Gestión y Manejo de Residuales Solidos

7/29/2019 Gestión y Manejo de Residuales Solidos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gestion-y-manejo-de-residuales-solidos 1/18

Fn:papers\cuba\iswm_07

INTRODUCTION TO INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Lambert Otten, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Professor, Environmental & Biological EngineeringSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1

For Presentation at

SHORT COURSE ON ISWM

INSTITUTO SUPERIOR POLITÉCHNICOJOSÉ ANTONIO ECHEVERRIAHAVANA, CUBA

SPONSORED BY THEENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - CUBA

The University of Guelph, Guelph, ON CanadaInstituto Superior Politéchnico José Antonio Echeverria

Funded by Canadian International Development AgencyUPCD Tier 2 Program of the Association of Canadian Universities and Colleges of Canada

April 30 - May 4, 2007

©



ECEP-C : ISWM Lam bert Otten April 30 -May 4, 2007

1

INTRODUCTION TO INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

Present global interest in the management of solid wastes is at least in part the result of a realization thatsociety must adopt an attitude of sustainable development if it is to meet its current needs withoutcompromising the needs of future generations. It is generally accepted by society in developed countries thatwaste at all levels is a major drain on the economy, the living standard of the people, and sustainabledevelopment. The other main reason is that the disposal of waste in landfill is becoming increasingly moredifficult as suitable landfill sites are difficult to find.

Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (June 1992) calledfor sustainable and environmentally sound development in all countries. The report also observed that wastemanagement was among the environmental issues of greatest concern to the global community. Agenda 21

sets out a framework of objectives and activities aimed at minimizing wastes, maximizing environmentallysound reuse and recycling, and promoting safe waste disposal and treatment. One of the key features of sustainable development is the requirement to integrate economic and environmental factors into all decision-making processes. Application of this criterion to waste management requires a new emphasis on resourceand energy conservation, ensuring that supplies of raw materials, sources of energy and the quality of the physical environment can be maintained. Therefore, garbage is no longer considered a waste, it is a resource!

Figure 1 is a simplified schematic presentation of material flow from extraction through processing,manufacturing, and retailing. To optimize the benefits received by society from a material requiresminimization of the amount that will reach final disposal. This involves limiting the consumption of rawmaterials, while increasing the rate of recovery and reuse of waste materials. The more that the loop can beclosed, the greater the probability that the rate of depletion of resources can be slowed to meet the needs of future generations. Building on Agenda 21 many countries have adopted to recycle at least 50% of paper, plastics, and glass by the year 2000.

Although the objectives of Agenda 21 are necessary for sustainable development, reality is that manycountries do not even have adequate waste management infrastructures to deal with basic health andenvironmental concerns. In such countries a considerable portion of the wastes generated is not collected butis instead thrown away along roadsides, on vacant land, and in water ways. While collected waste is usuallytaken to open dumps because of a lack of sanitary landfills. Similar situations in medieval Europe led to the breeding of rats carrying fleas infected with the bubonic plaque. The resulting Black Death and other epidemics killed half of the fourteenth century Europeans. Despite the serious consequences of failing tocontrol the disposal of solid wastes, it was not until the late nineteenth century that sanitary laws were passed

to prohibit the throwing of solid wastes into ditches, rivers, and waters. Nevertheless, solid wastemanagement of any kind is a relatively recent event. For example, even the use of sanitary landfills did not begin in Britain until the early 1930's and in the United States in the 1940's.

Today most countries have passed laws to control the disposal of solid wastes generated by the extraction,industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors, and household wastes. The controls are required to preventor minimize the adverse effects of waste disposal on human health and the environment, especially as far as




2

surface and ground water pollution and air pollution are concerned. However, the existence of adequatewaste management laws does not guarantee that they will be used as intended. There are many examples of failure to apply the laws, even in highly industrialized countries, because the cost in terms of funding or jobloss are thought to be too high. Nevertheless, such countries are learning to their peril that improper waste

management leads to serious environmental problems and very expensive clean up programs. Therefore, theimportance of developing a proper solid waste management system can hardly be overemphasized. It has bothsignificant health and economic implications.

Figure 1. Material Flow in Society

2. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (ISWM)

Modern waste management starts with the generation of solid waste and covers every aspect ending withfinal disposal. From a planning and analysis perspective it is convenient to consider the overall process toconsist of the following six basic activities or elements:

L waste generation and characterization (type, quantity, composition)L waste handling and separation, storage, and processing at the sourceL collectionL separation, processing, and transformationL transfer and transportationL disposal

In the development of an ISWM plan to achieve specific objectives, it is necessary to select appropriate




3

techniques, technologies, and management programs for each of the elements, their connections andinterfaces. Hence, modern ISWM encompasses "the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer,transport, processing, and disposal of wastes in a manner that is in accord with the best principles of publichealth, economics, engineering, conservation, aesthetics, and other environmental considerations"

(Tchobanoglous et al. (1993)).

Although the largest amount of solid wastes generated by society occurs in the material extraction industry,it receives the least attention. Almost all ISWM work is concerned with the industrial, commercial, andinstitutional (ICI) sectors and the household sector because those are the most visible waste generators andimpact the public directly. Furthermore, a major impetus to developing waste management master plans bymunicipalities in the industrialized world is the apparent shortage of affordable, environmentally-suitable,sanitary landfill sites.

2.1 Waste Generation and Characterization

Many developing countries, especially those with mega cities, are at a crossroads in terms of waste

management because their environmental problems follow the predictable pattern of all countries and regionswith phenomenal urban growth due to industrialization. It is therefore safe to predict that the problems willcontinue and worsen as industrialization and commercialization increase further. Such rapid growthinvariably outstrips the ability to provide an adequate infrastructure in terms of housing, transportation,roads, water resource management and supply, power supply, waste water treatment and disposal, drainage,solid waste management, environmental protection and pollution control.

Take for example, the Region of Jabotabek (Jakarta area) in Indonesia which is expected to have a populationof 30,000,000 people by the year 2005, an increase of 10,000,000 in only ten years. The waste generationrate in the Region has been estimated to be about 50,000 m3/day or 7 million tonnes per year, of which onlyhalf is collected (Otten, 1996). The corresponding per capita generation rate of about 0.35 t/pp/year issimilar to the 1990 rates for Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United

Kingdom, but considerably lower than the 1990 rates for Canada (0.60 t/pp/year), the Netherlands (0.50t/pp/year), and the United States (0.80 t/pp/year); however, the rate of increase in waste generation inJabotabek is apparently higher than any of those countries. Most industrialized nations tend towards nochange or even a decrease in per capita waste generation due to extensive reduction and recycling programs.Another example of rapid increase in waste generation can be found in Bangkok where the per capita MSWgeneration went from 0.6 to 0.9 kg/day (0.22 to 0.33 t/pp/year) between 1982 and 1989 - a 50% increase inonly seven years! Similarly, Taiwan’s rates increased about the same percentage between 1980 and 1991.

At the time of writing little information was available on the waste generation rates in African countries.However, it has been reported that Accra, Ibadan, Dakar, Abidjan, and Lusaka generate from 0.5 to 0.8kg/pp/day (0.18 to 0.29 t/pp/year) which is similar to most Asian countries (IETEC, undated).

Characterization of local waste streams is essential to provide accurate information needed for planning,design, and for contractual, financial, and regulatory decisions. This involves obtaining reliable data on theamounts of waste produced by the ICI sector and households. It also requires an analysis of the wastes todetermine the relative amounts of specific materials (waste composition), such as organic wastes, paper products, plastics, cardboard, newspaper, metals, etc. This information is obtained by taking representativesamples of collected waste and sorting into specific categories. Because solid wastes are difficult to sample,




4

subsample, and analyze, special care has to be given to the methods and procedures used. Also, care must be taken to obtain samples from various demographic areas, industries, institutions, etc. to ensure that thefinal results adequately depict the waste generation situation in the area of interest.

Unfortunately, large cities can and have spent hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars oncomposition studies. Because of the high cost of performing a waste audit and characterization study, it isnot uncommon that so-called national averages or studies from other cities or countries are used. While thismay be acceptable for an approximate feasibility study, it adds a degree of certainty for planning and design purposes. The results of planning design, and implementation of solid waste management systems will only be as good as the quality of the waste characterization.

Another alternative to a complete waste audit is to use one of the recently developed statistical models to project waste composition for an area based on a wide range of predictive variables. A first-generation modeldeveloped for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) used the same approach as that used toforecast electricity usage for utilities based on economic and demographic data and temperatures. Theoutcome of the Iowa project was a program that estimated the waste composition for localities based on

explanatory data, such as recycling program data and the local employment mix. The model uses suchinformation as percentage of population with access to curbside recycling collection, average income level,average education level, and number of people employed in agriculture, retail trade, manufacturing, etc. Asillustrated in the following table, verification of the model in Iowa to predict the amount of food waste in thewaste stream has very promising.

