Case-studies: TURIN (Italy)

Transcription

1 FP6 - HOLIWAST Case-studies: TURIN (Italy) Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza Krakow 11,12 June 2007

2 Content & context 3 case-studies studies Fairly good geographical coverage Size: small to big Fairly good data availability and access to decision makers models not bound to overlap actual local waste management concepts Tollose: modelling influenced by ongoing planning (local decision makers wanted to keep consistent with provisions) mutual influence Katowice: may serve as a basis for consistent waste planning Turin: modelling different from established WM plans (rather confrontational ongoing debate on treatment/disposal of residual MSW it may inform discussion, anyway)

3 Turin (Torino): background infos Population: ~ inh. Used to be one of key industrial towns in Italy (FIAT) now shifting to new economy Waste yearly collected ~ t/y Separate collection rate ~ 33%

4 Mixed MSW collected 3/weekly - mainly road-containers; Dry recyclables (glass, cans, plastics) 1/w collected through bring ing-banks Paper and cardboard collected 1/w mainly at the doorstep (Cartesio( project) Food waste 2/w Turin current situation: COLLECTION collected at big-producers, through road-containers collection at the doorstep of biowaste from households, currently y being progressively implemented across the town Mixed residual waste: food waste (35% w/w) ) and Paper (21% w/w) ) content

5 Turin current situation: TREATMENT & DISPOSAL Mixed MSW is disposed directly on a landfill, without any pre-treatment. Mixed waste 331,051 LANDFILL 67,4% COLLECTION 516,859 tons/year Manually collected Road waste 17,423 Food waste 23,144 Green waste 10,754 Wood 20,583 Plastics 7,066 Market waste 10,070 Paper 79,191 Glass 12,920 Metals 2,183 Scrap 114 Compost 2,752 Composting 33,898 Residues 18,561 Residues 4,557 Sorting Plants 10,070 Plastics 5,513 Landfill 371, COMPOSTING 6,6% RECYCLING 26% (year 2004) WEEE 2,122 Batteries 352 Source: BRGM

6 Drivers: Packaging waste Directive 2004/12/EC Recycling targets (by 31/12/2008): 60% glass 60% paper and board 50% metals 22.5% plastics 15% wood

7 Drivers: : Biowaste 1. Landfill Directive 99/31 Target 65% (w respect 95) reduction biodegradable MW landfilled Mandatory pre-treatment of waste before landfilling 2. Revision of WFD,, EP 1st Reading - Florenz s amendment: Mandating MSs to introduce separate collection of biowaste European Climate Change Programme C sequestration TS on Soil Protection WG Exogenous Organic Matter Regions in Italy (including Pidmont) ) giving subsidies to farmers to use organic fertilisers UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

8 COLLECTION Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza Key issues for modelling case-studies studies Biowaste collection included in collection schemes wherever possible and appropriate TREATMENTS MBT Compliance with Landfill Directive considered to ensure flexibility where WM subject to deep changes s in the coming years (as IT, PL) Existing infrastructures: given boundary conditions where already mature and well established WM strategies Long-term pay-back (e.g. WtE through mass-burn sites connected with District Heating in N Europe)

9 Collection of dry recyclables Lessons to learn Avoid making too much effort to increase capture of low- weight materials Hand-sorting might imply higher overall costs Best practice achievable by means of vehicles best suited for different materials Consider density and compactability Avoid fleets with only one type of truck

10 Biowaste: 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 Pick-up time is much lower with hand-loading open lorries are adopted instead of packer trucks

11 Collection of biowaste Buckets volume: 6.5 to 30 litres hand-picked unit pick-up time: Areated systems: More resistant bags Less weight Lower collection frequencies

12 Collection of biowaste: 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

13 TURIN: modelled schemes Waste stream Collection system Frequency Vehicles Receptacles Residual waste Door to Door Once weekly RL Compactor Bins Food waste Door to Door Twice a week Open lorries with lifting device Bags + kitchen caddie; Buckets/Bins Paper Door to door Once weekly RL compactor Buckets/Bins Glass Door to Door Fortnightly Lorry with lifting device or RL compactor Bins Commingled lightweight packaging (Plastics & Metals) Door to Door Fortnightly RL compactor Bags Gardenwaste Collection at CA sites (Municipal recycling centres) RL compactor

14 Turin: modelled flow sheet DISPOSAL 56,2% COMPOSTING 14,5% RECYCLING 29,3% Separate collection rate: 44%

15 Topics for discussions Need to redirect investments Non-compacting lorries for Biowaste Rear-loading compactors for Paper and Residual Waste MBT for residual waste instead of Mass burning Current plans consider a high-throughput mass-burning site for residual MSW and industrial waste Flexible system able to deal with a changing waste Possibilities for RDF to be sent for co-incineration

16 THANKS! Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza