Selecting appropriate technologies

Decision Support for Integrated Waste Management

07 April 2016

WMRIG Seminar

| 1

Outline

Project background and objectives

Basis for decision support tools

Development of tools and outcomes

‒(1) Technical guide for technology screening

‒(2) Integrated Waste Management – Decision Support Tool

Conclusions and way forward

| 2

Project background and objectives

| 3

Waste Economy Project: Objectives

| 4

Objectives:

i. Map and demystify policy and regulatory

landscape, consolidating information on the

powers/functions of the three levels of

government, as well as other key stakeholders

ii.Develop and demonstrate decision support

tools to enable integrated municipal waste

management

iii.Identify key supporting actions to enable the

development of value chains for the utilisation

of secondary materials in commercial and

industrial wastes

Approach:

Policy and Regulatory Framework:

• Web-based tool on policy and regulatory

requirements for waste management projects

in municipalities and in the private sector

Municipal decision support:

• Integrated Municipal Waste Management

Model (IMWMM) and technical guide

tailored to South African municipal

contexts

Development of the waste economy:

• Strategy for WCG to support the development

and utilisation of secondary materials

(drawing, among others, on extensive

stakeholder engagement).

Background and context

| 5

Image courtesy of IEA Bioenergy (2013);

Initial focus at GreenCape -

waste to energy

But Waste-to-Energy

‒ strongly dependent on

upstream (and downstream)

actions/activities

‒ needs to consider guiding

principles - sustainability e.g.

Waste Hierarchy and circular

economy principles

Basis for decision support tools

| 6

Basis for decision support tools

Support the unlocking of municipal waste

| 7

To enable investment and job creation in the waste economy by:

‒ Assisting municipalities prepare for engagement and collaboration with

industry

• Technical guide for technology selection: technology cost

• Integrated Waste Management – Decision Support Tool : full

systems analysis

Context (GreenCape 2014)

Waste Generation

Household (Municipal) Commercial and Industrial

E-waste OrganicPaperMetal Glass PlasticBuilders rubble

Tyres Greens

LandfillThermal Treatment

Recycling

Hydrolysis

Incin

eration

Pyro

lysis

Gasification

Plasma A

rc

An

aerob

ic D

igestion

Bio

-dryin

g

Co

mp

ostin

g

Fermen

tation

Landfill G

as

Biological Treatment

Sewerage Sludge Agricultural

Alternative Prod

ucts

Resin

Example of municipal project cycle for waste management: legislated processes

1. Preliminary studies (e.g. technical guide)

2. Integration into IWMP

(e.g. DST)

3. Detailed studies

4. Integration into IDP

5. Implementation

6. Monitoring and evaluation and gap

analysis

i. Structured processes (legislated) within

municipalities (and government)

ii. Different planning needs at different levels

of planning

iii.Multiple stakeholders at different stages

• Public service and political

• Local, provincial and national

• S78 – Feasibility studies

• PPP - Feasibility studies

Technical guide for technology screening

| 10

IWMP Technical Content Guide Support to generate the technical content of an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP)

Purpose:

To assist municipalities in developing integrated waste management plans by

providing guidelines (rules of thumb) for selecting (i.e. identifying and

screening) technology options for the range of waste streams to be

managed.

Overview of technical guide

Initial screen

(decision tree)

• Do we have sufficient volumes for economies of scale?

High level viability assessment

Assess viability of potentially feasible options, considering:

• Reasonable “extraction”

• Current treatment cost per tonne

• Comparative cost per tonne for AWT

Shortlist of options

• Feed into IWMP

• Guide focus of detailed feasibility studies

What alternative waste treatment options are viable for (my) municipality?

| 12

Waste volume assessment (DEA, 2014)

Targets/limits for recoverable amounts*

Domestic (household)

waste

Dry recyclablesClean MRF - 30%

Dirty MRF – 5%

Organics 60%

Garden waste 90%

C&D waste 90%

Residual 25%

Commercial waste Industrial waste Hazardous waste

*Based on e.g. separation at source (participation and efficacy), mixed waste (participation and efficacy)#Purely illustrative amounts

Recoverable

fraction of stream#

What can we extract?

High level cost assessment (excel)

Domestic (household)

waste

Recycling -Clean MRF

Mixed dry recyclables 750450 (paper) – 3 600

(PET)

Recycling -Dirty MRF

Mixed waste 420200 (paper) – 3 200

(PET)*

Anaerobic digestion

Organic waste 2 000 1 100

Composting Organic & garden waste tbc tbc

IncinerationOrganic, garden, mixed recyclables (paper and plastic), residual waste

5 000 830 - 980

LandfillOrganic, garden, mixed,

residual, C&D waste 450 0

Technology Waste typesEstimated treatment

cost (R/t)*

Estimated

revenue/value (R/t)#

*Primarily based on Knowledge Product 2 (DEA, 2014)#Based on Waste Roadmap (2012) and own calculations

Collection and transport

High level cost assessment (excel)

Dry recyclables 7 633 Recycling - clean MRF YES -20 -41

Anaerobic digestion YES 3 550 6 901

Composting YES 514 692

Organics 8 717

Incineration NO Not advisable 24 335

Landfill YES 603 2 402

Residual waste 209 211 Landfill YES 603 674

Composting YES 514 722

Garden waste 7 845

Landfill YES 603 2 505

Typical cost

(ZAR/tonne)

Waste

volumes

Actual levelised

cost (ZAR per

| 17

Technical guide summary and way forward

Technical guide developed to provide technical detail for IWMPs

‒ Allows for planning for e.g. feasibility studies in annual plans/budgets

Testing of technical guide with case study municipalities

Update of content (including numbers)

Opportunity to integrate into 2016/17 IWMP processes

Implementation - housing of guide and continuous development

Integrated Waste Management – Decision Support Tool

| 18

Integrated Waste Management

| 19

to provide holistic

evaluation of different

alternative waste

treatment routes by

conducting full waste

value chain assessment

to determine costs and

benefits of different

systems(based on Gentil et al, 2010)

Inputs – waste types &

quantities, resources etc

Outputs – environmental,

financial, other

GreenCape IWM-DST: Approach

| 20

IWM-DST

Structured processes

Outline of processes

Integration of stakeholders

Decision support models

Financial analysis (USEPA)

Environmental analysis (EASETECH)

Stellenbosch Municipality – Case Study Background

| 21

Population – 155,000

Households -43,500

‒ 71% formal

‒ 7% shacks in backyard

‒ 22% informal

Service area – 831 km2

No Income21%

R1000 - 320032%

>R320047%

Population distribution by income

Stellenbosch Municipality - Background

| 22

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

To

nn

ag

e o

f w

as

te

lan

dfi

lle

d p

er

ye

ar

Soil (cover)

Tyres

Mixed BuildersRubbleIndustrial refuse

Domestic Refuse

Garden refuse

Builders Rubble

Stellenbosch Municipality - Background

| 23

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cu

mu

lati

ve w

aste

vo

lum

es

(th

ou

san

ds m

3)

ρ = 0,60 t/m3 ρ = 1,2 t/m3 ρ = 1,8 t/m3

Stellenbosch waste flow diagram - base line

| 24

Domestic mixed waste – 240l bins

(Commercial and) industrial mixed waste

Stellenbosch University mixed waste

Domestic C&D waste

Klapmuts Transfer station

University organics vehicles

CL Waste MRF

Huis Horizon MRF

Kraaifonein MRF and transfer station

Municipal recyclables vehicles

Private mixed waste vehicles

Source Collection and transport

Municipal RO-RO trucks

Private vehicles

University farm composting facility

Informal collection

Devon valley landfill site

Compost

CoCT - sorting and baling

Transfer Treatment

45,332tpa

912tpa

288tpa

2,120tpa

112tpa (6,000m3)

85% - 775 tpa

15% - 137 tpa

112tpa (6,000m3)

L

local

regional

national

international

LLL

University

7392tpa

59,678tpa

Domestic Commingled recyclable waste Municipal compactor trucks

Franschhoek Mixed Domestic Waste

Stellenbosch university Organic Waste

Stellenbosch University commingled recyclables

(Commercial and) industrial commingled recyclables

Private sector C&D collection

Franschhoek garden waste (30m3 skips)

Klapmuts garden waste(30m3 skips)

Commercial and Industrial C&D waste

3648tpa

Domestic mixed waste – 10m3

communal skips

Private recyclables vehicles

Private RO-RO trucks

3744tpa

636tpa

Private RO-RO trucks (Franschhoek)

Private RO-RO trucks (Klapmuts

Vissershoek?

Huis Horison - Sorting and baling

CL waste -sorting and baling

Garden refuse

Devon Valley landfill - storage

L

L

Stockpile and storage

Source

Ward 1, 2, 3 - Franschhoek mixed domestic waste 240l bins

Ward 1,2,3 - Franschhoek commingled recyclables

Ward 4-11, 13,16,17,21,22 - Mixed domestic waste

Ward 18 - Mixed domestic waste

Ward 18 - Commingled recyclables

Ward 12, 14, 15 – Enkanini and Kayamandi mixed domestic waste skips

Ward 4-11, 13,16,17,21,22 - Commingled recyclables

Ward 19 - Mixed domestic waste

Ward 19 - Commingled recyclables

Ward 20 - Mixed domestic waste

Ward 20 - Commingled recyclables

Source Aggregation Collection TreatmentIntermediate

facilities

IWM-DST: model basis

| 25

Full analysis of municipal waste management – from collection to final

treatment/disposal

‒ Financial analysis

‒ Environmental analysis

Stakeholder workshop to brainstorm scenarios

‒ Waste volumes

‒ Cost of waste management vs affordability

‒ Capacity challenges

IWM-DST: Model outputs

| 26

BAU (based on 2014 base case) + four scenarios modelled:

‒ Scenario 0: BAU

‒ Scenario1: BAU with diversion of garden waste and builder’s rubble

‒ Scenario 2a & 2b: Diversion of recyclables

‒ Scenario 3a & 3b: Diversion of recyclables and organics (via a local AD

facility, and composting)

‒ Scenario 4: Incorporation of regional collaboration(assumption: Drakenstein

incineration used)

Key findings

| 27

Scenario Diversion

of MSW

(%)

Major (New)

CAPEX

Net costs (over 20

years)

Normalised

costs (over

20 years)

Net Potential

revenue

Global

warming

potential

(t CO2-eq)

Base case (BAU)*2 - R 2,0b 1,00

R 15m39,000

Scenario 1 2 R 16m R 1,7b 0,87 R 15m 46,000

Scenario 2a25 R 64m R 2,2b 1,13 R 160m 29,000

Scenario 2b 25 R 18m R 2,1b 1,08 R 160m 29,000

Scenario 3a50 R 230m R 2,9b 1,46 R 340m 11,000

Scenario 3b50 R 180m R 2,6b 1,31 R 340m 11,000

Scenario 4100# R 221m R 2,6b 1,32 R 340m -12,000

*Total waste for 2014 – 117,000tpa

(Domestic waste – 45,332tpa, builders’ rubble – 35,633tpa, garden refuse – 3,530tpa, industrial – 3,668tpa,

mixed builders’ rubble – 3,221tpa, tyres – 154tpa, cover material – 25,166tpa)#Additional 50% diversion achieved from utilisation of Drakenstein WtE

| 28

IWM-DST case study summary

AWM may not be affordable to the municipality

‒ 2014/15 waste budget: R5.9m CAPEX (vs e.g >R50m CAPEX for AWM)

‒ Diversion to other municipalities possible but cannot be infinite

‒ Need to investigate alternative funding mechanisms, e.g. public private partnerships

Way forward (Stellenbosch):

‒ Collation of information into IWMP (2016/17)

‒ Integration of plan into IDP process

‒ Alignment with district and provincial plans

Way forward (IWM-DST)

‒ Investigate different funding mechanisms

‒ Development of simple guide for smaller municipalities

Conclusions and way forward

| 29

Overall insights: Technology potential

Short term/promising

‒ Open windrow

composting

‒ Clean materials

recycling

‒ Dirty materials

recycling

Department of Environmental Affairs (2014)

| 30

Mid-term/potential

‒ Incineration

‒ Anaerobic digestion

‒ In-vessel

composting

‒ Mechanical

biological treatment

Long term/potential

‒ Gasification

‒ Plasma gasification

‒ Pyrolysis

‒ Mechanical Heat

Treatment

Overall insights: Integrated Waste Management

There is a role for WtE in RSA, but need to take cognisance of IWM approach:

Wilson et al (2015); Wasteaware benchmark indicators for integrated

sustainable waste management in cities| 31

Physical Governance

1. Public health:

Collection

2. Environment:

Treatment and

Disposal

3. Resource value:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle4. Inclusivity:

User and Provider

5: Financial

Sustainability

6: Sound institutions

and pro-active policies

Overall insights: Industry opportunities

Very limited capacity (human resources and funding)

‒ affects planning and implementation of new technology

Slow growth, but strong appetite for AWM – including WtE - at municipalities:

‒ Changing legislation, landfill requirements, lack of suitable landfill sites etc

‒ Most municipalities operating MRFs, composting facilities and crushing BR

Important to consider WtE as part of IWM – lessons learnt from Europe

‒ Disregarding waste hierarchy can lead to white elephants

‒ Conversely, there will always be a residual fraction:

• Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria and Denmark landfill less than

10% and recycle above 50% of their municipal waste but depend on WtE to treat

the remaining waste that is not suitable for recycling.

Acknowledgements

Thank You

Tawanda Sango: tawanda@green-cape.co.za

+27 21 811 0250

| 34

http://www.sita.co.uk/

Context(DEA, 2014)