1 solid waste work at the bank – my personal journey since 1978 by sandra cointreau solid waste...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Solid Waste Work at the Bank – My Personal Journey since 1978
By Sandra Cointreau Solid Waste Management Advisor The World Bank, Washington DC
January 2006
2
My Journey with the Bank• 1978 - Tunisia - Franglish• 1979 – Nigeria – Proving Ground with Ed Motte
and Randolph Anderson• 1979 - India – Handy work,palmist okays my
role in urban mission• 1980 - John Courtney – my Brother typewriter
and park benches to write strategic plan guide• 1981 - John Kalbermatten – A leap of faith and
support for role in UN decade efforts• 1981 - Faxing and Word Processing – Wow!!• 1982 - Charles Gunnerson – Co-authoring• 1983 - Saul Arlosoroff – The fine of advocacy for
recycling• 1986 - Everywhere - Looking for Printers
3
Hunting White Elephants
4
My Journey with the Bank
• 1987 – Dumbing down and institutional insanity, where are all my mentors going?!!
• 1988 – Lotus and Costing of Options• 1990 – Linked lotus spreadsheets for
costing– Euphoria!!• 1991 – Privatization madness• 1993 – Have Equestrian Helmet will
Travel• 1995 – Computers end BTO time
5
Happiness
Is a
Horse…
6
My Journey with the Bank• 1997 – Trust funds and tied consultants • 1998 - Carl Bartone - Global collaboration• 2000 – Email madness – endless
“communication”• Somewhere in here – end of very dumb
marriage• 2001 – 911 and a new Go Slow in my consulting• 2003 – Iraq – Utilities for the south – the
satisfaction of working in the danger zone• 2004 – Climate Change – a new driver for
operations funding of disposal improvements• 2005 – Avian Influenza – another new driver to
fixing dumpsites
7
Life in Iraq
8
Methane – 21 times CO2 as GHG
Types of Global GHG (~41 billion tCO2e) - % Distribution
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CO2 land and forestry
changes-19%
CO2 fuel and cement activity-
55%
CFC, HFC, SF6, PFC, etc.-1%
N2O-9%
Methane-16%
9
3 Decades of Bank Transition• 75-83 – community systems and user
charges as part slum upgrading, compost trials.
• 83-90 – new collection fleets and workshop improvements, institutional and financial strengthening, dumpsite upgrading.
• 90-98 – stakeholders, strategic planning, private sector collection trials, cost recovery expectations, sanitary landfills with environmental assessments.
10
3 Decades of Bank Transition• 99-01 – waiting on decentralization of
financial authority and private sector investment.
• 01-03 – sanitary landfills and transfer stations, medical waste source segregation and treatment, upgrading waste picking.
• 04-06 – sanitary landfills with gas recovery, composting, anaerobic digestion, transfer systems to regional sites, all with carbon finance and inter-municipal agreements
11
On the Horizon
2006+ • continued regional climate change
disposal/treatment systems, • policies on economic incentives, • slaughter and livestock waste
segregation and treatment, • source segregation of recyclables,
holistic decision modeling of transfer and disposal technology options considering emissions, consumables, and costs.
12
What Have We Learned:First – What are the health and environmental concerns?
13
Environmental Concerns:
• Greenhouse gases from solid waste activities – Landfills are top sources of methane GHG; refuse fleets are significant sources of CO2 and N2O.
• Wasted recyclable materials have lost inherent energy from production.
• Volatilized heavy metals (e.g., mercury and lead), dioxins and furans from open burning dumpsites and low-standard incinerators.
• Leachate from unlined and uncovered dumpsites contaminates ground and surface waters.
• Bioaerosols and dust from handling. • Smoke particulates from open dumping.
14
Health Concerns:• Infection – contact with human fecal matter, blood, and
diseased tissue; contact with diseased dead animal matter and manure.
• Animal diseases – foraging of animals/birds at open dumps; recycling of slaughter waste into animal feed.
• Respiratory disease -- particulates and bioaerosols reduce pulmonary function.
• Cancer -- volatilized refractory organics from uncontrolled landfill gases; heavy metals, dioxins and furans from poorly controlled burning.
• Headaches – lack of oxygen and excessive CO from dumpsite decomposition and burning.
• Injury – wounds from sharps, traffic accidents.
15
Bombay, India, 1995Significant contact during loading, no shoes or gloves
Tema, Ghana, 1998 Children playing in an area of uncollected waste
Direct Contact with Waste:
16
El Salvador, 1998, Cows and pigs searching for food
Dominican Republic, 1998, Pigs living on dumpsites
Animals Raised and Fed on Raw Waste:
17
Dumpsite Linkage to Animal and Poultry Diseases:
• Avian Influenza H5N1–virus in bird secretions and excreta are long-lived. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes, able to last weeks. Wild and domestic birds are carriers. Humans susceptible through contact and ingestion of poultry.
