Municipal solid-waste management in Istanbul

Country Report

Municipal solid-waste management in Istanbul

Gurdal Kanat *

Yildiz Teknik Universitesi Cevre Muh Bolumu,34220Davutpasa-Esenler,Istanbul,Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:

Received 12February 2009Accepted 23January 2010

Available online 24February 2010

a b s t r a c t

Istanbul,with a population of around 13million people,is located between Europe and Asia and is the biggest city in Turkey.Metropolitan Istanbul produces about 14,000tons of solid waste per day.The aim of this study was to assess the situation of municipal solid-waste (MSW)management in Istanbul.This was achieved by reviewing the quantity and composition of waste produced in Istanbul.Current requirements and challenges in relation to the optimization of Istanbul’s MSW collection and manage-ment system are also discussed,and several suggestions for solving the problems identi?ed are pre-sented.The recovery of solid waste from the land?lls,as well as the amounts of land?ll-generated biogas and electricity,were evaluated.In recent years,MSW management in Istanbul has improved because of strong governance and institutional involvement.However,efforts directed toward applied research are still required to enable better waste management.These efforts will greatly support decision making on the part of municipal authorities.There remains a great need to reduce the volume of MSW in Istanbul.

ó2010Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.

1.Introduction

Solid waste is a signi?cant environmental problem,especially for large cities in developing countries,such as Istanbul.Alterna-tive uses of municipal solid waste (MSW),e.g.,composting,separa-tion,and recycling,have been applied in developing countries (Haque et al.,2000;Kanat et al.,2006;Nunan,2000).However,there are still several (or many)waste-management problems in these countries (Johannessen and Boyer,1999;Cointreau,2006;Hoornweg et al.,1999;Idris et al.,2004;Wilson,2007;Brunner and Fellner,2007;Blight,2008).The main solid-waste disposal method in a number of developing countries,including Turkey,has been unsanitary land?lling or open dumping,mainly due to its simplicity and low cost.For this reason,few studies of waste characterization and alternative management have been con-ducted in Turkish cities,including Istanbul.

The increasing amount of solid waste arising from municipali-ties and other sources and its consequent disposal has been one of the major environmental and economic problems in Turkey and Istanbul.However,the collection and transportation stages of solid-waste management are generally well organized in the country,while disposal of the collected waste from municipal,industrial and agricultural sources is in a worse situation.At this point,as one of the developing countries,Turkey has not been one of the leading countries in environmental-pollution control.

Most of the urban areas dump their collected solid waste into the nearest lowlands and river valley or directly into the sea with-out any prior treatment.Until recent years,there has been no engi-neering work for the environmental control of land?ll areas and groundwater pollution,which can affect municipal and agricul-tural water quality.This inappropriate waste-disposal method,known as ‘‘open dumping”in those areas,poses not only serious environmental problems (and,consequently,many risks for public health)but also causes economic burdens and leads to the loss of valuable material (Cointreau,2006).

Moreover,a lack of ?nancing and the mismanagement of ?nan-cial resources remain the main challenges to the solid-waste dis-posal problem in economically developing countries.According to the World Bank,up to 3%of a country’s GNP (Gross National Product)can be realistically spent on environmental protection.For that reason,the period of time required to generate the capital investments to meet the international standards in low-GNP coun-tries (especially GNP

0956-053X/$-see front matter ó2010Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.036

*Address:Yildiz Teknik Universitesi Cevre Muh Bolumu,Department of Envi-ronmental Engineering,Davutpasa-Esenler,34220Istanbul,Turkey.Tel.:+90(212)3835393;fax:+90(212)3835358.

E-mail addresses:gkanat@https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html, ,kanat@https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,.tr .Waste Management 30(2010)

1737–1745

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management

journal homepage:www.els ev i e r.c o m /l o ca t e /w a s ma

n

administrative and operational problems and the low engineering capacity of these countries for environmental protection via new technologies.For example,in the1980s,a composting alternative for waste management was tried in some cities in Turkey,but the plants could not be maintained due to operational problems such as the high cost and low quality of the compost produced(Ka-nat et al.,2006).

Istanbul is a metropolitan city with a current population of around13million people.The metropolitan population accounted for91%of the total population of Istanbul Province in the year 2000.While Istanbul,where15%of the population lives,is one of the wealthiest cities in Turkey,about70%of its population is clas-si?ed as low income(Altinbilek,2006).Due to the intensive indus-trial and commercial activities in the city,the amount of waste is much higher than the rest of the country.As the largest city of Tur-key,daily MSW production in Istanbul is about14,000tons.This means land?lling more than7million kilograms of organic mate-rial(waste)every day.The population growth rate of the city is also higher than Turkey’s population overall growth rate of25per thou-sand,leading to some planning problems in the https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,nd?lling, formerly open dumping(until1996),has been the prime means of disposal of the MSW generated in Istanbul.However,dif?culties in?nding new land?ll sites have forced local authorities to search for other alternatives with the expectation of reducing the amount of solid waste.In recent years,the Istanbul Metropolitan Munici-pality has implemented a new solid-waste-management system with transfer stations,sanitary land?lls and methane recovery, which has led to major improvements.

In the last decades,there has been signi?cant progress in solid-waste management in Istanbul as a result of several factors,such as stronger organization,new legislation and improved?nancial re-sources.The formation of a regional solid-waste agency,the Istan-bul Environmental Protection and Waste-Processing Corporation (ISTAC),was one of the most important factors.However,other factors were also important:(i)detailed feasibility studies,includ-ing waste analysis,which greatly helped to build facilities in a short period;(ii)the Secretary General of the Metropolitan Munic-ipality during this time,a professor of environmental engineering in a university who supervised the?rst waste-research studies and was also a member of the group who drafted the regulations; and(iii)privatization of some services,which provided?exibility and ef?ciency.

