- Email: [email protected]
Case Studies Around the World
CHAPTER 7
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges A.C. (Thanos) Bourtsalas1, R. Annepu1, K. Aravossis2 1
Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, New York, United States; 2National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
1. Introduction This chapter provides a brief analysis of waste management systems as they have been observed around the world. Successful cases, such as in South Korea, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, are presented to provide an efficient method to advance sustainable waste management. These countries have managed to increase recycling/composting rates and the beneficial conversion of postrecycled waste to energy (WTE) in about 1e1.5 decades. It should be noted that advanced nations invest a lot of money and effort to raise public awareness and disseminate information about the benefits of sustainable waste management in the communities. The cases of Greece, the Balkan region, and India are presented to address the challenges of sustainability in most parts of the world, and in that way to describe the multiparameter approach that needs to be considered to accelerate the advancement of sustainable waste management. All the projects should be examined case by case, and the roles of the various stakeholders should be assessed thoroughly.
2. Waste Management in the Republic of Korea 2.1 Demographics and Waste Management The Republic of Korea (population 50 million; land area 99,700 km2) is divided into 10 provinces and 7 metropolitan areas (Seoul, Incheon, Busan, Gwangju, Daegu, Daejeon, and Ulsan). The national government has placed waste management as a top priority, establishes periodic waste management plans, and provides technical and financial support to the local governments, who are in charge of collection, transport, recycling, and treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW). The current waste management system is shown in the flow diagram of Fig. 7.1. According to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64083-3.00007-5 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
119
120 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Municipal solid waste (MSW) management system of the Republic of Korea. MRF, material recovery facility; VBWF, volume-based waste fee; WTE, waste-to-energy.
Environment (MOE), MSW generation in 2009 was 18.6 million tons, corresponding to 0.37 tons/capita [1,2]. Some of the important regulations and policies promulgated by the MOE are the Waste Deposit Refund System (1991), the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (1992), the Volume-Based Waste Fee (VBWF) System (1995), the Extended Producer Responsibility Initiatives (2003), and the Mandatory Food Waste Separation (2005) Act [3e9].
2.2 The Volume-Based Waste Fee System (1995) In 1995, the national government implemented the Volume-Based Waste Fee (VBWF) System [3,8], which required households, businesses, and institutions to separate their MSW into two streams: source-separated recyclables, collected as a single stream, and all postrecycling wastes, which are placed in VBWF bags purchased at supermarkets, groceries, and convenience stores. The local municipality collects the source-separated recyclables and the VBWF bags. This system provides an economic incentive for recycling rather than disposing materials in the VBWF bags [8]. The VBWF bags range from 3 to 100 L (26 US gallons) in volume, and their average prices during the period 2006e10 are shown in Table 7.1.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 121 Table 7.1: Average Price of Volume-Based Waste Fee Bags in 2006e10 (USD/bag; [3]) Size (L) 3 5 10 20 30 50 75 100
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.07 0.09 0.18 0.36 0.60 0.89 1.57 1.84
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.41 0.58 1.02 1.51 2.04
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.57 1.04 1.44 2.09
0.07 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.58 1.04 1.53 2.10
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.58 1.04 1.52 2.10
2.3 Mandatory Food Waste Separation (2006) The landfilling of food wastes without pretreatment was banned in 2006 and residents were required to separate food wastes from the trash that goes into the VBWF bags. Municipalities started providing free containers for food waste disposal and also plastic bags that are used solely for food wastes. By providing a free collection service for separated food wastes as of 2006, the Korean government has facilitated the use of food waste for animal feed or its composting to a soil conditioner [3,8].
2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Collection At this writing, all citizens are obligated to separate their wastes into recyclables, food wastes, and nonrecyclable materials disposed of in the VBWF bags. Collection is door to door, with some exceptions such as multifamily buildings and communities that have communal stations for waste disposal [3,9]. According to the 2015 Population and Housing Census [1], 57.2% of the Korean population lives in multifamily residential buildings; residents dispose of their sorted MSW in containers at collection points close to each building. Households purchase and use VBWF bags for their nonrecyclable wastes; food wastes are placed into communal food waste containers; recyclables are sorted and placed into different recycling bins. Instead of sharing communal food waste containers as in multifamily buildings, single-family houses (about 40% of the Korean population) use special VBWF bags designed only for food wastes [3,8,9].
2.5 Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste in the Republic of Korea As a result of the measures described earlier, in 2009, of the 18.7 million tons of MSW generated, 11.4 million tons (61% of the total) were recycled or composted, 3.8 million tons (20%) were combusted with energy recovery, and 3.5 million tons (19%) were landfilled. Fig. 7.2 illustrates the changes in the methods of disposal of MSW
122 Chapter 7 Total MSW treated (million tons/yr)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Recycling/composng
Landfill
Incineraon
Figure 7.2 Changes in municipal solid waste (MSW) management in the Republic of Korea, 1995e2009 [3,8,9].
between 1995 and 2009. It can be seen that the rate of recycling plus composting nearly tripled from only 24% (4.1 million tons) in 1995. WTE also increased from only 0.7 million tons (4%) in 1995 to 3.8 million tons (20%) in 2009. As a result, landfilling was drastically reduced from 12.6 million tons (72%) in 1995 to 3.5 million tons (19%) in 2009 [1e9].
2.6 Waste-to-Energy Status in the Republic of Korea Combustion with energy recovery (WTE) has been implemented in South Korea because it reduces the volume of materials to be landfilled by an estimated 90% [10]. WTE is also important as an energy source that reduces the need for importing fossil fuels. In 2009, the Republic of Korea was ranked 10th in total energy consumption [11], with about 96% of this energy being imported [11]. The nation has 172 operating “incinerators,” of which only 35 are large enough to export heat or electricity and are mostly located in metropolitan areas [3,9]. Fig. 7.3 shows the locations of these WTE power plants. These WTE plants recover mainly low-pressure steam for district heating, and supply about 8% of the demand in South Korea. WTE for district heating was aided by the 1991 law on district heating, whereby renewable energy, including WTE, was given strong support for the production of energy in the form of district heat. WTE plants in South Korea are small scale and range between 50,000 and 250,000 tons per year [2,3,7e9]. WTE plants in South Korea contribute a negligible amount of electricity to the grid. Assuming that about 0.6 MWh of electricity can be produced by WTE [10], then WTE in South Korea can contribute about 0.6% of the total electricity demand [3].
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 123
Figure 7.3 Locations of waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in the Republic of Korea in 2010 (using Arcmap 10).
3. Waste Management in Greece 3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposition In 2012, about 6 million tons of MSW were produced in Greece. Of these, approximately 3 million tons were disposed of in sanitary landfills and approximately 1.5 million tons in uncontrolled landfills. Approximately 120,000 tons of compost-like output was produced (52,000 tons in the mechanical biological treatment plants),
124 Chapter 7 Table 7.2: Total Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposition in Greece [12,13]
Total solid waste production Recycling from MBT plants Recycling from HERRCO/KDAY Total recycling Composting (MBT, etc.) Landfilling Landfilling (uncontrolled) Total landfilling
Tons/Year
Total Solid Waste (%)
5,981,290 867,287 511,159 1,378,446 119,625 3,031,571 1,459,434 4,490,000
100 14.5 8.5 23 2 50.6 24.4 75
HERRCO, hellenic recycling recovery company; MBT, mechanical biological treatment.
which together with the 1.38 million tons recycled, raises the total amount of MSW utilized/recycled to 1.4 million tons, which amounts to approximately 23% of the total [12,13]. Based on recent data, the annual waste production in Greece for the year 2012 was 503 kg per inhabitant per year, or 5.4 million tons [12]. Summary information on the production and management of waste in Greece is presented in Table 7.2 [12,13].
3.2 Energy Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste in Greece The power of each waste treatment plant that exists in the regions of Greece is presented in Table 7.3. These plants process about 1 million tons of MSW per year in total. Therefore, the power generated per unit of MSW is 0.04 MW/ton of MSW [12,13]. In Greece, there should be an investment on energy recovery from waste plants, since the major demand for energy is supplied by the lignite plants that are in the northern part of the country. Lignite is associated with significant public health and environmental concerns. Also, Greece is one of the few countries of the Western world that uses this type of fuel. Thus, investments and advancements in the field of renewable energy, including WTE, are expected. Table 7.3: Units of Energy Production From Biogas in Greece Location Liosia (Athens) Tagarades (Thessaloniki) Volos Chania Larissa
Year Started 2001 2006 2008 2005 2010 Total power
Power (MW) 23.5 5 1.25 2.3 1.25 43.5
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 125
4. Waste Management in Balkan Countries Initiatives are under way in Croatia, Romania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to reduce waste in landfills. Much of the region’s waste ends up in landfills. While governments across the region have not established integrated systems of waste management, they are working to implement recycling programs and are searching for ways to use waste for energy production [12,14].
4.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina The waste legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is complex and further complicated by its separation into two separate legal entities, making it difficult to harmonize the legislation across BiH. BiH has begun steps to transpose EU packaging and packaging waste legislation into local legislation; however, owing to numerous harmonization problems this regulation has not been implemented yet. No economic incentives exist to promote the adequate treatment and management of waste in general, let alone for recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and plastic packaging waste. There is no landfill tipping fee or tax, which means there is no incentive to reduce the waste sent to landfill or for the establishment of alternative waste treatment options, such as recycling. This also means that the cost of waste disposal and the environmental impacts are not covered by the system. A packaging law was announced for the year 2012 [12,14]. For the recycling of MSW only a limited number of activities involving about 100,000 residents (less than 3% of the population) are in operation. Recyclables separated from the mixed municipal waste amount to less than 5% of the total municipal waste mass, of which 20%e25% of waste paper, 1% of plastics, and less than 1% of glass is actually segregated and collected. At least 95% of the collected mixed municipal waste is thus landfilled, mostly at nonsanitary disposal sites [12,14]. According to the Statistics Agency of BiH, around 67% of the population makes use of public municipal waste services, while the rest, settled in rural areas, do not have any waste management. In 2017 BiH deposited 1.4 million tons of waste in landfills. There are no economically viable systems for their collection.
4.2 Croatia EU waste laws have been transposed into legislation; however, it is not certain that standard waste management practices are compliant with the legislation. The Croatian Waste Management Plan for the period 2007e15 describes clearly what needs to be
126 Chapter 7 achieved to fulfill EU requirements. The plan describes goals and gives a wide overview of activities needed for different types of waste to reach the set goals. Croatia is doing better with waste management than some EU countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, but it must achieve better results. The country has not developed a national strategy, obligating municipalities to establish waste sorting systems that will meet the demanding European objectives. In total in 2004, 4.9% of MSW was separately collected. The target was to increase this amount to 23% by the year 2015. Croatia is one of a few countries in southeastern Europe that has implemented steering tools to force the use of refillable bottles and to force the separate collection and recycling of one-way-bottles as well as beverage cans. Each producer/importer of beverages must fulfill targets for the share of refillable packaging, depending on the type of product. The target is 25% for alcoholic beverage containers (excluding beer, which is 75%), wine bottles, and juice and water bottles [12,14].
4.3 Montenegro Even though waste data in Montenegro are not well developed, it is clear that waste is a significant problem. Improper disposal, usually at simple waste dumps (both legal and illegal), is a significant source of air, soil, and surface and groundwater pollution. Recycling is not typically carried out, with a few small exceptions, and there are no proper waste recycling facilities. However, for the year 2016, a quantity of about 60 tons of separate collected plastics was reported. A projection of future waste quantities forecasts about 10,000 tons per year of plastic packaging waste by the year 2020, which includes PET beverage bottles as well as other plastic packaging, like foils, bottles, buckets, etc. [12,14].
5. Waste Management in India India is the second largest nation in the world, with a population of 1.34 billion, accounting for nearly 18% of the world’s human population, but it does not have enough resources or adequate systems in place to treat its solid wastes. Its urban population grew at a rate of 31.8% from 2001 to 2011 to 377 million, which is greater than the entire population of United States, the third most populous country in the world [15e17]. India is facing a sharp contrast between its increasing urban population and available services and resources. Solid waste management (SWM) is one such service, for which India has an enormous gap to fill. The current SWM services are inefficient, incur heavy
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 127 expenditures, and are so inadequate as to be a potential threat to the public health and environmental quality [15e17]. Improper SWM deteriorates public health, causes environmental pollution, accelerates natural resources degradation, causes climate change, and greatly impacts the quality of life of the citizens. Indians are living in times of unprecedented economic growth, rising aspirations, and rapidly changing lifestyles, which will raise the expectations for public health and quality of life. Remediation and recovery of misused resources will also be expected. These expectations when not met might result in a low quality of life for the citizens. Pollution of the air, water, or land results in long-term reductions in productivity, leading to a deterioration of the economic conditions of a country. Therefore, controlling pollution to reduce risk of poor health, to protect the natural environment, and to contribute to our quality of life is a key component of sustainable development [16,17]. The per-capita waste generation rate in India has increased from 0.44 kg per day in 2001 to 0.5 kg per day in 2011, fueled by changing lifestyles and increased purchasing power of urban Indians. Urban population growth and increase in per-capita waste generation resulted in a 50% increase in the waste generated by Indian cities within just one decade since 2001. There are 53 cities in India with a million-plus population, which together generate 86,000 metric tons per day (31.5 million metric tons per year) of MSW at a percapita waste generation rate of 500 g per day. The total MSW generated in urban India is estimated to be 68.8 million metric tons per year or 188,500 metric tons per day of MSW [17]. Such a steep increase in waste generation within a decade has increased the stress on all available natural, infrastructural, and budgetary resources. Big cities collect about 70%e90% of the MSW generated, whereas smaller cities and towns collect less than 50%. More than 91% of the MSW collected formally is landfilled on open lands and dumps [18]. It is estimated that about 2% of the uncollected wastes are burned openly on the streets. About 10% of the collected MSW is openly burned or is caught in landfill fires [16,17]. Such open burning and landfill fires together release 22,000 tons of pollutants into the lower atmosphere of Mumbai city every year (Fig. 7.4). The pollutants include carbon monoxide, carcinogenic hydrocarbons (including dioxins and furans), particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide [16,17]. Most of the recyclable waste is collected by the informal recycling sector in India prior to and after formal collection by urban local bodies (ULBs). The number of recyclables collected by the informal sector prior to formal collection is generally not counted. About 21% of recyclables collected formally are separated by the formal sector at transfer stations and dumps [17]. Even though this number does not include the amount of recycling prior to formal collection, it compares fairly well with the best recycling percentages achieved around the world. The informal recycling system is lately receiving its due recognition worldwide for its role in waste management in developing nations.
128 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4 Open burning of municipal solid waste releases 22,000 tons per year of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxide into Mumbai’s lower atmosphere.
In India, government policy and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are expected to organize the sector present in different regions and to help integrating it into the overall formal system. The Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011, by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is a step ahead in this direction. These rules mandate ULBs to coordinate with all stakeholders in SWM, which includes waste pickers. All attempts to recover materials and energy from MSW have encountered initial failures. Ten aerobic composting (mechanical biological treatment; MBT) projects in the 1970s, a WTE project in the 1980s, a large-scale biomethanation project, and two refuse-derived fuel (RDF) projects in 2003 have failed. Anaerobic digestion of MSW on a large scale does not work in India because of the absence of a source-separated organic waste stream. The large-scale biomethanation plant built in Lucknow to generate 6 MW of electricity failed to run because of this. Anaerobic digestion has, however, been successful at smaller scales, for vegetable and meat markets, for restaurants and hotels, and at the household level. Twenty thousand household biogas units installed by Biotech,
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 129 a biogas technology company from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, divert about 2.5% of organic waste from landfill. By doing so, they save up to US$4.5 million (INR 225 million) for the Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi ULBs every year in transportation costs. These biogas units also prevent around 7000 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions every year. Aerobic composting is the most widely employed SWM technology in India. It is estimated that up to 6% of MSW collected is composted in various MBT facilities [19]. While information about MBT plants is difficult to get and update [17], it has been reported that there are more than 80 MBT plants in India treating mixed MSW, most of them located in the states of Maharashtra (19), Himachal Pradesh (11), Chhattisgarh (9), and Orissa (7). More than 26 new MBT plants are proposed in different cities and towns across India [17]. These reported data need updating. Even though composting of mixed wastes is a better solution compared with landfilling or openly burning those wastes, it is not the best [20]. Compost from MBT facilities was found to be of low quality and to contain toxic heavy metals, which could enter the human food chain if used for agriculture. In 2012, India had a total of five RDF processing plants, located near Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Jaipur, Chandigarh, and Rajkot. The first two plants burn the RDF produced in WTE boilers, whereas the next two burn the RDF in cement kilns. Details about the Rajkot facility are not available. All these facilities have encountered severe problems during operation. Problems were mainly due to lack of proper financial and logistical planning and not due to the technology. The Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 (SWMR 2016) published on April 8, 2016, replace the previous MSW rules from 2000. The new rules provide more clarity and framework for better implementation of the rules. The SWMR 2016 along with four other rules that were published around the same timedConstruction and Demolition Waste Rules, 2016; Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016; Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016; and Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016dcover all types of wastes generated in India and that are imported or exported. The SWMR 2016 have been expanded to cover all types of MSW generators. The rules still lack clarity on the role of businesses in waste management [21]. Other than that, they have done a good job of clearly laying out the responsibilities of various stakeholders (Table 7.4). The SWMR 2016 and other documents published by the government of India (GOI) recommend adoption of different technologies, which include biomethanation, gasification, pyrolysis, plasma gasification, RDF, WTE combustion, and sanitary landfills. However, the suitability of technologies for Indian conditions has not been sufficiently studied,
130 Chapter 7 Table 7.4: Responsibilities of Stakeholders in Waste Management According to Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 Stakeholder
Responsibilities
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India (previously Ministry of Urban Development) Department of Fertilisers, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, Government of India
Monitoring implementation of rules
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India Ministry of Power, Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India
Coordination with local government authorities
Support market development of compost generated from municipal solid waste and comarketing of it with chemical fertilizer companies Quality testing and utilization of compost generated from municipal solid waste Facilitating power tariffs for waste-to-energy plants Facilitating waste-to-energy infrastructure and incentives and subsidies
Modified from N.B. Mazumdar, Webinar on Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2016, The Energy Resources Institute, 2017.
especially with regard to the sustainable management of the entire MSW stream and reducing its environmental and health impacts. Owing to the lack of data and infrastructural, financial, and human resources, the Supreme Court mandate of complete compliance to the rules by 2003 could not be achieved by ULBs and that goal still remains a distant dream [19]. As a result, even after more than a decade since the issuance of the MSW Rules 2000, the state of MSW management systems in the country continues to raise serious public health concerns [22]. Although some cities have achieved some progress in SWM, many cities and towns have not even initiated measures [19]. Initiatives in Mumbai were the result of heavy rains and consequent flooding in 2006 due to drains clogged by solid waste. The flood in Mumbai in 2006 paved the way for enacting statelevel legislation pertaining to the collection, transport, and disposal of urban solid waste in the state of Maharashtra [19]. The bubonic plague epidemic in Surat in 1994 increased awareness of the need for proper SWM systems all over India and kick-started measures to properly manage wastes in Surat. The scarcity of suitable landfill sites is a major constraint increasingly being faced by ULBs. Such difficulties are paving the way to building regional landfills and WTE and MBT solutions. The tremendous pressure on the budgetary resources of states/ULBs due to increasing quantities of MSW and lack of infrastructure has helped them involve the private sector in urban development [19]. The GOI has also invested significantly in SWM projects under the 12th Finance Commission and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. The financial assistance provided by the GOI to states and ULBs amounted to US$510 million (INR 2500 crores) [19].
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 131
6. Waste Management in the United Kingdom 6.1 Demographics and Generation of Municipal Solid Waste in the United Kingdom The UK MSW consists mostly of residential, commercial, and market wastes. The reported 2010 generation was 32.3 million tons, which represented a decrease of 7% in comparison with 2008, and a decrease of 8.9% in comparison with 2006. Table 7.5 shows the total and per-capita generation of MSW in the member countries of the United Kingdom. The per-capita generation was 0.55 tons and ranged from a high of 0.63 in Scotland to a low of 0.54 tons/capita in England as presented in Table 7.5. The generation of MSW in future years (Fig. 7.5) was based on the Bogner and Matthews model, which shows a linear relationship between energy consumption and MSW Table 7.5: Countries of the United Kingdom, Population Density, Gross Domestic Product, and Municipal Solid Waste Generation MSW Generation (tons/year)
MSW Generation (tons/capita)
Country
Population
Population Density, Inhabitants/km2
England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales Total
49,138,831 5,062,011 1,685,267
130,395 78,772 13,843
85.60 8.85 2.10
26,452 3,197 1,004
0.54 0.63 0.60
2,903,085 58,789,194
20,779 243,789
3.45 100.00
1,670 32,323
0.58 0.55
GDP (%)
MSW, municipal solid waste.
33
MSW generaon (million tons)
32.5 32 31.5 31 30.5 30 29.5 29 28.5 28
2010
2011
2015
2019
2023
2027
2030
Figure 7.5 Forecast for the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United Kingdom (million tons).
132 Chapter 7 generation in a nation. The energy consumption forecast was obtained from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom. The generation of MSW in the United Kingdom is predicted to decrease over the time horizon of 20 years from 32.3 to 29.5 million tons in 2030, as the United Kingdom is striving for a cleaner future and successfully applying waste reduction, which is considered to be the first step in the hierarchy of sustainable waste management.
6.2 Composition and Calorific Value of UK Municipal Solid Waste The average composition and calorific value of MSW in the United Kingdom is calculated to be 12 MJ/kg (Table 7.6). This value corresponds to an equivalent of 3.3 MW/ton of waste per hour. Of the components of MSW, paper and cardboard and the putrescible fractions are biodegradable. The textiles, the fines, and the miscellaneous are 50% biodegradable, while the plastics are not biodegradable. Plastics have the highest calorific value, contributing 8.8% of the total calorific value of the UK MSW. Paper and cardboard waste comprise the highest percentage of the total composition of UK MSW while contributing the most to the UK MSW calorific value (Fig. 7.6).
Table 7.6: Composition of UK Municipal Solid Waste and Calorific Value Material Plastics Glass Textiles Paper and cardboard Food waste Garden waste Other natural organics Metal HHW WEEE Fines Other combustibles Other noncombustibles Total
In MSW (%) 8.80 9.00 3.30 21.35 17.33 13.68 2.12 4.00 0.63 2.25 1.52 10.82 5.20 100.00
Actual CV (MJ/kg) 34.51 0.20 16.12 17.23 4.20 18.49 4.18 0.00 0.00 0 7.40 12.07 0.00
Contribution to the UK CV (MJ/kg) 3.03 0.01 0.53 3.68 0.73 2.53 0.08 0 0 0 0.11 1.3 0.00 12.00
CV, calorific value; HHW, household hazardous waste; MSW, municipal solid waste; WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 133 100%
Fines
90%
WEEE HHW
80%
Metal
70% Other organics 60%
Garden waste
50%
Food waste
40%
Other noncombus bles Glass
30% 20%
Other combusbles Texles
10%
Plascs Paper and cardboard
0% England Scotland
N. Ireland
Wales
UK
Figure 7.6 Variation in composition of municipal solid waste in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (2010). HHW, household hazardous waste; WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
6.3 Economics of Waste Management in the United Kingdom The gate fee for landfilling lies between £68.00 (V84.00) and £111.00 (V138.00). The median landfill fee in 2010, which local authorities must pay, was £76.00 (V94.00) per ton of waste. However, on April 1, 2011, the UK government implemented an increase of £8.00 (V9.90) per ton of waste until April 2012, and then an increase of £2.50 (V3.00) per ton of waste in 2012e13. The average gate fee paid to material recovery facilities was £15.00 (V19.00) per ton of recyclable materials, whereas facilities that started operation after 2010 charged only £4.00 (V5.00) per ton. The gate fees paid to the three types of composting facilities, which are open air windrow, in-vessel, and anaerobic digestion, were £24.00 (V30.00), £43.00 (V53.00), and £43.00 (V53.00) per ton of waste, respectively. The gate fee that local authorities had to pay to the WTE companies was £54.00 (V67.00) per ton of waste for facilities built prior to 2000 and £73.00 (V90.00) per ton of feed waste for plants manufactured after 2000, while the gate fee for MBT plants was £84.00 (V104.00) per ton of waste. The gate fees for all the aforementioned technologies are summarized in Table 7.7.
134 Chapter 7 Table 7.7: Gate Fees Paid for Waste Management Techniques in the United Kingdom
Treatment Material recovery facility Landfill Waste to energy Mechanical biological treatment Organics
Grade/Material Type of Facility All Contracts starting in 2010 or later Gate fee only Gate fee plus landfill tax Pre-2000 facilities Post-2000 facilities
Open-air windrow In-vessel, food and garden waste Anaerobic digestion
Prices £ 36 to 85 30 to 63
Median V
45 to 105 38 to 78
£
V
15 4
19 5
12 to 55 68 to 111 35 to 79 54 to 97 57 to 100
15 to 68 84 to 138 44 to 98 67 to 120 71 to 124
20 76 54 73 84
25 94 67 90 104
6 to 51 29 to 82
7.5 to 63 36 to 102
24 43
30 53
36 to 64
45 to 79
43
53
The UK government has not implemented a landfill ban yet, but the aforementioned data show that there is a serious effort to reduce dependence on landfilling. In this context, the United Kingdom introduced an increase on the landfill tax by about £3.00 per year since 2001. The landfill price remained the same by the operators; however, in 2015, the total landfill price (landfill price by operators plus gate fee) was about £110.00. This was associated with a significant increase in the recycling/composting rates, especially during the 2000s, and the subsequent increase in WTE. The UK approach to “moving away from landfills” was very efficient and successful in a relatively short period of time.
6.4 The Role of Waste to Energy in the United Kingdom In England 3.6 million tons of MSW was processed in WTE plants in 2010, accounting for 13.6% of the total English MSW generated, and 11.2% of the total UK MSW. In Scotland, only 0.08 million tons was combusted, that is, 2.7% of the Scottish MSW. There was no WTE in Northern Ireland, and only 6000 tons was incinerated in Wales. There was an increase of 1% compared with the percentages of 2008/09, whereas there was an increase of 2.6% compared with the results of 2006/07 (Table 7.8). The total capacity of renewable energy sources (RES) was 9202 MW, and the energy produced thereof was 25,734 GWh (load factor of 30.8%). In 2010, the cumulative installed capacity of WTE plants was 435 MW (4.7% of the total RES), generating 1594 GWh (6.1% of the total RES) of electricity and heat (load factor of 44%); the total installed capacity of landfill gas recovery sites was 1025 MW (11.1% of the total RES) and the energy produced was 5037 GWh (19.5% of the total RES; load factor of 57.2%) [10,12]. The oil equivalent of the WTE for the year 2010 was 684.6 kilotons, while the oil
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 135 Table 7.8: Tonnage and Percentage of Incinerated Municipal Solid Waste in the United Kingdom Year
2006/07
England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales United Kingdom
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
3237 61 0 11 3309
11.3 1.7 0 0.6 9.4
3168 75 0 11 3254
11.5 2.2 0 0.6 9.6
3331 84 0 10 3425
13.1 2.6 0 0.6 11
3616 86 0 6 3708
13.6 2.7 0 0.4 12
Percentage refers to the fraction of MSW generated in each region. MSW, municipal solid waste; t, thousand.
equivalent of landfill gas was 1665.6 kilotons, of 5300 thousand kilotons of the total renewable and 158,100 thousand kilotons of the total energy production in the United Kingdom. There was a 16% increase in the installed capacity of landfill gas and a 25% increase in WTE capacity between 2006 and 2010 (Fig. 7.7). Among the countries of the United Kingdom, England is closer to sustainable waste management, followed by Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (Fig. 7.8).
7. Waste Management in Switzerland Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 cantons. It has borders with Germany to the north, France to the west, Italy to the south, and Austria and Liechtenstein to the
9000
Installed capacity (MW)
8000 7000 6000 Landfill gas
5000
MSW combuson
4000
Total capacity from R.E.S. 3000 2000 1000
0 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 7.7 Installed capacity of landfill gas recovery and waste-to-energy sites (in MW). MSW, municipal solid waste; R.E.S., renewable energy source.
136 Chapter 7 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
England
Wales
Recycling(%) Composting(%) Landfilling(%)
Scotland
Waste-to-Energy(%)
N. Ireland
Figure 7.8 Waste management ladder for the four countries of the United Kingdom.
east. Its population, according to a 2012 estimate by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, is 8 million and its area is 41,285 km2. The Swiss Confederation has a gross domestic product (GDP) on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis of $51,262 per capita [12,23,25]. Switzerland spends 0.6% of its GDP on waste management, in comparison with 11.4% for health care. The generation of MSW amounts to 5.2 million tons annually, corresponding to 0.65 ton/capita. Of the total MSW, 33.8% is recycled, 16.7% is composted, and 49.6% is incinerated with energy recovery. There is no landfilling. A large contributor to this achievement has been the publication in 1986 of the “Guidelines of Waste Management in Switzerland,” by a broad coalition of stakeholders, such as representatives of industry, science, NGOs, and waste management authorities [23e25]. The basic points of the guidelines are as follows: • • • •
Waste management is guided by the objectives of the laws protecting public health and the environment. All waste disposal methods must be environmentally compatible (life-cycle thinking). Switzerland’s aim is to dispose of its waste within its own territory. Public authorities play a subsidiary role in waste management.
Every disposal system for waste shall generate only two types of products: 1. recyclable substances; 2. residues for final storage: a. no passing on of problems to future generations; b. no passing on of problems to other countries.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 137 Specific material waste streams are to be separately collected for recycling only: 1. if there is an ecological benefit, compared with disposal of the waste and subsequent use of new resources, and 2. if the costs of separate collection and recycling are economically reasonable. The financing of recycling must be ensured in the long term. •
Paper, cardboard, glass, PET bottles, used beverage cans, and scrap metals should be recycled.
The Swiss Confederation hierarchy for waste management is similar to that generally accepted in other developed countries [23e25]: 1. minimization of waste at the source, by prevention and by the use of non- or low-waste technologies; 2. reduction of hazardous substances in products and processes; 3. waste reduction through improved reuse and recycling; 4. treatment of the unrecoverable waste in an environmentally sound manner within Switzerland (by thermal treatment with or without energy recovery). By federal law, the waste management authorities in Switzerland are the 26 cantons. Most cantons delegate this duty to communes (local authorities). Recyclables and the remaining mixed urban solid waste (MSW) of households, trade, and commerce is collected by the communes, by local associations, or by private companies acting on behalf of local authorities. Since 2000, when the ban for landfilling of untreated waste (MSW, nonrecycled demolition waste, and sewage sludge) was implemented, sustainable waste management has made a lot of progress. Recycling, composting, and WTE rates have increased rapidly over the past decade [12,23e25]. The first waste incineration plant in Switzerland was built in Zurich in 1904 (MSWI Josefstrasse). In 2009, 30 waste incinerators were in operation, treating 2.6 million tons of MSW and generating 1900 GWh of electricity (0.7 MWh/ton) and 3000 GWh of heating (1.2 MWh/ton). Their emissions are well below the national standards, resulting in a high degree of public acceptance. Switzerland has no fossil fuelefired power plants or large metallurgical furnaces. Cement kilns already obtain more than 50% of their fuel requirements from waste (used motor oil, solvents, sewage sludge, bone meal, plastics). MBT has not been very attractive over incineration of trash, because of short transportation distances to the nearest MSWI (WTE) plant. Wood waste is used as fuel in energy recovery plants. Therefore, incineration is the only viable sustainable solution, focusing on the recovery of resources, especially of metals, and on improving energy production [12,23].
138 Chapter 7 In Switzerland, novel incinerator bottom ash (IBA) as well as fly ash treatment technologies have been developed. The processes mainly focus on the enhanced recovery of metals from bottom and fly ash. For the treatment of IBA, a dry discharge method has been developed that includes magnetic separation of iron followed by eddy current separation of nonmagnetic metals. The main target for fly ash processing is to eliminate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxins contained in it, by means of flotation to separate soot particles containing PAHs and dioxins. In addition, volatile metals in the ash are recovered from the hydrochloric acid solution of the wet scrubber. All sewage sludge is being incinerated in Switzerland and about 80% of wastewater treatment plants are equipped for recovery of phosphorus by precipitation. In general, the main elements of the waste policy framework of the Swiss Confederation are [12,23e25]: 1. a comprehensive legal framework, including provisions for refinancing of waste management, i.e., advance disposal charges; 2. separation of hazardous and household waste streams; 3. modern waste disposal infrastructure in all regions; 4. more than 50% of urban solid waste is recycled; 5. a ban on landfilling of untreated wastes (MSW, demolition waste, and sewage sludge) since 2000; 6. all incinerators are equipped with advanced air pollution control systems and their emissions are lower than the Swiss and EU standards; 7. effective publiceprivate partnerships; 8. awareness of the need for waste minimization.
8. Waste Management in the Netherlands The Netherlands’ borders are the North Sea to the north and west, Belgium to the south, and Germany to the east. This nation shares maritime borders with Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It is a parliamentary democracy with its capital city in Amsterdam, and the seat of government is The Hague. The Netherlands is often referred to as “Holland,” although North and South Holland are only two of its 12 provinces [25]. Its population is 16.7 million and its area 41,543 km2. The GDP per capita (on a PPP basis) is $42,772. The Netherlands spends 0.5%e1% of its GDP on waste management. The generation of MSW is 9.9 million tons per year (0.59 ton/capita), 32.9% of which is recycled, 27.7% is composted, 38.9% is incinerated with production of energy, and only 0.4% is landfilled. Lack of space and a growing environmental awareness forced the national government to take early measures for reducing landfilling of waste. In 1994, the Netherlands incorporated into their legislation the “Lansink’s ladder,” which was
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 139 later adopted by the European Parliament to form the “waste hierarchy” in the European Waste Framework Directive [25,26]. Lansink’s ladder requires the prevention of waste generation to the maximum extent, the recovery of valuable raw materials (recycling), and the generation of energy by combusting the remaining waste. If any of these approaches are not applicable, only then is the landfill of the waste allowed, but only in sanitary landfills. It should be noted that the Dutch people are very sensitive with respect to sustainable waste management. According to surveys conducted by Dutch authorities, more than 90% of Dutch people separate their household waste into recyclables and trash [26,27]. When the landfill tax was introduced in 1995 it was set at V13.00/ton. In 2000, two different levels of taxes were introduced. The starting point was that landfilling is always charged with a high tax, because it is assumed that incineration is an alternative to landfilling for all waste except for waste with a density greater than 1100 kg/m3, which is assumed to be noncombustible and, therefore, can be landfilled at a lower tax. In 2005, a considerable increase to V85.00/ton came into effect for combustible trash, while the low tax increased by only V1 to V14.00/ton. A tax on incineration also exists, but as of this writing is set at zero [26,27]. As of this writing, the landfill tax is structured as follows [26,27]: • •
High tax: banned waste landfilled with a permit at V107.49/ton; Low tax: inert waste (not banned) at V16.79/ton
The landfill tax is collected by the landfill operators, along with payment of the gate fee. The tax is passed on to the Dutch finance ministry. The simplicity of this system means compliance is close to 100% [26,27]. Owing to insufficient incineration capacities, until 2005 waste producers had to choose between export to neighboring countries or the acceptance of increasingly high landfill costs in the Netherlands. To avoid the landfill tax, in the period 2002e05, a lot of combustible waste was shipped to Germany for landfilling. This ended with the implementation of a landfill ban in June 2005 in Germany. In January 2007, the Netherlands opened their borders for the incineration of waste (both household and commercial/industrial) but closed them for the landfilling of combustible waste. This action was taken to stimulate the construction of further incineration capacity in the Netherlands, but so far there have been few significant quantities of cross-border trade in combustible waste [26,27]. The Netherlands has 11 operating WTE plants, incinerating 6.9 million tons of waste (3.8 million tons of MSW) annually and producing 4.09 MWh of electricity (0.59 MWh/ton) and 0.78 MWh of heat (0.2 MWh/ton) [12,26,27].
140 Chapter 7 The WTE bottom ash is mainly used as road construction material and for landfill maintenance after enhanced recovery of metals with innovative approaches, as explained later in this report. The air pollution control residues (fly ash) are mainly disposed of in salt mines or hazardous landfill sites and also as filler in asphalt [28e31].
9. Conclusions and Perspectives The analysis of the different waste management systems approaches of different countries in the world demonstrates that there are different approaches that could lead to sustainability, but all include some common practices. There is always a mix of different technologies that should be evaluated for each case using technological, financial, and social criteria and multicriteria methodological evaluation tools to get an optimal solution. WTE is always part of a successful waste management system, going hand in hand with recycling/composting. Countries that have a high recycling/composting rate have also a high WTE rate and a low landfilling rate. The circular economy approach is transforming waste management into a zero-residue/zero-waste management approach that would incorporate all available innovative technologies, so that integrated waste management systems become part of a sustainable economy with sustainable consumption and production practices of responsible citizens.
References [1] Population and Housing Census, 2015. Available at: kostat.go.kr. [2] Ministry of Environment, Government of the Republic of Korea. 1997 to 2015. Current Status of Waste Generation and Treatment (in Korean). [3] Y. Seo, Current MSW Management and Waste-to-Energy Status in the Republic of Korea (Master’s dissertation), Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, 2013. Available at: http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/ www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/YS%20Thesis_final_ Nov3.pdf. [4] H.S. Cheong, Pricing for Municipal Solid Waste Disposal in Korea (Master’s dissertation), CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1995. Available at: www.cserge.uea.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/wm_1995_04.pdf. [5] D.Y. Ju, 3R Portfolio: good practices to promote the 3Rs (Republic of Korea), in: Ministerial Conference on the 3R Initiative, Tokyo, Japan, 2005, pp. 28e30. Available at: www.env.go.jp/recycle/3r/en/info/05_ 12.pdf. [6] K. Kim, Performance of Waste Management Policy in Korea, Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, 2008. [7] H. Ahn, S. Hwang, K. Kim, H. Lee, S. Park, K. Suk, Waste Management in Korea. MBA White Paper, University of North Carolina, 2007. Available at: extranet.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/kicse/ORIG%20Shared% 20Documents/Waste%20Management%20in%20Korea.pdf. [8] The Volume Based Waste Fee System of Korea, The Asian Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability (AIEES), The Seoul National University, 2012. Available at: archive.epi.yale.edu/indicatorsin-practice/volume-based-waste-fee-system-korea. [9] W.S. Yang, J.K. Park, S.W. Park, Y.C. Seo, Past, present and future of waste management in Korea, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 17 (2) (2015) 207e217.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 141 [10] N.J. Themelis, M.E.D. Barriga, P. Estevez, M.G. Velasco, Guidebook for the Application of Waste to Energy Technologies in Latin America and the Caribbean, EEC-Columbia Sponsored by the Interamerican Development Bank, 2013. [11] Energy Institute Association Statistical Energy Review, 2015. Available at: www.eia.gov/international/data. [12] European database statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_ statistics. [13] Country Fact Sheet, European Commission, Greece, 2012. [14] International and Solid Waste Association Database. http://www.iswa.org/. [15] A.K. Biswas, S. Kumar, S.S. Babu, J.K. Bhattacharyya, T. Chakrabarti, Studies on environmental quality in and around municipal solid waste dumpsite, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2) (2010). [16] Report, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, NEERI, Air Quality Assessment, Emissions Inventory and Source Apportionment Studies: Mumbai, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi, India, 2010. [17] R. Annepu, Sustainable Solid Waste Management in India (MS thesis), Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 2012. [18] S. Kumar, Effective Waste Management in India, Intech, Croatia, 2010. [19] Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Position Paper on the Solid Waste Management Sector in India, Public Private Partnerships in India, Ministry of Finance, November 2009. Available at: http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/ppp_position_paper_solid_waste_mgmt_112k9.pdf. [20] Personal Communication With Mr. Kant Ravi, Managing Director, Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd., January 2011 and January 2018. [21] N.B. Mazumdar, Webinar on Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2016, The Energy Resources Institute, 2017. [22] Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Guidance Note: Municipal Solid Waste Management on a Regional Basis, 2011. Available at: http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/ mswm/MSW_Guide_Note.pdf. [23] Press Release: Estimates of Switzerland’s Population in 2012-Switzerland Has 8 Million Inhabitants, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchaˆtel, 2012. [24] ‘Waste Management in Switzerland’, Presentation by Mr. H.R.Fahrni, ISWA WGER, October 26, 2012. [25] The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency: Switzerland and the Netherlands. [26] G. Feller, Dutch Successes, Waste Management World, November 2012. [27] Eionet, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Waste policies, The Netherlands, February 2013. [28] Innovations in the waste to energy industry, in: Presentation by Dr. R. Koralewska, Martin Gmbh, North America Waste to Energy Conference, 2015, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, 2015. [29] L. Muchova´, P. Rem, Pilot plant for wet physical separation of MSWI IBA, in: Conference Proceeding MMME 2006, Cape Town (South Africa), 14e15 November, 2006, p. 12. [30] L. Muchova, P. Rem, M. Van Berlo, Innovative technology for the treatment of IBA, in: Conference Proceeding from ISWA/NVRD World Congress 2007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24e27 September 2007, 2007. [31] B. Hu, P. Rem, T. van de Winckel, Fine Heavy Non-Ferrous and Precious Metals Recovery in Bottom Ash Treatment, in: ISWA Knowledge Database, Paper, vol. 38, 2008.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges A.C. (Thanos) Bourtsalas1, R. Annepu1, K. Aravossis2 1
Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, New York, United States; 2National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
1. Introduction This chapter provides a brief analysis of waste management systems as they have been observed around the world. Successful cases, such as in South Korea, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, are presented to provide an efficient method to advance sustainable waste management. These countries have managed to increase recycling/composting rates and the beneficial conversion of postrecycled waste to energy (WTE) in about 1e1.5 decades. It should be noted that advanced nations invest a lot of money and effort to raise public awareness and disseminate information about the benefits of sustainable waste management in the communities. The cases of Greece, the Balkan region, and India are presented to address the challenges of sustainability in most parts of the world, and in that way to describe the multiparameter approach that needs to be considered to accelerate the advancement of sustainable waste management. All the projects should be examined case by case, and the roles of the various stakeholders should be assessed thoroughly.
2. Waste Management in the Republic of Korea 2.1 Demographics and Waste Management The Republic of Korea (population 50 million; land area 99,700 km2) is divided into 10 provinces and 7 metropolitan areas (Seoul, Incheon, Busan, Gwangju, Daegu, Daejeon, and Ulsan). The national government has placed waste management as a top priority, establishes periodic waste management plans, and provides technical and financial support to the local governments, who are in charge of collection, transport, recycling, and treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW). The current waste management system is shown in the flow diagram of Fig. 7.1. According to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64083-3.00007-5 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
119
120 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Municipal solid waste (MSW) management system of the Republic of Korea. MRF, material recovery facility; VBWF, volume-based waste fee; WTE, waste-to-energy.
Environment (MOE), MSW generation in 2009 was 18.6 million tons, corresponding to 0.37 tons/capita [1,2]. Some of the important regulations and policies promulgated by the MOE are the Waste Deposit Refund System (1991), the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (1992), the Volume-Based Waste Fee (VBWF) System (1995), the Extended Producer Responsibility Initiatives (2003), and the Mandatory Food Waste Separation (2005) Act [3e9].
2.2 The Volume-Based Waste Fee System (1995) In 1995, the national government implemented the Volume-Based Waste Fee (VBWF) System [3,8], which required households, businesses, and institutions to separate their MSW into two streams: source-separated recyclables, collected as a single stream, and all postrecycling wastes, which are placed in VBWF bags purchased at supermarkets, groceries, and convenience stores. The local municipality collects the source-separated recyclables and the VBWF bags. This system provides an economic incentive for recycling rather than disposing materials in the VBWF bags [8]. The VBWF bags range from 3 to 100 L (26 US gallons) in volume, and their average prices during the period 2006e10 are shown in Table 7.1.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 121 Table 7.1: Average Price of Volume-Based Waste Fee Bags in 2006e10 (USD/bag; [3]) Size (L) 3 5 10 20 30 50 75 100
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.07 0.09 0.18 0.36 0.60 0.89 1.57 1.84
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.41 0.58 1.02 1.51 2.04
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.57 1.04 1.44 2.09
0.07 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.58 1.04 1.53 2.10
0.06 0.11 0.21 0.42 0.58 1.04 1.52 2.10
2.3 Mandatory Food Waste Separation (2006) The landfilling of food wastes without pretreatment was banned in 2006 and residents were required to separate food wastes from the trash that goes into the VBWF bags. Municipalities started providing free containers for food waste disposal and also plastic bags that are used solely for food wastes. By providing a free collection service for separated food wastes as of 2006, the Korean government has facilitated the use of food waste for animal feed or its composting to a soil conditioner [3,8].
2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Collection At this writing, all citizens are obligated to separate their wastes into recyclables, food wastes, and nonrecyclable materials disposed of in the VBWF bags. Collection is door to door, with some exceptions such as multifamily buildings and communities that have communal stations for waste disposal [3,9]. According to the 2015 Population and Housing Census [1], 57.2% of the Korean population lives in multifamily residential buildings; residents dispose of their sorted MSW in containers at collection points close to each building. Households purchase and use VBWF bags for their nonrecyclable wastes; food wastes are placed into communal food waste containers; recyclables are sorted and placed into different recycling bins. Instead of sharing communal food waste containers as in multifamily buildings, single-family houses (about 40% of the Korean population) use special VBWF bags designed only for food wastes [3,8,9].
2.5 Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste in the Republic of Korea As a result of the measures described earlier, in 2009, of the 18.7 million tons of MSW generated, 11.4 million tons (61% of the total) were recycled or composted, 3.8 million tons (20%) were combusted with energy recovery, and 3.5 million tons (19%) were landfilled. Fig. 7.2 illustrates the changes in the methods of disposal of MSW
122 Chapter 7 Total MSW treated (million tons/yr)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Recycling/composng
Landfill
Incineraon
Figure 7.2 Changes in municipal solid waste (MSW) management in the Republic of Korea, 1995e2009 [3,8,9].
between 1995 and 2009. It can be seen that the rate of recycling plus composting nearly tripled from only 24% (4.1 million tons) in 1995. WTE also increased from only 0.7 million tons (4%) in 1995 to 3.8 million tons (20%) in 2009. As a result, landfilling was drastically reduced from 12.6 million tons (72%) in 1995 to 3.5 million tons (19%) in 2009 [1e9].
2.6 Waste-to-Energy Status in the Republic of Korea Combustion with energy recovery (WTE) has been implemented in South Korea because it reduces the volume of materials to be landfilled by an estimated 90% [10]. WTE is also important as an energy source that reduces the need for importing fossil fuels. In 2009, the Republic of Korea was ranked 10th in total energy consumption [11], with about 96% of this energy being imported [11]. The nation has 172 operating “incinerators,” of which only 35 are large enough to export heat or electricity and are mostly located in metropolitan areas [3,9]. Fig. 7.3 shows the locations of these WTE power plants. These WTE plants recover mainly low-pressure steam for district heating, and supply about 8% of the demand in South Korea. WTE for district heating was aided by the 1991 law on district heating, whereby renewable energy, including WTE, was given strong support for the production of energy in the form of district heat. WTE plants in South Korea are small scale and range between 50,000 and 250,000 tons per year [2,3,7e9]. WTE plants in South Korea contribute a negligible amount of electricity to the grid. Assuming that about 0.6 MWh of electricity can be produced by WTE [10], then WTE in South Korea can contribute about 0.6% of the total electricity demand [3].
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 123
Figure 7.3 Locations of waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in the Republic of Korea in 2010 (using Arcmap 10).
3. Waste Management in Greece 3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposition In 2012, about 6 million tons of MSW were produced in Greece. Of these, approximately 3 million tons were disposed of in sanitary landfills and approximately 1.5 million tons in uncontrolled landfills. Approximately 120,000 tons of compost-like output was produced (52,000 tons in the mechanical biological treatment plants),
124 Chapter 7 Table 7.2: Total Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposition in Greece [12,13]
Total solid waste production Recycling from MBT plants Recycling from HERRCO/KDAY Total recycling Composting (MBT, etc.) Landfilling Landfilling (uncontrolled) Total landfilling
Tons/Year
Total Solid Waste (%)
5,981,290 867,287 511,159 1,378,446 119,625 3,031,571 1,459,434 4,490,000
100 14.5 8.5 23 2 50.6 24.4 75
HERRCO, hellenic recycling recovery company; MBT, mechanical biological treatment.
which together with the 1.38 million tons recycled, raises the total amount of MSW utilized/recycled to 1.4 million tons, which amounts to approximately 23% of the total [12,13]. Based on recent data, the annual waste production in Greece for the year 2012 was 503 kg per inhabitant per year, or 5.4 million tons [12]. Summary information on the production and management of waste in Greece is presented in Table 7.2 [12,13].
3.2 Energy Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste in Greece The power of each waste treatment plant that exists in the regions of Greece is presented in Table 7.3. These plants process about 1 million tons of MSW per year in total. Therefore, the power generated per unit of MSW is 0.04 MW/ton of MSW [12,13]. In Greece, there should be an investment on energy recovery from waste plants, since the major demand for energy is supplied by the lignite plants that are in the northern part of the country. Lignite is associated with significant public health and environmental concerns. Also, Greece is one of the few countries of the Western world that uses this type of fuel. Thus, investments and advancements in the field of renewable energy, including WTE, are expected. Table 7.3: Units of Energy Production From Biogas in Greece Location Liosia (Athens) Tagarades (Thessaloniki) Volos Chania Larissa
Year Started 2001 2006 2008 2005 2010 Total power
Power (MW) 23.5 5 1.25 2.3 1.25 43.5
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 125
4. Waste Management in Balkan Countries Initiatives are under way in Croatia, Romania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to reduce waste in landfills. Much of the region’s waste ends up in landfills. While governments across the region have not established integrated systems of waste management, they are working to implement recycling programs and are searching for ways to use waste for energy production [12,14].
4.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina The waste legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is complex and further complicated by its separation into two separate legal entities, making it difficult to harmonize the legislation across BiH. BiH has begun steps to transpose EU packaging and packaging waste legislation into local legislation; however, owing to numerous harmonization problems this regulation has not been implemented yet. No economic incentives exist to promote the adequate treatment and management of waste in general, let alone for recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and plastic packaging waste. There is no landfill tipping fee or tax, which means there is no incentive to reduce the waste sent to landfill or for the establishment of alternative waste treatment options, such as recycling. This also means that the cost of waste disposal and the environmental impacts are not covered by the system. A packaging law was announced for the year 2012 [12,14]. For the recycling of MSW only a limited number of activities involving about 100,000 residents (less than 3% of the population) are in operation. Recyclables separated from the mixed municipal waste amount to less than 5% of the total municipal waste mass, of which 20%e25% of waste paper, 1% of plastics, and less than 1% of glass is actually segregated and collected. At least 95% of the collected mixed municipal waste is thus landfilled, mostly at nonsanitary disposal sites [12,14]. According to the Statistics Agency of BiH, around 67% of the population makes use of public municipal waste services, while the rest, settled in rural areas, do not have any waste management. In 2017 BiH deposited 1.4 million tons of waste in landfills. There are no economically viable systems for their collection.
4.2 Croatia EU waste laws have been transposed into legislation; however, it is not certain that standard waste management practices are compliant with the legislation. The Croatian Waste Management Plan for the period 2007e15 describes clearly what needs to be
126 Chapter 7 achieved to fulfill EU requirements. The plan describes goals and gives a wide overview of activities needed for different types of waste to reach the set goals. Croatia is doing better with waste management than some EU countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, but it must achieve better results. The country has not developed a national strategy, obligating municipalities to establish waste sorting systems that will meet the demanding European objectives. In total in 2004, 4.9% of MSW was separately collected. The target was to increase this amount to 23% by the year 2015. Croatia is one of a few countries in southeastern Europe that has implemented steering tools to force the use of refillable bottles and to force the separate collection and recycling of one-way-bottles as well as beverage cans. Each producer/importer of beverages must fulfill targets for the share of refillable packaging, depending on the type of product. The target is 25% for alcoholic beverage containers (excluding beer, which is 75%), wine bottles, and juice and water bottles [12,14].
