ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr.

02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino

The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies
Enzo Favoino
Chair of the ISWA Working Group on Biological Treatment, Researcher, Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

1. Introduction Implementation of schemes compost biowaste, couples strategies for environmentally sound waste management with goals of sustainable management of soils. As a matter of fact, policymaking is increasingly focusing on the importance to keep or restore high levels of organic matter in farmlands, as a means to improve fertility, store carbon (thereby fighting climate change), improve workability, fight erosion, landsides and floods, retain water, increase biodiversity of soils, and so on. On the other hand, diversion of biowaste from landfills fulfils the goals of modern management of landfill sites, whose main target is to cut production and release of biogas and leachate. Recycling of biowaste through composting and anaerobic digestion, fosters the economy of recycling - and also improves conditions for the recovery of energy from residual waste, which shows a higher calorific values once biowaste is sorted out. Strategies for effective source separation and recycling of organic waste already show a fairly long track record in Europe, which provides for plenty of tools to optimise local schemes.

2. Approaches to biowaste management: preliminary remarks Since the mid eighties, composting of separately collected biowaste has undergone an impressive growth across Europe. First separate collection schemes in Germany were established in 1983, but even before then, composting had been adopted as a disposal route for municipal solid waste, through the attempt to sort the putrescible fraction mechanically. This strategy of composting mixed waste proved mostly and largely unsuccessful, mainly due to the increasing presence of contaminants inside municipal waste; the lack of suitable refining technologies to make the product acceptable by end users, and consequent lack of confidence among farmers and other potential users; and an increasing awareness among scientific bodies and institutions of the importance to keep soils safe this referred specifically to potentially toxic elements such as heavy metals, with a growing concern in more recent times about organic pollutants. As a consequence, the recent and effective growth of composting programmes started in parallel to the growth of schemes for source segregation of biowaste. Research shows [1] there is a sharp decrease of heavy metals and organic pollutants in those composting schemes where source segregation is in place. Compost made of source segregated biowaste and yard waste does not significantly differ from traditional soil improvers; on the other hand, average load of contaminants from mixed MSW compost, unlike separately collected biowaste may imply a comparatively fast build-up of heavy metals and organic pollutants in farmlands, if application is repeated in time; its use may therefore be preferably restricted to controlled and one-off applications, e.g. in land reclamation projects and revegetation of old mining and landfill sites.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino In line with the foregoing, obligations for separate collection of biowaste have therefore been passed in some Member States, mostly from Central Europe: namely the Netherlands (with an obligation for each Municipality to establish a separate collection scheme) and Austria (where the obligation concerns households, who have to deliver biowaste separately or compost their biowaste in the backyard); in Germany joint implementation of the Kreislaufwirtschaft- und Abfallgesetz and of the Bioabfall Verordnung have also made separate collection of biowaste a common feature of local collection schemes, with only a few exceptions. A few other countries have composting targets (Sweden, with provisions passed by the Parliament in late 2003) or wider recycling targets (Italy, UK) to act as a driver for diffusion of separate collection and composting. The successful implementation of local strategies for separate collection and composting, including pilots in most difficult areas (e.g. many sites in Southern Italy) gives the evidence of viability and affordability of a wide composting strategy. Nevertheless, further development of composting e.g. in new Member States, in the UK and elsewhere requires clarification about long-term trajectories. As shown by the above mentioned National strategies, a steady and efficient development of composting calls for drivers in domestic policy that should give confidence to Local Authorities and investors about the mid- and long-term context. Missing which, bankability of investments (process technologies, collection equipment, etc.) is not secured, and local waste policy keeps trapped into the ever-changing visions of ever-changing local governments and politics. It is therefore important to lay some firm points on the ground, here.

3. The way forward moving biowaste away from landfilling Directive 99/31/CE on Landfills includes the key provision for landfilled biowaste to be sharply reduced within next years (up to 65 per cent in a 15-year time frame). This is aimed at effectively reducing the production of methane at landfill sites (one of highest contributions to the global warming potential from waste management) and to improve overall conditions at which landfills are operated. In some landfill dependent countries, the key question therefore becomes how will diversion of biodegradable municipal waste proceed in future? Frequently, some balance between thermal treatment and recycling (for paper) composting (for biowaste) is recommended. Also, mechanical-biological treatment for residual waste may ensure flexibility for treatment of residuals where separate collection still has to undergo a wide development, e.g. new Member States, South Europe, the UK; MBT is therefore showing an impressive growth in many corners of Europe. The balance among various options should anyway be sought in the light of the following key messages: 1. The key elements of the biodegradable municipal waste stream are paper and board, and biowaste; these streams can be collected separately at an affordably low cost thanks to operational integration and optimisation of schemes (evidence is given by thousands Municipal schemes across Europe) 2. in many districts across Europe there is a pressing need for organic matter to be applied to the soil 3. the Incineration Directive and IPPC Directive are likely to increase the costs of residual waste treatments (including thermal treatment and to a lesser extent MBT); a high cost for incineration actually already occurs in those countries where regulations have enforced tight environmental standards in line with those set out by the Incineration Directive

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino All the above point towards greater emphasis on source separation and composting, albeit somewhat mixed up with strategies for recovery of energy from non-recyclable materials. Also the role of anaerobic digestion may be of growing interest, given it may deliver not only a soil improver - once the digestate gets composted at the end of the anaerobic step but also renewable energy in the form of biogas, thereby meeting the goals of the European Climate Change Programme and of the Directive 2001/77 on Renewable Energy Sources.

4. The Soil Strategy The European Commission recently launched, within the framework of the Environmental Action Programme, a broad Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection; in its context, restoring organic fertility is being regarded as a key tool to enhance agronomic and environmental functions of soils, such as: prevention of erosion and floods sequestration of carbon, thereby fighting climate change reduced use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides, prevention of related pollution, enhancement of biodiversity, etc.

This provides a powerful rationale to divert biowaste from disposal towards composting The EC Communication on the Soil Strategy [COM(2002) 179, of 16.4.2002] has therefore focused on the potential pool of organic matter included in biowaste. Remarkably, an initiative on Biowaste was listed among Actions by the Communication, along the following lines: By the end of 2004 a directive on compost and other biowaste will be prepared with the aim to control potential contamination and to encourage the use of certified compost. Arguably, the goal of promoting the use, while concurrently preventing contamination may only be fulfilled through a wide implementation of strategies aiming at source separation of biowaste.

5. The (planned) Directive on Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste In line with the aforementioned mandate the European Commission during last years has been working at a proposal for a Directive on Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste. The initiative in 2002 was merged into the EC Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection. According to the Working Documents which were previously published around 2000-2001, the aim was to seek a balanced approach to the commitments on reduction of landfilled biowaste outlined in Dir. 99/31/CE and promote programmes for recycling of biowaste, so as to ensure an equal development of composting across Europe and achieve some key goals of sustainable soil management. In earlier working documents, the Directive intended to define common limit values and conditions for use and marketing of composted products across Europe, thereby developing the further production and use of high-quality composted soil improvers; this should also overthrow the paradox according to which compost is less produced where it is most needed (i.e. in South Europe and new Member States). The Working Documents also covered those processes, usually worded as MechanicalBiological Treatment that are undergoing a wide development above all to treat residual waste; in this respect, the Working Documents defined their role in integrated waste management and conditions for restricted application (e.g. in land reclamation) or landfilling of end materials coming from MBT.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino One of key provisions included in a previous Working Documents, however, was the mandate for Member States to implement programmes for source separation of biowaste, which ought to cover also household biowaste; this would show consistent, as already argued, with the mandate set in the Communication on the Soil Strategy. Unfortunately, after the wide expectations raised by those Working Documents, the process was sort of stopped, and for quite a long time no further step was taken. In late 2003, another Discussion Document was issued in the context of the Soil Strategy; this document was intended to stimulate and steer a broader discussion among EU Institutions, stakeholders and Governments. The Document again considers source separation as a key-point in a successful strategy for compost promotion; accordingly, Compost should be considered a product only if it has been produced from separately collected biowaste. The last Document does not go into details as to obligations on source separation, but the need to promote it is still regarded as a key element of the strategy, since the Document considers the need () to provide a driver effect for local authorities and the concerned industry through a comprehensive strategic approach (e.g. definition of targets or obligations).

6. The possibility to optimize collection schemes and to cut cost down One of the major concerns of waste managers across Europe is the common opinion that source separation systems aiming at reaching high recycling rates, are bound to cost much more than the traditional mixed collection of MSW. Operators think that in particular, source segregation of food waste leads to higher costs. It is therefore useful to dwell briefly on a cost-assessment of main systems for source separation currently in operation [2]. Cost analyses carried out so far across Europe have traditionally focused on costs per kilogram (or per ton) for a single waste material collected. However, there is evidence that this biases the true picture, since the higher the amount of the waste collected, the lower the costs of the collection service per kilogram. This distortion obscures some important outcomes of integrated source separation and waste management: the reduction of total waste delivered as a consequence of effective waste reduction policies the much lower delivery of industrial waste to the MSW collection where large-volume road containers get substituted by low-volume bins and bags to be placed at the doorstep the contribution of home composting programs to the overall reduction of organic waste collected

Y

Y

Y

Furthermore, the evaluation of the cost for a single waste flow, does not consider advantages on costs for collection of other materials, and primarily residual waste, flowing from operational integration. In effect, the collection of food waste above all when it shows high captures allows important changes in the collection scheme, by reducing, for instance, frequencies of collection for residual waste. This is of particular importance where collection of MSW traditionally implies frequent collection rounds (normally, they are from 3 times weekly to daily in the South of Europe). Moreover, it has to be stressed that the cost of the system (collection plus transport) is not to be paid by the Municipality considering the amount of the waste collected, but considering the general operational scheme (the number and frequency of collection rounds, the number of workers, vehicles, pick-up points, etc). It is therefore unfair to express the cost of this service per unit mass, rather it should be expressed as cost per person. This is why we have focused in the many surveys weve carried out on cost optimisation - on costs per person.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino In order to get an unbiased assessment, we have reported costs of different collection systems run in homogeneous areas, with similar weather conditions, dwelling types, social features, etc.. For instance, data from district Venezia 4, close to Venice (figure 3), clearly show that source segregation of food waste with collection at the doorstep can be run with no substantial increase in overall cost, and sometimes costs are even lower than with traditional collection (no segregation of food waste) or with food waste segregation by means of containers on the road. To understand the unexpected outcomes of the survey, we must underline that if source separation of food waste is added to that of commingled municipal waste, with no modification in the scheme for collection of residual waste, total costs are bound to rise; this actually happens with the collection of food waste by means of road containers. But this is not the case when food collection is integrated into the overall collection scheme: namely, when doorstep schemes are implemented, in spite of the higher number of pick-up points. The trick is that intensive doorstep schemes for food waste when made comfortable for households generates high captures. This cuts in turn the percentage of food waste in residual waste, which can then be collected in a remarkably less frequent way. Furthermore, food waste on its own needs no compaction letting operators use cheaper collection vehicles; however, this only applies where the delivery of garden waste (that would be pretty high in areas with detached houses and private gardens) is prevented by means of low-volume buckets (10 to 20 litres). In such situations garden waste gets collected at Civic Amenity Sites or at the doorstep, but with a different collection round and much lower frequencies. Figure 1: cost comparison of different systems for source separation of biowaste in the Province of Verona and in the District VE 4
Collection + transport costs - District VE 4
80.000

Costs (ITL inhab-1 year-1)

70.000 60.000 50.000 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 -

Average
54.417

Average Average
53.733 62.157

Road container collection of food w aste

Door-to-door collection of food w aste Traditional, no segregation of food w aste

Table 1 recaps on most important tools and systems to integrate collection schemes once source separation of food waste gets implemented. 6.1 Features of optimised sorting schemes According to the numbers shown, it is clear that the main mistake made when planning sorting schemes, is the additional feature of the scheme. That means, a new collection scheme is run in addition to the previous mixed MSW collection, and cannot therefore generate savings on collection of residual waste. It is vital on the contrary - that the new separate collection be integrated into the established waste management system, e.g. changing frequencies and volumes to collect residual waste, provide the collection of food waste generates high captures through an user friendly scheme.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino Furthermore, integration has to take into account the features of the area where the scheme has to be put in place; above all, the need to find specifically suited systems for food and garden waste is to be considered, where a big amount of garden waste is to be expected (sparsely populated areas, outskirts with many detached houses with gardens). Table 1: main tools to optimise collection schemes for food waste Tool Reduction of the frequency of collection for residual waste Use of bulk lorries instead of compactors Reducing unit pick-up time Details Effective systems to collect biowaste letting people feel comfortable - make its percentage in residual waste fall down to 1015 % and less. Bulk density of food waste on its own is much higher (.7-.8 kg/dm3) than when biowaste is composed of both food and garden waste The use of buckets implies hand pick-up, much less time-consuming than mechanical loading of bins Applies where.. captures of FOOD waste are increased

tools for collection of food waste prevent large deliveries of garden waste use of small buckets at houses with gardens food waste collected separately from garden waste, in small receptacles

We have to remark that collection frequencies for residual waste can be cut only where a high capture of food waste reduces its fermentability. In this respect, the use of comfortable schemes including doorstep collection and watertight, biodegradable bags have proven to be very effective. This is why an intensive collection, run through doorstep schemes, in spite of a much higher number of pick-up points, has often shown to be less expensive than collection of food waste through road containers, thanks to higher captures of food waste, the integration of the system and much lower collection costs for residual waste. Moreover, door-to-door collection of food waste allows Municipalities to perform much higher recycling rates (60% and more) and a much better quality of collected food waste. A further tool to optimise the scheme is the use of suitable vehicles to collect food waste, due to its high bulk density when garden waste is kept away from its collection. One of main lessons to be learned is that the more flexible and varied the fleet of collection trucks, the better it is. 7. Mechanical-biological treatment and the future of mixed waste compost Enforcement of the Landfill Directive 99/31/EC poses new challenges and asks for innovation in waste management strategies with particular reference to the need to treat waste before landfilling and to the fulfilment of targets for diversion of biodegradable waste Even though source separation shows to be able to fulfil targets of the Landfill Directive by itself (as it will be shown further on), transitional situations have to be considered, as long as source separation is not yet fully implemented and widely diffused. In this respect, MBT (MechanicalBiological Treatment) may play an important role. One key point in new strategies for waste management should be the need to consider treatment methods for residual waste which provide for necessary flexibility of the system, as long as the growth of source separation is still underway. As a matter of fact, the growth of source separation changes progressively both the quantity of residual waste to be disposed of, and its properties, with particular reference to its calorific value. The adoption of MBT-type treatments of residual waste which may also be coupled with subsequent energy recovery of fractions with higher calorific value may provide for the needed flexibility of the system in the long run.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino A comprehensive evaluation of the role of MBT, different approaches to implement it, and of regulatory aspects as to acceptance at landfill sites, is therefore key to successful implementation of innovative, integrated strategies. Given the outputs of MBT also include a stabilised organic fraction, an assessment is also needed of relationships with strategies for mixed waste composting and subsequent possibilities to use grey compost. 7.1 Strategies for the reduction of biowaste at landfills Since a long time, studies on the environmental side-effects of landfilling have focused on the importance to cut to the maximum possible extent the fermentability of the waste to be disposed of. As fermentable waste undergoes anaerobic conditions, it produces biogas, mainly composed of methane (which is a powerful greenhouse gas, and cannot be fully captured by drainage systems), increases the chemical strength of leachate, causes settlements in the shape of the landfill. All this means in turn a long-term threat to groundwater and air, or at least a constraint for site reclamation. Two strategies are available and should actually be combined - to cut fermentability: the first is source separation of fermentable food waste, to be then turned into a valuable product through composting (and possibly its combination with anaerobic digestion); the second is any pre-treatment (biological or thermal treatment) which mineralizes easily biodegradable compounds in residual waste before landfilling it. Remarkably, the Landfill Directive actually includes both both targets on diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills (with a growing diversion, up to 65% in 15 years) and provisions for the waste to be treated before being landfilled.

Both should be combined in order to achieve the maximum possible reduction of negative sideeffects of landfilling. One should consider that source separation of dry fractions and packaging materials determines as an undesired side-effect the concentration of the fermentable material inside residual waste, for food stuffs which are not captured through source separation (this can be worded as the concentration effect). For instance, in the Netherlands and Germany, the percentage of food waste inside restwaste is often reported to be at 30-50% [3], [4]; in Austria it tends to drop down to around 20% (range 15-25%) thanks to a wide diffusion of backyard composting. Table 2: assessment of captures of biodegradable waste fractions against targets of the Landfill Directive 99/31/EC; case: East Milan Waste Management District (2002) A=% in MSW B = % in residual waste Fines (a) Food waste (b) Paper and cardboard (c) Yard waste (d) TOTAL = 0,8a +b+c+d 10,39 29,65 23,46 2,48 63,90 3,84 5,73 33,83 1,11 43,74 C = B x 0,4 1,54 2,29 13,53 0,44 17,50

