Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Management by AUB-NCC

Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Management

ÂŠ2016 American University of Beirut Published by the American University of Beirut - Nature Conservation Center (AUB-NCC) American University of Beirut P.O. Box 11-0236 Riad El-Solh Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon www.aubnatureconservation.org All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements and Authors MAIN AUTHORS: Dr. May Massoud, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, AUB Mr. Farouk Merhebi, Director, Department of Environmental Health, Safety and Risk Management, AUB CONTRIBUTORS: Dr. Carmen Geha, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies and Public Administration, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, AUB Dr. Susan Prattis, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, AUB Dr. Nesrine Rizk, Instructor, Department of Internal Medecine, Faculty of Medecine, AUB Dr. Najat A. Saliba, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Director, Nature Conservation Center, AUB Dr. Salma Talhouk, Professor, Department of Landscape Design and Ecosystem Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, AUB RESEARCH TEAM: Ali Mroweh, Research Assistant, Nature Conservation Center, AUB Sarah Yakzan, Editor, Nature Conservation Center, AUB GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Sabine Khattar, Graphic Designer and Event Coordinator, Nature Conservation Center, AUB

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The American University of Beirut Solid Waste Management Task Force would like to thank all those who dedicated their time and energy to the completion of this manual. Namely, we thank the volunteers who helped us locate and contact recycling companies and contractors, François Fayad, Eddy Ammar, and Rosalie Matta. We are also grateful to the American University of Beirut for allowing us to act on its behalf, and to the municipalities that participated in our workshops and hence helped us gather enough feedback and data to refine our Roadmap and manual, especially the villages involved in the AUB – Nature Conservation Center (NCC)’s Biodiversity Village Award. Finally, we would like to thank Diane Audi, the Operations Manager of NCC, without whose continuous planning and follow-ups this manual would not have been possible. All figures and illustrations found in this manual cannot be reproduced without the prior written authorization of the American University of Beirut - Nature Conservation Center (AUB-NCC) except for educational purposes. Any reproduction must be accompanied with a proper citation. The text from this publication may be referenced in whole or in part and in any form for educational purposes, without special permission from the copyright holder, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made and that the document in which it is referenced is not sold for profit. 2

Glossary of Abbreviations ASP BML CDR CoM IMFU ISWM MoE MoIM MRF MSW OMSAR WtE

Aerated Static Pile Beirut and Mount Lebanon Council for Development and Reconstruction Council of Ministers Independent Municipal Fund Integrated Solid Waste Management Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Interior and Municipalities Material Recovery Facility Municipal Solid Waste Office of the Minister of State for Administrative Reform Waste to Energy

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 II. Integrated Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................................... 5 a. Definition .................................................................................................................................................... 5 b. Components .............................................................................................................................................. 5 III. Solid Waste Management in Lebanon .................................................................................................................... 6 a. The Legal Context ...................................................................................................................................... 6 b. Facts and Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. Overview of Waste Management Components ...................................................................................................... 9 a. Reduction and Reuse ................................................................................................................................. 9 b. Collection of Waste .................................................................................................................................... 10 c. Recycling ................................................................................................................................................... 10 d. Composting ............................................................................................................................................... 11 e. Energy Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 12 f. Disposal (Sanitary Landfills) ........................................................................................................................ 13 V. The Municipal Solid Waste Management Roadmap ................................................................................................ 13 Roadmap ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sorting at Source ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Collection ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) .................................................................................................................... 17 The Lifespan of Discarded Waste ...................................................................................................... 18 List of Recycling Companies ............................................................................................................. 19 Common Sources of Waste Materials ............................................................................................... 20 Sorting and Composting ................................................................................................................................ 21 Requirements and Comparison of Different Composting Methods ................................................... 22 Landfills ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Scenario 1: Mini Scale (around 1 ton per day) ................................................................................... 25 Scenario 2: Small Scale (around 10 tons per day) ............................................................................. 26 Scenario 3: Medium Scale (around 30 tons per day) ......................................................................... 27 Scenario 4: Large Scale (around 100 tons per day) ........................................................................... 28 Final Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 29 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 3

Preface On July 17, 2015, the Naameh landfill was shut down, after accumulating eight times its capacity in waste since being opened in 1998. Without a governmental waste management plan, trash began to overflow from the streets and riverbanks of Beirut and Mount Lebanon. Originally intended to receive 2 million tons over 5 years, the landfill was part of an emergency plan to close the Burj Hammoud dump. However, governments extended its lifespan without properly implementing the Ministry of Environment (MoE)’s 2006 plan that was amended in 2010 or addressing the issue of finding a new landfilling site.

In response, AUB faculty, students, and staff formed the AUB Solid Waste Management Task Force and tackled the behavioral, technical, health-related, and environmental aspects of the crisis through various activities: •

August 6, 2015: workshop targeting municipality representatives to evaluate their knowledge in regard to sustainable waste management. It revealed these municipalities to be lacking in resources and preparedness, and in need of further guidance.

•

September 15, 2015: press release giving an overview of the Task Force’s plan or “Roadmap” to efficient and sustainable waste management in rural areas.

•

October 17, 2015: closed preliminary conference to share the Roadmap and document individual questions and concerns of attending municipality representatives.

•

October 22, 2015: meeting between three Task Force members and Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Akram Chehayeb, to exchange plans and strategies. Both Parties agreed to collaborate on technically advising rural municipalities.

•

October 29, 2015: workshop to officially launch the Solid Waste Management Roadmap that included recommendations addressing the issues raised on October 17.

The Task Force’s strategy is based on continuously engaging individuals and raising awareness to reduce and sort at source, followed by recycling and composting, and only landfilling refuse that can no longer be treated. It also highly emphasizes the importance of monitoring the technical, environmental, and economic aspects of any waste management initiative. One of the Task Force’s final duties was to compile the content of the workshops into an accessible and detailed manual that will hopefully encourage municipalities to cooperate in order to facilitate the financial and logistic facets of the Roadmap. Its main objectives are to: •

Introduce, elucidate, and highlight the importance of integrated solid waste management.

