![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
||||||||
| Sign up here to receive BioCycle electronic bulletin. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Home |
Intensive Source Separated Organics (Italy)
BioCycle April 2010, Vol. 51, No. 4, p. 52 The Italian model of intensive residential food waste collection achieves impressive diversion rates without higher costs, and is catching on in Spain and the United Kingdom. Michele Giavini and Christian Garaffa Intensive source separation of organics (ISSO) represents a strategic decision, and is Italy’s key factor for reaching an overall high performance of residential source separation schemes. It has the dual purpose of maximizing organics diversion from landfills and reducing the amount of putrescible materials in residual waste to less than 10 percent. This allows residual waste collection frequency to be drastically reduced, making the overall scheme economically viable. ISSO started in the northern part of Italy in the mid-1990s, with two driving forces: lack of space in landfills and (consequently) increasing tipping fees. Compared to the traditional scheme still in use in many parts of Italy, which is based on large centralized containers placed on the roads (“bring” schemes), ISSO is a “fetch” scheme and has some distinctive features that boost the quality and diversion rate of recyclable fractions. All of the waste fractions (organics, dry recyclables and residual waste) are collected at the curbside. Several characteristics of ISSO make it highly successful. Food waste is set out in small, certified compostable bags while curbside collection of yard trimmings is discouraged to address waste minimization. Yard trimmings collection is limited to seasonal services linked to PAYT (pay as you throw) systems, and via promotion of backyard composting when possible (the general rule is: “when there is a courtyard that produces green waste there is also an area to do home composting”). In any collection scheme (bring or fetch), citizens have the option of taking materials such as yard trimmings to drop-off locations (recycling facilities or waste transfer stations). A major benefit of ISSO is an overall decrease in residential waste generation, due to limits on curbside setouts. Nonresidential waste is also reduced because it can no longer be dropped off anonymously in centralized roadside containers. The integration approach calls for high frequency collections of food waste, in order to keep organics low in the residual waste stream. Organics collection typically ranges from two to three times a week, depending on the Mediterranean/Continental climate and season. This enables use of smaller (4 to 6 cy capacity) collection trucks without compaction. Single family homes are given 8- or 10-gallon curbside bins, which can be manually tipped, reducing collection time; condos are provided 32- to 64-gallon carts (mechanically tipped), serving 10 to 20 households each. Two-gallon vented kitchen pails and yearly supplies of compostable bags are given to each household (bags are certified according to European compostability standard EN 13432). Residual waste typically is collected weekly. Positive Economics A key aspect of ISSO is its economic viability. A survey completed in March 2010 focused on the economics of collection schemes in the Region of Lombardy, in northern Italy. Milan is the capital of Lombardy, and the region contains one-sixth of Italy’s population. The survey was based on detailed economic data reported by all 1,546 municipalities in the region (including Milan), which shows that door-to-door collections with the ISSO model are highly effective when looking at overall costs.
Some unexpected outcomes were uncovered by the survey, based on use of a new indicator for evaluating economic efficiency. This indicator expresses normalized overall costs for waste collection and treatment per equivalent inhabitant, per year (i.e. accounting for nonresident citizens and nondomestic activities), and excludes costs not directly related to waste collection such as road cleaning (Figure 1). One of these outcomes is lack of a strong relationship between overall costs and geographic or demographic parameters, meaning that waste management costs don’t change much between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is because every municipality succeeded in fitting the general collection model to its specific circumstances.
Another impressive outcome, shown in Figure 2, illustrates the different costs for collection and treatment/disposal, using subsets of municipalities with the same recyclables diversion rate. It is clear that overall treatment costs decrease with higher diversion rates, because of the lower tipping fees for most recyclables. Collection costs tend to slightly increase (especially with over 60 percent diversion), but not as much as was commonly thought before this study. This is the result of collection frequency optimization performed by municipalities after years of experience with the first pilot areas. Education Is Key The remaining challenge to address is when municipalities still allow food waste collection in polyethylene bags, thinking only of the short-term costs being cheaper than biodegradable/compostable bags. This initial price doesn’t factor in higher overall costs due to more intensive and expensive pretreatment and screening systems to handle plastic contamination at organic recovery facilities, disposal of plastic residues, and risks of producing a lower quality compost. Another important strategy with ISSO — to ensure high diversion rates while controlling overall cost — is to optimize collection frequencies. This must be done when the municipality first starts the new curbside collection scheme. Occasionally local governments are afraid that citizens will reject a lower frequency collection scheme and try setting an experimental transition period to ease into the new program. However, this endangers the viability of the whole program, because it’s very difficult to then implement a stricter program once citizens get used to an “easy” model. Instead, the desired collection frequency should be implemented from the beginning, using the aforementioned household tools to ease the transition: two bins (kitchen and curbside), as well as a supply of compostable bags.
Overall, ISSO schemes in northern Italy have been widely successful, and continue to influence trends in other countries. The model is spreading to European countries such as Spain and the United Kingdom, particularly in areas where some concurrent elements are present: lack of landfill space and increasing tipping fees, available or planned composting or anaerobic digestion capacity, regional regulations mandating separate organics collection and adoption of the diversion targets given by the European Union Landfill Directive 99/31/EC. Michele Giavini runs Ars Ambiente Srl, a consultancy for waste management focusing on source separation and planning of composting facilities. (giavini@arsambiente.it). Christian Garaffa is Marketing Manager for source separation & recycling at Novamont SpA, producers of compostable polymers. He chairs the working group for waste & recovery of the European Bioplastics Association (christian.garaffa@novamont.com). Michele Giavini and Christian Garaffa will be presenting on this topic in greater detail at the 7th annual ORBIT Conference (June 29 to July 3, 2010), held in Crete, Greece. For more information on the event, visit www.orbit2010.gr. Copyright 2010, The JG Press, Inc. |
Subscribe Renew Address Change Contact Us Advertise Books & Reports BioCycle Conferences Renewable Energy 2011 BioCycle West Coast 2012 Renewable Energy 2012 Events Calendar |
| Search Article Archives | BioCycle | In Business | Compost Science Conferences | Books | Subscribe | Advertise | Links Contact Us | About Us | Home findacomposter.com www.jgpress.com Copyright & Trademark Notice |