Municipal Solid Waste Management

After the collapse of communism the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has experienced enormous economical changes. The attitudes towards the environment has changed in the region. Economic development in many transitional countries has lead to the destruction of some good practices developed in the socialist system of waste management/recycling. At the same time the amount of waste enormously increased due to the package industry development and massive imports from the West. This report on waste streams in Ukraine and Hungary will provide analysis of waste composition and volume as well as options used for reuse or recycle in both cases.

Methodology

During the audit domestic waste was recorded for a period of one week at three locations in Ukraine and Hungary. These locations include Central European University dormitory (Hungary), Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory (Ukraine) and a flat in Cherkasy (Ukraine). In each case the waste data was obtained for the different number of people: one in Hungary, four in Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory, and a family of three people in Cherkasy. The final data, which is presented in this paper, is an average amount of waste per one person.

The waste was basically recorded each time anything was thrown into the waste bin. However, in the CEU dormitory some garbage is being collected through the dormitory canteen - this part of waste was recorded as well. However, the whole waste stream connected to food preparation at the CEU facilities cannot be recorded. This fact explains big discrepancy between the amount of waste in Hungary and in Ukraine.

The methodology of classification was developed according to the records of waste stream (see Annex 1). The categories include plastics - high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polystyrene (PS). In cases when the package or product made of plastic was not labeled, it was recorded to the category 'other plastic'. The rest of categories include paper, glass, organic (food waste) and non-recyclable materials (products made of different materials in such way that reuse/recycle is impossible, e.g. teabags). To estimate the total mass and volume of the recorded waste, the common assumptions were developed for the entire working group (see Table 1).

Name Volume Mass

Plastic

Plastic water bottle (HDPE) 1.5 l 70 g

Plastic bag (LDPE) 0.1 l 30 g

Canteen jam pack (PS+metal) 0.015 l 3 g

Canteen butter pack (PS+metal) 0.01 l 2 g

Yogurt pack (PS) 0.125 l 20 g

Paper

A napkin (paper) 0.02 l 2 g

Washing powder pack (paper) 0.5 l 100 g

A4 sheet (paper) 0.05 l 4 g

Glass

Wine bottle 0.7 l 400 g

Other (non-recyclable)

‘Tetra pak’ 0.5 l 100 g

Tea bag 0.01 l 5 g

Table 1. Assumptions.

Using the assumptions all recorded waste was summed up for each category, including reused/recycled products.

Comparing waste streams in the dormitories in Ukraine and Hungary could be the most interesting result of the present study. Such comparison could highlight differences in consumption level in the same social group (students) in two countries. At the same time results for the dormitories will be compared to the waste data for a Ukrainian family.

Results

The composition of three waste streams is presented in Figure 1. The diagrams were obtained from basic records data (Annex 1). Percentage in the diagrams presents the share in the total volume of total waste stream. This evaluating approach was chosen because at households the domestic waste is usually estimated by volume (e.g. by waste bins).

The biggest difference between the three charts is the huge share of HDPE in Kerepesi dormitory, which is much higher than in other two cases. This can be explained by the fact that no food is prepared by students in the CEU dormitory. It is very hard to estimate the amount of food waste generated by the university canteen. High amount of different plastics is a result of rather poor practices in the university restaurants. Most of the plastic is Figure 1. Waste composition.

coming from different packaging used to serve butter or jam. This waste could be easily avoided if the food was served in saucers/plates instead of single-use package.The similar chart for the Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory in Ukraine shows completely different situation. Almost 50% of the whole garbage is food waste and paper. More paper is wasted due to less availability of computers and therefore less opportunity to write academic assignments in electronic form. Since the students prepare food in the dormitory, organic waste takes a significant part of the whole stream. The share of plastic is rather low (except of polystyrene, which will be discussed later) because of rather low welfare of students and, therefore, lower consumption of expensive products packed with plastic. The consumed products are mostly raw food either purchased at marketplaces or brought directly from home in the countryside.

The third part of Figure 1 represents the case of a typical Ukrainian family. Food and other goods comes mostly from supermarkets with a lot of plastic package. Different kinds of plastic (mostly packaging) possess about the half of the garbage composition. Another reason for a big amount of package in the waste is that the record was kept during the Christmas holidays. Therefore, the level of consumption was much higher than usually. Packages of cakes, candies etc., which were composed of different materials, contributed to a large amount of non-recyclable waste,. Organic waste takes slightly less percentage comparing to the Kyiv dormitory. Again, this can be explained by the fact that food was mostly not prepared at that time, but processed food was purchased. Generally, the waste composition recorded for Cherkasy is not typical due to a high consumption level during Christmas holidays.

Though the composition of waste is very different for Kyiv, Cherkasy and Budapest, the amount of waste per one person for the case of family (Cherkasy) is higher than for the students living in dormitory – this can be explained by the Figure 2. Recycled/reused waste volume

different living standards and differences in products which are consumed. Zero amount of recycling at CEU dormitory is rather the result of poor university policies. Since the university canteen is the primary source of waste, students who live in the dormitory are largely dependent on the canteen’s waste policy. Single-use package from the restaurant is a significant contribution to the waste stream. Other possibilities for recycle (e.g. paper recycling) cannot be employed by students themselves because of language barrier. Thus, the only thing that could be done to reduce the amount of garbage by an individual student at CEU dormitory is to reduce consumption in general. The university is responsible for the lack of reuse/recycle options.

Though the volume of recycled waste is higher in Cherkasy than in Kyiv, the same data for the mass is slightly different (Table 2). The mass of recycled materials in Cherkasy is

Recycled/reused mass Recycled/reused volume

Kerepesi 0% 0%

Kyiv 9.51% 21.36%

Cherkasy 3.12% 32.30%

Table 2. Volume and mass of recycled/reused waste.

actually ten times lower than its volume. This fact is a consequence of different materials reuse/recycle in two cases. In Kyiv dormitory almost 100% of paper was collected for recycling, or in the case of magazines, donated to the student library. At the same time the yogurt packs were collected to be used later to raise crops in the countryside. Since plastics are not recycled in Ukraine and composting the biodegradable waste is not possible in the city, the opportunity for reuse and recycle was almost fully employed in the Kyiv dormitory. However, in the case of Cherkasy plastic bottles from sparkling water were reused – this technique was not used in Kyiv. On the other hand, paper waste was not collected in Cherkasy and yogurt packs were not reused. The comparison of two cases (Kyiv and Cherkasy) shows that different techniques are possible for different living conditions. Though some education programs might be necessary to raise the reuse/recycle rates in Ukraine, the plastic recycling facilities are necessary for significant improvements in the waste management.

Conclusion

The highest amount of waste was recorded in Cherkasy and the lowest at Kerepesi dormitory. This data correlates with the living standards in all cases. However, the amount of recycled/reused waste was higher in Kyiv dormitory. Thus, some improvements and environmental education might be necessary to increase reuse/recycle rate in Ukraine. The introduction of plastic recycling could help to significantly decrease the amount of plastic waste in Ukraine. In the case of CEU changes in university policies are crucial for waste minimization at Kerepesi dormitory.

Annex 1

Waste records

CEU dormitory 4.12.00-10.12.00.

Name Volume mass Material comments

Mineral water bottles – 2 3 l 140 g HDPE

A4 sheet 0.05 l 4 g Paper

Plastic bag 0.1 l 30 g LDPE

Banana waste –2 0.18 l 110 g Organic

Apple waste – 1 0.025 l 40 g OrganicJam packs – 5 0.075 l 5 g PS+metal

Butter packs – 12 0.12 l 12 g PS+metal

Soap package 0.05 l 10 g Paper

Napkins – 18 0.36 l 36 g Paper

Tea bags – 10 0.1 l 50 g Paper+food+metal+organic(rope)

Orange waste 0.02 l 30 g Organic

Toothpaste tube 0.09 l 50 g plastic

Total

Name Vol (litres) Mass (grams)

HDPE 3 140

LDPE 0.1 30

Paper 0.46 50

Organic 0.225 180

Non-recyclable (composed waste) 0.295 67

Other plastic 0.09 50

Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory (4 persons), 17.12.00-23.12.00

Vol (litres) Mass (grams)

Sausage packs .1 20 Plastic

Spoiled bread rolls – 4 .2 100 Organic

Cereal shells .2 40 Organic

Apples waste – 10 .5 400 Organic

Spoiled meat .15 200 Organic

Potatoes waste (3x4pers) .45 300 Organic

Plastic bag – 3 .3 90 LDPE

Milk pack – 2 .1 30 LDPE

Tea pack (plastic) – 2 .01 3 LDPE

Tea pack (boxes) – 2 .4 40 Paper

Tea bags – 40 .4 200 Paper+organic

Flour pack 2 50 Paper

Spoiled rice .3 500 Organic

Rice pack .02 3 LDPE

Orange waste – 16 .32 480 Organic

Washing powder pack .5 100 Cardboard

Coffee pack .1 20 HDPE

Spoiled potatoes .2 300 Organic

Onion shells – 2 .02 30 Organic

Carrot waste .03 50 Organic

Cakes pack – 2 .5 100 Cardboard

Plastic bottle 1.5 70 HDPE

Wine bottle .7 400 Glass

Chocolate bars packs – 12 .24 12 LDPE

Sweet corn can .4 50 Metal+paper

Mayonnaise packs – 2 .54 40 LDPE Compressable

Crab sticks pack .3 15 LDPE Compressable

A4 sheet .05 4 Paper

Shampoo packs – 2 .01 1 LDPE

Toothpaste tube .07 40 Plastic

Magazine .2 108 Paper Re-used (library)

Yogurt packs – 20 2.5 200 PS Re-used

Newspaper .18 80 Paper recycled

Total

Name Vol – litres (recycled/reused) Mass – grams (recycled/reused)

HDPE 1.6 90

LDPE 1.52 194

PS (2.5) (200)

Paper 3.83 (0.38) 484 (188)

Organic 2.37 2400

Non-recyclable (composed waste) 0.8 250

glass .7 400

Other plastic 0.17 60

Cherkasy/Ukraine (3 persons), 31.12.00-6.01.01.

Vol – litres Mass - grams

Plastic bags – 3 .3 90 LDPE

Labels – 6 .01 15 Cardboard

Newspaper .1 16 Paper

Tea pack .05 1.5 LDPE

Chicken pack .1 30 LDPE

Chocolate bars pack - 6 .12 6 LDPE

Tea bags – 14 .14 70 Paper+organic

Chocolate pack – 2 .12 20 Paper+metal

Candies pack .2 40 Paper+LDPE

Coffee pack .2 50 Cardboard+LDPE+metal

Pen .02 5 Pastic+metal

Spoiled flour 1.5 1 Organic

Salt’s pack 1 50 Cardboard

Oranges waste – 5 .1 150 Organic

Garlic shells .02 30 Organic

Champagne bottle .7 1000 Glass

Chicken bones .15 300 Organic

Apple waste – 5 .1 200 Organic

Pills pack .02 1 Plastic+metal

Duster – 2 .1 70 Organic

Toothpaste pack .09 50 Plastic

Post-it notes – 2 .01 1 Paper

Potatoes waste – 3 .12 150 Organic

Yogurt packs – 3 .375 30 PS

Single use razor .02 10 Plastic+metal

Cake pack 1.5 100 Plastic

Candies packs – 9 .02 2 LDPE

Washing powder pack .5 100 Cardboard

Yogurt pack .5 100 Tetra pak

Cake pack .3 50 LDPE+cardboard

A4 sheet .05 4 Paper

Juice pack 1 200 Tetra pak

Napkin .02 2 Paper

Mushrooms&onions waste .1 50 Organic

Soap pack .05 10 Paper

Medicine packs – 2 .1 50 Glass

Old slippers .7 600 Organic+rubber

Mineral water bottle 5 150 HDPE Re-used

Total

Name Vol – litres (recycled/reused) Mass – grams (recycled/reused)

HDPE (5) (150)

LDPE 0.59 129.5

PS .375 30

Paper 1.74 198

Organic 2.19 1950

Non-recyclable (composed waste) 3.22 1146

glass 0.8 1050

Other plastic 1.59 150

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать