004) claims that an alternative method is to collect 2000). sleeves of gravel of an equal thickness to that of the diameter of the tubes used (IPT/CEMPRE, drains arerows basically by to chimneys, these perforated surrounded of Similar pipes earth. from the bottom of the landfill and discharging the biogas at an exit point above the top layer of sulphidric gas in the biogas. The gases are captured of by presence means the by of verticalmainly extractioncaused odors pipes bad rising and risks fire potential minimize to aims also It biogas generated by the anaerobic decomposition of the organic material present in the waste. and filled with filtering material (CEMPRE, 2000). of small channels dug directly into the ground or located on an impermeable layer in the landfill and contaminating the water table and nearby water bodies.off-site The facilities.system The aimbasically of thisconsists type ofof systemrows is to preventappropriate percolated treatment. liquids Thefrom latter leaching can into be done in a treatment station on the landfill site itself or in network of concrete channels and pipes designed to collect the watera comprises normally system of in type This waste. the into the infiltrating from it stop to is system appropriate places. drainage rainwater the of purpose The biogas. and rainwater, for systems liquids, percolated (CEMPRE, 2000). landfill more impermeable to prevent rainwater from affecting the layers of waste underneath maintenance periods (MUYLAERT et. al., 2000; OLIVEIRA, 2000). energy recovery systems possess a burner used for flaring off excess gas or forconductor use duringpipes, a compressor equipment and treatment system, as illustrated in Figure 5. The majority of atmosphere through collector drains. generation. The most common practice at present is to allow the gas to escape directly into the Brazil possesses only two sanitary landfills which use biogas CH way common most and simplest the is pipes extraction vertical these of employment The the treat and collect to used system is drainage biogas a PROSAB (2003), the to According for liquids channel and collect to designed is liquids percolated for system drainage The drainage possess must landfill sanitary a conditions, operating ideal ensure to order In A standard biogas collection system is based upon three key components: collection shafts and Figure 5 - Main components of a biogas collection system
4 for burning and energy energy and burning for 21 Synthesis Report | WASTE 22 Synthesis Report | WASTE Grate incinerators be ready for consumption. wastewater network, into a local treatment system or recirculated within the landfill itself itself (MUYLAERT et. landfill al., the 2000). As within for the recirculated CH or system treatment local a into network, wastewater public the into discharged generally then is condensate drain The to traps. used collection are or tanks into it connectors and tubes descending where system, collection the in begins normally condensate the of Control recovery process. energy the of efficiency the reduce and system, it cools and forms a condensate which, if not removed, can block the collection system the collection system. When the hot biogas produced by the sanitary landfill passes through the also is and pipes normallycollection the employed from to biogas compress the the gas transfer to before used it is enters the compressor energy The recovery 2001). system. (WILLUMSEN, plant powergeneration tothe tubes transmission the through compressor the the biogas to a main collector. The biogas is pumped out of the landfill cells and then forced by combustion chamber. material the loading intofeeder the from silo, where by loaded is hydraulic of it means for pistons into incinerator the used also are grabs These gantries. overhead on suspended grabs being weighed, is tipped into a pit where it is thoroughly mixed and blended by a series of waste tubes, used for recovering energy, and gas-cleaning systems (IPT/CEMPRE, 2000). assembled on-site and modern versions possess a combustion chamber lined with water-wall operating in parallel, each with a capacity of between 50 to 100 tons per day. These facilities are CEMPRE, 2000). bulky and more uniform material than the original raw waste and is easier to incinerate (IPT/ less a produces This composting). in employed that to (similar materials recyclable or bulky the result of a process involving the separation of recyclable MSW aimed at removing hazardous, emissions ( LORA, 2002). the solid waste. In the majority of cases electrostatic or fabric filters are used to counter these in components certain of process combustion the of result a as generated gases polluting the the hand, other the On and higher ongoing operating emissions. costs. gaseous permanent disadvantages and of this type of waste treatment include the need for larger start-up investments leachates of treatment and using sanitary landfills is that, unlike the latter, it avoids the problems caused by the generation in certain cases for eliminating it altogether (CETESB, 1993). combustion of organic waste materials for conversion into less bulky, toxic or atoxic substances, or The treatment system is also designed to capture and discard the condensate which forms in transport which tubes tohorizontal connected ends have upper pipes their collection The The MSW incineration process involves the following (IPT/CEMPRE, 2000): the MSW, after A plant containing grate incinerators normally is comprised of two or three combustion units Grate incinerators are used for burning MSW either in its raw or “treated” state. The latter is Employing incineration for waste disposal requires the installation of systems to deal with According to Lora (2002) one of the advantages of incineration compared to MSW treatment involving the treatment) thermal as (known technology wastetreatment a is Incineration 3.1.2. Incineration 4 , when this has been correctly treated it is considered to known as ‘co-generation’. powerelectricity. and/or system The involving energygeneration is electrical steam and dual a water lock and then dispatched for final disposal in landfills. fraction is contained within this ash in the form of carbon. The bottom ashes are extinguished in ash’. bottom ‘incinerator called fraction predominantly inorganic a organic small a practice In particulates, dioxins, heavy metals and furans are removed. cooled to around 250°C , are then dispatched to the flue gas-cleaning systems where acid gases, into steam, which can then be used for electricity generation or heating purposes. The flue gases, CO over the grate can reach around area 1200°C, the in leading temperature The to the decomposition. destruction thermal of of process most the of during the generated fumes components in of the flue gases by introducing waste. Meanwhile, the air injected at high pressure from above facilitates the burning complete and combustion drying in assist and load the cool to serves below from entering airflow The remainder enters the boiler and is applied to the burning waste through nozzles over the grate. sized materials, which makes it appropriate for incinerating MSW in its raw state. material is generally still present in organic the form volatile of loses ash. it This as type time of gratesame compounds, before the can travelingat operate down out to with the pit different-at dries the other and end whereup a small quantity heats of organic material the boiler the allowing for efficient and complete combustion at high temperatures. During its transit through waste feeder system, and an auxiliary fuel system, illustrated in Figure 6 (OLIVEIRA, 2007). 2 The steam generated in this way can be used as a source of heat for generating steam-based On exiting the grate the organic fraction of the MSW should be almost totally burned, leaving The high-temperature flue gases are then cooled in heat exchangers, which convert the heat Around 60 percent of the combustion air is supplied through the grate from below and the chamber, combustion the through waste the propels grate (descending) moving The A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a combustion chamber, a porous plate or distributor, a Fluidized-bed incinerators and water. Source: Adapted from Theodore and Reynolds, 1987 Figure 6 - Example of a fluidized bed incinerator rapid turbulence for better mixing of the combustion gases and 23 Synthesis Report | WASTE 24 Synthesis Report | WASTE neutralizing acid gases on-site with carbonate or lime. solid interaction phases, uniform temperatures in the incinerator furnace and the potential for ratios, high bed-to-surface heat transfer coefficients, high turbulence levels both at the gas and substances due to particulate fouling inert the on replace to the need sand constant layer.the given occur to tend also problems Operational 2.5cm. of size particle maximum a to components the reduce to order in milling, or sifting by either incineration the is of sewage application sludges. common most their 2007) (OLIVEIRA, waste medical and petrochemical treatment systems. avoid to order in 600°C problemsaround at with the fusion maintained and is agglomeration of temperature individual bed sand The particles. 2/1. of order the of with gas temperatures rising to around 900°C. The ratio of secondary compounds, toorganic remaining the primary burning for air turbulence is significant generallycause to pressure high the upper area of the sand bed. This area acts as an after-burner, with secondary air injected at intervals from the base together with other ash clinker. intervals from the base of the bed. Harder materials such as metals are also removed at regular removing the ash generated by the process. continuously and waste of supply continuous a ensuring of consists onwards primarily point that from operation the and off switched are burners auxiliary the reached, is 600°C around mass of the bed), which heats, drys and combusts rapidly. When the operating temperature of of solid waste are affected by the intense heat of the sand (which constitutes 95 percent of the the effect of distributing the solid waste uniformly throughout the furnace. The small particles introduced either from above or within the bed. The intense mixing and churning in the bed has bed. When the temperature reaches around 400°C a ‘fluidized bed’ is created, and waste can be a liquid and at the beginning of the operation is heated by auxiliary burners located above the airflow (‘fluidization air’) pumped injected into powerful the a base by of the sand suspended bed. kept The is suspended sand layercarbonate behaves calcium like or sand aluminized as situation remains unchanged. In this report attention is drawn to the various initiatives, mainly localized regional disparities. All these subjects are dealt with in detail under and years over the wastecomposition in Item changes wastegeneration, capita per 3.2.1 ratesof future below. Fluidized bed incinerators do, however, offer a number of advantages: high gas-to-solid gas-to-solid high advantages: of number a however,offer do, incinerators bed Fluidized pre-sorted, be to waste for need the as such drawbacks of number a has equipment This agricultural, municipal, burn to used widely are incinerators bed fluidized While gas and recovery energy the to move they area upper the through pass gases the After The organic compounds removed from the bed either in solid or gaseous form are burnt in The ash produced by incineration is collected in gas-cleaning systems or removed at regular Accordingincinerators fluidized-bed in (2000), to materialIPT/CEMPRE the inert such an The MSW waste sector Reference Scenario presupposes that Brazil’s current sanitation sanitation current Brazil’s that presupposes Scenario Reference sector waste MSW The The MSW treatment Reference Scenario was estimated based on forecast population growth, 3.2.1. 3.2. Municipal SolidWaste Reference scenario -SolidWaste Figure 7,which provides anestimate emissionslikely ofthe to occur. CH seenthat be can It assumption that current conditions will continue. time to be implemented and for this reason the Reference Scenario in this study is based upon the taken at the federal level, to improve the present situation. It is clear that these measures will take emissions increase from approximately 55,000 tCO (ABRELPE), the quality of local waste disposal operations, waste composition, climate (INMET- waste collected Brazilianof Geography andStatistics Institute andEPE),thepercapita rate of data examined: urban population (IBGE, examples are following The method. (2000) IPCC the by employed variables the considering expected to increase by 35.6 percent. 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. In the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030 the emissions are and Energy (PNE, 2007). Mines of projected areasbyMinistry as growthurban the in population reflects increase This The Reference Scenario is based upon the hypotheses described below and illustrated by illustrated and below described hypotheses the upon based is Scenario Reference The The Reference Scenario for GHG emissions in the solid waste sector was estimated by by estimated was sector waste solid the in emissions GHG for Scenario Reference The years forthe Reference sector Scenario MSW the of emissions TableGHG the lists below 1 Table 1 - Reference Scenario: Emissions resulting from treatment of effluents Figure 7 - Scenario 1-A: Reference Scenario for the MSW sector 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 Year
Emissions from MSW treatment Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística / Estatística e Geografia de Brasileiro Instituto 2 e in year 2010 to over 73,000 tCO (1000tCO 73,473 68,610 63,630 58,732 54,200 2 e) 2
e by 2030. 4
25 Synthesis Report | WASTE 26 Synthesis Report | WASTE employed based on 1960-1990 records for the municipal areas listed in Annex 1. according to climatic zone and average precipitation levels. and itseffect onk mixture of wastes. Given the scarcity of data about the in waste differed also composition and in waste of the type each Brazilian for different literaturewas degradation where composition suggested by Jensen and Pipatti, (2002) apud IPCC (2006), based upon a weighted mean appropriate forof estimating emissions in Brazil.MSW Two standard data elements were used for explained under item 3.2.2 (calculation methods) below. throughout the entire country under the same conditions as defined in the Reference Scenario. Finally, the Low Carbon Scenario dealt solely with the collection and burning of CH Regions. Metropolitan of number a in incinerators of introduction the concerned simulation further A programs. composting or recycling, collection, selective successful of introduction larger quantities of waste which could arise from worsening of waste collection services or the the of done also was simulation A generation. waste at-source of reduction the encourage to services or from increased personal consumption levels unaccompanied by effective programs increased of example, for quantitativedone, wastewas collection possibly flowing from improvementssimulation in A local authority collection technologies. or modes treatment other waste reduction, reuse of waste materials, recycling campaigns, etc). the IPCC-related estimates (e.g. composting, the influence of scavenger cooperatives, at-source waste of discussion the to management relevant was not information used of since it amount was decided that substantial A this was factors. unlikely to emission contribute objectively to Instituto deMeteorologia Nacional /NationalMeteorological Institute) andIPCCdefault 3 In order to identify the rainfall situation in different areas of Brazil, INMET data were were data INMET Brazil, of areas different in situation rainfall the identify to order In K Decay potential -”k”. method (2000) IPCC the to according variables on based was Scenario Reference The In addition to the MSW sector Reference Scenario, simulations were constructed of certain and A Annual accumulated rainfall for the period 1961-1990 are variables that depend on climate. The IPCC (2006) default data are the most most the are data default (2006) IPCC The climate. on depend that variables are , default emission factors for mixed residues were adopted and estimated estimated and adopted were residues mixed for factors emission default , Figure 8 - Precipiation levels in Brazil 3 4 in cities cities in k as growth in the period between the 2000 Census and PNE figures for the The year intermediate 2005. years between 2001 and 2004 were estimated assuming projection for population The 2000. was 2005-2030 taken from figures2030 PNE uniformthe (2007). exponential 209,918,900 for the same of year population (Figure urban an 10). estimated has 2030 PNE Meanwhile, IBGE. to according projected is Quantity ofwaste collectedQuantity –Rx The Figure 8 shows rainfall data for Brazil’s five large geographic regions: It can be observed in Figure 9, that in year 2030 a total population of around 220 million million 220 around of population total a 2030 year in that 9, Figure in observed be can It • • • • • Rx Southeast Region: MAP>1000mm/yr, therefore Center-West and Region: MAP>1000mm/yr, therefore 0.065 to equal is 1000mm/a MAP>1000mm/yr, therefore k=0.17. < MAP where varies Region: Northeast 0.17. 1000mm/yr,> precipitation) thereforeannual (mean MAP Region: North South Region: MAP>1000mm/yr, therefore was estimated on the basis of IBGE population census data for 1970, 1980, 1991, and Figure 10 - Total population growth according to the PNE 2030 1 1 2 2 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
9 7 0
Figure 9 - Total Population Growth in Brazil 1950-2050 Source: IBGE(1970, 1980,1991and2000) PNE 2007 1 9 8 0
1 9 9 Source: IBGE, 2007 0
2 0 0 0
2 0 0 2 5 0 , 1
1 0 5 ;
4 1
6 2 8 k =0.09. 0
1 0
2 k =l0.17. 0 1 5 ;
1 k =0.17. 8 0 2
0 2 2 0 0 2 ;
0 1
9 1
2 0 2 2 0 5 3 ; 0
2 ;
0 2 1 1 2
0 0
3
0
= k 27 Synthesis Report | WASTE 28 Synthesis Report | WASTE Waste generation-MSW municipality in 2010 is shown in Figure 11. generation and an increased urban population in each of the municipalities. Waste produced by The later years were estimated on the basis of a continuing rate of growth for Environment Secretariat)(1998) and ABRELPE (2008) for the period between 1970 and 2005. provided by CETESB/SMA (Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente de São Paulo / trajectory veresus a 10 percent increase and decrease in waste generation. historical forthe belowdepicts data 12 waste generation from tendential the and 1970-2005, consumption patterns, could also contribute to boosting the amount of waste collected. Figure enhanced or incomes personal increased as factors,such Other 2007). (ABRELPE, percent 15 collection waste improved hand, other services the could in On practice increase the present quantity of percent. MSW collected 10 (85 percent) by up around to of generation waste in household in changes waste disposal, programs, or programs aimed at promoting recycling, education could result in an overall reduction environmental as such reductions, generation The estimate of waste generation in Brazil was done using This scenario presupposes that measures undertaken for encouraging at-source waste waste at-source encouraging for undertaken measures that presupposes scenario This Figure 11 – Waste Production by municipality (quantity of trash in 2010, 100 tons)
a T
b h o e Source: CETESB, World BankBrazil Low Carbon Case Study v
o e u
1 t l , i 0 n 0 e 0 d
c i r c l e s
c o r r e s p o n d
t o
v a l u e s
e q u a l
t o
o r
per capita waste generation data per capita waste
São Paulo State was used. Potential for generating CH4-Lo not appeared in any other publication. house discussion by experts involved in preparing the Reference Scenario, and such a figure has accelerate reduction by around 10-20 percent. The latter estimated reduction was a result of in- CH 2005. and 1970 Factors between such as verified the reduction potential of this the of proportion of reduction waste components continued responsible the by is for generating Scenario represented Reference The 13. Figure by illustrated is variation The time. over components waste of behavior the in changes estimating for basis the provided data This 2005. and 1970 sample of 95 analyses of the composition of waste collected in different municipalities between of the CETESB rate was estimated, while in subsequent years the higher quality ABRELPE person/per day) was also used, and for the period between 1970 and 2005 the linear variation were adopted as a basis for the Scenario. CETESB These data figures. PMSB forabove-mentioned the than reliable the more as regarded are and 1970s ministries (between 0.4 and 0.7 kg/per day. The latter took into account the rolling surveys and studies undertaken by both the above ABRELPE in 2007 assessed the quantity of collected waste per capita at 0.9 kg/per person/per done by the Ministry of Cities and the Brazilian Environment Ministry. A set of data produced amounting by to 1.6 kg/per person/per day. This information was updated on the basis of surveys 4 Source: ABRELPE, 2007. 4 According to PNSB (2000) data, 80 Mt/year of urban waste was collected in Brazil in 2000, Determination ofthevariation ofCH in the MSW or an increase in the number of inert substances causing this reduction this causing increasesubstances could an or inert of MSW the number in the in
The MSW rate for the year 2005 was estimated only for the 5 macro regions in the country: North Region Northeast Southeast Midwest South Angular Coefficient 0.000433 0.000254 0.000216 0.000384 0.000357 Figure 12 - Waste generation Linear Coefficient 4 generation potential was done on the basis of a of basis the on done was potential generation
0.5064 0.7054 0.5864 0.6136 0.5015
4 data 29 Synthesis Report | WASTE 30 Synthesis Report | WASTE three items, itwas decidedto employ themedianregression ofthe entire countrycovering all country’s country’s five large geographic regions was estimated on the basis of the equation below. Where: regions for the years 1970-2005. Table 2 - Variation of L0 from 1970 to 2005 in Brazil’s large geographic regions and estimated On the basis of the aforementioned data, the variation of On the assumption that the evolution of the L geographic large five Brazil’s to equation above the of application the represents Table 2 Angular coefficient Linear coefficient L Brazil Center-West Northeast South Southeast North Region 0 t (t) Equation 1 – Variation of L Figure 13 - Potential generation of CH4 – Lo 0 (t)=Angular coefficient .t+Linear coefficient Estimate for L median L0 for whole country [GgCH Angular coefficient +0.0012000000 Angular coefficient -0.0005687632 -0.0001240116 -0.0007001260 -0.0006538087 -0.0009474001 Linear coefficient Estimate year 4 /GgMSW.yr] 0 variation over time
0 0 L for the Center-West region was based on only o from 1970 to 2005 L Linear coefficient [GgCH 0 1.2147400398 2.2899000000 0.3212859891 1.4758037577 1.3855212029 1.9768323166 between 1970 and 2005 for the [GgCH 4 [GgCH /GgMSW] [GgCH 4 /GgMSW.year] [year] 4 4 /GgMSW] /GgMSW biomass. industry, or by the straightforward reduction of the portion of waste that could be described as petrochemical the by manufactured products consumer of price the in reductions beverages, and food of distribution intensive more packaging, of use increased of result a as verified be on assuming the continuity of past trends. Higher concentrations of carbon fossil fractions can Futurewaste fossil toyears 2005. carbon evolution for of the 1970 simplyfraction was based Fraction ofcarbon fossil waste -CCW. FCF the data referring to the remaining regions. The above table provided the basis of estimating CH emissions arising from MSW disposal in landfills during the 15- year period from 1990 to 2005. = 0.4). inhabitants in 2030 will continue to run unmanaged waste disposal sites of up to 5m deep (MCF MCF can be estimated. 3 shows the IPCC (2000) Using thesamesetofdata employed for determining L In the Reference Scenario it was estimated that municipalities with under 200,000 200,000 under with municipalities that estimated was it Scenario Reference the In The MCF varied according to the operating quality standards of the MSW disposal sites. Table Table 3 - IPCC (2000) default data for Methane Correction Factor (MCF) Disposal of unclassified trash Unmanaged landfill of under 5m deep Unmanaged landfill of over 5m deep Sanitary landfill Type of MSW disposal site default data on which (from a brief description of the disposal sites) the Figure 14 - Fraction of fossil carbon in waste Methane Correction Factor - MCF Source: IPCC, 2000 0, it was possible to determine the the determine to possible was it MCF 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.0 4
31 Synthesis Report | WASTE 32 Synthesis Report | WASTE
one estimate and another. See Figure 15. MCF increased from 0.82 to 1.0 without any estimate being made of intermediate data between years, although this was not taken into account in the aboveover the continued the and method. fashion gradual a in that On occured another to a situation one assumed from year-on-yeartransition was It basis the method. IPCC the in outlined that from differed estimate Scenario 1990 and, finally, to a proper sanitary landfill from 2010 onwards. In this respect the Reference correctionfactor which evolved fromto worst ‘intermediate’in an (the status 1970 situation) applied as follows. below fordescribed latterThis wasLow Scenario. method the Emission defining adapted and method the and method inventory international (2000) IPCC the employed treatment waste The remaining municipalities with populations of over 200,000 in 2030 had a methane methane a had 2030 in 200,000 over of populations with municipalities remaining The The elaboration of the GHG low emission scenario for the year 2030 (Scenario 2030) for for 2030) (Scenario 2030 year the for scenario emission low GHG the of elaboration The 3.2.2. Figure 15 - Operating standards of landfills in Brazil from 19790-2030 the 2030 scenario for GHG emissions caused by waste treatment Calculation methods D r e e t be r m f os i n ha ode i Figure 16 - General strategy employed in elaborating p t v e i on i c l or s t i
v
e f
e E m 190 s i t s G i s m i H - ons a 205 G t e
o
f o f
r
E be s m t f i ut ha m ode u a v
r t i e e l or s
o
f
g on e ne pou G r D t a e e t e c ne i s M de l l on or hn c phi a e r t S ot f a i na i i on, p W l qu ni s da e he r u r
ng i e
os c r M r f t v a
api o
e
S r y W
t S a
c
E e na m L i r ow s i o s i s on
t o ol
characterize this scenario. fossil and carbon fractions, providing benchmark fora evaluating behaviors the likely most to Waste treatment ordisposal methods Estimate ofGHGemissionsresulting from waste treatment such sites. by emitted GHG the destroy and collect to viable it make which bymeasures accompanied be desirable than ‘sanitary’ landfills. Rather, it means that improvements in the disposal sites must landfill of over 5m deep, by 80 percent. This does not mean that ‘unmanaged’ landfills are more quantity of waste in identical an an from unmanaged landfill emissions gas of under greenhouse 5m (2000), deep IPCC arethe to reduced According by GHG. in 40 increase percent and, in a uncollected waste. suitable places, therefore alleviating some of the problems arising more in from deposited the being pollution waste of caused by quantities larger to led have conditions sanitary country’s minimum public health standards in Brazilian towns and cities. However, improvements in the to programs. programs introducing by reduced be course encourage of a lower can level of wastewaste at-source of generation or by boosting recycling and Generation composting technologies. Incineration can be accompanied (or not) by employing heat recoverywhich method and electricity further disposal generation breaks waste A down the wasteBrazil). in is incineration, but occurrence this is common done most on an (the insignificant years scale 50 in and Brazil. 30 all these sites the organic material contained in the waste continued to produce CH landfills, ‘unmanaged’ landfills of over 5m deep and ‘unmanaged’ landfills of under 5 m deep. In ‘sanitary’ as waste: classified solid sitesbe sitesof which forcould disposal disposal MSW the appropriately identified. activities related to the treatment and disposal of gas-generating solid waste and effluents are and the additional resources needed for achieving the Low Carbon Scenario is described below. IPCC (2000) method. emissions contained in the National Communication. The GHG estimate was obtained using the Reference GHG waste the on sector Report of preparation the in used was also 2030 Scenario rates per urban resident, waste composition, CH generation waste on focused models regression linear mainly were study. These present the relevant tobe appeared which to past recent the in behavioral patterns illustrating models of GHG inventories in Brazil. adopted for elaborating the Low Carbon Scenarios and is also being used as a basis for assessing On the other hand, improvements in the operation of disposal sites can bring about an an about bring can sites disposal of operation the in improvements hand, other the On maintain to difficult it makes which municipalities, the all in collected fully not is MSW The model used in this study (based on the IPCC 2000 method) considers the following following the considers method) 2000 IPCC the on (based study this in used model The The emissions. GHG estimating for method (2000) IPCC the applies model CETESB The The model developed by CETESB for defining the quantities of GHG susceptible to mitigation in treatment waste from arising emissions GHG the estimating for employed method The As can be observed in Figure 16, the construction of Scenario 2030 began with the definition GHG emissions from composting are not addressed by the IPCC (2000) method, which was 3.2.3. Composting 4 generation capacity per unit of waste mass, waste mass, of unit per capacity generation 4 for between 33 Synthesis Report | WASTE 34 Synthesis Report | WASTE Revised Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories it does not to conform to the National Inventory which is based on two methods: the 1996 IPCC arising from composting. Although IPCC (2006) suggests a method, it is not being utilized, since period of some decades) is avoided. environmentally-hazardous pollutants. reducing the simultaneously while resources natural and rawreducing materials, imputs, to energy or for need significantly habits, contribute and could which of patterns all – material consumption recycling and reusing changing and items waste controlling by source at same document. greenhouse gases are produced and the emission of CH excellent opportunity toan produce high-quality organic Givencompost. presents that this is an aerobic process, no landfills, from material organic removing to leads that alternative an Composting, process. digestion the in emissions anthropogenic GHG of presence the without where: (Tier 2) is described below (Equations 2 - 7). forforced aeration (natural ventilation)artificial and/or presence the with of oxygen (O survive only in the presence of free oxygen. In other words, the aerobic is composting the ‘aerobicprocess composting technique’calls which involves decomposition by microorganisms which First Order Decay (FOD) method, explained in the IPCC Good Practices Guide published in 2000. The method defined by the IPCC (2000) provides no guidance on the estimation of emissions Other waste management methods include practices for reducing waste generation generation waste reducing for practices include methods management waste Other The most commonly-used composting method for treating municipal and household waste The estimate of The equation used in the IPCC guidelines for estimating CH the is landfills from arising emissions estimating for utilized method the scenario this In MSWt MSWf OX L Q K R A T 0 3.2.4. Equation 2 - CH4 emission by First Order Decay Method (FOD) – Tier 2 Estimated GHGemissionsfrom landfilldisposal Q A employed in Equation 2 can be explained as follows : = Fraction ofwaste to bedisposedofinlandfill = ∑ = Quantity of = Quantity = Total ofwaste generated quantity = Normalization factor for the sum [ ( = Potential generation of A . k = Year ofcalculation . = Oxidationfactor RSUt = Decay constant = CH CH 4 . 4 recovery RSUf generated peryear . L 0 . e CH − k 4 ( t − 4 (normally generated in a landfill over a x ) −
and the IPCC (2000) version of the R ) 4 . emissions of the decay method ( 1 − X O ) ] [GgCH [dimensionless] [dimensionless] [dimensionless] [GgMSW/ yr] [GgCH [GgCH [1/ yr] 4 [yr] /GgMSW] 4 4 / yr] /yr] 2 ) but but ) of the product between MSW where: The estimate ofL where: The estimate employed inEquation 5canbeexplained asfollows: where: 0.15 0.17 0,4. 0.3 16/12 D B A DOCf C MCF DOC The estimate of the quantity of waste for disposal in landfills (Rx rateMSW F Pop Rx = Fraction ofwaste originatingin gardens, parks andother putrisciblenon-food sources = Fraction of waste from paperandtextiles = Degradable organic carbon ofthe fraction ofwaste from wood andstraw = Degradable organic carbon ofthe fraction offood-waste parks and other putrisciblenon-food sources = Degradable organic carbon ofthe fraction ofwaste originatingingardens, = Degradable organic carbon ofthe fraction ofwaste related to paperandtextiles = Fraction of food-waste = Fraction ofwaste from wood and straw urb = Methane correction factor related to disposalsite management 0 employed inEquation 2isexplained asfollows: = Fraction ofthe DOCsubject to decomposition DOC =(0,4.A)+(0,17B)(0,15C)(0,3D) = Carbon conversion ratio (C)to (CH Equation 3 - Normalization factor for the sum MSWt .MSWf =Rx Equation 5 - Potential generation of CH4 Equation 6 - Degradable organic carbon = Collected waste percapita = Fraction of t and MSW = Quantity ofwaste buried = Quantity = Degradable organic carbon Equation 4 - Quantity of waste buried L 0 = Urban population =MCF.DOCDOCfF16/12 f and the product between rate MSW CH A = 4 inthe landfill 1 2 − = k e rateMSW − k 4 ) .Pop urb ), was calculated on the basis [kgMSW/inhab.day.] [GgMSW/yr] f and [inhab] [dimensionless [dimensionless] [dimensionless] [dimensionless [gC/gRSU] Pop dimensionless dimensionless dimensionless dimensionless [gC/gMSW] [gC/gMSW] [gC/gMSW] [gC/gMSW] urb . 3 ]
35 Synthesis Report | WASTE 36 Synthesis Report | WASTE where: The estimate oftheDOCfemployed inEquation 5isexplained asfollows: where: where: i i in addition to landfill disposal or the incineration methods addressed in this report. These These report. technologies this can in also addressed produce GHG methods emissions. incineration the or disposal landfill to addition in
Q Q 44/12 C O N CCW FCF As is well known, solid waste management can be undertaken using different technologies IW EF 2 O 2 IW EF = quantity ofcarbon =quantity dioxide duringperyear [GgCO T = Quantity ofnitrous oxide =Quantity generated peryear [GgN 3.2.5.