The aim of this study was to assess the situation of MSW man-agement in Istanbul and propose some feasible solutions.This was achieved by reviewing the quantity and composition of waste pro-duced in the city and the currently applied implementation meth-ods.The paper is organized as follows.In Section2,the past and recent history of waste management in Istanbul is explained.Sec-tion3introduces waste quantities and compositions in Istanbul in the past and today.The municipal solid-waste-management sys-tem in the city is presented in Section4,and Section5summarizes and discusses the current and future situation of the city,and pro-vides recommendations for system improvement.Current require-ments and challenges in relation to the optimization of Istanbul’s MSW collection and management system are also discussed,and several suggestions for solving the problems are presented.

2.Existing legislation related to waste management in Turkey

The Turkish Environmental Law came into effect in August1983 (Law No.2872)and it was amended in2006to increase enforce-ment against violations.The Ministry of the Environment was established after a decade,in1991.After the Environmental Law, some regulations became effective to control waste discharge and disposal.Municipal,medical and industrial wastes are man-aged according to the Solid-Waste Control Regulation,the Medical Waste Control Regulation,the Hazardous Waste Control Regula-tion and other related regulations.

The Solid-Waste Control Regulation was published in March 1991(No.20814)and some amendments have been made since (seven amendments between1991and2002and?nally one in 2005).The regulation was aimed at controlling the negative effects on the environment caused by the huge amount of urban solid waste being placed in the open dumps.It set the criteria for the de-sign and operational rules for sanitary land?lls and incinerators (however,there is currently no incineration plant for MSW in Tur-key).The regulation,which became effective in1991,was based on three fundamental principles providing guidance on waste man-agement:the disposal of waste without causing environmental damage,the recovery of waste and the reduced production of waste(waste minimization).

The regulation clearly implied that waste must be disposed of in a sanitary land?ll.Leachate and gas-control practices are also well de?ned in the regulation.In sanitary land?lls,a leachate-collection system should be operated and percolation from the land?ll should be prevented by a liner system.

The regulation also focused particularly on the minimization of plastic waste and the encouragement of recycling.There was a ‘‘quota”requirement for some of the packaging materials to be col-lected and recycled by the producer,but it could not be monitored and controlled suf?ciently after the?rst years(Kocasoy,2003)and thus was unsuccessful.A new Regulation on Packaging and Packag-ing Waste Control was published in2007(No.26562)with the aim of preventing the formation of packaging wastes and reducing its amount by reuse,recycling and recovery methods.

In Istanbul and Turkey’s other metropolitan cities,local district municipalities are responsible for the collection and transportation of all municipal solid waste to the transfer stations,according to the rules of the Solid-Waste Control Regulation,Municipalities Law(No.1580)and the Metropolitan Municipalities Laws(Nos. 5216and3030).The Metropolitan Municipality is responsible only for the collection of solid wastes from the main streets and public parks and then for the management of all solid wastes after they are brought to the transfer stations(Fig.1).The Metropolitan Municipality is also responsible for the construction and operation of the?nal disposal sites.The administration of Istanbul is imple-mented by27district municipalities under one Metropolitan

Municipality.

Fig.1.Management of solid wastes in Istanbul.

1738G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–1745

3.History of waste management in Istanbul

Handling solid waste is a very signi?cant issue for cities like Istanbul,where the population is continuously increasing because of migration from rural areas and from other cities.Istanbul has two continental sides,i.e.,European and Asian.The population of the city increased from7.2million in1990to almost13million in2007,and is expected to be over17million by the year2020.Un-til1953,Istanbul’s garbage was dumped into the sea.After that, open/unsanitary dump areas near the city’s settlements were formed in several locations,namely,Levent-Sanayi Mahallesi,Sey-rantepe,and Umraniye-Mustafa Kemal Mahallesi.However,those areas were overtaken by slum districts,and then dumping sites were located in new areas like Habibler,Umraniye-Hekimbasi, Yakacik,Aydinli,Halkali,Sisli-Ferikoy and Kemerburgaz-Hasdal, which were the only suitable areas to dispose of the waste(near the city,a valley area,not in a watershed,etc.).Today,those open land?ll areas are within the city limits and are generally green areas or cemeteries.

However,in1993,an accident highlighted the mismanagement of solid waste.This accident was a triggering factor for implemen-tation of the plans.The municipality was planning a new(sanitary) land?ll and other SWM methods placed in the master plan but engineering works were slower than the planning because of ?nancial and administrative problems.

The open dump of Umraniye–Hekimbasi was the main solid dis-posal site for the Asiatic side of Istanbul in1980s.At this site, which had been in operation since1976,around2000tons of solid waste was disposed of daily.No waste compaction was undertaken during placement.The slope formed by the solid waste was very steep(33%).On28April1993,a landslide took place,followed by the displacement of around350,000m3of solid waste,which en-gulfed11houses and caused the death of39people collecting recyclable material on the site.Waste slid500m down in the val-ley to the Pinarbasi neighborhood,overrunning the houses of poor people living around the disposal site(Kocasoy and Curi,1995; Blight,2008).This accident led to a series of improvements in so-lid-waste management in Istanbul.Since then,some of the dump sites have been closed,rehabilitated,and covered with soil and have had gas vents installed.

Similarly,the costs of?xing the destructive effects to the envi-ronment and the main road caused by the waste displacement at the Kemerburgaz open dumping site(on the European side)in 1995and1996were very high.Fortunately,there were no casual-ties as the territory was uninhabited.Today,some of these old land?lls are within the city limits,closely surrounded by high-rise buildings.

In1992,an intensive solid-waste-management plan was com-pleted by an International Engineering Consortium in Istanbul (CH2M Hill-Antel,1993).This master plan and feasibility study proposed an integrated solid-waste-management program includ-ing transfer stations,waste processing,rehabilitation and?nal dis-posal of the municipal,industrial and medical solid waste of Istanbul.In1994,a company,ISTAC,was founded by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality to implement the Integrated Solid-Waste-Management Plan.The plan has almost completely been implemented in the last15years by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

4.Waste quantity and composition in Istanbul

4.1.Quantity of solid waste produced in Istanbul

To develop an appropriate MSW management system,reliable waste statistics are required.The data must be collected for a suf-?ciently long time period with relatively short measurement fre-quencies.In Istanbul,detailed studies for waste quantity and composition were conducted only in1978,1980,1981,1993and ?nally in2005.

The?rst intensive solid-waste-characterization study was undertaken in1980with the help of the World Health Organiza-tion(WHO,1981).In this study,solid-waste samples were ana-lyzed every month of the year in four different districts of the city.Another master plan and feasibility study was conducted be-tween1991and1993by an International Engineering Consortium (CH2M Hill-Antel,1993).This study proposed an integrated

Table1

The timelines of solid-waste-management studies in Istanbul.

Name of study Year Reference

The?rst characterization study1978Basturk(1979)

TUBITAK project1979–1980Basturk(1980)

WHO/UNDP project1979WHO(1981)

CH2M Hill-Antel project1991–1993CH2M Hill-Antel(1993) YTU waste-composition study1994Gonullu et al.(1996) Zeytinburnu District study1995DEPD(1996)

TBU study2000TBU(2000)

ISTAC study2005ISTAC(2007)

Table2

MSW quantity and recyclable waste in2005.

Districts Waste quantity

(tons/day)Population Percent of the total

population of

the city(%)

Waste quantity

(kg/day-capita)

Recyclable waste

20052030Density(person/km2)20052030200520052030Ratio(%)Quantity(kg)

Avcilar2506155994260,742377,622 1.960.96 1.63––

Bakirkoy3067536512232,464336,667 2.40 1.32 2.2440124 Bayrampasa32780635,144274,415397,423 2.57 1.19 2.03––

Besiktas3258019086212,848308,258 2.56 1.53 2.6048155

Beyoglu39196225,767258,680374,634 3.07 1.51 2.57––

Eminonu173426695462,06089,878 1.36 2.79 4.744375

Kadikoy775190916,582739,8971071,560 6.09 1.05 1.7831242

Kagithane430105924,660385,107557,734 3.38 1.12 1.90––

Kartal567139611,996454,965658,906 4.46 1.25 2.1222124

Sisli46911547734301,931437,274 3.68 1.55 2.6447219

Tuzla1654071812137,455199,070 1.30 1.20 2.053456

Umraniye90122183960675,819978,7597.08 1.33 2.2729264

Uskudar502123510,763552,294799,863 3.940.91 1.5431157 Zeytinburnu458112720,639276,270400,109 3.60 1.66 2.82––

Total a12,72331,324192811,177,73516,188,216– 1.14 2.01–2607

a Total is sum of all districts of the city.

G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–17451739

solid-waste-management plan for the municipal,industrial and medical solid waste of Istanbul.The timelines of these studies are given in Table1.Sampling districts in the?rst four studies were the same,and covered different socioeconomic areas of the city. The last complete study for solid wastes in Istanbul was made in 2005.Data for waste quantity are given in this section while waste composition is presented in the following section.

4.1.1.ISTAC study(waste quantity)

This study was made by ISTAC.In this study,the wastes were analyzed on a district basis(PEDI,2005;ISTAC,2007).Data for some of the main districts are given in Table2.

Umraniye,the largest district of Istanbul,produces7%of the to-tal MSW of the city.It is possible to extract a relation among the socioeconomic level of the residents and MSW production of the districts.Sultanbeyli has the lowest socioeconomic level and it pro-duces the lowest amount of MSW,0.7kg/day per capita.As a gen-eral rule,the quantity of the waste depends on the economic level of the districts,but it is also related to the locations shopping cen-ters and workshop areas,where much more waste is produced. Therefore some districts’per capita rates are higher.For example, the Eminonu and Sisli districts are shopping areas,while the Zey-tinburnu district has many textile workshops and shopping centers.

1740G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–1745

In Istanbul,93.4%of domestic solid waste is collected by the district municipalities.Istanbul city produced almost4.64million tons of MSW in2005,increasing from1.8million tons in1996, an increase of158%.However,there was an economic crisis in 2001,the worst in recent history,which changed the socioeco-nomic level of many people and resulted in less consumption of many materials.The decrease in the waste-production rate can be clearly seen from the waste-quantity data.The increase in the quantity of MSW produced in Istanbul in the last decade can be seen in Fig.2.

4.2.Solid-waste composition in Istanbul

As mentioned above,the last intensive study for solid-waste characterization was made in2005.A comparison of the waste-characterization results of this study with earlier MSW compo-nents(Basturk,1979;Arikan et al.,1997;Demir et al.,2001)is shown in Fig.3.The waste composition has changed in the city, especially due to the increasing consumption of natural gas.It is also evident that the amount of plastics increased,as a result of an increased amount of packaging.However,a detailed compari-son is not easy with these data because data from the earlier stud-ies are insuf?cient to perform a statistical evaluation and there were no standards for analysis.

