Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness [1 ed.] 9781614707790, 9781613248539

Citation preview

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RECYCLING AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the E-books tab.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

MOHAMED ALWAELI

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2011 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal solid waste : recycling and cost effectiveness / Mohamed Alwaeli. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61470-779-0 (eBook) 1. Recycling (Waste, etc.) 2. Refuse and refuse disposal. I. Title. TD794.5.A4255 2011 628.4'458--dc23 2011025521

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. †New York Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

CONTENTS vii 

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Preface Chapter 1

Introduction

1 

Chapter 2

Waste Generation

3 

Chapter 3

Waste Composition

9 

Chapter 4

Waste Regulations

17 

Chapter 5

Recycling

23 

Chapter 6

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

73 

References

101 

Index

113 

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE Currently, the management of solid waste represents a major economic and environmental issue throughout the world. Trends in waste generation show an increase in the volumes of waste produced in most countries and it is clear that the trend will continue. It is a challenge to reduce the increasing flow of waste. Many management systems of solid waste are based on the wastegeneration hierarchy. The hierarchy of priorities for solving waste generation 1 problems is as follows: waste minimization, recycling/reuse, and treatment 2 and disposal . The treatment and disposal of solid waste involves a range of processes including landfill, incineration, composting, all of which may result in emissions to the environment. Municipal investments are said to be highly capital-intensive. As a result, every investment needs to be preceded by the economic analysis which allows to estimate the effectiveness of the investment. Investments are made to make profits and to increase savings. Cost-effecitveness is a subject with which all investments need to be concerned. Usually, these analyses determine whether to implement the enterprise or not. The cost-effecitveness analysis of recycling process should take into account either the minimization of costs connected with the realization of investment or maximization of the production having the costs of the production established. 1 2

Treatment means recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal (European Commission, 2008). Disposal means any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy (European Commission, 2008).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

viii

Mohamed Alwaeli

Due to the fact that, the amount of generated municipal solid waste, is growing year by year, this monograph is connected with waste recycling and also discusses cost-effectiveness of municipal solid waste recycling. This monograph also describes discussion of waste regulation, generation, and composition. Section 2 is concerned with waste generation in the EU and the rest of the world. Various trends in waste generation and influences on them are discussed. Section 3 describes municipal solid waste composition. Compared MSW composition in the EU, USA, and other countries. Examples of the influences on the composition of MSW are also described. Section 4 outlines the development of waste legislation, including the counsil Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste Disposal, the Council Directive 94/62/EC (amended by the Council Directive 2004/12/EC and the Council Directive 2005/20/EC), aimed to harmonise measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste and in particular, obligates the Member States to meet targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, the European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53/EC, Directive 2006/66/EC, and the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC. Section 5 is concerned with waste recycling. Examples of recycling of particular types of waste, i.e., paper, plastics, glass, end-of-life vehicles, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and biowaste. Contamination effects are discussed. The benefits of waste recycling, LCA of materials recycling, factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programmes, kerbside recycling progmme design and kerbside recycling enhancement are also described. Section 6 is concerned with cost-effectiveness of municipal solid waste recycling. Economic condition of waste recycling is discussed. Examples of economic analysis of cost-effectiveness of waste recycling, economic profitability of the waste utilization as a substitute of raw materials, economic profitability of waste to organic fertilizer process are described.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Waste management1 is becoming a problem for major countries worldwide. This is especially true in developing countries as a result of the rapid increase in waste generation caused by rapid urbanization, industrialization and economic development (Damghani et al., 2008). During the past decades, the western world has experienced a rapid increase in both production and consumption. Growing consumption has further lead to increased amounts of waste. The increasing production of municipal solid waste (MSW)2 has reached the point at which changes must be made, including the implementation of waste minimization programmes (Agapitidis et al., 1998). The amount of municipal solid waste generated is increasing in developed countries, as well as in many of the developing countries in the world. In recent years the quantity of MSW has increased at 3.2–4.5% each year in developed countries, and at 2–3% per annum in developing countries (Li’ao et al., 2009). The already high amount of municipal solid waste

1

Waste management means the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and the after-care of disposal sites, and including actions taken as a dealer or broker. 2 Municipal waste consists to a large extent of waste generated by households; the figures reflect differences in consumption behaviour. Municipal waste also includes similar waste generated by small businesses and offices and collected by the municipality; this part of municipal waste may vary from municipality to municipality and from country to country, depending on the local waste management system. The amount of municipal waste generated consists of waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste management system. For areas not covered by a municipal waste collection scheme the amount of waste generated is estimated. Waste from agriculture and industry are not included.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

2

Mohamed Alwaeli

generated in Europe is expected to increase by at least 25% in the coming decades (ETC/RWM, 2007). The management of solid waste represents a major economic and environmental issue throughout the world. Social problems in the urban areas of developed and developing countries were considered one of the major global concerns in the colloquium of Mayors held at the United Nations in August 1994. To combat this problem, developing countries spend 20–40% of their municipal revenues employing 3–6 workers per 1000 members of the population on solid waste management. However, they are still unable to handle more than half of the solid waste produced daily (Alam et al., 2008; Hester and Harrison, 2002). Trends in waste generation show an increase in the volumes of waste produced for most countries and it is clear that the trend will continue. It is a challenge to treat the increasing flow of waste due to limited resources, ever increasing population, and rapid urbanisation and industrialization worldwide. The treatment and disposal of solid waste involves a range of processes including landfill, incineration, composting, all of which may result in emissions to the environment. Recycling is essential method to solve this problem. Recycling is the first waste management technique that should be applied. This can be followed by various treatment and storage techniques. Recycling is one of principal processes which prevent landfilling and other general environmental pollution, and increasing the efficiency of production. It is also necessary to manage the disposal of enormous quantities of hazardous waste. Despite the fact that properties of the primary materials have been lost, the waste still carries both the value of subjective human work as well as the energy used for their production. This waste constitutes a potential source of secondary materials and fuels. Recycling is the most effective method for solving these problems because the recycling process not only reduces amount of waste, but also mitigates the depletion of nonrenewable resources resulting from economic development with consequent environmental benefits in terms of energy savings in the production process. Moreover, because of shrinking supplies and the subsequent need to re-use resources for cost-effectiveness, recycling techniques should be developed. The development of an efficient waste recycling approach will help to explore new opportunities for urban and environmental protection. Moreover, if these techniques are developed, they can be made more efficient with time, and greater efficiency which will help to reduce waste directed to landfills and other harmful disposal methods.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Chapter 2

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

WASTE GENERATION A global solid waste crisis is emerging, and the world’s municipalities are most severely affected. With continuous rapid population growth, economic development and an increase in community living standards, rapid urbanization and industrialization, the quantity of MSW produced annually is increasing rapidly (Suocheng et al., 2001; Minghua et al., 2009). World population continues to rise with projections nearing 7.2 billion by 2015 (UNEP, 2005). In fact, urban populations in developing countries grow by more than 150.000 people every day (UNDESA, 2005). As a result of rapid population growth and the increased rate of unplanned urbanization in many countries of the developing world, the amounts of MSW are increasing tremendously. For example, a study in India showed increases of 49% for population and 67% for MSW during the same time (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In OECD countries, municipal waste generation averages about 450 kg per capita, ranging from 354 kg per capita in Norway to about 800 kg per capita in the USA (UN, 2008). Table 2.1 presents that MSW generation in OECD countries has shown a steady increase from 395 million tonnes in 1980 to 653 million tonnes in 2005. Table 2.1 also shows that OECD Europe countries has a higher per capita generation of MSW compared to other OECD countries. This increase is linked to a number of factors, including economic growth of OECD countries, since a rise in income of individuals leads to higher rates of consumption of electrical goods and increased packaging waste, etc. (Williams, 2005).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

4

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 2.1. Population, Real GDP and waste generation in OECD countries within the period of 1980 to 2005

Population (billions) in OECD (Index) Real GDP (trillion USD) in OECD (index) Municipal waste generation in OECD (million tonnes/year) (index) (kg/capita/year) (index) OECD Pacific (million tonnes/year) (index) OECD Asia (million tonnes/year) (index) OECD Nafta (million tonnes/year) (index) OECD Europe (million tonnes/year) (index)

1980 1,1 100 14,4 100

1995 1,2 112 21,0 146

2000 1,2 116 23,5 163

2005 1,3 119 28,0 195

395 100 376 100

561 142 476 127

624 158 512 136

653 165 522 139

12 100

15 124

16 133

17 142

55 100

68 124

69 126

74 135

164 100

242 147

272 166

284 173

170 100

236 139

267 157

279 164

Source: EEA, 2009.

Source: EEA, 2009. Figure 2.1. Growth in generation of MSW in relation to population growth within the period of 1980 to 2005 in OECD countries.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Waste Generation

5

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The increased generation of MSW is reflected in the growth in population shown in Figure 2.1 and influences the total increase in MSW generation, which was approximately 28 % increase over the twenty five years period, from 376 kg per capita in 1980 to 522 kg per capita in 2005. Table 2.1 also suggest there is a strong link between the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and waste generation levels. A link between GDP and waste production in OECD countries is shown in Figure 2.2. Over the last few decades, in the USA municipal waste have changed substantially. Annual municipal waste generation has continued to increase from about 88 million tonnes in 1960 to around 254 million tonnes in 2007. The generation rate in 1960 was just 444 kg per capita. The amount of municipal waste generated each year has continued to increase on both a per capita basis and a total generation rate basis. It grew to about 606 kg per capita in 1980, reached about 745 kg per capita in 1990, and increased to around 770 kg per capita in 2000. Since 2000, municipal waste generation has remained fairly steady. The generation rate was approximately 765 kg per capita in 2007 (USEPA, 2008). Waste generation in the USA within the period of 1960 to 2007 is presented in Table 2.2.

Source: EEA, 2009. Figure 2.2. Growth in generation of MSW in relation to GDP growth within the period of 1980 to 2005 in OECD countries.

Table 2.2. MSW generation in million tonnes in the USA within the period of 1960 to 2007

MSW Generation

Years 1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2004

2005

2006

2007

88.1

121.1

151.6

205.2

239.1

249.8

250.4

254.2

254.1

Sources: USEPA, 2008.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

6

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.3. Generation of municipal waste in EU 25 from 1995 to 2003 (Million tonnes).

In EU 25, within the period of 1995 to 2003, an increase in municipal solid waste generation is apparent. MSW generation in EU 25 has increased from 204 million tonnes (457 kg/capita) in 1995 to 243 million tonnes (534 kg/capita) in 2003 which corresponds to an average yearly increase of approximately 2 %. Compared with 1995, the quantity of MSW generated in 2003 had increased by about 19 % (Figure 2.3). Generation is higher in the old Member States with 577 kg/capita compared to 312 kg/capita in the new Member States. Waste generation increased in EU 15 by 23 % from 482 kg/ capita to 577 kg/capita within the reference period. In contrast, the data suggest a slightly decreasing trend in the new Member States since 1999. In 2003, generation amounted to 312 kg/capita in New Members States 10 as compared to 334 kg/capita in 1995 (European Communities, 2005). In 2007 the a mount of municipal waste generated varies significantly across Member States. More than 750 kg per capita was generated in 2007 in Denmark, Ireland and Cyprus. Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands had values between 600 and 750 kg per capita and Austria, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, Estonia, Sweden and Finland between 500 and 600 kg. The next group of Member States included Belgium, Portugal, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia and Lithuania with values between 400 and 500 kg of municipal waste per capita. The lowest values of below 400 kg per capita were found in Poland, Romania, Latvia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (European Commission, 2009). In 2008, 524 kg of municipal waste was generated per capita in the EU 27. More than 700 kg of municipal waste per capita was generated in 2008 in Denmark, Ireland, Cyprus and Luxembourg. Malta, the Netherlands and Austria had values between 600 and 700 kg per capita and Germany, Estonia,

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Waste Generation

7

Spain, France, Italy, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom between 500 and 600 kg per capita. The next group of Member States included Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Slovenia with values between 400 and 500 kg per capita. The lowest values of below 400 kg per capita were found in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. The generation of municipal waste is projected to be 290 million tonnes in the EU-27 in 2010 with a further increase to 336 million tonnes in 2020. More than 80% of this waste will be generated in the EU-15. Waste generation per capita has been on the increase for years and the projection shows that this will continue till 2020. In 1995, the 27 countries that are now the EU-27 generated 460 kg municipal waste per capita. This amount rose to 520 kg per capita by 2004, and it is estimated that by 2020 this will reach 680 kg per capita (EEA, 2008a; EEA, 2009). The projected amounts for each country are shown in Table 2.3 and 2.4. The share of waste from households ranges for most countries between 60% and 90% depending on the amount of other waste collected under the responsibility of the municipality. A few countries are above or below this range. In Iceland, for example, municipal waste includes a high share of commercial waste which might explain the high municipal waste arising. The percentage of commercial waste in municipal waste ranges for most countries between 10 % and 35 %. In a few countries the share of commercial waste is as high or even higher than the waste from households (Estonia, Finland, Iceland). The share of waste from municipal services generally falls below 10%. However, when interpreting the data, it has to be considered that some countries are not able to determine exactly the share of waste from different sources that are collected by the same collection system. Hence, the figures give only a rough image of the situation. Households and businesses in the European Union (EU27) produced over six tonnes of waste per capita in 2006, over 400 kg was household waste. The waste produced by households ranged from 181 kg per capita in Poland to 576 kg per capita in the Netherlands in 2006, with an average of 423 kg per capita. Households in Italy, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom generated much more waste than the EU27 average. Households in Finland and Malta generated much less waste than the EU27 average (Kloek and Blumenthal, 2009).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 2.3. Projected generation of municipal waste in the EU-15, million tonnes

2010 2020

AT 5.7 6.0

BE 5.1 5.5

DE 51.5 57.9

DK 4.2 4.5

ES 35.7 38.7

FI 2.6 2.9

FR 39.2 43.4

GR 5.8 6.6

IE 4.0 4.4

IT 35.0 40.9

LU 0.3 0.5

NL 9.5 10.5

PT 5.0 6.1

SE 4.9 5.5

UK 39.9 46.7

EU-15 248.4 280.1

Table 2.4. Projected generation of municipal waste in the New EU-12, Norway and Switzerland, million tonnes

2010 2020

BG 3.5 3.1

CZ 0.7 0.8

NEUa -12 – New EU-12.

CY 3.4 4.9

EE 0.7 0.9

HU 5.9 8.2

LT 0.8 1.0

LV 1.4 1.5

MT 0.3 0.4

PL 10.8 16.6

RO 11.8 15.4

SI 0.8 0.8

SK 1.5 2.3

NEUa-12 41.5 56.0

NO 3.3 4.0

CH 5.7 7.0

Chapter 3

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

WASTE COMPOSITION Data on quantity variation and generation are useful in planning for a collection and disposal system (Sharholy et al., 2008). By understanding what materials are in the waste stream, we can identify to what degree valuable natural resources are being thrown away rather than reused, recycled or recovered to create other products, materials or energy (Environment New Zealand 2007, 2009). As an example, local authorities can use waste composition information to target reuse or recycling schemes for materials that make up a large part of the waste stream in their area. A prerequisite for the successful implementation of any solid waste management plan is the availability of information on the composition and quantities of solid waste generated (Qdais, 2000). This waste composition information can then help to determine the following: -

opportunities for waste reduction; volume rate of waste generation; whether or not the waste is hazardous; suitability of the waste for landfilling; suitability of the waste for recycling; suitability of the waste for incineration; suitability of the waste for composting; physical and chemical properties as they relate to suitability for landfilling (Industrial waste treatment, 2006).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

10

Mohamed Alwaeli

The main compositional categories of municipal solid waste are: paper and cardboard, organic waste - food and garden waste, plastics, metal, glass, textiles, wood, and other minor fractions of waste (IPCC, 2006). The comparison of waste composition from different countries can be difficult, since the methods of reporting and classification and the degree of recycling, all influence the reported composition. Each town or city produces a different composition of waste, since the inputs will depend on a wide range of factors such as food habits, cultural traditions, lifestyles, income, types of industry and level of industrialization, geographic location, climate, level of consumption, collection system, population density, the extent of recycling, legislative controls and public attitudes (Jin et al., 2006; Williams, 2005). Comparison of MSW composition can be made between regions. Waste compositions, as well as the classifications used to collect data on waste composition in MSW vary widely in different regions. MSW composition in the UE is presented in Figure 3.1, while MSW composition in the USA is presented in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.1 shows that the main components of MSW in EU are organics, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass. 20% of MSW is denoted as “other”, which mainly includes construction and demolition debris, coal ash and hazardous waste. Looking at the composition of the waste generated in the USA (Figure 3.2), one can conclude that paper and cardboard made up the largest component of MSW generated (32.7 %), yard trimmings were the second-largest component (12.8 %) and food scraps were the third largest (12.5 %). Glass, metals, plastics, and wood each constituted between 5 and 12 % of the total MSW generated. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up 7.6 % of MSW, while other miscellaneous waste made up approximately 3 percent of the MSW. (USEPA, 2008). Example of the influences on the composition of MSW can be described. Lifestyle, level of industrialization, level of consumption, collection system, and population density factors would influence the composition of MSW. Figure 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 shows waste composition in Poland for urban, rural and infrastructure establishment. The average morphologic composition of municipal waste was established on the basis of research carried out in the years 2000 – 2005 in Poland. The analysis was carried out in urban and rural areas as well as in infrastructure establishments. In the areas mentioned, remarkable differences concerning the percentage share of municipal waste components are clearly visible.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Waste Composition

Source: ACCR, Resourcities.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.1. Average MSW composition in EU.