4.3 Montenegro Even though waste data in Montenegro are not well developed, it is clear that waste is a significant problem. Improper disposal, usually at simple waste dumps (both legal and illegal), is a significant source of air, soil, and surface and groundwater pollution. Recycling is not typically carried out, with a few small exceptions, and there are no proper waste recycling facilities. However, for the year 2016, a quantity of about 60 tons of separate collected plastics was reported. A projection of future waste quantities forecasts about 10,000 tons per year of plastic packaging waste by the year 2020, which includes PET beverage bottles as well as other plastic packaging, like foils, bottles, buckets, etc. [12,14].
5. Waste Management in India India is the second largest nation in the world, with a population of 1.34 billion, accounting for nearly 18% of the world’s human population, but it does not have enough resources or adequate systems in place to treat its solid wastes. Its urban population grew at a rate of 31.8% from 2001 to 2011 to 377 million, which is greater than the entire population of United States, the third most populous country in the world [15e17]. India is facing a sharp contrast between its increasing urban population and available services and resources. Solid waste management (SWM) is one such service, for which India has an enormous gap to fill. The current SWM services are inefficient, incur heavy
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 127 expenditures, and are so inadequate as to be a potential threat to the public health and environmental quality [15e17]. Improper SWM deteriorates public health, causes environmental pollution, accelerates natural resources degradation, causes climate change, and greatly impacts the quality of life of the citizens. Indians are living in times of unprecedented economic growth, rising aspirations, and rapidly changing lifestyles, which will raise the expectations for public health and quality of life. Remediation and recovery of misused resources will also be expected. These expectations when not met might result in a low quality of life for the citizens. Pollution of the air, water, or land results in long-term reductions in productivity, leading to a deterioration of the economic conditions of a country. Therefore, controlling pollution to reduce risk of poor health, to protect the natural environment, and to contribute to our quality of life is a key component of sustainable development [16,17]. The per-capita waste generation rate in India has increased from 0.44 kg per day in 2001 to 0.5 kg per day in 2011, fueled by changing lifestyles and increased purchasing power of urban Indians. Urban population growth and increase in per-capita waste generation resulted in a 50% increase in the waste generated by Indian cities within just one decade since 2001. There are 53 cities in India with a million-plus population, which together generate 86,000 metric tons per day (31.5 million metric tons per year) of MSW at a percapita waste generation rate of 500 g per day. The total MSW generated in urban India is estimated to be 68.8 million metric tons per year or 188,500 metric tons per day of MSW [17]. Such a steep increase in waste generation within a decade has increased the stress on all available natural, infrastructural, and budgetary resources. Big cities collect about 70%e90% of the MSW generated, whereas smaller cities and towns collect less than 50%. More than 91% of the MSW collected formally is landfilled on open lands and dumps [18]. It is estimated that about 2% of the uncollected wastes are burned openly on the streets. About 10% of the collected MSW is openly burned or is caught in landfill fires [16,17]. Such open burning and landfill fires together release 22,000 tons of pollutants into the lower atmosphere of Mumbai city every year (Fig. 7.4). The pollutants include carbon monoxide, carcinogenic hydrocarbons (including dioxins and furans), particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide [16,17]. Most of the recyclable waste is collected by the informal recycling sector in India prior to and after formal collection by urban local bodies (ULBs). The number of recyclables collected by the informal sector prior to formal collection is generally not counted. About 21% of recyclables collected formally are separated by the formal sector at transfer stations and dumps [17]. Even though this number does not include the amount of recycling prior to formal collection, it compares fairly well with the best recycling percentages achieved around the world. The informal recycling system is lately receiving its due recognition worldwide for its role in waste management in developing nations.
128 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4 Open burning of municipal solid waste releases 22,000 tons per year of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxide into Mumbai’s lower atmosphere.
In India, government policy and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are expected to organize the sector present in different regions and to help integrating it into the overall formal system. The Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011, by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is a step ahead in this direction. These rules mandate ULBs to coordinate with all stakeholders in SWM, which includes waste pickers. All attempts to recover materials and energy from MSW have encountered initial failures. Ten aerobic composting (mechanical biological treatment; MBT) projects in the 1970s, a WTE project in the 1980s, a large-scale biomethanation project, and two refuse-derived fuel (RDF) projects in 2003 have failed. Anaerobic digestion of MSW on a large scale does not work in India because of the absence of a source-separated organic waste stream. The large-scale biomethanation plant built in Lucknow to generate 6 MW of electricity failed to run because of this. Anaerobic digestion has, however, been successful at smaller scales, for vegetable and meat markets, for restaurants and hotels, and at the household level. Twenty thousand household biogas units installed by Biotech,
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 129 a biogas technology company from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, divert about 2.5% of organic waste from landfill. By doing so, they save up to US$4.5 million (INR 225 million) for the Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi ULBs every year in transportation costs. These biogas units also prevent around 7000 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions every year. Aerobic composting is the most widely employed SWM technology in India. It is estimated that up to 6% of MSW collected is composted in various MBT facilities [19]. While information about MBT plants is difficult to get and update [17], it has been reported that there are more than 80 MBT plants in India treating mixed MSW, most of them located in the states of Maharashtra (19), Himachal Pradesh (11), Chhattisgarh (9), and Orissa (7). More than 26 new MBT plants are proposed in different cities and towns across India [17]. These reported data need updating. Even though composting of mixed wastes is a better solution compared with landfilling or openly burning those wastes, it is not the best [20]. Compost from MBT facilities was found to be of low quality and to contain toxic heavy metals, which could enter the human food chain if used for agriculture. In 2012, India had a total of five RDF processing plants, located near Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Jaipur, Chandigarh, and Rajkot. The first two plants burn the RDF produced in WTE boilers, whereas the next two burn the RDF in cement kilns. Details about the Rajkot facility are not available. All these facilities have encountered severe problems during operation. Problems were mainly due to lack of proper financial and logistical planning and not due to the technology. The Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 (SWMR 2016) published on April 8, 2016, replace the previous MSW rules from 2000. The new rules provide more clarity and framework for better implementation of the rules. The SWMR 2016 along with four other rules that were published around the same timedConstruction and Demolition Waste Rules, 2016; Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016; Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016; and Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016dcover all types of wastes generated in India and that are imported or exported. The SWMR 2016 have been expanded to cover all types of MSW generators. The rules still lack clarity on the role of businesses in waste management [21]. Other than that, they have done a good job of clearly laying out the responsibilities of various stakeholders (Table 7.4). The SWMR 2016 and other documents published by the government of India (GOI) recommend adoption of different technologies, which include biomethanation, gasification, pyrolysis, plasma gasification, RDF, WTE combustion, and sanitary landfills. However, the suitability of technologies for Indian conditions has not been sufficiently studied,
130 Chapter 7 Table 7.4: Responsibilities of Stakeholders in Waste Management According to Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 Stakeholder
Responsibilities
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India (previously Ministry of Urban Development) Department of Fertilisers, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, Government of India
Monitoring implementation of rules
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India Ministry of Power, Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India
Coordination with local government authorities
Support market development of compost generated from municipal solid waste and comarketing of it with chemical fertilizer companies Quality testing and utilization of compost generated from municipal solid waste Facilitating power tariffs for waste-to-energy plants Facilitating waste-to-energy infrastructure and incentives and subsidies
Modified from N.B. Mazumdar, Webinar on Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2016, The Energy Resources Institute, 2017.
especially with regard to the sustainable management of the entire MSW stream and reducing its environmental and health impacts. Owing to the lack of data and infrastructural, financial, and human resources, the Supreme Court mandate of complete compliance to the rules by 2003 could not be achieved by ULBs and that goal still remains a distant dream [19]. As a result, even after more than a decade since the issuance of the MSW Rules 2000, the state of MSW management systems in the country continues to raise serious public health concerns [22]. Although some cities have achieved some progress in SWM, many cities and towns have not even initiated measures [19]. Initiatives in Mumbai were the result of heavy rains and consequent flooding in 2006 due to drains clogged by solid waste. The flood in Mumbai in 2006 paved the way for enacting statelevel legislation pertaining to the collection, transport, and disposal of urban solid waste in the state of Maharashtra [19]. The bubonic plague epidemic in Surat in 1994 increased awareness of the need for proper SWM systems all over India and kick-started measures to properly manage wastes in Surat. The scarcity of suitable landfill sites is a major constraint increasingly being faced by ULBs. Such difficulties are paving the way to building regional landfills and WTE and MBT solutions. The tremendous pressure on the budgetary resources of states/ULBs due to increasing quantities of MSW and lack of infrastructure has helped them involve the private sector in urban development [19]. The GOI has also invested significantly in SWM projects under the 12th Finance Commission and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. The financial assistance provided by the GOI to states and ULBs amounted to US$510 million (INR 2500 crores) [19].
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 131
6. Waste Management in the United Kingdom 6.1 Demographics and Generation of Municipal Solid Waste in the United Kingdom The UK MSW consists mostly of residential, commercial, and market wastes. The reported 2010 generation was 32.3 million tons, which represented a decrease of 7% in comparison with 2008, and a decrease of 8.9% in comparison with 2006. Table 7.5 shows the total and per-capita generation of MSW in the member countries of the United Kingdom. The per-capita generation was 0.55 tons and ranged from a high of 0.63 in Scotland to a low of 0.54 tons/capita in England as presented in Table 7.5. The generation of MSW in future years (Fig. 7.5) was based on the Bogner and Matthews model, which shows a linear relationship between energy consumption and MSW Table 7.5: Countries of the United Kingdom, Population Density, Gross Domestic Product, and Municipal Solid Waste Generation MSW Generation (tons/year)
MSW Generation (tons/capita)
Country
Population
Population Density, Inhabitants/km2
England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales Total
49,138,831 5,062,011 1,685,267
130,395 78,772 13,843
85.60 8.85 2.10
26,452 3,197 1,004
0.54 0.63 0.60
2,903,085 58,789,194
20,779 243,789
3.45 100.00
1,670 32,323
0.58 0.55
GDP (%)
MSW, municipal solid waste.
33
MSW generaon (million tons)
32.5 32 31.5 31 30.5 30 29.5 29 28.5 28
2010
2011
2015
2019
2023
2027
2030
Figure 7.5 Forecast for the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United Kingdom (million tons).
132 Chapter 7 generation in a nation. The energy consumption forecast was obtained from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom. The generation of MSW in the United Kingdom is predicted to decrease over the time horizon of 20 years from 32.3 to 29.5 million tons in 2030, as the United Kingdom is striving for a cleaner future and successfully applying waste reduction, which is considered to be the first step in the hierarchy of sustainable waste management.
6.2 Composition and Calorific Value of UK Municipal Solid Waste The average composition and calorific value of MSW in the United Kingdom is calculated to be 12 MJ/kg (Table 7.6). This value corresponds to an equivalent of 3.3 MW/ton of waste per hour. Of the components of MSW, paper and cardboard and the putrescible fractions are biodegradable. The textiles, the fines, and the miscellaneous are 50% biodegradable, while the plastics are not biodegradable. Plastics have the highest calorific value, contributing 8.8% of the total calorific value of the UK MSW. Paper and cardboard waste comprise the highest percentage of the total composition of UK MSW while contributing the most to the UK MSW calorific value (Fig. 7.6).
Table 7.6: Composition of UK Municipal Solid Waste and Calorific Value Material Plastics Glass Textiles Paper and cardboard Food waste Garden waste Other natural organics Metal HHW WEEE Fines Other combustibles Other noncombustibles Total
In MSW (%) 8.80 9.00 3.30 21.35 17.33 13.68 2.12 4.00 0.63 2.25 1.52 10.82 5.20 100.00
Actual CV (MJ/kg) 34.51 0.20 16.12 17.23 4.20 18.49 4.18 0.00 0.00 0 7.40 12.07 0.00
Contribution to the UK CV (MJ/kg) 3.03 0.01 0.53 3.68 0.73 2.53 0.08 0 0 0 0.11 1.3 0.00 12.00
CV, calorific value; HHW, household hazardous waste; MSW, municipal solid waste; WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 133 100%
Fines
90%
WEEE HHW
80%
Metal
70% Other organics 60%
Garden waste
50%
Food waste
40%
Other noncombus bles Glass
30% 20%
Other combusbles Texles
10%
Plascs Paper and cardboard
0% England Scotland
N. Ireland
Wales
UK
Figure 7.6 Variation in composition of municipal solid waste in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (2010). HHW, household hazardous waste; WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
6.3 Economics of Waste Management in the United Kingdom The gate fee for landfilling lies between £68.00 (V84.00) and £111.00 (V138.00). The median landfill fee in 2010, which local authorities must pay, was £76.00 (V94.00) per ton of waste. However, on April 1, 2011, the UK government implemented an increase of £8.00 (V9.90) per ton of waste until April 2012, and then an increase of £2.50 (V3.00) per ton of waste in 2012e13. The average gate fee paid to material recovery facilities was £15.00 (V19.00) per ton of recyclable materials, whereas facilities that started operation after 2010 charged only £4.00 (V5.00) per ton. The gate fees paid to the three types of composting facilities, which are open air windrow, in-vessel, and anaerobic digestion, were £24.00 (V30.00), £43.00 (V53.00), and £43.00 (V53.00) per ton of waste, respectively. The gate fee that local authorities had to pay to the WTE companies was £54.00 (V67.00) per ton of waste for facilities built prior to 2000 and £73.00 (V90.00) per ton of feed waste for plants manufactured after 2000, while the gate fee for MBT plants was £84.00 (V104.00) per ton of waste. The gate fees for all the aforementioned technologies are summarized in Table 7.7.
134 Chapter 7 Table 7.7: Gate Fees Paid for Waste Management Techniques in the United Kingdom
Treatment Material recovery facility Landfill Waste to energy Mechanical biological treatment Organics
Grade/Material Type of Facility All Contracts starting in 2010 or later Gate fee only Gate fee plus landfill tax Pre-2000 facilities Post-2000 facilities
Open-air windrow In-vessel, food and garden waste Anaerobic digestion
Prices £ 36 to 85 30 to 63
Median V
45 to 105 38 to 78
£
V
15 4
19 5
12 to 55 68 to 111 35 to 79 54 to 97 57 to 100
15 to 68 84 to 138 44 to 98 67 to 120 71 to 124
20 76 54 73 84
25 94 67 90 104
6 to 51 29 to 82
7.5 to 63 36 to 102
24 43
30 53
36 to 64
45 to 79
43
53
The UK government has not implemented a landfill ban yet, but the aforementioned data show that there is a serious effort to reduce dependence on landfilling. In this context, the United Kingdom introduced an increase on the landfill tax by about £3.00 per year since 2001. The landfill price remained the same by the operators; however, in 2015, the total landfill price (landfill price by operators plus gate fee) was about £110.00. This was associated with a significant increase in the recycling/composting rates, especially during the 2000s, and the subsequent increase in WTE. The UK approach to “moving away from landfills” was very efficient and successful in a relatively short period of time.
6.4 The Role of Waste to Energy in the United Kingdom In England 3.6 million tons of MSW was processed in WTE plants in 2010, accounting for 13.6% of the total English MSW generated, and 11.2% of the total UK MSW. In Scotland, only 0.08 million tons was combusted, that is, 2.7% of the Scottish MSW. There was no WTE in Northern Ireland, and only 6000 tons was incinerated in Wales. There was an increase of 1% compared with the percentages of 2008/09, whereas there was an increase of 2.6% compared with the results of 2006/07 (Table 7.8). The total capacity of renewable energy sources (RES) was 9202 MW, and the energy produced thereof was 25,734 GWh (load factor of 30.8%). In 2010, the cumulative installed capacity of WTE plants was 435 MW (4.7% of the total RES), generating 1594 GWh (6.1% of the total RES) of electricity and heat (load factor of 44%); the total installed capacity of landfill gas recovery sites was 1025 MW (11.1% of the total RES) and the energy produced was 5037 GWh (19.5% of the total RES; load factor of 57.2%) [10,12]. The oil equivalent of the WTE for the year 2010 was 684.6 kilotons, while the oil
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 135 Table 7.8: Tonnage and Percentage of Incinerated Municipal Solid Waste in the United Kingdom Year
2006/07
England Scotland Northern Ireland Wales United Kingdom
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
t. tons
% of MSW
3237 61 0 11 3309
11.3 1.7 0 0.6 9.4
3168 75 0 11 3254
11.5 2.2 0 0.6 9.6
3331 84 0 10 3425
13.1 2.6 0 0.6 11
3616 86 0 6 3708
13.6 2.7 0 0.4 12
Percentage refers to the fraction of MSW generated in each region. MSW, municipal solid waste; t, thousand.
equivalent of landfill gas was 1665.6 kilotons, of 5300 thousand kilotons of the total renewable and 158,100 thousand kilotons of the total energy production in the United Kingdom. There was a 16% increase in the installed capacity of landfill gas and a 25% increase in WTE capacity between 2006 and 2010 (Fig. 7.7). Among the countries of the United Kingdom, England is closer to sustainable waste management, followed by Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (Fig. 7.8).
7. Waste Management in Switzerland Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 cantons. It has borders with Germany to the north, France to the west, Italy to the south, and Austria and Liechtenstein to the
9000
Installed capacity (MW)
8000 7000 6000 Landfill gas
5000
MSW combuson
4000
Total capacity from R.E.S. 3000 2000 1000
0 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 7.7 Installed capacity of landfill gas recovery and waste-to-energy sites (in MW). MSW, municipal solid waste; R.E.S., renewable energy source.
136 Chapter 7 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
England
Wales
Recycling(%) Composting(%) Landfilling(%)
Scotland
Waste-to-Energy(%)
N. Ireland
Figure 7.8 Waste management ladder for the four countries of the United Kingdom.
east. Its population, according to a 2012 estimate by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, is 8 million and its area is 41,285 km2. The Swiss Confederation has a gross domestic product (GDP) on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis of $51,262 per capita [12,23,25]. Switzerland spends 0.6% of its GDP on waste management, in comparison with 11.4% for health care. The generation of MSW amounts to 5.2 million tons annually, corresponding to 0.65 ton/capita. Of the total MSW, 33.8% is recycled, 16.7% is composted, and 49.6% is incinerated with energy recovery. There is no landfilling. A large contributor to this achievement has been the publication in 1986 of the “Guidelines of Waste Management in Switzerland,” by a broad coalition of stakeholders, such as representatives of industry, science, NGOs, and waste management authorities [23e25]. The basic points of the guidelines are as follows: • • • •
Waste management is guided by the objectives of the laws protecting public health and the environment. All waste disposal methods must be environmentally compatible (life-cycle thinking). Switzerland’s aim is to dispose of its waste within its own territory. Public authorities play a subsidiary role in waste management.
Every disposal system for waste shall generate only two types of products: 1. recyclable substances; 2. residues for final storage: a. no passing on of problems to future generations; b. no passing on of problems to other countries.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 137 Specific material waste streams are to be separately collected for recycling only: 1. if there is an ecological benefit, compared with disposal of the waste and subsequent use of new resources, and 2. if the costs of separate collection and recycling are economically reasonable. The financing of recycling must be ensured in the long term. •
Paper, cardboard, glass, PET bottles, used beverage cans, and scrap metals should be recycled.
The Swiss Confederation hierarchy for waste management is similar to that generally accepted in other developed countries [23e25]: 1. minimization of waste at the source, by prevention and by the use of non- or low-waste technologies; 2. reduction of hazardous substances in products and processes; 3. waste reduction through improved reuse and recycling; 4. treatment of the unrecoverable waste in an environmentally sound manner within Switzerland (by thermal treatment with or without energy recovery). By federal law, the waste management authorities in Switzerland are the 26 cantons. Most cantons delegate this duty to communes (local authorities). Recyclables and the remaining mixed urban solid waste (MSW) of households, trade, and commerce is collected by the communes, by local associations, or by private companies acting on behalf of local authorities. Since 2000, when the ban for landfilling of untreated waste (MSW, nonrecycled demolition waste, and sewage sludge) was implemented, sustainable waste management has made a lot of progress. Recycling, composting, and WTE rates have increased rapidly over the past decade [12,23e25]. The first waste incineration plant in Switzerland was built in Zurich in 1904 (MSWI Josefstrasse). In 2009, 30 waste incinerators were in operation, treating 2.6 million tons of MSW and generating 1900 GWh of electricity (0.7 MWh/ton) and 3000 GWh of heating (1.2 MWh/ton). Their emissions are well below the national standards, resulting in a high degree of public acceptance. Switzerland has no fossil fuelefired power plants or large metallurgical furnaces. Cement kilns already obtain more than 50% of their fuel requirements from waste (used motor oil, solvents, sewage sludge, bone meal, plastics). MBT has not been very attractive over incineration of trash, because of short transportation distances to the nearest MSWI (WTE) plant. Wood waste is used as fuel in energy recovery plants. Therefore, incineration is the only viable sustainable solution, focusing on the recovery of resources, especially of metals, and on improving energy production [12,23].
138 Chapter 7 In Switzerland, novel incinerator bottom ash (IBA) as well as fly ash treatment technologies have been developed. The processes mainly focus on the enhanced recovery of metals from bottom and fly ash. For the treatment of IBA, a dry discharge method has been developed that includes magnetic separation of iron followed by eddy current separation of nonmagnetic metals. The main target for fly ash processing is to eliminate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxins contained in it, by means of flotation to separate soot particles containing PAHs and dioxins. In addition, volatile metals in the ash are recovered from the hydrochloric acid solution of the wet scrubber. All sewage sludge is being incinerated in Switzerland and about 80% of wastewater treatment plants are equipped for recovery of phosphorus by precipitation. In general, the main elements of the waste policy framework of the Swiss Confederation are [12,23e25]: 1. a comprehensive legal framework, including provisions for refinancing of waste management, i.e., advance disposal charges; 2. separation of hazardous and household waste streams; 3. modern waste disposal infrastructure in all regions; 4. more than 50% of urban solid waste is recycled; 5. a ban on landfilling of untreated wastes (MSW, demolition waste, and sewage sludge) since 2000; 6. all incinerators are equipped with advanced air pollution control systems and their emissions are lower than the Swiss and EU standards; 7. effective publiceprivate partnerships; 8. awareness of the need for waste minimization.
8. Waste Management in the Netherlands The Netherlands’ borders are the North Sea to the north and west, Belgium to the south, and Germany to the east. This nation shares maritime borders with Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It is a parliamentary democracy with its capital city in Amsterdam, and the seat of government is The Hague. The Netherlands is often referred to as “Holland,” although North and South Holland are only two of its 12 provinces [25]. Its population is 16.7 million and its area 41,543 km2. The GDP per capita (on a PPP basis) is $42,772. The Netherlands spends 0.5%e1% of its GDP on waste management. The generation of MSW is 9.9 million tons per year (0.59 ton/capita), 32.9% of which is recycled, 27.7% is composted, 38.9% is incinerated with production of energy, and only 0.4% is landfilled. Lack of space and a growing environmental awareness forced the national government to take early measures for reducing landfilling of waste. In 1994, the Netherlands incorporated into their legislation the “Lansink’s ladder,” which was
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 139 later adopted by the European Parliament to form the “waste hierarchy” in the European Waste Framework Directive [25,26]. Lansink’s ladder requires the prevention of waste generation to the maximum extent, the recovery of valuable raw materials (recycling), and the generation of energy by combusting the remaining waste. If any of these approaches are not applicable, only then is the landfill of the waste allowed, but only in sanitary landfills. It should be noted that the Dutch people are very sensitive with respect to sustainable waste management. According to surveys conducted by Dutch authorities, more than 90% of Dutch people separate their household waste into recyclables and trash [26,27]. When the landfill tax was introduced in 1995 it was set at V13.00/ton. In 2000, two different levels of taxes were introduced. The starting point was that landfilling is always charged with a high tax, because it is assumed that incineration is an alternative to landfilling for all waste except for waste with a density greater than 1100 kg/m3, which is assumed to be noncombustible and, therefore, can be landfilled at a lower tax. In 2005, a considerable increase to V85.00/ton came into effect for combustible trash, while the low tax increased by only V1 to V14.00/ton. A tax on incineration also exists, but as of this writing is set at zero [26,27]. As of this writing, the landfill tax is structured as follows [26,27]: • •
High tax: banned waste landfilled with a permit at V107.49/ton; Low tax: inert waste (not banned) at V16.79/ton
The landfill tax is collected by the landfill operators, along with payment of the gate fee. The tax is passed on to the Dutch finance ministry. The simplicity of this system means compliance is close to 100% [26,27]. Owing to insufficient incineration capacities, until 2005 waste producers had to choose between export to neighboring countries or the acceptance of increasingly high landfill costs in the Netherlands. To avoid the landfill tax, in the period 2002e05, a lot of combustible waste was shipped to Germany for landfilling. This ended with the implementation of a landfill ban in June 2005 in Germany. In January 2007, the Netherlands opened their borders for the incineration of waste (both household and commercial/industrial) but closed them for the landfilling of combustible waste. This action was taken to stimulate the construction of further incineration capacity in the Netherlands, but so far there have been few significant quantities of cross-border trade in combustible waste [26,27]. The Netherlands has 11 operating WTE plants, incinerating 6.9 million tons of waste (3.8 million tons of MSW) annually and producing 4.09 MWh of electricity (0.59 MWh/ton) and 0.78 MWh of heat (0.2 MWh/ton) [12,26,27].
140 Chapter 7 The WTE bottom ash is mainly used as road construction material and for landfill maintenance after enhanced recovery of metals with innovative approaches, as explained later in this report. The air pollution control residues (fly ash) are mainly disposed of in salt mines or hazardous landfill sites and also as filler in asphalt [28e31].
9. Conclusions and Perspectives The analysis of the different waste management systems approaches of different countries in the world demonstrates that there are different approaches that could lead to sustainability, but all include some common practices. There is always a mix of different technologies that should be evaluated for each case using technological, financial, and social criteria and multicriteria methodological evaluation tools to get an optimal solution. WTE is always part of a successful waste management system, going hand in hand with recycling/composting. Countries that have a high recycling/composting rate have also a high WTE rate and a low landfilling rate. The circular economy approach is transforming waste management into a zero-residue/zero-waste management approach that would incorporate all available innovative technologies, so that integrated waste management systems become part of a sustainable economy with sustainable consumption and production practices of responsible citizens.
References [1] Population and Housing Census, 2015. Available at: kostat.go.kr. [2] Ministry of Environment, Government of the Republic of Korea. 1997 to 2015. Current Status of Waste Generation and Treatment (in Korean). [3] Y. Seo, Current MSW Management and Waste-to-Energy Status in the Republic of Korea (Master’s dissertation), Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, 2013. Available at: http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/ www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/YS%20Thesis_final_ Nov3.pdf. [4] H.S. Cheong, Pricing for Municipal Solid Waste Disposal in Korea (Master’s dissertation), CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1995. Available at: www.cserge.uea.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/wm_1995_04.pdf. [5] D.Y. Ju, 3R Portfolio: good practices to promote the 3Rs (Republic of Korea), in: Ministerial Conference on the 3R Initiative, Tokyo, Japan, 2005, pp. 28e30. Available at: www.env.go.jp/recycle/3r/en/info/05_ 12.pdf. [6] K. Kim, Performance of Waste Management Policy in Korea, Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, 2008. [7] H. Ahn, S. Hwang, K. Kim, H. Lee, S. Park, K. Suk, Waste Management in Korea. MBA White Paper, University of North Carolina, 2007. Available at: extranet.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/kicse/ORIG%20Shared% 20Documents/Waste%20Management%20in%20Korea.pdf. [8] The Volume Based Waste Fee System of Korea, The Asian Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability (AIEES), The Seoul National University, 2012. Available at: archive.epi.yale.edu/indicatorsin-practice/volume-based-waste-fee-system-korea. [9] W.S. Yang, J.K. Park, S.W. Park, Y.C. Seo, Past, present and future of waste management in Korea, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 17 (2) (2015) 207e217.
Case Studies Around the World: Successful Stories and Challenges 141 [10] N.J. Themelis, M.E.D. Barriga, P. Estevez, M.G. Velasco, Guidebook for the Application of Waste to Energy Technologies in Latin America and the Caribbean, EEC-Columbia Sponsored by the Interamerican Development Bank, 2013. [11] Energy Institute Association Statistical Energy Review, 2015. Available at: www.eia.gov/international/data. [12] European database statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_ statistics. [13] Country Fact Sheet, European Commission, Greece, 2012. [14] International and Solid Waste Association Database. http://www.iswa.org/. [15] A.K. Biswas, S. Kumar, S.S. Babu, J.K. Bhattacharyya, T. Chakrabarti, Studies on environmental quality in and around municipal solid waste dumpsite, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2) (2010). [16] Report, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, NEERI, Air Quality Assessment, Emissions Inventory and Source Apportionment Studies: Mumbai, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi, India, 2010. [17] R. Annepu, Sustainable Solid Waste Management in India (MS thesis), Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 2012. [18] S. Kumar, Effective Waste Management in India, Intech, Croatia, 2010. [19] Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Position Paper on the Solid Waste Management Sector in India, Public Private Partnerships in India, Ministry of Finance, November 2009. Available at: http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/ppp_position_paper_solid_waste_mgmt_112k9.pdf. [20] Personal Communication With Mr. Kant Ravi, Managing Director, Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd., January 2011 and January 2018. [21] N.B. Mazumdar, Webinar on Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2016, The Energy Resources Institute, 2017. [22] Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Guidance Note: Municipal Solid Waste Management on a Regional Basis, 2011. Available at: http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/ mswm/MSW_Guide_Note.pdf. [23] Press Release: Estimates of Switzerland’s Population in 2012-Switzerland Has 8 Million Inhabitants, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchaˆtel, 2012. [24] ‘Waste Management in Switzerland’, Presentation by Mr. H.R.Fahrni, ISWA WGER, October 26, 2012. [25] The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency: Switzerland and the Netherlands. [26] G. Feller, Dutch Successes, Waste Management World, November 2012. [27] Eionet, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Waste policies, The Netherlands, February 2013. [28] Innovations in the waste to energy industry, in: Presentation by Dr. R. Koralewska, Martin Gmbh, North America Waste to Energy Conference, 2015, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, 2015. [29] L. Muchova´, P. Rem, Pilot plant for wet physical separation of MSWI IBA, in: Conference Proceeding MMME 2006, Cape Town (South Africa), 14e15 November, 2006, p. 12. [30] L. Muchova, P. Rem, M. Van Berlo, Innovative technology for the treatment of IBA, in: Conference Proceeding from ISWA/NVRD World Congress 2007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24e27 September 2007, 2007. [31] B. Hu, P. Rem, T. van de Winckel, Fine Heavy Non-Ferrous and Precious Metals Recovery in Bottom Ash Treatment, in: ISWA Knowledge Database, Paper, vol. 38, 2008.