The potential for Waste Management in Brazil to Minimize GHG emissions and Maximize Re-use of Materials

Final version

Client Authors

Project number Document Date

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Drs. M.A.M. Corsten (Utrecht University) Prof. Dr. E. Worrell (Utrecht University) Drs. J.C.M. van Dael (MWH BV) M12B0068 \m12b0068r01 final.doc July 11, 2012
Mailing address Postbus 5076 6802 EB ARNHEM Netherlands T +31(0)26 7513800 F +31(0)26 7513818 Street address Westervoortsedijk 50 6827 AT ARNHEM Netherlands www.mwhglobal.nl

KVK Haaglanden 27 18 43 23 ING Bank Delft 65 93 74 331 IBAN NL 63 ING B 0659 374331/BIC INGBNL2A MWH is ISO 9001:2008 and VCA* certified

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Contents

Executive summary 1 2 3 Introduction The current situation of MSW management in Brazil Methodology 3.1 System boundaries 3.2 Energy calculations 3.3 Emission calculations 3.4 Allocation of energy and emission savings Brazilian data - Current and 2030 reference scenario 4.1 Waste generation 4.2 Composition 4.3 Recycling and disposal Scenarios 5.1 Waste Law 5.2 Recycling+ Results 6.1 Waste hierarchy 6.2 Impact on GHG-emissions 6.3 Impact on energy savings Conclusions and recommendations 7.1 Impact of implementing Recycling+ on Brazilian waste management 7.2 Recommended further research References Quantitative outcome of scenariosReferences Quantitative outcome

5 13 15 17 17 18 18 21 23 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 27 28 30 33 33 34

Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 2:

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Executive summary
Introduction The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are necessary to avoid negative impacts of climate change in addition to the future limitations in the availability of selected resources stress the need for increased energy and material efficiency. Waste management can play a key role in achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions and increases in material efficiency. Currently in many developing countries, the focus of waste management is on waste disposal in landfills and dumps, which creates significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Especially in emerging economies like Brazil, the growing population and economic activity will result in a significant increase in the generation of waste in the coming decades. The growing impact of the current waste management practices in these countries stresses the need for a change in how waste is handled. This study assesses the potentials for reducing energy and GHG emissions for Brazil for different waste management scenarios using the iWaste model. Various state-of-the-art waste treatment techniques that are currently used in countries like the Netherlands are taken into account in this study. Brazil is selected as the focus country, being an example of what can be achieved in terms of waste management in emerging economies. The in this study identified energy and GHG emission reduction potentials are presented at the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012.

Methodoloy iWaste-model A schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study is shown in Figure S1. In this study the calculation of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and savings for the processing of various materials starts at the level of waste generation and ends at the level of secondary material production. Processes such as collection, transportation, sorting and separation that may occur during all phases from the generation of waste until its final processing (e.g. recycling, incineration, use as refuse derived fuel (RDF)) or disposal (i.e. landfill) are included within the boundaries of this study. The model also takes into account losses that occur during the various steps of waste processing. The avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions are attributed as energy- and CO2 savings to the specific processing option of the material.

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Figure S1. Schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study on waste management in Brazil. Note: between most of the processing steps a transport step is included, which is not depicted.

Data on waste stream volumes and composition are specific for the Brazilian situation. The disposal of waste in landfills is currently common practice in MSW management in Brazil. The other processing options included in the iWaste model are recycling, incineration in a waste-to-energy incinerator, and use of waste as refuse derived fuel (e.g. in industrial processes). Waste disposal and processing is modeled in terms of the volume of materials in the waste stream, energy consumption and related CO2 emissions. Subsequently, for each of the materials in the waste streams, the contribution to total energy consumption and CO2 emissions of waste management in Brazil is calculated. The model distinguishes the materials that comprise the majority of waste generated in Brazil as shown in Table S1.
Table S1: Materials and products included in the iWaste model for Brazil. Materials and products in MSW Paper and cardboard Glass Textiles Organic wastes Steel Aluminum Polyethylene (PE) Polypropylene (PP) PET Cardboard drinking packages Wood Mineral materials

Scenarios To assess the potential for waste management to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Brazil two scenarios were evaluated in this study: Waste Law and Recycling+. These scenarios are derived from the 2030 reference scenario, as the targets in the National Waste Plan that is currently being developed, are set for 2031. For the projection of waste generation data to 2030, the MSW treatment Reference Scenario for Brazil was used as defined by the World Bank (2010). This Reference Scenario uses the waste generation data from Abrelpe as a starting point and estimates the growth in waste generation based on forecasts of population growth and future rates of waste generation per capita.

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

It assumes that current conditions will persist, as it will take time before the various initiatives that are currently developed will be implemented. The amount of waste collected is projected to grow to 85 Mt per year in 2030 (World Bank, 2010). Taking into account a collection efficiency of 89%, waste generation will grow to 95.5 Mt per year in 2030. This means an increase of about 57% compared to 2010. The Waste Law scenario is based on the Brazilian Waste Law and the targets set by the National Waste Plan, which is currently under development in Brazil. Though National Waste Plan targets are not final yet, the ambitious targets known at the time of this study were used in this scenario. The targets set by the National Waste Plan include the reduction of dry recyclable waste (36% by 2031) and organic waste (53% by 2031) disposed at landfills. Other targets include the recovery of landfill gas. In 2031, about 250 MWh/year of landfill gas should be recovered from landfills. This represents 83% of the total 300 MWh/year of gas production in landfills referred to by the National Waste Plan. In the Recycling+ scenario, the focus is on recycling materials from MSW and anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction. According to the waste management hierarchy, the materials that are not recycled will be incinerated to recover energy. In addition, in the Recycling+ scenario no untreated municipal solid waste is landfilled as the minimum processing option is incineration. Similar to the Waste Law scenario, the Recycling+ scenario requires the separate collection of MSW in a wet and dry fraction. The Recycling+ scenario assumes that 80% of the separately collected wet fraction is processed in an anaerobic digester. In addition to compost anaerobic digestion also produces biogas that can be used for electricity generation. The efficiency of electricity generation from biogas is assumed to be 35%. The separately collected dry fraction is processed in a material recovery facility (MRF) that separates various fractions for recycling.

Results The results of this exploratory analysis for Brazil offer more insight into the potential reductions in GHG emissions and energy consumption for different waste management scenarios. It shows what results might be achieved with sustainable waste management using currently available technology. However, actual results will depend on investments and implementation of waste collection systems, waste treatment facilities and the sanitation of inadequate landfill sites. Waste hierarchy The share of the various processing options (i.e. recycling, landfill, incineration with energy recovery) of the various materials in MSW for all three scenarios, i.e. the reference scenario, the Waste Law scenario and the Recycling+ scenario, is shown in Figure S2. In the Waste Law scenario, there is a shift towards recycling materials, though more than half of the generated waste is still landfilled. In the Recycling+ scenario more than 70% of all generated waste is recovered for recycling. Also, landfilling is replaced by incineration with energy recovery.

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Figure S2: Share of recycling per material, waste-to-energy and landfill for the three scenarios.

Impact on GHG-emissions Figure S3 shows the impact on GHG emissions for the three different scenarios and shows the contribution of the various materials in MSW.

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Figure S3: GHG-emissions for 2010 situation and the three scenarios for 2030 in Brazil.