Waste-characterization data for Istanbul are given in Table3. Approximately14%of the total MSW was paper,amounting to about1672tons/https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,anic matter comprised almost50%of

the MSW at6027tons/day.The quantities of plastic,textile and glass materials were2237,634,and698tons per day,respectively. Generally,there was no difference between the European and Asian sides,but the European side has had more of?ce buildings, shopping centers and small industries and workshops,although a balance on both sides is developing.This means there are not dif-ferent types of waste streams from the two sides.Waste-composi-tion data for some of the main districts are given in Tables4and5.5.Solid-waste management in Istanbul

As mentioned above,the Solid-Waste-Management Project in Istanbul was planned with the help of earlier characterization and feasibility studies(in the80s and90s).Within the framework of the master plan feasibility study,waste recycling and reuse, composting,incineration,land?lling and biogas production tech-nologies were investigated.Table6shows the estimated costs for each technology after analyzing capital and operating costs in the 1990s;the lowest and highest costs are for recycling and incinera-tion,respectively.

In the feasibility study land?lling was suggested for both the European and Asian sides as the best alternative for?nal disposal because other alternatives are up to10times more expensive.It was calculated that12MW of electricity could be produced from the land?ll located on the European part of the city within10years of operation.Moreover,the reports stated that the calori?c value of the waste is1150kcal/kg,which is lower than the accepted incin-eration value of1500–1600kcal/kg without any additional fuel.

The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality established a new cor-poration,ISTAC,on November1994for the land?lling of waste, the incineration of medical waste and the establishment of related facilities to carry out operation of the Project’s plants.Detailed descriptions of the facilities of the Integrated Solid-Waste-Manage-ment Project are given in Basturk et al.(2002)and Berkun et al. (2005).

In a recent study,it was found that the percentages of employ-ees working in MSW collection services in Istanbul were83%from the private sector and17%from the public sector.The average col-lection cost for the city is US$24.4/ton(Karadag and Sakar,2003).

Details of the waste management in Istanbul in recent and cur-rent years are presented below.Some more details can be found in the internet pages(Kanat,2009).

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,nd?lling

There are currently two sanitary land?lls in the city,one on the European and one on the Asian side.More than15million tons of

Table3

Waste characterization in summer2005(%weight).

Material group Asian

side(%)European

side(%)

Average a

(%)

Average

amount b(ton)

Paper 6.2711.278.771052.43 Cardboard 3.49 5.56 4.53543.51 Colorful glass 2.05 3.44 2.74329.20 Colorless glass 3.01 3.15 3.08369.25 PET bottles40.99 2.05 1.52182.12 Plastic bags8.4210.559.481138.15 Plastic 3.21 3.56 3.39406.31 Sack and similar0.250.450.3541.98 Metals(iron)0.890.870.88105.47 Aluminum0.450.920.6881.97 Other metals0.130.000.077.83 Organics56.3144.1350.226026.59 Diapers 3.72 4.08 3.90468.07 Wood0.500.530.5161.39 Electrical

equipments

0.110.200.1518.25 Batteries(and

accumulators)

0.020.000.010.92 Textile 4.77 5.80 5.28633.98 Tetra-pak0.660.610.6476.29 Other combustibles 2.62 1.58 2.10252.53 Ash 1.51 1.17 1.34160.39 Stone,rock,etc.0.640.090.3643.38 Density(kg/m3)222.71127.15174.93–

pH7.437.317.37–Water content(%)71.0070.0070.50–Combustibles(%)80.0082.0081.00–

a Average of Asian and European sides.

b Total daily waste amount is12,000tons.Table4

Waste characterization of the districts of Asian side in2005(%weight).

Material group Districts

Kad?koy Maltepe-Kartal

Paper 2.91–11.09 1.46–3.95 Cardboard 2.48–5.840.84–2.90 Colorful glass0.53–4.36 1.51–2.90 Colorless glass 3.86–7.08 2.07–2.68 PET bottles0.32–2.230.20–0.82

Plastic bags 5.11–8.17 5.87–11.11 Plastic 1.22–4.47 1.35–4.61 Sack and similar0.10–0.570.00–0.04

Metals(iron)0.43–1.260.32–1.74 Aluminum0.22–0.720.12–0.34 Other metals0.13–0.590.02–0.10

Organics50.0–59.363.1–65.3 Diapers 1.82–5.21 1.49–3.28 Wood0.05–0.610.00–2.24

Electrical equipments0.00–0.670.00–0.05

Batteries(and accumulators)0.00–0.230.00

Textile 1.22–7.80 2.19–8.65 Tetra-pak0.20–0.350.54–0.71 Other combustibles0.50–6.810.70–1.82 Ash 1.41–3.15 1.78–1.84 Stone,rock,etc.0.00–3.050.00–1.79

Density(kg/m3)140–246198–321

pH7.3–7.9 6.9–7.8

Water content(%)60–7571–79

Combustibles(%)84–8877–80

G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–17451741

waste has been land?lled in the Odayeri site (European Side)to date.About 67%of the city’s waste is land?lled in this site,which is 75ha in area.The daily land?lled waste amount is over 9000tons.In the Komurcuoda land?ll (Asian Side),33%of the city’s waste is land?lled in an area of 100ha.

Today,it is dif?cult to site new land?lls in Istanbul city.Only a few areas are suitable and they are generally old mine sites and far from the city.

As another part of the project,old dumping sites of the city were rehabilitated.One of these,the former Yakacik dumping site,has recently been surrounded by high-rise apartment buildings along the northern and southern boundaries.The land?ll site had been actively used for 13years starting in 1979.The total volume of the municipal solid waste dumped in this site is about 600,000m 3.The land?ll-rehabilitation project included vertical land?ll gas-extraction wells,?nal land?ll cover with earth,leach-ate-collection facilities,perimeter land?ll gas-extraction trenches and collection headers,condensate traps and gas blower/?are sta-tions (Ozturk et al.,2000).The old Umraniye,Halkali and Aydinli dumping sites were also https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,nd?ll gases are directly vented to the atmosphere at these sites.

Today,total leachate ?ow rate is 3600m 3/day in the land?lls of Istanbul.The amount of leachate is 2400m 3/day at Odayeri and 1200m 3/day at the Komurcuoda land?ll (ISTAC,2007).The ranges of leachate-quality parameters and discharge standards are listed in Table 7.

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,posting

The European-side land?ll would have been almost at its full capacity in the beginning of the 2000.For that reason,a waste recycling and composting plant was planned to reduce the amount of land?lled MSW.The plant was built close to that land?ll ($7km away).Construction was begun in 1998and the plant was opened in March 2001.The Istanbul Composting and Recycling Plant (ICRP)is one of the few composting plants in Turkey (Kanat et al.,2004,2006).

In this plant,recyclable materials are separated from the incom-ing mixed municipal solid waste and organic waste is composted.The closed area of the plant is 32,000m 2.The design of the com-posting and recycling plant was based on the recommendations

Table 6

Estimated costs for MSW disposal alternatives in master plan.Technology

Net pro?t or [cost](US$/ton)Recovery and recycle 2.19Land?ll

[8.50]Composting [10.49]Incineration

[80.97]

Table 7

Ranges of leachate-quality parameters and discharge standards.Parameters

Range of leachate quality

Discharge standards Odayeri land?ll (discharge to sewer)

Komurcuoda land?ll (discharge to river)pH

5.5–8.5

6–106–9COD (mg/L)4000–20,000800125BOD 5(mg/L)

3000–13,000–50Temperature (°C)15–204035Total P (mg/L)<5

102

TKN (mg/L)2000–500010040(TN a :400)SS (mg/L)

300–150035035SO 2à4(mg/L)500––Total hardness,(mg CaCO 3/L)1400–2500––Conductivity,(l mhos/cm)30,000–40,000––Alkalinity (mg/L)8000–13,000

–

–

a

TN:total nitrogen.

Table 5

Waste characterization of the districts of European side in 2005(%weight).Material group

Districts (data or range,as %weight)Bak?rkoy

(including Atakoy)

Fatih Eminonu Sisli Besiktas Sariyer G.O.P.Beylikduzu Yakuplu Silivri Catalca Paper

5.3–12.1 4.19.5 4.4–1

6.212.5–41.010.2 5.1

7.7 5.6 5.4

8.3Cardboard 4.1–10.6 3.6

9.0 4.3–9.8 2.4–5.8 5.1 5.3 2.9 5.0 4.07.4Colorful glass 2.32–5.71 2.64 2.82 2.50–5.15 1.73–4.65 4.48 2.00 2.03 1.48 5.78 2.89Colorless glass 2.56–6.62 1.52 3.21 1.67–4.960.74–3.56 4.91 3.42 3.43 2.570.000.71PET bottles 1.80–3.60 1.49 1.82 2.06–3.95 1.19–2.96 1.12 1.00 2.71 1.88 2.260.63Plastic bags 6.6–12.114.712.610.0–13.7 6.5–10.19.514.816.79.012.99.0Plastic

1.76–4.39 5.85

2.43 2.54–4.14 1.16–4.06

3.94 3.08

4.45 3.33 3.837.59Sack and similar 0.00–0.33 1.120.000.00–1.080.00

0.470.770.380.230.58 3.20Metals (iron)0.57–0.960.99 1.000.22–1.650.00–1.470.360.19 1.65 1.380.00 2.14Aluminum 0.44–1.150.660.740.28–1.550.78–2.610.650.000.76 2.080.320.16Other metals 0.00

0.030.000.00

0.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00Organics 41.0–53.636.042.033.2–48.726.9–60.553.047.041.340.450.531.2Diapers 0.98–5.88 3.64 5.03 2.65–6.930.37–6.39 2.57 5.197.508.94 5.25 3.76Wood

0.00–1.21 1.060.480.08–1.610.00–2.330.000.000.000.000.000.16Electrical equipments

0.00–0.560.000.000.00–0.370.00–0.910.000.000.040.000.00 1.82Batteries (and accumulators)0.00

0.000.000.00

0.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00Textile 1.60–10.6418.677.12 1.25–4.840.00–7.940.798.50 4.8714.08 5.5114.48Tetra-pak

0.39–0.640.730.260.46–0.600.37–1.140.22 1.39 1.100.690.630.55Other combustibles 1.44–1.64 2.080.74 1.32–2.210.41–1.19 1.230.92 1.27 2.14 1.68 5.14Ash

0.00–1.49 1.02 1.190.94–1.380.76–1.71 1.50 1.33 1.17 1.14 1.420.88Stone,rock,etc.0.00

0.000.000.00–0.360.00–0.870.000.000.000.400.000.00Density (kg/m 3)125–181151.30115.2084–19461–110138.40129.95118.05151.6595.20126.40pH

7.2–7.57.57.37.00–7.707.3–7.57.307.007.307.30 6.80 6.90Water content (%)65–7468.0062.0056–7465–7071.0079.0071.0076.0074.0076.00Combustibles (%)

80–85

85.00

84.00

76–84

83–88

81.00

78.00

79.00

82.00

81.00

79.00

1742G.Kanat /Waste Management 30(2010)1737–1745

of the earlier waste-management projects and feasibility studies but it included a computerized and automatically controlled sys-tem.The daily capacity of the plant is about1000tons but,in the last years,only750tons of waste has been processed daily in the plant due to several operational and capacity problems.Details of the process are given in Kanat et al.(2006).

The non-source-separated waste-processing facility,which uti-lizes mechanized sorting equipment and workers to pick recyclable material out of the refuse,was constructed to produce compost material for the municipality’s parks and green areas,but not for sale.There is no market for compost material from solid waste in Turkey.One of the reasons has been the lack of compost plants in Turkey until recent decades,and other reasons are quality and cost of composting.

However,this plant has required optimization studies.Waste-collection areas and analyses of major constituents of the oversize material(OM)in the plant were discussed in previous studies(Ka-nat et al.,2002,2004,2006).It was determined in these studies that amount of waste transferred to the land?ll area due to opera-tional failures and interruptions was high.It was determined that most of the waste could be used at the plant with improved oper-ational conditions.Otherwise,the plant would realize an annual economic loss of about US$640,800(Kanat et al.,2006).In fact, one of the main factors for operational failure was maintenance and the operation contract.The budget was dependent on the total amount of waste received but not the amount(or quality)of com-post.For that reason,the quantity of unprocessed waste remains high.

A second composting plant,Komurcuoda Open Composting and Recycling Plant,was planned to be operational in2007.It was planned for a lower-cost construction,not having expensive auto-matic control systems;the capacity of the plant is2000tons/day.

5.3.Recycling and source separation

The ICRP is one of the few plants in Turkey to recover recyclable materials from municipal waste.Almost all types of plastic,glass, paper and metals from MSW can be recycled pro?tably in Istanbul due to the large amount and economic value of the materials in some areas,especially in industrial areas.

The recycling activities are also carried out by street collectors as they separate the recyclable materials from containers and bags in the streets.Waste is money for thousands of poor people in Istanbul,especially in the wealthier areas.They collect some recy-clable materials from containers or plastic bags.However,they can collect only some of the materials from mixed-waste containers. For this reason,some people separate their waste into different bags to help street collectors.However,generally,municipal work-ers collect all waste material as mixed waste to keep the streets cleaner before the street collectors arrive.

Most of the valuable materials are recovered from the solid waste in the streets.These wastes are given to scrap dealers and then resorted and sold in the market.Finally,after washing and cleaning processes(as required)these materials are sold to indus-try.Aside from this uncontrolled application,some local munici-palities(e.g.,Kadikoy and Bakirkoy)have begun pilot-scale recycling programs focusing on source separation,but almost all of them have been unsuccessful due to?nancial and administrative problems.ISTAC began a new initiative in April2005and continues this plan to recycle packaging waste in15district municipalities.

Moreover,in2005,the Turkish Ministry of the Environment and Forestry designated CEVKO(Foundation for Environmental Protec-tion and Reuse of Packaging Waste)as the‘‘Authorized Recovery Organization”according to the Regulation on the Control of Pack-aging and Packaging Waste.Today,the contribution of150mem-ber industrial companies enables CEVKO to have about150thousand tons of packaging waste recycled per year nationwide including in Istanbul,which has the highest material-consumption rates and highest economic level in the country.

6.Discussion and concluding remarks

The main objectives of solid-waste management are to protect human health and the environment and to conserve resources. Waste is a material perceived to have little or no value by society’s producers or consumers.For this reason,during the planning and operation of a solid-waste-management program,political,eco-nomic,legal and engineering aspects must be included.

In the last decade,MSW management in Istanbul has improved. The well-funded municipalities and ISTAC effectively organized the planning and implementation of the steps of Integrated Solid-Waste-Management Plan.The Metropolitan Municipality of Istan-bul has currently intensi?ed its efforts in the separation of MSW at the source.However,there are still problems with MSW https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,nd?lling,the last choice in the hierarchy of waste manage-ment remains the main method adopted for MSW treatment in Istanbul.Biogas energy recovery is also not well organized. Although there have been many published studies showing the po-tential value and use of biogas(Demirbas,2001,2006,2007,2008; Kaygusuz and Turker,2002;Balat,2005,2008;Gokcol et al.,2008; Soyhan,2009),biogas energy recovery is still low and inef?cient in Istanbul and Turkey,probably due to high investment cost and operational problems.

Biological waste treatment is also a new subject in the develop-ing countries.For example,there was no biological(waste/waste-water)treatment until end of the1990s in Istanbul(due to ?nancial and administrative problems),even though many of these plants have been constructed in the developed countries(Coleman et al.,2009).The percentage of biological waste/wastewater/sludge treatment is still not high in the city and the country.

While the main fraction of solid waste in Istanbul is organic and recyclable materials,most of these materials,which are recover-able,are mixed with other waste such as metals and hazardous waste and land?lled,leading to dif?cult and expensive leachate treatment(or discharge problems).Moreover,huge amounts of biomass,suited for use in soil nourishment to increase fertility, are lost through the land?lling of waste.

Both in Istanbul and Turkey,waste-recycling activities should be improved and applied research should be undertaken to esti-mate local costs and to provide solutions for operational problems. ISTAC is planning to recycle an increased amount of waste but the success and sustainability of this program is not yet clear.There have been some?uctuations in the economy in the last decades but no increase of GNP.This might affect the plans and implemen-tation of alternative uses of MSW.

Having a developing economy and a de?ciency of engineering capacity for new technologies,Istanbul and Turkey still have a number of problems in environmental protection and solid-waste management(SWM).These problems are similar to other develop-ing countries(Chattopadhyay et al.,2009;Asase et al.,2009;Coint-reau,2006)and should be evaluated during new policy initiatives to ensure sustainable waste management.Some of the most important problems,and suggestions for their solution,are the following:

Some of the most important inadequacies in any environmental-management activity in developing countries are operational problems and a lack of oversight and monitoring for ef?ciency and effectiveness in the operation of the plants.

It is known that there are several(or many)regulations in the developing countries.They are generally copied(translated)

G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–17451743

from developed countries or from the guidelines of international organizations.This means that they contain almost all of the details(Sperling and Chernicharo,2002).However,enforcement of existing legislation is much more important than the exis-tence of the regulations.

Although some municipalities in Istanbul are trying to perform waste separation(because it is a popular and likely the best method to decrease many waste-management problems), almost none of them could do it ef?ciently until now,probably due to economic reasons(i.e.,the high cost of collection and the low cost of reused material).However,so far,there has been no detailed study evaluating these problems in detail.