Overall capture: = (TOT a TOT c) / TOT a = (63,90 -17,50) / 63,9 = 72,62% (> 65%)
Notes: 80% of fines (waste fraction passing through a sieve hole = 20 mm) is assumed to be biodegradable, since such percentage is normally composed of food scraps Rate of source separation in the District is around 60%, therefore residual waste is 40%; percentages of various waste fractions in residual waste have therefore to be multiplied by 0,4 in order to assess percentages of biodegradable waste materials in residual waste, relative to the total amount of MSW.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino It must anyway be underlined that very low percentages of organics in residual waste are achievable and are actually being achieved where intensive collection of food waste is performed through relatively high frequencies of collection at the doorstep and the use of watertight bags (most often biodegradable) as a tool to make the system comfortable. In such experiences, widely diffused in North Italy (e.g. Treviso Province, East Milan Waste Management District, Cremasco Waste Management District) and under development in Catalunya (Spain), percentages around 10% have often been reported, with lowest figures around 5 to 7 %; as it is shown in table 2, these captures, alongside that of other biodegradable waste fractions (such as paper, textiles), already fulfil by themselves the long-term targets of the Landfill Directive (65% diversion of biowaste from landfilling in 15 years time). Arguably, in the aforementioned situation, it is questionable whether treatment is needed, given the low fermentability of residual waste with such low percentages of biowaste. Article 6 of the Directive actually reads: Member States shall take measure in order that only waste that has been subject to treatment is landfilled. This provision may not apply () to any other waste for which such treatment does not contribute to (reduction of ) the hazards to human health or the environment, which may be the case for a residual waste in which biowaste and fermentability have already been remarkably reduced through high capture schemes for collection at the source. More frequently, anyway, a higher percentage of biodegradable waste is normally found in residual waste (see table 3, reporting on results of sorting analyses in Milan Province and typical German and Dutch figures) Table 3: percentage of food and yard waste in residual waste in various Municipalities around Milan and typical German and Dutch figures. Sources: [3], [4], [5] Municipality % Municipality % Albairate 14,9% Albiate 14,4% Melegnano 19,9% Arese 24,6% Misinto 14,7% Biassono 16,6% Monza 30,8% Brugherio 36,5% Novate M. 22,9% Buccinasco 28,6% Paderno D. 17,0% Castano P. 29,8% Rosate 10.5% Cinisello B. 17,8% Trezzo s/A 21,4% Cologno M. 11,0% Trucazzano 28,9% Corbetta 21,7% Varedo 21,7% Desio 18,0% Villasanta 24,4% Lainate 16,9% Vimercate 13,9% GERMANY 30-40% NETHERLANDS 40-45% waste are also normally widely diffused; therefore, (for Municipalities where Municipalities where the

Transitionally, higher percentages of food material inside residual expected in those Districts where source separation has not yet been percentages in residual waste will be an average of lower ones separate collection is already implemented) and higher ones (for system hasnt been started yet).

In all such situations, therefore, source separation and pre-treatment have to be combined on the way towards a sustainable management of landfills. The question is, which type of treatment is suitable, given the goal to reduce fermentability? This implies definition of standards for acceptance at landfills, which should consistently focus on methods to measure the stability (that is, the loss of fermentability) of the waste to be landfilled. Various testing methods have already been proposed and used in the past. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the way acceptance has bend defined in regulations and strategic consequences.

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino 7.2 Performances of MBT and definition of acceptance The first noteworthy attempt to define acceptance with reference to stability was made by Germany, which in the T.A.Si. (Technische Anleitungen Siedlungsabflle, Technical Guidelines on Household Waste) set a threshold at 5% Volatile Solids for the waste to be landfilled. This was factually mandating incineration as the only possible pretreatment. This approach was disputed by researchers, waste managers and quite a few local authorities, since volatile solids include also non-biogenic materials such as plastics, and also biogenic ones not so easily degradable (wood, textiles); such materials of course do not increase fermentability of the landfilled waste, its capability to produce biogas and leachate. Hence, this approach was distorting goals of proper treatment and related treatment options. Under the general standpoint of losing fermentability/achieving stability of the waste to be landfilled, research has shown the excellent performances of mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) the so called cold pre-treatment, be it aerobic or anaerobic in order to cut fermentability. The Landfill Directive itself lists Biological Treatment among suitable options for pre-treatment. Points of main concern when it comes to landfilling, such as the potential for production of biogas and the chemical strength of leachate, may be properly tackled through MBT; the following Table 4 shows achievable values. Table 4: effects of biological pre-treatment (sources: [6], [7]) Feature Final effect [source] % reduction (as compared to initial) Respiration rate AT4 = 5 mg O2/g d.m. (96 h) [6] 80-90% 1 DRI = about 1000 mg O2/kg VS.h [7] Gas production potential Volume 20 l/kg d.m 40 l/kg d.m
3

[6] [7]

80-90% up to 60%

final density (compacted): 1.2-1.4 t/m [6] mass loss (due to mineralisation): 20-40% [7]

Building on this scientific evidence, Germany in January 2001 issued new regulations (Ablagerungsverordnung, Ordinance on Disposal) whereby biological treatment was considered suitable for pre-treatment, inasmuch as it shows to be equivalent to the effects of reducing fermentability as required by T.A.Si. According to provisions set out by the new regulation, residual fermentability may be tested, for waste which has been treated biologically, through respirometry (Atmungsaktivitt, with adoption of the AT4 index, i.e. the oxygen uptake in 4 days) and the potential biogas production. A similar, concurrent evolution may be described in the case of Austria, where the Deponieverordnung (Landfill Ordinance) at start set in place the restriction that No material may be landfilled if it has a higher organic carbon content than 5%. An exemption was anyway explicitly designed for waste originating from mechanical-biological pre-treatment, whose performances, in terms of reduced fermentability, have to be tested through respirometry. Other Countries look now set to show a similar approach, with particular reference to definition of suitable test methods to test fermentability and define acceptance at landfill sites, in order to fulfil requirements of the Landfill Directive. Italy will tackle the subject in the frame of a Decree, now on draft, on biological treatment and destiny of waste thereby treated; anyway, guidance has already been issued by the Committee of Regions, which endorses the concept of assessing fermentability by means of respirometry in order to determine whether an MBT1 treated waste is still to be considered biodegradable (when a DRI <1000 is met, the waste is not considered biodegradable any more); many local regulations issued by Regions, e.g. Veneto, Tuscany, Lombardy, have already enforced such approach.

