Waste Summit

3rd October 2007

Easter Road Stadium

Edinburgh

Wolfgang Scholz

Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment Public Heath and Consumer Protection

3 October 2007

Waste Management in Bavaria

W. ScholzDpt. Waste Management, Contaminated Sites and Soil Protection

• Introduction

• Principles

• Concept

• Change

• Total Cost of Ownership

• Disposal concepts

• Recovery

• Outlook

Contents

IntroductionGermany Bavaria

Pop. 82 Mio 16 Federal StatesArea 360,000 km²

Europe

Pop. 12 Mio7 District Governments

Area 70,000 km²

Pop. 492 Mio 27 EU - States

Area 4,230,000 km²

Principles• Free, liberalized areas

– Commercial waste, waste for recovery

• Producers' responsibility

– End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV), Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), etc.

• Public provision of services of general interest

– Household waste, special waste for disposal

• Waste requiring special supervision

– Disposal is subject to export ban and the obligation to be made available

ConceptHousehold waste and

commercial waste similar to household waste

avoid

Sorting and recovering

Problematic waste

Materials for recovery

Thermal treatmentEnergy

SlagScrap metal

Flue gascleaning

Landfill

Treatment Plants

5.000

7 3 002 0

33

16 280360 440

1.750

18.000

2005

1970

Land

fills

WE

P

(Was

te to

ene

rgy)

RC

-Pla

nts

for

Con

stru

ctio

n W

aste

Sor

ting

plan

ts

Com

post

ing

pla

nts

Rec

yclin

gya

rds

Rec

yclin

g b

ins

Source: Household waste audit Bavaria 2005

Waste Balance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

[mill. Mg]

Residual waste = 2,2 Mio. Mg

Total waste = 6,2 Mio. Mg *)

Landfilled, non-treated = 0, 15 Mio. Mg

Therm. treated = 2,2 Mio. Mg

Recyclable materials = 4,0 Mio. Mg

Source: Household waste audit Bavaria 2005*) incl. sorting residues and reused slag, therefore the sum of residual waste and recyclable waste amounts to more than 100%

12,4 Mio.Population

11,6 Mio.

Cash flow und Müllgebühren Deponierung

26,78 [EUR/Mg]

39,01 [EUR/Mg]

32,00 [EUR/Mg]

-50.000.000

-25.000.000

0

25.000.000

50.000.000

75.000.000

100.000.000

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 2057 2062 2067

-25,00

0,00

25,00

50,00

Cash f low

Waste fee

Liquidität[EUR]

Müllgebühren [EUR/Mg]

Abbildung : Cash flow and Fee of a landfillTotal Costs of Ownership: Landfill - Incineration; 2006

Müllgebühren bei unterschiedlichen Inflationsansätzen in 2017 (Einnahmen aus Ferndampf: 0,03 EUR/kWh )

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00

Inflation [%]

Mü

llgeb

üh

ren

[EU

R/M

g]

Müllgebühren Deponierung

Müllgebühren Verbrennung

Anstieg derEnergiekosten

Abbildung : Fee depending on Inflation in 2017 Total Costs of Ownership: Landfill - Incineration; 2006

Decision for Incineration and Against MBT

– Incineration is an independant solution

– Incineration is a well known and developed technique

– Incineration produces nearly no waste for disposal (only about 6% - mostly filterdust and some ashes)

– Slag is today a valuable (e.g. contains metal)

– Slag after separation is used in civil engineering

– Emissions are low

– MBT and especially co-incineration need a network of industrial partners, who have another way of decisions

Success of material recovery

– Bavaria collects and separates >50% of the waste for recovery

– A higher price of waste treatment enforces recovery

– Citizens are convinced of separate collection

Recovery Instruments

• Public and Consumer Information– Internet, Press, Print

Media, Radio/TV– Local Agenda– Exhibitions

• Consultancy in Waste– about 200 local

consultants– Consulting Customers,

Citizens, Enterprises

• Examplary Purchasing– Use of especially

environmental sound products(e.g. longest life, recoverable, easy to repair)

• Support of home composting

• Second Hand use

• Administrative Rules

Collected Recovery Material22

.6

33.5

8.7

0.95

35.5

31.5

63.6

21.8

5.7

63

33.4

75.4

23.7

8.5

72.8

41.9

30.9

78.9

25.5

10.1

90.5

47.2

28.9

76.5

23.5

9.3

88.1

44.8

26.7

79.3

21.8

10.2

86.6

48.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Glass Paper/Cardb. Metal Plastic Green Cut Biowaste

1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 2004

[ kg / capita, year] ]

Quelle: Hausmüllbilanz Bayern 2004

Outlook

• Implement new EU-Waste-Directive

– Introduce further measures to avoid waste especially Integrated product policies, information on waste, develop waste markets

– Increase waste recovery

• Optimise Waste Management as part of Climate Protection

– Avoiding Methane by

• stop of land filling (60% of Methane cannot be used !)

• optimized treatment of bio waste (producing biogas, in-house composting)

– separation for maximum reuse of materials to replace fresh materials

New Focus on Waste as resource and Energy

– 3 – 4 Mg waste are equivalent 1 Mg of Oil

– Bavaria avoids yearly the consumption of about 750,000 Mg of Oil by incineration and that since the middle of the 90´s !!

– Incinerators continuously increase their efficiency (optimised sites)

– Incinerators change to delivery of steam, heat and cold to customers, try to reduce production of electricity

– Incinerators should be accepted by the new waste directive as Recovery Installations too

Outlook

Wolfgang Scholz

wolfgang.scholz@stmugv.bayern.de

Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment Public Heath and Consumer Protection

3 October 2007

David Dougherty

The Dougherty Group, LLC

3 October 2007

Topics • Expanding recycling in Scotland

– Lessons from communities with over 50% diversion

• Waste prevention– Where can significant reductions be achieved?

• Waste to Energy

– In the near term, long term

• Zero Waste Scotland– Moving towards zero waste

Key Questions

• What drives the recycling strategy? – To divert waste from landfill? – To more efficiently use natural resources?

• What motivates people to recycle?

Current status in Scotland

• Rate of diversion– 27.1% through recycling and composting

• Materials collected– HDPE, PET, News & Pams, mixed paper, ferrous

metal, aluminum, glass bottles, cardboard

• Method of household collection – 50% commingled (mostly without glass bottles)– 50% source separated

Suggestions for achieving greater rate of diversion

• Expand range of materials collected

• Treat recycling as a business

• Use financial incentives to improve performance

• Use financial incentives beyond household collection programmes

Suggestion 1: Expand range of materials collected

• Other countries collect a wider range of materials

– The wider the range of materials, the easier recycling becomes.

– The wider the range of materials, the less expensive recycling becomes.

MRFs Surveyed

• UK– Norwich NEWS– Grundon, Slough– RU Recycling,– ONYX Hampshire– WRG, Luton– SITA, Huddersfield– WRG East Riding

• Europe– Lille, France– Renne, France,– Porto, Portugal

• North America– WM Seattle, Washington– Eureka Recycling, St. Paul

Minnesota– WM Minneapolis, Minnesota

Number of different materials & level of sorting

• 5 MRFs receive 8 different materials

• 2 MRFs receive 10 different materials

• 2 MRFs receive 11 different materials

• 2 MRFs receive 12 different materials

• 1 MRF receives 15 different materials

• 1 MRF receives 18 different materials

• 6 MRFs sort 8 materials into 5 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 11 materials into 5 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 10 materials into 9 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 11 materials into 10 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 12 materials into 8 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 12 materials into 10 categories

• 1 MRF sorts 15 materials into 16 categories

Sorting costs per tonne

• 8 materials into 5 categories £38-52

• 12 materials into 10 categories £30

• 15 materials into 16 categories £30

Revenue per tonne

• Mixed paper £30-50

• News & Pams £50-55

• White office £130-140

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

Recovered plastic bottle prices

£ per tonne

Coloured PET

Clear PET

HDPE

Mixed Polymers

Source: Materials Pricing Report, midpoints of range.

Suggestion 2: Treat recycling as a business

• Recycling is a business with costs and revenues; not a just a waste option.

– Continuously strive to reduce recovery costs and increase revenues

Example: Eureka, Minnesota

• Predominantly 2-stream (paper separate)

• 15 materials into 16 categories

• Sorting cost £18/t – £12/t sorting mixed paper into six grades– £43/t sorting containers

• Basket value £53/t• Revenue £35/t

Example: WM Seattle

• Predominantly 100% commingled

• 19 materials into 10 categories

• Sorting cost £30/t

• Basket value £50-55/t

• Revenue £20/t

Suggestion 3: Use financial incentives throughout

• Household incentives– Variable rate: 17% increase in diversion over

2 yrs

• Collection company incentives– Most waste companies make greater share of

profits on garbage disposal– Must be a financial partner

Example of Incentive Contracts: Napa, Calif.

• Diverting waste results in higher return on capital for collection companies

– 50% diversion achieves 3% return– 55% diversion achieves 12% return

– 66% diversion achievers 21% return

Other examples:

• Omaha, Nebraska– Tonnes over previous yr. $18– Tonnes under previous yr. $36

• San Jose, California– Bid costs capped at 80% of refuse costs– Profits are on recycling

Suggestion 4: Use financial incentives in a wide variety of commercial ventures

• California construction & demolition recycling initiative– Deposit system

• Seattle’s building code– Green building code

Waste Prevention

• At the household level– Relatively minor achievements

• At the point of generation & through the power of the retail industry– WRAP’s wine bottle initiative– Food Packaging initiative– Retail initiatives

Waste to Energy• Lessons from other communities

– Long term financing & obligations• Local Authorities obligated to have continuous flow of

materials to facility 24-7 • In some communities this forced curtailment expansion of

their recycling programmes

– Built-in conflicts • MRF with 40% paper residue• MRF with Tetra Pak containers• Long term, recycling will reduced calorific value in garbage

Personal Response:

• Recycling causes people to think

– If residues are burned for energy, will people stop recycling?

– Recycling; past and future

Zero Waste

• What’s the real question?

– Zero waste, or

– Zero misuse of our resources

David Dougherty

The Dougherty Group, LLC

3 October 2007

The Debate

Motion : Zero Waste And Energy From Waste Are Not Compatible

Proponent: Iain GullandCommunity Recycling Network for Scotland

Opponent: John FergusonScottish Environment Protection Agency

Workshops• 6 workshops

• Colour Coded Name Badges

• Black : commercial and industrial waste

• Green : delivery structures

• Red / Blue : recycling and composting

• Yellow / Orange : waste prevention

Workshop Feedback

Ken Morin

Caledonian Environment Centre

What more can be done to reduce the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill?

(group 1 – black)

• Landfill tax – min £50/tonne and clear statement of escalator beyond 2011

• Landfill Ban on materials that are easily recycled or are harmful

• Re-education from waste to a resource, change business waste producers attitudes

• Tax credit if can prove recycling level in a business

What more can be done to simplify delivery structures in relation to waste?

(Group 2 – Green)

• Outcome agreements – LA autonomy, accountability

• Debate on “Scottish Waste” for treatment/disposal facilities

• Strategic Waste Forum – involving full value chain, and encouraging public bodies to buy recycled content

• 1 advisory body – merge existing bodies, emphasis on market development

What more can be done on recycling and composting?

(Group 3 – Red)

• Waste Types – each LA to determine how to extend range of recyclate collected

• Collection / Recovery – more community recycling centres (community involvement)

• Markets – intervention (economic development) and consortia buying working between LA’s

• Supporting Participation – differentiate waste awareness message to different parts of the community

What more can be done on recycling and composting?

(Group 4 – Blue)• increase scope of producer responsibility, and supply chain pressure

• markets development and LA consortia selling

• fiscal measures – incentives and charges

• national political leadership to support change

• education and awareness

• ongoing national waste analysis – improve understanding of current and future practice

What more can be done on waste prevention?

(Group 5 – Yellow)

• Tougher approach with retailers, especially on packaging

• Culture change and awareness raising for all

• Action on disposable item e.g. tax and ban

What more can be done on waste prevention?

(Group 6 – Orange)

• Tightening up of packaging regulations – but how much influence does ScGovt have ?

• Ban “buy one get one free” (BOGOFs)

• Education of public (consumer awareness, practical action) and secondary schools