Waste is money for the poor people in the city,especially in the wealthiest districts.Thousands of poor people have been actively engaged in waste picking for many years.They collect mainly aluminum cans,paper,metals and plastics.However, there has been no research to determine the amounts picked.

For this reason,waste analysis should be done both from the streets and transfer stations to?nd this value.

While the amount of scienti?c researches using lab-scale studies has been increasing in Turkey,facilitated by improved research funding,the technological engineering capacity for environmen-tal protection is still not high in the country.Funds should be supplied for applied research and/or pilot-scale studies to deter-mine local costs and to increase the technological engineering capacity for environmental protection.

It is evident that it takes longer to implement a plan in low-tech countries(sometimes more than twice the estimated time),so local costs should be revised in some periods.For example,plan-ning and construction of the leachate-treatment plant for Istan-bul’s land?lls continued for more than10years.

It is generally agreed in the literature(Chattopadhyay et al., 2009;Asase et al.,2009;Cointreau,2006)that,except in a few cases,developing countries generally cannot apply SWM meth-ods other than sanitary(or crude)land?ll disposal.It is also known that developing countries have applied some SWM alter-natives in the past years(such as incineration in India and Istan-bul and composting in Istanbul)but they were completely or partly unsuccessful.These investments generally result in a waste of limited?nancial sources,which are very valuable for developing countries to utilize for sustainable solutions and to protect public health and the environment.

Municipalities of Istanbul and Turkey are willing to apply SWM alternatives,which have recently been applied in developed countries,but sustainability and local costs should be evaluated very carefully(Kaya et al.,2008).In some cases,automated high-tech alternatives are preferred for easy operation,but these alternatives might be expensive solutions and unsustainable methods.Thus,low cost,labor-based alternatives should be evaluated.

Universities and other research institutions generally study basic research subjects(in laboratories)but collaborative stud-ies by municipalities are very rare.Pilot studies should be done and local costs should be carefully evaluated.Pilot studies are a crucial element for full-scale studies or implementation and also to determine local costs.Conducting a pilot study does not guar-antee success in the main study,but it does increase its likelihood.

In conclusion,there is a great need to reduce the volume of solid waste in Istanbul,as in all large cities in developing nations,both through changes in society and technology to reduce the amount of waste going to land?lls.Developing strategies to increase recy-cling is not yet a primary concern.It is recommended that?rst the economic capacity for waste management should be determined and then a waste-management system should be designed accord-ing to this capacity and the goals of waste management.Applying unsustainable methods might result in a waste of limited?nancial resources.

Although public awareness,political involvement and public participation will prove to be essential for the implementation of an integrated approach towards sustainable management of muni-cipal solid waste,engineering works such as pilot-plant studies, economic evaluation of local conditions,detailed feasibility stud-ies,and similar works are very important in developing countries for successful implementation.Efforts directed toward applied re-search should be continued in the city and the nation.These efforts will greatly support decision making on the part of municipal authorities.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof.Dr.Adem Basturk for his indispens-able support in?nding data from previous years.I appreciated the help of Gozde Tasdemir,and I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their invaluable comments.

References

Altinbilek,D.,2006.Water management in Istanbul.International Journal of Water Resources Development22(2),241–253.

Arikan,O.,Ozturk,I.,Demir,I.,Demir,A.,Inanc,B.,Ozturk,M.,Tuyluoglu,B.S.,1997.

Changes in MSW quality and in?uence on waste management in Istanbul metropolitan city.In:Proceedings of the Sixth International Land?ll Symposium,13–17October,Sardinia,Italy.

Asase,M.,Yanful,E.K.,Mensah,M.,Stanford,J.,Amponsah,S.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,parison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana:a case study of the cities of London,Ontario,and Kumasi,Ghana.Waste Management29

(10),2779–2786.

Balat,M.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,e of biomass sources for energy in Turkey and a view to biomass potential.Biomass and Bioenergy29,32–41.

Balat,M.,2008.Energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey during the past two decades.Energy Policy36(1),118–127.

Basturk,A.,1979.Investigation on Solid Waste Disposal Technologies for Istanbul.

TUBITAK CAG-Project Report(in Turkish).

Basturk, A.,1980.Disposal Alternatives for Municipal Solid Waste in Istanbul.

TUBITAK Research Project,Istanbul(in Turkish).

Basturk,A.,Ozturk,I.,Ar?kan,O.,Ozturk,M.,Demir,I.,Altinbas,M.,Demir,A.,2002.

Solid waste management in Istanbul metropolitan city.In:Proceedings of the Appropriate Environmental and Solid Waste Technologies for Developing Countries,8–12July,Istanbul,Turkey.

Berkun,M.,Aras,E.,Nemlioglu,S.,2005.Disposal of solid waste in Istanbul and along the Black Sea coast of Turkey.Waste Management25,855–857. Blight,G.,2008.Slope failures in municipal solid waste dumps and land?lls:a review.Waste Management Research26,448–463.

Brunner,P.H.,Fellner,J.,2007.Setting priorities for waste management strategies in developing countries.Waste Management and Research25,234–240.

CH2M Hill-Antel,1993.Feasibility Study on Solid Waste Management in the Metropolitan Istanbul Municipality.Final Report.

Chattopadhyay,S.,Dutta,A.,Ray,S.,2009.Municipal solid waste management in Kolkata,India–a review.Waste Management29,1449–1458.

Cointreau,S.,2006.Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management:Special Emphasis on Middle and Lower-income Countries.World Bank,Washington,DC.

Coleman,H.M.,Kanat,G.,Aydinol Turkdogan,F.I.,2009.Restoration of the Golden Horn Estuary(Halic).Water Research43(20),4989–5003.

Demir,A.,Ozkaya,B.,Bilgili,M.S.,Debik,E.,Kanat,G.,Gunay,A.,Karaaslan,Y.,2001.