Table 1. Comparison of the output of the Iowa model (Jones and Culbertson, 2002)

Community Actual

(% )

Model

(%)

Bluestern

Floyd Mitchell Solid Waste AgencyMonona CountyIowa CitySouth Central Iowa SW AgencyDes Moines County

10.9

14.610.613.0

6.28.1

10.9

14.610.812.8

5.88.6

The model needs additional work before it is able to predict other waste components with sufficient accuracy.Other models are being developed by a number of US states and countries. For example, Florida isdeveloping a model based on 12 to 15 waste studies conducted in recent years (see www.dep.state.fl.us). The problem with all of those models is that they are based on data available for developed countries and,therefore do not apply to other countries. Nevertheless, it is a new approach to waste compositiondetermination and should be kept in mind.

Other factors influencing the composition of waste that should be included in the models are

L existing residential and commercial recycling infrastructureL median education and income levelsL population density




5

Figure 2. Per capita waste generation (Ameneiros

Martinez (1999)

L climateL landfill bans on selected materialsL local waste management policies

As pointed out by Ameneiros Martinez (1999), MSW generation is very much a function of the economicaldevelopment of a country so that the quantity and composition varies with time. To illustrate this, Figures2 and 3 represent data for Cuba.

Regardless of what the actual composition is today, it will change significantly as further industrializationtakes place and people become more affluent. Based on experiences elsewhere it can be predicted that therelative amount of paper and plastics will increase substantially. It is therefore essential that future changesin the composition be taken into account in the development of an ISWM master plan.

Normally the density, particle size distribution, and energy content of the waste stream are also importantin characterization studies. Densities vary greatly and range from 90 to 180 kg/m3 for uncompacted drywaste and 180 to 540 kg/m3 for mixed waste, which includes organics. Particle size distributions arenormally were not reported in waste studies. The specific energy content is probably less than 5000 kJ/kg because of the high organic content which makes the waste stream unsuitable for incineration or energy-from-waste processes.

2.2 Collection and Processing Options

Figure 4 will be used to illustrate a wide variety of waste collection, processing and disposal optionsavailable to the planner of a modern ISWM system. It should be noted that it is essential to remove allhazardous waste (household or other) from the waste stream, preferably at source, and to treat it separately.




6

Figure 3. MSW composition (Ameneiros Martinez, 1999) .

Examples of common hazardous household waste includes cleaners, solvents, batteries, paints, medications, pesticides, gasoline, and oils. All toxic, corrosive, reactive, and flammable chemicals used in industry mustalso be collected and taken to appropriate treatment centres.

The first step is to decide whether the system will deal with the non-hazardous waste as mixed-waste, source-separated waste, or both. In many instances, the waste generated by the ICI sector, if not already a singlestream, is readily separated at the source and stored in separate containers or bins for collection by either themunicipality or a private waste hauler. Large items, such as appliances, are frequently collected separatelyor delivered to an appropriate site, such as a transfer station.

The most difficult waste to deal with is household and institutional waste. The options available are tocollect the waste in a mixed form or a source-separated form. The latter will normally involve wasteseparation into two- or three-streams. As shown in Table 2, a typical two-stream system would have anorganic (wet) fraction and a mixed recyclable/garbage (dry) fraction. In a three-stream system the recyclablesand garbage mixture is further divided into separate fractions (Otten et al ., 1993).

Mixed or source-separated waste is either collected or delivered to a transfer station or a processing facility.If recycling is part of the plan, mixed waste or the dry fraction of source-separated waste is processed in amaterial recycling facility (MRF) to recover recyclable materials. The residue is either transported to asanitary landfill or an incinerator. At the same time, the wet or organic fraction of the source-separated or mixed waste can be used in a variety of processes, including composting or anaerobic digestion to producegaseous or liquid fuels. The most widely accepted method is to compost the wet fraction to produce a soil




7

Figure 4. An ISWM plan with various opiton (Warmer bulletin, modified)




8

Table 2. Waste Components of the Two- and Three-Stream Collection Systems.

TWO-STREAM THREE-STREAM

WET STREAM

ORGANIC: FoodYard WasteAshes & Coals

OTHER WET: DiapersFloor SweepingsVacuum CatchingsDryer LintPet DroppingsPaper Towels

TissuesSanitary Napkins

DRY STREAM

RECYCLABLES: BoxboardCardboardNewspaper Fine Paper Glossy Paper Mixed Paper Glass ContainersMetal CansOther MetalsPlastic Films

Plastic ContainersOther PlasticsStyrofoamWood

OTHER DRY:

Inert WastesClothingChina & CeramicsPlate GlassRubber & Leather Multi-Material Pkg.Bulky Goods

WET STREAM

FoodYard waste

RECYCLABLE STREAM

BoxboardCardboardNewspaper Fine Paper Glossy Paper Mixed Paper

Glass ContainersMetal CansOther MetalsPlastic FilmsPlastic ContainersOther PlasticsStyrofoamWood

GARBAGE STREAM

Floor SweepingsVacuum CatchingsDryer LintPet DroppingsPaper TowelsSanitary Napkins

Inert wastesClothingChina & CeramicsPlate GlassRubber & Leather Multi-Material Pkg.Bulky GoodsAshes & CoalsDiapers

amendment/fertilizer for use in agriculture, landscaping, silviculture and horticulture. The solid residue fromcomposting and digestion is either sent to landfill or incinerators for final disposal.

Two other waste disposal options are landfilling of all the waste or mass burning it in an incinerator, withor without energy recovery. As mentioned earlier landfilling of MSW is no longer considered an appropriateoption in terms of sustainable development or environmental acceptability. As a minimum, all organics




9

should be removed to reduce leachate and methane production. However, in cases where there is noinfrastructure to take advantage of recycling or of energy recovery from incineration, landfilling may be theonly feasible solution for dry waste.

Landfill space has become a very valuable commodity in many areas of the world. Getting approvals for newsites is frequently very difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the amount of engineering and work requiredto make modern sanitary landfills as environmentally benign as possible has added significantly to the costof landfilling waste. There is increasing interest in developing so-called sustainable landfills which do notleave an inheritance of environmental pollution.

Others have introduced the banning of certain wastes to reduce the adverse environmental impact, to stabilizethe landfill quicker, and to extent the life of the landfill. Thus, some areas have banned large appliances, batteries, waste oil, tires, corrugated cardboard, newspapers, glass, steel, aluminum, and yard waste. Thisrequires an increase in recycling activities. Another idea is to stabilize the landfill by circulating moisturethrough the waste to accelerate the degradation of organics.

Major cities in Africa have established MSW collection systems provided by the municipality or privateoperators using compactor trucks, open trucks, trailers, pushcarts, wheelbarrows, or animal drawn carts.

Apparently the collection rate various from 20 to 80% with a median range of 40 to 50% across the continent.A major problem with mechanized collection in developing countries is to keep the vehicles operating. For example, at any time almost 50% of the 700-vehicle collection fleet in Jakarta is under repair. Similarly,it has been estimated that loss of availability of collection vehicles may be as high as 70% across WestAfrica, which prevents implementing a reliable collection system. It is obvious that collection must be madeadequate and reliable as the first step towards an ISWM system.

3. ISWM HIERARCHY

The most common ISWM hierarchy used to ensure the processing of waste by means other than landfillingis listed below in order of the most to the least environmentally preferred option:

L reduction (avoidance and waste minimization at source )L reuseL recycle (organic and dry wastes)L incineration with energy recovery (energy-from-waste)L incineration without recoveryL landfill

The first three are frequently referred to as the 3Rs. Reduction usually refers to reducing the amount of waste produced at source, such as packaging. Reuse concentrates on extending the useful life of products

by passing them on to other users, the use of refillable bottles, etc. Recycling is mainly concerned with therecovery of materials that can be used as feedstock for new products.

Some people add recovery as a fourth category after recycling, and include such activities as recovery of organics/minerals through composting, or the use of combustibles for energy-from-waste operations. In theis instance they refer to the 4Rs; however, recovery can easily be included in each of the 3Rs listed.




10

3.1 Developing an Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan

The old system of waste management that primarily depended onlandfilling was largely the result of ignoring the true benefits to society of managing wastes in an environmentally sound manner. It was very much

based on the “ou t of sight, out of mind” approach. The most promisingtrend to reverse the established practices is the move towards establishingtrue cost accounting for waste management systems. This includes theintegration of economic and environmental factors to determine the totalcosts of products from the extraction of the raw materials to their disposal.

This approach puts anew emphasis on resource and energy conservation.

After determining the waste composition the next step in the developmentof an ISWM Master Plan is to set objectives. As mentioned above, mostcountries have established objectives to divert 50% of the solid waste fromlandfills by the year 2000, based on 1987 landfill data (or some other applicable data). Because there is no single solution to achieve suchobjectives, several options must be combined.

Figure 5 provides an example of how waste from different sources could be managed towards meeting the objectives. The particular exampleincludes composting of organic waste, recovery of recyclable waste,

production of waste derived fuel for an energy-from-waste plant from the burnable residue fraction, and landfilling of all other residues. The variouswaste inputs and diversion percentage are based are all based on knowndata and design information. It is interesting to note that this example was

one of several scenarios of an actual master plan only resulted in adiversion of 42.6% of the total waste stream even though severalmanagement options were included.

While it is permissible, and even desirable, in the development of a ISWM




11

Master Plan to consider all options and combinations of options to ensurethat every possibility has been considered, in the final analysis it is essentialthat only technologies appropriate to a particular society be examined

further. It is very unfortunate that many master plans and feasibility studies by European and North American consultants often recommend solutionswhich are neither appropriate nor affordable. This normally due to a lack of intimate knowledge of local conditions and/or interference from localgovernments that prefer high technology solutions as show cases.

3.2 Cost of Some ISWM Alternatives.

The cost of waste disposal alternatives varies greatly from one region toanother, and also depends on the particular technologies used.

Nevertheless, an approximate comparison is provided in Table 3 using USdata from 1995.

These are operating costs and do not account for any revenues derived fromthe alternatives. Again, the revenues obtained vary widely as well. The netcost for recycling systems is considerably less given the current market

prices for papers, metals, plastics, etc. Unfortunately prices of recycledmaterials have fluctuated rapidly in recent years and months. For a longtime the most valuable material to recycle was aluminum, especiallyaluminum beverage cans, but since November 1994 PET plastic scrap

prices have tripled in the United States. This has made the average PETcontainer worth four to five cents, or double the value of the aluminum can.However, in 1996 PET recycling went into a sharp decline due to major drop in price.




12

Figure 5. Example of an ISWM Mater Plan with Waste Diversion using Recycling, Composting, WasteDerived Fuel and Landfill.




13

Table 3. Range of Costs of ISWM Alternatives

ISWM A LTERNATIVE

COST RANGE

US$ PER TONNE

RecyclingSolid Waste CompostingYard Waste CompostingIncineration with Energy Recovery

Ne w Landfi lls

100 - 30050 - 8030 - 7070 - 12035 - 150

Collection, which includes the transportation of MSW to the location wherethe collection vehicle is unloaded, accounts on the average for almost 50%

of the total cost of urban solid waste management in the United States for a total cost of $9.5 billion per year. In large cities where the travel distanceto the point of disposal is often more than 20 km, the collection cost can beas high as 70% of the total cost.

3.3 Environmental Impact.

A great deal of research and information has been published on the

environmental impacts associated with landfilling and incineration of MSW. Much less information is available on the potential for environmental problems associated with recycling and composting. It isoften assumed that recycling is automatically preferable from anenvironmental perspective; however, all of man's activities have an impacton the environment. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to provide adefinitive answer because components of the complete recycling loop couldgive rise to environmental burdens, counteracting any benefits derived from

the recycling process itself. A great deal of work is being done using LifeCycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental burdens associated witha product, process or activity. It attempts to identify and quantify theenergy and materials used and the wastes released to the environment. In




14

theory this will allow evaluation of alternatives, thus arriving at anoptimum use of energy and materials with minimal environmental impact.

Additional comments on the environmental impact of landfills andrecycling will be made in subsequent presentations. However, becauseincineration is not dealt with in any sessions, some comments on theenvironmental impact are appropriate.

Although incineration of MSW has received a great deal of criticism dueto concerns of the production of furans and dioxins, modern incinerationat thigh temperatures is nevertheless an appropriate waste management

option for some situations. It must not be confused with simple mass burning of wastes at relatively low temperatures which is environmentallyno longer acceptable and leads to significant air pollution problems. Areaswhere there is a lack of space, such as the Netherlands and Japan, or wherethe energy demand per capita is very high and resources limited, such asSwitzerland and Finland, incineration is an appropriate option. Modernincinerators equipped with state-of-the-art air pollution control are able tomeet the most stringent emission regulations. Incineration reduces the

volume of the waste by about 90%, while the much smaller volume of flyash and bottom ash can be buried in a protected compartment of a sanitarylandfill. There is also some interesting possibilities that the ash can bevitrified using clay to produce a light aggregate.

3.4 Common Barriers to Developing and Implementing an ISWM

System

There are several barriers to the implementation of an integrated solid wastesystem with waste minimization programs. These include public attitude,economics, poor planning (setting unrealistic goals), and political barriers.

To move away from landfill up the waste management hierarchy requires




15

a fundamental change in attitude by consumers, commerce and themanufacturing industry. Many initiatives have failed because the publicwas not prepared to buy into the program. For example, the residents of

Madrid, Spain were not prepared to separate glass into three colour for recycling and the program failed. To ask those residents to separate their waste for a two-stream (wet/dry) collection system would probably also berejected. In any case, the cross contamination of the wet and dry fractionswould result in operational failures.

Almost all successful implementations were the result of involving the public early in the planning program. This allowed the people to be part of

the process so that the ISWM system became a grassroots effort. At thesame time the rest of the population must be kept constantly informed of the progress and the plans. To change people's attitudes and to ensure their cooperation, a great deal of effort must be put into educational programs.Eventually they will start to look forward to the implementation of the first

phase of the program. The majority of people welcome an opportunity toimprove the environment.

Another barrier experienced in some countries in achieving waste diversiongoals has been slow government approvals processes to the establishmentof recycling and composting facilities. Frequently this is due to a lack of coordination between government departments which set and promotediversion goals and those in charge of issuing licences and environmentalapprovals.

Poor planning in determining the operational and financial roles and

responsibilities of the major participants in the waste management field,including various levels of government and the private sector wastegenerators and haulers has led serious setbacks and delays in implementingISWM systems. Clearly, financing arrangements must be adequate and for sufficiently long periods to allow the development of the infrastructure.




16

Short term financial incentives by governments have invariable resulted infailure to meet long term waste management objectives.

A common barrier to the development of an ISWM system in large citiesor regions is the lack of a framework to coordinate strategic planning. For example, in an effort to encourage recycling some municipalities in Ontariointroduced high landfill tipping fees while neighbouring municipalities didnot. The net result was that private waste haulers exported the waste to thelandfills with the lower tipping fees. It was not until the provincialgovernment prohibited this transfer that recycling became more successful.

Another significant problem is the instability of markets for recycledmaterials, especially for private sector operators who must make a profitfrom their operations. The economic returns for some recovered materialsdo not cover the cost of collection and processing, usually because the costof virgin materials is low. Intermittent supply of recovered materials hasalso caused serious problems for manufacturers.

To ensure that waste management targets are set and then met, governmentmust play a vital role by

1. introducing effective laws that make waste reduction a higher priority than waste disposal;

2. making waste reduction programs financially healthy; includingfinancing of waste management systems;

3. giving the public the information needed to reduce waste; and

4. working with the ICI sector to reduce waste and to developstrategies to use and make products containing recycling materials.

4. REFERENCES




17

Ameneiros Martínez, José María. 1999. Solid Waste Management - ItsSituation in Cuba. Seminar presented at the School of Engineering,

University of Guelph, Guelph On Canada.

IETEC. International Source Book On Environmentally SoundTechnologies For Municipal Solid Waste Management. United NationsEnvironment Programme. Technical Information Series No. 6. HiroshiShiroi, UNEP IETC Osaka, Japan. (http://www.unep.or.jp)

Jones, Tom and John Culbertson. 2002. Back to the future of waste

composition. Resource Recycling, March 2002:10-13.

Otten, L., S.H. Birkett and D. Hoornweg. 1993. An Integrated WasteManagement System - Data and Recommendations for Guelph, Ontario.School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada,

N1G 2W1 (109 pages).

Otten, Lambert. 1996. Integrated Solid Waste Management. Invited Paper

presented at the Strategies for Jabotabek Seminar held by the World Bank for Senior Government Officials and Planners in July 1996. Jakarta,Indonesia.

Tchobanoglous, George, Hilary Theisen, and Samuel A. Vigil. 1993.Integrated Solid Waste Management - Engineering Principles andManagement Issues. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.

Gestión y Manejo de Residuales Solidos

Documents

Transcript of Gestión y Manejo de Residuales Solidos