= = Equation 8 - Estimate of CO2 emissions from solid waste incineration Estimate ofGHGemissionsfrom incineration SS: Sewage sludge MW: Medical waste HW: Hazardous waste MSW: Domestic solidwaste SS: Sewage sludge MW: Medical waste HW: Hazardous waste MSW: Domestic solidwaste = Burning efficiency ofthe incinerators= Burningefficiency of Equation 9 - Estimate of N2O from solid waste incineration = Fraction offossil carbon iwaste intype Q = Massofwaste incinerated i by type Equation 7 - Fraction of decomposable DOC O C = Massofwaste incinerated i by type = Carbon content i ofthe type 2 = = Conversion ofCto CO Q ∑ = Emissionfactor i N DOCf =0.014.T+0.28 = Temperature 2 i O ( W I = ∑ i . CCW i ( W I i i . . FCF F E 2 i type iwaste type ) . i 0 1 . F E − 6 i 2 4 4 /yr] 2 O/yr] / 2 1 ) dimensionless dimensionless dimensionless [GgMSW/yr] [kgN [gC/gMSW] [Gg/yr] [°C] 2 O/Gg] 4 in Brazil (previouslyCH Scenario 3-A:CH Scenario Burning scenario without this information. This is a guideline being applied to CDM projects, even though no national publications confirm employed by countries throughout the world to gauge local GHG emissions. technologies contained in that document. The 2000 method (together with the 1996 method) is technologies or possible events in Brazil are discussed and estimated. The tool used for for used tool The estimated. and discussed are elaborating scenarios can be accessed on the CETESB website (www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/biogaBrazil in s), events possible or technologies from 73 to18 Mt CO and the other variables contained in the Reference Scenario. This scenario forecasts reductions the exception ofthedestruction oflandfillCH Change Commission. The remaining features of the Reference Climate Scenario Global have Inter-Ministerial been Brazil´s retainedin with with dealt being were method this using projects Figure 17 - Scenario 3-A CH4 burning at 75 percent collection efficiency in landfill As can be expected, GHG emissions were reduced by 75 percent from the verified total in the The practice of burning CH the considered method inventory 2000 IPCC the using scenario this of Elaboration In this section the GHG emissions arising from the use of four different waste management 3.2.6. 3.2.7. 4 was not burned). In April 2009, 30 CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) Mechanism) Development (Clean CDM 30 2009, April In burned). not was
Results Other technologies andevents CH 2 e in year 2030, corresponding to 75 percent burning capacity. 4 burning, and the emissions curve increased in line with population growth 4
with 4 in Brazil began once the Kyoto Protocol entered into force force into entered Protocol Kyoto the once began Brazil in a 75 percent 4 increasing to 75 percent of collection capacity. collection of percent to75 increasing collection efficiency in all landfills 37 Synthesis Report | WASTE 38 Synthesis Report | WASTE 2030 is entirely foreseeable. effects of CH the maintained, are Scenario Reference the in outlined conditions the that Finally,assuming waste disposal sites in large cities, the possible effects of installing incinerators on waste recyclingencourage reuse and Givensource. reduction, at limitations increasing the is also estimated. services or the reduction of income, consumption and therefore waste. Addtionally, the possible reduction of waste is estimated, due to the possible decline family of in sanitary increases by or incomes leading to higher consumption facilities and consequent higher waste generation, sanitation is estimated. municipal of delivery improved by caused be could which landfills, in deposited waste of amount the in increase possible the Forexample alternatives. these of impacts the show that scenarios four the discuss documents these and Scenario 2-A: An increase of20percent inthewaste massdelivered to landfills hopefully provide a clearer idea of the effects of introducing the four different alternatives. and generation of waste. An increase of GHG generated by landfills from 73 to increased prosperity 89 of the population and Mt a consequent increaseCO in the levels of consumption not collected. A further factor that could influence higher levels of landfill waste is the possible services municipal is Brazil the wastetoday in of percent 15 by alreadymentioned, As waste. collecting for responsible employed efficiency of levels higher of result the as deteriorate (practically the only waste disposal method used in Brazil today). This situation could actually evaluated be involves increases possible waste the in earmarked mass for landfills in disposal emissions of the different possible alternatives presented there is no simultaneity of events. The main aim is to permit evaluations of the GHG Scenario. Reference the in defined conditions original remaining the all account into take emissions of 6-A 5-A 4-A 3-A 2-A 1-A Scenario Waste reductions could also result from environmental education programs designed to to designed programs education environmental from result also could reductions Waste According to ABRELPE (2008) 15 percent of Brazil´s MSW is uncollected. The first item to item first The uncollected. is MSW Brazil´s of percent 15 (2008) toABRELPE According These technologies or events are considered independently given that in most of the results of CH Incineration of 100 percent of the waste in MRs with a population of over 3 million, burning Reduction of 20 percent of quantities of waste for disposal in landfills Incineration of 100 percent of waste in MR with populations of over 3 million 75 percent collection efficiency in 100 percent of the landfills in Brazil Low Carbon Scenario of the solid waste sector–burning of CH Increase of 20 percent in the waste mass arriving at landfill Reference Scenario Technology or event 4 landfill burning are estimated. Discussion of the scenarios in Table in scenarios the will of below 4 Discussion are estimated. burning landfill 4 in landfills in municipalities with populations of between 100,000 and 3,000,000 Table 4 - Scenario versus technology or event vis-à-vis the Reference Scenario. The estimates 4 at 2 e by year those of the Reference Scenario, and in subsequent years a reduction of the emissions was was observed.emissions While areduction from 73 to 66 Mtofthe CO of reduction a years subsequent in and Scenario, Reference the of those equalled 19) Figure (see emissions 4-A Scenario the technology, incineration of installation the following year 6th the of end the at note, positive more a On operation. of out taken been sites. Landfill waste is likely to affect the atmosphere for some decades after the landfills have by the scale of emissions caused by burning waste and by the continuing emissions from landfill installation of incinerators and closure of landfills in the Metropolitan Regions can be explained in a linear, uniform rate up to year 2030. that this upward trend will continue and that the fossil fraction in wasteincrease will continueover torecent increase years - from 3 percent in 1970 to 15 percent in 2005. Scenario 4-A considers Scenario 4-A: Incineration of 100 percent of waste in MR with populations of over 3million populations with MR in waste of percent 100 of Incineration 4-A: Scenario waste being incinerated. reduction will tend to narrow as the result of the higher concentrations of fossil fractions in the As can be seen in Figure 14, the concentration of fossil materials for installing landfills. Therefore, one alternative that needs to be considered is waste incineration. The increased levels of GHG emissions observed during the early years following the the following years early the during observed emissions GHG of levels increased The A further consideration is the imminent exhaustion of sites in the large Metropolitan Regions Figure 18 - Scenario 2-A: 20 percent increase of waste mass arriving at landfill
Emission s(milliont CO2e/yr) 10 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 30 0 201
2015
S c 20 e n a r i
o
2 -
A
2 e is estimated for year 2030, this rate of of rate this 2030, year for estimated is e 205 S c e n
a r i o
1 -
A
9 203 in waste has continued to to continued has waste in R S i S
o n c e c f e c e f
r e n w n e r a a a a e r r s s n i i o t e o c e
e
1 i
2 n
-
- S
A
A
t c
h
e :
e 2 n
0 a q % r u i o a
2035 n ti t y
39 Synthesis Report | WASTE 40 Synthesis Report | WASTE Scenario 5-A: Reduction would result in a reduction of emissions from 73,000 to 59,000 Gt CO illustrates an estimated reduction of around 20 percent this ofcould disposablelead to landfilla reduction waste in thein quantity2030, of whichwaste forfriendly disposal habitsin publicin theirlandfill dailysites. routinesFigure 20and are persuaded to(iv) providing incentivesgeneratefor whereby consumption sustainable environmentally- adopt people smaller amounts of waste. All waste generation at source, (iii) upscaling waste separation and recycling practices at source or reduce MSW generation, (ii) the spread of environmental education programs aimed broughtat reducing about by (i) an economic crisis which would lower levels of consumption and, as a result, A further possibility is to seek to reduce actual waste generation. Natural reduction could be The initiatives described above could be widely adopted in all the municipalities. Figure 19 - Scenario 4A: Incineration of 100 percent of solid waste in municipalities with
Em issions (m il lion t CO2e /y r) 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 E m issions ( m il lion t C O 2e /y r ) 0 201 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 201
Figure 20 - Scenario 5-A: Reduction by 20 percent of20percent ofquantities ofwaste fordisposalin populations of over 3 million inhabitants of quantity of waste delivered to landfills 2015 2015
20 S c e n 20 S a r c i e o
n
5 a
r -
i
A o
4
- A
S c e n a S r c i 205 o e
n 1 a
r - A i 205 o
1
- A
t ( S u o c p e
l o S a
n w t c f n 203 a o
e i s t d r
n o h 2 i 2 fi o a l
0 i o l r e that year. d
203 l % R S 5 i v
o
- s c w e e
A )
i e 4 r
f t a o
: e n e
3 s - f R S P r a s
t
A
m e c e e
s r r
e : o n o
i f i
i o e n 1 l n g c l l
i r
a i 0 e
r d 1 o e m r 0 e -
n n i S A w % s o u c
c s i
n e
n a 1 e i i v i n
h s n S c e - c t i a c a
A p i e
e b n r r
a
n e i i e d l t o a i d r a e ti 2035
a r n u l t i ti i o t e c v s o
s tio e
n
r 2035
e
n d
landfills
fossil of over 3 million, burning of CH of burning million, over3 of Scenario 6-A: Incineration of 100 percent of the waste in MRs with a population tive parts,rubber, candlesand paraffin. 5 to each of the variables contained in the IPCC (2000) method is listed in MSW is Tableof the 5 order of below.41 percent. The set of uncertainties considered in this report with regard generation process (k of between 100,000and3,000,000 from 73toCO 17.7Mt emissions of reduction a in result would rate. This efficiency percent 75 at landfills in burned 4-A) ofbetween populations with in cities where and 3million, 100,000and CH Scenario in over (as of million 3 populations Brazil with Regions of wasteMetropolitan the in assume the same hypotheses as posited in the Reference Scenario. over 3 million inhabitants; CH4 burning in landfills in municipalities with population between The scenario, illustrated in Figure 21 estimates an incineration rate of 100 percent of all the Regardless arisefrom thatcould uncertainties ofthe thelife expectancy CH ofthe events or technologies different the of adoption the that Finally,remembered be should it Figure 21 - Scenario 6-A: Incineration of 100 percent of waste produced in municipalities with 5 waste would be recycled. 3.2.8. Fossilwaste comprisesdifferent typesplastic, foams,polythene,automo Emissions (million t CO2e/yr) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 201
Uncertainties (MSW) ), overall uncertainty regarding GHG emission estimates in this study of this in estimates overall ), regarding emission GHG uncertainty 2 e inyear to 2030.Inaddition above the considerations,100 percent of 2015
Source: 100,000 and 3,000,000 4
S in c e 20 n a r ESSENCIS, 2004 i o landfills
6
- A
S c e n a in 205 r i o
1
municipalities -
A
i o S o n c f f
e M
1 o n 0 v R a 0 e r s % i r
o w
203
3
o 6 i
t m f
h
w - i
A p l R S a l
i o
: c s o e
p e t I n f n e n e u
c r a
l i a e n r ti n i e o c o r
e 1 n a with
ti s S
- o c
A e n
n
a r i o
populations 2035
4 would be be would
- 4
41 Synthesis Report | WASTE 42 Synthesis Report | WASTE 3.3.1. this context as a valuable mitigation option. the option identified in the Low Carbon Scenario. Recycling, for example, must be considered in of waste generation atsource scenariowhich istheideal beencouraged could inparallel with not depend exclusively on technical, economic or isolated environmental solutions. Reduction do which factors socio-cultural to linked be to tends and highly desirable is option mitigation waste generation at source and composting. be employed for mitigating GHG emissions caused by waste treatment such as the reduction of Half life (MSW sent to (MSW Total of municipal solid waste factors Data on emissions and emission Fraction of CH = 0.6 = 0.4 = (MCF) emissions of CH Estimates of the uncertainties associated with Correction factor of the CH landfills (F) = 0.5 Oxidation Factor (OX) carbon DOC Fraction of degradable organic (DOC) Degradable Organic Carbon Recovered CH 1.0 Reducing waste generation at source is a key consideration in terms of sustainability. of key terms a Reducingwaste in sourceis at consideration generation This In addition to the alternative proposed in the Low Carbon Scenario, other technologies can 3.3. F T LDRSM ) and fraction of the MSW ) (k) = 0.05 f = 0.77 Reducing waste generation atsource 4 4 (R) generated in 4 Other mitigation options in the LDRSM Table 5 - Estimate uncertainties in the MSW sector 4 flared CH different from zero data must include interval is over 10%) for municipalities with better quality data. OX included in the uncertainty analysis in cases where different >±10% (<-10%, >+10%. The absolute value of the uncertainty Uncertainty will depend on how the quantity of recovered and In places with poor quality data uncertainty can be more than from zero data is used for OX. In this case the justification for in comparison with other uncertainties if measured 4 is estimated but uncertainty tends to be relatively minor default parameters in the FOD method for Employed in this estimate = 15% Employed in this estimate = 10% Employed in this estimate = 10% Employed in this estimate = 0% Employed in this estimate = 0% Employed in this estimate = 5% Employed in this estimate = 0% Specific to each municipality: In this estimate = 35% -40%, +300% Uncertainties –50%, +60% -30%, +30% -50%, +20% -30%, +0% -10%, +0% -0%, +20% double. uncertainty considerations. in situ. of elsewhere. the area (whether in operation or not). This method is employed in Brazil. percent of the total gas produced in the landfill, always depending on the type and conditions of of the flu within the waste mass. The destruction efficiency of biogas varies from 5 percent to 20 structure and drained off naturally. Figure 22 below illustrates the area of influence (the ‘bulb’) combustion efficiency of up to 90 percent. The biogas entering these wells is located around the exhaustion. The etc. fridges, gas process requires a lamps, collection system motors, which can be one of boilers, two types: ovens, forced flow dryers, or passive flow heaters, including equipment of deposited in landfills and which over the years be would normally would emit which CH MSW the that given emissions, GHG of reduction a for responsible scenario the tobe considered is projects employed CDM in Composting estimates. emissions no preparing contained for used was which method (2000) IPCC the but composting, from maximum quality of the compost produced. Composting is a simple aerobic process which which producesprocess noCH aerobic simple a is Composting produced. compost the of quality maximum for to authorities the undertake selective lowest the at collection while cost possible ensuring the for calls practice environmental initiativesof This introduction education toto separateencourage users waste and 100,000. under of populations with municipalities of case the in this system is used. Figure illustrates below ‘bulb’ 23 percent. the when 98/99 high as as is influence of efficiency area the of operation Furthermore, (in conditions not). or and type the on burning depending efficiency can be between 70 percent and 80 percent of collection the total The of gas produced in the landfill. landfill the of surface the from escaping from biogas the prevent to material impermeable similar a or PVC with covered be can landfill The system. the within installed system the biogas is directly flared at the head of the extraction wells with a extraction the wellswith of directly In thepassivehead is system biogas the flaredat the The collection and burning of biogas avoids CH mainly considered, be should which alternative mitigation a is composting of use The In the forced exhaustion system the biogas is collected by a series of extraction blowers blowers extraction of series a by collected is biogas the system exhaustion forced the In 3.3.3. 3.3.2. 4 emissions.TheIPCC (2006)methodestimates theN Biogas collection andburning Composting Figure 22 - Example of passive drainage well Source: ESSENCIS, 2004 4 emissions. Biogas can be burned in a variety
4 into the atmosphere, is disposed 2 O emissions resulting resulting emissions O 43 Synthesis Report | WASTE 44 Synthesis Report | WASTE waste mass. blowers and is subsequently flared; treatment unit; to extract the biogas by forced exhaustion (negative pressure) with extraction blowers; environmental, social and health benefits. Other benefits resulting from the correct correct the from resulting benefits Scenario: Other benefits. health management of and municipal waste could be also simultaneously adopted within the Low Carbon social environmental, 4. The possible installation of some form of impermeable material such as PVC to cover the 3. A moisture separator to remove moisture from the biogas before it reaches the extraction 2. A piping network connected to the top end of the wells for transporting the biogas to the 1. A series of vertical extraction wells installed in a regular pattern in the landfill which serve The forced exhaustion collection system requires the following: The Low Carbon Scenario outlined in this report foreshadows a series of economic, economic, of series a foreshadows report this in outlined Scenario Carbon Low The 3.3.4. Figure 23 - Example of a forced exhaustion drainage well system Figure 24 - Example of a forced exhaustion system (equipment) Other benefits Source: ESSENCIS, 2004 wastage of natural resources, avoid incineration and avoid occupying valuable space in disposal T-shirts. even and cans new make to recycled be can which cans aluminum and bottles PET are this of to produce new items which can serve an identical function or some other purpose. Examples the involves recycling ‘External’ transformation discarded. of certain being discarded materials than reprocessed or productsbe rather to by a chain given factories industrial process in manufacturing order the paper-making in in scraps paper pre-consumption e.g. process, recycling recycling. involves‘Internal’ manufacturing original to the returned being materials new manufacturing productsfor (IPT/CEMPRE, material 2000). raw as serve to items waste of processing and separation returned to the consumer market. the reuse of glass drink bottles which are collected, correctly washed, refilled with liquids and example reused. One is and for 2000) uses whichthey were (CEMPRE, originallyintended the need for certain types of waste to be deposited in landfills etc. Many products can be adapted fail to comply with the law. costs, disposal and standards where emission cases in treatment avoidancefines to waste,of and of control and minimization overall Incentives cheaper in step. result first could reduction essential an source as encourage regarded be should and overall generation waste clean technologies in manufacturing processes (CEMPRE, 2000). packaging compatible with the various alternatives for treating MSW, as well as the adoption of disposal of waste. Measures to reduce waste generation at source include using more efficient methodsconcernedonlyon “end-of-line” withthetechnical operations employed for thefinal measures. The main thrust of this approach is to minimize waste generation rather than to focus efficiency, placing them in a separate class of operation. and quality technical levelof this achieved have which not those from landfills well-operated from CH operating site the soil and underground landfill water sources high with percolated liquids as ensuring well as for to minimize fire risks standards. Good management requirements practices are needed in order to avoid basic the risk of contaminating are design system original have a deleterious effect on the physical environment. dumping of waste into water catchment facilities or down storm water culverts, all of which can waste in water bodies, streets and elsewhere. These waste measures of should prohibit, case for example, the specific the In management, appropriate population. collection and the disposal of practices aim to conditions control improper health disposal the of on impact direct and domestic, government, commercial, industrial and service sector premises, etc. Program) II (Programa de Modernização do Setor de Saneamento /Sanitation Sector Modernization These three measures share similar environmentalbenefits given they that canreduce the external or internal into subdivided be can recycling (2000), CEMPRE to According collection, the involving activities of series a of result the is recycling hand, other the On (iv) The reuse and reutilization of waste materials is a cost-effective measure which avoids According to Kiely (1997), waste reduction at source is the most effective way to minimize (iii) The reduction of waste generation at source forms part of a wider set of anti-pollution (ii) Improving the operational aspects of public landfills and ensuring compliance with with compliance ensuring and landfills public of aspects operational the Improving (ii) major a have sanitation basic and services cleansing municipal available Universally (i) Waste collection services benefit the country’s entire population. According to the PMSS 4 spontaneous combustion. The practice of biogas recovery and flaring distinguishes distinguishes flaring recoveryand biogas of practice The combustion. spontaneous (2003) waste collection is considered to be “universal” when it is provided for all all for provided is it when “universal” be to considered is collection , waste