Source: U.S. EPA, 2008. Figure 3.2. Average municipal solid waste composition in the USA.

Source: (elaboration of data from Alwaeli and Jasińska, 2009). Figure 3.3. MSW composition in urban areas.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

11

12

Mohamed Alwaeli

Source: (elaboration of data from Alwaeli and Jasińska, 2009).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.4. MSW composition in rural areas.

Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the morphologic composition of the municipal waste generated in urban and rural areas. It can be seen that organic waste accounts for the highest proportion of total waste, 59.2% of MSW in urban areas and for 15% in rural areas, followed by paper and cardboard (20%) in urban areas, and (12%) in rural areas, multilayer package waste (14%), and (12%) in urban and rural areas respectively, plastic and metal waste (8%) in both areas, glass and clothes and textiles waste – 5% in urban and rural areas, wood (4%) in urban areas, and (3%) in rural areas, and others (1%) in both areas (d’ Obryn and Szalińska, 2005). On the basis of the graphs presented, one may observe a significant divergence in the morphologic composition of the municipal waste generated in urban and rural areas. The differences mainly concern mineral substance content and biodegradable waste. The municipal waste from rural areas is characterised by a high share of mineral components, which is much higher than in urban areas. Moreover, in the structure of rural waste, there are augmented amounts of fine waste fraction, mainly slag and ashes from household coal-fired furnaces while there is a lower concentration of biodegradable fraction and secondary materials. Waste coming from rural settlements contains significantly less paper and leftovers. However, it is mainly composed of waste which is notoriously difficult to manage: packaging made of plastics such as fertiliser and plant protection containers, scrap metal and textiles. (Alwaeli, 2009). In urban areas biodegradable food waste constitutes the highest percentage. The current morphologic composition of waste generated mainly in urban areas justifies, by means of selective waste disposal development, the advisability of an increase in recovery of secondary materials such as paper, metal, glass or plastics.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Waste Composition

13

Source: (elaboration of data from Alwaeli and Jasińska, 2009).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.5. MSW composition in infrastructure establishments.

The aforementioned differences in the morphological composition of municipal waste generated in rural and urban areas result from the specific character of households, the size of residential buildings and their heating systems. Figure 3.5 presents the morphological composition of the municipal waste coming from infrastructure establishments. The typical characteristics of MSW include paper and cardboard (27%) followed by wood waste (18%), multilayer package waste (18%), plastics (10%), organic waste (10%), and glass waste (5%) (d’ Obryn and Szalińska, 2005). Table 3.1. Municipal solid waste composition in high, middle and low income cities Material Organics Paper Plastic Glass Metals CandD Bulky waste Textiles Others

Quezon City 52,1 17,1 21,4 3,1 3,2 2,3 0,8

San Francisco 30,9 24,3 10,5 3,3 4,30 12,2 5,3 3,9 5,3

Nairobi 61,4 11,8 20,6 0,8 0,6 0,6 4,2

Source: UN-HABITAT, 2009.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

14

Mohamed Alwaeli

Municipal waste emanating from public utility buildings and population services establishments (public administration offices, medical and social care institutions, schools, educational and cultural institutions, etc.) is in the main comprised of paper and cardboard, wood and garden waste in their morphological composition. In this case biodegradable waste constitutes a considerably lower percentage than in the urban and rural areas. In contrast to the composition of waste located in rural areas, waste from infrastructure contains a slight percentage of mineral waste. The composition of municipal solid waste varies widely, both within and between countries, and between income per capita. Table 3.1 presents data on municipal solid waste composition for three of profiled cities, representing high, middle and low income cities. In addition, waste composition has been shown to vary with seasons of the year. For example, Table 3.2 show the waste composition in Turkey over a one year period.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 3.2. Municipal solid waste composition in Turkey (Source: Metin et al., 2003)

Summer Winter Average

Organic and wet (%) 80.21 46.2 68.87

Ash and slag (%) 2.61 45.89 17.04

Recyclable 17.18 7.9 14.09

Table 3.3. Composition of MSW in Macao within the period of 1998 to 2004

Components Food Paper and cardboard Plastics Glass and stones Metals Textiles Wood Others

1998 [%] 3.32 12.3

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

22.17 36.18

18.8 12.74

32.93 15.01

23 11

14 13

14.5 16.9

9.74 4.87 3.13 14.27 0 46.87

11.57 6.45 2.92 2.8 0 17.9

12.74 5.17 4.98 3.78 1.98 39.8

15.2 10.51 2.72 3.2 2.25 18.2

17 5 3 6 2 33

17 4 1 5 7 39

22.2 5.1 7.8 5.3 2.4 25.7

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Waste Composition

15

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Nowadays one can observe a changeable municipal waste structure constituting a mixture of many materials which are found in various proportions. Table 3.3, shows the historical change in MSW composition arising in Macao (China) from 1998 to 2004 (Jin et al., 2006). The data shows that the amount of waste food generated over the last decade has increased systematically over the years, from 8.82 % in 1998 to 14.5 % in 2004. Paper and cardboard had grown from 12.3% in 1998 to 16.9% in 2004. The biggest increase was noted for plastics, from 9.74 to 22.2%. Within the period of 1998 to 2004, the quantities of textiles decreased steadily. Stream of textiles decreased from 14.27 to 5.3%.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Chapter 4

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

WASTE REGULATIONS The issue of waste management is reflected in European Union legislation. Among binding resolutions being introduced by adequate organs of the European Union, are ordinances, directives and decisions. Introducing their precept is obligatory for all states which are members of the European Union (Alwaeli, 2010). This practice started very early in the 70th of the last century already and resulted in a harmonisation of national regulations in terms of management strategies, technological measures, and environmental standards. The fundamental Framework Directive on Waste Disposal 75/442/EEC was issued in 1975 (Vehlow, 2006). It gives general advises on prevent and reduce waste arisings at source; to increase recycling and re-use of materials and products; and to safely dispose of unavoidable waste. Under the umbrella of this Framework Directive a number of directives have been decided upon which regulate the disposal and/or recovery and recycling of specific waste streams, among others packaging, waste electrical and electronic equipment and end-of-life vehicles. Each of these sector is covered by EU Directive which sets for recover and recycling of these waste stream. These targets aim to make the best use of resources contained in waste and to minimise the environmental and human health impacts associated with waste management. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive aims to harmonise measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste and in particular, obligates the Member States to meet targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The Directive covers all packaging placed on the Community market. Targets are set as a percentage of packaging flowing into the waste stream.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

18

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 4.1. Levels of packaging waste recycling defined in the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC, 2004/12/EC and 2005/20/EC Target Deadline recovering or incineration with energy recovery in combustion plants of minimally 50% to maximally 65% of packaging waste mass recycling of minimally 25% to maximally 45% of the general packaging materials mass within packaging waste and of minimally 15% of each packaging material mass recovering or incineration with energy recovery in combustion plants of minimally 60% of packaging materials mass recycling of minimally 55% to maximally 80% of packaging waste mass achieved minimal target levels for materials contained in packaging waste: 60% of glass mass; 60% of paper and cardboard mass; 50% of metals mass; 22,5% of plastics mass (only materials processed again into plastics after recycling are taken into account in the calculation); 15% of timber mass.

30 June 2001

30 June 2001

31 December 2008 31 December 2008 31 December 2008

The levels of packaging waste to be recycled were defined in the European Parliament and Council Directive (the Council Directive 94/62/EC), amended by (the Council Directive 2004/12/EC and the Council Directive 2005/20/EC) (European Commission, 1994; 2004; 2005). Stipulations specified in the Directives are presented in Table 4.1. To reduce electronic waste going to landfills and incinerators, the European Union in 2003 adopted the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive requiring producers, starting in 2005, to take responsibility for recovering and recycling electronic waste without charge to consumers. This is intended not only to promote recycling and reduce landfill disposal and incineration, but also as an incentive to producers to design products so as to reduce waste and facilitate recycling. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive was published on 13th February 2003. The purpose of this Directive is, as a first

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Waste Regulations

19

priority, the prevention of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and in addition, the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of such waste so as to reduce the disposal of waste. It also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment, e.g. producers, distributors and consumers and in particular those operators directly involved in the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment. The Directive requires: -

-

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

-

-

-

Member States to encourage the design and production of EEE which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials; producers to encourage prevent, through specific design features or manufacturing processes, WEEE from being reused, unless such specific design features or manufacturing processes present overriding advantages, for example with regard to the protection of the environment and/or safety requirements; separate collection systems to be set up; final holders to be able to return waste free of charge; producers to meet most of the costs of collecting, treating, recycling and disposing of their products once they become consumer waste applies to products placed on the market after August 2005; in the case of 'historical' WEEE (arising from products placed on the market before August 2005) producers to share costs proportionate to market share; distributors of electronic goods (mostly retailers) to take back old equipment free of charge when supplying new (equivalent) products to customers - this might be in-store or by third parties; a collection target on average of 4 kg per capita to be achieved by 31st December 2006; recovery and recycling targets to be met according to product category - targets apply to the separately collected fraction only, targets range from 50% - 80%.

Householders must be encouraged to separate WEEE but there is no mandatory requirement. The Directive does not require Local Authorities to take on any additional burdens such as separation of household WEEE or kerbside collection provision for WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

20

Mohamed Alwaeli

Equipment (WEEE) Directive (European Commission, 2002; Waste on line, 2004). Increasing end-of-life vehicles quantity has forced countries of the European Union to face this problem. The issue is reflected in EU legislation. The European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53/EC, passed into European Law in October 2000. The Directive: -

-

-

-

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

-

-

-

-

aims to improve the environmental performance of all of the economic operators involved in the lifecycle of vehicles and especially the operators directly involved in the treatment of ELVs; restricts the use of certain heavy metals including mercury, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and lead, in vehicles placed on the market after 1st July 2003; requires that ELVs can only be scrapped ('treated') by authorised treatment facilities, which must meet tightened environmental standards; introduces a "certificate of destruction", which must be issued to the final owner when the vehicle is scrapped; requires producers to design vehicles to facilitate dismantling, reuse, recovery and recycling; requires producers to make available dismantling information in respect of new vehicles and to mark certain vehicle components to aid recycling; requires that, for vehicles put on the market after 1st July 2003 which have a negative value when scrapped, owners are able to have their complete ELVs accepted free of charge and producers must bear all or a significant part of these costs; requires that owners are able to have their complete ELVs accepted free of charge after 1st July 2007, irrespective of the date they were first put on the market, if such vehicles have a negative value when scrapped; sets targets for economic operators - by 1st January 2006 reuse and recovery to increase to a minimum of 85% (by wt) and re-use and recycling to 80% (by wt), by 1st January 2015, reuse and recovery to increase to 95% and reuse and recycling to 85%; further targets will be set for the years beyond 2015 (European Commission, 2000a).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Waste Regulations

21

Regarding to batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, the proposed Directive 2006/66/EC aims to promote recycling and other forms of recovery in order to reduce the quantity of waste discarded. This Directive apply to all types of batteries and accumulators, regardless of their shape, volume, weight, material composition or use (European Commission, 2006). To reduce hazardouse and non hazardouse waste directed to landfills, the European Union in 2000 adopted the 2000/76/EC Directive on the incineration of waste. The aim waste incineration (WI) Directive is to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment caused by the incineration and co-incineration of waste. In particular, it should reduce pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. This is to be achieved through the application of operational conditions, technical requirements, and emission limit values for incineration and coincineration plants within the EU. The WI Directive sets emission limit values and monitoring requirements for pollutants to air such as dust, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), heavy metals and dioxins and furans. The Directive also sets controls on releases to water resulting from the treatment of the waste gases. Most types of waste incineration plants fall within the scope of the WI Directive, with some exceptions, such as those treating only biomass (e.g. vegetable waste from agriculture and forestry). Experimental plants with a limited capacity used for research and development of improved incineration processes are also excluded. The WI Directive makes a distinction between: -

incineration plants (which are dedicated to the thermal treatment of waste and may or may not recover heat generated by combustion);

and -

co-incineration plants (such as cement or lime kilns, steel plants or power plants whose main purpose is energy generation or the production of material products and in which waste is used as a fuel or is thermally treated for the purpose of disposal) (European Commission, 2000b).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

22

Mohamed Alwaeli

Another directive of fundamental importance for the disposal of MSW is the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC (European Commission, 1999). The Directive’s overall aim is "to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human health, from the landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill". This legislation also has important implications for waste handling and waste disposal. The most important part is Article 5 (Waste and treatment not acceptable in landfills), which requires a reduction of biodegradable municipal solid waste going to landfills. the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC obliges Member States to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that they landfill to: -

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

75% of the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable MSW produced in 1995 levels by 2010; 50% of the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable MSW produced in 1995 levels by 2013; 35% of the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable MSW produced in 1995 levels by 2020.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Chapter 5

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RECYCLING Recycling means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations. Recycling is widely regarded to be environmentally beneficial and conducive to sustainable economic development. It not only turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources, but also make essential contributions to ecological sustainability in several ways: 1) demand for natural resources is reduced; 2) emissions to environment are decreased (less energy is used for reprocessing secondary materials than for extraction of virgin materials); 3) the amount of the solid waste is reduced and smaller amounts of waste remain for disposal. Recycling can also cause problems if it is not done in an environmentally responsible manner. Examples include operations for newsprint deinking, waste-oil recycling, solvent recycling, and metal recycling. In all of these processes, toxic contaminants that need to be properly managed are removed. Air contamination by volatile substances can also result (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002). However, recycling may not always be the best environmental option for a particular type of waste and a full analysis of the processes involved in recycling versus treatment and disposal should be made. Such analyses may be undertaken using life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is the analysis of a product throughout its lifetime (from cradle to grave) assess its impact on the environment. The analysis quantifies how much energy and raw materials are used and how much solid, liquid and gaseous waste is generated at each process stage of the product’s life. LCA comparing recycling versus

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

24

Mohamed Alwaeli

manufacturing of the product from virgin materials have been used to highlight the benefits of recycling (McDougall et al., 2009; White et al., 1995). Discovering how to utilize waste reduction and resource recycling programmes effectively has become a priority in recent years. The potential role of waste recycling has been the subject of many researchers. Recently, many research studies have been conducted to determine how to make recycling programmes more successful and propose various approaches for a sustainable SWM. Thomas (2001) studies how the public understanding’s effect on recycling performance. Williams and Kelly (2003) presents the evaluation of the public perception towards a recycling scheme of a local authority. A strategy planning for drop-off centers has been extensively discussed by Chang and Wei (1999). Various authors (Ball and Lawson, 1989; Martin et al., 2006; Mcdonald and Oates, 2003) have studied how important factors – economic, political and social conditions- influent the success of the recycling programmes and described people attitudes toward recycling programmes. Tam (2008) in his pioneering work, studied the cost and benefit on the current practice in dumping the construction waste to landfills and producing new natural materials for new concrete production, and the proposed concrete recycling method to recycle the construction waste as aggregate for new concrete production. With the advent of the cost on the current practice, it is found that the concrete recycling method can result in a huge sum of saving. The benefits gained from the concrete recycling method can balance the cost expended for the current practice. Therefore, recycling concrete waste for new production is a cost-effective method that also helps protecting the environment and achieves construction sustainability. European countries are usually more aggressive in waste reduction and recycling. Across EU, a range of regulations and economic instruments have been introduced to encourage and to develop more waste recycling. Within the European Union, packaging, end-of-life vehicles, electrical and electronic equipment waste is covered by European Directives which sets levels for the recycling and recovery of these waste stream. Regarding to economic instruments, a range of economic instruments exists to encourage diversion away from waste landfill. Economic instruments in use include landfill and incineration charges and taxes. Furthermore, zero waste concept has been proposed and promoted by various groups as Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIN). “Zero waste” is a philosophy and a design principle for the 21st Century that encourages waste minimization, maximizes reuse, and recycling. However, zero waste ensures that all waste has to be recycled into the marketplace or nature so that human health and environment are protected.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

25

Most developed countries have been promoting recycling. In OECD countries, waste recycling has expanded dramatically. In the United States, some 9000 municipalities have introduced public collection of separated household waste for recycling since the 1970s, with some achieving municipal waste recovery rates of 50 % (USEPA, 2006; de Tilly, 2004). Among EU-15 countries, recycling of municipal solid waste varies from 4 % in Portugal to 64 % in the Netherlands (DEFRA, 2007). When analyzing the state of MSW recycling in EU, we observe that the rate of MSW in EU differ substantially between Member States. The data shows that in 2007, 22% (of waste treated) was recycled. The Member States with the highest recycling rates for municipal waste were Germany (46%), Belgium (39%), Sweden (37%), Estonia and Ireland (both 34%) (European Commission, 2009). In 2008, in the EU27, out of waste generated, 23% was recycled. Similar to the previous year, the Member States with the highest recycling rates for municipal waste were Germany (48%), Belgium and Sweden (both 35%), Ireland and the Netherlands (both 32%) and Slovenia (31%) (European Commission, 2010). Recycling of waste is assumed to reach a level of 42% in 2020. Total MSW recycled in EU-27 within in 2007 and 2008 is shown in Figure 5.1. Over time, the USA have increased recycling rates from just over 6 % of MSW generated in 1960 to about 10 % in 1980, to 16 % in 1990, to 29 % in 2000, and to over 33 percent in 2007 (USEPA, 2007). Total MSW recycled in the USA within the period of 1960 to 2007 presented in Figure 5.2. 50 45 40 MSW recycled [%]

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE GR ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Countries 2007

2008

Figure 5.1. Total MSW recycled in EU-27 in 2007 and 2008.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

26

Mohamed Alwaeli 35

MSW recycled [%]

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960

1980

1990

2000

2007

Year

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 5.2. Total MSW recycled in the USA within the period of 1960 to 2007.

The level of recycling in kilograms per capita varies a lot between the old EU-15 and new EU countries. Figure 5.3 shows how the total amount of recycled waste per capita has developed in the old EU Member States and Norway. The data show that the general trend is a relatively steep increase in the period from 1995 to 2006 varying by a factor of 1.5 to a factor of 6 per capita. Countries with a very high initial level of recycling per capita, like Germany and the Netherlands, have a more gentle increase compared to countries with a lower level per capita like, for example, Greece and Ireland. In 2005 and 2006 in the old Member States the level varies from 60 kilogram to 370 kilogram per capita (ETC/RWM, 2008). Among the old EU Member States and Norway, Germany has the highest recycling level in kg per capita, followed by Netherlands, Denmark and Luxemburg. The development in the total level of recycling of municipal waste in the old EU Member States and Norway can be related to six different groups: -

-

-

A group of countries with a very high (> 50%) level of recycling and still increasing yearly level (> 0.25 percentage point) since 2000: Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands; A group of countries with a high level of recycling (40%-50%), and still increasing yearly level (> 0.5 percentage point) since 2000: Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden; A group of countries, which have a medium level of recycling (25%40%), and very high ( > 0. 75 percentage point) yearly increase since 2000: Ireland and United Kingdom;

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

400 350

Austria Belgium

300 kg/kapita

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Denmark

250

Finland

200

France

150

Greece

100

Ireland

Germany

Italy

50

Luxembourg Netherlands

0 1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

5006

Period

Norway Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom

Source: Calculated based on Eurostat Structural Indicator data. Note: The recycling rate is estimated as the residual of generation once landfill and incineration are subtracted. Figure 5.3. MSW recycling development in the old EU Member States within the period of 2000 to 2006.

28

Mohamed Alwaeli -

-

-

A group of countries, which have a medium level of recycling (25%40%), and a modest (< 0.75 percentage point) yearly increase since 2000: Finland and France; A group of countries, which have a lower level of recycling (10%25%), and very high ( > 0. 75 percentage point) yearly increase since 2000: Italy and Portugal; A group of countries, which have a lower level of recycling (10%25%), and a modest ( < 0. 75 percentage point) yearly increase since 2000: Greece and Spain (ETC/RWM, 2009).

In the new Member States the waste statistics generally improved from 2002. The data presented in Figure 5.4 shows the new Member States have also, in recent years, had an increase in recycling per capita from a factor of 1.5 to a factor of 3. Many of the new Member States have a recycling level per capita similar to that in Greece, Portugal and Spain. In the new Member States, in 2005-2006, the level varies from 20 kilogram to 100 kilogram per capita. The development in the total level of recycling of municipal waste in the new EU Member States can be related to four different groups:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

-

-

-

A group of countries with a quite high (> 30%) level of recycling and a very high increasing yearly level (> 5 percentage point) since 2000: Czech Republic; A group of countries with a relatively high (> 20%) level of recycling, but where the level has been constant since 2000: Bulgaria and Romania; A group of countries with a lower level of recycling (10%-15%), but with an increasing yearly level (> 0.5 percentage point) since 2000: Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia; A group of countries, which have a lower level of recycling (< 11%), and where the development is fluctuating: Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. The development in figure 5.4 indicates that the recycling rate in the Czech Republic has increased very rapidly, around 5 percentage points per year in the last five years (ETC/RWM, 2009).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

140 Bulgaria

120

Cyprus Czech Republic

100 kg/kapita

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Estonia Hungary

80

Latvia Lithuania

60

Malta Poland

40

Romania Slovakia

20

Slovenia

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Source: Calculated based on Eurostat Structural Indicator data. Note: The recycling rate is estimated as the residual of generation once landfill and incineration are subtracted. Figure 5.4. MSW recycling development in the new EU Member States within the period of 2000 to 2006.

30

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.1. THE RECYCLING PROCESS Recycling is the process of collecting certain materials that would otherwise be considered waste — like old metal, paper, wood, or plastic for example — and turning them into new re-usable products. Recycling includes collecting and processing recyclable materials, manufacturing recycledcontent products, and purchasing recycled products creates a circle or loop that ensures the overall success and value of recycling. The first step required for recycling process is collecting recyclable 1 materials from communities. There are four primary methods: kerbside , drop2 3 off centers , and buy-back centers . Currently many major cities and larger communities offer a kerbside pick up service for recyclable materials. Regardless of the method used to collect the recyclables, the next step is usually the same “sorting”. Recyclables are sent to a materials recovery facility to be sorted and prepared into marketable commodities for manufacturing. Manufacturing is the third step in the recycling process. Once cleaned and separated, the recyclables are ready to undergo the second part of the recycling loop. The last step, but certainly not the least, involves the purchasing of recycled products.

How Does a Sorting Plant Work? The plant uses a variety of sorting devices, including screens, magnets and ultraviolet optical scanners that trigger blasts of air to separate plastic bottles from the rest of the items, as well as spinning, star-shaped plastic devices that separate newspaper from cans and bottles by pushing the paper higher up an inclined screen so the heavier, smaller cans and bottles tumble down to a lower level.

1

The main categories are mixed waste collection, commingled recyclables and source separation. A waste collection vehicle generally picks up the waste. 2 Drop-off centres require the waste producer to carry the recyclables to a central location, either an installed or mobile collection station or the reprocessing plant itself. They are the easiest type of collection to establish, but suffer from low and unpredictable throughput. 3 Buy-back centres differ in that the cleaned recyclables are purchased, thus providing a clear incentive for use and creating a stable supply.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

31

Initially, the commingled recyclables are removed from the collection vehicle and placed on a conveyor belt spread out in a single layer. Large pieces of corrugated fiberboard and plastic bags are sorted out by hand at this stage, as they can cause later machinery to jam. Next, automated machinery separates the recyclates by weight, splitting lighter paper and plastic from heavier glass and metal. Cardboard is removed from the mixed paper, and the most common types of plastic, PET and HDPE, are collected. This separation is usually done by hand, but has become automated in some sorting centers: a spectroscopic scanner is used to differentiate between different types of paper and plastic based on the absorbed wavelengths, and subsequently divert each material into the proper collection channel. Strong magnets are used to separate out ferrous metals, such as iron, steel, and tin-plated steel cans ("tin cans"). Non-ferrous metals are ejected by magnetic eddy currents in which a rotating magnetic field induces an electric current around the aluminium cans, which in turn creates a magnetic eddy current inside the cans. This magnetic eddy current is repulsed by a large magnetic field, and the cans are ejected from the rest of the recyclables stream. Finally, glass must be sorted by hand based on its color: brown, amber, green or clear (The Economist, 2007). The design of a typical mixed municipal solid waste recycling facility is shown in Figure 5.5. The example is for a facility which can recover ferrous metals, glass, plastics, paper, organic fraction and non-ferrous metals. The design would include mechanical and manual separation process. At the first segregation, large quantities of light fraction and ferrous fraction would not require second and third separation and therefore can be directed to processing and reuse. The stages of separation include trammel screening, magnetic separation and manual sorting. Manual sorting is necessary to separate different types of plastic and different coloured glass, although the trend is towards an increase in mechanisation of the process. The mixed municipal solid waste materials recycling facility would recover approximately 15% of waste stream as usable materials. the remaining 85% is largely organic and can be used to produce fuel (refuse derived fuel, RDF), converted to compost (Williams, 2005).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 5.5. Example of the design of mixed municipal solid waste recycling facility.

Recycling

33

5.2. EXAMPLES OF WASTE RECYCLING The theoretically recyclable components of MSW include paper and cardboard, plastics, metals, glass, and organic materials. The recycling of glass, metals, plastic, paper and cardboard is the backbone of the recycling of municipal waste in most countries. Bio waste, in the form of kitchen waste and green garden waste, is also a substantial part of the recycling Approximately 60% of all waste in the form of paper, plastics, glass, metals and organic waste, is potentially recyclable after discounting the contaminated materials (Waste-Stream, 2007; European Communities, 2003).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.2.1. Paper Most of the products made of paper only have a life span of a few days (e.g. newspapers) or a few weeks (e.g. packaging). Therefore, it is not striking that the thought of recycling has been a firm component of paper production for a long time. As early as the 13th century, recovered paper was reused. Not only the technical conditions have changed in the following centuries, but also the reasons for recycling. At the beginning, suitable raw material for producing writable material was scarce and the use of recovered paper was largely determined by economic interest. Especially in countries with not much wood, the consumption of wood could be reduced and the forests could be saved. Today the economic advantages are largely exploited. The increase of recovered paper use in industrialized countries is determined by problems of disposal. In the sense of resource saving, the recycling of used cardboard packaging materials and other papers is a further example in accordance with the idea of “sustainable development”. It is a prime example for treating all resources including the renewable ones as carefully as possible (Onusseit, 2006). Paper and cardboard are mostly made from a fibre called cellulose that comes from trees harvested from plantations and forests. The main types of paper which can be recycled include: -

office white paper; newspapers, magazines, telephone directories and pamphlets; cardboard boxes and cartons; mixed or coloured paper; computer print out paper (Waste on line, 2006).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

34

Mohamed Alwaeli

Waste paper is graded across Europe into different categories based on quality. Under the 2001 European list of Standard Grades of Recovered Paper and Board, the 60 grades of waste paper in Europe are categorised into five main groups include: -

-

-

-

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

ordinary grades - these papers tend to contain a substantial amount of short fibres. Subcategories include mixed paper and board, grey board, mixed newspapers and magazines, corrugated paper and board, and sorted graphic paper for de-inking; medium grades - this category contains unsold newspapers free from inserts, printed white shavings, sorted office paper, coloured letters, white books, coloured magazines, as well as continuous computer print-out paper; high grades - predominantly white papers made from virgin fibres. Subcategories include mixed lightly coloured printer shavings, binders, letters, white business forms, white computer print-out, printed multi-ply board, white shavings and unbleached board; kraft grades - generally come from brown unbleached packaging materials such as paper sacks and corrugated cases. Their long, strong fibres make them suitable for recycling into new packaging; special grades - this a hotchpotch of papers which tend to be uneconomic to sort and so are used in the middle layers of packaging papers and boards. This category includes mixed recovered paper and board, mixed packaging, wet-strength papers and labels (EN 643 Standards, 2001).

The degree of reprocessing of the recycled paper and cardboard required, depends on the grade of paper collected as waste, and the end use. The higher quality grades collected such as paper-mill production scrap and offices waste, required less processing and tissues. Intermediate grades of waste paper, such as newspapers, require further processing to de-link the paper and can be recycled back into the newspaper industry for newprint. Lower quantity waste paper is used mainly for packaging material and constitutes the main route for recycled paper and cardboard (Williams, 2005). The recycling process involves an initial stage where paper and cardboard is sorted, graded, and pulped. The pulp is then screened to remove contamination, cleaned and de-inked through a number of processes until it is suitable for papermaking.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

35

Technically, it is possible to make products entirely from secondary fibre but it is not possible to utilize waste-paper to produce products requiring a higher quality of fibre than that contained in the waste itself without the quality of the final product being downgraded. However, the development of the technology to reduce loss of fibre fines to a minimum without loss of final paper quality would have great potential. For example, it has been claimed that the addition of 1% of chitin to pulp increases the strength of the paper, speeds up the rate at which water drains from the pulp, and increases the quantity of fibre retained when making sheets of paper, thus opening up opportunities to use cheaper, weaker fibres without losing quality (Ronald and Harrison, 1995). Paper from household waste is usually graded as ‘mixed’ and tends to be suitable only for low grade board products, test liners, and industrial paper towels, and as bulk or packaging grades where the use of primary pulp is uneconomic. Currently, economics suggest that the waste-to-energy option for recovery of paper from mechanical separation plants is favoured. The paper and cardboard recycling level has increased in all the old EU Member States and Norway, but figure shows significant differences between the old Member States. Between 1995 and 2006, the recycling of paper and cardboard has increased per capita by a factor of 2 to 3 for Belgium, Ireland and Norway. The increase is between 1.5 to 2 times for Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal and United Kingdom. The level in kilograms varies from about 10 kilograms per capita in Portugal and Spain to 140 kilograms in Ireland. Most countries have a level between 60 to 80 kilograms recycling per capita. Germany, Ireland and Sweden can differentiate between total amount of paper and cardboard recycled and cardboard and paper packaging waste recycled. The difference is assumed to indicate the amount of newspaper and writing paper recycled. The high amount of recycling for Germany, Ireland and Sweden can therefore be partly explained by the inclusion in the total figures of recycled packaging paper and cardboard as well as of other paper waste. For the countries with only one figure it is not possible at this stage to say whether the figures also include both packaging and other types such as newspaper and writing paper. In the new EU Member States the level has also increased in all Member States but from a starting level normally below 10 kilogram per capita. In the new Member States there is also a huge variation in recycling levels achieved. The Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia in particular have seen a significant increase. The level for the Czech Republic and Estonia is in line with the level

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

36

Mohamed Alwaeli

in Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom. However, for the Czech Republic and Estonia the high increase is partly due to the inclusion of both packaging and other types such as newspaper and writing paper (ETC/RWM 2009). Waste paper and cardboard are already significant sources of (valuable) raw material. According to the last CEPI Statistics (Confederation of European Paper Industries) about 47.8 % of paper produced in CEPI countries is from recovered paper. The recovered paper utilization rate in CEPI countries differs by type of paper. The highest recovered paper utilization was observed for case materials (packaging) (91.3 %) and newsprint (84.4 %), while the lowest share is 9.7% for other graphic paper (Waste-Stream, 2007). However, there are differences between the new and old member states. In the new member states, the use of waste paper as secondary material is still going through several transition periods for the implementation of the landfill and packaging directive and low landfilling costs; in comparison, high investments into separate collection and sorting are still significant. Recycling and use of waste paper as secondary source became alternatives to costly disposal. For the near future a growing amount of recycled waste paper can be expected as a consequence of the implementation of the Landfill Directive, the Packaging Directive etc. EU member states must introduce systems for the return and/or collection of used packaging, so that the implementation of EU directives is and will remain one of the main driving forces of change. Paper and cardboard fact file -

-

-

Every tonne of paper recycled saves 2.5 barrels of oil, 4,100 kWh of electricity, 4 cubic metres of landfill and 31, 780 litres of water. Every year around 3.5 million tonnes of paper and cardboard is used in Australia, enough to fill 160,000 large semi trailers. Almost 90% of waste paper recycled in Australia is used to make packaging and industrial paper. Recycling 1 tonne of paper and cardboard saves 13 trees. It takes 2.5 tonnes of radiata pine to make one tonne of newsprint. 17 trees can absorb the carbon dioxide emitted from your car each year, trapping the carbon in the wood and releasing the oxygen back into our atmosphere. All newspaper manufactured in Australia have a recycled content of up to 40%. The inky residue extracted from printed-paper in the recycling process is mixed with waste wood fibres and used as a soil conditioner.

