Enzo Favoino. Working Group on Composting And Integrated Waste Management Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

Transcription

1 Strategies for optimised collection of biowaste Enzo Favoino Working Group on Composting And Integrated Waste Management Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

2 Development of source separation of biowaste in the EU Obligations for biowaste management NL: compulsory schemes for separate collection AUT: obligation upon households to either take part in separate collection or to compost in the backyard GER: KrW-AbfG separate collection widely diffused Catalunya (Spain): ley 6/95 compulsory for all Municipalities with a pop. > 5000 (recently extended to cover all Municipalities) SK (Act 24/04): Garden Waste to be separately colelcted by 2006; biowaste by 2010 Targets SWE: 35% composting target ITA, UK: recycling targets acting as drivers

3 What does OPTIMISED mean? High captures Best quality (low % of contraries) Avoiding increase of waste arisings Not incurring incremental costs Fulfilling diversion targets of the Landfill Directive Is this achievable at all? all at a same time?

4 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza A remarkable, long-lasting lasting effect Kerbside biowaste collection implemented Time 1st sem. '92 2nd sem. '92 1st sem. '93 2nd sem. '93 1st sem. '94 2nd sem. '94 1st sem. '95 2nd sem. '95 1st sem. '96 2nd sem. '96 1st sem. '97 2nd sem. '97 1st sem. '98 2nd sem. '98 1st sem. '99 2nd sem. '99 1st sem. '00 2nd sem. '00 % recycling

5 Catalunya (Spain), 2000 Total separate Collection Riudecanyes Tiana Before implementation 6% 6% After implementation 76% 57%

6 Achievable recycling rates South Italy Municipality Population Recycling rate % Capture organic waste kg/inhab.year VAIRANO PATENORA ,00% 122 COMIZIANO ,80% 123 CIMITILE ,80% 130 GIFFONI SEI CASALI ,90% 82 BAIANO ,30% 79 SAN CIPRIANO PICENTINO ,70% 71 CASAMARCIANO ,40% 71 SAN VITALIANO ,70% 137 SALA CONSILINA ,00% 65 CAMPOSANO ,80% 58 MANOCALZATI ,30% 78

7 Tackling problems Increase captures of food waste Fulfill targets of the LFD Make collection of residuals easier Achieve a broad optimisation of the collection scheme Food waste needs frequent collection Collection rounds for food waste have to be made cheaper!

8 Food waste in residual waste Municipality % Food waste Altivole 7,82 Arcade 8,24 Breda di Piave 7,61 Casale sul Sile 9,42 Castello di Godego 8,05 Cessalto 6,30 Conegliano 9,40 Cornuda 7,19 Giavera del Montello 6,88

9 Optimisation of source separation of BIOWASTE: Key issues Need to make the system user-friendly Increase participation, enhance captures Simplify collection of residual waste Avoid excess deliveries of garden waste Prevent increase of waste arisings Optimise conditions for collection of food waste Tackle FERMENTABILITY (food waste) and VOLUME (garden waste) with different systems

10 Purity VS Population Collection at the doorstep Purity , Road containers (bring banks) Population

11 Increase of waste arisings: to be considered Increase of packaging Deliveries of industrial waste inside the MSW collection system Increasing captures of garden waste 5 kilos (av.) grass clippings typically increased two-fold by leaves, prunings mostly home composted or burned in the past

12 Compositional analyses BEFORE implementation D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Average Kg py 400 kg MSW) Fines 8,7 11,91 12,07 12,65 11,70 11,41 45,62 Food 30,1 26,47 27,48 27,70 29,11 28,17 112,68 TOTAL food* 37,06 35, , ,816 38,464 37,30 149,18 Garden 3,88 2,23 3,48 1,95 1,64 2,64 10,54 * Including Food waste + 80% of fines

13 A potential problem: high captures of yard waste Kilograms/inhabitant.year Garden waste Food waste FORTE DEI MARMI 462,62 28,99 PIETRASANTA 237,14 21,59 SIRTORI 227,20 36,69 SERAVEZZA 200,29 9,25 LIERNA 172,34 0,00 ARESE 120,49 44,38 MONTICELLO BRIANZA 113,59 68,91 ROVELLO PORRO 111,87 0,00 BURAGO DI MOLGORA 108,39 65,08 SAN ROCCO AL PORTO 102,51 38,87 PRESEZZO 87,70 63,60 GUDO VISCONTI 84,76 56,60 VIAREGGIO 81,56 47,21 CORREZZANA 81,39 47,80 USMATE VELATE 81,17 58,60 GESSATE 80,96 84,93 DERVIO 80,29 25,18 CARNATE 79,61 62,14 GAGGIANO 78,45 69,10

14 Seasonal fluctuations garden waste Monthly Collection Trends - Green and Kitchen Biowaste Quantity (kg) Green and wood waste Kitchen biowaste Monthly quanties collected (aggregate PD1 Month

15 A rationale for optimisation Innovative schemes for source separation focusing on intensive collection of food waste High captures, low costs for collection High density of food waste alone implies lower costs for its collection Pick-up time is much lower with hand-picking open lorries adopted instead of packer trucks