45 Synthesis Report | WASTE 46 Synthesis Report | WASTE approximately and 100 mass waste both in reductions volume, as well as sterilization. Low-temperaturesignificant thermal treatment involves temperatures of produces treatment thermal temperature is usedmainly to destroy orremove organic fractions from thewaste. Furthermore, high- destruction of waste. source, at generation selective waste collection, recycling,of reuse, composting, universalization reduction of waste e.g. MSW,services or of thermal management the in implemented be takes place in these two places. Biogas, given its high concentration of CH treatment plants. Anaerobic digestion of the organic material contained in waste and effluents temperature processing. Thefirst process, inwhich temperatures ofover 500 the elimination of pathogens. waste for disposal in sanitary landfills, use of the organic material for agricultural purposes and of volume the in reduction a as such fromcomposting obtained be advantages can Numerous applied to soil, improving it without incurring risks to the environment (IPT/CEMPRE, 2000). be can which compost organic produces process waste. The vegetable or animal in contained for the social inclusion of poorer people. social benefits such as the generation of direct and indirect jobs and concomitant opportunities and economic additional produce can recycling materials and reusing time, same At the sites. used as a fuel for power-generating purposes. emissions from this source could be reduced but care needs to be taken since the increased increased the since taken be to needs care but reduced be could source this from the emissions throughout GHG years 20 next the Over indiscriminately term. short the over applied emissions if increased involve could country, waste, fossil burning Meanwhile, Events. and simultaneously. applied be can emissions, GHG on impacts different various alternatives, practice with in that the above 3.2.7 Item Under contribution to a practices. Low Carbon Scenario management by waste certain other other technologies out was rule to considered. It is recommended hoped consumption or sell excess gas to third parties. produce significant economic benefits, as waste facility operators can produce energy for on-site energy purposes is better than discharging it in its raw state into the atmosphere, and itforbiogas flaring dioxide gas.Thus moregivencarbon noxioustimes than change 24 can is it that also particular technical option-thecollection andburning ofCH generated forheat the producing using of energy. possibility the and materials hazardous of neutralization and sterilization waste, the of volume and mass both in reduction significant thermal a to of linked are treatment advantages waste main The 2000). (IPT/CEMPRE, reduced significantly be can waste The Low Carbon Scenario addresses CH (vi) Thermal treatment with or without energy generation involves ‘high’ or ‘low’ ‘low’ or ‘high’ involves generation energy without or with treatment Thermal (vi) material organic of decomposition the involving process biological a is Composting (v) CH GHG emissions caused by waste incineration are estimated in Item 3.2.7, Other Technologies While the waste sector Low Carbon Scenario presented in this report refers to one one to refers report this in presented Scenario Carbon Low sector waste the While (vii) Generating energy with recovered CH of volume the although unaltered practically remains fraction organic and mass The 4 3.4. possesses the potential to negatively impact the environment and affect global climate Low Carbon Scenario -SolidWaste 0 C and is used mainly for sterilizing waste. 4 can be done in sanitary landfills or in wastewater 4 burning on landfill sites. However, it is not not is it However, sites. landfill on burning 4, other practices can and should should and can practices other 4 , can potentially be be potentially can , 0 C are reached, reached, are C by CH the Reference Scenario (see Figure 7). this in practice being result as disadvantageous actually in terms could of GHG 14) emissions as Figure the in current practice defined observed in be can (as waste in concentration fossil force of the Kyoto Protocol. Previously CH items in the Reference Scenario are maintained, with the exception of CH total of 30 CDM projects involving this method were being addressed in the CIMGC. All the other below. 26 Figure at Scenario Reference the in shown as - constant remain will percentage this 2030 to up period the during that considered is it this, for reasons the Notwithstanding collected. as interpreted be can which 2010-2030 period the raises representing and for the 2030 Referenceliterature outcomes Scenario for the probable waste of sector Cities/Environment with of a number fair a degree of Ministries accuracy.and ABRELPE IBGE, in described burning method in all landfills throughout Brazil, with or without use of the energy emissions reduce from 73 GHG Mt Scenario CO Carbon Low the In Scenario. this of 3.2 Item in defined features other the and same period the Reference Scenario, emissions tend to increase in line with population growth the Over Scenario. Reference the in practice) this (without verified total the of percent 75 by has yet to be confirmed in Brazilian publications. percent landfill collection capacity. This guideline is currently applied to the CDM projects but 6 Burning CH According to ABRELPE (2008) around 15 percent of all waste generated in Brazil is not not is Brazil in generated waste all of percent 15 around (2008) ABRELPE to According as 2007 in Brazil of situation the considers sector MSW the for Scenario Reference The Figure 25 below indicates that GHG emissions could be reduced over the next 20 years years 20 next the over reduced be could emissions GHG that indicates below 25 Figure 4 . 3.4.1. 3.4.2.
Figure 25 - Scenario 3-A: CH4 burned with 75 percent collection efficiency in landfills 1GW is equivalent to burning .0026 Mt CH 4 is a practice which has only begun to be followed in Brazil since the entry into Low Carbon Scenario for the MSW sector Consolidation
E m issions ( m il lion t C O 2e /y r) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 201
2 e to 18 Mt CO 2015
4 S was not burnt in landfills in Brazil. As of April 2009 a c 20 e n a r
i o 2 3 e in 2030, through the possible application of this -
A
4 or .055 Mt CO 205 S c e n
a r i o 1 -
A
203 2 e. 7 m l t Sc
an r 5 e e e % at d t n h
fi ar c m an l o l i s e l o l
e n e
an
w t c
b
ti i i d n u t o h
r w s n n
M an
i i e n t S ffi h i g t W
ar c at i
e y 2035
n
c y
4 destruction at 75 75 at destruction 6 produced 47 Synthesis Report | WASTE 48 Synthesis Report | WASTE 2010 and 2030. between unaltered remain will this that assumes and composting and incineration for figure can be observed in Figure 26, the waste sector Reference Scenario uses an identical percentage 1 percent total ofthe waste solid ofmunicipal collected sameway, Inthe (i.e.insignificant). as ordinary garbage dumps throughout the entire 2010 through 2030 period. waste generated in smaller solid municipalities the with that under assumes 200,000 therefore inhabitants Scenario Reference will The be disposed landfills. of sanitary by in served be not will 200,000 under of population a with cities reckonedthat is it hand, Table other the On 3). (see landfills sanitary possess will over of 200,000 populations with cities all 2030 and 2010 between that considers Scenario Reference the Thus 50,000. over of populations with cities serving those in mainly landfills, the in conditions operating improve to proposals with and Federal Government indicate a genuine and growing concern with the country´s waste situation few years. Figure 27 (Low Carbon Scenario) does not cover this technique butaims to gauge the believe that the adoption of capture and burning of CH stricter controls over the operation of landfills. the Disposal existingof MSW in sites. public landfills is In increasingly this restricted regard,by environmental licensing some and public health specialists use of more environmentally waste friendly products. reducing at aimed programs promote the that technologies and composting recyclingand source, reusegeneration, at and education environmental introduce to efforts as such occur in linear fashion, commencing at 0 percent in 2010 and 100 in finishing at employed be 100 percent will of percent the sanitary in landfills in estimated, 2030. Brazil is by it the year which, 2030. It was practice deemed that this common increase will increasingly an - landfills up in sanitary landfills while 31.8 percent was dispatched to controlled landfills and 29.6 29.6 and landfills controlled to percent to garbage dumps ( dispatched was percent 31.8 while landfills sanitary in up Reference Scenario, with the exception of the practice of collecting and burning CH According to IBGE (2000) the total amount of waste incinerated and composted is under under is composted and incinerated waste of amount total the (2000) IBGE to According A reality in the major Metropolitan Regions is the decreasing availability of sites for installing new emissions forreducing way no technologies in disregards other Scenario Carbon Low The Also according to ABRELPE (2008), 38.6 percent of the solid waste collected in 2007 ended The waste sector Low Carbon Scenario maintains all the hypotheses adopted in the the in adopted hypotheses the all maintains Scenario Carbon Low sector waste The 1 1 8 2 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 Figure 26 - Reference Scenario: MSW services provision 1 0
lixões 2 ). From 2005 onwards promising measures taken by the the by taken measures promising onwards 2005 From ). 0 1 5 U
n c o l l e c t e d
O p e n
ai 2 r 0
Lan 2 0 4
d in the largest cities is inevitable over the next fi l l s
Lan d fi l l s
2 0 2 5
2 0 3 0
4 in sanitary used. impacts of the adoption of CH and the quantities of waste that are not collected (estimated on the basis parallelof growth the of the population, CETESB MSW generation, model). replacement of garbage dumps by landfills can be seen in the quantities of MSW for disposal in landfills. These variations are caused by the Reference and Low Carbon Scenarios can be gathered from Figures 28 and 29. Small variations Some idea of the percentage distribution of the sanitation services in the MSW sector in the W a st e d ist r ib u ti o n p e r ce n t a g e 1 Figure 28 - Reference Scenario: Percentage distribution of MSW treatment services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % % % % % % % % % % % M S W (m illio n t / da y ) 1 1 2
2 4 6 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - ...... 0 Un 0 0 0 0
0 0
2
0 c 1 o 0 l
l e c Figure 27 - Low Carbon Scenario: MSW services provision t e d U
n c o l O l e p c e 4 t e burning. Item 3.2.7 covers other technologies that could possibly be n 2 d
0 L
1 a 2 5 n 0
d 1 5 fi
l l s L
a n d fi L a l l n s
d w fi / l o l s
g w a i 2 s t 2 0
h r 0 2
e 2 g 0 c 0
a a
s p
r t e u c r a e p
t u r e
U L n a n c 2 o d 2 0 l i l l 0 2 e l s 2 5 c
5
w t
e / d o
g a s
r e c a p t u r e 2
0 3 2 0 0
3 0
49 Synthesis Report | WASTE 50 Synthesis Report | WASTE municipality in the Reference Scenario and the Low Carbon Scenario. produced each would reducedin comparebe emissions Figures32 by and the 31 percent. 75 capture and destruction systems and the total emissions in the waste sector Reference Scenario which in year 2030 will possess 100 percent collection and burning systems. difference between the two situations is in the capture and destruction of CH number of systems for capturing and burning CH over five year segments. This means that in 2030, 100 percent of all landfills would possess CH Figure 29 reaffirms the pattern adopted in the Reference Scenario (Figure 28). The The 28). (Figure Scenario Reference the in adopted pattern the reaffirms 29 Figure The results of the Low Carbon Scenario for the MSW sector are presented in Figure 30.The W aste distributi on per centag e 1 Figure 29 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage distribution of MSW treatment services 3.4.3. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Un % % % % % % % % % % % 2
0 c 1 o 0 l l
e c t e Results d
m illion t C O 2e / 10 y r L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 a 0 201
n d Figure 30 - Low Carbon Scenario 2010-2030
fi l l s 2
E w 0 m 1 i s i s t 5 i o h
2015 ns
f g r o
a m
s w
a r s t e e
t r c e a a t m p e n 20 t t
u
r e
% 2
4 0 o L f increases, resulting in emission reductions reductions emission in resulting increases,
2 i a m 205 0 p n l
e d
m e fi n t a l t l i o s n
o w f
c o / l l o e 203 c t
i g o n
a
a n s d
b r ur e ni c ng a s y p 2 s t 0 e 2035 t m u 2
5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10% r
e
Un 4 in the landfills, landfills, the in c
o l l e c t e d
2 0 3 0
4 Figure 31:Emissionfrom Waste MtCO2e, –Reference by Municipality Scenario 2030
Figure 32: Emissions from Waste, Mt CO2e, by Municipality – Low Carbon 2030 e T qu h e t T a
o o l h
u t v e o t a l
Source: CETESB, World BankBrazil Low Carbon Case Study i o or l n Source: CETESB, World Bank Brazil Low Carbon Case Study u u e
e a t d l bo s i c
n e i v r e q c e d u l
e
1, a c s l 0
i
c r t c or o l
e r o e s r s
po c a o b n r o d r e v t s e o p
1 v o a , n 0 l u d 0 e
0 s
51 Synthesis Report | WASTE 52 Synthesis Report | WASTE 2015, 29GtCO 75 percent of the landfill emissions indicated in the Reference Scenario. guidance for the authorities and other interested parties. preventive,of number a out sets table corrective governances and intended aspects toprovide of sites for building new landfills requiring appropriate environmental licensing. The following experienced by municipalities in the public landfills to major problems caused by7 the shortage Table in summarized are Scenario below. Carbon The barriers Low include the a range for of problems, sector from the technical and operational sanitation constraints environmental CH recovering and/or using for capturing, burning, Application of techniques sites environmentally suitable Availability of Capacity Building barriers Technical-environmental Economic-legal Mitigation actions The principal barriers and preventive/corrective initiatives for overcoming them in the the in them overcoming for initiatives preventive/corrective and barriers principal The The avoided emissions intheLow Carbon Scenario (zero in2010) increase to 18GtCO 4 for energy purposes 3.4.4. Year 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2 Table 7 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to sanitary landfills e in 2020, 41GtCO Barriers andproposed solutions Table 6 - Low Carbon Scenario: Avoided MSW emissions Emissions avoided with respect to the Reference Scenario or 1-A disposal. for waste treatment and analysis of sitesselected Socio-environmental programs. operational support for regional technical- and technical skills calling Municipalities lack staff Preventive bodies, NGOs etc ). companies, government firms, international systems (private local bodies operating similar between specialized Exchange of experiences 2 e in 2025 and 55GtCO (1000tCO 55,105 41,166 28,633 17,620 fraction present in waste. order to treat the organic aerobic composting) in range of techniques (e.g. To encourage the use of a disposal sites. of inadequate active MSW environmental recovery Repair and Corrective sustainability . and environmental economic viability with a view to ensuring and effective systems Constructing efficient 0 2 e) 2 e in 2030, effectively corresponding to components of waste. particularly of the fossil selective collection, through separation and reutilization of waste Reduction and them fully up to standard. sanitary landfills to bring regularization of active Environmental licensing Governance licensing procedures. with environmental systems in accordance executing and operating agencies responsible for environmental bodies and with technical norms by Ensuring compliance 2 e in in e the country’s largest Metropolitan Regions. actions that could be taken with regard to the potential installation of incineration technology in Socio-cultural charging facilitating taxation and Legal mechanisms for and funding Shortage of investments i. mental barriers Technical-environ- Mitigation actions Mitigation actions Economic-legal know-how Lack oftechnical Table 8 below lists the various barriers and possible preventive, possible Tableand variouscorrectivebarriers the mitigation lists and below 8 Table 8 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to incineration Preventive operating systems. spin-offs ofincinerator with theenvironmental how andfamiliarity lack technical know- sector specialistsstill Opinion formers and stream. lifecycle generation context of the waste reverse logistics in the selective collection and aware consumption, Promotion of ecologically waste generation. quantifying tracking mechanism for new measuring and Proposal to introduce characterization of waste. systems) and gravimetric calibration/verification procurement of weight Upgrading and Preventive per capita Corrective ing possibly toxic substances. of atmosphericemissionscarry environmental and public health tention to theadverse effects on systems, paying particularat of therelevant incineration in theapplicationandoperation ing for agentsandstakeholders Knowledge andcapacitybuild over the next 20 years. cooperatives and NGOs arrangements with forging of partnership through systematic selective waste collection Substantial upscaling of services. collection and treatment in respect of waste charging mechanism To alter the taxing and 20 years. investment over the next systematic increase in Substantial and Corrective - - - Governance other large cities. sustainability inMRs and to analyze prospects for its pects ofincineration and attention to technical as- ing agenciesto pay close Environmental andlicens waste components. regarding fossil-related logistics, particularly services and reverse of selective collection the entire lifecycle chaing exempt mechanisms for Introduction of tax- questions. energy and climate change water resources and (ii) sanitation, environment, concerned with (i) government sectors mechanisms of institutional development Integration of the plans and programs. resources for government application of financial of the acquisition and Control and supervision Governance - 53 Synthesis Report | WASTE 54 Synthesis Report | WASTE
Socio-cultural Mitigation actions iii. ii. costs investment Substantial and charging tating taxation nisms for facili - Legal mecha - stream. of thewaste generation logistics inthecontext collection andreverse sumption, selective logically aware con- Promotion ofeco Preventive waste generation. quantifying percapita tracking mechanism for a newmeasuringand Proposal to introduce million. populations ofover 3 in urban areas with can only bejustified ploying incineration waste treatment em Feasibility studiesfor - - 20 years. eratives andNGOsover thenext ship arrangements withcoop systematic forging ofpartner- tive waste collectionthrough Substantial upscalingofselec Corrective lection andtreatment services. charging system for waste col- Alteration ofthetaxation and Proposed installationofhigh atmospheric effluents. control andmitigate gases and highly efficientsystems to eration systems, introducing technology devices inincin - - - ed waste components. ticularly inthefossil-relat and reverse logistics,par selective collectionservices productive chainutilizing from taxation theentire nisms designedto exempt Introduction ofmecha Governance contracts ofover 30years. systems and/orPPPs with ment basedonconcession ment inshared manage- for institutionalinvolve- Incentives to beprovided stipulated timeframes, etc.) (i.e. withinappropriate able financingresources required for accessto avail regulations andprocedures existing legal structures, working knowledge of private sector capacities/ Expand bothpublicand capacity inmunicipalities. and project development Expand long-term planning - - -
- 4. figure. differentiated bybe type of treatment and type of greenhousealso gas), as illustrated in thecan following (that treatment effluent by caused emissions GHG of sources the considers also waste and effluents are identified in Item 4.1. method is employed for estimating emissions. The modes of treating and disposing of gas-producing additional resources needed for a successful Low Carbon Scenario of istechnology of describedtype effluent each for treatment). factors below. emissions The pre-established IPCCtherefore (and (2000)verified is 2006) and methods contain (2000 data and/or guidance IPCC for calculating GHG the emissions, where which for technologies those only Wedescribe literature. the in waste solid only manytreatment the scenario, treatments of emission available some effluent Figure 34. Wastewaters are divided into domestic sewage and industrial effluents. The model model The effluents. industrial and sewage domestic into divided are Wastewaters The model developed for defining the quantities of GHG that can be mitigated and for calculating the The technical alternatives for treating effluents addressed in this section are, similarly to the The types of anaerobic treatment of effluents proposed by the IPCC (2000) are listed in in listed are (2000) IPCC the by proposed effluents of treatment anaerobic of types The 4.1. Sewage and effluent treatment Em A t r na e i si C a e t Figure 33 - Sources of GHG emissions caused by effluent treatment H m r ons f Treatment modes obi 4 e
nt c
A e N r obi o e Ef c m f t l ue i r si e nt a ons t m
e
nt
R R e e duc c y c
l t Em i i ng on t i
D r si w C e i a i H s t ons f t pos hou m 4
e a nt t l
default existence
55 Synthesis Report | WASTE 56 Synthesis Report | WASTE (CHERNICHARO, 2000). digester anaerobic high-rate (ii) two-phase (iii) and digester; digester; anaerobic anaerobic high-rate low-rate (i) single-phase common: are digesters of types main Three number stages. the of and equipment mixing of existence the on depending 14m and 7m between of high a in the form of covered circular tanks with with diameters varying from 6m to 38m and with depths effluents industrial treating for concentration of and suspended solids. The digesterstreatment are usually sewage constructed by in reinforced concrete generated sludges 0.3 kgBOD/m Detention time varies between three to six sludges. daysactivated and filters and the biological or volumetricsystem) Australian metric (the load lagoons’ between ‘optional as 0.1 such and such as those originating from meat, dairy,wastewaters industrial BOD beverages, high and sewage paper organic and predominantly cellulose. for treatment primary system widelyThis used anaerobic a respiration been as essential. has stringent is conditions Anaerobic sludge digesters are used principally for stabilizing primary and secondary secondary and primary stabilizing for principally used are digesters sludge Anaerobic systems aerobic with together utilized and (over 2m) deep usually are lagoons Anaerobic of existence the where treatment waste of form alternative an is lagoon anaerobic The Figure 34 - Sources of sewage and effluents, treatment systems and potential CH4 emissions l i N a D n k o
i r e 4.1.2. 4.1.1. s t i s
p v d A t s
o r e a i e n e g s r n a a a e s e d
t e
d s e a
r t
s d n i o o Note: The italicized text in bold squares indicates a possible source of CH e o
d f b a n
i
3 c .day (VON SPERLING, 1998).