•

Give a brief overview of the current waste situation in Lebanon.

•

Present the characteristics and requirements of the available waste management options.

•

Introduce the suggested Roadmap, along with a few examples of its application.

It is important to note that although much of the information presented in this manual can be generalized, it mainly targets rural areas, rather than densely populated cities such as Beirut or Tripoli, which produce far more waste and may require different practices. Ultimately, the goal of the manual is to document the work of the AUB Solid Waste Management Task Force in order to allow all concerned parties to make informed decisions regarding their waste management strategies. It may also serve as an informational tool for those who need it. 4

I. Introduction [1-3]

Waste generation is steadily on the rise as a natural result of population increase and economic growth . The type and quantity of produced waste is related to human activities, lifestyles, and level of environmental awareness [4]. Hence, waste management is considered a particularly challenging issue for most countries, especially developing ones, such as Lebanon.

II. Integrated Solid Waste Management a. Definition Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) is the term applied to all the activities associated with the control of solid waste reduction, generation, sorting, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing, and disposal, in accordance with the principles of public health, economics, engineering, and conservation, and [5] taking public attitudes into consideration . Some facts to consider when developing a solid waste management plan are that there is no single answer to the question of what to do with our waste. In addition, although all communities have the same alternatives, every community or region has its own unique profile in regard to solid waste generation and management.

Fig 1. The Elements and Stakeholders of an ISWM plan

b. Components There are three main components of any ISWM approach, each of which is of crucial importance and must be considered carefully during the planning process [6-8] (see fig 1): i. Stakeholders are the people, organizations, and entities that are, or should be, involved in solid waste management. In Lebanon, they may include government institutions, local authorities (e.g. municipalities or unions of municipalities), recycling companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers, commercial institutions, and service users. ii. Elements are all the technical components of the waste management system. These include generation of waste, sorting, storage, collection, treatment, and disposal. iii. Aspects are all that needs to be taken into consideration to achieve a sustainable system. They encompass technical issues, environmental health, socio-economic factors, etc.

*The Overseeing Committee should be made up of ministerial representatives, local community members, and waste management specialists.

Introduction

III. Waste Management in Lebanon a. The Legal Context There are no legislative texts specifically addressing solid waste management, apart from some small fragments and [9] general guidelines that directly deal with solid waste management in Lebanon . Five key legal instruments address the SWM sector: • •

• • •

Decree 8735/1974 on pollution from solid waste and wastewater, which designates SWM a municipal responsibility. Decree 9093/2002, which provides municipalities with a financial incentive to host a waste management facility by offering a five-fold increase in the budgeted Independent Municipal Fund (IMFU) allocation if the municipality establishes a sanitary landfill or a solid waste processing plant (incinerator/recycling/compost, etc.) within the municipal boundaries, and a 10-fold increase if at least 10 municipalities are allowed to dispose of their waste in the sanitary landfill or use the processing plant. Law 216/1993, which entrusts the MoE with assessing all sources of solid waste generation. Law 444/2002, which sets landfill standards and promotes recycling. A draft Law on Integrated Solid Waste Management, which was approved by the Council of Ministers (CoM) in 2012 and sent to the parliament for final approval under Decree 8003, dated 23/04/2012. It is currently still under discussion at the Parliament.

However, the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the implementation of these laws and decrees is unclear, and enforcement is practically non-existent. The main causes of this poor execution are staffing constraints, lack of training, low fines, and political interferences. Hence, waste collection is clearly the responsibility of municipalities, under the tutelage of the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (MoIM), while its treatment and disposal are somewhat vague. Municipal landfills and other treatment facilities have been thus heretofore operated on an ad hoc basis, while major landfills have been taken care of by the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR).

b. Facts and Figures

i. Pre-Naameh Landfill Closure

In 2010, the waste generation rate varied from around 0.8 kilograms per person per day (kg/p/d) in rural areas to around 1.1 kg/p/d in urban areas, with a national weighted average estimated at about 1.0 kg/p/d and a total of 1.6 million tons of waste produced in Lebanon. This average increased to 1.05 kg/p/d in 2013, with an estimated total of 2 million tons of generated municipal solid waste (MSW), without accounting for the waste generated by Syrian [10] refugees). Nearly 60% of this waste was generated in Beirut and Mount Lebanon (BML) . Almost all of the MSW generated in Lebanon was (and is) collected by public or private haulers. Its majority is organic, (varying between 50-55% in urban and rural areas respectively), while the rest mainly comprises recyclables like paper and cardboard (17-15%), plastics (13-10%), metals (6-5%), glass (4-3%), and others, such as textiles, wood, and miscellanea (12-10%). It is characterized by its high moisture content, often exceeding 60%[11] . A relatively advanced solid waste management system was put in place in Beirut and parts of Mount Lebanon (excluding Jbeil) in 1997. It was based on manual and mechanical sorting, organic material separation, baling and wrapping (Karantina and Amrousieh), composting (Coral), and the landfilling of waste rejects and inerts (Naameh and Bsalim, respectively). However, many challenges hindered its proper operation, especially the limited capacity of available sites, compared with the large quantities of generated waste. As a result, over 85% of the waste was being [12] disposed of at the Naameh sanitary landfill . Outside BML, full or partial waste management systems did exist, and included: • A sorting plant and sanitary landfill (Zahle) • A semi-controlled dump (Tripoli) • A sorting facility and an anaerobic digester (AD) (Saida) • Small and medium-sized sorting and composting plants, some of which are still being constructed by the Office of the Minister of State for Administrative Reform (OMSAR) • Small community-based composting plants built in selected villages In the majority of other areas, primitive collect-and-dump practices were being employed.

Introduction

ii. Post-Naameh Landfill Closure Crisis

A few areas did not experience the consequences of the closure of the Naameh landfill, as they had previously built and were operating sorting plants, composting plants, anaerobic digestors, or other sanitary landfills, while others managed to adapt by introducing controlled dumps for their collected waste. However, the vast majority of municipalities saw their waste openly dumped on streets, under bridges, on riverbanks, in valleys, etc. In many cases, these open dumps were also being burned (see fig 2).

Fig 2. Post-Naameh landfill closure waste management practices

Waste Generation

Collection and Transport

Open burning

Open dumping

Controlled dumping

Anaerobic digestion

Composting

Sanitary landfilling Sorting

Introduction

These uncontrolled practices of open dumping and burning carry a myriad of detrimental effects on both the environment and public health, some of which are listed below. Table 1. Health Effects of Open Dumping and Open Burning of Municipal Solid Waste

OPEN DUMPING • • • • • • • • •

Adsorption of toxins into soil. Production of foul odors and gases. Risk of contamination of ground and surface water from leachate generation. Release of greenhouse gases. Loss of resources that may be recycled or reused for energy recovery. Multiplication of rodent populations due to easily available food sources. Wild rodents also carry a variety of microbial and parasitic diseases, some of which are also infectious to human beings and/or pets, and many of which are asymptomatic [13,14]. Multiplication of other disease vectors, most of all insects, including mosquitoes, fleas, cockroaches, ringworm fungal species, and ticks [15,16]. Fire hazards and security risks related to direct contact and physical injuries that can lead to anything from allergic reactions and skin diseases, to different cancers [17,18] . Increase of microbial threats, including [19-21] : • bacteria (salmonella, E. coli, cholera, etc.), which spread through food, direct contact with animals, insects, rodents, and water sources. They may also become antibiotic-resistant. • fungi that spread through air and contaminated water, and engender respiratory complications like asthma exacerbations and allergic reactive airway diseases. • parasites, which spread through polluted water, food, insects, and dogs. • viruses (Hepatitis A and E and Rabies), which spread through insects, rats, chickens, bats, and dogs.

OPEN BURNING • • • •

Production of toxic residues and fumes that may cause respiratory complications. Risk of explosion or fire spreading. Release of harmful substances like greenhouse gases, asbestos, benzene, acid gases, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and worst of all, dioxins, into the ambient air. Increased incremental risk of cancer in nearby communities, especially due to dioxins that are considered the most toxic substance to humans, as they are carcinogens and hormone disruptors that accumulate in our bodies and are passed on to our children. A study* following the waste crisis has shown a massive increase in cancer risk in waste burning sites, as the incremental risk of cancer for toddlers in studied areas has increased from 1 toddler per million to 172.

Thus, open dumping and burning carry extremely high risks for contaminating natural resources with harmful and potentially toxic pollutants that increase the likelihood of nearby inhabitants contracting chronic, and potentially lethal, diseases and infections (see table 1). They also engender threats of infectious diseases, respiratory diseases, topical allergies, and physical injuries. Hence, open burning must be completely banned and open dumps must be closed and rehabilitated as soon as possible and monitored in order to avoid catastrophic health repercussions. It is also important for residents of compromised areas to practice rigorous hygiene, including wearing face masks, specifically particulate filtering face-piece respirators such as N95 respirators, which filter out at least 95% of airborne particles [22]. Finally, chemical pesticides must be avoided as they may accidentally harm humans or animals, as well as release toxic fumes and particles in case they are sprayed on open dumps that are later burned. If it is necessary to use a pesticide, it is best to use calcium carbonate, as it is the least toxic and carries the least harm to humans[23], or sticky traps and other physical means to eliminate or at least reduce rodent populations. Finally, it is important to state that the waste crisis is an opportunity to revisit the required reform, begin advocating for administrative decentralization, and promote environmental sustainability. To achieve this, it would be practical to assess the current status of waste management and the feasibility of decentralizing it (human, financial and technical resources) in order to provide municipalities with the necessary structures, partnerships, and funding [24,25]. *This study was conducted by the Air Quality Research Unit led by Dr. Najat Saliba, composed of AUB, USJ, and NDU labs, and initiated by the Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS).

IV. Overview of Waste Management Components The health-related and environmental risks of open dumping and burning are clearly unsettling. It is therefore extremely important to begin implementing a sound integrated solid waste management plan to prevent or mediate these risks and achieve a more sustainable waste management strategy. There are currently several alternatives to open dumping that are in practice and that may be integrated into such a plan [8, 26-28]. The essential components of this plan are: • • • • • •

Reduction and Reuse Waste Collection Recycling Composting Energy recovery Disposal (Sanitary Landfills)

Many concerned authorities have chosen to employ a waste management hierarchy as an operational guideline. This hierarchy promotes source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting, and relegates the simple disposal of waste[29, 30]. However, it only reflects the environmental aspects of ISWM, and does not take other perspectives into consideration, especially the financial/economic one, which is frequently an extremely important limiting factor.

Fig 3. Waste Management Hierarchy

Most Preferred

Reduction and Reuse Recycling Composting Energy Recovery Disposal (Sanitary Landfills) Least Preferred

a. Reduction and Reuse Waste reduction can be achieved by decreasing consumption, increasing the durability of products and materials, reusing them, and reducing the resources employed to develop and market them, most of all packaging.

Overview

The various strategies for waste reduction can be categorized under Education (e.g. raising awareness), Recognition and Voluntary Programs (e.g. community initiatives), Economic Incentives and Disincentives (e.g. monetary rewards for proper sorting at source), and Administrative and Regulatory Actions (e.g. execution of legislations by municipal authorities). Before deciding which waste reduction strategies and opportunities are most suitable, a comprehensive analysis of their respective environmental impacts and economic feasibilities must be conducted.

b. Waste Collection Once the quantity of generated waste is minimized, the next step requires its collection. There are many possibilities for this, the most common of which are summarized below [31]: Table 2. The Different Waste Collection Options

Curb Collection

The homeowner is responsible for placing waste bags at a defined curb and at a specified time and day. This would be a feasible option for rural areas, as they are not too highly populated.

Alley Service

The homeowner drops off their waste bags at alley storage containers, which should be a basic part of the layout of their city or residential area.

Setout-Setback

Homeowners’ waste containers are set out from their property and set back after being emptied of waste (bagged or not) by additional workers in conjunction with the collection crew that loads the collection vehicle.

