Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en la Interamericana de Cupey para el 40 aniversario de la EPA en el 2010.

1. solution
for Puer to Rico and the 21 st
Century
Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director (AEHSP)
AmericanHealthStudies.org
pconnett@gmail.com
EPA Region II,
Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010

2. Part 1

3. Part 2

4. Part 3

5. OUTLINE
1. A few words about Sustainability
2. The arguments against incineration
3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy

6. DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND
DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
20 CENTURY
th 21st CENTURY
WASTE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
“ How do we get rid “ How do we handle our
of our waste discarded resources in
efficiently with ways which do not
minimum damage to deprive future
our health and the generations of some, if
environment ?” not all, of their value ?”

7. DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND
DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
20 CENTURY
th 21st CENTURY
WASTE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
“ How do we get rid “ How do we handle our
of our waste discarded resources in
The key issue
efficiently with The key issue is
ways which do not
deprive future
minimum damage to
was SAFETY
our health and the SUSTAINABILIY
generations of some, if
environment ?” not all, of their value ?”

8. 1. A few words about
sustainability

9. Sustainability
 We would need FOUR planets if every
one consumed as much as the
average American
 We would need TWO planets if every
one consumed as much as the
average European
 Meanwhile, India, China etc. are
copying our consumption patterns
 Something has got to change and the
best place to start is with waste

10. A LINEAR SOCIETY
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

11. A NON-Sustainable system
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

12. LANDFILLS
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

13. INCINERATION
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

14. Both landfills and incinerators
represent business as usual –
NEITHER are sustainable

15. RECYCLING OF MATERIALS
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

16. REUSE OF OBJECTS
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

17. COMPOSTING
ENERGY ENERGY
Extraction of Production of
Virgin Manufactured Discarded
Consumption
Materials items Materials
Solid waste Solid waste
GLOBAL WARMING
Air pollution Air pollution
Water pollution Water pollution
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide

18. COMPOST

19. Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal
Waste
A combination of recycling and
composting
-461
Incineration generating
electricty
-10
Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001

20. Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal
Waste
A combination of recycling and
composting is 46 times better
-461
at reducing greenhouse gases
than X 46
Incineration generating
electricty
-10
Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001

21. 2. The arguments against
incineration

22. Arguments against incineration
1) It is not sustainable
2) It is a poor economic investment. Most
of the money spent will leave PR
Incineration is the MOST expensive way
of handling waste
Incineration is the SECOND MOST
expensive way of producing electricity

23. Arguments against incineration

24. An incinerator in Brescia, Italy

25. The Brescia incinerator
cost 300,000,000 Euro
plus another
500,000,000 Euros in
subsidies and has
created just 80 jobs.

26. Nova Scotia, Canada (video)
 50% diversion in 5 years (1995-2000).
(Halifax ~ 60%)
 1000 jobs created collecting and treating
discarded materials
 Another 2000 jobs created in the
industries handling the collected material

27. Arguments against incineration
4) Incineration is very unpopular with the
public
In the US over 300 incinerator proposals
defeated between 1985-95
No new trash incinerator permitted in the
US since 1995!

28. Arguments against incineration
5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or
more the monster has to be fed

29. Incineration stifles innovation
• “ An incinerator needs to be fed
for about 20 to 30 years and in
order to be economic needs an
enormous input from quite a
region, so for 20 to 30 years you
stifle innovation, you stifle
alternatives, just in order to feed
that monster which you build”
• Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste
Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary
“Rubbish”

30. Arguments against incineration
6) It wastes energy!

31. Energy Comparison: Recycling versus
incineration (ICF consulting, 2005)
material Energy Energy Energy
savings from output from savings
recycling incineration recycling
GJ/tonne GJ/tonne versus
incineration
Newsprint 6.33 2.62 2.4
Fine paper 15.87 2.23 7.1
Cardboard 8.56 2.31 3.7
Other paper 9.49 2.25 4.2
HDPE 64.27 6.30 10.2
PET 85.16 3.22 26.4
Other plastic 52.09 4.76 10.9

32. Arguments against incineration
7) It generates a toxic ash - It
doesn’t get rid of landfills
 For every four tons of waste
burned you get one ton of ash
(or more)
 That nobody wants!

