Management of Residual Waste as a Part of Integrated Biological Waste Treatment TRENDS, EXPERIENCES AND REGULATORY ASPECTS Enzo Favoino Working Group on Composting And Integrated Waste Management Reduction of biodegradable MSW according to the EU Landfill Directive Years after implementation Reduction 5 years (2006 / 2010) 25 % 8 years (2009 / 2013) 50 % 15 years (2016 / 2020) 65 %
The EU approach to Landfilling: Dir 99/31 mandates reduction of biodegradable municipal waste to be landfilled Also, it mandates pretreatment of the waste to be landfilled Source separation of Biowaste may deliver high captures, consistent results It potentially represents the FASTEST way to fulfill the targets of the Landfill Directive It also implies remarkable changes in amounts and quality of residuals! Assessment of diversion of biodeg waste % in MSW Fines < 20 ¹ 10,39 Food waste 29,65 Paper and board 23,46 Yard waste 2,48 TOTAL 63,90 ¹ we assume 80% of fines is food waste % in residuals 3,84 5,73 33,83 1,11 43,36 % of MSW 1,54 2,29 13,53 0,44 17,50 Source sep. = 60% Residual waste = 40% Diversion biodeg waste = 72,62%
Different strategies (EC Report on National Strategies for diversion of BMW) Austria 1 Jan 95 BioAbfV Obligation to collect separately or compost at home 500.000 ton composted in 2001 1993 Packaging Ordinance Obligation to collect separately, reuse and recycle 510.000 ton of waste paper recycled in 2002 Target for 2016 already fulfilled in 2001 Different strategies (EC Report on National Strategies for diversion of BMW) Denmark 27 June 2000 Ordinance 619 Obligation to incinerate since 1997 waste suitable for energy recovery In 2002 35.000 ton of BMW landfilled (1.813.000 in 1995)
Italy Different strategies (EC Report on National Strategies for diversion of BMW) Italy In 2002 3.800.000 ton of BMW separately collected 5.600.000 ton treated (3.100.000 tonnes RUB) 2.700.000 ton incinerated (1.500.000 tonnes RUB) An increase of separate collection of organics to at least 8.000.000 tonnes in 2008 is foreseen, in particular by increasing the separate collection in the southern regions. 2.800.000 tonnes of organic waste are currently composted Composting of mixed MSW and Mechanical-Biological Treatment (MBT): Capacities (1999) France Spain Italy 1.900.000 ton 3.000.000 ton 3.200.000 ton? Germany (2001) 2.600.000 + 700.000 ton
Italy - MBT sites for treatment of mixed or residual MSW capacity 11700 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 3183 5060 7080 capacity 2000 0 1999 2000 2001 2003 Directive 1999/31/EC Reduction with time of biodegradable waste being landfilled a 25% (as compared to 1995) within 5 years a 50% within 8 years a 65% within 15years Mandatory treatment of waste before landfilling requires a definition of test methods for acceptance at landfills
Food waste in residual waste The Netherlands: : 30 to 50 % Austria: 12 to 22 % Italy (where collection at the doorstep is adopted): 10 to 15% Lowest reported: around 5% (East( Milan District) Collection with road containers: : 30-40 % Directive 1999/31/CE 4 Treatment (art. 2): whatever b physical, b thermal, b chemical or b biological, process that modifies features of waste so as to reduce its volume or hazards linked to landfilling
Effects of biological treatment Feature Final outcome % reduction (as compared to starting conditions) Respiration rate 5 mg O2/g d.m. (96 h) about 400 mg O2/kg VS.h 80-90 % COD, total N in leachate < 1000 mg/l < 200 mg/l *** about 90% Gas production 20-40 l/kg d.m. 80-90% Volume final density (compacted): 1.2-1.4 ton/m3 mass loss (due to mineralisation): 20-40% up to 60% MBT various options Stabilisation before landfill Increase of calorific value dry stabilisation Production of materials ( mixed( MSW compost ) for restricted application in landscaping,, land reclamation Options may be easily turned into each other by process adaptations (e.g. air flow rates)
Mechanical-Biological Treatment Fast development in EU (GER, AUT, ITA, UK ) Intended for treatment of residuals Reduces biodegradability by 80-90% (landfilling) Increases LHV of materials intended for energy recovery Low-tech (e.g. passively aerated) on-site MBT may produce prompt improvement of landfill conditions in developing WM systems (new Member States!!) Establishes capacities for biological treatment ready to accept separately collected biowaste at a later stage Integration with landfilling and WtE may provide for a flexibility of MSW systems Decreasing amounts of residuals LHV of residuals 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 LHV = 3500-4000 Kcal/kg (15-16 16 MJ/kg)
Why MBT? Flexibility is important Not much dependent on throughputs Not dependent on Calorific Values of residuals Fairly Good economies of scale Suitable also at low capacities (down to a few ktpa) Rural districts Same process technologies as composting/ad Double-duty sites Delivers results (in terms of loss of biodegradability) in a comparatively short time! Directive 1999/31/EC Reduction with time of biodegradable waste being landfilled a 25% (as compared to 1995) within 5 years a 50% within 8 years a 65% within 15years Mandatory treatment of waste before landfilling requires a definition of test methods for acceptance at landfills
Definition of ACCEPTANCE of MBT-treated materials at landfills Germany VS < 5% (TASi( TASi) only incineration is suitable AT 4 < 5 mgo 2 /g d.m. (Ablagerungsverordnung( Ablagerungsverordnung, Jan 01) Gleichwertigkeit ( equivalency of MBT) Austria ( AT 4 < 7 mgo 2 /g d.m. Austria (Deponieverordnung) Italy DRI < 1000 mgo 2 /kgvs.h Definition of ACCEPTANCE of MBT-treated materials at landfills Germany VS < 5% (TASi( TASi) only incineration is suitable AT 4 < 5 mgo 2 /g d.m. (Ablagerungsverordnung( Ablagerungsverordnung, Jan 01) Gleichwertigkeit ( equivalency of MBT) Austria ( AT 4 < 7 mgo 2 /g d.m. Austria (Deponieverordnung) Italy DRI < 1000 mgo 2 /kgvs.h
Approaches to assess reduction of biodeg waste through MBT Key issues: A flexible approach (e.g. UK) or a threshold value (GER, AUT)? Test methods to detect real degradability of materials (fish is not plastics VS not suited) Codified approaches: Threshold for acceptability (and biodegradability: : GER, AUT) Threshold for biodegradability, NOT for acceptability (ITA, Guidelines for Regional Plans on diversion of BMW) Proportionality: : NO threshold, assessment of the mass balance of biodegradability LATS (UK) Reduction of gas potential production 80% reduction 90% reduction
What is ahead of us? Conditions to integrate MBT in SWM systems Cross-consistency with landfilling and thermal treatment Energy recovery and co-incineration of RDF MBT under fast development, basically due to the need for FLEXIBILITY; life-cycle thinking calls now also for EVIDENCE of environmental benefits C sequestration Increase efficiency of energy recovery What is ahead of us? Definition of acceptance at landfill sites Volatile Solids (LoI( LoI) ) misleading Assessment of degradability (respirometry( respirometry) ) more suited as a test method (Ablagerungsveordnung( Ablagerungsveordnung, Deponieverordnung,, Italian guidelines for BMW diversion) Avoid a ban on biodegradables implies losing flexibility Proportionality of effects (UK LATS) allows for optimised combination of strategies
MBT and Climate Change Climate change NOT the only impact to be considered in LCAs although the most attractive nowadays MBT may show very good performances in terms of GHGs savings MBT + MBT + landfillenergy rec. Linked to use of high-lhv materials as a substitute fuel Also linked to C C sequestration in landfills Mass-burning avoided CO2-eq e.g. AEA research Waste Management Options and Climate Change C seq NOT included C seq included Thank you Enzo Favoino favoinomail@tin.it +39.335.35.54.46