Waste Management in the Metropolis of Istanbul

(1)

– Waste Incineration and Energy Production Facility in Istanbul –

Şenol Yıldız, Vahit Balahorli, Fatih Hoşoğlu and Kadir Sezer

1. Introduction ...266

2. Current waste management in Istanbul ...266

3. Site investigation for WtE project ...267

4. MSW supply and analysis ...270

4.1. MSW supply availability ...270

4.2. MSW data...271

5. Technical analysis ...272

5.1. Technology selection ...272

5.2. Pre-design of WTE ...273

6. Conclusion ...275

7. References ...275

Today, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality is continuing to address their municipal solid waste issues – MSW –, which began early 1990s when Istanbul Environmental Management Industry and Trading Company – ISTAC – was established. Since then ISTAC have grown to handle over 16,500 tons of MSW per day. Given this growth, several challenges present themselves including meeting Directive on the Landfill of Waste and decreasing landfill space. The new solutions should be detected instead of landfilling in order to minimize the environmental damages and to develop economical aspect for the waste disposal. As alternative treatment methods required overcoming these challenges and taking the first step for this, 3,000 tons per day – TPD – waste to energy facility is going to be established in Istanbul. Project site was chosen as near the existing composting and recycling facility in Eyup after evaluating the several alternative sites. Site evaluation criteria, waste supply availability and analysis, and selection of technology for the project were explained in this study.

(2)

1. Introduction

The Municipality uses 3R’s, Composting, Biodrying and Landfill methods for management of solid wastes within Istanbul city boundaries. Among these methods, Landfill has the major portion with eighty percent. Sustainability is the most significant issue to consider in Integrated Waste Management. Disposal of wastes through landfill method is more economical compared to other disposal methods; however, decrease in capacity of available sanitary landfill sites, failure in finding suitable land for establishing new landfill sites and land shortage are factors obstructing implementation of this method.

Ministry of Environment and Forestry conducted a study on Environmental Heavy Cost Investments Planning Project, Solid Waste Industry National Master Plan Harmonized with EC Directives – EHCIP – in 2005; in the study report, implementation of compost – about twenty to thirty percent – and thermal – about seventy to eighty percent – systems by Municipalities is foreseen to achieve Turkish Directive on Landfill of Waste objectives for year 2020 in Turkey [2]. Directive on Landfill of Waste prepared by Mi- nistry of Environment and Urban Planning is put into effect regarding management of household wastes and requirement for reduction of wastes with organic content sent to landfill sites with a certain rate for determined years .Organic substance quantities allowed to be landfilled as extended to years shall be reduced back to 65 percent, fifty percent and 35 percent of organic waste quantity landfilled in 2005 in years 2015, 2018 and 2025, respectively.

MSW landfills in Istanbul operated by ISTAC are the Kömürcüoda Landfill and the Odayeri Landfill. The Odayeri Landfill is on the European side of the city, while the Kömürcüoda Landfill is located on the Asian site. There are over 13 million residents within Istanbul that feed the facilities. Collectively, the landfills process 15,500 tons of MSW per day. The Odayeri Landfill processes 10,000 TPD of MSW daily.

With increasing disposal rates and decreasing landfill space, the Municipality started the project to build a Waste to Energy – WTE – facility that is capable of processing 3,000 TPD and it is on tender process. It will be the first WTE from MSW facility in Turkey. Heat and electric energy is planned to be obtained utilizing the heat energy which shall come out as a result of burning wastes at the facility.

2. Current waste management in Istanbul

A large amount of produced waste is currently disposed to the landfills located in Asia and Europe. Other than landfills, there are Composting and Waste Recovery Facility with 1,000 TPD capacity in European side and a Waste Handling Facility – Biodry- ing – with 2,000 TPD capacity in Asian side. Besides, an RDF Facility with forty TPD capacity was established in Kemerburgaz Compost and Recovery Facility in order to produce non-recoverable RDF material – Refuse Developed Fuel – out of the waste resulting from Compost and Recovery Facility in European side and to use this material in cement kilns as additional fuel – Figure 1.

(3)

Projects for Energy Production from Storage Gas was commenced in order to dispose and use the storage gas formed in sanitary landfill areas in European – Odayeri - EYÜP – and Asian sides – Kömürcüoda - ŞİLE –. Approximately 32,000,000 tons of solid wastes are stored in Odayeri sanitary landfill area. An installed capacity of approximately 25 MW was predicted for this storage area in the first stage. Approximately 15,000,000 tons of solid wastes were disposed in Kömürcüoda sanitary landfill area and approximately ten MW installed capacity was predicted for this storage are in the first stage.

Infrastructure and construction works of facilities in both storage areas were completed within the framework of installed capacities and power production was commenced.

3. Site investigation for WtE project

The most significant factor to be considered for waste disposal facilities is the project location alternative. Considering environmental issues and sensitivities during evaluation of alternatives for Project location shall ensure selection of most sustainable location which shall be accepted by all parties, not only in economic and technical terms but also regarding environment.

The most significant factor to be considered for waste disposal facilities is the project location alternative. Considering sensitivities during evaluation of alternatives for project location shall ensure selection of most sustainable location which shall be accepted by all parties, not only in economic and technical terms but also regarding environment. Following criteria were considered for evaluation of alternatives for an incineration plant – Table 1.

Figure 1:

Waste amounts based on mana- gerial activities

Enginered Landfilling

82 %

European Side 10.000 t/d - 60 %

Asian Side 3.500 t/d - 21 % Recycle

500 t/d - 3 %

Composting 500 t/d - 3 % Bio-Drying 2.000 t/d - 12 %

16.500 tons/day -100 % Total Waste Amounts

(4)

Location choice model prepared by Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning [4]

is used with the purposes of making the selection process for incineration plant more objective, ensuring reasons determinant for location choice to be more comprehendible, and controlling the reason for choice for the selected location.

According to this model, location choice process for incineration plant is completed in four stages. During the first stage, eleven different locations were determined, eight of them are on the European side, three are on the Asian side. In the second stage, the number of alternative locations was reduced through using evaluation criteria. As a result of using such evaluation criteria, three alternative locations – Hasdal, Kısırmandıra and Odayeri – comparable with each other were selected for finding the most suitable location for the plant to be established. In the third stage, three alternative locations were scored 1 to 5 points in accordance with evaluation criteria. In the last stage, ordered points were re-evaluated by applying a weighing factor. Weighing factors are taken in 0.5 to 2 interval.

Alternative sites are scored by using weighted scoring system, considering Environmen- tal, Planning, Political and Legal, Financial and Economic evaluation criteria – Table 2 . Table 1: Evaluation criteria for location alternatives

Criteria Explanation

Legislation provisions Location choice for incineration plant must comply with applicable laws and legal regulations.

Municipality approval Location choice for incineration plant must be made in accordance with the necessities of relevant Municipality.

It is most preferred that no settlement areas exist in immediate vicinity of such facility.

Public acceptance Incineration plant should be located preferably in commercial or industrial areas or in the neighborhood of other solid waste management facilities.

Land ownership Land which is owned by the Municipality should be preferred; in case such land is not available, personal or treasury land plots should be expropriated.

Transportation distance Transportation distance significantly affects operational costs.

from source to plant

Distance from waste Final disposal place for wastes which cannot be used at the plant also affects storage area operational costs.

Transportation to the plant Closeness of plant to main highways might be more advantageous that being located in geographical center.

Coolant availability Water is required as coolant at an incineration unit. Quantity depends on plant capacity, calorific value of wastes and cooling system used.

Connection with power Plant should be connected to the power network for the power generated at the plant customers to be salable. Shorter connection line from plant to network shall yield less energy

losses and construction costs

Closeness to heat energy Closeness of incineration plant to customers using vapor or heat energy is an or vapor customers advantage for location choice.

Available infrastructure Availability of infrastructure units such as connections to sewage system, utility water network, communication network etc. is an advantage for location choice.

(5)

After evaluation process, it is decided that the plant shall be constructed at Kısırmandıra locality in Eyüp County, located at an area twenty kilometres to the North of Istanbul.

Spatial map of project site is given the Figure 2.

Table 2: alternative location choice and scores according to evaluation criteria

Evaluation Criteria European Side

Hasdal Kısırmandıra Odayeri Environmental Issues

Within flooding area 5 5 5

Geological restrictions 3 4 4

Hydrogeological and soil restrictions 3 3 4

Within touristic/recreational area 5 5 5

Within protected areas with ecological, historical value 5 5 5

Total score 21 22 23

Total weighted score – Total score x 1.5 – 31.5 33 34.5 Planning

Size of land is sufficient 3 5 4

Existing infrastructure connections 4 5 4

Distance to settlement areas 3 4 4

Distance to main highway 5 3 3

Transportation distance from source to plant 5 3 4

Distance to final disposal facility 3 4 5

Closeness to industry area 1 1 1

Calorific value 4 4 4

Closeness to power customers 5 5 5

Total weighted score – Total score x 2 – 66 68 68 Political and Legal Issues

Compliance to legislation provisions 5 5 5

Approval by local government 3 4 3

Approval by local authorities 3 4 3

Public approval 2 3 1

Public land 3 5 3

Total weighted score – Total score x 1.5 – 24 31.5 22.5 Financial and Economic Issues

Cost of transportation to Landfill Area 3 4 5

Cost of transportation to Incineration Plant 5 3 4

Total score 8 7 9

Total weighted score – Total score x 1 – 8 7 9

Final Score 78 84 83

Weighted Final Score 129.5 139,5 134

(6)

Advantages and disadvantages of selected site for such plant determined as a result of this evaluation are provided below – Table 3.

Figure 2: Project site location – near the current Recovery and composting facility

4. MSW supply and analysis 4.1. MSW supply availability

Daily solid waste production in Istanbul was 8,000 tons in 1995 and it reached 16,500 tons in 2013. Figure 3 shows solid waste increase in Istanbul in years along with population growth [3].

On a daily basis, ISTAC handles and processes approximately 15,000 tons of MSW generated by Istanbul‘s 13 million residents. The total expected waste production from the European side of Istanbul is 10,000 TPD. The WTE facility will be sized for operating with a 3,000 TPD throughput, which represents 33 percent of the total waste production so there will not be any issue with fuel supply availability. It is expected trailers loading with higher heating value MSW, normally from more affluent areas, be sent to the facility for incineration.

Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages for alternative locations on European side

advantages disadvantages

Kisir- man- dira

• The distance between the site and the existing landfill site is about 5 km long. This may increase transportation costs depending on the waste transfer plan

• Site contains backfill which may require piling for foundation supports. Large rocks/concrete debris may hinder pile installation and thus increase project cost

• The site slopes upward to the northwest which would require some cut and fill. However the cut and fill seems to be the smallest among the four potential sites.

• This site is already allocated for “solid waste management” which would eliminate the lengthy allocation procedures

• Site area, at approximately 15 hectares – 37 acres –, is the largest among all the sites

• Existing overhead utilities do not need to be relocated and the site is a grassy area requiring no tree removal, which will result in lower project cost

• Access to the site is already provided by road ways to the existing processing facility

• Site is at a high elevation compared to the nearby surroundings which may result in a lower stack height

• Site is large enough to accommodate the economical plant layout for the WTE facility

(7)

In addition, it is anticipated that the city in the future will generate more and higher heating value waste as the city population increases and the people’s standard of living further improves. Numerous studies have shown the MSW heating value generally increases with people’s living standard.

4.2. MSW data

When sizing the boiler for a WTE facility, there are important factors that must be taken into account. These factors include, but are not limited to, the amount of ash the facility will handle, the higher/lower heating value – HHV/LHV – of the MSW, and the fuel moisture content.

The amount of ash resulting from the combustion process is a key design consideration in sizing the ash handling system for continuous and reliable operation. The heating value is also a vital factor as this represents the overall amount of heat input to the plant for steam production which in turn would be used for electrical power generation.

It is important that the correct heating values of the waste fuel(s) be accurately determined to ensure proper design and continuous operation of the Facility. Waste fuel analyses need to be conducted on an as-received – A.R – basis.

ISTAC carried out the waste characterization study in different times – Table 4 –. The characterization study followed ASTM D5231 American Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste and European Commission-Methodology for the Analysis of Solid Waste – SWA-Tool – standards. To ensure the waste characterization was representative of the overall waste processed in Istanbul, ISTAC elected to sample waste from 24 counties that collectively was a mixture of both affluent and less-affluent districts. Additionally, the counties samples included waste collected during weekdays and the weekend.

Figure 3:

Istanbul’s population and produced waste amounts by year

Population x 1,000 Waste Amount 14,000

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

18,000 16,000

00

Year population x 1,000/waste amount TPD

(8)

Moisture content of MSW is ranged between 45 percent and 55 percent. Low Ca- lorific Value of the different waste streams and a design analysis shows that 6,000 to 9,000 kj/kg is the heating values for the design of the WTE Facility.

Table 4: MSW characterization results based on percentage

Content 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010

summer winter summer winter summer %

Paper-Card Board 13.30 12.06 12.37 15.57 11.05

Glass 5.82 5.93 3.97 3.03 3.72

PET Bottles 1.52 1.21 1.02 1.13 1.36

Plastic Bag 9.48 7.83 8.42 9.96 9.47

Plastic 3.39 2.56 2.60 2.62 2.28

Textiles 5.28 1.93 4.08 3.42 5.74

Beverage Carton 0.64 0.77 0.49 0.86 0.66

Diapers 3.90 4.19 4.49 5.45 5.03

Metals 1.63 1.49 0.66 1.12 1.10

El.& Electrnc equipment 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.17

Hazardous Waste 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.31

Organic Waste 50.22 56.34 59.75 54.09 51.71

Other Combustible 2.97 2.00 2.14 2.09 6.16

Other Incombustible 1.70 3.66 0.01 0.63 1.23

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

MSW densities are used to size the refuse pit and the refuse handling cranes. Normally a high fuel density – correlating to high moisture content – is used for crane sizing and a lower fuel density – correlating to low moisture content – is used for pit volume calculation. It is estimated that the waste density is around 270 kg/m³ when carried by trucks; and about 400 to 500 kg/m³ when carried by trailers due to compression.

5. Technical analysis 5.1. Technology selection

After comparison of different incineration technologies, mass burn incinerators with a moving grate system will be used for the project. Other technologies, such as gasifica- tion, fluidized bed were not chosen due to the lack of industry experience in applying this technology to a scale similar to the project.

Mass burn WTE facilities incinerate municipal solid waste as received, without any additional processing. This eliminates a rather complex fuel preparation system which would be maintenance-intensive and would add significantly to the overall capital and operating costs.

There are four mass burn incineration technologies to be considered: a) fixed grate;

b) moving grate; c) rotary kiln; and d) fluidized bed systems.

(9)

The most commonly applied system MSW incineration technology is the moving grate system. In a moving grate system, the burn rate can be adjusted to match the heat value of the fuels, resulting in higher efficiency. Waste or fuel is loaded at the top of the incinerator through a chute by a crane. Waste fuel is burned as the grate moves.

Ash residuals remaining on the grate is delivered to the ash pit, where a bottom ash handling system removes the ash to another location. Fly ash which is entrained in the flue gas is removed through the use of a fly ash handling system.

To ensure that the Project is based on proven technology with a good track record which allows the project to be financed and operated for the minimum plant operating term of twenty years, the moving grate mass-burn WTE technology is chosen.

5.2. Pre-design of WTE

The thermal treatment plant will be designed for a nominal capacity of 1,000,000 ton of waste per year and a maximum capacity of 110 percent. The capacity will be calculated with 8,000 hours operation per year.

The new plant is designed with four incineration lines each 250,000 t per year confi- guration and a single steam turbine would be applied for the project.

Figure 4 below shows a typical modern WTE facility. It depicts the 3x750 TPD Ri- verside WTE facility located in London [1]. The Riverside WTE facility consists of all the major systems that the Istanbul WTE facility will have and also has similar air emission requirements.

Waste receiving and storage

Combustion and steam generator

flue gas cleaning 4. feed hopper

5. ram feeder 6. incineration grate 7. bottom ash expeller 8. bottom ash handling 9. primary air in take

10. primary air fan 11. primary air distribution 12. secondary air intake 13. auxiliary burner 14. four-pass steam generator 15. boiler drum

16. recirculation fan

17. turbosorp reactor 18. fabric filter 19. induced draft fan 20. silencer 21. heat exchanger 22. stack

consumables and residues 23. bottom ash bunker 24. bottom of crane 25. botton ash loading station 1. tipping hall

2. waste bunker 3. waste crane

1

2 3

4

5 13

6 11

10 7 8

14 15

12

16 24

25

23

17 18

20

19

21 22

9

Figure 4: Process flow of 3 x 750 tpd riverside – London – WTE facility

(10)

The following is a narrative description of major components of the Facility. It may make references to the Istanbul project.

Municipal waste is stored in bunkers. Waste handling within the bunker area is done semi-automatic by overhead cranes which transfer acceptable waste from the refuse storage pit into the feed hoppers of boiler and is used for mixing. The incineration of wastes takes place on a grate. The thermal processes taking place on the initial elements of the grate need an efficient fuel bed and transport whereas at the latter grate zone the burn out simply needs a sufficient residence time.

The primary air system controls and delivers under-grate combustion air to the boiler.

Air is drawn in from the tipping floor and storage pit charging area through the feed hopper and delivered separately, by the primary air fan. The secondary air system delivers and regulates secondary combustion air to mix the flue gases and complete the combustion process above the grates. Some volatile components of the waste do not combust directly on the grate; rather, they will be released due to heat exposure and will burn as they pass-through the secondary combustion chamber.

The ash material resulting from combustion pass the last grate zone and fall through a vertical refractory lined chute into a plunger type ash extractor, filled with water. Fly ash from the boiler backpass hoppers, the scrubber and baghouse hoppers is collected for disposal to landfill within the local regulation.

Steam produced by the boilers is sent to a steam turbine/generator. The turbine/

generator converts thermal energy in the steam to mechanical energy which is then converted to electrical energy. The electrical output of the steam-turbine generator is used to meet the auxiliary loads of the entire plant and is also sent to the external electrical grid for sales.

In air quality control systems, NO_x control is based on the principle of selective non- catalytic reduction – SNCR – of NO_x in the furnace by injecting aqueous ammonia solution. Most WTE plants use an air quality control – AQC – system for acid gas – SO₂, SO₃, HCl, HF –, particulate, trace metals and dioxin/furan control. The system normally consists of a closely integrated scrubber vessel – or reactor – and a baghouse.

The AQC system uses lime reagent to remove SO₂, HCl and HF from the flue gas, activated carbon to remove Hg and Dioxin/furan, and a baghouse to remove trace metals and particulate. The AQC system does not control NO_x and CO emissions. As discussed above the NO_x emission is controlled through SNCR system and the CO emission is controlled through high temperature combustion in the furnace. Fly ash, hydrated lime, carbon and other solids are separated from the flue gas in the scrubber vessel and baghouse hoppers. A flue gas stack will be provided to discharge the treated flue gas into to the atmosphere.

Architectural design of the facility is well-studied in order to correspond with nature environment. Together with its technical design social parts and educational side of the facility taken in to account – Figure 5.

(11)

Figure 5: Architectural view of the Istanbul WTE plant

6. Conclusion

When systems used in the world for waste disposal are investigated, it is observed that in developed countries waste reduction, recovery/recycle, landfilling, thermal and biological processes are all used together. These methods are preferred depending on disposal area requirement, economic and cultural level and country policies. In our country, landfilling applications are available in general. Besides landfilling, there are a few composting applications. For Istanbul whose waste quantity equals or exceeds many European countries’ quantity waste management is too complicated for just one method. That’s why it is necessary to reconsider waste management system and alternative disposal systems should be developed [3]

Accordingly, it is necessary to establish an additional integrated waste disposal system in order to achieve legislative targets, that’s why one or multiple – along with other alternative disposal methods- Waste to Energy Facilities should be built.

The plant will be a first-of-its-kind in Turkey when it is constructed. After completing the project, it is believed that Turkey will have a lot of information and experience on waste-to-energy concept.

7. References

[1] Cory Environmental, Riverside Presentation June 2009 Presentation. http://www.coryenviron- mental.co.uk/downloads/RRR%20Presentation%20June%202009.pdf, 2013

[2] EHCIP, 2005 Ministry of Environment and Forest Technical Assistance for Environmental Heavy-Cost Investment Planning, Turkey

[3] Kaya K., – 2014 –. Waste to Energy Solution for Istanbul’s Solid Waste Management. Eurasia Waste Management Symposium.

[4] Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Guide Booklet, Selection of Technology and Site for Solid Waste Incineration Facilities, 2010

(12)

Dorfstraße 51

D-16816 Nietwerder-Neuruppin

Phone: +49.3391-45.45-0 • Fax +49.3391-45.45-10

E-Mail: tkverlag@vivis.de TK Verlag Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky

Waste Management, Volume 1 Publisher: Karl J. Thomé-Kozmiensky,

Luciano Pelloni ISBN: 978-3-935317-48-1 Company: TK Verlag

Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky Released: 2010

Hardcover: 623 pages Language: English, Polish and German Price: 35.00 EUR

Luciano Pelloni ISBN: 978-3-935317-69-6 Company: TK Verlag

Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky Release: 2011

Hardcover: 866 pages, numerous coloured images Language: English Price: 50.00 EUR

CD Waste Management, Volume 2 Language: English, Polish and German ISBN: 978-3-935317-70-2 Price: 50.00 EUR

Stephanie Thiel ISBN: 978-3-935317-83-2 Company: TK Verlag

Karl Thomé-Kozmiensky Release: 10. September 2012 Hardcover: ca. 780 pages, numerous

coloured images Language: English Price: 50.00 EUR

CD Waste Management, Volume 3 Language: English

ISBN: 978-3-935317-84-9 Price: 50.00 EUR

Waste Management

Waste Management, Volume 1 • Waste Management, Volume 2 • CD Waste Management, Volume 2 Waste Management, Volume 3 • CD Waste Management, Volume 3

110.00 EUR

save 125.00 EUR

Package Price

Order now on www. .de

or

Karl J. Thomé-Kozmiensky

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Luciano Pelloni

1

Thomé-Kozmiensky und PelloniWASTE MANAGEMENT

Volume 1 Eastern European Countries Karl J. Thomé-Kozmiensky

Volume 2

Luciano Pelloni

Waste Management Recycling Composting Fermentation Mechanical-Biological Treatment Energy Recovery from Waste Sewage Sludge Treatment

2

Thomé-Kozmiensky und PelloniWASTE MANAGEMENT

2

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Pelloni

Karl J. Thomé-Kozmiensky

Volume 3 Recycling and Recovery

Stephanie Thiel

WASTE MANAGEMENTThomé-Kozmiensky und Thiel

WASTE MANAGEMENT Volume 3

KARL J. THOMÉ-KOZMIENSKY STEPHANIE THIEL HRSG.

Das Einspeisen der Daten in Netzwerke ist untersagt.

3