'\QDPLF5HVSLUDWLRQ,QGH[

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino The issue is being tackled also by the UK in the context of the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme (LATS) that equally bases the assessment of residual biodegradability of MBTtreated waste on determination of respirometry and the biogas potential production. Proposed test methods across Europe are increasingly putting particular emphasis on :

the respiration rate (e.g. DRI Dynamic Respirometric Index or Atmungsaktivitt AT4) the potential biogas production (e.g. Gr-test)

Remarkably, also the EC Working Paper for the Directive on Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste issued in 2001 considered respirometry (D.R.I. and AT4); the Working Paper clearly stated that waste materials which have been subject to biological treatment, in case they achieve a certain limit value for fermentability, are not deemed as biodegradable any more, and can thus contribute to meeting the targets of the Landfill Directive (65% reduction 2 of biodegradable waste to be landfilled in the long run) . 7.3 Trends of MBT and issues related to mixed waste compost All the foregoing points towards a growing role for mechanical-biological treatment when it comes to treatment of residual waste in the context of integrated strategies for waste management. Relative to incineration, MBT factually shows to be often more affordable (and this seems to be its potential main driver in Enlargement Countries). Furthermore, it proves to be more flexible, as it may work also without reaching its full capacity and may be progressively transformed into composting of source separated materials; its also remarkably less affected by economies of scale (which makes it affordable at much lower throughputs, e.g. in rural districts). The foregoing seem to be the main driving forces for the recent massive growth of MBT across Europe, above all in some areas (e.g. Steiermark in Austria, North Italy, UK, various Districts in Germany). Moreover, MBT also seems to attract consensus among local communities and 3 Environmentalist Associations , whenever a flexible alternative to incineration is sought. As a matter of fact, the technical requirements set by the Incineration Directive make emissions from incinerators appear as a minor concern; still open is anyway the problem of the burden incineration may pose on the growth of source separation, given its need for a constant throughput and the lack of flexibility as to quality of inputs; particularly important, in this last respect, seems to be the increase of calorific value of residual waste in those districts where intensive separate collection of biowaste is implemented; calorific values eventually achieved in residual waste (in the range of 3500-4500 kcal/kg) may pose problems to traditional technologies for incineration. We have to remark that MBT actually may be fully coupled with thermal recovery of fractions with high calorific value, which may also be transformed into refuse derived fuel (RDF) to be burned at incineration facilities built on purpose or used as a substitute fuel at existing power plants, cement kilns, etc. replacing fossil fuels.

 7KH 'RFXPHQW UHDGV ,I UHVLGXDO PXQLFLSDO ZDVWH XQGHUJRHV D PHFKDQLFDOELRORJLFDO WUHDWPHQW SULRU WR

ODQGILOOLQJWKHDFKLHYHPHQWRIHLWKHUD5HVSLUDWLRQ$FWLYLW\DIWHUIRXUGD\V$7EHORZPJ2JGPRU D '\QDPLF 5HVSLUDWLRQ ,QGH[ EHORZ  PJ 2NJ 96K VKDOO GHHP WKDW WKH WUHDWHG UHVLGXDO PXQLFLSDO

ZDVWHLVQRWDQ\PRUHELRGHJUDGDEOHZDVWHLQWKHPHDQLQJRI$UWLFOHPRI'LUHFWLYH(& UHPDUNDEO\*UHHQSHDFH8.LVVXHGWKHWHFKQLFDOGRFXPHQW &RRO:DVWH0DQDJHPHQWDVWDWHRIWKHDUW

DOWHUQDWLYH WR LQFLQHUDWLRQ IRU UHVLGXDO PXQLFLSDO ZDVWH ZKHUHE\ 0%7 LV VXSSRUWHG DQG SURPRWHG DV D VWUDWHJLF RSWLRQ IRU WKH IXOILOPHQW RI JRDOV RI WKH /DQGILOO 'LUHFWLYH DORQJVLGH WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI VRXUFH VHJUHJDWLRQRIELRZDVWH

10

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino To achieve that, MBT may flexibly be run

in the split mode (separating coarse and dry materials, to be burned or turned into RDF, from organic waste, to be biologically treated) or in the dry stabilisation mode (using airflows to dry out quickly the waste mass, then separating a high-CV fraction from stabilised organic waste). Such activities, widely diffused in Germany an Austria, but also under development in Italy and the UK, get usually worded as dry stabilisation, biodrying or Trockenstabilat Verfahrung

As a consequence to its flexibility, MBT is therefore under fast development in many Countries. Its development is also promoted by the possibility to turn, or upgrade, many existing mixed MSW composting sites into MBT facilities. As a matter of fact, in the past, many mixed MSW composting plants in various Countries aimed at producing compost for use in farmlands. For instance, in France in 1998, 7% of MSW (1,9 million tonnes out of 26,5 million tonnes) was reportedly being composted in 77 sites for mixed MSW composting [8]. The strategy of producing compost from mixed MSW has rarely been successful, and marketing conditions have always shown to be difficult, to say the least. Farmers seldom have trusted mixed MSW compost to be used in farmland applications (with some exceptions in South Europe due to the need for soil improvers to restore fertility); furthermore, increased sensitivity on issues pertaining to safe production of food commodities, and the subsequent tightening of standards for materials suitable for application onto farmlands are making the possible use of mixed MSW compost more and more difficult and questionable [1], [9]. Many facilities treating unsorted MSW to produce compost are therefore being phased out, or more frequently converted into biological treatment of residual waste prior to landfilling, or partly upgraded to composting of source separated biowaste. In Germany, a late survey [10] reported 35 MBT showing an overall capacity of 2.150.00 tpa, with 20 more under construction for further 1.530.000 tpa. This proves that even in Countries where source separation and composting have already undergone a long implementation, and are a cornerstone of integrated waste management, MBT is still growing as a suitable waste management option, alongside incineration, to fulfil requirements of environmentally sound management of landfills. In Central Europe, biological treatment for residual waste basically targets two different possible operational goals: stabilisation prior to landfilling, increase of the calorific value of residual waste before thermal valorisation, as in the Dry stabilate method

In Italy, Decree 36/03 (enforcing Directive 99/31) asks for the waste to be pre-treated before landfilling (although possible exceptions are considered). Also in Italy, in the past, many mixed MSW composting plants aimed at producing compost for application onto farmlands. In recent years, around 30 plants had been reported by ANPA [11], whose overall capacity for mixed MSW in 1997 was around 1.650.000 tpa. Referring to 1995 [12], some reported 65 mixed MSW composting plants (with an overall capacity of around 3.000.000 tpa), only 23 of which in operation (850.000 tpa), 16 shut down and 25 under construction or improvement. Many of those plants have been shut down in past years; subsequently many others have not been fully completed. Such shortcomings were due to: poor environmental conditions (missing or poorly designed odour-treatment systems), poor process management (with production of immature compost) or, most of times

problems related to the targeted strategy for end use of compost from mixed MSW Also in Italy, as elsewhere, facilities treating unsorted MSW to produce compost have therefore been converted into biological treatment of residual waste prior to landfilling, or partly upgraded to composting of source separated biowaste.

11

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino As a consequence to increasing interest about MBT as a tool for integrated waste management, many new MBT facilities have been recently opened in Italy. In 1999 the overall capacity for MBT was reported at 3.957.470 tpa [13]. On top of such figure, further capacity related to new facilities should be considered. The overall reported capacity in 2002 was already around 10 million tpa., the actual thoughput being around 5,6 million tpa of mixed MSW; in 2003 the total capacity jumped further up to 11,7 Mtpa in 118 sites and the actual throughput to 7,5 Mtpa, in 94 sites [14], [15]. 7.4 Suitability of stabilised materials from mixed MSW for land application and related conditions Besides the possible application of MBT to stabilise waste before landfilling or to increase its calorific value, MBT in Italy often shows also a particular approach, aiming at the production and use of soil improvers (Grey compost or Stabilised Organic Fraction) for restricted applications such as reclamation of landfill or mining sites, rehabilitation of polluted soils, antinoise barriers, landscaping activities, etc. It has to be mentioned that the huge need of organic matter in Mediterranean weather, soil and cropping conditions, implies the need of keeping high-quality compost from source separated materials only for application in farming and gardening. Some Regions and Provinces in Italy have already issued guidelines and/or technical regulations to consider the use of Stabilised Organic Fractions, after refining, for land reclamation [16], [17]; their principles have been endorsed also by a draft national regulation expected to be issued in the near future. Such regulations consider one-off applications with high loads in order to promote biological activities in surface soil layers on exploited mines, slopes to be consolidated, anti-noise barriers, etc. As for restrictions on use, regulations address above all the need to check: load of heavy metals and load of nitrogen

Loads have to be calculated in order to stay within maximum concentration of potentially toxic elements in the soil (considering also a safety factor to stay far from thresholds) and to prevent massive release of nitrogen to the groundwater. We should also remark that the EC Working Paper for the Directive on Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste considered possible restricted applications subject to licensing - for such materials, since it reads: Member States may authorise the use of stabilised biowaste fulfilling the requirements of Annex III as a component in artificial soils or in those land applications that are not destined to food and fodder crop production [such as final landfill cover with a view to restoring the landscape, landscape restoration in old and disused quarries and mines, anti-noise barriers, road construction, golf courses, ski slopes, football pitches and the likes]. The foregoing points towards the possibility to consider such materials for applications which sometimes require very high amounts of soil improvers; this would also make the overall potential production of soil improvers (coming from both separate collection and mechanical separation) match the need for organic matter; as a matter of fact, the possibility of a restricted use of grey compost coming from mixed MSW for land reclamation and landscaping may keep composted products of high quality from source separated feedstocks for safe application onto farmlands.

12

ECN/ORBIT e.V. - First Baltic Biowaste Conference 2006 Pres. Nr. 02 The EU Legislation and the requirements following for national organic waste management strategies and policies Enzo Favoino

8. References [1] AMLINGER F., POLLACK M., FAVOINO E., 2004 Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers. Report for the European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/pdf/hm_finalreport.pdf [2] FAVOINO E., TORNAVACCA A., RICCI M., 2003 Recent optimisation of schemes for source separation of biowaste taking into account local conditions, Proc. ECN Conference The future of separate collection of biowaste, Barcelona, Dec. 2003 [3] WIEMER K., KERN M., 1995 Mechanical-biological treatment of residual waste based on the dry stabilate method. In Abfall-Wirtschaft: Neues aus Forschung und Praxis, Witzenhausen, Germany [4] BADEN BADEN AMT FR UMWELTSCHUTZ, Restmuellaufbereitung. Personal Communication 1996 Versuchsergebnisse

[5] PROVINCIA DI MILANO, 1998 Analisi merceologiche delle frazioni umida e secca in Provincia di Milano. In: Il quaderno: Gestione Rifiuti Solidi Urbani 1998; Indirizzi Programmatici e Azioni di Approfondimento, Milan, Italy [6] LEIKAM K., STEGMANN R., 1997 Landfill behaviour of mechanical-biological pretreated waste. ISWA Times, 3/97, pp.23-27 [7] ADANI F., 2001 Personal Communication (University of Milan) [8] ADEME, Agence de lEnvironment et de la Matrise de lEnergie, 2000 Dechet municipaux: les chiffres cls [9] AMLINGER F., et al., 2004 Inputs from exogenous organic matter: compost Final Report to the European Commission by the WG Contamination of the Soil Stakeholders Consultation, Bruxelles, 2004 [10] STOCKINGER J., DOEDENS H., 2003 Emission management in mechanical-biological pre-treatment plants (MBP/MBT) Situation and legal framework in Germany, Austria and the EU, Proc. ECN Workshop Odour Emissions in Biological Waste Treatment Plants, Aschaffenburg, Germany [11] ANPA, Agenzia Nazionale di Protezione dellAmbiente, 1999 Secondo rapporto sui rifiuti urbani e sugli imballaggi e rifiuti di imballaggio, Rome, Italy [12] MERZAGORA W., FERRARI S.P., 1996 Impianti di trattamento dei rifiuti solidi urbani ed assimilabili; indagine 1995 Assoambiente, Milan, Italy [13] LARAIA R., 2001 Il ruolo della gestione dei rifiuti organici biodegradabili nella gestione integrata dei rifiuti: orientamenti europei e nazionali Proc. RICICLA 2001, pp. 684-695, Rimini, Italy [14] APAT, Agenzia per la Protezione dellAmbiente e del Territorio ONR, Osservatorio Nazionale Rifiuti, 2003, Rapporto Nazionale Rifiuti 2003 [15] APAT, Agenzia per la Protezione dellAmbiente e del Territorio ONR, Osservatorio Nazionale Rifiuti, 2004, Rapporto Nazionale Rifiuti 2004 [16] FAVOINO E., 1998 Trattamenti biologici e ripristino ambientale: il punto di vista tecnico; Proc. SEP-Pollution, Padova 1998 [17] FAVOINO E., 1998 Trattamenti meccanico-biologici della frazione organica dei rsu e recuperi ambientali: valutazioni tecnico-scientifiche e controllo ambientale; Proc. Ricicla, Rimini 1998

13