1 / 28

Implementing and optimising separate collection: operational and economic issues

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  waste hierarchy + recycling targets + prevention programmes

simeon
Download Presentation

Implementing and optimising separate collection: operational and economic issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing and optimising separate collection: operational and economic issues Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

  2. The regulatory context: drivers from EU env policy • Revised WFD  waste hierarchy + recycling targets + prevention programmes • Packaging Directive  recycling targets • Landfill Directive  diversion targets for biodeg waste + obligation for pretreatment • EU Climate Change Programme • EU Soil Strategy

  3. intensive kerbside incl. food waste + PAYT intensive kerbside, incl. food waste 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 What does it take to get there ? > 80 % 70 % 50 % 40 % 20 %

  4. Development of source separationof 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

  5. Best Recycling Municipalities, pop < 10,000 inhabitants 9

  6. In separate collection, what does “OPTIMISED” mean? • High captures • Good quality (low % of impurities) • Avoid increase of waste arisings • Allow for cost optimisation • Contribute to fulfilling diversion targets of the Landfill Directive

  7. The paradigm - keep control on collection, make participation highest

  8. Against the paradigm - lose control on collection, make participation lowest

  9. Biobins (carts) for food waste – some issues • 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

  10. Biowaste – 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 waste Residual waste may be collected at a much lower frequency – saves money ! 5

  11. Food waste in residual waste

  12. Collection of garden waste • at Civic Amenity Sites (Municipal Recycling Centres) • at the doorstep • less frequent than food waste  lower cost, higher participation in home composting programmes

  13. Packaging waste – paradigm for optimisation • There’s no “one stop shop” solution – different trucks for different materials • Tackle different waste 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)

  14. Collection at the doorstep Road containers (bring banks)

  15. Is waste “management” more difficult somewhere? 3

  16. The “new” European Map – Economist 2010 * 7

  17. Salerno 150,000 inhabitants Separate collection= 75 % Organics 50% ! Florianopolis october 28, 2010 Patrizia Lo Sciuto 14 Slide by Enzo Favoino

  18. Milan – first fourth of the town (pop. 350k) Captures (kgs/person.wk)

  19. 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

  20. INFA-VHE report (Germany, 2004)

  21. Cost optimisation (Lombardy, pop. 10M, 1500 Municipalities) Cost of collection (green bars) and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars) Euro/person

  22. TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS   

  23. Thanks for your attention Enzo Favoinoenzofavoino@alice.it+39 (335) 35.54.46

More Related