• Encephalopathies (Mad Cow, Sheep Scrapie) -- prion proteins in brain and spinal materials are long lasting, even after composting, or thermal processing into animal feed. Humans susceptible through ingestion of meat.
• Cattle, Sheep and Goat Foot-and-Mouth -- virus in secretions and excreta. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes. Dogs, rats, and birds are carriers.
• Bovine TB – bacterium in secretions and excreta. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes. Infective to all mammals.
• Rabbit Viral Hemorrhagic Fever –virus in rabbit blood and excreta. Present in bedding wastes and slaughter wastes, able to last weeks. Surviving rabbits are carriers.
18
Bio-aerosol Levels:
• 10-1000 times Higher near the truck loading hopper. (Switzerland, Denmark local studies)
• 2-10 times Higher inside materials recovery plants. (USA, Finland local studies)
• 2-4 times Higher at sanitary landfills. (Italy local studies) Izmir, Turkey,
1994
19
Particulates High at Burning Dumps:
Mauritius, 1998Dominican Republic, 1998
20
Pulmonary Function:
• 23% Dumpsite Workers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function. (India local study)
• 40% Dumpsite Waste Pickers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function. (Thailand local study)
• 53% Dumpsite Child Waste Pickers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function. (Philippines local study)
21
Blood Lead Levels:
• 70% Dumpsite Children Pickers above WHO lead guideline --children pickers mean lead was 2.5 times higher than in control slum children. (Philippines local study) Quezon City, the Philippines,
1995
22
What Have We Learned:Second – How do we achieve cost-effective technical designs?
23
Waste Character: • Vegetable/putrescible material 2-3 times higher --
40% to 80% by weight. • Recyclable paper, plastic, metal, glass 2-5 times
lower -- 5% to 15%.• Inert fines 2-5 times higher -- 20% to 40%.• Moisture content 2-4 times higher -- 40% to 70%.• Density 2-3 times higher -- 350 to 400 kg/cu.mtr.,
uncompacted in collection truck.• Calorific values 2-3 times lower -- 800 to 1,300
kg/cal.
24
Waste Differences affect Technical Choices:• Compaction is not always justified.• Composting is technically viable, but farmers
may not afford to pay the difference in cost above sanitary landfill.
• Sanitary landfill gas generation is technically viable, but gas escapes quickly in warm tropical climates and requires extra investment to contain.
• Incineration is rarely self-sustainable, since supplemental fuel is needed for low-calorie waste.
25
Strategic Planning is Essential:
• Collection options vary widely in cost and quality of service, must fit the local setting.
• Transfer facilities can dramatically cut costs.
• Disposal systems have large economies-of-scale, must fit the local waste character.
• Holistic modeling is available to comparatively assess costs, consumables, and emissions.
26
Collection Vehicle Types:• Small – power tiller, hand
cart, mini-truck.• Slow moving – tractor and
trailer, animal cart.• Fast moving – open tipper
truck, rear loader truck.• Container lifting – roll on,
skip, mechanical arm for carts.
Accra, Ghana, 1997
Kukkattpally, India, 2001
27
Collection Vehicle Types:
Liftable Container, Izmir, Turkey, 1994
Arm-Roll Container, Sekondi, Ghana, 1997
28
Collection Vehicle Types:
Arm Roll Container, Ahmedabad, India, 2001
Market Skip Lift Containers, Tema, Ghana, 1994
29
Collection Vehicle Types:
Mini Private Truck, Bangalore, India, 2001
Open Tipper Lifts Hand Carts, Hue, Vietnam, 1996
30
Cost Comparison of Vehicle TypesSolid Waste Collection Vehicle Costs
in Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 20 35
km from collection to discharge
co
st
pe
r to
nn
e in
$U
S
LG RL COMP MANUAL 20 LG RL COMP CONTAINERS 20
SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10
SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 FARM TRACTOR TRAILER 6
OPEN TIPPER 6
31
Public versus Private Operator:• Different financing costs.• Different overhead costs.• Different salaries and benefit costs.• Different insurance, tax, registration, and
marketing costs (also corruption costs).• Different length of hours of work and productivity
per worker.• Different vehicle availability.• Different accountability – per contractual
specifications.