16 Biobins - Key problems The use of biobins may imply high deliveries of garden waste Bins require mechanical loading Low density implies adoption of expensive packer trucks or high costs for transport Reduced frequency of collection is therefore considered to save money This impairs captures of food waste fairly high percentages in residual waste

17 Solutions Adopt small-size size receptacles (at detached houses) No delivery of garden waste to be tackled through separate, cheaper schemes High density of food waste Fast hand-picking Low cost for transport small lorries needed Higher frequency for collection possible Higher captures Simplified schemes for the collection of residuals

18 Tools Buckets volume: 6.5 to 30 litres hand-picked unit pick-up time: May be adopted instead of wheelie bins at detached/terraced houses with gardens

19

20 Benefits of small receptacles - 1 Faster pick-up Cheaper transport Lower amount of waste to be managed (avoids excess deliveries of garden waste) Home composting is enhanced Reduction of costs!!

21 Benefits of small receptacles - 2 Possibility for more frequent collection of food waste Higher captures Reduced frequency for collection of residuals Wider optimisation

22 Kitchen waste smells even in cloudy UK Fortnightly organics/residual, but

23 South Somerset

24 Tools -2 Biobags help keep receptacles clean Biobags and (comparatively) frequent collection make the system user-friendly Higher captures of food waste, lower percentage in residual waste Reduced frequency for collection of residual waste

25 Collection of garden waste at Civic Amenity sites at the doorstep less frequent than food waste higher participation in home composting programmes

26 Collection of dry recyclables Lessons to learn Hand-sorting might imply higher overall costs commingled paper/plastics collection not much recommendable Best practice achievable by means of vehicles best suited for different materials Consider density and compactability Avoid fleets with only one type of truck

27 Strategies to implement collection of dry recyclables material-specific collection of separate streams glass paper plastics light multi-material collection paper + plastics + tissues + cans/tins heavy multi-material collection glass + plastics + cans/tins combined collection of dry materials plastics + cans/tins glass + cans/tins

28 Costs of MSW management some general remarks Increased cost of disposal Landfill Directive Incineration Directive + IPPC Anyway cost of collection may by itself be comparatively low similar to commingled MSW collection Savings on disposal

29 East Milan WM District (62% diversion on aggregate) Waste management cost per inhabitant and year 70,00 60,00 Euro/year 50,00 40,00 30,00 20, Year

30 INFA-VHE report (Germany, 2004) Difference to mixed MSW Mixed MSW Residuals Biowaste R+B Rural area kg/inhab/y % coll/week 1 0,5 0,5 1 coll/cost ( inhab/y) 9,4 5,93 4,63 10,56 12% treat./cost ( /inhab/y) 27,5 16, ,25-19% treat./cost ( /t) total cost ( /inhab/y) 36,9 22,18 10,63 32,81-11% Urban area kg/inhab/y % coll/week 1 0,5 0,5 1 coll/cost ( (inhab/y) 17,88 14,56 5,27 19,83 11% treat./cost ( /inhab/y) 33,75 28, ,13-8% treat./cost ( /t) total cost ( /inhab/y) 51,63 42,685 8,27 50,96-1%

31 Villafranca San Bonifacio Legnago Collection + transp. costs Municipalities in Verona Province 1998 MEDIA convenzionale ,55 /inh.y TRADITIONAL COMMINGLED COLLECTION Bussolengo Castelnuovo D.G. Casaleone Buttapietra Mezzane di Sotto Angiari MEDIA domiciliarizzato Sona SOURCE SEPARATION AT THE DOORSTEP SOURCE SEPARATION BY MEANS OF ROAD CONTAINER Bevilacqua S.Martino B.A. Fumane MEDIA doppio contenitore Peschiera Oppeano Dolce' Cost (ITL.inhab-1 yr-1) 31,70 /inh.y 32,12 /inh.y

32 TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS Tool Details Applies where.. Reducing pickup time Hand pick-up of small receptacles much faster than mechanical loading food waste collected separately from garden waste, in small receptacles Reduction of the frequency for collection of Residuals Effective systems to collect biowaste make its percentage in Residuals less than 15 % captures of FOOD waste are increased Use of bulk lorries instead of packer trucks Bulk density of food waste is much higher (0.7kg/dm3) than yard waste tools for collection of food waste prevent deliveries of garden waste

33 Benefiting from small, cheap lorries (costs per inhabitant, Eur/inh.year)

34 Food waste in residual waste Municipality % Food waste Altivole 7,82 Arcade 8,24 Breda di Piave 7,61 Casale sul Sile 9,42 Castello di Godego 8,05 Cessalto 6,30 Conegliano 9,40 Cornuda 7,19 Giavera del Montello 6,88

35 Guidance Manual for Municipalities, Slovak Republic

36 Test, assess, disseminate!! Make results VISIBLE Point results more meaningful than average ones!! National awards, NGOs Analyse residuals!

37 Summary remarks Separate collection of biowaste a PROVEN strategy Similar schemes deliver similar results everywhere MAKE IT HAPPEN! Food waste remarkably different from garden waste (fermentability, volume) adopt fit for purpose systems intensive collection of food waste may deliver high diversion and savings on collection Process adaptation possible and already widely adopted Turning Pretreatment Recycling coarse rejects AD.

38 Thank you! Enzo Favoino (mobile)