Service Setout Service

Essentially the same as the setout-setback service, except that the homeowner is responsible for returning the containers to their storage location.

The choice of collection strategy will depend on what is acceptable by the community and how much residents are willing to pay for such a service. The last two services might not be feasible as a starting point for Lebanon, as they are usually employed abroad for individual houses rather than residential buildings and will be both more costly and difficult to manage. It is also important to consider the most economic route for collection, in order to reduce unnecessary expenses. This can be achieved through an optimization study or by trial and error. Another thing to consider is the frequency of collection, which can be reduced for rural areas, where the population density is lower and less challenging. Once collected, the waste is shipped to concerned parties for treatment or disposal.

c. Recycling Recycling is being strongly encouraged in most developed countries. From an environmental perspective , it is an extremely favorable option for Municipal Solid Waste [32, 33] , mainly due to its relatively low negative environmental impact, its role in preserving raw materials by reusing discarded ones, as well as the energy it saves by reducing extraction processes. It must, nonetheless, be noted that not all waste components can be recycled. Recycling involves four steps, namely: • • • • 10

Sorting recyclables from other wastes. Collecting recyclables into centralized locations for shipment. Storing and transferring recyclables to processors or remanufacturers. Processing recyclable wastes to make them easier to ship or prepare them for remanufacturing.

Overview

The efficiency of recycling is significantly affected by sorting, whether at source or at a specialized facility. i. Sorting Waste may be sorted at the source or at a Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Sorting at source requires waste generators (individuals, business owners, etc.) to set aside storage space and one or more containers to hold the discarded recyclables. Some communities mandate that recyclables be separated according to type (e.g. glass from paper) or certain characteristics (e.g. clear glass from colored), while others accept recyclables that are commingled in the same container, as long as they are dry, clean, and separated from non-recyclable wastes. Commingled waste can also be sorted at Material Recovery Facilities, which are intended to handle large volumes of material and engineered to receive, process, ship and/or store recyclables. An MRF may be labor-intensive or highly mechanized. Naturally, [34] the latter requires greater funds and technical expertise, but is more efficient . One of the main setbacks that a material recovery facility can face is the lack of market for some of its products. Planning ahead and conducting proper market analysis are therefore critical steps to ensure the facility’s success. ii. Storage/Transfer Most recycling programs will have to account for the storage of recyclables for periods of a few days up to one month, with respect to the average waste production rate of the area in question. This depends on market demand for recyclables and the capacity of the facility. iii. Processing Processing yields clean, homogeneous material that can be further processed through baling or shredding to reduce volume and facilitate transport. Many communities choose to also use MRFs, which are cost-effective in the case of large-scale cooperative programs. They are organized to serve large municipalities, unions of municipalities, or governorates for example. Waste can then be used in the production of new materials or products. For example, collected plastic bottles can be reused and made into garbage bins.

d. Composting Composting is the transformation of organic material into a stable end-product by microbial organisms [35, 36]. It is an environmentally friendly and economically viable technique for treating municipal solid wastes [37, 38]. The three main types of composting are windrow composting, aerated static piles (ASPs), and in-vessel composting [39]. Factors to be considered before choosing the optimum composting option include, but are not limited to: • • • • • •

Available space Carbon to Nitrogen (C:N) ratio Projected use of the compost/end product Speed of composting Odor, dust, and leachate generation Investment and operational costs

Composting is also subject to market dynamics and the price of the produced compost directly affects the feasibility of the project [40]. It is consequently essential to take all necessary measures to produce competitive-quality compost. Factors that affect compost quality include the choice of method and machinery, proper planning and engineering, and of course constant supervision and monitoring, as well as the presence of workers knowledgeable about the composting process (especially waste composition and variability). In addition, the produced odors and leachate must be carefully treated to avoid significant threats to the environment and to neighboring communities. The municipal waste stream also contains quantities of glass, plastics, metals and hazardous materials, which can contaminate the finished compost. Thus, separating contaminants from the raw material at the compost site alone is insufficient, as they would have probably already become too commingled and costly to sort. Source sorting of organic and food waste before collection is hence an environmentally and technically better way to improve the quality of the final compost. 11

e. Energy Recovery Waste to Energy (WtE) is about turning waste into a useable form of energy, usually in the form of electricity. The waste management hierarchy prioritizes the recovery of energy from waste over disposing of it to landfills [29, 30] . In addition, more and more plants are looking to also make use of the generated heat. This is known as combined heat and power [41]. As such, Waste to Energy infrastructures can reap benefits for the community through the generation of energy from its waste stream. Some of the main types of WtE processes are incineration with heat and energy recovery, Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Anaerobic Digestion. These processes differ in type (thermal vs. non-thermal), operating temperature, products and byproducts, etc. It is important to note that WtE facilities are mainly used for large quantities of Municipal Solid Waste. [42] All WtE plants comprise the same basic steps : • • • •

Reception of the waste in a designated area and preparation for treatment. Thermal/biological treatment, which essentially releases the energy from the waste. Conversion to a transportable form of energy (e.g. electricity, heat, fuels). Clean-up of emissions and residues, which ensures that waste gases and residues are safely treated or disposed of.

Although WtE plants are gaining ground, especially in European countries, they are not without their limitations, for instance in regard to waste type and composition. WtE facilities are also more costly than other options in terms of investment and operation [41,43] .Their overall environmental benefits depend not only on the thermal treatment but the energy conversion technology with which it is coupled, not to mention the efficiency of any energy required to run the process. For WtE to be possible, the following criteria must be fulfilled: • • • • • • • •

A well-functioning waste management system that has been in place for a number of years. A stable supply of combustible waste. A proper pollution control system, which includes the treatment and disposal of toxic ashes and incineration residues at controlled and properly operated landfills. An environmental permit. Constant monitoring and supervision. The recruitment and maintenance of skilled staff. A willingness of the community to absorb the increased treatment cost through management charges, tipping fees, and tax-based subsidies. A community stable enough to allow a planning horizon of 15 years or more.