32
Private Sector Service:
Woman-Owned Micro-Enterprise, Quito, Ecuador, 1998
Women-Owned Cooperative, Kukkattpally India, 2001
33
Public versus Private Costs:
Comparison of Private and Government Collection Costs
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
5 15 30 45
Distance in Kilometers to Unload
Cos
t per
Ton
ne in
$U
S
REARLOADER Govt 14.0
OPENTIPPERGovt 8.1
REARLOADER Private 14.0
OPENTIPPERPrivate 8.1
• Total costs for private versus public were so close in Quito, it was decided to maintain a balance of each, and gradually decrease government to about 30% through natural attrition.
34
Transfer Systems enable reducing Collection Haul Distance, Vehicle Emissions and Costs by 20 To 50 percent.
Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Vehicle Costs in Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
5.0 15.0 30.0 50.0
km from collection to discharge
cost
per
tonn
e in
$US
REAR LOADER MANUAL 10.0 TRANSFER TRUCK TRAILERS 60.0
35
Determine Transfer Breakpoints:
• Each type and size of collection vehicle has a different transfer breakpoint.
• Traffic speed affects the transfer breakpoint.
• Consider transfer for hauls over 30 minutes.
COST ($US/Tonne) FOR COLLECTION AND TRANSFER SYSTEMS - GOVERNMENT SERVICE -
Georgetown, Guyana- 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 15 30 50DISTANCE ONE WAY TO DISPOSAL
COST
/TO
NNE
($US
)
REAR LOADERMANUAL 10
TRANSFERSYSTEM W/COLL.TRUCKS
TRANSFERTRUCK W/FACILITY
TRANSFERTRUCK 60
TRANSFERSTATION
36
Typical 2-Level Transfer Stations
Manila, Philippines, Manila, Philippines, 19931993
Quito, Ecuador, 1998Quito, Ecuador, 1998
37
Direct Unloading to Transfer Truck
Hyderabad, India, Skip Hyderabad, India, Skip Container Lift Collection Truck, Container Lift Collection Truck, Unloads to Open Tipping Truck, Unloads to Open Tipping Truck, 20012001
38
Transfer Systems:
• Enable implementation of regional Treatment/Disposal activities that achieve Economies-of-Scale.
• Treatment/Disposal facilities should be at least 300 tonnes/daily shift to have bulldozers, wheeled loaders, windrow turners fully utilized.
• Roads, fences, weighbridges, gatehouses, utilities and maintenance components are fixed costs that should be applied to large waste quantities to lower cost/tonne.
39
Landfill Economies-of-Scale:
Landfill Costs - Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Investment Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane Total Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane
Cos
t in
$US
/Met
ric T
onne
40 TPD 550 TPD 1100 TPD
40
Composting:• Compost plants are
safe and clean and technically appropriate for clean organic waste.
• Product quality is key to success.
• Market demand may not be adequate to cover costs.
Ahmedebad, India, 2001Ahmedebad, India, 2001
41
Neighborhood Composting:
• Lessen the need to transport waste to disposal.
• Enable neighborhood revenues and employment.
• Require motivated public support.
Dakha, Bangladesh, 2001
42
Materials Recycling at Source:
• Source segregation obtains cleanest reusable materials.
• Source segregation requires extra collection systems.
• Registration and route assignment upgrades the status and security of waste pickers.
• Source segregation minimizes occupational and environmental health risks.
Bangalore, India, 2001Bangalore, India, 2001
43
Protective Gear for Workers:
Khulna, Bangladesh (syringes), 2001 Tema, Ghana, 1998
44
Segregate Special Wastes:
• Licensed private operators to safely handle segregated biomedical wastes.
Hyderabad, India, 2001
45
What Have We Learned:Third – How do we arrange financial sustainability?
46
Solid Waste Service is Costly:
• Total cost for solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal is typically $40-80/tonne.
• Per capita waste generation is 0.2-0.3 tonnes/year.
• 60-70% of total cost is for collection.
• Full solid waste service requires 1-2% of GDP.
47
Adequate Cash Flow is Essential:
• 50-70% of total cost is for recurrent expenditure – labor, fuel, tires, oil, spare parts.
• Labor and fuel are priority expenditures.
• If there aren’t enough recurrent funds, spare vehicles are cannibalized for parts.
48
Sources of Capital Funds:
• Municipal bond issues for facilities, including intergovernmental tax credits that recognize externalities.
• Municipal borrowings for vehicles, such as from national development banks.
• Renewal funds replenished by special taxes, user charges, tipping fees.
• Intergovernmental transfers.• Private sector investment.
49
Private Involvement raises Recurrent Budget Requirements:
• Recurrent budget must be higher to involve the private sector.
• Contractors have to pay monthly for their debt service for investment, and they borrow from short term notes at high commercial interest rates.