In table S2 the GHG-emissions in the two more ambitious scenarios are compared to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three materials from MSW that have the largest impact on GHG emissions.
Table S2: Changes in GHG-emissions for three waste components compared with Baseline 2030 (in Mt CO2eq/yr). Differences in GHG-emissions (Mt CO2eq/yw) Material Organic waste Paper and cardboard PE Baseline 2030 > Waste Law - 29.8 - 12.2 - 7.6 Baseline 2030 > Recycling+ - 36.6 - 16.7 - 18.6

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Impact on energy savings Figure S4 shows the energy balances for the different scenarios with the contribution of the various materials in MSW.

Figure S4: Energy balance for the current situation and the three different scenarios.

Table S3 shows potential reductions in energy consumption in the two more ambitious scenarios in comparison to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three major materials that have the largest energy saving potential.
Table S3: Changes in energy consumption for three waste components compared with Baseline 2030 (in PJ/yr). Energy savings (PJ/yr) Material PE Paper and cardboard Organic waste Baseline 2030 > Waste Law - 99.1 - 39.3 - 19.7 Baseline 2030 > Recycling+ - 594.0 - 98.8 - 69.4

Recommendations To make major steps in reducing and preventing GHG emissions future waste management choices should affect the recycling of organic waste (responsible for 76% of GHG-emissions) and paper and cardboard (responsible for 19%).

10

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The presented (draft) targets in the Waste Law scenario result in reducing/preventing GHG emissions because of landfill gas recovery and a higher rate of recycling organic waste and dry recyclables. In addition to the giant change in applying landfill gas recovery techniques and other measures to create sanitary landfill sites, other big transformations required for this scenario include the change to two bin collection (with all associated logistic issues related to distributing bins and implementing collection systems) and setting up an infrastructure of recycling facilities. To realize the maximum on GHG avoidance and on energy savings high-quality recycling and high efficiency energy recovery should be applied. This means a transition to the Recycling+ scenario. This transition affects waste collection and waste treatment. Materials like paper and cardboard, plastics PP, PE and PET have the highest recycling rates if contamination with organic waste is as low as possible. Separate collection, for example in a two bin system, provides a good quality of these dry recyclables. In a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) the dry recyclable materials are separated in a mechanical way combined with handpicking. MRF techniques are available in countries like Germany and UK. To optimize the treatment of the organic fraction (kitchen and garden waste) digestion with gas and heat recovery is recommended. The digestate can be composted and the compost can be used as fertilizer. The qualitative (legislative) demands of fertilizer determine the extends of contamination of the separate collected organic waste. Digestion and composting techniques are available in the Netherlands. In the Recycling+ scenario the infrastructure has to be expanded with high efficiency incineration plants and the output of the recycling facilities has to increase. The change to another collection system and to using recycling facilities creates new employment opportunities. Because of the sanitation of landfills required by the Waste Law and the choice for no waste to landfill in the Recycling+ scenario, the current wastepick problem will turn to a labor-issue. Both waste collection and waste treatment can play a role in providing work opportunities to waste pickers. Three elements of Dutch and/or European knowledge and experience can contribute to the shift from the current situation to a situation with traits from the Waste Law / Recycling+ scenarios. These elements are: Developing and executing waste management policy; Implementation of waste collection systems (bins, trucks, logistics); Engineering and planning waste treatment plants: Landfill gas recovery; Two bin separate collection; Digestion of organic waste; MRF. Examples of Dutch waste management companies are shown on the websites of two Dutch waste associations. (www.wastematters.eu and www.nvrd.nl).

11

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

12

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Introduction

The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are necessary to avoid negative impacts of climate change in addition to the future limitations in the availability of selected resources stress the need for increased energy and material efficiency. Waste management can play a key role in achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions and increases in material efficiency. Currently in many developing countries, the focus of waste management is on waste disposal in landfills and dumps, which creates significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Especially in emerging economies like Brazil, the growing population and economic activity will result in a significant increase in the generation of waste in the coming decades. The growing impact of the current waste management practices in these countries stresses the need for a change in how waste is handled. This study assesses the potentials for reducing energy and GHG emissions for Brazil for different waste management scenarios using the iWaste model. Various state-of-the-art waste treatment techniques that are currently used in countries like the Netherlands are taken into account in this study. Brazil is selected as the focus country, being an example of what can be achieved in terms of waste management in emerging economies. The in this study identified energy and GHG emission reduction potentials are presented at the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012. iWaste model This study builds on the experience of a similar study for the Netherlands: Saving Materials (Corsten et al., 2010). This study examined to what extent a reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emissions can be achieved through recycling of selected waste streams in the supply chain versus waste incineration with energy recovery. For this study, the iWaste model was developed that simulates generated and processed waste streams. This model builds on the life cycle of materials and products in selected waste streams, starting at the level of waste generation and ending with final processing in the form of recycling or incineration. The model includes all phases involved in the process: generation, collection, transportation, separation, and use as refuse derived fuel (RDF). This allows evaluating various options in an integrated way, while accounting for the characteristics of recycling and alternative waste processing options. The iWaste model is a simulation tool, which means that different parameters can be varied and different scenarios tested. The results are being compared with the reference situation in 2008. The current model focuses exclusively on energy consumption (fuel and electricity) and CO 2 emissions. In the underlying study, the iWaste model has been adapted for Brazil. It includes data to simulate waste disposal in Brazil in 2010 (current situation) and projections for 2030 (reference scenario). Two different scenarios are tested and compared with the reference scenario. Reading guide Following this introduction, chapter 2 some insight in current waste management practices in Brazil. Chapter 3 introduces the methodology of the iWaste-model. Chapter 4 describes the model assumptions and projections for 2030.

13

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The alternative scenarios are described in chapter 5 and the results are shown in chapter 6. Finally, chapter 7 gives recommendations. Acknowledgements This study is financially supported by the Dutch government (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) . The authors would like to thank Abrelpe, NVRD and Agentschap NL for their contributions to this study.

14

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The current situation of MSW management in Brazil

Currently, little data is available on the current generation, composition, and processing of MSW in Brazil. One of the sources that keeps track and gives insight into the volumes of waste generated in urban areas and the recycling of materials in Brazil is the annual survey by Abrelpe. The 2010 survey (Abrelpe, 2010) reports the generation of 61 Mt urban MSW in that year, which is an increase of 6.8% compared to 2009. This includes waste from domestic activities in urban households, from sweeping and cleaning of public areas and public roads, and from other urban cleaning services. Another source that reports the generation of urban MSW is the National Survey of Basic Sanitation (IBGE, 2000). This survey reports that in 2000 about 80 Mt of urban waste was collected, which is significantly higher than the volumereported by Abrelpe (2010). According to a study of the World Bank (2010) the data from Abrelpe is more reliable as these are based on surveys and studies undertaken by both the Ministry of Cities and the Ministry of Environment. The MSW generated in Brazil consists largely of organic material. Other materials that consitute a significant share in MSW are plastics (mainly PE, PP, PET), and paper and cardboard. Various studies show figures for the overall composition of MSW in Brazil (Bianchini and Filho, 2006; Monteiro et al., 2008), but detailed data on the composition of total generated MSW in Brazil is not available. However, an analysis of about 500 containers of MSW from the city of Rio de Janeiro offers , a more detailed insight into the composition of urban MSW is (Table 1) (Ribeiro, 2010).
Table 1. MSW composition in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Ribeiro, 2010). Material Organic material Paper Cardboard Drinking packages (tetra pak) Hard plastic Plastic film Glass Ferrous metals Nonferrous metals Stone-like material Textiles Wood Other Share of MSW (%) 54.9% 11.7% 3% 1.4% 3.9% 15% 2.8% 1.3% 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% 0.3% 1.2%

About 89% of the generated MSW is currently collected, which indicates a slight increase in the coverage of collection services compared to 2009, as the growth in MSW collection is higher than the growth in the generation of MSW. According to Abrelpe (2010) a small majority of the collected MSW is disposed in sanitary landfills (57.6%). Sanitary landfills have measures installed to minimize environmental impacts (i.e. leakage of leachate, contamination of groundwater and surrounding soil).