Incineration is the most well-known WtE process. It is an efficient way to reduce waste volume and hence required landfill space. Other benefits of incineration include a fast processing speed, destruction of biological threats, and the production of heat and energy in the case of energy recovery. In general, incineration is adopted in densely populated areas or countries where land is limited. It generates three [44] main types of solid residues, namely bottom ash, fly ash, and air-pollution control residues , which can all be managed through recycling and landfilling. Worryingly, these residues include particulate matter, which can be toxic to living organisms. In addition, the produced fly ash is toxic due to the presence of dioxins, heavy metals, chlorides, and sulfates. Moreover, pollutants found in flue gases include Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrates [45] (NOx), Sulfates (SOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Dioxins, and Furans . These pollutants can, nonetheless, be filtered, treated, and neutralized before being recycled or landfilled, making them less of a threat. However, this would require expensive equipment and complex processes MSW incineration plants tend to be among the most expensive options, particularly when considering the emission control measures, which require highly skilled personnel and careful maintenance. Another key factor in incineration is the composition of the waste, as the efficiency of the process decreases significantly if the calorific value of the waste is low [44]. A thorough study of the nature and quantity of the waste to be incinerated is thus essential in the planning and design phases of installing an incinerator.

f. Disposal (Sanitary Landfills) Any sustainable solid waste management system for Lebanon will require a sanitary landfill to ensure an environmentally sound disposal of waste. All definitions of a sanitary landfill call for the isolation of the landfilled wastes from the environment until they are rendered harmless through the processes of nature. A landfill is hence necessary to dispose of waste, recycling and composting rejects, as well as residues of processes such as combustion. It can also be used if alternative facilities break down. In order to be designated a sanitary landfill, a disposal site must meet certain control measures, namely the presence of: •

A bottom Liner system: seals off the bottom of the landfill to isolate it from the underlying environment or water source.

•

A leachate collection system: collects any generated leachate that percolates downward and which contains a high amount of toxic compounds.

•

A leachate treatment system: treats collected leachate before discharging it.

•

A gas collection system: collects any gases that are produced and that may escape into the atmosphere, especially methane. These gases must be managed through reuse, burning, or treatment.

•

Covering or Capping: seals off the top of the landfill to avoid odors or the spreading of diseases and other public health concerns.

•

Constant Monitoring: uses probes and sampling methods to keep an eye on nearby surface and groundwater as well as air quality.

Some planning and environmental issues to be considered are that: • • • • • • •

Landfills must meet local zoning and land use criteria, including road weight limits and other restrictions, in order not to affect external environmentally sensitive areas. Landfills must be easily accessible by waste transport vehicles in all weather conditions. Surface and groundwater qualities must be protected. Landfill gas emissions and leachate must be controlled. There should be access to earth cover material that can be easily handled and compacted. Landfills should comprise enough land and internal capacity to provide a buffer zone from neighboring properties and have room for expansion. Siting must account for the increased cost of hauling waste for long distances.

V. The Municipal Solid Waste Management Roadmap The next few pages will elucidate the Roadmap that the American University of Beirut Solid Waste Management Task Force has compiled by considering the different options mentioned above, comparing their environmental impacts, and respective feasibilities in Lebanon. It takes into consideration the public opinion and might be subject to changes in the case of future developments in the field of waste management. It can be modified to better suit the needs of each individual municipality or union of municipalities. However, large densely-populated cities, such as Beirut or Tripoli, might find the plan less suitable than other alternatives, such as WtE practices, after conducting their own Environmental Impact Assessments and other necessary evaluations.

Roadmap Household

Recyclables

Other

Specialized Companies

E-waste Batteries Clothes Other..

Organics

PRIVATE SECTOR LEVEL Basic Separation

MUNICIPALITY LEVEL Further Separation

Regular Waste Collection

Material Recovery Facility

Composting Facility

MUNICIPALITY or KAZA LEVEL Basic Processing

Sale of compost

Sale of recycled material

Industrial processing

Landfill

PRIVATE SECTOR LEVEL Further Processing

KAZA or GOVERNORATE LEVEL

RECYCLABLES

ORGANICS

OTHER

Glass

Plastic

Metal

Paper and Cardboard

Vegetables, Fruits, and Biodegradables

Textiles, Batteries, E-waste, etc.

3-4%

10-13%

5-6%

15-17%

50-55%

10-12%

PACKAGING

COMPOSTING

DISPOSAL Sanitary Landfilling

SALE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING for GLASS PRODUCTION

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING for PLASTIC PRODUCTION

EXPORTATION or INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING for METAL PRODUCTION

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING for PAPER and CARDBOARD PRODUCTION

USE in AGRICULTURE or LANDSCAPING

Tips for Sorting at Source

Include

Do NOT Include

Conditions

Sent to

Bottles, cans, cups, boxes, pots, tools, car and bicycle parts, paper and cardboard, newspapers, magazines, etc.

Windowpanes, lightbulbs, mirrors, ovenproof dishes, tissues, composite packaging (milk or juice cartons), photographic film, cling film, disposable food and drink containers, etc.

Must be dry and unsoiled.

Material Recovery Facilities.

Collection Waste collection frequency varies between areas and at different times of the year. In rural areas, during cold weather, and for areas with a limited budget, it might be better to collect waste less frequently, whereas a higher frequency is more suited to urban areas and/or temperate seasons.

Other

Types of Waste

Organics

Recyclables

Table 3. Tips for sorting at source

Kitchen waste (fruits, vegetables, bread, meat with small bones, coffee grounds, tea bags, tissues, greaseproof paper, etc.) and garden waste (cut flowers, etc.).

Clothes, batteries, fluorescent lights, hazardous materials (paints, thinners, etc.), electronic waste (E-waste), etc.

Sweepings, vacuum cleaner bags, cigarette butts, nappies and sanitary towels, cotton, packaging, large bones or knuckles, cooking oil, etc.

Must be removed from packaging and allowed to drain.

Composting plants.