C S A Anaerobic digesters Anaerobic lagoons l o e u l r d l o e g b c e i t
c e
d
a p p l S i c o a i T t l i
o r e E n a s T t
e E R d
e a c D t o o r m
e A s n t i Source: IPCC, 2000 a c e
c a r
n o d b S
i s t i c n L a e n e w g a d t n g u w e a o r s o a t n o
r r g t n i k
a e i
n l
e f f l u e n t s l T s a e
r t p e r t a i i n t c m e
t s a e
a n n n t k
d s i n
,
N o t
c S o p l l r e e c a t d e 4
d o emissions
n
s o i t N l r
o a t
t t a r e do a t
e d
a a r o D
i n n f v i
d d s i e n p
r l s
o s a e
s k a e e
d s
Figure 35, biogas is generated by the system. to return to the digestion chamber instead of being expelled by the system. As can be seen from the sedimentation of particles which become detached from the sludge blanket, enabling these for separating gases and solids located beneath the decanter ensures the correct conditions for effluent is discharged through an internal decanter located at the top end of the the reactor.by ascending flow of sludge and gas The bubbles. sludge enters the system at the bottom and the induced A mixing device with blanket) sludge and (bed zones reaction the in occurs material organic the of activity.Settlement bacterial dispersed and intense by degraded be to sludge, dense of blanket a through passed sewage of hydraulicflow ascending an of consists process adhesion and growth on solid surfaces and the creation of a uniform biofilm around each each around biofilm particle uniform a or of support material, creation with the high and volumetric surfaces loads of solid on between 20 growth and and 30 kgDQO/m adhesion The fluidized bed anaerobic reactor (FBR) is an anaerobic treatment process involving bacterial are of the fixed (anaerobic filters), rotary (anaerobic bio disc), expanded or fluidized bed type. milk, meat, as such beverages, products paper,from BOD of and levels cellulose. high with effluents industrial and sewage The use of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors (UASB) is currently widespread. The A number of different types of anaerobic reactors exist of which the most commonly used used commonly most the which of exist reactors anaerobic of types different of number A organic predominantly specific, of treatment primary the for used are reactors Anaerobic 4.1.3. s A e c w c (c s W a e l u g o s i s d t e m Anaerobic reactors h
g
Figure 35 - Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB) p d p e o ra a s rt c
w
t f e a o d l r
a o ra n f
d w e
x
s c t a e b s i s Source: Chernicharo, 2000 l
i z e d )
s p T e S h h p l a re u a s d ra e e g
-
t e
o Bi
r b
e o d g
a c S s o
e e m d x i i p m t
a e rt n m t a e E t n i x o t i
n t
3 . 57 Synthesis Report | WASTE 58 Synthesis Report | WASTE Scenarios for the domestic sewage and industrial effluents sectors respectively. manufacturing process. Scenarios 1-B and 1-C (see Figures 36 and 37) represent the Reference potential for generating organic load or CH their and variations technological the simulate to model mathematical a define to available, Each case possesses peculiarities and it is not possible, given the level of information currently representvariation over can this that time. model particular a to define difficult is it although processes. The generation of organic load in effluents generated by industrial processes varies, employment (or not) of facilities for containing and destroying the CH (i) the collection rate, (ii) the type of technology employed to treat collected sewage, result and of income (iii) or regionalthe variations. In Brazil’s case, a the as variablesvary to applied unlikely to is this beings process human areby produced sewage in load organic of generation The under Item 3.2.1. mentioned growth population regarding assumptions and considerations same the account emissions in this Reference Scenario fromcan both thusprocesses, be once estimated.stabilized, are then delivered processremaining the and percentto67 by anaerobic the process reactor. sludge a in sanitary sludges The landfills for final disposal. The treating sewage. This means that 33 percenttechnical ofsolutions the employingorganic aload combinationmust beof study. removedactivated Note throughthatsludge the systemsexpansionan aerobic ofand the anaerobicsewage treatmenttakenreactors together with forecastservices populationfor growth,has form beenthe basis of theconceived Reference Scenario in the on the basis of treatment does not exceed 10 percent of the amount actually collected (PNSB, 2000). These figures, to up services year figures Collection 2030. for are2010 region the in while percent, 50 of sewage Government´s basic sanitiation plans for the universalization of sewage collection and treatment The Reference Scenarios for the sewage and effluents sectors can be described as follows: as described be can sectors effluents and sewage forthe Reference The Scenarios The Reference Scenario for the treatment of sewage and effluents was estimated taking into The Reference Scenario shown in Figure 36 below reflects the deployment of the Federal the of deployment the reflects below 36 Figure in shown Scenario Reference The 4.2.1. 4.2. Figure 36 - Scenario 1-B or Reference Scenario for Domestic Sewage
Em issions (m illion t CO2e /y r) Domestic sewage Reference Scenario -sewage andeffluenttreatment 10 20 40 60 80 0 201
2015
20
4 by the treatment process accompanying the the accompanying process treatment the by T R o e t f al e r 205
e E n m c i e s
s Sc i o e n n s
a i n r i
o 2 : 0
D 3 o 0 m
=
e
1 s 0 ti 203 . c 8
E
ffl
u m e i n l 4 l i t o generated by anaerobic s n
t C O 2 e / y r
2035
around 20 percent (PNSB, 2000). burning CH been have manufacturers beverage and Food firm. given a by pursued activity of type the on described as follows. This second method mentioned above was adapted and applied as as applied and adapted was above described mentioned below. method second This follows. as described was defined by utilizing the international inventory method of the IPCC (2000) and the method generation ofCH andburning Figure 38 - General strategy for elaborating the 2030 Scenario regarding GHG emissions caused by In the treatment of industrial effluents the organic load varies considerably depending depending considerably varies load organic the effluents industrial of treatment the In The elaboration 2030Low ofthe Carbon EmissionsScenariofor treatment the ofeffluents The Reference Scenario shown in Figure 37 reflects the assumption of the continuation of of continuation the of assumption the reflects 37 Figure in shown Reference The Scenario 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4 from biogas through anaerobic treatment facilities since the 1980s. Figure 37 - Scenario 1-C or Reference Scenario for Industrial Effluents Industrial effluents Calculation Methods b e D re h e a t ro f v i i n s o i p Em issions ( m il lion t CO 2e /y r) 10 r t 20 40 60 80 e i 0 m o c 201
n t o i
v d o
e e f
l s
E s e t 4 m i 1 m from industrial effluents, with anaerobic treatment indices of of indices treatment anaerobic with effluents, industrial from 9 i s a 9 s t 0 e i 2015 - o
2 o n 0 f s
0
G f 5 o H
r
G effluent treatment
f u E t 20 u s re m t i m
o
b d a e e t h
e l a s
o v i f o
r p e o f 205 G T R p o o l d e e u D u t t f e h n a e
e l f e l a r e e n i
e l e t n r r t p i n m a
i o t h g c n l e i n e
i e s g c d
s , n S s h
a i s s o c u e n t e c e n a ra rv i n w e s
q o a
n t e i u a i n r n a y o i g e
o ri
2
n
e e : o 203 0 f
o
. I o r 3 e a g n s r 0 t n d = .
L S c
u
d 1 . o c s
5 e ti w
n a m E
l a E ffl
i l ri l m i u o o e n i s n s
t t s t
s o C i
o
o O n l 2 2035
e / y
r
59 Synthesis Report | WASTE 60 Synthesis Report | WASTE where: employed for this scenario are described below. as latrines and septic tanks. river and lake organic loads or those produced by domestic/localized treatment processes sea, of such degradation byanaerobic generated emissions the of wasdone estimate No digesters. lagoon processes or in plants employing aerobic/anaerobic processes such as anaerobic sludge reactor anaerobic and using (ETEs) stations sewage treatment in occurs that loads organic of IPCC (2000) method was used to obtain this estimate. sector.waste the in The emissions GHG on Communication) National the in (included Report Reference the elaborating for employed that as same wasthe Scenario 2030 the in treatment analyzed with respect to the possibility of occurrence in the study’s scenario. effluent treatment technologies etc. are models These past. generation, load recent the organic regressions, of for themostpartlinear,of ofthepercapitaevolution study the for models evolution behavior relevant of where: Emissions D Prod TOW The models employed for estimating GHG emissions, adopted from the IPCC (2000) and and (2000) IPCC the from adopted emissions, GHG estimating for employed models The The scenario includes the estimate of CH effluent and sewage by caused emissions GHG estimating for employed method The and considered are evolution of alternatives possible the defined, are models these Once definition a with begins scenario 2030 the above, estimating the from observed be can As treatment TOW D P dom Equation 10 - Estimate of CH4 emissions from anaerobic treatment of sewage and effluents TOW ind 4.2.4. dom ind = Degradable organic component ofindustrial effluent = Degradable organic component ofdomestic sewage siae f H eisos rm eae n effluent and sewage from emissions GHG of Estimate Equation 12 - Estimate of total organic sewage and effluent Equation 11 - Estimate of total organic sewage and effluent = Quantity of = Quantity = Total sewage ororganic effluent = Total organic industrialeffluent = Total organic domestic sewage = Industrialproduction = Population Emissions =TOW .EF–R CH TOW 4 generated peryear TOW 5 ind dom =Prod.D 4 emissions produced by anaerobic degradation degradation anaerobic by produced emissions
= P.D dom ind [kgBOD/product/yr] or [kgBOD/1,000persons yr] [kgDQO/product] [ product/yr] [1.000 persons] [kgBOD/ yr] [kgBOD/ yr] [kgBOD/ yr] [GgCH 4 /yr] where: where: in 2010 to over 25,792,000 tCO emissions virtually triple during this period. is represented by Figure 39 below. The total emissions increase from just over 9,174,000 tCO Weighted meanofthe MCF MCF WS Table 9 below summarizes the evolution of emissions between 2010 and 2030. The The 2030. and 2010 between emissions of evolution the summarizes below 9 Table The Reference Scenario for emissions caused by domestic and industrial effluent treatment R i,x B x 0 4.2.5. = Conversion factor of = Fraction “i”sewage oreffluent treated oftype usingthe “x”system Figure 39 - Reference Scenario for Domestic and Industrial Effluent Emissions E m issions M C O 2e 10 Equation 13 - Estimate of emission factor for sewage and effluents 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 201
Results
= Maximum capacity ofproduction= Maximumcapacity of
Weighted meanofthe MCF EF =B 2015 = Fraction ofBODdegradable anaerobically CH Equation 14 - Weighted mean of MCF 2 e in 2030.
4 ofthe “x”system treating “i”sewage oreffluent = Recovery of 0 .Weighted meanofthe MCF 20
CH 4 i = CH 205 4 ∑ x
T D R o e ( o t f m S W a e l r e
e e s n m ti c c i e
s s
s S e i i [kgCH o c , wa e x n n s g . a i e MCF n r
i 203
a o 2 n
0
- d 3
0 i 4 nd : /kgBOD] or[kgCH
2 u 5 s , 7 t r x 9 i a 2 ) l ,
0 e 0 ffl 0 u
t e C n O t 2 s
e 2035
[dimensionless] [dimensionless] [dimensionless]
[GgCH 4 /kgDQO]
4 /yr] 2 e 61 Synthesis Report | WASTE 62 Synthesis Report | WASTE (2000) method according to the the order of 42 percent and in the effluent sector around 63 percent. Both are defined by the IPCC aiu cpct o CH of capacity Maximum DQO/per capita Maximum capacityofCH DQO/unit ofeffluent Effluent/productive unit Industrial production Emissions dataandfactors sewage treatment systems. Fraction treated anaerobically production Human population Emissions dataandfactors sewage treatment systems. Estimates oftheuncertaintieslinked to defaults andparameters for theemissionofCH to linked uncertainties the of Estimates (B cally Fraction treated anaerobi- Uncertainty regarding the estimates of GHG emissions in the domestic sewage sector is on sewage sector 0 ) production 4.2.6. 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 Year Table 9 - Reference Scenario: Emissions due to sewage treatment Table 11 - Estimate uncertainties in the industrial effluent sector Table 10 - Estimate uncertainties in the domestic sewage sector Uncertainties related to the estimates for the domestic the for estimates the to related Uncertainties Emissions from domestic sewage and industrial effluents treatment 4
4 (B Used inthisestimate: 50percent cent issuggested. can beattributed directly to kg -50percent,100per DQO/tofproduct. of theparameters shouldpossessless uncertainty. Theuncertaintydata ferent effluenttreatment procedures indifferent countries.Theproduct This dataisrelatively uncertaingiven thatthe samesector may usedif Used inthisestimate: 25percent data source anddetermine more accurate uncertaintyintervals. ± 25percent. Specialistappraisal required to confirmthequalityof Uncertainties tion andthattheuncertaintiescannot fall outsidethe interval of0to 1. The uncertaintymustbedetermined by specialists,given that this isafrac- Used inthisestimate: 30percent ±30 percent 0 ) default Source: Adapted from IPCC (2000) Source: Adapted from IPCC (2000) fraction andthatuncertainties cannotfall outsideaninterval of Uncertainty mustbejudgedby specialists,given thatthisisa and parameters for the emission of CH of emission the for parameters and defaults data presented in Tables 10 and 11. (1,000 tCO 25,792 20,886 12,505 12,612 9,174 Used inthisestimate: 30% Used inthisestimate: 30% Used inthisestimate: 5% 2 e) between 0to 1. Uncertainties ±30% ±30% ± 5% 4 indomestic 4 in domestic in - - supplying the burner PVC membrane. Change). of validationsubject and registration in the UNFCCCthe (United Nations Frameworkbeen Conventionhave on Climate rates load organic strength high with industries in projects sector (less than 30 percent) and has led to gases escaping during operations. A number collection of and CDM burning of private CH the assist to and gases contain to order in membrane PEAD or PVC a with system entire the digesters require biogas collection plants, normally consisting of the following components: 9. A well-head burner 8. An open and/or enclosed burner 7. A control, measuring and regulation unit 6. A flame shut-off valve 5. A sediment separator 4. Gas seal pots system collection biogas coveredthe Figureillustrateswith 40 anaerobic lagoon an a with cover to is practice common a effluents liquid treating for lagoons anaerobic using When 3. A gas collector for collecting gas from lagoons, digesters and/or reactors and 2. Valves to alleviate pressure and vacuum 1. Collection pipes at the head of each anaerobic digestion system anaerobic waste and digesters, anaerobic sludge reactors, anaerobic effluent Liquid 4.3. Mitigation options Figure 40 - Anaerobic lagoon with biogas collection 4 . The system has proved to be of low efficiency for capturing biogas Source: ECOINVEST, 2006
63 Synthesis Report | WASTE 64 Synthesis Report | WASTE and CH order to eliminate scum, This device (manufactured from stainless steel) must be installed at the head of the system. In allowgas to only in pass direction, one thereby preventing interlinking gaseous the of phases. for inspection purposes. The material used in the collectors can be PVC, PP, PAD or metal. this Low Carbon Scenario but which should be adopted simultaneously,and sewage to are listedrelated effluent below. management benefits that could the be of provided bynumber A these practices and benefits. which are not social comprised and in health environmental, must not have low points where condensate could accumulate. collector must be totally aerial and slope towards the separator or sealing pot of the burner. It stainless steel. percent 100 of constructed be must system This levels. checking for instrument valve an and must be taken to install a sediment separator in the principal collector, to include a siphon, drain higher than 99 percent, this type of burner is preferred in CDM of projects.efficiency destruction Given normal odors. the disagreeable water and thereby eliminating system) and a residence time of over 0.5 seconds, all the compounds are converted into oxides constant a the entering air excess of amount the maintaining controlling (by By over800°C of temperature combustion conditions. temperature controlled under and chamber closed iii. iv. 7 ii. i. The most efficient burner in terms of H2S, NH3, mercaptans, volatile organic compounds compounds organic volatile mercaptans, NH3, H2S, of terms in burner efficient most The to order in installed be must pot seal a system digestion each in points exit biogas the At The pipes that collect the gas at the well head should allow for the installation of a manhole The suggested Low Carbon Scenario in the present report is likely to produce economic, economic, produce to likely is report present the in Scenario Carbon Low suggested The After passing through the sediment separator, the biogas passes to the combustion area. The 4.3.1. Scum: a layer of grease that forms and floats on the surface of sewage and effluent treatment treatment effluent and systems sewage of surface the on floats and forms that grease of layer a Scum: 4 is the ‘enclosed’ type. In this type of burner combustion occurs in a thermically isolated Water recycling. According to Mierzwa and Hespanhol (2005), certain activi- certain (2005), Hespanhol and Mierzwa Waterto recycling.According (better qualitywater). watersupply public the and costs) operationalsystems(lower treatment the on benefit positive a have can which source, the at reduction generation ent efflu- in invest to preferable is It investments.private and public significant cilities or extensions to the operational capacity of existing facilities, involving fa- treatment new of construction the for calls generation effluent Increased and efficiently. safely more treated is sewage that ensuring techniques better of velopment de involvethe systems treatment effluent the in improvementsOperational serves thequalityofwater sources for publicsupply. pre- effluent and sewage for systems treatment correct using Furthermore, in the various systems can avoid the dissemination of disease-causing insects. Sewerage services have a direct impact on health. For example improvements in manyin processes.industrial thisrespectIn water reuseworthwhilea be can tolerateties waterused lowergradethat a non-potable than of a or quality of Other benefits 7 sediments or other materials that can be sucked into the biogas, steps - therefore do not produce the biogas CH and bacteria methanogenic include not do processes aerobic given that processes, anaerobic employed to for sewage and addition effluent In treatment. criteria. economic and anaerobic technology,operational aerobic processes technical, or a combination of anaerobic/aerobic environmental, methods to can be according done is effluent and sewage treating for technologies of Selection introduced. gradually are in the scale of collection and anaerobic and collection of scale in the treatment systemsas for CH burning and collecting The burners used in these systems possess a methane burning efficiency of 90 percent. of biogas capture and burning systems for burning around 50 percent of the biogas generated. to continuing to subscribe to the Reference Scenario, Scenario 3-B also includes the installation burning the biogas generated as a result. Scenario in these terms the Low Carbon Scenario also incorporates systems for capturing and domestic sewage collection and treatment services. In addition percent to 100 subscribing of to the 2030 by Reference delivery universal i.e. retained are assumptions Scenario Reference abatement of emissions. Scenarios involve the introduction of anaerobic treatment with the capture and burning of of 100 percent burning of the and CH capture the with treatment anaerobic of introduction the involve Carbon Low Scenarios The 47. Figure in seen be can (3-C) sector effluents industrial the for Scenario Carbon Scenario for Low the The 37. domestic Figure sewagein (1-C) sector sector (3-B) effluent is shown industrial the in for Figure Scenario 45 Reference the and and 36 the Low Carbon not considered by the IPCC (2000) method. Scenario because they are not responsible for significant greenhouse gases. Moreover they are v. ment It is widely known that biogas from sewage and effluent treatment is only produced by by produced only is treatment effluent and sewage from biogas that known widely is It The Low Carbon Scenario for the sewage and effluent treatment sector assumes an increase In Scenario 2-B (in Figure 41) the Reference Scenario assumptions are retained. In addition the that presupposes Scenario Carbon Low sector treatment sewage domestic The The Reference Scenario for the domestic sewage sector (1-B) has been shown in Figure Figure in shown been has (1-B) sector sewage domestic the for Scenario Reference The Carbon Low the for discarded been has (non-anaerobic) technologies other of use The 4.4. 4.4.1. ment systems. Generating energy from recovered CH recoveredfrom energy Generating (MIERZWA andHESPANHOL, 2005). pollution controlling and resources natural preserving for instrument useful purposes is one of the aspects of water and effluent management and can be a water non-potable or industrial irrigation, of for effluents use untreated or The treated source. at use water reduce to practices of adoption the with er reducepressurepracticecan waterwhich management on resources, togeth- o Cro Seai - eae n efun treat effluent and sewage - Scenario Carbon Low Low Carbon Scenario for domestic sewage 4 generated, which results in higher quantities of waste treated with total 4 . 4 can also be applied to effluent treat - effluent to applied be also can - 4
65 Synthesis Report | WASTE 66 Synthesis Report | WASTE the domestic sewage sector. total methane emitted in the Reference Scenario. This constitutes the Low Carbon Scenario for the of percent 10 of emission residual a implies which percent, 90 of level efficiency burning 100 percent in 2030. Anaerobic sludge digesters possess a burner which operates at a methane achieved progressively (as the installations are the gradually introduced) from 0 percentincluding in 2010 to level of provision, 90 percent in all the sewage treatment systems. Emission efficiency reductions will as a burning result treatment be estimated an at and biogas burning and collecting for systems collection of installation sewage domestic of universalization Scenario 3-B (Low Carbon – Figure 42) mirrors the Reference Scenario, with the the with Scenario, Reference the mirrors 42) Figure – Carbon (Low 3-B Scenario Figure 42 - Scenario 3-B: collection and burning of biogas generated in some of the domestic 10, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201
E m issions ( m il lion t C O 2e /y r) 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 201
Figure 41 - Scenario 2-B: 50 percent of domestic 2015 C e sewage collected and treated anaerobically sewage treatment systems from 2010-2030 n
á r 2015 i o
3
B
S 20 c e n 20 a
r i o
2
- B % T R
o e
i t f m e a p r l
e l E e n m m c R i e e s n
s e S 205 t i f a c o e 205 t e n i r o n e s
n n a
i
c r n o i e f
o 2
c S : 0
a D c 3 pt e o 0 n ur m
a = e r
e
i
1 o a s n 0 tic
d . m 8
b E
i ur l ffl l 203 i 203 n o u
n e s y
n t
s
C t t s
e O
m
2 s e
/ y r
2035 2035
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10%
significant increase in CH burners used The in these generated. systemsbiogas the possess of a percent 100 methane around burning burning efficiency for of systems 90 burning percent. and capture biogas of installation the includes also 3-C Scenario Scenario, Reference the to subscribe to to 2026, and finally 100 percent by 2030. to 2014, 40 percent between 2014 and 2018, 60 percent between 2018 and 2022, 80 percent up burners used in these systems possess a methane burning efficiency of 90 percent. biogas capture and burning systems for burning around 50 percent of the biogas continuing to generated. subscribe to The the Reference Scenario, Scenario 2-C also includes the installation of result. incorporates systems for capturing and burning around 50 percent of the biogas generated as a addition to subscribing to the Reference Scenario in these terms the Low Carbon In Scenario also anaerobically. treated effluents industrial of percent 50 with 2030, year to up annum per Reference Scenario assumptions are retained i.e. growth of industrial production by 3 percent process, 100 percent of the CH capture and burning of CH the with systems digestion anaerobic of installation the assumes scenario This (3-C). sector The first Low Carbon Scenario simulated for the industrial effluents sector suggests a suggests sector effluents industrial the for simulated Scenario Carbon Low first The In Scenario 3-C the Reference Scenario assumptions are retained. In addition to continuing In Scenario 2-C (Figure 43) the Reference Scenario assumptions are retained. In addition to the that presupposes Scenario Carbon Low sector treatment effluents industrial The In Scenario 2-C, which can be interpreted for any fraction of treated sewage by the anaerobic Scenario 3-C (Figure 44) represents the Low Carbon Scenario of the industrial effluents effluents industrial the of Scenario Carbon Low the represents 44) (Figure 3-C Scenario 4.4.2.