15

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The remaining 42.4% of MSW is disposed of inadequately, including controlled landfills (24.3%) and dumps (18.1%). Neither have measures installed that are necessary to protect the environment. A majority (61%) of Brazilian municipalities still dispose of their waste in an improper manner. Only 57.6% of the Brazilian municipalities have initiatives for the separate collection of materials. These initiatives are mainly seen in the larger cities and are concentrated in the south and southeastern regions of Brazil (Abrelpe, 2010). The type and volume of separately collected material is not well recorded in the literature. What is known is that the overall recycling rate of materials from Brazilian MSW is relatively low, estimated at about 4-11% of total MSW (Abrelpe, 2012; Fergutz et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the recycling rates for specific materials, as shown in various studies, are relatively high. For instance, aluminum can recycling is reported to be about 96%, and recycling rates for paper, glass and PET plastic are reported to be around 50% (Abrelpe, 2010; Fergutz et al., 2011; Bianchini and Filho, 2006). These recycling rates do, however, not only include materials from MSW, but also (mainly) include the recycling of waste from the industrial sector (except for aluminum cans). Furthermore, recycling rates are not always calculated as the percentage of the material discarded as waste that is being recycled. For example, the recovery rate of paper in Brazil is obtained by dividing the recovery of recyclable paper by the total quantity of recycled paper consumption in the same period (Abrelpe, 2010). According to Abrelpe (2010), the waste management sector generated almost 300,000 direct jobs in 2010, 57% of which was created in the private sector and 43% in the public sector. However, a large informal sector that collects materials from waste for recycling exists in Brazil . The National Movement of Recyclable Materials Waste Pickers (MNCR) estimated that more than 500,000 people in Brazil collect and market solid waste in large cities for their survival (Fergutz et al., 2011). Only a small percentage of these waste pickers (5% according to Fergutz et al., 2011) have a contract and work under relatively good conditions. The activities of the majority of waste pickers in Brazil are considered illegal. Despite their illegal status, waste pickers in Brazil are said to provide up to 90% of the materials that supply the recycling industry, though this is estimated to account for less than 10% of recyclable materials generated in households and for 3% of solid waste deposited in dumps. The work of these waste pickers helps the environment and contributes to cleaner cities. In addition, estimates show that the amount of waste disposed at landfills is reduced by 20% by waste pickers, thereby extending the lifetime of landfills (Fergutz et al., 2011). The lack of formal collection programs is currently one of the largest obstacles for the growth of recycling in Brazil. One of the main reasons for not implementing separate collection systems indicated by municipalities are the costs, as these are generally at least 30% higher than for curbside collection. Landfill is the cheapest and therefore the preferred disposal option. Furthermore, the absence of a recycling culture and the presence of the large informal sector inhibit the growth in recycling of MSW (Bianchini and Filho, 2006).

16

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Methodology

The iWaste model is used to evaluate a number of alternative scenarios for the management of waste streams and its effect on the energy balance and CO 2 emissions. The iWaste model was developed in 2009 to analyze the situation in the Netherlands (Corsten et al., 2010), but has been adapted for Brazil in this study. It includes data to simulate waste disposal in Brazil in 2010 (current situation) and projections for 2030 (reference scenario). Parameters can be varied to test different scenarios, which can be compared with the reference scenario. The model focuses exclusively on energy consumption (fuel and electricity) and CO2 emissions and does not include the financial costs of various processes and treatment options.

3.1

System boundaries

A schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study is shown in Figure 1. In this study the calculation of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and savings for the processing of various materials starts at the level of waste generation and ends at the level of secondary material production. Processes such as collection, transportation, sorting and separation that may occur during the various stages from the generation of waste up to its final processing (e.g. recycling, incineration, use as refuse derived fuel (RDF)) or disposal (i.e., landfill) are included within the boundaries of this study. The model also takes into account losses that occur during the various steps of waste processing. The avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions are attributed as energy- and CO2 savings to the specific processing option of the material.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study on waste management in Brazil. Note: between most of the processing steps a transport step is included, which is not depicted.

Data included on waste stream volumes and composition are specific for the Brazilian situation. The disposal of waste in landfills is currently common practice in MSW management in Brazil.

17

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The other processing options included in the iWaste model are recycling, incineration in a waste-toenergy incinerator, and use of waste as refuse derived fuel (e.g. in industrial processes). Waste disposal and processing is modeled in terms of the volume of materials in the waste stream, energy consumption and related CO2 emissions. Subsequently, for each of the materials in the waste streams, the contribution to total energy consumption and CO 2 emissions of waste management in Brazil is calculated. The model distinguishes the materials that comprise the majority of waste generated in Brazil as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Materials and products included in the iWaste model for Brazil. Materials and products in MSW Paper and board Glass Textiles Organic wastes Steel Aluminum Polyethylene (PE) Polypropylene (PP) PET Cardboard drinking packages Wood Mineral materials

3.2

Energy calculations

The energy consumption for the production of a material is included in the Gross Energy Requirement (GER). This GER-value indicates the energy content of a product and is linked to the technologies and specific conditions used to manufacture the product. In this study, the GER is used to calculate the avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions resulting from replacement of a product or raw material by recycling and reuse of materials recovered from the waste streams. The second order GER-value is used, which corrects for the energy needed to produce and transport primary energy carriers (Worrell et al., 1994). To determine the energy effects of waste processing, the analysis focuses on raw materials and intermediate goods.

3.3

Emission calculations

In the current situation, almost all MSW generated in Brazil is landfilled and only a small fraction is recycled or processed in another way. The calculation of emissions from landfilled waste is described below. The CO2 emissions resulting from other waste processing options are calculated based on the energy consumption of the process converted to CO2 emissions using the CO2 emission factors for different fuels (IEA, 2011). Following IPCC guidelines, the net CO2 emissions from biomass are considered to be equal to zero. This study takes into account both direct and indirect CO2 emissions from waste processing. Direct emissions are produced by using fossil fuels and raw materials within the system boundaries. Emissions from landfilled waste are also considered direct emissions. The indirect emissions include emissions from electricity generation, where the generation occurs outside the system boundaries, but the electricity is consumed within the system boundaries. The sum of direct and indirect emissions constitutes the total environmental impact of waste processing.

18

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

The CO2 emissions from electricity consumed for the production of primary and secondary material are calculated using the average Brazilian efficiency and fuel mix for electricity generation. The efficiency of electricity generation in Brazil is 1.3 kWhp/kWhe (average efficiency 77%) (IEA, 2010) with a CO2 emission factor of 75 gCO2/kWhe (IEA, 2011). For heat it is assumed that it is produced in a gas-fired boiler with an efficiency of 90%. The CO2 emissions from incinerating waste are calculated based on the volume of the various materials incinerated and their CO2 emission factors. When waste is used as refuse derived fuel, it is assumed to be used in the cement industry. The fossil fuel that is replaced is calculated based on the caloric value of the waste. The avoided emissions are calculated using the average emission factor of cement kilns in the Brazil (97 kgCO2/GJ) (CCAP, 2008). 3.3.1 Landfill gas emissions Landfill can be defined as the managed disposal of waste on land. It can be distinguished from dumping waste, which is characterized by the absence of control of disposal and a lack of management of the dump site (Smith et al., 2001). Landfills differ in their characteristics, including size, depth, and environmental management (e.g. landfill gas recovery, leachate management). In landfills and dumps anaerobic conditions are created when the decaying wastes consume all oxygen in the waste mass. Under anaerobic conditions the waste continues to degrade and produces significant amounts of landfill gas. Landfill gas consists basically for 50 percent of methane (CH4) and 50 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as small amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulphite. The anaerobic decomposition of waste typically takes place over a period of 30 to 50 years during which methane is generated. These methane emissions are the main concern for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills as methane has 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. The production of CO2 from burning or aerobic decomposition of biomass is, unlike methane, considered biogenic, as carbon in CO2 is sequestered when the biomass regenerates (IPCC, 2006; Thompson and Tanapat, 2005). The recovery of landfill gas reduces GHG emissions and creates an alternative energy source that can replace fossil fuels (see below). In industrialized countries, landfill gas recovery is increasingly implemented as a measure to reduce CH4 emissions from landfills (IPCC, 2006). Although this type of emission reduction is also increasing in developing countries, for example, through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), CH4 emissions from municipal solid waste disposal still represents a significant part of emissions in most developing countries where landfilling is common practice. Since almost all MSW in Brazil is disposed in landfills or dumps, emissions from this practice cannot be ignored in appraising the impact of Brazils waste management on the environment. Calculating methane emissions from landfills In this study the IPCC methodology is used to estimate the CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal. The production of CH4 and CO2 from solid waste takes place during a few decades, as the degradable organic carbon (DOC) in waste decays slowly. If conditions are constant, the rate of CH4 production depends solely on the amount and type of carbon remaining in the waste. As a result, the CH4 emissions from deposited waste are highest in the first years after deposition and gradually decline as the degradable carbon is consumed.

19

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

In this study, the default IPCC methodology (IPCC, 1997) is used, which leaves out the time factor and assumes that the CH4 emissions from landfills and dumps take place in the same year the waste is disposed of. The use of this methodology can be validated, as over a time period of 100 years, which is a typical timescale for greenhouse gas studies, most of the methane from landfilled waste will have been released. The CH4 emissions are estimated on the basis of volumes and composition of waste disposed in landfills and dumps and the management practices at these sites. The calculations use the IPCC 2006 default values for various parameters (e.g., DOC, DOCf, F) (IPCC, 2006). With regard to the methane correction factor (MCF), which accounts for the fact that unmanaged waste disposal sites produce less CH4 from a certain amount of waste than anaerobic managed landfills, and the methane oxidation factor (OX), which reflects the amount of CH4 from disposed waste that is oxidized in the soil or when material covers the waste, this study assumes that only the sanitary landfills in Brazil can be considered managed (anaerobic). This means they include at least some cover material, mechanical compacting, or leveling of waste. At sanitary landfills in Brazil, after weighing and deposition of the waste, it is compacted and leveled and at the end of the working day the waste must be covered with a layer of earth which on average should be 0.2 m thick (World Bank, 2010). According to a study by Abrelpe (2010) 57.6% of Brazilian waste is disposed of in sanitary landfills. The controlled landfills (24.3%) and open dumps (18.1%) are considered unmanaged (25% up to 5 m deep and 75% over 5 m deep (Oliviera et al., 2003)). Methane recovered at landfills The methane content of landfill gas can be recovered and flared, or used as energy source for electricity generation. By flaring or combustion of the methane from landfill gas, the methane is converted to carbon dioxide, which has a significantly smaller impact on global warming. The calculation of emissions from landfills should therefore take into account the methane that is recovered by landfill gas recovery. In Brazil, the recovery of methane produced by anaerobic decomposing of solid waste at landfills is not a common practice. This is because until recently (2010) there was no regional or national legislation that required the capture and burning of methane from landfills because of safety or environmental reasons. In addition, the landfills that have a passive or open landfill gas flaring system in Brazil generally do not control landfill gas collection efficiency, flaring efficiency, or the number of chimneys actually lit (Magalhaes et al., 2010). Only after the creation of carbon markets (e.g. CDM) the first landfill gas recovery projects were introduced. Yet, Brazil has 5565 municipalities and the total number of CDM projects is about 31 (UNFCCC, 2012) and thus represents only a small fraction of the landfills in Brazil. Little data is available on current methane recovery from landfills in Brazil. According to a study of Magalhaes et al. (2010), using the results from the National System of Sanitation Data (SNIS), more than 50% of landfills in Brazil has no methane collection. The authors of that study emphasize, however, that this value is conservative and may not reflect the existence of passive landfill gas capture systems commonly used in landfills around the country. Following the analysis of 226 landfills in Brazil, Magalhaes et al. (2010) recommend that if no more detailed data is available on methane recovery, a methane recovery value of 0.4% should be adopted.

20

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Because information on the volume of methane recovered and the electricity produced from landfill gas is lacking, the value of 0.4% recommended by Magalhaes et al. (2010) is used to calculate net methane emissions from landfills and dumps in Brazil.

3.4

Allocation of energy and emission savings

Waste processing is energetically a complex process in which choices for allocation of energy- and environmental benefits have to be determined to assign energy- and CO2 savings from recycling. The approach taken in this study for recycling and reuse is that the energy consumption and (related) CO2 emissions are avoided, which otherwise would have been consumed and generated in the production of the product from primary materials. However, the calculations take only one lifecycle into account, though some materials can be recycled multiple times without loss of quality. For recycling, a distinction is made between high- and low(er)-quality recycling. It is assumed that high-quality recycling results in replacing (part of) the primary product or material by reused or recycled materials. Alternatively, the recycled material may replace another material, which is considered low-quality recycling. In the latter case, the GER-values of the replaced materials are assumed. This type of recycling is generally referred to as downcycling, as the use of the material or product is often of a lower quality and functionality than when the original primary material is replaced. The definitions used in this study for high- and low-quality recycling and the material it substitutes are presented in Table 3. The processing of materials in a waste incinerator converts them to energy. In waste incinerators with energy recovery, waste-to-energy plants, the generation of electricity from waste is assumed to replace electricity generation by conventional power plants. In addition, the generation of electricity from landfill gas recovered from landfills and from biogas produced during anaerobic digestion of organic waste, will also replace conventional power generation. The use of waste for power generation is assumed to only affect the marginal power plants. In Brazil, this refers to electricity generated from natural gas-fired power plants with an average efficiency of 42% (ABB, 2011).
Table 3: Definition of high- and low-quality recycling for the materials and products included in iWaste for Brazil. Material Paper and cardboard Textiles Steel High-quality recycling De-inked paper Reuse of textiles Recovery before incineration and used in the basic oxygen furnace Production of secondary aluminum Plastics: PE, PP, PS, PVC Bottle-to-bottle (1/3) and bottle-to-fiber (2/3) Substituted material Paper produced from wood New textiles with substitution factor of 0.5 Primary steel Low(er)-quality recycling Not de-inked paper Recovery after incineration a and used in basic oxygen furnace Production of roadside posts Production of roadside posts Substituted material Paper produced form wood Primary steel

Aluminum Plastics: PE, PP, PS, PVC PET

Primary aluminum Primary plastics 1/3 primary PET bottles, 2/3 PET fibers

Hardwood roadside posts (wood/plastic ratio 0.43) Hardwood roadside posts (wood/plastic ratio 0.43)

21

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Material Organic wastes Cardboard drinking packages Stone-like materials

High-quality recycling Anaerobic digestion Recycling of paper and aluminum/plastic fraction as RDF Production of recycled granules (from only concrete rubble)

Substituted material Fertilizer and energy Paper produced from wood Gravel/sand and cement in concrete

Low(er)-quality recycling Composting -

Substituted material Fertilizer -

Production of recycled granules

Gravel/sand

This results in an average increase in oxide formation of 16% (Lopez-Delgado et al. , 2003; Tayibi et al., 2007)

22

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

4
4.1

Brazilian data - Current and 2030 reference scenario

Waste generation

According to a study by Abrelpe (2010), the urban generation of waste in Brazil totaled 61 Mt in 2010. Although the waste generated in rural areas is not included in this figure, it is assumed that focusing on urban waste only will cover the majority of MSW generated in the country, since about 83% of the Brazilian population currently lives in urban areas and generally less waste is generated in rural areas due to different eating and buying habits (World Bank, 2012; Abrelpe, 2010). For the projection of waste generation data to 2030, the MSW treatment Reference Scenario for Brazil was used as defined by the World Bank (2010). This Reference Scenario uses the waste generation data from Abrelpe as a starting point and estimates the growth in waste generation based on forecasts in population growth and future rates of waste generation per capita. It assumes that current conditions will persist as it will take time before the various initiatives, that are currently developed, will be implemented. The amount of waste collected is projected to grow to 85 Mt per year in 2030 (World Bank, 2010). Taking into account a collection efficiency of 89%, waste generation will grow to 95.5 Mt per year in 2030. This means an increase of about 57% compared to 2010.

4.2

Composition

Various studies report figures for the overall composition of MSW in Brazil (Bianchini and Filho, 2006; Monteiro et al., 2008), however, detailed information on waste composition is not readily available. Therefore, the result of an analysis of 500 containers in Rio de Janeiro (see Table 1) was used to disaggregate the generated urban waste into different materials (Ribeiro, 2010). The composition of these containers corresponds reasonably well with the overall composition reported by Bianchini and Filho (2006). The material composition assumed in this study is presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Composition of generated MSW in Brazil assumed in this study. Material Share of MSW (%) Quantity of generated urban MSW (kt) 2010 Organic material Paper and cardboard Polyethylene Polypropylene PET Glass Textiles Steel Aluminum Drinking packages (tetra pak) 54.9 14.7 16.9 b 1.9b 1.5 2.8 1.8 1.3 0.4
c

2030 52437 9100 a 16140 1839 1423 2713 1672 1261 401 1347

33410 5798 a 10284 1172 907 1729 1065 803 256 858

1.4

23

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Material

Share of MSW (%)

Quantity of generated urban MSW (kt) 2010 2030 745 325 1213

Stone-like material Wood Other

a

0.8 0.3 1.3

475 207 773

This value corresponds with air dry paper and is corrected for the moisture content of paper and cardboard in integral collected MSH (40%) (Ribeiro, 2010). Assumes the plastic films to consist of polyethylene and the hard plastics to consist of polyethylene (50%) and polypropylene (50%). Assumes all non-ferrous metals to consist of aluminum.

b c

4.3

Recycling and disposal

Only a small share of MSW is collected separately or sorted by waste pickers for recycling, and the overall recycling rate of materials from MSW is currently 4-11% in Brazil (Abrelpe, 2012; Fergutz et al., 2011). Though overall recycling rates for materials from MSW are low, reported recycling rates for specific materials are relatively high (e.g. around 50% for paper, glass, PET plastic) (Abrelpe, 2010; Fergutz et al., 2011; Bianchini and Filho, 2006). These values, however, also take into account the recycling of waste from the industrial sector (except for aluminum cans). Since no data is available on the recycling of specific materials from MSW, recycling rates are estimated based on available information and shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Estimated recycling of materials from MSW in the reference scenario. Material Recycling rate (%) Aluminum Paper and cardboard Glass Plastics (excl. PET) PET Textiles
a

Source

Quantity recycled from MSW (kt) 2010 2030 253 2093 624 3596 797 502

63% 23% 23% 20% 56% 30%

Based on the share of aluminum in MSW (0.4%) and the recycling of 160 kton aluminum cans in 2007. Based on Abrelpe (2010), assuming 50% of recycled paper from MSW and 50% from other sources (e.g. offices) Based on Abrelpe (2010), assuming 50% of recycled glass from MSW and 50% from other sources. Fergutz et al., 2011 Abrelpe, 2010

160 1134 a 398 2291 508 320

This value corresponds with air dry paper and is corrected for the moisture content of paper and cardboard in integral collected MSW (40%) (Ribeiro, 2010)

The estimated recycling rates for aluminum, paper and cardboard, glass, plastics (incl. PET), and textiles from MSW totaled around 5 Mt per year in 2010, which represents about 9% of generated MSW. The rest of the generated waste (about 91%) is landfilled with 57.6% disposed in sanitary landfills and 42.4% in controlled landfills and dumps.

24

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Scenarios

To assess the potential energy and CO2 emission reductions from better waste management in Brazil, two scenarios were developed in this study: Waste Law and Recycling+. These scenarios are based on the 2030 reference scenario as the targets in the National Waste Plan, that is currently being developed, are set for 2031.

5.1

Waste Law

The Waste Law scenario is based on the Brazilian Waste Law and the targets set by the National Waste Plan, which is currently under development in Brazil. Though National Waste Plan targets are not final yet, the ambitious targets known at the time of this study were used in this scenario. The Brazilian Waste Law introduces the waste management hierarchy, which classifies waste management strategies according to their desirability. The waste management hierarchy consists of reduction, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. This classifies the current landfilling practice as the last option. In addition, the Law commands the closure of all open dumps by 2014, which means that waste can only be disposed in sanitary landfills. Regarding separate collection, the Waste Law states that municipalities must have separate collection in at least two fractions (wet and dry). Currently, only 57.6% of municipalities have separate collection activities. The targets set by the National Waste Plan include the reduction of dry recyclable waste (36% by 2031) and organic waste (53% by 2031) disposed at landfills. Other targets include the recovery of landfill gas. In 2031, about 250 MWh/year of landfill gas should be recovered from landfills. This represents 83% of the total 300 MWh/year of gas production in landfills referred to by the National Waste Plan. In this study, the Waste Law and targets set by the National Waste Plan are interpreted as follows: Municipal solid waste is collected in a wet (organic) and dry (recyclables and non-recyclables) fraction; Of the wet fraction, 53% is composted; the remaining 47% is landfilled in sanitary landfills; Of the dry fraction, 36% of paper and cardboard, glass, steel, and plastics (except PET) are sorted for recycling. For aluminum and PET plastics the sorting and recycling was already higher than 36% in the baseline (63% and 56% respectively) and is therefore kept constant for the Waste Law scenario (63% for aluminum, 56% for PET). Furthermore, the recycling of textiles remains at 30%. The remaining dry waste is assumed to be landfilled in sanitary landfills; At landfills, 83% of landfill gas is recovered and used to generate electricity. The assumed efficiency of electricity from landfill gas is 30%.

25

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

5.2

Recycling+

In the Recycling+ scenario, the focus is on recycling materials from MSW and anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction. According to the waste management hierarchy, the materials that are not recycled will be incinerated to recover energy. In addition, in the Recycling+ scenario no untreated municipal solid waste is landfilled asthe minimum processing option is incineration. Similar to the Waste Law scenario, the Recycling+ scenario requires the separate collection of MSW in a wet and dry fraction. The Recycling+ scenario assumes that 80% of the separately collected wet fraction is processed in an anaerobic digester. In addition to compost anaerobic digestion also produces biogas that can be used for electricity generation. The efficiency of electricity generation from biogas is assumed at 35%. The separately collected dry fraction is processed in a material recovery facility (MRF) that separates various fractions for recycling. Table 6 shows the material fractions and separation efficiencies of the MRF assumed in this study. In addition to the material fractions separated by the MRF, glass (23%) and textiles (50%) are collected separately for recycling.
Table 6: Separation efficiency of material fractions separated by MRF. Process step Separation of ferrous metal Separation of non-ferrous metal Separation dense plastic Separation plastic film Separation of paper and cardboard Separation of drinking package (tetra pak)
a b c d

Efficiency a (%) 85 75 85 75 40 85

Material purity from MRF and recycling losses Ferrous material from MRF has 90% purity.

Material efficiency for the production of recycled flakes is assumed to be 75% b. Material efficiency for the production of recycled flakes is assumed to be 75% b. Rejects from recycling total 11.5% c Drink cartons from MRF have 90% purity d

HTP, 2012 Based on Shen et al. (2010) Based on Laurijssen et al. (2010) Only paper fraction (78%) of drinking packages is recycled, aluminum/plastic fraction is used as RDF

The materials that are not recycled are incinerated in a waste-to-energy plant. Also, rejects from the recycling processes are assumed to be incinerated with energy recovery or used as RDF. In the Recycling+ scenario the technology assumed for the waste-to-energy plant is the state-of-the-art technology currently used by the Waste and Energy Company (AEB) in Amsterdam. It operates at a net electrical efficiency from waste of 28% (AEB, 2006), which is relatively high compared to the European average of 16-18% (Reimann, 2009). The thermal efficiency is assumed to be 9%, where the heat is delivered to various companies and homes in the vicinity.

26

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Results

The results of this exploratory analysis for Brazil lead to insights into the potential reductions in GHG emissions and energy consumption for different waste management scenarios. It shows what results might be achieved with sustainable waste management using currently available technology. However, actual results will depend on investments and implementation of waste collection systems, waste treatment facilities and the sanitation of inadequate landfill sites.

6.1

Waste hierarchy

The share of the various processing options (i.e. recycling, landfill, incineration with energy recovery) of the various materials in MSW in the reference scenario, the Waste Law scenario and the Recycling+ scenario is shown in Figure 2. In the Waste Law scenario, there is a shift towards recycling materials, though more than half of the generated waste is still landfilled. In the Recycling+ scenario more than 70% of materials in the waste are recovered for recycling. Also, landfilling is replaced by incineration with energy recovery. This is in agreement with the waste management hierarchy, which classifies landfill of waste as the last option, after energy recovery.

Figure 2: Share of recycling per material, waste-to-energy and landfill for the three scenarios.

27

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

6.2

Impact on GHG-emissions

Figure 3 shows the impact on GHG emissions for the three different scenarios and shows the contribution of the various materials in MSW.

Figure 3: GHG-emissions for 2010-situation and the three scenarios in Brazil.

Baseline If current waste management practices continue, net GHG emissions will grow to 25.6 Mt CO2eq/year in 2030. This is largely due to the large share of organic waste (55%) and paper and cardboard (15%) in generated MSW and the significant amounts of methane produced from these materials when landfilled. The avoided emissions (shown as negative emissions in the Figure) are mainly the result of plastic recycling. Currently, only a small share of plastics in waste is recycled in Brazil. Recycling plastics consumes less energy and has therefore a lower impact on GHG emissions than the production of virgin plastics. Since recycled plastics are assumed to substitute virgin plastics, GHG emissions are avoided from plastic recycling. The remaining plastic is landfilled, but does not produce GHG emissions. Other materials in MSW make only a small contribution to the GHG emissions balance, because they only constitute only a minor share in waste composition or because no methane emissions are produced when landfilled.

28

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Waste Law In the Waste Law scenario, the management of waste avoids 54 MT CO 2eq/year compared to the reference scenario. In this scenario more dry waste is recycled and more than half of all organic waste is composted instead of landfilled. In addition, at landfills 83% of produced landfill gas is recovered and used for electricity production, which is assumed to reduce conventional power generation. This results in a significant reduction of GHG emissions from landfills and more avoided emissions due to recycling. The impact of the targets set by the Waste Law are biggest for organic waste, paper and cardboard, and PE plastic, because of their large share in MSW. Recycling+ The focus on recycling materials results in the avoidance of 82 Mt CO2eq/year in the Recycling+ scenario compared to the reference scenario. The material recovery facility (MRF) sorts a large share of materials from the waste for recycling. In addition, the minimum processing option in this scenario is incineration with energy recovery and waste is no longer landfilled directly. Therefore, the methane emissions from landfill that contribute significantly to the GHG emissions in the reference scenario are not produced in the Recycling+ scenario. The materials that have the largest contribution to GHG emission reduction in the Recycling+ scenario compared to the reference scenario are organic waste (anaerobic digestion), paper and cardboard (recycling and incineration in waste-toenergy plant), and plastics (recycling). For plastics, PE has the largest impact on emissions, which is the result of its large share in total waste plastics (83%). The major difference with the Waste Law scenario lies in the use of high efficiency incineration or RDF for all waste that is not recycled in the Recycling + scenario compared to landfilling in the Waste Law scenario. In table 7 the GHG-emissions in the two more ambitious scenarios are compared to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three materials from MSW that have the largest impact on GHG emissions. The table shows the savings that can be made.
Table 7: GHG-emission savings compared to Baseline 2030 for organic waste, paper and cardboard, and PE plastics (in Mt C02eq/yr). GHG-emissions (Mt CO2eq/yr) Material Organic waste Paper and cardboard PE Waste Law versus Baseline 2030 30 12 8 Recycling+ versus Baseline 2030 37 17 19

29

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

6.3

Impact on energy savings

Figure 4 shows the energy balances for the different scenarios with the contribution of the various materials in MSW.

Figure 4: Energy balance for the current situation and the three different 2030 scenarios.

Baseline 2030 In the reference scenario for 2030, about 300 PJ per year is saved by current waste management practices. In terms of energy, landfilled waste does not contribute to any savings, but only consumes some energy for transport. The amount of energy saved can be completely attributed to the recycling of materials. This is due to the lower energy consumption in the recycling process of most materials, compared to the energy consumed in the production of primary material. In Brazil, especially the recycling of plastics has a large share in the total amount of energy saved of current waste management practices. Waste Law In the Waste Law scenario, about 500 PJ per year is saved by material recycling and electricity production from recovered landfill gas. The current targets set for the Waste Law focus on more recycling of both dry materials (36%) and organic waste (53%), which will avoid energy from primary material production. Additional energy savings result from electricity production from landfill gas that is recovered from waste that is still being landfilled.

30

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Recycling+ High recycling rates combined with incineration of residual waste in a waste-to-energy plant will recover a large share of materials and energy from MSW. Energy savings of 1250 PJ per year are identified for the Recycling+ scenario. The largest potential energy savings are the result of the recycling of plastics, paper and cardboard, and textiles. In addition, the production of electricity from biogas avoids electricity generation from conventional power plants. From the materials that cannot be recycled, energy is recovered in a high efficiency waste-to-energy plant. Table 8 shows potential reductions in energy consumption in the two more ambitious scenarios in comparison to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three major materials that have the largest energy saving potential.
Table 8: Energy savings compared to Baseline 2030 for PE, paper and cardboard and organic waste (in PJ/yr). Energy savings (PJ/yr) Material PE Paper and cardboard Organic waste Waste Law versus Baseline 2030 99 39 20 Recycling+ versus Baseline 2030 594 99 69

31

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

32

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

7
7.1

Conclusions and recommendations

Impact of implementing Recycling+ on Brazilian waste management

To realize major steps in reducing and preventing GHG emissions future waste management choices should focus on the recycling of organic waste (responsible for 76% of GHG-emissions) and paper and cardboard (responsible for 19%). Besides these two materials textile and the plastics PET, PP and PE play significant role in achieving energy savings if Recycling+ scenario is implemented. About 10% of generated waste is not collected currently. Collection efficiency should be improved to be able to realize the potential savings shown in this study. The presented (draft) targets of the Waste Law scenario result in reducing/preventing GHG emissions because of landfill gas recovery and a higher rate of recycling organic waste and dry recyclables. In addition to the giant change in applying landfill gas recovery techniques and other measures to create sanitary landfill sites, other big changes required in this scenario include the change to two bin collection (with all associated logistic issues related to distributing bins and implement collection systems) and setting up an infrastructure of recycling facilities. To realize the maximum on GHG avoidance and on energy savings high-quality recycling and high efficiency energy recovery should be applied. This means a transition to the Recycling+ scenario. This transition affects waste collection and waste treatment. Materials like paper and cardboard, plastics PP, PE and PET have the highest recycling rates if contamination with organic waste is as low as possible. Separate collection, for example in a two bin system, provides a good quality of these dry recyclables. In a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) the dry recyclable materials are separated in a mechanical way combined with handpicking. MRF techniques are available in countries like Germany and UK. To optimize the treatment of the organic fraction (kitchen and garden waste) digestion with gas and heat recovery is recommended. The digestate can be composted and the compost can be used as fertilizer. The qualitative (legislative) demands of fertilizer determine the extends of contamination of the separate collected organic waste. Digestion and composting techniques are available in the Netherlands. To maximize the re-use of textile the separate collection of textile. has to be organized. The separate collection guarantees the highest re-use rates because of the minor chance of contamination. Collection and sorting infrastructure has to be set up. In the Recycling+ scenario the waste infrastructure has to be expanded with high efficiency incineration plants and the output of the recycling facilities has to increase. The change to another collection system and to using recycling facilities creates new employment opportunities. Because of the sanitation of landfills required by the Waste Law and the choice for no waste to landfill in the Recycling+ scenario, the current wastepick problem will turn into a labor-problem.

33

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Both separate waste collection (textile) and waste treatment (handpicking in MRF) can play a role in provide work opportunities to waste pickers. Three elements of Dutch and/or European knowledge and experience can contribute to the shift from the current situation to a situation with traits from the Waste Law / Recycling+ scenarios. These elements are: Developing and executing waste management policy; Implementation of waste collection systems (bins, trucks, logistics); Engineering and planning waste treatment plants: Landfill gas recovery; Two bin separate collection; Digestion of organic waste; MRF. Examples of Dutch waste management companies are shown on the websites of two Dutch waste associations. (www.wastematters.eu and www.nvrd.nl)

7.2

Recommended further research

This study was conducted on a macro level (Brazil). For more detailed results that are of direct use for local waste management decisions the model could be implemented on a more local level. Of course, the outcome on this level also depends on the availability and quality of the waste data; Further research and more detailed analysis of selected waste and material flows are necessary; When choices on waste management are made (on national, regional and/or local level) the scenarios can be defined in more detail. The more detailed the input for the model, the more detailed the outcome. With specific scenarios the contribution of iWaste to waste management quickly becomes evident; There are possibilities of a transition of labor forces from waste picking to jobs in waste collection and waste treatment. Structural work can be offered in the waste industry. Implications, costs, and benefits have to be investigated. This potential is of another order than the potential reductions in GHG-emissions but is nonetheless also very important.

34

Authors Date

MWH B.V. and Utrecht University July 11, 2012, Final version

Appendixes

Appendix 1: Appendix 2:

References Quantitative outcome of scenarios

Appendix 1:

References

References

ABB, 2011. Trends in global energy efficiency 2011. Country reports Brazil. February, 2011. Afval Energie Bedrijf (AEB). Value from waste Waste fired power plant, the new standard for recovery of sustainable energy, metals and building materials from urban waste. Waste and Energy Company, City of Amsterdam; 2006. Angulo, S.C., Miranda, L.F.R., John, V., 2002. Construction and demolition waste, its variability and recycling in Brazil. Sustainable Buildings 2002 [available at: http://www.reciclagem.pcc.usp.br/ftp/SB_2002_angulo%20et%20al.pdf] Aprelpe, 2010. Panorama Aprelpe, 2012. Personal communication Bianchini, A., Filho, C.S., 2006. Waste management in developing countries: Present conditions and foreseen paths a Brazilian overview. Abrelpe, Brazil Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), 2008. Sector-based Approaches Case Study: Brazil Cement. ICF International. Corsten, M., Worrell, E., van Duin, A., Rouw, M., 2010. Saving materials The potential contribution of sustainable waste management and recycling to greenhouse gas emission reduction in the Netherlands, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Fergutz, O., Dias, S., Mitlin, D., 2011. Developing urban waste management in Brazil with waste picker organizations. Environment and Urbanization 23, pp.597-608. Gomes, C.F.S., Nunes, K.R.A., Xavier, L.H., Cardoso, R., Valle, R., 2008. Multicriteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega 36, pp. 395-404. IBGE, 2000. National Survey of Basic Sanitation Urban cleaning and garbage disposal 2000. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. IEA, 2010. Energy Balances 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. IEA, 2011. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. IPCC, 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, International Energy Agency. Paris, France. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

IVAM, 2008. Environmental analysis of anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Commissioned by the Association for Waste Companies, Amsterdam, Netherlands. John, V.M., Angulo, S.C., Miranda, L.F.R., Agopyan, V., Vasconcellos, F., 2004. Strategies for innovation in construction demolition waste management in Brazil. In CIB World Building Congress, Toronto, Canada [available at: http://www.reciclagem.pcc.usp.br/ftp/strategies_john%20et%20al.PDF ]. Laurijssen, J., Marsidi, M., Westenbroek, A., Worrell, E., Faaij, A., 2010. Paper and biomass for energy? The impact of paper recycling on energy and CO2 emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41(12),pp.1208-1218. Lopez-Delgado A, Pena C, Lopez V, Lopez FA. Quality of ferrous scrap from MSW incinerators: A case study of Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;40:39-51. Magalhaes, G., Alves, J., Santo Filho, F., Kelson, M., 2010. Understanding methane emissions from passive systems in landfills in Brazil: a contribution for reducing the uncertainties concerning the amount of methane recovered (R) in greenhouse gas emission inventories from waste management and for better estimating the parameter Adjustment factor (AD) in landfill gas collection and destruction/recovering projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Manchini, S.D., Nogueira, A.R., Kagohara, D.A., Schwartzman, J.A.S., De Mattos, T., Rosa, A.H., 2007. Influence from the type of waste collection (mixed or segregated) on recycling post-consumer polyolefins films. Polimeros 18 (4), pp.289-296. Monteiro, J H P, Mansur, G.L., Battipede, L., Segala, K., Reed, D.. 2008. Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Integrated Management in Latin American and Caribbean Cities. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Montevideo. Nunes, K.R.A., Mahler, C.F., Valle, R., 2007. Recycling centers for construction and demolition wastes in Brazil: A study case for Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 1-5 October 2007, Sardinia, Italy. Oliviera, L.B., Rosa, L.P., 2003. Brazilian waste potential: energy, environmental, social and economic benefits. Energy Policy 31, pp.1481-1491. PRN (2009c) Factsheet omrekening aandeel oud papier en karton in het huishoudelijk restafval naar gewicht op het moment van afdanken en in luchtdroge toestand, Stichting Papier Recycling Nederland, April 2010. Reimann D. CEWEP Energy Report II (Status 2004-2007) - Results of specific data for energy, R1 plant efficiency factor, and net calorific value (NCV) of 231 European Waste-to-energy plants. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, Brussels; 2009. Ribeiro, S.G., 2010. Waste management in Brazil. Presentation at the WTERT 2010 bi-annual meeting at Columbia University, New York City, October 7-8, 2010. Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M., 2010. Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(1),pp.34-52. Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., Bates, J., 2001. Waste management options and climate change. European Commission. Tayibi H, Pena C, Lopez FA, Lopez-Delgado A. Management of MSW in Spain and recovery of packaging steel scrap. Waste Management 2007; 27(11):1655-1665.

Thompson, S., and S. Tanapat, 2005. Modeling waste management options for greenhouse gas reduction. Journal of Environmental Informatics 6(1), pp.16-24. UNFCCC, 2012. Website: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html [accessed May 2012]. World Bank, 2010. Brazil low carbon case study, technical synthesis report Waste. World Bank, 2012. Website: http://data.worldbank.org/country/brazil [accessed May 2012]. Worrell E, van Heijningen RJJ, de Castro JFM,. Hazewinkel JHO, de Beer JG, Faaij APC, Vringer K. New gross energy-requirement figures for materials production. Energy 1994;19(6):627-640.

Appendix 2:

Quantitative outcome of scenarios

Quantitative outcome of the iWaste model

Results scenarios MSW Brazil

Model output Quantity MSW Energy balance to AVI high eff processing GHG emissions kton TJ primary kton CO2eq

Share %

Quantity MSW Quantity MSW generated collected Recycling kton kton %

Quantity recycled kton

Quantity landfilled kton

2010
Paper and board 14,7% Glass 2,8% Organic waste 54,9% Textiles 1,8% Steel 1,3% Aluminum 0,4% PE (hard) 1,9% PE (film) 15,0% PP 1,9% PET 1,5% Tetrapak 1,4% Wood 0,3% Stone-like material 0,8% Other 1,3% Total Total per kton of waste generated 5798 1729 33410 1065 803 256 1172 9112 1172 907 858 207 475 773 60868 5159 1538 29727 948 715 227 1043 8107 1043 807 764 184 422 688 54158 23% 23% 30% 63% 20% 20% 20% 56% 1334 398 0 320 0 161 234 1822 234 508 0 0 0 0 4465 1331 33410 746 803 95 937 7290 937 399 858 207 475 773 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -30952 -213 6126 -23382 151 -27617 -82381 -9121 -29585 153 36 89 -196695 -3,2 4896 -80 19774 -36 11 -634 -6178 -706 -2115 1044 346 7 16328 0,268

2030
Paper and board 14,7% Glass 2,8% Organic waste 54,9% Textiles 1,8% Steel 1,3% Aluminum 0,4% PE (hard) 1,9% PE (film) 15,0% PP 1,9% PET 1,5% Tetrapak 1,4% Wood 0,3% Stone-like material 0,8% Other 1,3% Total Total per kton of waste generated 9100 2713 52437 1672 1261 401 1839 14301 1839 1423 1347 325 745 1213 95532 7142 2414 46657 1488 1122 357 1636 12725 1636 1267 1199 289 663 1080 85000 23% 23% 30% 63% 20% 20% 20% 56% 2093 624 0 502 0 253 368 2860 368 797 0 0 0 0 8,2% 7007 2089 52437 1170 1261 148 1471 11441 1471 626 1347 325 745 1213 95531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -48579 -334 9615 -36698 237 -43345 -129295 -14315 -46433 240 57 140 -308710 -3,2 7685 -125 31035 -56 18 -1047 -9696 -1108 -3320 1638 543 10 25576 0,268

Waste Law
Paper and board 14,7% Glass 2,8% Organic waste 54,9% Textiles 1,8% Steel 1,3% Aluminum 0,4% PE (hard) 1,9% PE (film) 15,0% PP 1,9% PET 1,5% Tetrapak 1,4% Wood 0,3% Stone-like material 0,8% Other 1,3% Total Total per kton of waste generated 9100 2713 52437 1672 1261 401 1839 14301 1839 1423 1347 325 745 1213 95532 7142 2414 46657 1488 1122 357 1636 12725 1636 1267 1199 289 663 1080 85000 36% 36% 53% 30% 36% 63% 36% 36% 36% 56% 3276 977 27792 502 454 253 662 5148 662 797 0 0 0 0 42,4% 5824 1736 24646 1170 807 148 1177 9153 1177 626 1347 325 745 1213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -87835 -811 -10069 -37123 -8221 -43107 -228351 -25268 -45833 -1849 -690 454 -488702 -5,1 -4537 -218 1245 -600 -832 -1020 -17344 -1983 -3294 87 25 24 -28446 -0,298

Recycling+
Paper and board 14,7% Glass 2,8% Organic waste 54,9% Textiles 1,8% Steel 1,3% Aluminum 0,4% PE (hard) 1,9% PE (film) 15,0% PP 1,9% PET 1,5% Tetrapak 1,4% Wood 0,3% Stone-like material 0,8% Other 1,3% Total Total per kton of waste generated 9100 2713 52437 1672 1261 401 1839 14301 1839 1423 1347 325 745 1213 95532 7142 2414 46657 1488 1122 357 1636 12725 1636 1267 1199 289 663 1080 85000 40% 23% 80% 50% 77% 75% 85% 75% 85% 85% 77% 3640 624 41950 836 965 301 1563 10726 1563 1210 1030 0 0 0 67,4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5460 2089 10487 836 296 100 276 3575 276 214 317 325 745 1213 -147381 -334 -59800 -81529 -18334 -51719 -723273 -83525 -80353 -6269 -3705 454 -1255767 -13,1 -9027 -125 -5526 -1266 -1788 -1356 -28303 -3889 -4620 -628 -209 24 -56713 -0,594

Dutch results (Saving Materials) Baseline 2008 - Per kton of waste generated 8290 Dutch Recycling+ scenario - total per kton of waste generated

-9,8 -12,8

-0,280 -0,6