• Few municipalities could afford to support private sector investment.
• Mostly old non-specialized private vehicles are hired.
50
Economic Instruments for Regional or Global Externalities:
• Intergovernmental transfers to upgrade disposal to desired national standards.
• Intergovernmental transfers to encourage compost as a carbon sink and means of upgrading land for agriculture.
• International transfers to encourage emission reductions to reduce climate change.
51
Examples of Financial Transfers:• USA Superfund to remediate hazardous
releases, including qualifying municipal dumps:– 1980-2005+ Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and subsequent amendments.
– Funded with taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, eventually 8.5 $BB.
– 45,000 sites assessed, about 1,600 placed on National Priority List.
– Private responsible parties sued by Govt. to reimburse the trust.
52
Examples of Financial Transfers:
• Israel Solid Waste Subsidy Program:– 1994-2003 financial support to
municipalities.– Covered 5 years of cost increases for
increased disposal and haulage from implementing improved new landfills.
– Covered recycling communal bins and a fee for each tonne of waste recycled.
– Covered half the cost of backyard composting devices.
53
Examples of Financial Transfers:• EU funds to upgrade disposal for EU
accession countries:– 2000-5+ Instrument for Structural Polices for
Pre-Accession.– Grants to upgrade infrastructure to meet EU
standards, averaging over 1 BB Euros annually.– Funds up to 75% of landfill civil works
investment.
• EU cohesion funds:– 2000-5+ Assists less prosperous member
countries to meet EU standards – about 28 BB Euros.
54
Examples of Financial Transfers:
• UK Landfill Tax Credit:– Taxes every tonne landfilled – 50 BB
Pounds/year – mostly funds remediation of solid waste activities.
– Landfills given exemption for donations to environmental improvements.
– Similar landfill taxes in France, Italy, and Netherlands.
• Ireland Recycling Partnership:– 1997 payment for every tonne of packaging
waste recycled – over 60 MM Euros thus far.
55
Examples of Financial Transfers:• USA Tax Exemptions:
– For bond issues for resource recovery plants– For investment in landfill gas recovery.
• Various US States Recycling Subsidies:– 5-15% price preferences for recycled content.
• Global Environmental Facility: – funds to promote climate change
improvements – 1991-2005+ – ~5 $BB.
• Carbon Finance: – funds to purchase green house gas emission
reductions – 2000-2005+ - ~1$BB.
56
Major Sources of Methane GHG (~6 billion tCO2e) - % Distribution
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Natural gas-15% (fixable)
Solid waste landfills-13% (fixable)
Coal mines-8% (fixable)
Wastewater lagoons and sludge-10%
Biofuel production-4%
Biomass burning-5%
Enteric fermentation-28%
Manure-4%
Rice paddies-11%
57
Examples of Emission Purchases:
• Landfill methane gas capture to flare or recover.
• Composting or anaerobic digestion avoid landfill gas.
• Transfer stations reduce vehicle emissions.
• Recycling captures inherent energy in recyclable materials.
58
How do we cover costs for service benefits that occur within municipal boundaries and warrant being covered by municipal revenues?
59
Ideally……
• Delegate more authority to municipalities to:– Raise capital for investments, and – Establish fees and taxes to cover
recurrent costs and debt service.
• Encourage municipalities to enter inter-municipal agreements for specific facilities with economies-of-scale (~300 tonnes/day for most facilities…~400,000 residents).
60
Cost Recovery is Recommended:• People are willing to pay for good
service.• Free riders and illegal dumpers are
commonly identifiable from papers in their waste.
• Earmarked user charges enable reliable revenues for service delivery.
• Large generators may be influenced by quantity-based charges…polluter pays principle.
61
Cost Recovery Mechanisms:
• Property-tax additions for solid waste.
• User charges attached to water or electric bills.
• User charges billed separately to all waste generators.
• Tipping fees at transfer and disposal facilities.
62
Charges are based on City-wide Costs.
• Service to the poor is often more costly – small loads, poor access.
• Value of waste from the poor is less – fewer recyclables, more ash and sand.
• Charges should be proportional to income:– Property area,– Water consumption, or– Electricity consumption.
• Only large generators pay by volume.
63
Additional Revenue Sources:
• License fees from private subscription operators.
• Franchise fees for service zones.• Sales from recyclables, compost and
landfill gas.• Carbon finance from sale of
CO2equivalent emission reductions. • Landfill, environmental, or tourist
taxes earmarked for solid waste.
64
Conclusions:
•Plan cost-effective technical systems.•Address all health and environmental issues.•Develop sustainable financial arrangements.