E miss ion s ( m ill io n t C O2e /yr ) 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 201
Low Carbon Scenario for IndustrialEffluents
Figure 43 - Scenario 2-C: 50 percent of industrial 4 effluents collected and treated anaerobically emissions. 4 . Installation of these systems increases by a factor of 20 percent up 2015 4 generated is destroyed.
R e f e r 20 e n c e
S c e n a r i T R o o e
t f a e l r
e E n m c 205 i e s
S s S i c c o e
e n n n s a
a i r n r i
i o 2 o : 0
D 2 3 - o 0
C
m =
e
1 s 5 ti
c
m E 203 ffl i l l
u i o e
n n
t t s C
O
2 e / y r
2035
67 Synthesis Report | WASTE 68 Synthesis Report | WASTE the Reference Scenario except for the amount of methane emitted. efficiency level of an 90 at percent. Scenario Figure Reference 45 the of represents the assumptions Low the to Carbon gas Scenario. methane of This is burning in and step capture the with adds Scenario Carbon Low The areas. urban Brazil´s in generated sewage the of percent 100 of treatment and collection the implying 2030, and 2010 between achieved be to assumed is century,sewage domestic urban treatment all universalizationand of the collection the the of guidelines established by the Federal Government atthe end of the first decade of the 21 other of series PACa the and PLANSAB, the with accordance In anaerobically. or aerobically treated is this of percent 14 only collected is percent 40 remaining the While latrines. or pits sewage is not collected but discharged directly into water bodies or treated in systems such as 2030 scenario. accurately the more represent which and “probable” most the be to assumed are which 2030 Reference The Scenario also contains a Cities. number of and considerations for the Environment period betweenof 2010 and Ministries the and IBGE by issued information to according According to the IBGE National Basic Sanitation Survey (PNSB) around 60 percent of all all of percent 60 around (PNSB) Survey Sanitation Basic National IBGE the to According 2007 in situation Brazil’s account into takes Reference Scenario effluents and sewage The 4.4.3. Figure 45 - Low Carbon Scenario: Domestic sewage treatment systems 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 , , , , , , , , , 10, Consolidation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70, 80, 90, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
201
2 0 1 0
Figure 44 - Scenario 3-C: Burning CH4 generated by treatment of industrial effluents 2010-2030 U n c o 2015 S l l c e e c n t 2 e
a 0 d r 1
i o 5
3
-
C C o l l e c t e d an 20 d
T r e at e 2 d 0
2 0
% C
i o m l l e p c l t e e 205 m e d e
n b t u
a t t u i o n n t r e o at 2 f
0 e c 2 d a 5
pt
ur e
a n 203 d b ur
n
s
y s t e m s 2
0 3 0
2035
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10%
st
and reduced ‘at source’ emissions generation. emissions such as introducing environmental education programs aimed at water reutilization to 100 percent by 2030. around 90 percent. These installations will be introduced progressively, from 0 percent in 2010 the sewage treatment plants of systems for collecting and burning biogas in at installation the of exception an the with Reference Scenario the efficiency in adopted hypotheses the levelall of emissions do not occur at present. increase or reduction of greenhouse gases is involved since, according to CETESB, such expansion methane of treatment by anaerobic processes together with the biogas incorporates only collection Scenario and Carbon Low the burning. burning, and No collection biogas processes, two incorporating these by represented is Scenario Reference the While processes. anaerobic considered accordingis are it that to that law generated effluents all are treated by aerobic or Furthermore, emissions. Brazil´s the defining for activities these to confined be should data that survey a of that and selected be should load organic generate that activities recommends main the of three method (2000) IPCC The activities. economic country’s the all cover not included in the Reference Report of Brazil’s GHG emissions from this sector in 1990-2005, does The Low Carbon Scenario does not in any way rule out the other technologies for reducing maintains represented below Figure46 in Scenario Carbon Low effluents sewage and The The Low Carbon Scenario for the industrial effluents sector, similarly to the data survey survey data the to sector,similarly effluents industrial the for Scenario Carbon Low The 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % % % % % % % % % % % 2
0 1 0
distribution of domestic sewage treatment systems Figure 46 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage U n c 2 o 0 l 1 l e 5 c
t
e d
C o l l e c t e d
a n d
T 2 r 0 e 2 a 0 t
e
d
C o l l e c t e e d
b u t
u n 2 t 0 r 2 e 5 a
t
e d
2 0 3 0
69 Synthesis Report | WASTE 70 Synthesis Report | WASTE generated by this practice. while taking into account forecasted expanded economic activity and population growth. as a result of the anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage and the recovery and burning of CH and economic population Brazil’s growth. Introduction reflects of the simply Low Carbon Scenario Scenario results Reference in the a of reduction of emissions emissions the in observed The emissions observed in 2010 of around 7 MtCO increase The 48. Figure in summarized is Scenario Reference effluents and sewage The 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % % % % % % % % % % %
2
Emissions (10 00 tCO2e/yr) 10, 0 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 1 Figure 48 - Low Carbon Scenario: treatment of sewage and effluents 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U n 0 201 c
o l l e c
t e d distribution of industrial effluent treatment systems
Figure 47 - Low Carbon Scenario: Percentage C o l l e c t 2015 e 2 d 0
1 b 5 u
R t
u e f n e t r r e e n at c e e d
S
c e na r 20 i C o o
l l e c
t e d 2
0 an 2 0 d
t r e at e 2 d e could be reduced to zero in 2030 even
ae 205 r o b i
c al l y L
o To R w e tal fe
C r
C e a e 2 n o m r 0 c b l i 2 l e o e s
5 s S n c i 203
c t o
S e e
n n d s c a
e i an r n n Ze Lo i
203: o a d
r r w
i o t o
r C e
e
m ar 25 at i b s e , 792 s o d i n o
an
n S , s 0 c
ae e n
r ar tC o 2035 i b O o i
c 2 al
2 0 l y
3
0
4
Scenario. Carbon Low the torelated sector sanitation environmental the in mitigation at aimed actions Socio-cultural Mitigation actions using CH recovering and/or collecting, burning techniques for Application of environmental Technical- purposes . financial resources investments and Increased Economic-legal Table 12 summarizes the main barriers and the preventive, corrective and governance governance and corrective preventive, the and barriers main the summarizes 12 Table 4.4.4. 4 for energy Table 12 - Barriers and mitigation actions related to effluent treatment Barriers andproposed solutions emissions generation. currently involving gas methods in systems bodies. supply capacity of water a view to enhancing the cleaner technologies with Water recycling and use of Preventive bodies, NGOs etc ). companies, government firms, international systems (private local bodies operating similar between specialized Exchange of experiences or CH burning, recovery and / approaches to collection, Application of new 4 energy-producing the next 20 years. in investment over systematic increase Substantial and sustainability. improved resource of water use aimed at and rationalization in water loss control Substantial increase Corrective sustainability . and environmental economic viability view to ensuring systems with a and effective Operation of efficient programs. government plans and resources earmarked for application of financial in the procurement and Control and supervision production methods. techniques and cleaner employ water recycling and others which tax incentives to firms mechanisms to provide Introduction of Governance standard procedures. in compliance with of effluent treatment to technical aspects pay close attention licensing agencies to Environmental and 71 Synthesis Report | WASTE 72 Synthesis Report | WASTE 5. power output. ETEs could produce emissions savings in 2030 of around 3400 tCO of waste disposal in landfills is maintained, the CO the organic content of municipal waste, domestic sewage, and industrial effluents. If the practice fossil component of municipal waste and the N (mainly) CO be regarded as ‘avoided’. In Figure 19 (Section 3.2.6) it is possible to gauge the level of N 49 is projected on the basis of simply burning CH Figure 49 - Low Carbon Scenario: Total emissions from treatment of waste, sewage and effluents The Low Carbon Scenario for GHG emissions caused by waste treatment, depicted in Figure According to the data in Table 13 the practice of collecting and burning CH Table 13 - Low Carbon Scenario: Total emissions from waste, sewage and effluent treatment 5.1. Consolidation of Low Carbon Scenario 2010 Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2 emissions produced by municipal waste.
Em issions ( 1 000 t CO 2e /y r) Synthesis ofLow Carbon Scenario 10, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 10, 20, 30, 0 Total emissions from waste, sewage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201
and effluent treatment (1000tCO 2015 63,798 46,894 39,465 30,034 18,368
2 e) 20
2 4 O emissions caused by caused waste emissions can O incineration emissions through the anaerobic treatment of 2 emissions resulting from incineration of the 205
Emissions avoided vis-à-vis Reference Scenario 203 9, T R 24,451 40,670 59,462 80,897 R 18, T L o e
ow o e 2 fe t 26 duc t a 368 a e, equivalent to a 1.5GWe equivalenta to e, l r
l
e Ca 0 e
e n , t m 0 , m i c 0 o r i e b n i s
s s o S
s o i t
n c i o t CO f o CO e
n
S n 81% n s c s a
2 e i
ri 2 i n
na n
o
20
20 r 2035 i o 30: 30:
4
in landfills and
2 O and emissions. the states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais account for 62.8 percent of Brazil’s total Paulo alone is responsible for 39.5 percent of all Brazil’s emissions. The combined emissions of 29,255tCO percent). The emissions for the center-west are 3,139tCO and 2030.In2010,total emissionsofthestates inthenorthregion amountto 2,212tCO percent),are stateswhile northeast combined the of totalthe of the emissions tCO 8,010 Table 14 - Low Carbon Scenario: Emissions from waste, sewage and effluent treatment (by State) Table 14 summarizes the total GHG emissions, by state, resulting from waste in years 2010 5.1.1. 2e (63.5percent) andfor thesouthregion 3,454tCO Total TO SP SE SC RS RR RO RN RJ PR PI PE PB PA MT MS MG MA GO ES DF CE BA AP AM AL
State AC Results according to states 54,200 21,405 1,582 9,015 1,851 1,473 1,171 3,628 1,329 1,763 1,716 2,484 2010 175 244 630 120 592 462 853 435 166 759 371 986 842 36 62 52 Emissions by state (1000 t CO 2 e) 18,368 6,918 2,776 1,160 1,016 2030 102 231 551 245 597 187 603 316 400 141 308 461 176 601 705 315 299 71 19 51 63 31 25 100.0% 39.5% 16.6% Percentage of Emissions 2010 0.3% 0.4% 1.2% 2.9% 0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 3.4% 0.9% 2.7% 1.6% 2.2% 0.8% 0.3% 6.7% 1.4% 2.5% 0.7% 3.3% 3.2% 4.6% 0.1% 1.8% 1.6% 0.1% 2e (6.8 percent), for the southeast region 2e (7.50percent). Thestate ofSão % 100.0% 37.7% 15.1% 2030 0.4% 0.6% 1.3% 3.0% 0.1% 0.3% 1.3% 3.2% 1.0% 3.3% 1.7% 2.2% 0.8% 0.3% 6.3% 1.7% 2.5% 1.0% 3.3% 3.8% 5.5% 0.2% 1.7% 1.6% 0.1% 2e 2e (17.4 (4.8 73 Synthesis Report | WASTE 74 Synthesis Report | WASTE the largest quantities of emissions. Carbon Scenario for waste treatment. São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Bahia produce Acceleration Program (PAC) in 2007 - at least R$40 billion for the wasteyears sector.2007-2010. Table the in 16 showsexpenditure public the of levels expenditure highest the earmarkedfor account for 100,000 over the of sanitation populations sector with by the Growth Finally, Figure 50 shows the reduction of GHG emissions from the Reference to the Low Low the to Reference the from emissions GHG of reduction the shows 50 Figure Finally, As can be observed in Table 15, and according to the Ministry of Cities (2008), municipalities 5.2. Figure 50: Total Emissions (MT CO2e) from Solid Waste, and Sewage and Effluents Economic analysis
sectors. surveys conducted in official bodies and studies recently undertaken by the private and public of the costs involved in introducing cash flow of such projects. systems, social-environmental responsibility and CDM projects, which have contributed to the management environmental of requirements the attend to made have been efforts voluntary all, above and agencies, environmental the from actions control and command of result a as manufacturing sectors. Private initiatives have invested in the treatment of industrial effluents called for in the significantly expanded collection and treatment of MSW. domestic wastewaters collection and treatment area compared with approximately R$6 billion domestic sewage. It is estimated that R$94 billion will be needed over the next 20 years in the Water supply Item’ Federal Resources Others program Pró-municípios Drainage Urban Sewerage Sanitation Inteted Total MSW Estimated investment costs (with O & M costs accounting for around 10 percent of the total) Abatement costs for the Low Carbon Scenario in the waste sector are estimated on the basis Investmentby private the sector vary will corporate on depending adopted policies by the treating and collecting for Brazil in needed still are investment of amounts Considerable
Table 15 - Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) -Sanitation (2007) Public budget Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Public budget Capital Financing Total Source: Ministry of Cities (‘Results, Projections and Actions – 2008’) per capita (inhabitant) mitigation alternatives according to 10.244.948.142,38 1.108.337.717,61 1.108.337.717,61 1.017.054.636,32 3.869.422.840,25 1.374.614.778,70 2.494.808.061,55 2.659.245.406,24 1.302.562.980,27 1.356.682.425,97 566.058.589,13 103.574.951,54 462.483.737,59 769.530.290,90 247.524.345,42 936.949.481,83 211.676.587,17 725.272.894,66 87.879.371,00 70.214.971,00 17.664.400,00 (R$) Allocated 100,00 10,82 37,77 25,96 0,86 5,53 9,93 9,15 (%) 3.528.781.061,78 1.015.871.040,07 565.756.657,47 748.947.169,23 695.134.193,65 179.654.162,18 445.539.053,57 565.756.657,47 515.480.031,47 570.331.986,50 200.964.562,06 140.665.224,35 256.317.187,11 492.629.982,12 241.286.008,01 187.237.245,59 60.821.431,29 35.447.731,68 25.373.699,61 60.299.337,71 54.048.762,42 (R$) Disbursed 100,00 16,03 19,70 28,79 21,22 1,72 5,70 6,84 (%) 75 Synthesis Report | WASTE 76 Synthesis Report | WASTE policies, and the principal of “polluter pays” would gain currency. activities which cause them. Overall, environmental policies would beincorporating integratedfor with economicinstruments the costs of theservices and environmental damage into theprices ofthe goods,efficacious services and particularly as seen be can sector waste the for indirectly from the National Sanitation Policy, such as: literature is too sparse to warrant their inclusion. relevant the local but the are in indirectimportant data benefits These conditions. sanitary in effluents. the treatment of domestic sewage than to solid waste treatment or the treatment of industrial required, we confirm our view that relatively higher levels of investment need to be devoted to and Low Carbon Scenarios. were employed to estimate the costs of treating and abating greenhouse gases in the Reference items: 5.3.1 (solid waste), 5.3.2 (incineration) and 5.3.3 (domestic sewage and industrial industrial and sewage (domestic 5.3.3 effluents). and Data on costs and benefits (incineration) do not 5.3.2 cover the waste), indirect benefits (solid 5.3.1 items: comments about costs and benefits of the application of a Low Carbon Scenario highlight three and detailed cost and benefit survey as done for the estimation of GHG emissions. The following cost and benefit’s figures. However there was a lack of sufficient data, preventing as rigourous 8 These actions should provide incentives for consumers and producers to modify behaviors The benefits arising from the application of economic resources in the Low Carbon Scenarios • • • • • • or directly flowing activities from arise benefits certain Scenario Carbon Low the Within Analyzing the results of the marginal abatement costs and of the scale of investment capital The most recent and reliable data available under national literature was used to arrive at the associated with the implementation of piped associated sewage costs system. the that with health problems estimated in the community was with open It air sewage far outweightedkept. the costs were costs health related and used a 90s, air the open medicine in hospitalizations, with exams, consultations, medical diseases, Recordsanother of sewage. Cetesb and by sewage piped with Janeiro), one de two: into (Rio divided was Santista community Baixada in undertaken study a In 5.3. Upgrading service quality relating to each treatment system through better better through system treatment each to relating management and quality administration. service Upgrading ensure sustainability and promote technological to innovation;systems and introducing by sector sanitation the of efficiency technical the Upgrading Initiatives to improve community wellbeing and quality of life; over the short to medium term; New facilitating mechanisms to reduce the negative externalities of the sanitation sector would be to regulate and and supervise these authorities the of activities;role The explored. partnerships be to need sector sanitation the for public-private concessions establishing for capacity opportunities investment demand, public of satisfy to shortage the Given investments. increase to Efforts country the throughout particularly in services the domestic waste area; sanitation consumers/users, all for provision service ensuring equality’), and (‘universalization appropriate provide to Initiatives Costs andbenefits 8 linked to improvements “diffuse” sources of pollution, including GHG emissions. policy instruments for dealing with current environmental priorities such as the needpurposes or for reducing taxes to on capital,labor, address and savings. They could also become efficient encouraging by resources of use friendly innovation and structural ecologically changes and and strengthening compliance efficient with existing more laws. encouraging by the day-to-day experience of CDM projects in Brazil. disposal sites throughout the country would call for an average investment of RS$13.9 per per inhabitant. RS$13.9 of investment average an for call would country the throughout sites disposal account spending on collection, training, education, etc. In short, into upgrading substandardtaking waste without million/year, R$91 of minimum a be would facilities such in investment annual time years 20 in words, other In inhabitants. million 140 around the of on sample a of 2030, basis in billion R$1.8 around cost would sites disposal MSW modern of installation and $6.8 per inhabitant, depending on the size of the municipality. requirements applicable to a modern MSW waste treatment facility amounts to between $4.5 of replacing a below-standard solid waste disposal site to comply with all the technical and legal MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente / bythe undertaken study involvedbya provided costs been the has of assessment reasonable A insufficient. nevertheless are Program PAC/Sanitation the by projected values the sector, utilizing landfill CH and recovering burning, collecting, for systems to relate costs investment the sequestration, 9 Moreover, the appropriate actions could generate funds that could be used for environmental Considering the average present investment cost readjusted for 2030 (R$13.6/inhabitant), While a clear need exists toinvestmentsexists increase need waste over clear solid a years the next 20 While in the On the other hand, upgrading the MSW treatment systems in terms of mitigation and and mitigation of terms in systems treatment MSW the upgrading hand, other the On Figure 51 - Cost of landfill impelementation (R$/inhabitant) in the state of Minas Gerais 5.3.1. Exchange rate used of 2.2R$/USD
C o s t/in h a b ita n t ( R $ /i n h a b ita n t) 1 3 4 5 0 5 0 1
0 0 Solid waste 0
4 for energy generation purposes. Table 16 is based on data assembled from 4 2 , 7 4
2 0 , 5 7
Source: MMA/GTZ/CEF/CETEC. 1 1 0 3 0 , 0 3 0 8
Environment ) Ministry in Minas Gerais: The average costs 1 1 , 2 5
p o I 9
p n ,
3 u 1 4 l h
a 0
çã a 0 6 0 o b , 0
4 (h 0 itan 2
a b )
t 5 s
, 2
1
5 , 0 9
4 , 1 1 4 1
, 2 0 4 6 0 ,
0 3 0 6 0
0
4 , 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9
77 Synthesis Report | WASTE 78 Synthesis Report | WASTE CH US$96.8/inhabitant for installing is collection and prices burning systems2030 to without landfill recoveryadjusted costs and current average net the that considers This education. and transfer, fortechnology resourcesneeded including without training, demand, future tomeet would be around US$1.76 billion in 2030 (for a sample of around 140 million people), in order Brazil’s sanitary landfills. training and education. and power generation costs. These figures do not include funds needed for technology transfer, as well as the costs of bringing sanitary landfills up to standard, and excluding landfill recovery 2030 prices of US$11.8/inhabitant for the installation of systems for collection and burn of CH4 around 140 million inhabitants). This figure considers average net present values adjusted to (2) Data acquired from CDM projects in sanitary landfills of São Paulo (Bandeirantes (1) and DataSão João). provided by MMA/GTZ/CAIXA/CETEC (*) Dataacquired from CDMprojects inthesanitarylandfilsofSãoPaulo (Bandeirantes andSãoJoão). recovering and using CH burning, collecting, for systems with landfills installing of costs average The standard. to up CH approximately 7,000 tMSW/day. These two landfills installed collection, burning, recovery and receives which which in2007received 6,000tMSW/day, andtheAterrolandfill São João waste management area in Brazil’s large cities, particularly in the Metropolitan Regions. Table 16 - Investment costs related to systems for mitigating emissions of CH4 in sanitary landfills Landfill with a system for collecting burning, recovery and energy generation from CH Landfill with system for collecting and burning CH Conventional sanitary landfill System São João Bandeirantes Incineration 4 4 Table 17 depicts the average costs of installing disposal and treatment facilities for MSW in Two landfills in the municipality of São Paulo were considered -the Aterro Bandeirantes The shortage of space for installing landfills is one of the greatest challenges facing the solid The average investment for installing landfills with CH energy generation, and including in this investment the costs required for bringing landfills energy providing systems. Table 17 - Per capita cost (US$) of installing sanitary landfills (at 2030 adjusted prices) 10,773,644 6,365,754
(US$) Investment cost in collection and 4 for power generation is in the range of US$3.53 billion burning of CH4 19,409,091 20,738,636
(US$) Investment cost of recovery and using CH4 fur energy generation in Brazil (2005) (t/day) 7,000 6,000 4 Quantity of MSW disposed of 6,000,000 5,000,000 (inhab)
4 Equivalent population collection and burning systems systems burning and collection (US$/inhab) 2.15 1.06 Per capita investment
4 cost of collection and .