Electronics and toys must be checked for hidden batteries before being thrown away. Clothes can be donated to the less fortunate or landfilled. Meanwhile, other hazardous materials should be handed over to specialized companies.

Trucks used to transport MSW from the collection area to the treatment facility must not be compacting. The compaction of waste makes it much more difficult to sort later, and decreases the efficiency of MRFs.

Truck routes must be optimized in order to reduce fuel consumption, overall costs, and air pollution.

Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

Recyclables Tipping Floor

Bag opening options

Conveyor System Bag Opener

Manually

Presorting

Removal of Bulky Items

Sorting Platform

Paper & Cardboard Sorting

Plastic Sorting

Baling

Glass Sorting

Avoid multiple tasks per person; each person on the sorting platform should be assigned a specific material.

Magnetic Sorting

Aluminium Sorting Baling

Baling

Shredding

Some large-scale material recovery facilities may employ advanced sorting machines such as Near Infrared (NIR) Scanners (for the separation of plastics, glass, and paper) or Eddy Current separators (for the separation of Aluminum). These techniques generally offer a much higher sorting efficiency, but are also much more expensive.

Metal Sorting

Organic Waste

Baling Composting Facility

Recycling Industries

All waste rejects from the MRF need to be transferred to a Landfill for proper disposal. 17

Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

Time Flies, Waste Stays The average time needed for different substances to decompose varies substantially from one material to the next (see table 4). it is hence important to keep in mind that although landfilling is highly adopted, landfilled objects still require a certain amount of time to be degraded, which can sometimes be extremely long. The same applies to dumping waste in the ocean, where it will likely accumulate faster than it will decompose.

Table 4. Average Natural Degradation Times for Different Materials

Material

Time until degradation in soil

Tires

1000 years - indefinite

Plastic bottles

100 - 1000 years

Aluminium cans

10 - 100 years

Glass

400 - 4000 years

Nylon

400 years

Tissue paper

3 months

Cigarette butts

1 - 12 years

Matchsticks

6 months

Gum

5 years

Diapers

400 years

Magazines

6 months - 10 years

Material

Time until degradation in the sea

Tires

indefinite

Plastic bottles

1000 years

Aluminium cans

500 years

Glass

1000 years

Nylon

500 years

Tissue paper

3 months

Cigarette butts

2 - 12 years

Matchsticks

6 months

Gum

5 years

Diapers

200 years

Magazines

2 months

Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

List of Some Recycling Companies:

What does it recycle?

Recycling Company

Phone Number

Al Zoujaj al Yadawi

03/906091

Aluxal

05/480406

Arcenciel

01/495561

Beeatouna

01/249653

Charmtal

01/823675

ETS. Carlo pour le commerce et l’industrie 01/497100

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Electronics

Tires

X X X

X X

Kamaplast

07/222200

Lebanese Company for Raw Materials

03/281434

Lebanese Recycling Works

01/809383

L’Ecoute

70/391908

LEFICO

08/921222

Mazar Plast

08/500683

MIMOSA

06/401876

OLA 3R

03/977041

Oreibi

08/510194

Panda Plast

01/650888

Plastic Chim

03/337788

PlastWood

01/491152

Publitex

03/607678

Roky Plast

09/795666

Sharmetal

01/823675

SICOMO

08/500550

SIPCO

05/433553

TERRE Liban

05/923060

Unipack

09/478911

United Glass products

06/389107

Waste-MAWARA

01/258369

Zero Waste Act

01/381381

X X X

Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

Common sources of waste materials: Aluminium Steel Railway Main home appliances Cars Screws and nails Washing machines and refrigerators Pipes Heavy equipment Office furniture Industrial tools

Soft drink cans Metal chips Car parts Kitchen tools Construction material Electric transmission lines

Glass Transparent glass Brown glass Green glass

Plastic Soft drink bottles Bags Pipes Fuel tanks Refillable bottles Detergent bottles Computer parts (e.g. hard disks) Sewage pipes Thin films used for food packaging Water and juice bottles Chairs and tables Trash bags Milk jugs Electric insulators Pressurized bottles Yogurt bottles Door mats and outdoor carpets Winter clothing Disposable cups and plates Sound amplifiers

Bronze Electric pliers and fasteners Engines and pumps Electric wires Hammer Bells

Lead Bullets Car batteries Construction materials Weights

Copper Electronics Electric wires Adapters Magnetrons Electrical switches Water faucets Locks Ammunition Generators Construction Door knob Water heaters

Paper Printing paper Newspapers

Cardboard Cardboard boxes Corrugated cardboard Egg trays 20

Textiles Worn-out clothes

Sorting and Composting

Organic Waste Tipping floor

Bag opening options

Conveyor system Bag opener

Manually Removal of contaminants and sharp objects

Screening

Removal of residuals Shredding

Organic waste from MRF

In general, materials that are green and moist tend to be high in nitrogen, and those that are brown and dry are high in carbon

Landfill Addition of bulking agents

Composting options

Turned windrow

Aerated static pile

Tunnel composting

Drum composting

Collection of leachate Curing Treatment of leachate

Screening Agriculture and land rehabilitation

Packaging

Requirements and Comparison of different composting methods:

Windrow

Aerated Static Pile

Capacity for which it is adapted

2 to 300 tons per day

More than 30 tons per day

Active Composting Time

8 to 24 weeks

2 to 10 weeks

Curing Time

3 to 6 weeks

Odor Production

High

Medium to Low

Electric Consumption

Low

Medium

Leachate Production

High

Medium

Land Requirements*

X+

Site Manager

Machinery drivers

Laborers

Maintenance Personnel

Specialized Operator

Investment Costs

Low to Medium

Medium

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Low

Low to Medium

Shredder

Windrow Turner

Aeration system (Blowers, piping...)

