Country Reports
Eco-Indicators for Municipal Waste Management of Istanbul:
A Historical Perspective
Bestami Özkaya, Ahmet Demir, Afşin Çetinkaya, Levent Bilgili and Arda Karluvalı
1. MSW management of Istanbul ...144
2. Method ...147
3. Results and discussion ...149
4. Conclusion ...150
5. Literature ...152
In 1950s there were 740 million people living in cities; there are now 4 billion, rising to a predicted 6.3 billion by 2050. Therefore, a significant part of the human activities causing the climate change take place in the cities depending upon the concentration of population.
Depending on urbanization the temperature can be increased by four degrees compared to rural areas related to paving the natural space with asphalt and dense housing in cities [2]. It is expected that this effect will become stronger in cities by warming, flood events and diseases that spread more easily in high temperature.
Independently being a global problem, local level policy has a crucial impact on climate change because of that requires local action [6]. Istanbul is one of the largest mega cities in the world with a population of 17 million. In this context the determination of appropriate policies in the management of 19,000 tonnes per day of municipal waste in Istanbul, which is also critical in terms of impact on climate change. Currently, disposal methods of municipal solid waste are included two sanitary landfill site, one compost and RDF plant and material recovery plants in Istanbul. Also, solid waste incineration plant and biomethanization plant are under construction to take in to operation before 2020. Municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Istanbul has emerged as a serious problem that presents a challenge to environmental quality and sustainable development. The environmental impacts of MSW have been extensively studied using LCA method [4, 5, 7].
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is known as an objective process used to assess environmental loads associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying and measuring the energy and material requirements. LCA is a methodology for examin- ing the environmental impacts associated with a product, process or service from the cradle to the grave – from raw material production to the final disposal of waste [3].
Country Reports
Integrated waste management is a comprehensive disposal program that form from collection of waste to selection of useful, economically and socially accepted treatment method. Nowadays new understanding explores as the evaluation of all processes of the services and keeping the all valuable material in the system for the longest time, related to expansion of the circular economy and life cycle concept. LCA has been defined as an objective methodology to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process or service, by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and waste released to the environment while evaluating and implementing opportunities to allow environmental improvements.
This study focus on historical perspective for municipal waste management in Istanbul over last 30 years. Therefore, five different scenarios has been selected for solid waste management including before 1994 and future planning. These scenarios were evaluated in historical perspective of waste management in this city considering eco-indicators such as Global warming potential (GWP), Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), Human toxicity potential (HTP), Ecotoxicity, Photochemical oxidation potential (POCP), Acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP) to examine climate change, global warning potential at local level by means of a life cycle assess- ment with historical perspective.
For this purpose, history based scenarios were developed and compared for the Mu- nicipal Solid Waste Management System of Istanbul by using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The lowest contribution to Global Warming Potential (GWP) was calculated for the current situation of sanitary landfill (64 %), composting (3 %), biodrying (12 %), recycling (3 %), incineration (18 %).
1. MSW management of Istanbul
Istanbul is one of the most crowded metropolises in Europe with a population over 17 million in 2018. Metropolitan municipality has to manage approximately 19,000 tons/day MSW generated from residential and commercial sources. The char- acterization of MSW of Istanbul is given in Table 1.
Solid Waste Characterization Percentage
%
Biodegradable waste 54.33
Incinerable waste 25.13
Paper-Cardboard 9.47
Plastic 4.97
Glass 3.36
Metal 1.05
Household hazardous waste 0.79
Other 0.90
Total 100.00
Table 1:
Istanbul solid waste characteri- zation (2016)
Country Reports
Up to 1994, MSW generated in Istanbul were disposed at wild dump sites. In 1994, solid waste management system of Istanbul was planned to remediate dump sites and to construct six new solid waste transfer stations (SWTS) and two sanitary landfills (SL).
In the current situation, collected MSW are first brought to eight SWTSs located on both sides of Istanbul province. Aydınlı (Tuzla), Hekimbaşı (Ümraniye), Küçükbakkalköy (Kadıköy) and Şile SWTSs are located in Anatolian side and Yenibosna (Bahçeliev- ler), Baruthane (Şişli), Halkalı (Küçükçekmece) and Silivri SWTSs are situated in the European Side of Istanbul.
In 1995, all MSW generated in Istanbul were diverted from dump sites and started to be disposed of in the two new sanitary landfill sites established in Europe (Odayeri SL, Eyup) and Asia (Komurcuoda SL, Sile) side of the city. The third landfill (Seymen SL, Silivri) has also been in operation since 2016 in European side, while Odayeri SL stopped accepting MSW in 2017. In Table 2, quick facts of the three landfills were presented.
Figure 1: Komurcuoda sanitary landfill (left) and Odayeri sanitary landfill (right)
Table 2: Sanitary landfills in Istanbul
MSW rich in organic content has been sent to Kemerburgaz Recycling and Compos- ting Plant since 2001 (Figure 2). The facility can treat 1,000 tons/day MSW and has a composting capacity of 500 tons/day.
Odayeri Seymen Kömürcüoda
Start of operation 1995 2016 1995
Total area 266 ha 226 ha 233 ha
Landfill area 168 ha 170 ha 140 ha
Deposited waste quantity 54.150.000 tons 295.000 tons 26.690.000 tons
Closure of landfill 2017 2045 2030
Country Reports
Figure 2: Kemerburgaz recycling and composting plant
Figure 3: Komurcuoda MBT and recycling plant
Country Reports
In 2005, a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility with process capacity of 2,000 tons/day was erected in the vicinity of Komucuoda SL (Figure 3). After sorting and pre-treatment of MSW, refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is produced with biodrying process from the residual waste. The produced RDF is sent to the licensed cement factories to be used as alternative fuel in cement production.
In the current situation, 3,000 tons/day capacity MSW incineration plant is under construction. Eyup Kemerburgaz Waste Incineration and Energy Production Plant (Figure 4) is planned to be put into service in 2020. The incineration plant will have an installed capacity of 70 MWh electrical energy and 165 MWh heat energy.
Figure 4: Eyup Kemerburgaz waste incineration and energy production plant
2. Method
In this study, solid waste management of Istanbul was evaluated using life cycle meth- odology in a historical development process. The study consists of three parts. In the first part, waste management has been given from the past to the present. In the second section, scenarios were created to determine the environmental impact of each facility established with new investments in this historical process. In the last part, these sce- narios have been determined as the cornerstone of the environmental impact of the investments made in the historical process. As can be seen from these scenarios given in Table 3, life cycle evaluation was made by taking into account the eco-indicators in the historical development process until 2020.
Five scenarios were improved and assessed to emphasized the development potential of political measures in the Istanbul MSW management system (Table 3). All presumptions are reported in the following sections. It is significant to keep in mind that scenarios vary considering to the level of changes needed for implementation.
In Scenario 5 the collection rates of paper, cardboard, glass, PET, aluminium, tin plate and organic waste were rising by 4 %. The environmental impact of waste incineration is largely dependent on the energy recovery from the waste. An increase in the energy recovery efficiency is therefore modelled in scenario 5. The LCA results are dominated by the impacts from biodrying, recycling and the incineration of residual waste.
Country Reports
Eco-indicators
In this study, SimaPro 8.2.3.0 was used in order to calculate the total life cycle impact assessment of different waste management scenarios, which was operated during dif- ferent periods in Istanbul.
Based on life cycle methodology, target scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, impact assessment and reporting. Purpose scope definition is the first step in which the goal is defined to determine the system boundaries of the work. The end result of the work is a critical step because it is directly related to the scope definition. The scope definition forms the limits of the evaluation. In waste management systems, the system limit covers the area of waste management. For example, when considered on a district basis, this includes waste management plan components and data from the county. In the second step, mass energy balances are determined for the system. Modelling in life cycle analysis in the waste management system involves environmental loads resulting from both recycling activities and material recovery activities often due to factors such as the use of transfer equipment.
In this study, CML (Center of Environmental Science of Leiden University) method, which contains more than 1,700 different flows and was developed by the Leiden University in 2001 was run to obtain the impact assessment results. CML method is divided into two subcategories as baseline and non-baseline. In this study, CML-Baseline method was preferred in order to make the results more apprehensible [1].
The explanations of the impact categories are presented as follows [1] as eco-indicators adopted in this study:
• Abiotic depletion potential (ADP): This impact category consists of the consump- tion of non-biological resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, water and metals, etc.
While the abiotic depletion is measured by the kg Sb equivalent, abiotic depletion Table 3: Life cycle scenarios depending upon history of solid waste management in Istanbul
Scenarios Period Disposal/Treatment Rates
%
S1 Before 1994 Dumpsite 100
S2 1994 – 2001 Sanitary landfill 100
S3 2001 – 2005
Sanitary landfill Composting Recycling
90 7 3
S4 2005 – 2020
Sanitary landfill Composting Bio-drying Recycling
72 5 20 3
S5 2020
Sanitary landfill Composting Bio-drying Recycling Incineration
65 3 12 4 18
Country Reports
potential of fossil fuels (ADPf) is measured by MJ. The definition of the category can be summarized as the decrease of the availability of non-biological and non-re- newable resources as a result of their unsustainable use.
• Global warming potential (GWP): This category mainly focuses on the alteration of global temperature caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, sulphur hexafluoride, etc. The unit of the category is kg CO2 equivalent, which is a definition of the impacts of all greenhouse gases in terms of the impact of CO2.
• Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP): This category is related with the ozone depletion potential of different gases relative to the reference substance chloro- fluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11).
• Human toxicity potential (HTP): It is an explanation of the toxic effects of chemical on human due to the various processes. The unit of this category is 1.4 dichloroben- zene equivalents.
• Ecotoxicity: This category is divided into three main sub-categories such as fresh-wa- ter aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TEP). The unit of this category is 1.4 dichlorobenzene equivalents.
• Photochemical oxidation potential (POCP): It is a term that defines a type of smog created from the effect of sunlight, heat, NMVOC and NOx and also identified as ground level ozone. It is expressed using the reference unit kg C2H4 (ethylene) equivalent.
• Acidification potential (AP): Gases such as sulphur dioxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides may cause acid rains and this category defines the acid- ification (or reduction of the pH) potential due the anthropogenic emissions. It is expressed using the reference unit kg SO2 equivalent.
• Eutrophication potential (EP): This category defines the build-up of a concentration of chemical nutrients in an ecosystem which leads to abnormal productivity. It is expressed using the reference unit kg SO43- equivalents.
3. Results and discussion
The case study serves to both illustrate the application of the LCA and to draw policy conclusions from it. LCA has been used as a tool to compare alternative MSWM systems in Istanbul. If the mass flow to a particular treatment process is varied, this is offset by a reduction in the amount of the same material in the previous process paths. So, these scenarios present different plans of waste management actions.
The final results of impact assessment calculations of five different MSW management scenarios obtained via SimaPro are given in Table 4.
Country Reports
The LCA was applied in appreciating waste management alternatives towards described optimal integrated systems. The highest environmental impacts were associated with scenarios that include landfilling with minimal material and energy recovery. En- vironmental benefits can be obtained under scenarios that maximize recycling and composting. Energy recovery and incineration have led to a significant reduction in emissions according as the technology selected and the value of the carbon credit. In spite of the reduction in emissions, increased operating and investment costs support alternatives to observed maximizing recycling and compensating for waste landfill when land is present. Sensitivity analysis showed that advanced landfill collection efficiency, composting produced and energy recovery during combustion could result in greater savings in emissions.
4. Conclusion
According to the results obtained, it was determined that all eco-indicators showed a good development from 1994 to 2020. Thus, it has been concluded that the investments and measures taken in solid waste management have a significant environmental benefits. The results of previous studies should be used taking into account regional conditions. On account of make better informed decisions, decision-makers should consider LCA studies, which contain the waste composition specific to the region, the hierarchy of waste modified considering to local conditions for treatment efficiencies.
The concept of Circular Economy has shown that closed material cycles are preferred and that diverse open loop recycling paths are environmentally superior. The results highlight the need to integrate LCA in the Circular Economy concept in order to avoid environmentally adverse circles.
Table 4: Impact assessment of scenarios
Impact category Unit S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
ADP kg Sb eq 0.000065 0.000021 0.00014 0.00014 0.00015
ADPf MJ 321.47 363.69 -36.94 -97.54 -86.40
GWP100a kg CO2 eq 504.92 508.73 455.72 385.30 421.30
ODP kg CFC-11 eq 0.0000054 0.0000014 0.0000011 0.0000011 0.0000018
HTP kg 1.4-DB eq 271.72 192.11 166.46 145.29 173.22
FAETP kg 1.4-DB eq 1700.20 1943.41 1745.51 1480.59 1597.03
MAETP kg 1.4-DB eq 669279.90 950131.79 791700.40 653819.14 684571.84
TEP kg 1.4-DB eq 0.33 1.37 1.23 1.00 0.94
POCP kg C2H4 eq 0.013 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09
AP kg SO2 eq 0.36 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.13
EP kg PO43- eq 0.62 2.56 2.31 1.87 1.76
Country Reports
Figure 5: LCA impact assessment results
GWP kg CO2 / t EKAOK 600
400
200
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
504.92 508.73 455.72 385.30 421.30 GWP
kg CFC-11 eq / t EKAOK 6.0E-06
5.0E-06 4.0E-06 3.0E-06 2.0E-06 1.0E-06 0.0E-06
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
5.4E-6 1.4E-6 1.1E-6 1.1E-6 1.8E-6 ODP
AP kg SO2 eq / t MSW 0.4
0.3 0.2
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
0.36 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.13
AP 0.1
EP kg PO43- eq / t MSW
1.0 3.0
0.5 2.5 2.0
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
0.62 2.56 2.31 1.87 1.76
EP 1.5
ADP kg Sb 11 eq / t MSW 0.00016
0.00012 0.00008 0.00008 0.00000
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
6.5E-5 2.1E-5 1.4E-4 1.4E-6 1.5E-4 ADP
ADPf MJ eq / t MSW
100 400
0 300
-100 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
321.47 363.69 -36.94 -97.54 -86.40 ADPf
250
HTP kg 1.4 DB eq / t MSW
100 300
50 250 200
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
271.72 192.11 166.46 145.29 173.22 HTP
150
FAETP kg 1.4 DB eq / t MSW 2,000
500 1,500
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
1700.2 1943.41 1745.51 1480.59 1597.03 FAETP
1,000
MAETP kg 1.4 DB eq / t MSW 1.0E+6
8.0E+5 6.0E+5 4.0E+5 2.0E+5 0.0E+0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
6.7E+5 9.5E+5 7.9E+5 6.5E+5 6.8E+5 MAETP
TEP kg 1.4 DB eq / t MSW 1.50
0.50 1.00
0.00 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
0.33 1.37 1.23 1.00 0.94 TEP
POCP kg C2H4 eq / t EKAOK 0.15
0.10
0.05
0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
0.013 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 POCP
Country Reports
5. Literature
[1] Acero, A.P., Rodriguez, C., Ciroth, A., 2016. LCIA Methods-Impact assessment methods in the Life Cycle Assessment and their impact categories
[2] Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M. AchutaRao, M.R. Allen, N. Gillett, D. Gutzler, K. Hansingo, G.
Hegerl, Y. Hu, S. Jain, I.I. Mokhov, J. Overland, J. Perlwitz, R. Sebbari and X. Zhang, 2013: De- tection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. In: Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.- K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[3] Çetinkaya, A. Y., Bilgili, L., & Kuzu, S. L. (2018). Life cycle assessment and greenhouse gas emis- sion evaluation from Aksaray solid waste disposal facility. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 11(5), pp. 549-558.
[4] Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., & Ulgiati, S. (2009). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy, 34(12), pp. 2116-2123.
[5] Lenhart, J.: Urban Climate Governance The Role of Local Authorities,PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Holland, July. 2015.
[6] Özeler, D., Yetiş, Ü., & Demirer, G. N. (2006). Life cycle assesment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environment international, 32(3), pp. 405-411.
[7] Zhao, W., Van Der Voet, E., Zhang, Y., & Huppes, G. (2009). Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: case study of Tianjin, China.
Science of the total environment, 407(5), pp. 1517-1526.
Contact Person
Professor Dr. Bestami Özkaya Yildiz Technical University Environmental Engineering Davutpaşa Campus
34220 Esenler/İstanbul TURKEY
+90 2123835374 bozkaya@yildiz.edu.tr
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar
Thiel, S.; Thomé-Kozmiensky, E.; Winter, F.; Juchelková, D. (Eds.):
Waste Management, Volume 9 – Waste-to-Energy –
ISBN 978-3-944310-48-0 Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag GmbH
Copyright: Elisabeth Thomé-Kozmiensky, M.Sc., Dr.-Ing. Stephanie Thiel All rights reserved
Publisher: Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag GmbH • Neuruppin 2019 Editorial office: Dr.-Ing. Stephanie Thiel, Elisabeth Thomé-Kozmiensky, M.Sc.
Layout: Claudia Naumann-Deppe, Janin Burbott-Seidel, Sarah Pietsch, Ginette Teske, Roland Richter, Cordula Müller, Gabi Spiegel Printing: Universal Medien GmbH, Munich
This work is protected by copyright. The rights founded by this, particularly those of translation, reprinting, lecturing, extraction of illustrations and tables, broadcasting, micro- filming or reproduction by other means and storing in a retrieval system, remain reserved, even for exploitation only of excerpts. Reproduction of this work or of part of this work, also in individual cases, is only permissible within the limits of the legal provisions of the copyright law of the Federal Republic of Germany from 9 September 1965 in the currently valid revision. There is a fundamental duty to pay for this. Infringements are subject to the penal provisions of the copyright law.
The repeating of commonly used names, trade names, goods descriptions etc. in this work does not permit, even without specific mention, the assumption that such names are to be considered free under the terms of the law concerning goods descriptions and trade mark protection and can thus be used by anyone.
Should reference be made in this work, directly or indirectly, to laws, regulations or guide- lines, e.g. DIN, VDI, VDE, VGB, or these are quoted from, then the publisher cannot ac- cept any guarantee for correctness, completeness or currency. It is recommended to refer to the complete regulations or guidelines in their currently valid versions if required for ones own work.