burning CH4 Cost (US$/inhab) (US$/inhab)
in 2030 (for (for 2030 in 13.6 11.8 5.9
3.24 4.15 Per capita investment (2) (2) (1) cost of energy generation
restrictions and environmental and economic constraints arising from the lack of suitable suitable of lack the space, from and as arising a result, constraints waste has economic to and be deposited environmental in and physical increasingly face restrictions remotesites areas. disposal or treatment waste solid installing for used be could that areas sanitary landfills, continue to be pushed further and further away from the city proper. In short, requiringlarger areas factories, as such land of freight terminals, wholesale markets fruit and Brazil’s main cities occurred of in many an of unplanned way.expansion and The city fringes, establishment originally The used for generated. activitieswaste of quantity large the of view well waste solid of export beyond city high-cost limits and (25+ km). long-haul into businesses private and authorities physical by imposed obstacles structures, The designated protection cities. areas, and larger rigid land use country’s legislation the haveof forcedarea the municipal downtown the from In 2009, no free areas existed which were suitable for garbage disposal within a radius of 20km services. urban and infrastructure basic lack which areas peripheral and central the between investment costs can be seen in Table 18 below. (Germany), grid or fluidized bed type incineration systems with athroughput of 2,400 tons/day.Bavaria The and Paulo São of State the coordinated onbetween the Braziliansigned side by the SãoAgreement Paulo Environment Technical Secretariat.Cooperation the of This results studythe from examined directly benefited which 2008) July Summary, (Executive working a of aegis the group created by Resolution Joint prepared 49/2007, SSE/SMA study a populations of over 3 million. using in this Scenario which is concerned only with incineration systems in municipalities with of the system is not available, and even if it were the information would not be appropriate for Janeiro Federal University campus. Unfortunately data on the investment and operational costs As of 2009, there was only one MSW incinerator in operation (as a pilot project) on the Rio de accompanied by ongoing improvements when possible in only is the stage municipal this that waste suggest systems. attitudes waste-related public’s the in changes for need the and constraints However, cost input. manufacturing and energy an as waste of use subsequent for recommended systemare collection efficient an of establishment the and of the selective collection service and the resulting materials. generation purposes. Each method may possess a specific advantage depending on the quality industry. building for energy it waste use Various torecycleor exist compost also or methods the in material raw a as used be can materials incinerated the from ash the of Most deposit. is accompanied by both recycling and composting and results in extremely low levels of landfill recyclable waste is reused for producing energy. In the European Union this form of treatment The most serious situation concerns the Metropolitan Regions and other large cities in in cities large other and Regions Metropolitan the concerns situation serious most The contrasts glaring way, producing disorganized a in grown have Brazil in cities large The The São Paulo State program for using MSW and other waste for energy purposes, under under purposes, energy for waste other and MSW using for program State Paulo São The waste. medical to confined was Brazil in technology incineration of use the 2009 Before In order to manage waste efficiently from an environmental point of view, waste reduction Another way of treating waste is to incinerate it and make use of the energy produced. Non- 5.3.2. Incineration
79 Synthesis Report | WASTE 80 Synthesis Report | WASTE can be seen at Table 19. incineration MSW transfer, averagetechnology installing The of costs education. and training in order to satisfy demand - without takinginto account the need for resources to be spent on million consideration) 50 under Regions Metropolitan 8 the of population approximately the representing of inhabitants sample a (for 2030 in billion US$12.3 be would systems such for installing CH and sewage treatment collection/treatment in Brazil Modernization- PMSS) “... Development Program) and the World Bank (UNDP/World Bank Program for Sanitation Sector numbers were prepared by the JNS/AQUAPLAN with the support of the UNDP (United Nations design of the system used. technical and size the on depending prices 2030 at US$90.9/inhabitant to US$45.4 between domestic sewage. Table 20 shows that the expenditure necessary on sewage treatment will be Incineration (2,400t/day) 04 modules (1,200t/day) 02 modules (600t/day) 01 module Table 19 - Per capita costs (US$) of installing incinerators in Brazil (at 2030 adjusted prices) With the average present investment costs adjusted at 2030 prices to US$227.3/inhabitant The following table lists the cost of installing sewage treatment systems by region. These These region. by systems treatment sewage installing of cost the lists table following The treating for investments increasing to given be should priority years 20 next the Over 5.3.3. Table 18-Investment costs related to MSW incineration systems (2008) Incineration with energy cogeneration and fossil waste recycling Incineration with energy cogeneration System Incineration without energy cogeneration 4 energy-producing incineration systems, the average investment for installing Domestic sewage andindustrialeffluent (1,000,000 US$) Investment cost cogeneration of of incineration without energy 329.4 184.5 103.3 assessing the investment requirements for universalizing water supply (1) Data from SSE/SMA initial study, July 2008. 1) Datafrom SSE/SMAinitialstudy inJuly ,2008. (1) (1,000,000 US$) incineration with cogeneration of Investment energy cost of 312.3 174.9 98.0 (1) (1,000 inhab ) ”. population Equivalent 3,000 1,500 750 investment cost cogeneration of of incineration (US$/inhab) Per capita without energy 109.8 123.0 137.9 (US$/inhabitant) 227.3 204.5 Cost 250 (1) (1) investment cost cogeneration of of incineration (US$/inhab) Per capita energy 104.1 116.6 130.6 with with (in São Paulo state) which recently installed a CH from Econômica Brazil Federal). in The figures in operating Table 21 Caixa currently below and are PRODES systems provided of by the publication Projects with Federalthe Public Funding(Pró-Saneamento, types municipality of Campinas similar on secured was information
account of the costs of waste collection, taking without training coverage, and treatment waste total education. assuming 2030 in billion US$38.2 around be Brazil will need to be approximately US$181.8. The total cost of this type of undertaking would “anaerobic and aerobic” type, the average investment per inhabitant at 2030 prices throughout 10 To arrive ofCH costs the at biological combined the of systems treatment sewage installing of costs the Considering anaerobic/aerobic systems. conventional aeration. For medium-sized municipalities a median value was estimated, using combined with sludges activated using plant treatment a of installation the to corresponds cost the municipalities larger the In estimated. were lagoons with reactor anaerobic an of installation of treatment of costs the The price includes the treatment plant, interceptor pipes and lifting equipment. For small municipalities Mato Grosso do Sul Mato Grosso Goiás Distrito Federal Santa Catarina Rio Grande do Sul Paraná São Paulo Rio de Janeiro Minas Gerais Espírito Santo Sergipe Rio Grande do Norte Piauí Pernambuco Paraíba Maranhão Ceará Bahia Alagoas Tocantins Roraima Rondônia Pará Amazonas Amapá Acre State Table 20 - Cost of installing sewage treatment 4
(*)Study by JNS/Acquaplan consortium. collection and burning systems in sewage treatment plants, plants, treatment sewage in systems burning and collection Source: PMSS II (2003) Average Treatment Price (US$/inhab) Small 43.8 41.9 47.0 41.3 43.9 46.5 41.9 44.5 45.6 39.1 38.4 40.5 38.9 35.9 40.3 39.7 40.7 36.6 41.9 39.0 47.3 48.0 49.6 40.2 45.8 40.5 45.9 4 collection and burning system in its ETEs. Medium 71.7 72.5 75.4 68.4 72.7 74.3 73.7 73.4 73.1 65.2 61.0 62.9 62.6 58.6 65.6 63.7 63.2 57.8 66.0 61.6 78.6 82.1 79.4 62.7 73.8 62.5 71.9 10 Large 102.4 102.9 100.7 100.8 104.0 101.5 100.1 108.6 112.8 108.6 101.4 98.9 94.7 90.7 83.1 84.6 85.7 80.8 90.6 87.3 85.3 78.3 89.6 83.8 84.8 84.2 97.5 81 Synthesis Report | WASTE 82 Synthesis Report | WASTE collection and burning systems without landfill CH viewpoints and economic concerns of government, society and/or the private sector. Two sector. private the approaches and/or were chosen: society government, of concerns different economic the and reflect to viewpoints Scenario Carbon Low each for adopted be can methods different of following points are worth considering: However, implemented. be to methods the mitigation and sequestering of types the clarify to help also can analysis An emissions. GHG minimizing of benefits and costs the of society and and Low Carbon Scenarios were estimated in the same way. The investment costs for the treatment systems and GHG emissions abatement of the Reference costs. abatement the wereforfor percent expenditure10 estimating O&M) (allowing on used official bodies and data from recent public and private sector projects. These investment costs in undertaken surveys to according methods mitigation employing of on thepercapitacosts combined “anaerobic + activated sludges” type can be seen in Table 22. resources the needed foraccount into technical taking transfer, without training, demands, and future education. meet to order in billion R$3.36 Campinas – SP Capivari 1 ETE “Anaerobic Reactor + activated sludges ” with collection and burning of CH ETE “ Anaerobic Reactor + activated sludges ” Systems ETE i. Assuming an investment cost of R$16.00/inhabitant in 2003, the average the 2003, investment in an Assuming R$16.00/inhabitant of cost installing of cost No single method exists for preparing an economic analysis of these options: a number number a options: these of analysis economic an preparing for exists method single No An economic analysis of the Low Carbon Scenario is desirable in order to inform government The abatement costs for the Low Carbon Scenario in the wastes sector are estimated based The average investment costs needed in Brazil to install sewage treatment equipment of the Price 5.4. tering andmitigation measures; and seques introducing of benefits and costs the of evaluationmicroeconomic A Table 21-Investment costs ofmitigating CH4emissionsinETEs in2008 Table 22 - Costs of installing sewage treatment (at 2030 adjusted prices) agnl btmn css n Bek vn Carbon Even Break and costs abatement Marginal Investment cost of a system for (1) Data from suppliers of FOKAL equipment (www.fokal.com.br). (1)D collection and burning CH (2)D ata from MSS II (2003) –assembled by JNS/Acquaplan consortium. 195,454.50 ata from suppliers of FOKAL equipment (www.fokal.com.br) (US$) (1) 4 (1000 inhab) . population Equivalent 4 recovery and energy use would be around 50 Per capita investment cost of a system for collection and burning CH 4 (US$/inhab). 3.9 (US$/inhab) Investment 181.8 7.3 (2) (1) 4 - high investment neededto costs ETEswhen construct compared to large the ofCH quantities the industrial effluents scenario. The significant difference between these numbers is due to the landfills. generated in the landfills and the costs of burying, capture and burning the CH potential profits from converting biogas as an energy the (e.g. source).report, this in proposed Scenario Carbon Low the implement to makers decision for per ton of CO US$ in expressed Price Carbon Even Break Minimum a of terms in incentives real providing market carbon financial the with Scenario, Carbon Low a in investing of potential profit the assess to agents economic involveencouraging basically would approach sector private The here. outlined measures sequestering and mitigation the of implementation the facilitating for recipes additional possible and important, are for Kyoto Protocol the by Projects inspired (CDM) sector the Mechanism Development Clean the respect this In Scenario. Reference the in component’ ‘carbon the of view in sector the in investment possible of terms in agents with (ii) the data on GHG emissions abatement potential. in one simple diagram (i) the official data on investment costs available in the sanitation sector of all the mitigation and sequestering measures proposed was arrived at by grouping together discount rate of 8 percent. In order to facilitate the comparison, the Marginal Abatement Costs social a therefore is using cost calculated abatement marginal The Scenarios. Carbon Low the makers - the first from a “social” and the second from a “private”approaches, a viewpoint. two-pronged cost/benefit analysis procedure was adopted for informing decision that the public and private sectors understandably adopt different economic and management sector. Given private the to specific are others while context economic sector public local or measures considered are implemented in different contexts, e.g. some can apply in the federal in the end column indicate that the average cost of abatement is US$1.33/tCO Low Carbon Scenario is presented in Table 23 and illustrated in Figure 52. In Table 24 the figures the basis of the current situation in Brazil. rate of 8 percent, while the break even cost was estimated at 12 percent. Both were defined on discount a at estimated was cost abatement marginal The incorporated. are Scenario Carbon projected mitigation Low the emissions in GHG the of whencosts totalthe costs the and costs CarbonUS$1.33/tCO Scenario, ii. The “private sector” approach focuses on measures that could be attractive to economic economic to attractive be could that measures on focuses approach sector” “private The The “social” approach tends to provide a basis for sectorial cross-referenced comparison for A combined evaluation of the measures in the different areas is not a simple task. Many of the The average current cost of abating emissions for the period between 2010 and 2030 in the treatment waste normal between difference the indicates cost abatement marginal The 5.4.1. icies andtherelevant legal regulations appliedto thesector. A macroeconomic evaluation of the same measures to reflect government pol- 2 equivalent. Other economic mechanisms could also be employed as incentives incentives as employed be also could mechanisms economic Other equivalent. Marginal abatement cost 2 e fore sewage domestic the US$103.30/tCOand scenario 2 e for the MSW Low 4 generated in the 2 e for e 4
83 Synthesis Report | WASTE 84 Synthesis Report | WASTE effluent treatment. percent ofthemassMSW-related CO 73.1 around is potential grossabatement The Scenario. Carbon Low represented 2030 by the CO (4) Population equivalent to liquid effluent polluting load originating in the manufacturing and similar setors flaring and 75% collection efficiency of CH Low Carbon Scenario for MSW with methane with 100% CH Low Carbon Scenario for industrial effluent with 100% CH Low Carbon Scenario for domestic sewage Reference Scenario for MSW Mitigation or sequestering options Reference Scenario of domestic sewage Reference Scenario for industrial effluent 2 Figure 52 below gives an idea of the large quantity and the low cost of destroying GHG GHG destroying of cost low the and quantity large the of idea an gives below 52 Figure e is avoided in the treatment of sewage and the remaining 18.1 percent avoided in industrial (5) Population equivalent to liquid effluent polluting load originating in the growth projection of (3) 100 percent of the urban population in 2030 benefiting from sewage treatment. (2) 10 percent of urban population in 2030 benefiting from sewage treatment. 4 4 (1) 66 percent of urban population in 2030 benefiting from MSW treatment. collected and burned. collected and burned. Table 23 - Current abatement costs: 2030 Low Carbon Scenario U S$ /tC O 2 e 1 1 2 4 6 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
......
0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Obs: US dollar exchange in 2009 R$2,20/US$. Figure 52 - Marginal Abatement Costs 2 0 manufacturing and similar sectors 0 3 e 2 1
ffl
- - -
C C C u a a a e p p p n 1 t t t t u u u
s r r r . M
e e e 4
a a a a 4 0 n n n 0 r
d d d
g
b b 2 b i 1 n $ u u u e avoided. e of Approximately mass the of percent 8.8 0 2 r r
r a 6 n n n
.
x l 8
o o o
A 7 t D f f f C
(10
m m b m 467.90 209.91 138.54 138.54 209.91 i O 6 93.58 s a e e e 0 2
c t t t t 0 e h h h e o
a a a m 6 u n n n .hab) e e e n
e Urban population
f i f t n n r r
o o R
t (4) s m m
a (1) (5) (3) (2) (1)
C to receive services a n
t i d 8 o i n e t 0 o a d s 0
m r u (
t y
s
8 e
( t l s
a U r % ti i n a 24,622.25 c S (10 d ) l 2,763.88 1,204.01
fi
$ l $ / l t s 1
C . 1
0 0 6 O 2 . 0
.US$) 4 - - -
0 Current median
0
2
e
) abatement cost
$ 1 1
2 0
0 3 3 0
.
(10 3
0
238.35 962.69 115.77 6
.tCO Potential gross 1 - - - 4 0
0 abatement between
2
e) 2010 and 2030 (US$/tCO 103.30 10.40 2.87 - - - Current median abatement cost 2 e)
projects concerned with legal modalities involving Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs). IRR) in order to represent a figure that was closer to reality in the financing and development of sector. is equal to or greater than the benchmark Internal Rate of Return (IRR) required by the private that return a generateto measure mitigation proposed the enables incentive that the of costs percent and an indication of the development.scale of Tableinvestment 25 required.contains a summarybiogas. ofThis should thetake into marginalaccount the increasedabatement load resulting costsfrom economic investmentand with needs to bemore directed manufacturing towards the installation of equipmentto capture and burn a discount rate of 8 manufacturingsector already treatment possesses systems currently operation, in where and situation can be observed with respect to the industrial effluents, where a significant segment of the and burning of biogas and dealing with sludges (part and parcel of the construction,treatment process). operationA different and maintenance of the entire landfills,sewage treatment while systemthe includingsewage captureanaerobic treatmentto the relatively systems low costsneed involvedto take in installinginto equipmentaccounttCO2e forto the captureindustrialthe effluents sector.andhigher burn Thebiogas substantial differencecosts in sanitary between theseof values is due sector; MSW the (ii)US$33.05/tCO2e for wastewater domestic the sector; (iii)US$250.69/ and The variations in the CO Key: i=discountrate in Figure 53. captured and burned. Scenario with 100% of the biogas Domestic sewage Low Carbon collection efficiency rate. Mitigation options landfill burning of CH MSW Low Carbon Scenario with captured and burned. Scenario with 100% of the biogas Industrial effluents Low Carbon Table 24 - Marginal abatement costs, Break Even Carbon Price and scale of investment for 2030 The current The The 5.4.2. Break Even Carbon Price is the term used in the Low Carbon Scenario for describing the Break Even Carbon Price was estimated with a discount rate of 12 percent (Benchmark Break Even Carbon Price values are summarized in Table 24: (i) US$6.94/tCO2e for Break Even Carbon Price 4 at 75% 2 e. break even and incremental incentive prices are presented abatement 2010 and Potential between 115.77 962.69 238.35 Low Carbon Scenario gross 2030 abatement Marginal (i = 8%) costs of 103.30 10.40 2.87 (US$/tCO Values Break Even (i = 12%) Incremental Price 2 250.69 e) 33.05 6.94 investment Incremental Scale of 122.74 13.85 3.85 85 Synthesis Report | WASTE 86 Synthesis Report | WASTE and burn CH better value carbon mitigation benefits can be obtained by installing sanitary landfills to remaining 20 capture percent is accounted for by sewage and effluents. However, in cost-benefit terms, investments are made in the sector by 2030. Government. TheLow Carbon certainly Scenariowill contribute to required ensuringthatthe sector initiatives. from a range of public policies - which should be pursued preferably in conjunction with private sewage, and industrial effluents. This figure indicates that a need exists for investment to flow horizon of the Scenario. technologies presentedalternative by the Low Carbon Scenario can be the seen as an achievable objectivein within the time investment of amount the that follows It Policy. Sanitation private sectors to achieve the ‘universalization of sanitation services’ projected in the National prospect of funding by international or multilateral agencies should not be discarded. Solid waste is responsible for over 80 percent of gross potential GHG emissions. The The emissions. GHG potential gross of percent 80 over for responsible is waste Solid The investment costs in this report are based upon official data issued by the Federal Federal the by issued data official upon based are report this in costs investment The Figure 54 indicates the scale of investment for the waste sectors divided into MSW, domestic and public the of capacity the to linked is sector waste the in investment of scale The While the waste sector calls for substantial financing by Brazilian development agencies, the 5.5. 4
, as indicated by Figure 54 below. U S $ /t C O 2 e 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
. , . . . . .
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Financing requirements - 0
8 0 0 0 0 0
0
Figure 53-Break Even Carbon Prices e 3 e 2 1 ffl ffl
2
- - -
0 C C C u u 0 a a a e e
p p p n n t t t t t u u u C s s . . r r r
e e e
a
a a r a n n b n d d d o
b b 4
b D 0 n u u u 0 r r
r i
n n 1 I n s
n o o
o c f f c f
o m m
m e u e e 1 n e t t 0 t n h h t h 6 a a i t a
x 6 n n v
$ n 0
R e e e e t
0 6
C f i
a n f . r r ( O 9 o
o t s U m 4
a e 2 m
e n
S
i i 1 ( t n $
a 2 d d r / u o y %
t s
m o l 8 t a r 0 ) e n n i 0
a s d
. ti l fi
C
c l
l
O s 2 .
e
$ ) 3
3 1 .
0
0 0 2 5 0
$ 1 2 3 2 0 5
0 0
.
6 9
1 4 0 0
U S $ / t C O 2 e e 3 e 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
5 ffl ffl
0 5 0 5 0 5 0
- - -
3 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C u u ...... ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 a
a a -
e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 p p p
n n
t t t
t t u u u s s 0 r r r . .
e e e
a a a n n n 1 d d d 0
b 0 b b u
u u r r r n n n 2
0 o
o o 0 f f f
m
m m e 3 e e t 0 h t t h h 0 a
a a n 1 C n n e
a
e e 4 i n
0 p f f 0
r r s i o o
t a Figure 54 - Scale of Investment m m a n d 5 l i
1 o
t i 0 n a I 0 m 0 n r d 6
y x
e t u
e
s l s t a ti 6 t C n n 0 r c i s d O 0
a
f
2 i l
i e
t
l
l y
s 7
. 0
( 0 U
S 8 $ 0 / 0 t C
O 9 0 2
e 0
)
1 0 0 2 2 0
1 1 0 0
1 3 3 2
0 0
1 3 0 0
( I I ( I n n n U U c v v S S e e r $ $ e s s / / m t t t t m m C C e O O e e n n n
t 2 2 a t t
e e
l I I ) )
n n a
t t p e e p n n r s s o i i a t t y y c
h
87 Synthesis Report | WASTE 88 Synthesis Report | WASTE 6. year 2030 by reducing the projected 99.2 to 18.10 MtCO of around 57 percent. The Low Carbon Scenario shows that it is possible to avoid emissions in the environment would notbeCH that which predicates zero generation ofwaste –inotherwords themostdesirable option for measures to be taken to counter the possible GHG emissions. may for compensatory option call this whichwould indicate implementation, years its first of the during emissions GHG in increase an in results Incineration reduction. GHG of terms in efficient most the as highly regarded be being cannot latter the Despite view, of points all materials. from waste recommendable reusing/recycling and source, at generation waste education programs, greater public awareness of environmentally friendly practices to reduce quantities for landfill disposal. This could result from, for example, stepped-up environmental waste of reduction possible a is considered Also emissions. gas greenhouse in increase an to be lead could could term which longer the in which but services terms health public in improvement collection an as of regarded expansion the being them of one factors, caused several be by could This landfills. in depositing for waste of quantities increased of possibility reducing to zero the emissions resulting from sewage and effluent treatment. next 20 years for the collection and treatment of solid waste and R$94 billion in the domestic domestic the in billion waste R$94 solid and of treatment and years nextcollection 20 for the of the best available information. was not quantified, however, the data research strategy deployed helped ensure the utilization Scenarios encompass Carbon the Low greatest and fragility Reference of the the in study.raised hypotheses The the to uncertanty unquantified relatedthe relating to the addition, cost uncertanties In and benefit literature. data scientific Brazilian relevant the in data of scarcity treating effluents are higher than those for solid waste. effluents. Given the nonexistence of the required infrastructure, the abatement costs involved in for the population. economic advantages resulting from avoiding diseases or (ii) improvements in the quality of life evaluationeconomic of the the scenarios. in Moreover, calculated the sanitation are costs spreadsheets do not quantify (i) effluents, the and sewage treat to methods anaerobic using and involving a potential reduction of the order of 55.10 emissions. Burning CH systems for treating domestic sewage and industrial effluents and burning all the CH waste, domestic sewage and industrial effluents sector foreshadows an expansion of anaerobic emissions from63 to 99.2 of waste itself. Since such a scenario is improbable the most interesting of the alternatives evaluated alternatives has the of to be interesting the most the recovery improbable and is burning scenario of a such CH Since itself. waste of Of all the environmental the waste all Of with practices concerned interesting treatment most the is the as such Scenario) Reference the in included (not events considered also have We It is estimated that in the waste sector investments of around R$6 billion are needed over the the from arise 4.2.6 and 3.2.8 chapters in outlined uncertainties estimate various The of treatment and investments collection are the Substantial required with Brazil toin deal The Reference Scenarios for GHG emissions in the waste sector show an increase in in increase an show sector waste the in emissions GHG for Scenarios Reference The The co-benefitsproduced by disposing ofMSWinsanitary landfills and burning CH Conclusion 4 generated by sanitary landfills will be the most important development,
MtCO
2 e between 2000 and 2030, signifying a percentage increase increase percentage a signifying 2030, and 2000 between e 4 collection in the sanitary landfills but the non-generation non-generation the but landfills sanitary the in collection 4 .
MtCO 2 e - a reduction of just over 80 percent in 2 e. The Low Carbon Scenario for solid 4 generated, 4 , carbon emissions and to convert waste into energy. investment on the waste sector, particularly for developing new technologies designed to lower project cash flows. can already be affirmed that the vary CDM projects could will make sector a substantial private contribution the to by increasing substantially, dependingonthecorporate adopted policies by themanufacturing sector,investments butit New area. treatment and collection sewage A program A incentivesof context the in wouldLow a of Carbon Scenario to help focus more 89 Synthesis Report | WASTE 90 Synthesis Report | WASTE 7. over 3millionasfollows: of population a possess which Brazil in identified been haveareas urban large Eight 54.728.762. codn t IBGE to According least 2400tons/day ofMSW. at generating million over3 of populations with cities large in projects large-scale in GivenincinerationO&M, onlyand is installation economicallyof high costs the viable 11
Population estimates for 1 July 2008 (PDF). Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE) (29 (29 (IBGE) August Institute Statistics 2008). and Page Geography visited Brazilian on (PDF). 2008 September July 1 9 for estimates Population 7.1.1. 7.1. 7.1.2. Annexes Salvador Metropolitan regions Fortaleza 11 20) h ttl ouain f ra aes f hs id is kind this of areas urban of population total the (2008) th , 2008. São Gonçalo do Amarante Horizonte Pacajus Chorozinho Itaitinga Guaiúba Eusébio Maracanaú Maranguape Pacatuba Aquiraz Caucaia Fortaleza Municipalities Municipalities Pojuca São SebastiãodoPassé Mata deSãoJoão Madre deDeus Itaparica São Francisco doConde Vera Cruz Dias d’Ávila Candeias Simões Filho Lauro deFreitas Camaçari Salvador Total population Total population 3.799.589 3.517.375 7.1.4.
7.1.3. Belo Horizonte Recife
Taquaraçu de Minas e Vespasiano Sarzedo São José da Lapa São Joaquim de Bicas Santa Luzia Sabará Rio Manso Rio Acima Ribeirão das Neves Raposos Pedro Leopoldo Nova União Nova Lima Matozinhos Mateus Leme Mário Campos Lagoa Santa Juatuba Jaboticatubas Itatiaiuçu Itaguara Igarapé Ibirité Florestal Esmeraldas Contagem Confins Capim Branco Caeté Brumadinho Betim Belo Horizonte Baldim Municipalities Itapissuma Moreno Ipojuca Ilha deItamaracá Araçoiaba São Lourenço daMata Cabo deSanto Agostinho Camaragibe Igarassu Abreu eLima Paulista Olinda Jaboatão dosGuararapes Recife Municipalities Total population Total population 3.731.719 5.031.438 91 Synthesis Report | WASTE 92 Synthesis Report | WASTE 7.1.6. 7.1.5. São Paulo Rio deJaneiro Tanguá Seropédica São JoãodeMeriti São Gonçalo Rio deJaneiro Queimados Paracambi Nova Iguaçu Niterói Nilópolis Mesquita Maricá Mangaratiba Magé Japeri Itaguaí Itaboraí Guapimirim Duque deCaxias Belford Roxo Vargem Grande Paulista Taboão daSerra Suzano São Paulo São Lourenço daSerra São CaetanodoSul São Bernardo doCampo Santo André Santana deParnaíba Santa Isabel Salesópolis Rio Grande daSerra Ribeirão Pires Poá Pirapora doBomJesus Osasco Mogi dasCruzes Mauá Mairiporã Juquitiba Jandira Itaquaquecetuba Itapecerica daSerra Itapevi Guarulhos Guararema Franco da Rocha Francisco Morato Ferraz deVasconcelos Embu-Guaçu Embu Diadema Cotia Carapicuíba Cajamar Caieiras Biritiba-Mirim Barueri Arujá Municipalities Municipalities Total population Total population 11.812.482 19.616.060 7.1.7. 7.1.8. Curitiba Porto
Tunas do Paraná Tijucas do Sul São José dos Pinhais Rio Branco do Sul Quitandinha Quatro Barras Piraquara Pinhais Mandirituba Lapa Itaperuçu Fazenda Rio Grande Doutor Ulysses Curitiba Contenda Colombo Cerro Azul Campo Magro Campo Largo Campina Grande do Sul Bocaiúva do Sul Balsa Nova Araucária Almirante Tamandaré Agudos do Sul Adrianópolis Capela de Santana Patrulha Santo Antônio da Arroio dos Ratos São Jerônimo Taquara Montenegro Nova Santa Rita Araricá Charqueadas Triunfo Portão Parobé Nova Hartz Ivoti Glorinha Eldorado do Sul Dois Irmãos Viamão Sapucaia do Sul Sapiranga São Leopoldo Porto Alegre Novo Hamburgo Guaíba Gravataí Esteio Estância Velha Canoas Campo Bom Cachoeirinha Alvorada Municipalities Municipalities Total population Total population 3.260.292 3.959.807 Alegre 93 Synthesis Report | WASTE 94 Synthesis Report | WASTE The following listofCDMprojects was available ontheUNFCCC site inMay 2009. ment sector which are eitheralready registered oratthevalidation stage. The private sector is undertaking over 50 CDM project activities in the effluents treat- 14,400 t/year) andAlagoas(average capacityof11,500t/year). of (averagecapacity Bahia t/year), 11,500 of (averagecapacity Janeiro de Rio year), PauloSão states locatedthe of them in (averageof majority the t/ 26,000 of capacity with parties, third for incineration provide These operation. in are incinerators trial Incineration is currently used for treating hazardous waste. A number of private indus - composting were atthevalidationon stage.Theseprojects didnotrequire theuseofMSW.focused activities project CDM 6 of total a 2009 of beginning the At and burningsystems andtheotherfive withrecovery andenergy generation. a total of 25 CDM projects had been recorded of which 20 projects deal with collection be observed in Tables 25, 26,27 and 28 below, containing UNFCCC data. In early 2009 can implemented being are that landfills sanitary for projects mitigation the on Data tor andPPPs. The examples of projects being implemented in Brazil are confined to the private sec 7.2. CDM projects inthewaste andeffluents sector inBrazil - Tabela 25 – CDM Sanitary landfill projects
Name of project State Status Type/Subtype Methodology ktCO2 (*) BA Registered Biogás/ Flare AM2 6667 SP Registered Biogás/ Flare AM11 701 Salvador Da Bahia landfill gas management project (NM4) SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 2441 Onyx landfill gas recovery project - Trémembé, Brazil (NM21) SP Registered Biogás/ Flare AM3 1488 Caieiras landfill gas emission reduction Project Anaconda SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 699 ESTRE’s Paulínia Landfill Gas Project (EPLGP) BA Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 1321 PA Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 1981 Canabrava Landfill Gas Project RS Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 647 Aurá Landfill Gas Project SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 486 Central de Resíduos do Recreio Landfill Gas Project (CRRLGP) SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 581 ESTRE Itapevi Landfill Gas Project (EILGP) SANTECH – Saneamento & Tecnologia Ambiental Ltda. SC Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 153 Quitaúna Landfill Gas Project ES Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 455 PR Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1+ACM2 1039 CTRVV Landfill emission reduction project SC Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 574 Probiogas - JP-João Pessoa Landfill Gas Project SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1+ACM2 866 Proactiva Tijuquinhas Landfill Gas Capture and Flaring project SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1+ACM2 487 Estre Pedreira Landfill Gás Project (EPLGP) SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1+ACM2 331 Terrestre Ambiental Landfill Gás Project SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 571 Embralixo/Araúna - Bragança Landfill Gas Project (EABLGP) SP Registered Biogás/ Flare ACM1 2323 URBAM/ARAUNA - Landfill Gas Project (UALGP) AM Validation Biogás/ Flare ACM1+ACM2 3808 Alto-Tietê landfill gas capture project RN Validation Biogás/ Flare ACM1 498 Manaus Landfill Gas Project SC Validation Biogás/ Flare ACM1 67 Natal Landfill Gas Recovery Project SP Validation Biogás/ Flare ACM1 170 Laguna Landfill Methane Flaring SP Validation Biogás/ Flare ACM1 181 Marilia/Arauna Landfill Gas Project RJ Registered Biogás/Energy generation AM3 2937 CGR Guatapará landfill Project SP Registered Biogás/Energy generation AM3 4726 Brazil NovaGerar landfill gas to energy project (NM5) ES Registered Biogás/Energy generation AM3 1728 Landfill gas to energy project at Lara landfill, Mauá SP Registered Biogás/Energy generation ACM1 9494 Brazil MARCA landfill gas to energy project SP Registered Biogás/Energy generation ACM1 3766 Bandeirantes Landfill Gas to Energy Project (BLFGE). BA Registered Biogás/Energy generation ACM1+ACM2 194 São João Landfill Gas to Energy Project Projeto de Gás de Aterro TECIPAR – PROGAT SP Validation Biogás/Energy generation ACM1 350 Feira de Santana Landfill Gas Project 95 Synthesis Report | WASTE 96 Synthesis Report | WASTE
Name of project kCERs Emissions Success Date of Registration Installed Energy (***)
46 kCERs Expected591 (**) 8% 15/08/2005 84 141 60% 24/11/2005 Salvador Da Bahia landfill gas management project (NM4) 103 553 19% 09/03/2006 Onyx landfill gas recovery project - Trémembé, Brazil (NM21) 251 229 110% 03/03/2006 Caieiras landfill gas emission reduction Project Anaconda 22 126 18% 15/12/2006 ESTRE’s Paulínia Landfill Gas Project (EPLGP) 9 174 5% 08/04/2007 30/04/2007 Canabrava Landfill Gas Project 31/12/2006 Aurá Landfill Gas Project 30 40 75% 17/08/2007 Central de Resíduos do Recreio Landfill Gas Project (CRRLGP) 27/05/2007 ESTRE Itapevi Landfill Gas Project (EILGP) SANTECH – Saneamento & Tecnologia Ambiental Ltda. 19/02/2009 Quitaúna Landfill Gas Project 28/05/2008 30/01/2008 CTRVV Landfill emission reduction project 13/08/2008 Probiogas - JP-João Pessoa Landfill Gas Project 40 49 82% 12/02/2008 Proactiva Tijuquinhas Landfill Gas Capture and Flaring project 26 32 80% 06/05/2008 Estre Pedreira Landfill Gás Project (EPLGP) 15/10/2007 Terrestre Ambiental Landfill Gás Project 14/10/2007 Embralixo/Araúna - Bragança Landfill Gas Project (EABLGP) 29/05/2008 URBAM/ARAUNA - Landfill Gas Project (UALGP) 18,0 Alto-Tietê landfill gas capture project Manaus Landfill Gas Project Natal Landfill Gas Recovery Project Laguna Landfill Methane Flaring Marilia/Arauna Landfill Gas Project 67 887 8% 18/11/2004 12,0 CGR Guatapará landfill Project 303 1076 28% 15/05/2006 10,0 Brazil NovaGerar landfill gas to energy project (NM5) 23/01/2006 11,0 Landfill gas to energy project at Lara landfill, Mauá 2868 5113 56% 20/02/2006 22,0 Brazil MARCA landfill gas to energy project 528 914 58% 02/07/2006 20,0 Bandeirantes Landfill Gas to Energy Project (BLFGE). 12/07/2008 São João Landfill Gas to Energy Project Projeto de Gás de Aterro TECIPAR – PROGAT 6,5 Feira de Santana Landfill Gas Project (*) In 2012. (**) Defined as the CERs emitted due to the number of CERs expected in the sam e period.. (***) At end 2012. Table 26 – CDM Composting projects
kCERs Emission Date of Installed Name of project State Status Type/Subtype Methodology ktCO2(*) kCERs Energy Success Registration (***) Expected(**) Biogás/ RJ Validation Composting AM25 312 LixoOrganoeste Zero Composting Dourados &Project Andradina MT e Biogás/ Composting Project SP Validation Composting AMS-III.F. 108 Organoeste Apucarana & Mandaguaçu Biogás/ Composting Project PR Validation Composting AMS 84 Organoeste Aracruz Composting Biogás/ Project ES Validation Composting AMS 89 Organoeste Contenda & Campo PR e Biogás/ Grande Composting Project MS Validation Composting AMS 82 VCP Jacareí Sludge Composting Biogás/ Project SP Validation Composting AMS 75 (*) In 2012. (**) Defined as the CERs emitted due to the number of CERs expected in the sam e period.. (***) At end 2012. 97 Synthesis Report | WASTE 98 Synthesis Report | WASTE
Table 27 – CDM Liquid effluents projects
ktCO kCERs Emission Date of Installed Name of project State Status Type/Subtype Methodology 2 kCERs Energy (*) Success Registration (***) GHG emissions reductions from Biogás/Energy AMS-I.D.+ Expected(**) improved industrial wastewater MG Validation generation 34 treatment in Embaré AMS-III.H. Irani Wastewater Methane Avoidance Project SC Registered Agriculture/ Biogás AMS-III.I. 278 19/01/08
BRASCARBON Methane Recovery SC, SP Project BCA-BRA-01 e MG Registered Agriculture/ Biogás AMS-III.D. 189 16/03/09
Project JBS S/A – Slaughterhouse SP Validation Agriculture/ Biogás AMS-III.H. 128
Project JBS S/A – Slaughterhouse EffluentWastewater Treatment Aerobic – TreatmentAndradina – Unit RO Validation Agriculture/ Biogás AMS-III.I. 122 Vilhena Unit JBS S/A – Slaughterhouse Wastewater Aerobic Treatment – Barra do Garças MT Validation Agriculture/ Biogás AMS-III.I. 176 Unit Vinasse Anaerobic Treatment Project - Cooperval Ltda PR Validation Agriculture/ Biogás ACM14 404
Table 28 - CDM rural waste projects
Type/sub- ktCO Name of project State Status Methodology 2 type (*) Agriculture/ Perdigão Sustainable Swine Production 01 – Methane capture and combustion GO and RS Request review AMS-III.D. 230 Biogas Agriculture/ PR Registered AM6 218 Biogas Agriculture/ GHGGranja capture/combustion Becker GHG mitigation from project swine (NM34)manure man. systems at Faxinal dos Guedes and Toledo MG Registered AM16 43 Biogas flare Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-01, Minas Gerais Brazil MG Registered AM16 465 Biogas MG, GO and Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-03 Registered AM16 1426 MT Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-02, Minas Gerais / São Paulo MG and SP Registered AM16 1192 Biogas PR. SC and Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-04, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul Registered AM16 717 RS Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-05, Minas Gerais and São Paulo MG and SP Registered AM16 572 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-07, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, and Goiás MS, MG Registered AM16 1112 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-09 GO and MG Registered AM16 383 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-06, Bahía BA Registered AM16 100 Biogas AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-10, Minas Gerais, Goias, Mato Grosso, and Mato Grosso MG, GO and Agriculture/ Registered AM16 654 do Sul MT Biogas PR, SC and Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-08, Paraná, Santa Catrina, and Rio Grande do Sul Registered AM16 110 RS Biogas MT, MS and Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-11, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais and São Paulo Registered AM16 463 SP Biogas AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-12, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais and MT, MS, MG Agriculture/ Registered AM16 475 São Paulo and SP Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-13, Goias, Minas Gerais GO and MG Registered AM16 838 Biogas ES, MG and Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-14, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, and São Paulo Registered AM16 356 SP Biogas AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-15, Paraná, Santa Catarina and PR, SC and Agriculture/ Registered AM16 305 Rio Grande do Sul RS Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-16, Bahia, Goiãs, Mato Grosso etc SP Registered AM16 593 Biogas flare Agriculture/ AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-17. Espirito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Minas Gerais ES and MT Registered AM16 271 Biogas ECOINVEST – MASTER Agropecuária – GHG capture and combustion from swine farms in Agriculture/ GO Registered AM6 426 Southern Brazil Biogas AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-24, Mato Grosso and Agriculture/ MS Registered AMS-III.D. 137 Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-23, Mato Grosso and Goias, Brazil MT and GO Registered AMS-III.D. 84 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-19, Goias, Brazil GO Registered AMS-III.D. 128 Biogas AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-18, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina, PR, SC and Agriculture/ Registered AMS-III.D. 148 Brazil RS Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-21, Goias, Brazil GO Registered AMS-III.D. 115 Biogas 99 Synthesis Report | WASTE 100 Synthesis Report | WASTE
Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-25, Minas Gerais, Brazil MG Registered AMS-III.D. 181 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-22, Minas Gerais, Brazil MG Registered AMS-III.D. 82 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-20, Minas Gerais, Brazil MG Registered AMS-III.D. 67 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-26, Minas Gerais, Brazil MG Registered AMS-III.D. 67 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-27, Goias, Brazil Goiás Registered AMS-III.D. 60 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-29, Sao Paulo, Brazil SP Registered AMS-III.D. 122 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-28, Santa Catarina, Brazil SC Registered AMS-III.D. 23 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-30, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil MT and MS Registered AMS-III.D. 50 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-33, Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo MG and SP Registered AMS-III.D. 41 Biogas BA, ES, MG Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR07-S-34, Bahia, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, and Sao Paulo Registered AMS-III.D. 41 and SP Biogas AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR07-S-31, Mato Grosso do Sul, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, and MT, PR, SC Agriculture/ Registered AMS-III.D. 75 Santa Catarina and RS Biogas Agriculture/ COTRIBÁ Swine Waste Management System Project RS Registered AMS-III.D. 61 Biogas PR, SC, RS, Agriculture/ Amazon Carbon Swine Waste Management System Project 02 Registered AMS-III.D. 84 GO and MT Biogas Type/sub- Name of project State Status Methodology ktCO type 2 Agriculture/ GHG Capture and Combustion From Swine Manure System n.a. Validation AM6 322 Biogas SADIA OWNED FARMS - GHG capture and combustion from swine manure management PR, SC, RS Agriculture/ Validation AM6 438 systems in Brazil. and MG Biogas Agriculture/ Ecoinvest – Agroceres PIC – GHG capture and combustion from a swine farm in Southeast Brazil MG Validation AMS-III.D. 23 Biogas Agriculture/ AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-32, Minas Gerais and São Paulo, Brazil MG and SP Validation AMS-III.D. 63 Biogas Agriculture/ Project of treatment and swine’s’ manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 1 SC Validation AMS-III.D. 135 Biogas AMS- Agriculture/ Perdigão Sustainable Swine Production 02 – Methane capture and combustion GO and SC Validation I.D.+AMS- 233 Biogas flare III.D. Agriculture/ BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-03 MG Validation AMS-III.D. 184 Biogas flare Agriculture/ BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-08 SP and PR Validation AMS-III.D. 184 Biogas flare Agriculture/ BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-02 SP Validation AMS-III.D. 188 Biogas flare Agriculture/ BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-05 MS Validation AMS-III.D. 182 Biogas flare Agriculture/ BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-07 MT and MS Validation AMS-III.D. 183 Biogas flare Agriculture/ Project of treatment and swine’s manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 4 MG Validation AMS-III.D. 126 Biogas Agriculture/ Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon – Swine Culture Nº 2” SC Validation AMS-III.D. 117 Biogas Agriculture/ Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 3” SC Validation AMS-III.D. 146 Biogas Agriculture/ Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon – Swine Culture Nº 5 SC Validation AMS-III.D. 125 Biogas Agriculture/ Amazon Carbon Swine Waste Management System Project 03 MS Registered AMS-III.D. 58 Biogas Agriculture/ Mitigation of the environmental passive through the management of the swine manure and SC Validation Energy ACM10 598 renewable electricity generation generation Biogas/ Carroll’s Foods do Brasil & LOGICarbon – GHG Emission Reductions from Swine Manure MT Validation Energy ACM10 255 Management System, Diamantino, MT generation Biogas/ Batavo Cooperativa Agroindustrial: Greenhouse emission reductions on swine production by PR Validation Energy AMS-II.D. 45 means the installation of better waste management systems. generation (*) In 2012. (**)Defined as the CERs emitted due to the number of CERs expected in the same period. (***) At end 2012. 101 Synthesis Report | WASTE 102 Synthesis Report | WASTE
kCERs Installed Emissions Date of Name of project kCERs energy (**) success Registration (***) expected Perdigão Sustainable Swine Production 01 – Methane capture and combustion
30/01/06
GHGGranja capture/combustion Becker GHG mitigation from project swine (NM34)manure man. systems at Faxinal dos Guedes and Toledo 3 11 29% 9/12/2005 AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-01, Minas Gerais Brazil 54 172 31% 29/12/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-03 175 607 29% 16/10/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-02, Minas Gerais / São Paulo 124 482 26% 18/06/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-04, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul 62 295 21% 9/7/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-05, Minas Gerais and São Paulo 81 245 33% 9/7/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-07, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, and Goiás 180 462 39% 25/05/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-09 23 119 19% 18/06/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-06, Bahía 2 15 15% 8/7/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-10, Minas Gerais, Goias, Mato Grosso, and Mato Grosso do Sul 48 248 19% 9/7/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-08, Paraná, Santa Catrina, and Rio Grande do Sul 10/9/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-11, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais and São Paulo 29 147 20% 9/7/2006 AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-12, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais and São 57 76 75% 11/9/2006 Paulo AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-13, Goias, Minas Gerais 121 301 40% 09/0706
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-14, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, and São Paulo 35 97 36% 09/0706
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-15, Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul 23 95 24% 9/7/2006
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-16, Bahia, Goiãs, Mato Grosso etc 59 205 29% 15/07/06
AWMS GHG Mitigation Project BR05-B-17. Espirito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Minas Gerais 30/09/06 ECOINVEST – MASTER Agropecuária – GHG capture and combustion from swine farms in Southern 29/09/06 Brazil AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-24, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil 1/2/2008 kCERs Installed Emissions Date of Name of project kCERs energy (**) success Registration (***) expected AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-19, Goias, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-18, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina, Brazil 5/6/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-21, Goias, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-25, Minas Gerais, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-22, Minas Gerais, Brazil 7/4/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-20, Minas Gerais, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-26, Minas Gerais, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-27, Goias, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-29, Sao Paulo, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-28, Santa Catarina, Brazil 1/2/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-30, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil 17/03/08
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-33, Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo 10/4/2008
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR07-S-34, Bahia, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, and Sao Paulo 10/4/2008 AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR07-S-31, Mato Grosso do Sul, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, and 5/6/2008 Santa Catarina COTRIBÁ Swine Waste Management System Project 12/1/2009 Amazon Carbon Swine Waste Management System Project 02 10/3/2009 GHG Capture and Combustion From Swine Manure System SADIA OWNED FARMS - GHG capture and combustion from swine manure management systems in Brazil. Ecoinvest – Agroceres PIC – GHG capture and combustion from a swine farm in Southeast Brazil
AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-32, Minas Gerais and São Paulo, Brazil
Project of treatment and swine’s’ manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 1
Perdigão Sustainable Swine Production 02 – Methane capture and combustion
BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-03 103 Synthesis Report | WASTE 104 Synthesis Report | WASTE
kCERs Installed Emissions Date of Name of project kCERs energy (**) success Registration (***) expected BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-02
BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-05
BRASCARBON Methane Recovery Project BCA-BRA-07
Project of treatment and swine’s manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 4
Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon – Swine Culture Nº 2”
Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon - Swineculture Nº 3”
Project of treatment and pig manure utilization at Ecobio Carbon – Swine Culture Nº 5
Amazon Carbon Swine Waste Management System Project 03 10/3/2009
Mitigation of the environmental passive through the management of the swine manure and 1,0 renewable electricity generation
Carroll’s Foods do Brasil & LOGICarbon – GHG Emission Reductions from Swine Manure Management 1,8 System, Diamantino, MT
Batavo Cooperativa Agroindustrial: Greenhouse emission reductions on swine production by means
the installation of better waste management systems. (*) In 2012. (**)Defined as the CERs emitted due to the number of CERs expected in the same period. (***) At end 2012.