Leachate ane Land?ll Gas Generation at Odayeri Sanitary Land?ll.Final Report, ISTAC-Yildiz Technical University Environmental Engineering Department. Demirbas, A.,2001.Energy balance,energy sources,energy policy,future developments and energy investments in Turkey.Energy Conversion and Management42,1239–1258.

Demirbas,A.,2006.Energy priorities and new energy strategies.Energy Education Science and Technology16,53–109.

Demirbas,A.,2007.Modernization of biomass energy conversion facilities.Energy Sources,Part B29,227–235.

Demirbas,A.,2008.Importance of biomass energy sources for Turkey.Energy Policy 36,834–842.

DEPD,1996.Environmental Impact Assessment Report of Istanbul Composting and Recycling Facility.Department of Environment Protection and Development, Istanbul.

Gijzen,H.J.,1997.Duckweed based wastewater treatment for rational resource recovery.In:Proceedings of the VII Congreso Nacional de Biotecnologia y Bioingenieria,II Symposio Internacional sobre Ingenieria de Bioprocesos, Mazatlan,Mexico,8–12September1997,p.39.

1744G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–1745

Gokcol,C.,Dursun,B.,Alboyaci,B.,Sunan,E.,2008.Importance of biomass energy as alternative to other sources on Turkey.Energy Policy37,424–431.

Gonullu,M.T.,Arslankaya,E.,Goncaloglu,B.I.,Aydinol,F.I.,Kanat,G.,Saral,A.,Debik,

E.,1996.Recoverable materials from domestic solid wastes in Istanbul

metropolitan city.Journal of Ecology5(19),13(in Turkish).

Grau,P.,1994.What’s next?Water Quality International(4),29–32.

Grau,P.,1996.Low cost wastewater treatment.Water Science and Technology33

(8),39–46.

Haque, A.,Mujtaba,I.M.,Bell,J.N.B.,2000.A simple model for complex waste recycling scenarios in developing economies.Waste Management20,625–631. Hoornweg, D.,Thomas,L.,Otten,L.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/ad6444603.html,posting and its Applicability in Developing Countries.Urban Development Division,The World Bank, Washington,DC.

Idris,A.,Inanc,B.,Hassan,M.N.,2004.Overview of waste disposal and land?lls/ dumps in Asian countries.Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management6, 104–110.

ISTAC,2007.ISTAC(Istanbul Municipality Environment Protection and Waste Material Recycling Industry and Trade Co.)Internet Site,May2007().

Johannessen,L.M.,Boyer,G.,1999.Observations of Solid Waste Land?lls in Developing Countries:Africa,Asia and Latin America.Urban and Local Government Working Paper Series No.3.The World Bank,Washington,DC. Kanat,G.,2009.Web pages about waste management in Istanbul ().

Kanat,G.,Demir,A.,Ozkaya,B.,Bilgili,M.S.,2002.Optimum Operational Conditions in Istanbul Composting and Recycling Plant.Final Report,ISTAC-Yildiz Technical University Environmental Engineering Department.

Kanat,G.,Demir,A.,Ozkaya,B.,Bilgili,M.S.,2004.Optimization of operation in a waste recycling and composting plant.Fresenius Environmental Bulletin13

(10),956–958.

Kanat,G.,Demir, A.,Ozkaya, B.,Bilgili,M.S.,2006.Addressing the operational problems in a composting and recycling plant.Waste Management26,1384–1391.

Karadag,D.,Sakar,S.,2003.Cost and?nancing of municipal solid waste collection services in Istanbul.Waste Management and Research21(5),480–485.Kaya,D.,K?l?c,F.C.,Baban,A.,Dikec,S.,2008.Administrative,institutional and legislative issues on agricultural waste exploitation in Turkey.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews12(2),417–436.

Kaygusuz,K.,Turker,M.F.,2002.Biomass energy potential in Turkey.Renewable Energy26,661–678.

Kocasoy,G.,2003.Institutional structure of the solid waste and land?ll management in developing countries.In:Proceedings Sardinia2003,Ninth International Waste Management and Land?ll Symposium,6–10October, Cagliari,Italy.

Kocasoy,G.,Curi,K.,1995.The Umraniye–Hekimbasi open dump accident.Waste Management and Research13,305–314.

Nunan,F.,2000.Urban organic waste markets:responding to change in Hubli–Dharwad,India.Habitat International24(3),347–360.

OECD,1999.Environmental Performance Review:Turkey.OECD,Paris.

Ozturk,I.,Arikan,O.,Demir,I.,Basturk, A.,2000.Interactions between the rehabilitated land?ll site and residential area.In:Proceedings of Wastecon 2000Biennial Conference,5–7September,Somerset West,South Africa. PEDI,2005.Provincial Environmental Directorate of Istanbul–Report of Environment,Istanbul.

Sezer,S.,Kocasoy,G.,Aruoba,C.,2003.How vital is the‘‘lack of funding”in effective environmental management in Turkey?Waste Management23(5),455–461. Soyhan,H.S.,2009.Sustainable energy production and consumption in Turkey:a review.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews13(6–7),1350–1360. Sperling,M.,Chernicharo,C.A.L.,2002.Urban wastewater treatment technologies and the implementation of discharge standards in developing countries.Urban Water4(1),105–114.

TBU,2000.Waste Analyses for Istanbul Composting and Recycling Plant.Final Report,TBU Environmental Engineering Consultant.

WHO,1981.Solid Waste Management in the Metropolitan Area of Istanbul, Feasibility Study Final Project Report.World Health Organization Regional Of?ce for European.

Wilson, D.C.,2007.Development drivers for waste management.Waste Management and Research25,198–207.

G.Kanat/Waste Management30(2010)1737–17451745