Sources: Clean up.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

37

Therefore, ERPC members committed themselves to increase the recycling rate until the year 2010 to 66 %. This commitment includes all 27 EU member countries. Simultaneously, the signers of the declaration committed themselves to invest into research for innovative technologies. This includes the waste paper recycling as well as material utilization of residual materials.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.2.2. Metal Iron and steel are the world's most recycled materials, and among the easiest materials to reprocess, as they can be separated magnetically from the waste stream. Recycling is via a steelworks: scrap is either remelted in an electric arc furnace (90-100% scrap), or used as part of the charge in a Basic Oxygen Furnace (around 25% scrap) (Sustainable Development and Steel, 2006). Any grade of steel can be recycled to top quality new metal, with no 'downgrading' from prime to lower quality materials as steel is recycled repeatedly. 42% of crude steel produced is recycled material (Steel, 2006). Among non-ferrous metals, aluminium is one of the most efficient and widely recycled materials. This is due to the high price of aluminum and the aluminum industry’s infrastructure support. The economic value of aluminum has always been a reason for bringing the material into the loop of metal extraction, processing, use and recovery. Aluminum has been recycled since the days it was first commercially produced and today recycled aluminum accounts for one-third of global aluminum consumption worldwide. The use of eddy current separators in sorting makes it economically attractive to collect and recycle all packaging containing aluminum and aluminum foil, and this contributes to fulfilling the recycling specifications of the packaging directive (Onusseit, 2006). During recycling, aluminium is shredded and ground into small pieces or crushed into bales. These pieces or bales are melted in an aluminium smelter to produce molten aluminium, which is far less expensive and energy intensive than creating new aluminium from bauxite . Recycling aluminium saves 95% of the energy cost of processing new aluminium. This is because the temperature necessary for melting recycled, nearly pure, aluminium is 600 °C, while to extract mined aluminium from its ore requires 900 °C. By this stage the recycled aluminium is indistinguishable from virgin aluminium and further processing is identical for both. This process does not damage the

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

38

Mohamed Alwaeli

metal's structure, aluminium can be recycled indefinitely and still be used to produce any product for which new aluminium could have been used (Waste on line, 2005,; USGS, 2008 ). Scrap metal recycling, also called secondary metal processing is one of the most recyclable products. Most metals are recycled by melting down scrap metal and reusing it in the production of new products. Scrap metals or secondary metals are derived either from industrial operations, such as the smelting or refining plant, and from the manufacture of metal shapes and products, or post-consumer metal products collected from the waste stream. The industrial operations scrap metal is a purer from the metal since it comes directly from the manufacturing industry. The metals content of household waste is estimated at between 5 and 10% and is mainly in the form of tin plated steel cans for drinks, and tinned foods and aluminium drinks cans. Other metals in household waste stream include copper, zinc and lead. However, because of the divers nature of the mode of occurrence of these metals, very little is recycled from household waste(Williams, 2005). Some recycling of metals is related to packaging waste but not all. The recycling level in EU is normal between 6 to 14 kilograms per capita but the level is higher for Denmark and Sweden. This can partly be explained by the fact that the data for these countries include other metals than packaging waste. In new Member States the recycling level is generally lower than 10 kilogram per capita although this has been increasing for Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Estonia. The recycling level is very low for metal packaging when looking at countries where the packaging part has been possible to indicate (ETC/RWM 2009) . Aluminium fact file -

-

recycling 1kg of aluminium saves up to 6kg of bauxite, 4kg of chemical products and 14 kWh of electricity. the re-melting of aluminium from recycled scrap can save up to 95% of the energy required to extract and process primary aluminium. recycling aluminium produces only 5% of the CO2 emissions as compared with primary production. if all the aluminium cans in the UK were recycled there would be 14 million fewer full dustbins each year.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

39

Steel fact file Every tonne of steel packaging recycled makes the following environmental savings: -

1.5 tonnes of iron ore, 0.5 tonnes of coal, 40% of the water required in production, 75% of the energy needed to make steel from virgin material, 1.28 tonnes of solid waste Reduction of air emissions by 86%. Reduction of water pollution by 76%.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.2.3. Plastics Ever since the first industrial scale production of synthetic polymers (plastics) took place in the 1940s, the production, consumption and waste generation rate of plastic solid waste has increased considerably. Thus, plastics recycling has been a focus of many researchers in the past few decades. Such research is also driven by changes in regulatory and environmental issues (AlSalem et al., 2009). Plastics are used in our daily lives in a number of applications. From greenhouses, mulches, coating and wiring, to packaging, films, covers, bags and containers. It is only reasonable to find a considerable amount of PSW in the final stream of municipal solid waste. In the European Union countries, over 250 x 106 tonnes of municipal solid waste are produced each year, with an annual growth of 3%. In 1990, each individual in the world produced an average of 250 kg of MSW generating in total 1.3 x 109 tonnes of MSW (Beede and Bloom, 1995). Ten years later, this amount almost doubled leveling at 2.3 x 109 tonnes. In US, plastics found in MSW has increased from 11% in 2002 to 12.1% in 2007 (Al-Salem et al., 2009). Plastic is the most frequently used type of packaging material because of its low cost and light weight. It can be manufactured in a variety of sizes and shapes, allowing companies to make convenient packages for the user of a particular item. Plastics are organic polymeric materials consisting of giant organic molecules. The structure and degree of polymerisation of a given polymer determine its characteristics. Linear polymers (a single linear chain of monomers) and branched polymers (linear with side chains) are thermoplastic, that is they soften when heated. Cross-linked polymers (two or more chains

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

40

Mohamed Alwaeli

joined by side chains) are thermosetting, that is, they harden when heated. Thermoplatics are by far the most common types of plastic comprising almost 80%. Examples of thermoplastics include: -

high density polyethylene (HDPE); low density polyethylene (LDPE); polyethylene terephthalate (PET); polypropylene (PP); polystyrene (PS); polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Thermosets make up the remaining 20% of plastics produced. They are hardened by curing and cannot be re-melted or re-moulded and are therefore difficult to recycle. They include:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

polyurethane (PU); epoxy; phenolics (Moore, 2010).

Thermoplastics contribute to the total plastic consumption by roughly 80%, and are used for typical plastics applications such as packaging but also in non-plastics applications such as textile fibres and coatings (Dewil et al., 2006). While plastics are found in all major MSW categories, containers and packaging plastics (bags, sacks, and wraps, other packaging, other containers, and soft drink, milk, and water containers) represent the highest tonnage (USEPA, 2002; USEPA, 2008). In durable goods, plastics are found in appliances, furniture, casings of lead-acid batteries, and other products. In the UK, recent studies show that PSW make up 7% of the final waste stream (Parfitt, 2002). Packaging accounts for 37.2% of all plastics consumed in Europe and 35% worldwide (Clark and Hardy, 2004). Plastic recycling is the process of recovering scrap or waste plastics and reprocessing the material into useful products. However, compared to glass or metallic materials, plastic require greater processing to be recycled. Because of the massive number of types of plastic, they each carry a resin identification code, and must be sorted before they can be recycled. This can be costly; while metals can be sorted using electromagnets, no such 'easy sorting' capability exists for plastics. In addition to this, while labels do not need to be removed from bottles for recycling, lids are often made from a different kind of non-

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

41

recyclable plastic so that proper division in the first stage becomes absolutely necessary (Anne Clement, IPF on line). There are four types of recycling processes that usually occur: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. The primary recycling process is recycling materials and products that contain similar features of the original product. This process is only feasible with semi-clean industrial scrap plastics, therefore this process is not widely used. Secondary recycling allows for a higher mixture of combination levels in plastics. When the secondary process of recycling is used it creates products such as fenceposts and any products that can be used in the substitution of wood, concrete, and metal. The low mechanical properties of these types of plastics are the reason why the above products are created. Tertiary recycling is occurring more and more today because of the need to adapt to the high levels of waste contamination. The actual process involves producing basic chemicals and fuels from plastic. The last form of recycling is the quarternary process. This quarternary process uses the energy from plastic by burning. This process is the most common and widely used in recycling. The reason this process is widely used is because of the high heat content of most plastics. Most incinerators used in the process can reach temperatures as high as 900 to 1000 degrees Celsius. For the sake of the environment the new techniques being used with the incinerators have decreased the amount of air pollutants being released (Northern Composite Products Inc, 2010). Plastics fact file -

More than 20,000 plastic bottles are needed to obtain 1tonne of plastic. It is estimated that 100 million tonnes of plastics are produced each year. The average European throws away 36kg of plastics each year. 4% of oil consumption in Europe is used for the manufacture of plastic products. Some plastic waste sacks are made from 64% recycled plastic. Plastics packaging totals 42% of total consumption and very little of this is recycled.

Source: Technical brief, Practical Action Recycling of Plastics.

Additionally, Increasing cost and decreasing space of landfills are forcing considerations of alternative options for plastics waste disposal (Zia et al.,

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

42

Mohamed Alwaeli

2007). Years of research, study and testing have resulted in a number of treatment, recycling and recovery methods for PSW that can be economically and environmentally viable (Howard, 2002). The plastic industry has successfully identified workable technologies for recovering treating, and recycling of waste from discarded products. Each method provides a unique set of advantages that make it particularly beneficial for specific locations, applications or requirements. Mechanical recycling (i.e. secondary or material recycling) involves physical treatment, whilst chemical recycling and treatment (i.e. tertiary encompassing feedstock recycling) produces feedstock chemicals for the chemical industry. Energy recovery involves complete or partial oxidation of the material (Troitsch, 1990), producing heat, power and/or gaseous fuels, oils and chars besides by-products that must be disposed of, such as ash. The recycling of plastics, is a growing concern in Western societies. This result was influenced by waste legislation and EU recycling targets like the EU Packaging and Landfill Directives. The level of recycling of plastic waste has increased in many of the old EU Member States and Norway, but the level is still generally low. According to (ETC/RWM 2009), it varies strongly between old Member States. Apart from Germany all countries have a level below 15 kilogram recycling per capita and most are below 5 kilogram per capita. Within Europe, Germany has the largest number of plastics recycling plants in Europe. About 21.4% of the plastics recycling plants in the EU are situated in Germany. Another 14.3% are located in the UK, 13% in Italy, 8.9% in France and 7.6 % in Spain. The higher recycling level in Germany and Ireland can partly be explained by these countries have both packaging and non packaging waste included in the figures. In most of the new EU Member States the recycling level of plastic amounts between 3 to 6 kilograms per capita, not far below that reported by old Member States and Norway. The Czech Republic has a very high level compared to other new Member States primarily due to an increase in the recycling of plastic packaging waste.

5.2.4. Glass Glass is made from relatively cheap raw materials. The three principal raw materials used in glass manufacturing are: sand, soda ash, and limestone. However, glass making is energy intensive and glass recycling can reduce the

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

43

energy used, since recycled glass melts at a lower temperature than the raw materials. Glass makes up a large component of household and industrial waste due to its weight and density. The glass component in municipal waste is usually made up of bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs and other items. Glass recycling is the process of turning waste glass into usable products. The collected glass cullet is taken to a glass recycling plant where it is monitored for purity and contaminants are removed. The cullet is crushed and added to a raw material mix in a melting furnace. It is then mechanically blown or molded into new jars or bottles. Glass can be recycled indefinitely as its structure does not deteriorate when reprocessed. Glass cullet is also used in the construction industry for aggregate and glassphalt. Glass recycling uses less energy than manufacturing glass from sand, lime and soda. The European glass recycling market has a long tradition. Some 30 years ago, the glass industry began to take back used glass and to recycle it into new bottles and jars. The main markets for cullet are manufacturers of recycled glass containers. Different types of glass can be recycled, but only container glass can be turned into furnace-ready cullet. Each type of glass has a different chemical make-up that alters its capability to be recycled. The amount of waste glass which glass manufacturers can utilize in their operations depends on the desired colour of their products and the colour of the waste cullet available. The colour of glass is dependent on the iron and chromium content and the chemical state of the metal ions in the glass. Different colours of glass cannot be reliably separated by automatic methods, and chemical methods for removing the metal ions from the glass are not available. As a result, colourless glass cannot be made from cullet contaminated with coloured glass. Colour segregation of waste glass is essential to achieve higher recycling rates. Effective collection and segregation can be achieved economically by source segregation and kerbside schemes. At best, source segregation and kerbside schemes could achieve recovery levels around 70%. Moreover, glass collected this way can be recycled easily to make more glass containers because it is relatively clean and well-segregated (closed loop recycling). Nowadays, most glass manufacturers are tending to make payments for mixed waste glass only in situations where there has been a long-standing arrangement to do so. Mixed coloured glass collection is discouraged (Ronald and Harrison, 1995). Within Europe, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands record the highest waste glass recycling rate is more than 60 % (Waste Stream, 2007).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

44

Mohamed Alwaeli Glass fact fil -

Each tonne of glass returned to the melting furnaces reduces the glass industry's demands for new raw materials by 1.2 tonnes. Using recycled glass to produce new glass also reduces CO2 emissions in two different ways; it is easier to melt than are individual raw materials, and so takes less fuel: and it contains no carbonates so does not release any CO2 during the melting process.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Sources: Williams, 2005; WRAP, 2003; Glass recycling information sheet, 2006.

In 2005 the recycling level of glass per capita in the old EU Member States was between 10 and 40 kilograms. In the new Member States this was normally between 2 and 20 kilograms. It has to be underlined that a low recycling level of glass in kilogram can be caused by a low consumption of glass due to the use of refillable glass packaging. Many of the new Member States, however, have the same consumption per capita of glass packaging as the old Member States and the level of recycling could therefore be increased in these countries (EEA, 2008b; ETC/RWM 2008; ETC/RWM 2009 ). The success of glass recycling was influenced by legislation and EU recycling targets like:. -

the EU Packaging Directive demanding to recycle up to 60 % in 2008; the Landfill Directive; the EU document “Management of Construction and Demolition Waste”; Collection and recycling of waste glass is supported by several national specific regulations, especially regarding separate collection systems (Glass market, 2007).

5.2.5. End-of-Life Vehicles The reuse of parts and the reclamation of materials from end-of-life vehicles (ELV)is not a new industry. Metal parts in particular have for a long time had a value, either in terms of reuse or recycling. Nowadays there are many parts that can be recycled, from the oil and its filter to plastic bumpers.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

45

When a car reaches the end of its useful life it is usually sold to a vehicle dismantler. The dismantler will remove parts that can be sold for reuse, remove the potentially environmentally polluting materials such as operating fluids and batteries, and then sell the hulk on to a shredding operation. Shredders are high capacity hammer mills that break the hulk in to fist-sized parts. Ferrous metals are then removed by magnetic separation and nonferrous metals are sorted both mechanically and by hand. The proportion of ELVs currently recycled is much greater than any other consumer product; even so, around 408,000 tonnes of remaining material is buried in landfill sites each year. This material is mainly made up of plastics, rubber, glass, dirt, carpet fibres and seat foam (Waste on line, 2004). End-of-life vehicles are one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. In Europe, an estimated 10-11 million end-of-life vehicles are disposed of each year, resulting in 9 million tonnes of waste (JRC, 2010; Tavoularis et al., 2009). The increased quantity of ELVs has forced the countries of the European Union to face this problem, and subsequently this issue has been reflected in EU legislation. The European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53/EC, came into European Law in October 2000 and aims to control the huge amount of waste generated from the ELVs, whilst at the same time minimising the proportion of waste from ELVs annually directed to landfills. It also requires EU member states to meet recycling and recovery targets in 2006 of 75% and 85%, and of 85% and 95% by 2015. (European Commission, 2000a). The prevalent method of treating end-of-life vehicles consists of removing vehicle valuable parts (eg., engine), parts that contain toxic substances (eg., battery), and liquids (eg., engine oil). The remaining body of the car is then shredded into small pieces. From these, the ferrous metals are separated magnetically while other materials are separated based on their density or with chemical procedures. At the end of the shredding processing chain the Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) remains. ASR is the finely pulverised waste resulting from the shredding of ELVs or post-use household appliances after iron, steel and other metals as well as reusable parts have been removed. At present most shredder residue is disposed of in landfills or incinerated. The incineration process is considered to be detrimental to the environment due to the high amount of pollutants emitted, but is often the favoured option due to the high cost of landfills (Giannouli M. et al., 2007; Lanoir D et al., 1997; Funazaki A. et al., 2003). Recycling options for ELV are related to the material used for vehicle manufacturing as well as the assembly of its components. Vehicle composition has been shifting toward light materials such as aluminum and polymeric

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

46

Mohamed Alwaeli

constituents. As mentioned by (Zoboli et al.,2000), in 1965 the total weight of a European car included about 82% ferrous and non-ferrous metals (2% aluminum) and 2% plastics. In the mid-1980s, the content of ferrous and nonferrous metals averaged 74–75% (with 4.5% aluminum) and plastics were estimated at 8–10% of a European car’s weight. The use of lighter materials (aluminum and plastics) improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. It is believed that a 100 kg weight reduction of a vehicle results in a fuel savings of about 0.7 l/100 km. However, introducing lighter materials to vehicles also compensates for weight increases resulting from new comfort and safety features. In 2007, 24 Member States reported data on end-of life vehicles, but not all obligatory data have been provided. The 80% re-use and recycling target was met by 19 out of 27 Member States in 2006 and 21 in 2007. Member States not meeting the target in 2007 were: the Czech Republic, France, and Poland, while for Italy, Malta and Slovenia data was either missing or incomplete. An increase in re-use and recycling rates was observed in 14 Member States, 2 maintained stable re-use and recycling rates and 8 saw a decrease in their re-use and recycling levels. The 85% recovery target was met by only 12 out of 27 Member States in 2006 and by 14 in 2007. Between 2006 and 2007, the re-use and recovery rate increased in 14 Member States, remained stable in 3 and decreased in 7 (data for Italy, Malta and Slovenia were missing or incomplete) (European Commission. Flash report on recycling results in the EU)

5.2.6. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) The importance of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) recycling has become more evident over the last years. It is expected that quantities of WEEE will increase rapidly in the near future. Actually, WEEE constitutes 4% of municipal waste in EU (Yla-Mella, et al., 2004). Germany has a yearly electronic scrap waste stream of about 1.8 million tonnes. In Austria the total WEEE amounts 85000 tonnes per year with a tendency to rise, whereas 5000 tonnes are declared as hazardous waste (Antrekowitsch et al., 2006) In Poland, 30000 tonnes of WEEE were generated in 2005 (Gramatyka et al., 2007). Recycling of WEEE is an important subject not only from the point of waste treatment but also from the recovery of valuable materials. WEEE is non-homogenous and complex in terms of materials and components. In order to develop a cost effective and environmental friendly

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

47

recycling system, it is important to identify and quantify valuable materials and hazardous substances to understand the physical characteristic of this waste stream (Cui and Forssberg, 2003). In the European Union, electro-scrap is the fastest growing waste stream, growing at 3-5% per year, which is three times faster than average waste. Each EU citizen currently produces around 17-20 kg of WEEE per year. About 90 % of this waste is still landfilled, incinerated or recovered without any pretreatment. This allows the substances it contains, such as heavy metals and brominated flame retardants, to make their way into soil, water and air where they pose a risk to human health and cause environmental damage (European Communities, 2006). By the end of 2006, 8 out of 15 Member States bound by the collection target had already met it. Only 6 out of 15 Member States met all the applicable WEEE recycling targets in 2006. The data show that a majority of Member States will have to take steps to ensure that the prescribed targets are met on time.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.2.7. Bio Waste1 Over the past few years the recovery of bio waste has become an important part of waste recovery within the EU. Except of Greece, large parts of Spain, Portugal, France and Ireland, all the old European countries, undertake considerable efforts to collect the organic waste separately and to recycle it by various treatment types. The total amount per capita of total recycled bio waste has increased in most of the old EU Member States and Norway. In most countries it constitutes about 25% but in Denmark and Luxembourg over 40% of the total recycled municipal waste is bio waste. However, in some countries the recycling of bio waste is only a minor part of the recycling; for example, Ireland and Spain. The data shows that, within the period of 1995 to 2006, apart from Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, the recycled amount of bio waste has increased in kilograms by a factor of between 1.5 and 2. Further, in 10 of the old EU Member States and Norway, bio waste has the highest recycling per capita in weight. The data (ETC/RWM, 2009), shows huge differences between States in recycling in kilograms levels. Spain recycles only 10 kilograms of bio waste per capita, while Denmark and Luxembourg each 1

Bio-waste’ means biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants (European Commission, 2008).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

48

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

recycle about 130 kilograms of bio waste per capita. Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands recycle between 60 to 100 kilograms per capita, while France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom fall between 40 to 60 kilograms. Finland, Ireland and Portugal recycle between 20 to 40 kilograms of bio waste per capita. Bio waste, together with paper and cardboard, is the largest per capita portion of recycling of municipal waste in EU Member States. This implies that a difference between the countries in the recycled amount of bio waste has a large impact on the total amount, and percentage, of recycled municipal waste. In general, in the new EU Member States there has been little increase, and apart from Estonia, the level is quite low (under 10 kilograms). In the Czech Republic and Slovenia it is almost exclusively only garden waste that is recycled, whereas there is more recycling of bio kitchen waste in Estonia. Organic waste management will be increasingly influenced by decisions and the legislation of the European Parliament, e.g. EU Strategies on Soil Protection or on Waste Prevention and Recycling. In addition the EU Landfill Directive which requires until 2016 the diversion up to 65 % of the fermentable portion in the municipal waste to be landfilled is one of the main drivers for separate collection and composting in Europe. The management of biodegradable waste will be increasingly influenced by decisions and the legislation in Brussels, e.g. -

-

-

-

targets of the EU-Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC which commit all EU Member States to reduce the landfilling of biowaste, accompanied by a ban and a tax on waste to landfill and an increasing collection of separated organic materials (composting, fermentation); the EU-Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC that seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use; the progressive implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC in all Member States, that increases the quantities of sewage sludge requiring disposal; the EU Directive 183/2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene and the Soil Directive, which is expected to come into force in 2008, climate protection programmes as well as several standards and the implementation of quality assurance etc. ; the national and local waste planning by the municipalities and their engagement in the build up of separate collection systems.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

49

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.2.8. Other Methods of MSW Recycling Use of recycled materials in construction is among the most attractive options because of the large quantity, low quality requirements and widespread sites of construction. Improvement of concrete properties by the addition of proper materials is a popular field of concrete research. Compressive strength of concrete has been accepted as the most important mechanical property of structural concrete. The relationship between concrete composition and compressive strength has long been a matter of interest for researchers (de Larrard and Belloc, 1997). Various types of materials have been investigated as cement or aggregate replacement materials. Their substitution has been an interesting subject for research due to environmental and technical reasons. Frondistou-Yannas (1997) evaluated and compared the mechanical properties of ordinary concrete and concrete mixes made with the pieces of concrete from demolition waste in the place of natural coarse aggregate material. He found out that recycled concrete best matches the mechanical behavior of conventional concrete when the recycled concrete is enriched in gravel at the expense of mortar. The recycled aggregate concrete has a compressive strength of at least 76% and modulus of elasticity from 60% to 100% of the control mix. In recent studies, various types of materials have been investigated as sand or aggregates replacement. Batayneh et al., (2007) used demolished concrete, glass, and plastic in concrete production, and concluded that the main findings of this investigation revealed that the three types of waste materials could be reused successfully as partial substitutes for sand or coarse aggregates in concrete mixtures Different from the common materials, using waste plastic granules as lightweight aggregate in the production of lightweight concrete has attracted much attention from the researchers. This method provides both recycling of the plastic waste and production of a lightweight concrete in an economical way (Koide et al., 2002). Polypropylene (PP), Poly-ethylene (PE), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) and Polystyrene (PS) are some of the plastic waste used in lightweight concrete. The PET bottles are ahead of the waste with its high increasing speed of consumption. Therefore, one of the reasonable methods for disposal of PET waste, which causes environmental pollution, is using these waste in the other industrial areas. Industry of construction engineering area seems to be appropriate with its high consumption capacity. This area can consume a large amount of PET waste

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

50

Mohamed Alwaeli

Ismail and Al-Hashmi tested the use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as aggregate. Test results showed that the compressive strength, flexural strength, and dry density values of all waste plastic concrete mixtures tend to decrease below the values for the reference concrete mixtures with increasing the waste plastic ratio at all curing ages (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2008a). Akçaözoğlu et al. (2010) tested the use of shredded waste Poly-ethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottle granules as a lightweight aggregate in mortar was investigated. Investigation was carried out on two groups of mortar samples, one made with only PET aggregates and, second made with PET and sand aggregates together. Additionally, blast-furnace slag was also used as the replacement of cement on mass basis at the replacement ratio of 50% to reduce the amount of cement used and provide savings. Their results showed that mortar containing only PET aggregate, mortar containing PET and sand aggregate, and mortars modified with slag as cement replacement can be drop into structural lightweight concrete category in terms of unit weight and strength properties. Therefore, it was concluded that there is a potential for the use of shredded waste PET granules as aggregate in the production of structural lightweight concrete. The use of shredded waste PET granules due to its low unit weight reduces the unit weight of concrete which results in a reduction in the death weight of a structural concrete member of a building. Reduction in the death weight of a building will help to reduce the seismic risk of the building since the earthquake forces linearly dependant on the deadweight. Furthermore, it was also concluded that the use of shredded waste PET granules and GBFS in mortar would be helpful for the environmental concern. Kou et al (2009) investigated the fresh and hardened properties of lightweight aggregate concretes that are prepared with the use of recycled plastic waste sourced from scraped PVC pipes to replace river sand as fine aggregates. A number of laboratory prepared concrete mixes were tested, in which river sand was partially replaced by PVC plastic waste granules in percentages of 0%, 5%, 15%, 30% and 45% by volume. The results showed that, with an increase of replacement ratio of river sand by PVC granules: -

the workability and densities of the lightweight aggregate concrete were reduced; the compressive strength and tensile splitting strength were reduced; the ductility was improved because the modulus of elasticity decreased and the Poisson’s ratio increased;

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

51

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

and - the drying shrinkage and resistance to chloride ion penetration were improved. An attempt to substitute in concrete the 5% by weight of fine aggregate (natural sand) with an equal weight of PET aggregates manufactured from the waste un-washed PET bottles (WPET), was presented by Frigione (2010). He found that the WPET concretes display similar workability characteristics, compressive strength and splitting tensile strength slightly lower that the reference concrete and a moderately higher ductility. The recycling of waste glass poses a major problem for municipalities worldwide. Recently, many studies have focused on the uses of waste glassed as aggregates for cement concrete or as cement replacements (Shi C. and Zheng K., 2007). However, being amorphous and containing relatively large quantities of silicon and calcium, glass is, in theory, pozzolanic or even cementitious in nature when it is finely ground. Using glass as a cement component in concrete adds more to its value and allows the energy previously imparted to it during the glassmaking process to be exploited (Dyer and Dhir, 2001). Xie and Xi (2002) tested the use of recycled glass as a raw material in the manufacture of portland cement. The results showed that the addition of glass into cement raw mix (i) results in the formation of more liquid phase between 950 and 1250◦C; (ii) decreases C3S content in the clinker; and (iii) increases of calcium aluminate of formula NC8A3 content, which leads to flash setting and poor strength development of the cement. Approximately 40% alkalis such as Na2O and 80% of K2O evaporate when the burning temperature reaches 1350◦C, no further change happens above that temperature. Thus, most of the Na2O in soda-lime glass will stay in the clinker if glass is used as a raw material for cement production. Wang (2009) carried out a study into the effects of LCD glass sand on the properties of concrete, and concluded that (i) the compressive strength of LCD glass concrete decreased with increased glass sand replacement. Also, the later development of compressive strength showed a greater improvement. Furthermore, the compressive strengths for concrete with different amounts of glass sand replacement were not higher than that of the control group. This result suggests that the optimal LCD glass sand replacement is 20%. Similar results were obtained for the flexural strength, (ii) the durability of the concrete with 20% glass sand replacement was better than that of the control group, (iii) Surface resistivity for specimens with different amounts of LCD

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

52

Mohamed Alwaeli

glass sand replacement was also higher than that in the control group for mid to long curing ages, (iiii) the addition of 20% LCD glass sand to concrete satisfies the slump requirements and improves the strength and durability of concrete. Waste tire management and disposal is a major environmental concern in many countries. Stockpiling is dangerous, not only due to a potential negative environmental impact, but also because it presents a fire hazard and provides a breeding ground for rats, mice, vermin, and mosquitoes (Khaloo et al., 2008). Waste tire management is increasingly becoming a significant environmental, health, and aesthetic problem that is not easily solved. The use of waste tires as a concrete additive is a possible disposal solution. Many research concerning mechanical properties of concrete containing tire–rubber particles has been done by various researchers such as (Li et al., 2004; Hernandez-Olivares et al., 2002; Siddiquel and Naik, 2004; Guneyisi et al., 2004; Khatib and Bayomy, 1999). These previous findings reveal that the properties of rubberized concrete are affected by type, size, content, and the procedure of incorporating the rubber into the concrete. Because of the environmental threat associated with the waste tires, their proper disposal has attracted a lot of attention in the last years. In order to properly dispose of these millions of tires, the use of innovative techniques to recycle them is important. Without the proper disposal of these waste tires, the resulting stockpiles would cause major health risks for the public and the environment (Papakonstantinou and Tobolski 2006; Siddique and. Naik, 2004; Singh, 1993) Papakonstantinou and Tobolski (2006) examined the use of steel beads, a by product of the tire recycling process, in concrete mixtures. The experimental results indicate that although the compressive strength is reduced when steel beads are used, the toughness of the material greatly increases. Moreover, the workability of the mixtures fabricated was not significantly affected. Recently, mechanical properties of concrete containing a high volume of tire–rubber particles as mineral aggregates replacement were investigated by Khaloo et al. (2008). The results of a uniaxial compressive strain control test conducted on hardened concrete specimens indicate large reductions in the strength and tangential modulus of elasticity. The maximum toughness index, indicating the post failure strength of concrete, occurs in concretes with 25% rubber content. The results showed also that the fresh rubberized concrete mixtures with increasing rubber concentrations present lower unit weights compared to plain concrete. Workability of rubberized concrete with coarse

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

53

rubber particles is reduced with increasing rubber concentration; however, rubberized concrete with fine rubber particles exhibits an acceptable workability with respect to plain concrete.

5.2.8.1. Environmental and Economic Benefits The use of mentioned above solid waste as a partial replacement of raw materials in construction activities not only saves landfill space but also reduces the demand for extraction of natural raw materials. The reuse of these waste glasses in cement and concrete production has many benefits: -

-

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

cuts waste disposal costs, which are likely to rise due to landfill tax; conserves the environment by saving large amount of primary raw materials each year; extends the life of landfill sites, helping to conserve the countryside; saves a significant amount of energy and reduces the amount of CO2, NOx, and other air pollutants emitted from the manufacturer cement clinker when ground glass powder used as a cement replacement; increases public awareness of the problem of waste and benefits of recycling; offers many alternative uses for recycled glass based products, without compromising on either cost or quality (Shi and Zheng, 2007).

5.3. Contamination Effects Contamination is one of the main technical barriers to waste recycling. For example, household waste are mixtures of potentially reclaimable materials and gross contamination. There will also be minor contamination by dirt, grease, moisture, and other materials. Many contaminants can be removed by efficient sorting, cleaning, and refining operations. Some contaminants are more difficult (sometimes impossible) to remove, particularly if they are chemically or physically bound into the structure of the materials. There are two main categories of contaminant: -

those which are not removed during pre-treatment and processing operations and which impair the quality of the recycled material or product-commonly referred to as residual contaminants;

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

54

Mohamed Alwaeli and -

those which can be removed by processing but where removal reduces the yield of the reclaimed product, extends processing times to allow contaminants to be reduced to acceptable limits, or leads to discharge of toxic fumes, effluents, or solid waste, which requires additional abatement measures-referred to as non-residual contaminants (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.3.1. Plastics Plastics derived from household waste usually consist of a mixture of different polymer types, which cannot be processed easily unless they are separated. This fundamental difficulty of mixtures of different polymers means that identification and separation systems must be used. Compatibilizers are available to process some polymer combinations, but the products tend to be low value products such as wood substitutes. Plastics from household waste are also contaminated with dirt, labels, printing inks, and food residues which must be removed by cleaning processes. However, it is not usually possible to return recycled plastics to applications where good aesthetics are required. Pigmenting has to be used to mask the presence of contaiminats. Apart from the aesthetic limitation, recycled plastics are generally not suitable to be used for food and beverage packaging applications because of the difficulties of ensuring completely reliable sterilization of bacterial contaminants and complete removal of chemical contaminants which may have diffused into the plastics. Chemically recycled plastics are an exception to this. For plastics, there is also a degradation of mechanical properties because of the high temperature moulding processes which reduce polymer chain lengths. Because these shortened polymers cannot be removed, various additives, for example, impact modifiers, are used to improve mechanical properties. Fillers used to make plastics into composite materials are the most intractable contaminants, and the materials have little recycling potential apart from use as a fuel (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

55

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.3.2. Paper Contaminants in wastepaper dictate the standard and the quality of the final product. The most difficult contaminants are latex adhesives, plastics, and more recently flexographic inks, which are not removed by current flotation de-inking technologies, and water-resistant coatings which prevent or slow down the pulping process. The non-residual contaminants have the effect of reducing the quality of the final product; for example, from a pulp substitute to a packaging grade. Apart from adventitious contaminants, waste-paper is degraded by reprocessing which reduces the length of the fibres and hence the mechanical strength of the product. The presence of these degraded fibres is essentially as a contaminant which reduces the quality of the resultant paper and limits its range of application. The removal of the short fibres constitutes part of the ‘shrinkage’ which occurs when paper is recycled. Contaminants in waste paper dictate the standard and the quality of the final product. Waste paper is used as a substitute for primary pulp for writing, printing, wrappings, and tissues, and as bulk or packaging grades where the use of primary pulp is uneconomic. The most difficult contaminants are latex adhesives, plastics, and more recently flexographic inks, which are not removed by current flotation de-inking technologies, and water-resistant coatings which prevent or slow down the pulping process. The non-residual contaminants have the effect of reducing the quality of the final product; for example, from a pulp substitute to a packaging grade. Apart from adventitious contaminants, wastepaper is degraded by reprocessing which reduces the length of the fibres and hence the mechanical strength of the product. The presence of these degraded fibres is essentially as a contaminant which reduces the quality of the resultant paper and limits its range of application. The removal of the short fibres constitutes part of the ‘shrinkage’ which occurs when paper is recycled (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

5.3.3. Metal Technical barriers to ferrous and non-ferrous metals recycling are concerned with contamination by other metals and other non-metallics. For example, the residual contaminants, copper, tin, and nickel cause these defects in steel during hot rolling operations.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

56

Mohamed Alwaeli

In the case of aluminium recycling, the main problems are caused by alloys with other elements and other metals which are not removed before remelting of the scrap takes place. Can-stock may contain copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, manganese, and zinc; foil contains magnesium and silicon. Metal additions eventually reach an upper limit where properties of the alloy become adversely affected. Thermodynamic barriers prevent the removal of silicon, iron, and other metals which cause brittleness and loss of ductility, strength, and fracture toughness in the reclaimed metal. Elements which cannot be removed during remelting and refining processes are controlled in the final product by blending of the scrap with higher qualities of low residual scrap or pure aluminium metal. The principal technical barrier to ferrous metal recycling relates to the presence of non-ferrous metals and non-metallic materials which remain as contaminants in the scrap after processing. Some contaminants (non-persistent residuals) can be removed in the steel making process but usually entail additional processing costs; persistent residuals cannot be removed. Also there are costs of dealing with emissions, for example, zinc oxide from galvanized steel (Ronald and Harrison, 1995). Identification of contaminants and their separation from the scrap by effective methods could be helped enormously by proper ‘design for recycling’ of metal products and components. In the case of aluminium recycling, typical contaminants present in reclaimed scrap are shown in the table. The main problems are caused by alloys with other elements and other metals which are not removed before remelting of the scrap takes place. Can-stock may contain copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, manganese, and zinc; foil contains magnesium and silicon. Metal additions eventually reach an upper limit where properties of the alloy become adversely affected. Thermodynamic barriers prevent the removal of silicon, iron, and other metals which cause brittleness and loss of ductility, strength, and fracture toughness in the reclaimed metal. Elements which cannot be removed during remelting and refining processes are controlled in the final product by blending of the scrap with higher qualities of low residual scrap or pure aluminium metal. In contrast, lithium, magnesium, and zinc increase the rate of melt oxidation and therefore of dross formation during remelting and loss of useful alloying elements which can also lead to a reduction of mechanical properties. Tin, cadmium, and lead do not alloy with aluminium but, since their melting points are lower than for aluminium, they tend to be molten at

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

57

the forming temperatures for aluminium products, leading to metallurgical defects (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.3.4. Glass There are some possible negative effects of recycling glass, all of which are related to impurities that may be introduced into the glass furnace. Small pieces of ceramic material derived from pottery or other contaminants may not melt in the furnace giving rise to ‘stone' defects in the finished product. Metals can react in the furnace, giving rise to gas bubbles in the glass melt, again ending up in the finished product and causing rejects. Even more problematic are ‘glass ceramic' materials and heat resistant borosilicate glasses (e.g. ‘Pyrex') which are difficult to detect in the raw cullet and cause defects in finished products and can block the liquid glass flow in the glass moulding machinery. Most processors are equipped with magnetic and eddy current separation for the removal of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Investments have taken place in equipment for colour enhancement (to further improve the quality of a colour sorted stream) and colour separation (to sort a mixed coloured glass stream) (WRAP, 2004). Modern, properly equipped cullet beneficiation systems are designed to remove extraneous materials inherent to glass packaging. They will remove magnetic contaminants and non-magnetic metal (e.g. aluminium bottle caps and neck rings). Paper, plastic labels, cardboard, and similar items can be removed effectively. However, unexpected contaminants (e.g. brick, stones, ceramics, broken china, dirt, etc.) are not reliably removed. For glass, aesthetic appearance is the main property that is affected by the presence of contaminants. The colour of glass (i.e. green or amber) is dependent on the iron and chromium content and the chemical state of the metal ions in the glass. Different colours of glass cannot be reliably separated by automatic methods, and chemical methods for removing the metal ions from the glass are not available. As a result, colourless glass cannot be made from cullet contaminated with coloured glass, and although amber glass can be made from mixed amber and green cullet, the amount of green cullet acceptable in amber glass is limited. The net result is that most mixed cullet can only be used for green glass production (15% of the total container glass market) (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

58

Mohamed Alwaeli

5.3.5. Biowaste Metals are the contaminants of major concern in the applications of compost derived from household waste. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury originate from batteries, household dust, and various household chemicals, and can become more concentrated by the composting process. As few fundamental data are available on the uptake of heavy metals from composts, specifications of heavy metal concentrations for sewage sludge tend to be used as guidelines. Because no technology has been developed to remove heavy metals from compost, their presence as contaminants may limit the applications of composts to low value uses (Gascoigne and Ogilvie, 1995).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.4. THE BENEFITS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING We cannot sustain our consumerist lifestyle without waste generation and exhausting the natural resources. Currently products are manufactured with total or partial recycled content. The products that we use every day are made from recycled materials. Newspapers, paper towels, office paper, plastic bottles and aluminum cans are not only made of recycled materials, but they can also be recycled again. It is apparent that landfill, is clearly not the answer. This waste constitutes a potential source of secondary materials and fuels. Recycling is the essential method for solving this problem because it not only reduces amount of waste, but also has both environmental benefits as well as financial benefits. Recycling: •

•

Reduces Pollution - recycling helps to reduce air pollution by reducing the need for conventional waste disposal, and lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to virgin production. Products that are not biodegradable release toxic gases due to manufacturing, use, and improper disposal of the material. If the greenhouse gas emissions reach dangerous concentration levels, leads to changes in climate Saves Resources - there is a danger of natural resources being exhausted sooner than later. Resources like fossil fuel and ore metals are all limited resources that will be exhausted in years to come. The

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

•

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

59

use of waste as a substitute of raw materials is essential method to solve this problem. Saves Energy - the consumption of energy to manufacture a new product from a raw material exceeds far more that the energy required to produce materials from the recycled products. Hence recycling if done in large scale could also lead to reduction in energy costs and is more efficient in terms of energy consumption. The EPA states that "recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. (EPA, 2006). The Energy Information Administration (EIA) states that "a paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber. Saves Money - recycled materials will always have to compete with virgin raw materials on cost, availability, and quality. The amount of money actually saved through recycling depends on the efficiency of the recycling programme used to do it. (Waste to Wealth, 2006). As more items are reduced, the amount of waste that needs to go to the landfill or incinerator is also reduced. Through recycling, communities can save on their waste disposal costs (eg. landfill costs), which can be very expensive. In addition, through the sale of the recycled materials, communities can also offset the cost of their waste disposal, thereby further reducing their expenditure.

Recycling is a key component of modern waste reduction and is the third component of the three R’s of waste hierarchy. To explain recycling superiority over landfilling and incineration, in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. the impacts from waste incineration and landfilling versus recycling for paper and plastics are compared. The particular environmental burdens evaluated were: climate change energy demand, depletion of natural resources, and water consumption. The data shows that recycling of municipal solid waste consumes less energy, natural resources, water and imposes lower climate change burdens than disposal of solid waste materials via landfilling or incineration. The data shows that recycling of municipal solid waste consumes less energy, natural resources, water and imposes lower climate change burdens than disposal of solid waste materials via landfilling or incineration.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 5.1. Comparison in % of the impacts from the incineration with energy recovery and landfilling options vs. recycling for paper* Pba,1

Nsb,2

Cbc,2

Mcd,2

Pbi,4

Tej,4

250

-30

Enf,3 Mag,4 Oph,4 For climate change 80 80 ‐30

‐290

550

110

70

80

80

-90

‐130

11460

1430

1180

70

160

110

1260

100

-70

110

90 100 90 170 For depletion of natural resources -30 -40 n/a n/a

Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

90

-260

30

-10

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling

‐40

60

10

10

‐10

80

80

-300

90

n/a

80

90

100

80

10

100

100

100

n/a

Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling

530

n/a

n/a

n/a

20 160 100 For water consumption 30 30 n/a n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

530

n/a

n/a

n/a

30

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling

*

Pse,3

-20 n/a For energy demand ‐10 ‐130

30

n/a

n/a

Mpk,4

Pal,5

A positive value means that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that recycling causes more environmental burden than the other end-of-life option. a Paper and board, b Newspaper, c Corrugated board, d Mixed cardboard, e Paper tape, f Envelope in vellum paper,g Magazines, h Office paper, I Phone books, j Textbooks, k Mixed paper, l Paper, m Cardboard. Source: 1Arena et al., 2004; 2Finnveden, 2000; 3BIOIS, 2007; 4EPA, 2006; 5Raandal, 201.

Recycling

61

Table 5.2. Comparison in % of the impacts from the incineration with energy recovery and landfilling options vs. recycling for pltastics*

Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling Incineration with energy recovery Landfilling

PE1

PET1

310

210

100

HDPE2 LDPE2 For climate change 170 150

PP3

PVC3

50

0 10

70

220 100 100 60 For depletion of natural resources 80 n/a n/a 100

100

100

100

60

80

100

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a For energy demand 90 90

100

100

10

30

100 100 For water consumption n/a n/a

100

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

*

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A positive value means that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that recycling causes more environmental burden than the other end-of-life option. Source: 1BIOIS, 2007; 2 US EPA, 2006; 3Finnveden, 2000.

5.5. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MATERIALS RECYCLING A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis, ecobalance, and cradle-to-grave analysis) has been defined as a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system; evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs; and interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study (ISO, 1997). Life cycle assessment can be successfully applied to municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems to identify the overall environmental burdens and to assess the potential environmental impacts. At the moment, major concerns associated with waste management are not only public health and safety but also sustainable development. For sustainable development, MSW management has to be balanced between environmental

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

62

Mohamed Alwaeli

effectiveness, economic affordability and social acceptability to ensure the quality of life now and for coming generations. Concerning the environmental sustainability of MSW management systems, energy and resource conservation and reduced environmental impacts are desirable. To evaluate the performance of MSW management systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool (Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2007).

Positive Results and Advantages of Recycling -

-

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

-

-

-

-

Recycling turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. Energy saved from recycling one ton of aluminum is equal to the amount of electricity the average home uses over 10 years. Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours, a computer for 3 hours, or a TV for 2 hours. Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the energy used to make the material from scratch. That means you can make 20 cans out of recycled material with the same amount of energy it takes to make one can out of new material. Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74% of the energy used to produce them. A steel mill using recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution and mining waste by about 70%. Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity — enough energy to power the average American home for five months. Recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water. Producing recycled paper requires about 60 percent of the energy used to make paper from virgin wood pulp (USEPA, 2008). Glass never wears out. It can be recycled forever. For every ton of glass recycled, 1,330 pounds of sand, 433 pounds of soda ash, 433 pounds of limestone, and 151 pounds of feldspar can be saved. Recycling a ton of PET saves 7.4 cubic yards of landfill space. Collecting used bottles, cans, and newspapers and taking them to the kerb or to a collection facility is just the first in a series of steps that generates a host of financial, environmental, and social returns. Some of these benefits accrue locally as well as globally. One of the main reasons for recycling is to reduce the amount of waste directed to landfills. Subsequently, acres and acres of landfill space can be saved, and be diverted for other uses. Recycling just 35 percent of waste reduces toxic emissions equivalent to taking 36 million cars off the road. In 2009, according to the EPA, the national recycling rate of 33.8 percent (82 million tons recycled). This provides an annual benefit of 178 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced, comparable to the annual GHG emissions from almost 33 million passenger vehicles (USEPA, 2010).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

63

LCA is a methodology considering the entire life cycle of products and services—from cradle to grave. It looks at the impacts of the 'product system', including: -

the mining and extraction of raw materials; processing; transportation; use; recycling/ disposal.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The analysis quantifies how much energy and raw materials are used at each process stage of the product’s life. The emissions to air, water and land are also assessed at each stage of manufacture, use and disposal of the product (Figure 5.6). These are then compared with the energy consumption and emissions associated with the production of an equivalent amount of the virgin material, so that overall savings or additional costs can be calculated. Sustainable development requires methods and tools to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities for the provision of products. The goal of life cycle assessment is determination of whether waste reduction, re-use recovery or disposal is the best practicable environmental option.

Figure 5.6. Examined emissions in conducting a life cycle analysis of a product.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

64

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Defining the boundaries of the life cycle analysis and the methodologies involved can vary from analysis to analysis. For example, some analyses have included the environmental impact in terms of emissions to air, water and on to land when the final waste is disposed of in landfill compared with incineration. Others may include the life cycle analysis of the machinery used in the manufacture of the product (Williams, 2005). A produt's life cycle begins in the raw material, and includes the energy and other resources necessary for its extraction, shipping, manufacturing, marketing, fabrication, and disposal, as well as the byproducts that result from these processes, such as airborne waste, water effluents, and solid waste. The life cycle of an aluminum framework, for example, requires a tremendous amount of energy to mine the bauxite ore and manufacture the aluminum pieces. The process also creates industrial and mining waste, and water and air pollution. Shipping it to you consumes energy and often requires packaging (with its own life cycle). Tossing that aluminum in a landfill means it will stay there for hundreds of years. But recycling that structure into new aluminum products saves 95 percent of the energy it would take to make the products from ore. Example - aluminium industry life cycle assessment A life cycle assessment of aluminium has to look far beyond the production processes of: -

bauxite mining, the first step in aluminium production; production of alumina where aluminium oxide, the raw material for primary aluminium production, is refined from bauxite; production of primary aluminium using electrolysis.

A life cycle assessment of aluminium also covers the impacts and benefits of the material throughout the lifespan of the different aluminium products including their reuse and recycling. Other steps in the aluminium life cycle therefore include: -

-

semi-fabrication encompassing several industrial processes for the production of rolled products, extrusions, wire, tubes, forgings and castings; product manufacture where aluminium is processed into finished products; the use phase is often the most significant in life cycle assessments. For example, for a car the use phase accounts for more than 80% of

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

-

65

total CO2 emissions. In this phase aluminium can bring substantial savings; recycling and re-use in new products. The use of recycled aluminium further decreases energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared to those resulting from primary aluminium production. This adds further value to the basic reductions already achieved by aluminium use per se - such as in transportation applications (IAI, 2011).

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Life cycle assessment comparing recycling with manufacturing of the product from raw materials have been used to highlight the benefits of recycling (McDougall et al., 2009). Figure 5.7 shows the comparative life cycle assessment for materials (waste) and from raw materials. The life cycle for recycled products includes the assessment of the environmental impact in terms of energy used and emissions at each of the processes involved in recycling. These would include the separation of the recyclable materials, transportation, and various processes involved in reprocessing the recovered materials into usable materials.

5.6. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERFORMANCE OF SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAMMES A factor influencing variation in municipal solid waste recycling efficiency of different materials is independent of the scheme offered, the information communicated to the householder or the intrinsic desire of the individual, it’s the inconvenience each material causes. The recovery efficiency for each material is influenced by: -

when and where the waste material is generated; if it requires immediate storage; households recognition of its recyclability (Perrin and Barton, 2001).

Municipal solid waste management has emerged as one of the primary tasks for environmental authorities in developed and developing countries. To reduce this enormous issue the effective way is to integrate waste recycling into existing and future municipal solid waste management systems.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Environmental Impact

Electricity

Extraction

Heat/steam

Raw Material

Co‐products Electricity

Transportation Processing

Heat/steam

Product

Co‐products Electricity

Use Heat/steam

By-product

Transportation

Collection

Incineration

Figure

Landfill

. Life cycle assessment for recycled and raw materials.

Pyrolysis

Recycling

Processing Environmental Impact

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Recycling

67

Traditional treatments of municipal solid waste using landfilling and incineration have become more difficult and expensive due to land deficiency and environmental significance. Improving solid waste recycling performance must be recognized as requiring more than simply enhancing the efficiency of MSW management relating to waste disposal facilities. To realize the potential benefits of waste recycling, and organizing and managing recycling programmes, local governments need to consider appropriate options for recycling programmes with regard to financialeconomic constraints; the existing situation; regulation; and institutional, environment, socio-cultural, and technical issues. The most important factor among these is how local governments have improved their recycling performance by learning from the successes of other local government authorities. This question must be raised when making a sound decision in the planning stage to ensure that the recycling programmes are sustainable over a long period (Suttibak and. Nitivattananon, 2008) Understanding factors influencing recycling performance is the key to achieving sustainable waste management. Waste recycling systems could be enhanced by addressing these influencing factors:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

-

-

-

-

an awareness campaign is a measure to motivate administrators in the perception of their SWM problems and understanding the importance of source separation; information dissemination is a mechanism to disseminate the best practices of implementing recycling programmes to show what influences recycling performance success. For example, providing door-to-door services and managing a waste bank as a cooperative organization are the best practices to improve recycling performance; training is necessary for professional and managerial staff in a range of areas such as the use of specialized equipment, operation and maintenance, and monitoring and evaluation. Economic incentives for enhancing recycling systems are as follows; subsidies to support the recycling programmes with accommodated storage for certain amounts of recyclable materials to make it more attractive to buyers, which could encouraged buyers to come to these garbage banks and hence greatly reduce their transportation costs; subsidies for door-to-door service by using three-wheeled vehicles, which may be applied to reduce transportation costs. This service may be the best approach in areas where the population is easy to reach;

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

68

Mohamed Alwaeli -

-

-

subsidies to provide free organic waste bins, which may divert organic waste from the waste stream. This shows that having a convenient way to participate in the recycling programme is an important issue even for other recycling programmes (e.g. dropoff, buyback, and kerbside recycling programmes); provision of monetary incentives (e.g., interest, loans, and compensatory goods) by active garbage banks successfully improves recycling implementation; provision of soft loans or tax reductions to various types of waste recycling-related non-governmental organization (NGOs) to meet planning or operating expenses (Amin, 2006);

and -

strengthen the implementation of the compulsory MSW sorting at the generation sources.

Development partners who intend to develop and strengthen recycling performance systems could be enhanced by:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

determination the innovative incentives for recyclers that are suitable for socio-economic context; including a convenient method to encourage people to participate in recycling; including mechanisms to reduce transportation costs should be addressed; introducing decentralized recycling programmes which succeed with available financial sources;

and -

-

subsidization or grants which establish material recovery facilities on a large scale. Material recovery facilities should be considered and connected with the promotion of other recycling programmes and capacity building (Suttibak and. Nitivattananon, 2008); assist the certified recycling enterprises in acquiring the key technologies and the certification of ISO-1400 series.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

69

5.7. KERBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMME DESIGN Mandatory municipal solid waste recycling targets present a serious challenge to municipalities. In order to reach their desired levels of achievement, municipalities have introduced a variety of recycling initiatives, including the kerbside recycling. Municipalities may approach the design of recycling programmes from two perspectives: (i) design the programme to achieve a specified waste diversion target; or

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

(ii) optimize the design by considering trade-offs between higher diversion rates and higher costs (Noehammer and Byer, 1997). Recycling programmes can be designed to serve one or any combination of the residential, industrial, commercial and institutional sectors within the community. Since each sector is distinct and generates different waste, there are many variables that should be considered in designing recycling programmes for each sector. Residential programmes can differ in the point of collection of recyclables. They can be collected at the kerb, at depots, at buyback centres, through special collection by a private contractor or any combination of these services. There are many variables that must be addressed when designing a residential kerbside recycling programme and each design variable has a number of options associated with it. These include whether participation in the programme by residents is mandated or voluntary; the types of materials to be recycled; whether the recyclables are segregated or commingled for collection; whether a collection container is provided and its type; and collection frequency and day of collection. Other variables that are not always associated with the design of a recycling programme but should be considered are the design and development of education programmes and economic incentives. The many design variables and associated options impact both the effectiveness of the programme to divert waste from landfills and its cost. An understanding of the options available and their effectiveness and costs will allow a municipality to design a kerbside recycling programme to meet its objective, whether it be to meet a specified diversion target or to balance diversion and cost.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

70

Mohamed Alwaeli

Noehammer and Byer (1997) concluded that there is no single ideal residential kerbside recycling programme design. A variety of combinations of design options have proven to be successful. This suggests that when designing a recycling programme, the budget, needs and goals of the community must be the driving force, while taking into consideration that some design variable options can be more effective than others. A programme may be designed with the objective of maximizing participation without significant regard to cost, or to find an appropriate balance between participation and programme cost. One of the main decisions to be made in designing a kerbside recycling programme is whether participation in the programme should be mandatory or voluntary. Both mandatory and voluntary programmes are capable of achieving high participation rates. A mandatory programme with a formal enforcement policy is more likely to be successful in achieving high participation rates than a voluntary programme. However, if a mandatory programme is not acceptable within the community, a welldesigned voluntary programme can be equally successful. Noehammer and Byer examined four different programmes. The objective of Programmes 1 and 2 is to maximize participation rates with little regard to cost; Programmes 3 and 4 were developed with the goal of achieving a balance between participation and cost. All of the programmes are for multi-material residential recycling. Programmes 1 and 3 are mandatory programmes, while Programmes 2 and 4 are voluntary. Both programme types are included to illustrate how successful mandatory and voluntary programmes can be designed. Programme 1 includes an active enforcement policy, whereas Programme 3 does not because the anticipated increase in participation rate is not significant enough to justify the cost of implementing an enforcement policy. From the examined programmes, it is seen that: -

-

mandatory recycling programmes generally achieve higher participation rates than voluntary programmes and that mandatory programmes with formal enforcement achieve even higher rates; well-designed voluntary programmes can achieve participation rates that are equally as high as mandatory programmes.

5.7.1. Kerbside Recycling Enhancement Recycling, and other forms of waste management, need to be adequately communicated to the public, so that resident’s habits, behaviour and traditions

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Recycling

71

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

can be changed for the better, enabling local authorities to achieve government goals of recycling and recovery (Woodard etal., 2005). According to Shawa et al. (2007), to develop an effective strategy to prompt recycling amongst non-participants, information is needed (i) to identify if householders’ attitudes are commensurate with pro-recycling behaviour and their understanding of a scheme is adequate and (ii) to identify if there are structural barriers to participation (e.g. lack of storage space). Moreover, the success of any recycling scheme is dependant upon: (a) the actual recycling performance figures; (b) the publicity and promotion of recycling; (c) the public’s willingness to participate; and (d) the public’s perception of the local authority to support such recycling measures (Evison and Read, 2001). If kerbside recycling scheme is to be adequately developed, public participation must be increased. Householders’ awareness of kerbside recycling schemes is an essential prerequisite for participation and may be lacking when publicity and promotion are insufficient. Lack of awareness appears more common as a barrier to recycling than lack of interest, lack of time or constraints of storage space for recyclable materials (Robinson and Read, 2005).

Strategic Priorities for Kerbside Recycling Enhancement Undoubtedly users (householders) play an essential role in increasing household recycling levels, since they conduct the actual sorting. If users do not participate in waste kerbside recycling schemes, it is impossible to achieve the mandatory recycling targets. Thus householder participation could be enhanced by: Communication and Education The implementation of recycling schemes must be accompanied by sufficient publicity and promotion in order to educate the participants (householders) about how and when to use them. Communication and education play a vital role in increasing the effectiveness and recovery levels of residential recycling programmes. Several techniques have been regularly used by the authority to try to motivate individuals to participate in recycling programmes, including adverts in the local press and on radio, leaflets delivered to households, a map of recycling centres, public consultation meetings and personal contact with individual householders. However, direct and personal contact is a more effective method of gaining pledges to participate in recycling than indirect and impersonal efforts.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

72

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Educating the public on recycling was also found to increase recycling rate. According to Sidique et al. (2010), the cumulative expenditure on recycling education increased recycling rate, at the 10% level of significance.

Incentives It is a common belief that economic incentives increase participation in recycling programmes. Woodard et al. (2005) identified two forms of economic incentives; user fees systems and fine-and-reward systems. In user fee systems (also referred to as variable charging), residents are charged a fee based upon the quantity of waste that they generate. This approach is well established in many other industrialised countries. As residents have to pay in relation to how much waste they generate it is hoped that they will make full use of the recycling facilities on offer. An alternative is fine-and-reward systems where residents are penalised or rewarded based upon their recycling actions. Residents that fail to sort their recyclable materials correctly may be fined whilst those residents that participate in a scheme and segregate their waste into the correct containers may be given a reward. Costs, however, will almost certainly dictate which methods are employed, with leaflet drops and adverts in the local press being among the cheapest and simplest to administer; but whether their message is even received, let alone understand, is open to argument (Martin et al., 2006). Changing Behaviour A behavioural change approach can be used to produce strategies and policies that look to change ingrained habits. It incorporates factors recognized as necessary to trigger and sustain a change in public behaviour (Timllet nad Williams, 2008): -

enablers, e.g. infrastructure, education and information and removal of barriers; encouragement, e.g. taxes, penalties, rewards and league tables; engagement, e.g. communication, feedback, consultation, community involvement and ‘bottom up’ policies; exemplify, e.g. leading by example.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Chapter 6

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MSW RECYCLING

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

6.1. ECONOMIC CONDITION OF MSW RECYCLING In recent years, recycling has become one of the basic issues of environment protection and waste management. In a free market situation, there are four basic, linked requirements which need to be in place before materials recycling can occur successfully. These are: -

there must be a reliable supply of suitable waste materials; there must be the means to collect these materials and to transport them to a place where they can be re-processed; there must be the means to re-process these materials into suitable raw materials and products;

and -

there must be available markets for the raw materials and products produced by the recycling process.

Economic considerations have a major influence on whether these four basic requirements can be achieved all at the same time. Failure to achieve one of the requirements will result in failure for materials recycling. Additional factors influencing the uptake of recycling include efficiency of the recycling process, quality of the input material, quality of the recycled output materials,

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

74

Mohamed Alwaeli

profit margin potential (to ensure a reasonable pay back period on investment in recycling equipment and technology), economic and environmentally appropriate outlet for waste generated during the recycling process and location of recycling (e.g. close to major sources of waste arisings or close to customers for the recycled materials, etc.). The net effect of all these factors is that an optimum level of recycling will exist for a particular material which is dependent on a balance of these interacting factors. The calculation of the actual level of the effectiveness is one of the most serious and, at the same time, the most difficult issues of the investment of municipal waste recycling. Costs of recycling are difficult to assess and compare due to differences in the costs factor included in the assessments. For example, some recycling costs are not separated from the general costs of waste management, some schemes include the income from the sale of the recycled materials with the costs of collection, others do not; and some report the costs of collection only (Warner Builletin 45, 1995). Difficulties in the comparison of the costs of recycling has led to introduction the terms “diversion rate” and cost “difference” by the European Recovery and Recycling Association (ERRA) so that costs can be compared adequately. Costs, whether of recycling or waste management, are very dependent on local condition such as the price of land, labour costs, equipment costs, local taxes and subsidies, treatment and disposal costs, etc. The use of “diversion rate” and the “cost difference” involves the use of ratios to compare directly the costs before and after implementation of a recycling scheme. The “diversion rate” uses the ratio of the amount of materials recovered as recyclable material to the total amount of waste generated. The “cost difference” is the cost of waste management with recycling, minus the cost of waste management without recycling, rationed to the cost of waste management without recycling (Warner Builletin 48, 1996). In mathematical considering, both the “diversion rate” and the “cost difference” has the form: Diversion rate (%) =

A ⋅100 B ,

Difference in cos t (%) =

C−D ⋅100 D

(6.1.1)

(6.1.2)

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

75

in which: A - amount of material recovered as recycled materials, B - total amount of waste generated, C - cost of waste management with recycling, D cost of waste management without recycling. Therefore the cost of recycling becomes a percentage increase or decrease in overall waste management costs. Similarly, the effectiveness of the recycling system gives a percentage recovery of diversion of the recyclable materials out of the waste stream, instead of going to final disposal. A number of factors can influence the diversion rate and cost difference, and these can be identified as internal and external factors. Internal factor include changes in the operation of the collection system or the re-processing facility or an expansion of the recycling scheme. External factors include the market prices paid for the recycled materials and the costs of the final disposal of the waste. Unfortunately, many materials are not recyclable (recyclability is the ability a material has to require the same properties it originally had) because once they go through a recycling process, they no longer have the properties they had in their virgin state, where virgin state is defined as the purest form of material before being processed or shaped for a special use (Villalba et al., 2002). Therefore it is important to come up with a way to measure the degree of recyclability of these materials, or a recycling index with which to compare materials. The recyclability index of materials (R) is used to determine if waste recycling is economically achievable. The recyclability index (R) is a measure of the ability of a material to regain its valued properties through a recycling process. This way, the recyclability index calculated based on the difference between what the material devalues through use and what the material gains back through a recycling process (Villalba et al., 2004). A material that has a recyclability index of 1 means that there is no difference between the recycled and the virgin material. For example, recycled copper can achieve the same properties and qualities of copper of primary production such as thermal conductivity, ameallability. Therefore, copper is recyclable or has a recycling index of 1. Used copper wire can be refined and be copper wire again. A low recycling index means that the material does not recover all its properties through a recycling process, and maybe there are other options more profitable for disposal. For example, recycled paper, on the other hand, does not have the same qualities or properties as virgin paper such as the purity of the color or fiber elasticity. Paper has a lower recyclability index than copper. As a consequence, the second application of recycled paper is different than the first, and this usually means of less value. Used paper is reused as package paper, insulation, hydromulch, animal bedding, filler fibers, or wallboard.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

76

Mohamed Alwaeli

(Owen, 1998). Normally materials with a very low recycling index are reused rather than recycled. Therefore it is important to remember that although the recycling index will be used to compare materials as another material property, it has been deduced from economic factors and it is only an estimate. With these assumptions in mind, the following definitions are made: •

•

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Vm - minimum value of a material. This is the minimum value of the material before being treated or shaped for a specific use (i.e. metals in ingots), Vr - residual value of a material. This is the value that a given material has after its primary use and before it is recycled for its secondary use. In cases where there are combinations of materials, the percentage of the desired material is used. This is the price at which the recycler buys the used material, Vp - post-recycle value of a material. This is the value that a given material has after it has been recycled and is ready for its second use, before being treated or shaped for a specific use. (see Figure 6.1).

If the material has a high recycling index (Vm ≅ Vp), the material will go back to Use I. If the material has a low recycling index, (Vm < Vp), then the recycled material goes to Use II.

Figure 6.1. Life cycle of a material (Villalba et al., 2002). * Other options more profitable for disposal.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

77

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In accordance with (Villalba et al., 2002), to measure the recycling index, the recyclability of materials will be reflected by their monetary value. In other words, if a recycled material has a high recycling index, this is shown by its price being close to the price of the virgin material. The greater the difference between these two prices, the lower the recycling index of the material. For example, the fact that there is little difference between the price first production copper (US$1.77/kg) and the price of recycled copper (US$1.67/kg) is a clear indication that copper recovers its properties through recycling and therefore has a high recyclability index (Rcopper = 0.94). A recycled material that is only able to recover a percentage of its original valued properties, will have a lower recyclability. For example, paper has a low recyclability index (Rpaper = 0.156) since recycled paper does not recover the purity of virgin paper (as the recycling process causes the paper fibres to break down, each time paper is recycled its quality decreases): first production price (virgin) is US$0.90/kg, and post recycled price is US$0.14/kg (Villalba et al., 2004). This way, recyclability indices for several materials can be calculated.

6.2. AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MSW RECYCLING Waste management should always deal with the use of waste as substitutes for primary materials. Calculation of the actual level of the coeffectiveness is one of the most serious and, at the same time, one of the most difficult issues when investing in waste recycling. In order to evaluate the investment in which secondary materials are implemented, a thorough analysis is needed. There are various methods of calculating the effectiveness of waste utilized as secondary materials. Among them there is one that aims at complex evaluation by analyzing the shaping of capital expenditure and the costs of production. It all comes down to calculating „absolute pay-back period” and „relative pay-back period”. Thanks to the input, especially input on technical advances, the annual economy of operating costs is observable. Consequently, the expenditure is reimbursed after some time. Since the macro scale calculus signifies social effectiveness, the choice of the most rational solutions is probable. On the other hand, micro scale calculus, based on incurred expenses and predicted effects, presents the situation after undertaking an investment project. Since the calculus can not

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

78

Mohamed Alwaeli .

include the expenses that are not incurred by the project, one is not allowed to include the expenses connected with external infrastructure if a given enterprise does not have a share in financing the investment. However, fines for environmental pollution and all additional charges, including the ones destined for the whole infrastructure, need to be covered by the enterprise. Simplified formula of the calculus of the complex effectiveness of investment has a form:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

E=

(λ − γ ) + θ ε (δ + δ ε ) ⋅ (α + ϑ ) + (ηα + η ε ) ⋅ α

(6.2.1)

where λ is the predicted annual production value, γ is the predicted annual current production cost, (as proper cost decreased of amortization, credit’s interest and increased of tax wages fund), θε is the additional effects nascent beyond the enterprise, δ is the value of technological progress expenditure in the enterprise with cost of environment protection, α is the rate of discount level of projects financed by bank credit, defined in valid acts, δε is the value of investment expenditures beyond the enterprise, stimulated by given investment, ϑ is the averaged depreciation rate calculated according to valid trade regulations, ηε is the expenditures for creating the stock of circulating assets, assumed as height of predicted assets after achievement of target productive ability, ηα is the additional expenditures beyond the enterprise for creating the stock of circulating assets connected with the plans stimulated by given investment. The condition of effectiveness is fulfilled when E > 1 Extended formula of the calculus of the complex effectiveness of investment has a form: n

E=

∑ ϕ (λ t

t =0

t

− γ t + θ tε )

n

∑ ϕ (σ t =0

t

t

+ σ tε )

(6.2.2)

where t (t = 0,1,2,3,…,n) is the sequence years of the computational period, ϕt are the discount coefficients, decreasing in following years (calculated for each year), σt is the capital expenditure for investment projects, σtε is the additional capital expenditure beyond the enterprise (fundamental investment).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

79

Secondary materials are said to be used as substitutes for primary materials. When it comes to market economy, the basic form of evaluation of secondary and raw materials should be calculated economically. The calculus of economic effectiveness consists in comparing total costs of the production in which secondary materials are used with the costs of production in which primary materials are utilized. Prices of secondary materials are usually lower; nevertheless, processing costs and their consumption are higher because of additional technological treatments. The effects of implementing waste utilized as secondary materials can be defined in terms of profit increase. It brought about reduction of production costs and the possible difference between the prices of products made from raw materials. The increase (or decrease) in the amount of total profit is calculated in the following way: n

Υ = ∑ [(κ iω − κ io ) − (ν iω −ν io )] ⋅ ρiω

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

i =1

(6.2.3)

where i is the consecutive numbered product, κiω is the real or planned average price of sold product, manufactured with waste as secondary materials, κio is the average price of sold product, manufactured of raw materials, νio is the elementary, average production cost of product manufactured of raw materials, νiω is the elementary, average production cost of product manufactured with waste as raw materials, ρiω - the quantity of production units of manufactured products with waste contribution as secondary materials. The following condition needs to be fulfilled so that the production is profitable:

κ iω −ν iω > κ io −ν io

(6.2.4)

If a given enterprise bears the costs of waste storage while processing raw materials, these costs should be treated as the additional ones. Moreover, they have the influence on the final result of secondary waste utilization. If the application of secondary materials instead of primary ones does not change the value and price of the products, the increase (or decrease) in the amount of total profit ΔY1 is calculated in the following way: n

ΔΥ1 = ∑ (ν io − κ ωi ) ⋅ ρ ωi i =1

(6.2.4)

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

80

Mohamed Alwaeli

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

6.3. ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY OF THE WASTE UTILIZATION AS A SUBSTITUTE OF RAW MATERIALS – CASE STUDY Calculation of the actual level of the effectiveness is one of the most serious and, at the same time, one of the most difficult issues when investing in municipal waste recycling. Much research has been done throughout the world to determine the economic and ecological profitability of waste management in the substitution of raw materials. For example, Doron (2007) presented a study conducted in Israel in the years 200-2004. The economic analisysis shows that if municipality efficiently adopts recycling, it can take advantage of anticipated reduction in the quantity of waste directed to landfills and thus reduce overall waste management costs by average 11%. The results shows that for most municipalities in Israel (51% of the municipalities), it would be efficient to adopt recycling and that the optimal amount of waste recycling in Israel it 27,7% (excluding organic waste) of all municipal solid waste. The analysis reveals that recycling is very advantageous for the large municipalities (recycling is efficient for 87% of all such municipalities) and much less advantageous for the regional municipalities (recycling efficient for 25%). Duran et al. (2006) developed a model for assessing the economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling. Conclusions were presented which suggested that economic viability is likely to occur when the cost of landfilling exceeds the cost of bringing the waste to the recycling centre and the cost of using primary aggregates exceeds the cost of using recycled aggregates. Alwaeli (2008a) in his study, developed the economic profitability of municipal waste recycling by the maximization of the production having the costs of the production established or the minimization of the costs of the production having the volume of the production established. In his study the economic cost -effectiveness of recycling was defined by the production function of the plant responsible for processing waste into secondary material. The input data for the model includes factors relevant to waste processed into secondary material, as well as factors for output generated products. In the same year a work by Alwaeli (2008b), presented the mathematical model of economic profitability of the secondary materials (waste) utilization as the substitute of primary materials. In this work, the emphasis is put on the functioning of the plant depending on: capital costs, ecological unit cost of

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

81

waste recycling, unit costs of processing 1 tonne of waste into secondary materials, marketing costs of the obtained product, mass fraction of the substitute obtained from the waste mass, social unit costs taking into account such aspects as creating new workplaces, etc., amount of work allocated for the production in fixed units, fixed costs and the amount of the processed raw material (waste). The factors was considered by maximization of the production with the costs of production fixed. In another study, Alwaeli (2008c) analyzed the determination of the economic profitability of the recycling plant with selected municipal solid waste fraction on dependence from basic economic index. In this research, the emphasis is put on the economic profitability of the recycling plant with selected municipal solid waste fraction depending on: capital costs, ecological unit cost of waste recycling, amount of work allocated for the production in fixed units, fixed costs and the amount of the processed raw material (waste).The economic profitability of recycling was considered by minimization of the costs of production with the volume of production fixed. In this section we seek to offer a simple unified framework to study the key economic features of the use of waste as substitute for nonrenewable resources in production. The purpose of this analysis is to develop a model to obtain some key insights about the cost-effectiveness and define certain parameters which determine the effectiveness of production plants dedicated for processing waste into useful products. A plant’s productive possibilities can be described by the production function which is determined empirically. In order to calculate these things, we need to consider the issue of precisely measuring the overhead costs in order to maximize profitability of this kind of measures allocation so that the profit will be the highest. The task of measuring overhead (costs) comes down to finding the maximum of the production function. In this analysis we also determine the maximum of the profit function and assess when the recycling plant will bring the profit and when it is the highest. The cost-effectiveness of waste recycling as substitute of the raw materials depends on a variety of inherent expenses. In this analysis, the emphasis is put on the functioning of the plant depending on: capital costs, ecological unit cost of waste recycling, unit costs of processing waste into secondary materials, marketing costs of the obtained product, mass fraction of the substitute obtained from the waste mass, social unit costs taking into account such aspects as creating new workplaces, etc., amount of work allocated for the production in fixed units, fixed costs and the amount of the processed raw material (waste).

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

82

Mohamed Alwaeli

The Model In this model the emphasis is put on the economic conditions of the recycling plant dealing with metal containers. Let x1 be the capital costs, x2 be the ecological unit cost of secondary materials utilization, and x3 be the unit costs of processing 1 tonne of secondary materials as raw material, and x4 be the marketing costs of the obtained product, mass fraction of this substitute obtained from the secondary materials mass, and x5 be the social unit costs taking into account, for example, certain aspects of creation of the new workplaces, etc., and x6 be the amount of work allocated for the production in fixed units, and x7 be the fixed costs, and x8 be the amount of the raw material/secondary materials modified These quantities are related to one another, e.g.:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

-

the application of machines may lead to reduction in employment; the volume of production has an impact on ecological costs connected with it.

Unit costs of the particular elements of the production would be as follows: ν1, ν2, ν3, ν,...,νk It means that the work unit costs v1, technical maintenance unit of the work equipment costs v2, etc. On the other hand, the unit of the manufactured product has a price y. Having K capital destined for plant exploitation, the question arises - what is the best way of dividing the capital between particular expenditure in order to have the highest profit ? The economic cost-effectiveness of the plant dedicated for processing waste into secondary materials can be defined as a production function. From economic experience it seems that the production function has the form:

y = f ( x) = f ( x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ,..., xk ) x = ( x1 , x 2 ,..., x k ) ∈ R +k , ,

In

which,

the

production

from

( x1 , x2 ,..., xk )

(6.3.1)

amounts

to

f ( x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 ,..., x k ) The most conspicuous feature of the plant is, for a very long period of time, a random vector that may be chosen, i.e. the condition represented as equation (6.3.1) means that every amount of products needed in the production

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

83

process is available (both factors and means of production). As a result, the access to materials is unlimited. The recycling plant model produces one commodity and uses K for its production. Other factors and means of production can be discussed according to this assumption: Assuming that the scalar function is represented as

f : R+k → R+1 , where

R+k = x ∈ R k x ≥ 0 , Is the volume of production dependent on x vector, means consumption and other factors of the production We make the following assumptions concerning function f:

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

x = 0 . This means that all the 1. f (0) = 0. if there exists i < k i, such that i production resources are used up in the production process. 2. f ( x) ∈ C ( R+ ) has continuous derivatives up to and including the 2

k

second-order, for x ∈ R+ 3.it is an increasing function for each of the variables, i.e. each increase in production resources results in an increase in production output 4.production function f(x) is a convex function, i.e. k

f (λ x1 + μ x2 ) > λ f ( x1 ) + μ f ( x2 ) for:

λ > 0, μ > 0, λ + μ >= 1, x1 , x 2 ∈ R+k

This means that production cannot be increased ad infinitum. We assume that the price of one produced item equals p, whereas v is a kdimensional vector of the prices of production resources.

v = (v1 , v2 ,⋅ ⋅ ⋅vk ) where p > 0, vi > 0 for i=1,2,…,k

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

84

Mohamed Alwaeli

The objective of maximization of profits in terms of long-term development strategy can be presented as:

max{p ⋅ f ( x) − K } , x ∈ R+k

(6.3.2)

The above-mentioned assumptions (1o-4o) indicate that there exists precisely one point xi* that achieves this maximum, and that this point can be determined by the condition:

max f ( x) = f ( x * ) , under condition: =K. To determine point x* .The method of Lagrang’e -unlabelled factor- can be applied. For that purpose, we create a function F ( x ) = f ( x ) − λ < v, x > and

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

search for its extremes under the condition =K. This leads to a set of system of equations:

∂F ∂f = − λvi = 0, ∂xi ∂xi

i = 1,2,

,k

To which we add the condition =K. After transformations we get:

xi

∂F = λvi xi , ∂xi

i = 1,2,

,k

Substitute =K, we obtain:

∂F 1 ⎛ ∂F ⎜⎜ x1 + x2 + ∂x2 λ ⎝ ∂x1

+ xn

∂F ⎞ ⎟= K ∂xn ⎟⎠

Hence

λ=

1 ⎛ ∂F ∂F ⎜ x1 + x2 + K ⎜⎝ ∂x1 ∂x2

+ xn

∂F ⎞ ⎟ ∂xn ⎟⎠

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

85

As a result

∂F vi ⎛ ∂F ∂F = ⎜⎜ x1 + x2 + ∂xi K ⎝ ∂x1 ∂x2

+ xn

∂F ⎞ ⎟, ∂xn ⎟⎠

i = 1,2, , n

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

After solving the last system of equations we get the x* vector. For example for k=2, the graph is as follows:

Figure 6.2. Geometric interpellation of function (6.3.2) for k=2.

Point x* is a variable function K

x = x* ( K ) and the maximum value is:

V ( K ) = pf ( x* ( K )) − K Therefore, we can examine the question, for which value of K we will find the largest level of profit. Assumptions relating to the production function (1o-3o) are easy to check. However, the important 4th assumption concerning the convexity of production function requires further deliberation. Let the production function be a function with separable variables, i.e.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

86

Mohamed Alwaeli

F ( x) = F ( x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) = f1 ( x1 ) f 2 ( x2 )… f n ( xn )

(6.3.3)

where:

f i ( xi ), i = 1,2, … , n

are nonnegative, increasing functions.

In order to investigate when function (6.3.3) is convex, we determine the Hessian. We have :

σ 2 F F σ 2 fi = ⋅ , σ xi2 fi σ xi2 σ 2F = σ xiσ xi

F

i = 1,2, … , n

σ fi σ fi ⋅ σ xi σ xi fi fi

for i≠j, j=1,2,...,3

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Marking: 1 σ fi ⋅ = ai f i σ xi ,

1 σ 2 fi ⋅ = bi fi σ xi , Then the Hassian H(y) for function (6.3.3) can be presented as: ⎛ b1 a1 a 2 a1 a 3 … a1 a n ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ a 2 a1 b2 a 2 a 3 … a 2 a 2 ⎟ H ( y ) = F ⎜ a 3 a1 a 3 a 2 b3 … a 3 a n ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜… … … … … ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ a n a1 a n a 2 a1 a 3 … bn ⎠

Function (6.3.3) is convex when the quadratic form connected with the Hassian is negative definite.

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

87

According to Sylvester's theorem, it is a negative definite only when matrix H(x) main determinants change signs in turn, which gives us the condition: b1

( )

a1a 2

a1a3

a 2 a1 b2

a 2 a3

Wk = − 1k a3 a1

a3 a 2

…

…

a k a1

ak a2

… a1a k … a2 ak … a3 a n > 0

b3 …

… …

a1a3 … bk

for k = 1,2,…,n

(6.3.4)

We shall calculate Wk determinant, by excluding row ai from i-elements and by excluding columns ai from j-elements Hence this gives us: b1 a12

1

1

1

1

b2 a 22

1

1

W k = (− 1) (a1 ⋅ a 2 , … , a k ) 1

1

b1 a12

1

1

1

1

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

k

2

bk a k2

We substitute in the calculated determinant: bi 1 =1− , i = 1,2, …, n 2 ai Bi

(6.3.5)

Then this gives us: 1− 1

1 B1 1−

1

1

1

1 B2

1

1

W k = (− 1) (a1 ⋅ a 2 , … , a k ) 1

1

1

1

k

2

1−

1

1 B3

1

1−

1 Bi

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

88

Mohamed Alwaeli

We multiply i-elements row of the determinant by Bi for i=1,2,…,n. Then we get: B1 − 1

(− 1)k (a1 ⋅ a2 ,…, ak )2

Wk =

B1 ⋅ B2

Bn

B1

B1

B1

B2

B2−1

B2

B2

B3

B3

B3−1

Bk

Bk

Bk

Bk − 1

After adding the elements of the first k-1 rows to the last row of the matrix and deducing the resulted elements of last column from elements of each previous column we get:

(− 1) (a1 ⋅ a2 ,…, ak ) k

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Wk =

B1 ⋅ B2

2

Bk

−1 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 −1 … … … 0 0 0 0 0 0

… … … … … 0

0 0 0 … −1 0

B1 B2 B3 … Bk −1 B1 + B2 + … + Bn − 1

Because this is a triangle of zeros under the main diagonal, the determinant equals the product of elements on the diagonal. Wk =

=

(−1)k (a1 ⋅ a2 ,…, ak ) 2 ⋅ (−1) k −1 ( B1 + B2 + … + Bk − 1) = B1 ⋅ B2 ⋅ … ⋅ Bk

(a1 ⋅ a2 ,…, ak ) 2 (1 − B1 − B2 − B1 ⋅ B2 ⋅… ⋅ Bk

− Bk )

Therefore, condition (6.3.4) is fulfilled if: B1 + B2 + … + Bk < 1

for k=1,2,...,n

(6.3.6)

Let us take a look at expression (6.3.5). To simplify the notation

σ f. , σ xi

σ 2 f. σ xi2

shall be substituted by

f i ' , f i ''

, at the

f (x ) same time we have to remember that i-function i i has to be differentiated with variable x1. Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

Cost-Effectiveness of MSW Recycling

89

We get: 1−

f f '' 1 = i i2 Bi fi'

( )

f f '' 1 = 1 − i i2 Bi fi'

( )

⎛ f ⎞ 1 =⎜ i ⎟ B i ⎜⎝ f i ' ⎟⎠

'

Hence Bi =

1 ⎛ fi ⎞ ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ ⎝ fi ⎠

'

.

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

f i ( x) ' If f i ( x) is an increasing function of the variable

xi then

Bi > 0

for i=1,2,...,n. In this case condition (6.3.6) can be substituted by one condition:

B1 + B2 + … + Bk < 1 .

Example I. Let

f i ( xi ) = ( ai x + bi )α i ,

ai > 0, bi > 0, α i > 0

Then Bi =

1 ⎡ (a i x i + bi )α ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ α −1 ⎣ α (a i x i + bi ) ⋅ a i ⎦

'

=

1 ⎛ a i x i + bi ⎜⎜ ⎝ α ai

⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠

'

= αi

Therefore the production function

F ( x ) = (a1 x1 + b1 )α1 (a2 x2 + b2 )α 2

(an xn + bn )α n

Alwaeli, Mohamed. Municipal Solid Waste: Recycling and Cost Effectiveness : Recycling and Cost Effectiveness, Nova Science

90

Mohamed Alwaeli

Is convex under the condition

α1 + α 2 + … + α n < 1 Example II. Let

f i ( xi ) = ln(1 + ai xi ),

ai > 0

Then Bi =

1 ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ln (1 + a x ) ⎥ i i ⎥ ⎢ ai ⎥ ⎢ ⎢⎣ 1 + a i x i ⎥⎦

'

=

1 a i2 (1 + ln (1 + a i x i ))

We have the production function

Copyright © 2003. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

F ( x ) = ln (1 + a1 x1 )ln (1 + a 2 x2 )

ln (1 + a n x n )

Which is convex if the following condition is fulfilled. n

1

∑ a (1 + ln(1 + a x )) < 1 i =1

2 i

i i

n

1

∑a

2