7.2. Government programs, plans and actions in the waste sector
Table 29 below summarizes the main current government programs, plans, and actions in the waste sector being undertaken in 2009.
Basic SanitationPact Reference for BasicSanitationinBrazil Terms ofReference–Outlook Program (PASS-BID) Social Action inSanitation for All”) Todos (“SanitationProgram Programa Saneamento para sector (inforce in2009) Table 29 - Government programs, plans and actions in the waste sector 7.3. Brazilian regulatory framework for the waste the for framework regulatory Brazilian Management Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Description goals ofthisPlan. challenges, structural elements,themesandpriority Program) interms assumptions,main ofcontent, de Saneamento Básico/NationalBasicSanitation general thrustofthePLANSAB (Programa Nacional The BasicSanitationPact isinkeeping withthe contract. study issixmonthsfrom thedate ofsignature ofthe ing thePLANSAB. Thedeadlinefor completionofthe together withtheBasicSanitationPact, for formulat components, andisintended to serve asabasis, sanitation situationinBrazil related to thefour basic Brazil. Thisstudy shouldcontainadiagnosisofthe tion ofastudy ontheOutlookfor BasicSanitationin posals to besentby 30March 2009)for theelabora- The MinistryofCitiesopenedapublicbid(for pro- of which have seriousbasic sanitationdeficits. Santo andthenorthofstate ofMinasGerais -all centre-westnorth, northeast, regions, plusEspirito at smallandmedium-sizedmunicipalitiesinthe sector. International financingresources are targeted ed to thedevelopment ofpoliciesfor thesanitation environmental entitiesandsupportfor studiesrelat and environmental education,capabilitybuildingfor service providers (working intheProgram), health sewerage, upgrading administrative capacitiesof services inurban areas, focused onwater supply, and improve thequalityofenvironmental sanitation The aimofthisprogram isto increase thecoverage tee Fund (FGTS). (Conselho Curador) ofthe Length ofServiceGuaran- -both undertheaegisofSupervisory Council modified by Resolution nº491of14December2005 cífico, formed by Resolution nº476of31May 2005, Privados eMutuáriosSociedadesdePropósito Espe- of thePrograma Saneamento para Todos/ Mutuários sures relating to credit operations withinthecontext the regulatory basisfor theprocedures andmea- Directive 33dated 1August 2007,which provides originate withtheFGTS, onthebasisofNormative and projects. Theresources for contracting this work and recovery ofwater sources and,finally, studies construction anddemolitionrubble,conservation solidwaste handlingof management, management, sanitation, institutionaldevelopment, rain water in theareas ofwater supply, sewerage, integrated The program provides fundingfor undertakings deficits inthebasicsanitationsector inurban areas. population through actionstargeted atreducing improve healthandqualityoflife conditionsofthe The Programa Saneamento para Todos aims to - - 105 Synthesis Report | WASTE 106 Synthesis Report | WASTE (PEAMSS) In SanitationProgram and SocialMobilization Environmental Education Reference (PMSS) for theSanitationSector Modernization Program Services Program Urban Water andSewage SANEAR) for PROSANEAR (PAT PRO- Technical assistance project Management Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Description and investments. tion inresponse to thefederal government programs developing sanitation-related environmental educa society who willundertake activities targeted at the private sector, universities, andmembersofcivil holders includingpublicauthorities,institutions, gram isto encourage liaisonsamongdifferent stake- tion withregard to sanitation.Theaimofthepro- with environmental educationandsocialmobiliza action linesfor guidingtheinterventions concerned The PEAMSS embraces theprinciples,guidelinesand for thefive large geographic regions ofBrazil of associated costswere surveyed state-by-state and mand for sanitationservicestogether withestimates have beenmadefor 2010,2015and2020.Thede the basis of data for year 2000 and future projections and disseminated. Theestimates were calculated on age collection/treatment inBrazil” was published ment needsfor universalizing water supply andsew 2003, astudy called“Assessing thescaleofinvest - sewage companiesandregulatory agencies.InMay ers, istargeted atmunicipalities,states, water and Federal Government, andSanitationServiceProvid (SNIS). Funding, provided by theWorld Bank,the lishing theNationalSanitationInformation System es, aswell asto undertake studiestargeted atestab to broadening coverage ofwater andsewage servic of publicsanitationserviceproviders, andcontribute staff, control water losses,improve theeffectiveness The PMSSprogram isdesignedto train technical the Union(OGU). Financing isprovided withintheGeneral Budgetof ties withpopulationsofover 50,000inhabitants. sewage collection/treatment systems inmunicipali the installationandextension ofwater supply and The aimofthisprogram isto provide supportfor tions inslums. evaluation inaquestfor improving theliving condi- development, socialstrengthening, enforcement and tion area andto focus ontraining andinstitutional studies andprojects intheenvironmental sanita The PAT PROSANEAR aimsto prepare andexecute ------Program (PNCDA) National Anti-Water Waste Reference in slums ects– PPI–for interventions Priority Investment Proj- MSW (RSU) Program solid waste disposal gas emissionsgenerated in CDM project for reducing Management Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– tariat National HousingSecre- Sanitation Secretariat/ National Environmental Ministry ofCities– FUNASA. ministries, BNDESand together withother Sanitation Secretariat National Environmental Ministry ofCities– World Bank Environment Ministry/ Sanitation Secretariat / National Environmental Ministry ofCities– Description tion systems. and improving theenergy supply efficiencyofsanita the aimofundertakingwater conservation measures centers, andotherbodiesatthefederal level, with the publicandprivate sectors, universities, research serviceprovidersmaterials andequipment, inboth entities (ABNT, INMETRO, etc.), manufacturers of holders inthesanitationsector, NGOs,normative The PNCDA involves apartnershipbetween stake- social inclusioninitiatives. areas employing integrated housing,sanitationand conditions insituorrelocating peoplefrom such dation inunsuitableareas, withaviewto improving conditions ofpeopleliving insubstandard accommo- regularization, improving safety, healthandliving activities neededfor landandproperty ownership These interventions are targeted atundertakingthe Government’s Growth Acceleration Program (PAC). the priorityinvestment projects (PPI)oftheFederal proposals for interventions inslums,which isoneof process ofpresentation, selectionandanalysis of This manualcontainstheguidanceneededfor the (OGU). provided withintheGeneral BudgetoftheUnion development inthesanitationfield.Financingis ated socialwork, capacitybuildingandinstitutional trash worker cooperatives, andundertakingassoci- ing socialinsertionfor waste scavengers, organizing collection and handling, improving dumpsites, boost- composting centers, providing equipmentfor waste ing orestablishingsanitarylandfills,recycling and disposal ofMSW. Theprogram involves improv with urban cleansing,collection,treatment andfinal ing, extending orimproving servicesconcerned studies anddesignplans,projects, andfor install The MSWProgram provides supportfor undertaking Bank andtheJapanese Government. Funding for thisproject was provided by theWorld social benefitsto thoseinvolved inthisoccupation. from waste scavenging, providing environmental and actions to bolster socialinclusionand to free families for power generation, eradication ofgarbage dumps, also focuses onusingbiogas produced by landfills social andenvironmental programs. Theprogram the CDMasausefultool for undertakingeconomic, sustainable development ofurban areas, employing Project activities are focused oncontributingto the for around 60percent ofallmunicipalsolidwaste. populationandresponsible half ofthecountry’s populated municipalitiesinBrazil, housingover This project istargeted at200ofthemostdensely - - - 107 Synthesis Report | WASTE 108 Synthesis Report | WASTE “Pró-Municípios” program Reference (FNMA) National Environment Fund “Brasil Joga Limpo” Program Basins (PRODES) Program to de-pollute River gram (PAC) Growth Acceleration Pro- Management Ministry ofCities Environment Ministry Environment Ministry ANA National Water Agency- Environment Ministry/ Management Ministry Planning, Budgetand Description Union (OGU). nancing isprovided withintheGeneral Budgetofthe acquiring housingunits,andupgrading slums.Fi- improving urban traffic conditions,producing or elaboration ofurban development master plans, ture, water supply, sewage networks, drainage, large municipalitiesinterms ofurban infrastruc - improve infrastructural work insmall,mediumand The purposeofthisprogram isto undertake or those involving solidwaste. mental problems throughout thecountryincluding had apositive impactonthetreatment ofenviron- procedures provides atrickle-down effect which has in selectingprojects. Itsdecentralized management the transparent anddemocratic process involved vironment, theFNMAhasbecomeareference for at recovering, conservingandpreserving theen governmental entitiesandorganizations targeted provements. Supportingefforts by civil societyand the questfor qualityoflife andenvironmental im and animportantpartnerfor Brazilian societyin source offinancingfor environmental purposes lished 19years agoandiscurrently Brazil’s main The NationalEnvironment Fund (FNMA)was estab collection anddumpsite renewal). units, finaldisposalworks andencouraging selective Solid Waste (installingsanitarylandfills,treatment to elaborate theIntegrated ManagementPlanfor and proven. Themainobjectives oftheprogram are holders inaccordance withwork stagesexecuted to municipalitiesandstate andmunicipalconcession operates withfundsprovided by theOGU, allocated National Environment Fund (FNMA).Theprogram ing to thecriteria andmeasures establishedby the aegis ofthenationalenvironmental policyaccord- program aimedatimplementingprojects underthe “Brasil Joga Limpo” isaFederal Government-run Payment for Treated Sewage That. sewage according to theconditionssetforth inthe nerating serviceproviders who disposeof andtreat existing ones.Thisprogram pays by results, remu- installing newsewage treatment plantsorextending The PRODES provides financialencouragement for lection for 8.9millionhouseholds. sewage to 7.3millionand improved solid waste col- is to provide water supply to 7millionhouseholds, infrastructure investments. Thetarget ofthePAC improving managementmechanismsandincreasing services by introducing institutionaltypechanges, access by theBrazilian populationto basicsanitation segment istargeted atimproving andbroadening and urban infrastructure rubric.ThePAC-Sanitation the investments schemeofthePAC underthesocial population. The‘sanitation’ themeforms partof tion andimprove living conditionsoftheBrazilian development, promote economicgrowth, jobgenera- The principalaimofthePAC isto provide aboostto - - - eratives ment ofsolidwaste coop- Organization anddevelop- Reference Program (PROSAB) Basic SanitationResearch FUNASA/PAC ects undertaken by BNDES and water resources proj- Environmental sanitation toral Projects (PMI) Integrated Urban Multisec - Management Employment Ministry ofLaborand (FINEP) Project FinancingOrgan Technology /Studiesand Ministry ofScienceand Ministry National Integration tion/Ministry ofCities/ National HealthFounda - Bank Economic Development National Socialand Bank Economic Development National Socialand Description and to ensure optimumuseofresources. tries withaviewto avoiding overlapping activities related to solidwaste andto liaisewithotherminis- tive ventures inthecontext oftheproduction chains also to encourage initiatives for buildingcoopera- working inthesolidwaste environment. Theaimis provide financialsubsidiesfor forming cooperatives concerned withthetreatment ofsolidwaste andto economic feasibility studiesrelated to developments The efforts ofthisministryare directed towards members. for theBrazilian population,especially thepoorest and which canresult inimproved living conditions in terms ofinstallation,operation andmaintenance and solidwaste which are easy to apply atlow cost in theareas concernedwithwater supply, sewerage undertaking ofresearch ondifferent technologies The goalofthisresearch program isto supportthe disposal for households. systems andsolidwaste andsewage collectionand and targets initiatives for improving water supply municipalities withpopulationsofupto 50,000 the PAC, prioritizessanitationimprovements for This FUNASA program (usingfundsprovided under been established. where theappropriate committees have already areas andthede-pollutionofwater basins inareas ministration, recovery ofenvironmentally degraded solidwastement, treatment,water resources ad- supply, sewage, industrialeffluentand waste treat- vestments are directed to thefollowing areas: water adoption ofriver basinsasbasicplanningunits.In integrated managementofwater resources andthe of environmentally degraded areas by encouraging access to basicsanitationservicesandtherecovery investment projects aimedattheuniversalization of This program aimsto supportpublicorprivate ra “(Infrastructure Investment Fund). de Investimento emParticipações emInfra-Estrutu Gazette of30.5.2007,establishedtheFIP- IE,“Fundo Law 11.478of29.5.2007,published intheOfficial drainage). supply, sewerage, solidwaste treatment andurban those related to environmental sanitation(water authorities. Amongprojects eligiblefor financingare these fall withinthebroader plansofthemunicipal sectors suchastransport orsanitation,providing financed by BNDEScanalsobetargeted atspecific tural problems inurban centers. Theprojects to be sectors withaviewto contributingto solving struc- tions by municipalagentsinanumberofdifferent This isasetofprojects covering planningandopera- - - 109 Synthesis Report | WASTE 110 Synthesis Report | WASTE Table 30-Federallevellegalrulingsapplicabletothewastesector Legal rulings (DOU) of 9.1.1997 published in the Official Gazette Law 9.433 of 8.1.1997 (DOU) of 28.01.1999 published in the Official Gazette Law 9.795 of 27.04.1999 (DOU) of 18.7.2000 published in the Official Gazette Law 9.984 of 17.7.2000 (DOU) of 11.07.2001 published in the Official Gazette Law 10.257 of 10.07.2001 (DOU) of 31.12.2004 published in the Official Gazette Law 11.079 of 30.12.2004 (DOU) of 18.1.2007 published in the Official Gazette Law 11.107 of 6.4.2005 Bill 1.991-2007 (DOU) of 8.1.2007 published in the Official Gazette Law 11.445 of 5.1.2007 1988 Federal Constitution force in2009) 7.4 Brazilian regulatory framework for the waste sector (in With vetoes updated Law 7.990 of 28 December 1989. and modifies Article 1º of Law 8.001 of 13 March 1990, which regulates Clause XIX of Article 21 of the Federal Constitution, the National System for Water Resources Management and Establishes the National Water Resources Policy, creates Received vetoes other measures. the National Environmental Education Policy and provides for Addresses question of environmental education, establishes Received vetoes. Resources Management, and introduces other measures. Resources Policy and coordinate the National System for Water a federal body designed to implement the National Water Addresses creation of the National Waters Agency - ANA, Received vetoes and makes other provisions. Constitution and sets down general guidelines for urban policy, Cities Statute - regulates Articles 182 and 183 of the Federal Received vetoes contracting PPPs. Sets forth general public sector norms for bidding and Legal Opinions. Decree 6.017 of 17.1.2007 regulates Law 11.107. Received vetoes. makes other provisions. Deals with general norms for contracting public consortia and Explanation of reasons. provisions. Establishes the National Solid Waste Policy and makes other Bills and legal opinions required prior to final approval framework for the law (still not issued). Decree Memorandum of 6.8.2007 provides regulatory Received vetoes. 6.528 of 11 May 1978; and makes other provisions. of 21 June 1993 and 8.987 of 13 February 1995; repeals Law Laws 6.766 of 19 December 1979, 8.036, of 11 May 1990, 8.666 Sets forth national guidelines for basic sanitation; modifies Federal Constitution of Brazil Description
Legal rulings (DOU) of 2.9.1981 published in the Official Gazette Law 6.938 of 31.8.1981 (DOU) of 11.7.1989 published in the Official Gazette Law 7.797 of 10.7.1989 (DOU) of 12.9.1990 - Extra Ed. published in the Official Gazette Law 8.078 of 11.9.1990 (DOU) of 20.9.1990 published in the Official Gazette Law 8.080 of 19.9.1990 6.7.1994 and republished in the DOU of (DOU) of 22.6.1993 published in the Official Gazette Law 8.666 of 21.6.1993 in the DOU of 28.9.98 (DOU) of 14.2.1995 and republished published in the Official Gazette Law 8.987 of 13.2.1995 republished on 28.9.1998 (DOU) of 8.7.1995 – Extra Ed. published in the Official Gazette Law 9.074 of 7.7.1995 Decree 99.274 of 6.6.1990 – Text compiled. Decree 99.274 of 6.6.1990 regulates the Law. Text compiled . of other measures. application/formulation mechanisms, and introduces a series Deals with the National Environment Policy: its aims and recommends a series of other measures. Establishes the National Environmental Fund and Decree 5.903 of 20.9.2006 regulates the Law Text compiled . With vetoes. Consumer Protection Code and other measures. Received vetoes. other measures functioning of relevant services, and establishes a series of protection and recovery, as ell as the organization and Law of the SUS, covering conditions for health promotion, Text compiled. Received vetoes. contracts and a series of other measures. sets forth norms for public administration bidding and Regulates Article 37, Clause XXI, of the Federal Constitution, Text compiled. Received vetoes. the Federal Constitution, and a series of other measures. for public services delivery foreshadowed under Article 175 of Deals with the regime for awarding concessions and permits Text compiled. Received vetoes. measures. and permits for delivering public services, and a series of other Establishing norms for awarding and extending concessions Description
111 Synthesis Report | WASTE 112 Synthesis Report | WASTE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guia Revisado de 1996 para Inventários Nacionais INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE METEOROLOGIA. de Available at:http://www.inmet.gov.brmanual Municipal: Lixo In: IPT/CEMPRE. TECNOLÓGICAS. PESQUISAS DE INSTITUTO at: Available survey. (2008) IBGE ESTATÍSTICA. E GEOGRAFIA DE BRASILEIRO INSTITUTO at: Available census. (2000) IBGE ESTATÍSTICA. E GEOGRAFIA DE BRASILEIRO INSTITUTO HENRIQUES, R. C. Aproveitamento Energético dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos: uma Abordagem GAZETA MERCANTIL. Análise Setorial: Saneamento Básico. São Paulo, 1998. v.3. FIGUEIREDO, P. J. M. Os resíduos sólidos e sua significação ao impasse ambiental e energético da ESSENCIS Soluções Ambientais SA. Project Landfill gás Design Document. emission reduction. ECOINVEST. GHG capture and combustion from swine farms in Southern Brazil . 2006. 56p. Energético Aproveitamento no Ambiental Saneamento de Setor do Análise M.E.G. CUNHA, Reutilizando, Reduzindo, (CEMPRE). RECICLAGEM A PARA EMPRESARIAL COMPROMISSO sólidos Resíduos (CETESB). AMBIENTAL SANEAMENTO DE TECNOLOGIA DE COMPANHIA Environmental and Sanitary of Department anaeróbios. Reatores L. A. C. CHERNICHARO, BRAZIL. Ministry of Mines and Energy. In: Plano Nacional de Energia (PNE 2030). Available at: SNIS. – Saneamento sobre Informações de Nacional Sistema In: Cities. of Ministry BRAZIL. do Aceleração de Programa do 2007 Atividades de Relatório In: Cities. of Ministry BRAZIL. II PMSS – Saneamento de Setor do Modernização de Programa In: Cities. of Ministry BRAZIL. de Apresentação 8419: NBR (ABNT). TÉCNICAS NORMAS DE BRASILEIRA ASSOCIAÇÃO de manejo pelo metano de emissões de Nacional Inventário M. M. S. VIEIRA, J.W.S.; ALVES, of purposes energy for use and recovery on diagnosis technical W.Institutional J. S. ALVES, 8. gerenciamento integrado, São Paulo, 2000. 370 p. http://www.ibge.gov.br/ http://www.ibge.gov.br/ Rio de Janeiro Federal University. COPPE, Planning– Energy in Dissertation Master’s 2004. Janeiro, de Tecnológica.Rio of Campinas. atualidade. 1993, Doctoral Thesis - Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, State University Landfill gás emission reduction - Caieiras, SP Brazil . 2004. 42p. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, State University of Campinas. – Dissertation Campinas”.Master’s de 128f. 2002. município do caso “O Resíduos: de Reciclando: A Indústria Ecoeficiente. São Paulo, 2000. industriais. 2ª ed. 1993. Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte. 2000. http://www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_menu_item. Brasília 2007. (2006). CD-Rom – SNIS - Série Histórica 5. June, 2008 Diagnóstico dos Serviços de Água, Esgotos e de Manejo dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos br/ministerio-das-cidades/destaques/relatorio-de-atividades-do-pac-2007. Crescimento – Saneamento Básico (2007-2010). Available at: http://www.cidades.gov. no Brasil”. Available at: http://www.pmss.gov.br/pmss. tratamentoe abastecimento de serviços dos coleta de e água de esgotosde sanitários universalização para investimentos de necessidades das “Dimensionamento (2003). Projetos de Aterros Sanitários de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos. Rio de Janeiro, 1984. resíduos. CETESB, 1998, 88p. and Energy Institute of the University of São Paulo. Electrotechnics the of Program Energy Inter-Units Postgraduate the for dissertation Master’s 2000. Paulo, São Portuguese). (in digestion anaerobic by generated biogas Bibliography VON SPERLING, M. Lagoas de estabilização. Department of Sanitary and Environmental WILLUMSEN, H. Environmental C. Energy and recovery from land Sanitary fill of gas in Denmark and Department worldwide. Denmark: LFG estabilização. de Lagoas M. SPERLING, VON THEODORE, L.;REYNOLDS,J.Introduction to Hazardous Waste Incineration. 6thedition,New SÃO PAULO (Estado). Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo. A cidade e o Lixo. São PROGRAMA DE PESQUISA EM SANEAMENTO BÁSICO (PROSAB). Digestão de resíduos sólidos de abatimento e urbanos sólidos resíduos de energético Aproveitamento L.B. OLIVEIRA, leito em macharia de areia de térmica regeneração da experimental D. C. Estudo J. OLIVEIRA, MUYLAERT, M. S; SALA, J; FREITAS, M. A. V. de. Consumo de Energia e Aquecimento do Planeta de e Textos. Industrial de Oficina reuso. São e racional uso indústria: MIERZWA,na HESPANHOL, C; Água J. I. Energético, Setores nos Poluição da Controle e Prevenção S. E. E. LORA, KIELY, G. Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill, 1997. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. IPCC (2006). In: IPCC Guidelines for for Guidelines IPCC In: (2006). IPCC CHANGE. CLIMATE ON PANEL INTERGOVERNMENTAL Practice Good IPCC In: (2000). IPCC CHANGE. CLIMATE ON PANEL INTERGOVERNMENTAL Consultant, Consultant, 2001. Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987, 463 p. Paulo, 1998. orgânicos e aproveitamento do biogás. Rio de Janeiro, 2003. Energy Planning – COPPE, Rio de Janeiro Federal University. emissões de gases do efeito estufa. Rio de Janeiro, 2000. 136 f. Master’s Dissertation in University of Campinas. fluidizado. Campinas, 2007. Doctoral Thesis - Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, State Estudos de Caso. Rio de Janeiro: COPPE, 2000. - Quioto Desenvolvimento Protocolo de de do - MDL - Mecanismo do Limpo Análise – Paulo, 2005. Transporte. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro, 2002. public/2006gl/index.htm National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ Inventories. Gas Greenhouse Available National at: in http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/ Management Uncertainty and Guidance de Gases de Efeito Estufa. Volume 2, 1996.
113 Synthesis Report | WASTE 114 Synthesis Report | WASTE
BANCO MUNDIAL