Screen

Electric Generator

Biofilter

Leachate Treatment System

Skid-steer/Front End Loader

Labor Requirements**

Machinery and Required Material

*Estimation of the area (X) for the scenario of a 30-tons-per-day facility **The number of workers varies according to type of composting and capacity of the facility

In-vessel

Drum

Tunnel

Capacity for which it is adapted

2 to 30 tons per day

30-100 tons per day

Active Composting Time

Up to 1 week

3-4 weeks

Curing Time

3 to 6 weeks

Odor Production

Low

Medium

Electric Consumption

High

Medium

Leachate Production

Low

Medium

Land Requirements*

Site Manager

Machinery drivers

Laborers

Maintenance Personnel

Specialized Operator

Investment Costs

High

Medium to High

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Medium to High

Shredder

Drum(s)

Aeration system (Blowers, piping...)

Screen

Electric Generator

Not needed

Biofilter

Labor Requirements**

Machinery and Required Material

Leachate Treatment System Skid-steer/Front End Loader

Skid-steer/Front End Loader

*Estimation of the area (X) for the scenario of a 30-tons-per-day facility **The number of workers varies according to type of composting and capacity of the facility

Landfills Energy Production Leachate Treatment

Leachate Storage

Gas Collection

Groundwater Monitoring Well

Leachate Collection

Leachate Monitoring Well

Groundwater Landfill Layers: Topsoil Sand Clay Garbage Sand Synthetic Liner Sand Clay Subsoil 24

Characteristics of the landfill used as an example: Landfill Area

20,000 m 2

Inert material from 100 tons per day

30 tons per day

Volume of inert material after compression and cover

50 m 3 per day

Volume of waste per year

18,250 m 3

Height of material in landfill

around 14 meters

Average age of landfill

15 years

Scenarios for Waste Management The Roadmap is hence composed of a number of components, each of which is important to its integrative and sustainable qualities. In order to give a better idea about the different tools, manpower, machinery, land, and construction work needed to put these components to work, below are four examples, or scenarios, of areas with different rates of daily waste production.

Scenario 1: Mini Scale (around 1 ton per day) Machinery and tools needed:

Bins

Balers

skid-steer loader/ Shovel

Shredder

Labor needed 4

Required Construction Work: Reception Area Sorting Area

Storage Area

Composting and curing area

Total space: 500 to 1,000 m 2 25

Scenarios

Scenario 2: Small Scale (around 10 tons per day) Machinery and tools needed:

skid-steer loader Sorting line and transfer of organic material to compost facility

Magnet above sorting line Shredder for organic matter

Baler for recyclables

Plastic shredder

electric generator

Screen for compost

Small Windrow turner or drum

Labor needed 6 to 8

Required Construction Work:

Storage area

Hangar

Composting and curing area Leachate storage tank

Reception Area Sorting and packaging area Total space: 1,500 to 2,000 m 2 26

Scenarios

Scenario 3: Medium Scale (around 30 tons per day) Machinery and tools needed:

2 skid-steer loaders Magnet above sorting line

Sorting platform including screen and transfer of organic material to compost facility

Shredder for organic matter

Baler for recyclables

Plastic shredder

Windrow turner or drum

Biofilter for leachate and odor control

Screen for compost

Large electric generator

Labor needed 12 to 14

Required Construction Work:

Hangar

Composting and curing area

Storage area Sorting and packaging area

Biofilter area

Reception area

Leachate storage tank and treatment system

Total space: 2,500 to 4,000 m 2 27

Scenarios

Scenario 4: Large Scale (around 100 tons per day) Machinery and tools needed:

Front end loader and 2 skid-steer loaders

Weighbridge

Debagger Magnet above sorting line

Advanced sorting platform including screen, density separation, and transfer of organic material to compost facility

Baler for recyclables Shredder for organic matter Large windrow turner for windrows or piles Machinery for the production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

Screen for compost

Plastic shredder

Large electric generator Biofilter for leachate and odor control

Labor needed 26 to 30

Hangar

Required Construction Work:

Composting and curing area Storage area

Sorting and packaging area

Biofilter area

Reception and weighing area

Leachate storage tank and treatment system Total space: 7,500 to 10,000 m 2

Final Recommendations This manual having elucidated the different options for solid waste management, and described the American University of Beirut Solid Waste Management Task Forceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Roadmap for a sustainable employment of some of these options, it is now the responsibility of stakeholders, mainly individual citizens and concerned municipal authorities to take the steps necessary for its application. It is crucial for municipalities to build partnerships with each other, in order to lighten the burden of financing and managing such a fully fledged solid waste management plan. These collaborations would incorporate economics of scale into the process of waste management, and hence facilitate the implementation of sustainable waste management in the municipalities or kazas in question. In addition, it is even more crucial for individuals, whether home or business owners, to actively take part in the transition that is inevitable for Lebanon to become sustainable at all. Citizens and residents of different municipalities and kazas must accept the added responsibilities and duties of sustainable living and begin integrating elements of the Roadmap into their day-to-day lives, most important of which is sorting at source. Finally, the Roadmap should be taken as a guideline. It is essential, as per Decree 8633/2012, for concerned parties to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before implementing any solid waste management facility. This type of assessment will act as a planning tool to assist decision-makers in bringing all the economic, social and environmental factors that could directly or indirectly affect the project and society into focus. The EIA process can modify and improve the design of a proposal, ensure that resources are used efficiently, enhance the social aspects of the proposal, identify measures to monitor and manage impacts, and facilitate informed decision-making in order to mitigate predicted negative environmental consequences and enhance those which are beneficial [46, 47] . This said, it becomes clear that sustainable solid waste management will require an effort from all stakeholders, but also that it is not a complex or impossible undertaking. The American University of Beirut Solid Waste Management Task Force sincerely hopes that this manual will serve as a tool in the efforts of different parties to sustainably manage their waste.

For inquiries: [email protected]

References 1. UNDESA. (2010). TRENDS IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Chemicals, mining, transport and waste management. 2. Modak, P. (2012). Municipal Solid Waste Management: Turning Waste into Resources Shanghai Manual – A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st Century: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). 3. Jining, C., & Yi, Q. (2009). Point Sources of Pollution: Local Effects and Their Control (Vol. 1): EOLSS Publishers Co Ltd. 4. UNEP. (2011). Toward a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication: Kogan Page Ltd. 5. Massoud, M. A., El-Fadel, M., & Abdel Malak, A. (2003). Assessment of public vs private MSW management: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 15-24. 6. Anschütz, J., IJgosse, J., & Scheinberg, A. (2004). Putting Integrated Sustainable Waste Management into Practice Using the ISWM Assessment Methodology (A. Scheinberg Ed.). 7. van de Klundert, A., & Anschütz, J. (2001). Integrated Sustainable Waste Management - the Concept. 8. UNHSR. (2010). SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE WORLD’S CITIES WATER AND SANITATION IN THE WORLD’S CITIES 2010: Earthscan. 9. MOE, EU, & UNDP. (2014). Lebanon Environmental Assessment of the Syrian Conflict & Priority Interventions. 10. Sweepnet. (2014). Country report on the Solid Waste Management in LEBANON. 11. MOE, EU, & UNDP. (2011). State and Trends of the Lebanese Environment. 12. CDR/LACECO. (2011). Supervision of Greater Beirut Sanitary Landfills - Annual Report. 13. Li, W., Guan, D., Su, J., Takeda, N., Wakita, T., Li, T. C., & Ke, C. W. (2013). High prevalence of rat hepatitis E virus in wild rats in China. Vet Microbiol, 165(3-4), 275-280. Doi:10.1016/j. vetmic.2013.03.017 14. Ostfeld, R. S., Canham, C. D., Oggenfuss, K., Winchcombe, R. J., & Keesing, F. (2006). Climate, deer, rodents, and acorns as determinants of variation in Lyme-disease risk. PloS Biol, 4(6), e145. 15. Collinet-Adler, S., Babji, S., Francis, M., Kattula, D., Premkumar, P. S., Sarkar, R., . . . Naumova, E. N. (2015). Environmental Factors Associated with High Fly Densities and Diarrhea in Vellore, India. Appl Environ Microbiol, 81(17), 6053-6058. doi:10.1128/aem.01236-15 16. Echeverria, P., Harrison, B. A., Tirapat, C., & McFarland, A. (1983). Flies as a source of enteric pathogens in a rural village in Thailand. Appl Environ Microbiol, 46(1), 32-36. 17. Hagemeyer, O., Bunger, J., van Kampen, V., Raulf-Heimsoth, M., Drath, C., Merget, R., . . . Broding, H. C. (2013). Occupational allergic respiratory diseases in garbage workers: relevance of molds and actinomycetes. Adv Exp Med Biol, 788, 313-320. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6627-3_42 18. Allmers, H., Huber, H., & Baur, X. (2000). Two year follow-up of a garbage collector with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Am J Ind Med, 37(4), 438-442. 19. Bunchu, N., Silaram, M., Sukontason, K., Sukontason, K. L., & Chaiwong, T. (2014). Isolation of Toxocara eggs from flies in Northeast Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai, 97 Suppl 4, S25-28. 20. Reiss, J. (1995). Moulds in containers with biological wastes. Microbiol Res, 150(1), 93-98. 21. Zaki, S. A., & Karande, S. (2011). Multidrug-resistant typhoid fever: a review. J Infect Dev Ctries, 5(5), 324-337. 22. The National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. (January 20, 2012). Respirator Fact Sheet. 23. EFSA. (2011). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance calcium carbonate. European Food Safety Authority, 9(7). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2298 24. Local Governments and Public Goods: Assessing Decentralization in the Arab World. (2015). The Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. 25. Antoun, R. (2009). Towards a National Anti-corruption Strategy. 26. Pan American Health Organization. (2005). Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Situation Report on the Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Carribbean. 27. DEFRA. (2013). Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. 28. EPA. (1995). DECISION MAKER’S GUIDE TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. 29. EPA. (2015, November 19, 2015). Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy. 30. EEA. (2013). Managing municipal solid waste - a review of achievements in 32 European countries. Copenhagen. 31. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. A. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management. New York: McGraw Hill.

32. Arafat, H. A., Jijakli, K., & Ahsan, A. (2015). Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 233-240. 33. Song, Q., Wang, Z., & Li, J. (2013). Environmental performance of municipal solid waste strategies based on LCA method: a case study of Macau. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 92-100. 34. The Dougherty Group LLC. (2006). Materials Recovery Facilities – MRFs Comparison of efficiency and quality. 35. Pathak, A. K., Singh, M. M., & Kumar, V. (2011). COMPOSTING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: A SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE IN INDIAN CITIES – A REVIEW. International Journal of Current Research, 3(12), 339-346. 36. EPA. (2012). Food Scrap Recycling: A Primer for Understanding Large-Scale Food Scrap Recycling Technologies for Urban Areas. 37. Hargreaves, J. C., Adl, M. S., & Warman, P. R. (2008). A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 123, 1-14. 38. Environment Canada. (2013). Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing. 39. Renkow, M., & Rubin, A. R. (1998). Does municipal solid waste composting make economic sense? Journal of Environmental Management, 53, 339-347. 40. Hoornweg, D., Thomas, L., & Otten, L. (2000). Composting and Its Applicability in Developing Countries. 41. World Energy Council. (2013). Waste to Energy World Energy Resources 2013 survey: World Energy Council. 42. The World Bank. (1999a). Decision Makers’ Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. Washington, D.C. 43. UNEP. (2005). Solid Waste Management (Vol. I). 44. The World Bank. (1999b). Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. Washington, D.C. 45. Soria, J., Gauthier, D., Flamant, G., Rodriguez, R., & Mazza, G. (2015). Coupling scales for modelling heavy metal vaporization from municipalsolid waste incineration in a fluid bed by CFD. Waste Management, 43, 176-187. 46. Pavlickova, K., & Vyskupova, M. (2015). A method proposal for cumulative environmental impact assessment based on the landscape vulnerability evaluation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 74-84. 47. Leunga, W., Nobleb, B., Gunnc, J., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2015). A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 116-123.

Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Management

Partner:

National Council for Scientific Research

Sponsors:

Partner:

National Council for Scientific Research

Sponsors:

For inquiries: [email protected]