Implementing and optimising separate collection: operational and economic issues Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza The regulatory context: drivers from EU env policy Revised WFD hierarchy + recycling targets + prevention programmes Packaging Directive recycling targets Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodeg + obligation for pretreatment EU Climate Change Programme EU Soil Strategy What does it take to get there? Development of source separation of bio in the EU intensive kerbside incl.. food + PAYT intensive kerbside, incl.. food separation Road containers + kerbside (doorstep) for a few dry recyclables (paper) additional systems, organics included trhough containers on the road additional systems, containers on the road for dry recyclables > 80 % 70 % 50 % 40 % 20 % Obligations for bio 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; bio by 2010 Targets SWE: 35% composting target ITA, UK: recycling targets acting as drivers Best Recycling Municipalities, pop < 10,000 inhabitants In separate collection, what does OPTIMISED mean? High captures Good quality (low % of impurities) Avoid increase of arisings Allow for cost optimisation Contribute to fulfilling diversion targets of the Landfill Directive 9 1
The paradigm - keep control on collection, make participation highest Against the paradigm - lose control on collection, make participation lowest Biobins (carts) for food some issues The use of biobins may imply high deliveries of garden 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 fairly high percentages in residual organic (%) 60 ROM DK 56 55 55 GR LTV 51 50 48 ESP LUX 45 44 43 NL 40 BUL 39 38 38 CH 35 34 HU SLO 33 EI 32 32 FIN FR AUT 30 29 29 25 20 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 MSW Bio Paradigm for optimisation Buckets 6.5-30 litres hand-picked saves time collection time per pick-up point: 20-60 at high-rises, carts adopted to serve 15-20 households with one single pick Biodegradable bags Help keep containers clean The bags + a relatively frequent collection make it an user-friendly system Highest captures, lowest percentages of organics in residual Residual may be collected at a much lower frequency saves money! 5 2
0 Seminar Bio Sofia2013, 17-19 April 2013, Bulgaria Food in residual Municipality % Food 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 Collection of garden at Civic Amenity Sites (Municipal Recycling Centres) at the doorstep less frequent than food lower cost, higher participation in home composting programmes Packaging paradigm for optimisation There s no one stop shop solution different trucks for different materials Tackle different materials according to their specific density/compactability Multi-material being dismissed Paper collected on itself (high captures, best quality) Glass collected on itself (best quality; also, simple/cheapest collection, it breaks hence packer trucks not needed, open lorries much cheaper) Plastics + cans increasingly tackled through combined collection (lightweight and compactable materials, they need packer trucks) Purity VS Population Collection at the doorstep Province capitals (larger towns, with high-rise buildings) Purity 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 11127 12720 9652 4713 30800 5971 7824,192308 34849 11177 16112 19230 75650 4332 119187 23890 10493 20028 44748 50121 6832 6893 6152 6274 9062 26475 7161 50.000 Road containers (bring banks) Population 100.000 150.000 10 3
Is management more difficult somewhere? The new European Map Economist 2010 * 3 7 Salerno 150,000 inhabitants Separate collection= 75 % Organics 50%! Florianopolis october 28, 2010 Patrizia Lo Sciuto Slide byenzo Favoino 14 Captures (kgs/person.wk) Costs of MSW management some general remarks 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 1,08 26/11-2/12 1,46 3/12-9/12 1,59 10/12-16/12 1,66 17/12-23/12 1,46 1,49 24/12-30/12 31/12-6/1 1,80 07/01-13/1 1,68 14/01-20/1 1,75 21/01-27/1 1,82 28/01-03/2 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 KG/abitante 4
INFA-VHE report (Germany, 2004) costo procapite 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 COSTO PROCAPITE ( /ab.*anno) % RACCOLTA DIFFERENZIATA 131,00 117,90 31% 45% 53% 66% 78% 99,00 96,00 95,50 CONSORZIO CONSORZIO ITALIA NORD VENETO TVTRE PRIULA 131,00 117,90 99,00 96,00 95,50 31% 45% 53% 66% 78% Italia, Nord e Veneto: dati 2006 (fonte Rapporto Rifiuti 2007 APAT - ONR) Consorzio Priulae Consorzio TvTre: costi dati 2008 -% RD stima anno 2008 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % raccolta differenziata Mixed MSW Residuals Bio R+B Difference to mixed MSW Rural area kg/inhab/y 220 130 100 230 5% 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 6 22,25-19% treat./cost ( /t) 125 125 60 total cost ( /inhab/y) 36,9 22,18 10,63 32,81-11% Urban area kg/inhab/y 270 225 50 275 2% 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 3 31,13-8% treat./cost ( /t) 125 125 60 total cost ( /inhab/y) 51,63 42,685 8,27 50,96-1% Cost optimisation (Lombardy, pop. 10M, 1500 Municipalities) Euro/person Cost of collection (green bars) and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars) TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS Tool Details Applies where.. Reducing pickup time Reduction of the frequency for collection of Residuals Use of bulk lorries instead of packer trucks Hand pick-up of small receptacles much faster than mechanical loading Effective systems to collect bio make its percentage in Residuals less than 15 % Bulk density of food is much higher (0.7kg/dm3) than garden food collected separately from garden, in small receptacles captures of bio are increased tools for collection of food prevent deliveries of garden Thanks for your attention Enzo Favoino enzofavoino@alice.it +39 (335) 35.54.46 5