33. For every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash
ELECTRICITY
TURBINE
WET SCRUBBER
SECONDARY STEAM DE-NOX
CHUTE CHAMBER TEMP FABRIC
BOILER < 200oC FILTER
SEMI-
DRY
SCRUBBER
Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION
GRATES ACTIVATED
CHARCOAL AMMONIA
90% INJECTION
TRASH
10%
FLY ASH
BOTTOM ASH

34. Covanta Ash Landfill,
Haverhill, Mass

35. Covanta Ash Landfill,
Haverhill, Mass

36. Arguments against incineration
8) It produces toxic air emissions

37. AIR EMISSIONS
CO2 + H2O
ACID GASES:
HCI, HF, SO2
NOx
TOXIC METALS:
Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc
NEW COMPOUNDS:
PCDDs (DIOXINS)
PCDFs (FURANS)
PCB’s
ETC

38. AIR EMISSIONS
CO2 + H2O
ACID GASES:
HCI, HF, SO2
NOx
TOXIC METALS:
Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc
NEW COMPOUNDS:
NANO
PCDDs (DIOXINS) PARTICLES
PCDFs (FURANS)
PCB’s
ETC

39. Size of
Particle
regulated
in incinerator
NANOPARTICLES emissions

40. Three links to public health protection :
STRONG
REGULATIONS
ADEQUATE
MONITORING
TOUGH
ENFORCEMENT
If any link is weak the public is not protected?

41. Arguments against incineration
9) Incineration is poorly monitored
 In the US monitoring of dioxins has been a
sick joke
 There is no regulation or monitoring of
nanoparticles

43. Nanoparticle problems
 Not easily captured by air pollution
control devices
 Nanoparticles from incineration far
more dangerous than other
nanoparticles
 They travel long distances
 Remain suspended for long periods
of time

44. •We Know that PM10 and PM2.5
cause many health problems
PM 10
• In urban areas both
mortality and morbidity
increase with particulate
levels
•The smaller the particles
the worse it gets
PM 2,5

45. Nano particles are
so small they
can easily cross
the lung membrane
BLOOD

46. Nano Pathology
 Once nanoparticles
have entered the
bloodstream they can
easily cross the
membranes of every
tissue in the body.

47. Nano Pathology
 They can even cross the blood brain
barrier

48. Aggregati di Piombo, Bario, Cromo, Ferro e Silicio in Cervello.
www.stefanomontanari.net

49. Incineration,
nanoparticles & Health
Statement of Evidence
Particulate Emissions and Health
Proposed
Ringaskiddy Waste-to-Energy Facility
Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB.
PhD. FRCPath. June 2009
VYV.howard@googlemail.com

50. I have yet to see a documented
scientific response to either Cormier’s
paper
or
Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony
from
Any regulatory agency
Any incinerator builder
or
Any consultant promoting incineration

51. Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the
science, common sense says:
Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,
which have already been compromised
by particulate pollution, i.e. where
respiratory problems are already high

52. Incineration is the wrong
solution for the
21st Century

53. “Even if we made incineration safe we
would never make it sensible.
It simply does not make sense to
spend so much money destroying
resources we should be sharing with
the future.” (PC)

54. The modern incinerator is
attempting to perfect a bad idea
 Our task in the 21st Century is not to
find better ways to destroy discarded
materials
 But to stop making packaging and
products that have to be destroyed!

55. The Waste problem will not be
solved with better technology
 But with
 Better organization
 Better education
 and better industrial design

56. Arguments against incineration
10) There is a far better alternative strategy,
which is cheaper, creates more jobs and
business opportunities, does not create a toxic
ash and is sustainable.

57. 3. The ZERO WASTE 2020
strategy

58. ZERO WASTE
IS A
NEW
DIRECTION

59. THE
BACK END
NO to INCINERATORS
OF
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
NO to LANDFILLS

60. THE
THE FRONT END
BACK END
NO to INCINERATORS OF
OF RESOURCE
WASTE MANAGEMENT,
MANAGEMENT INDUSTRIAL
DESIGN
NO to LANDFILLS &
POST-CONSUMERISM

61. Zero Waste can be approached
with a series of simple steps
 which are
 Practical
 Cost effective and
 Politically acceptable

62. SUMMARY
10 steps to Zero Waste

63. Source
Separation

64. Source Door to Door
Separation Collection

65. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection

66. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Recycling

67. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair
Recycling & Community
Center

68. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives

69. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Economic
Incentives

70. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Residual
Economic Separation &
Incentives Research
Center

71. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Residual Better
Economic Separation &
Industrial
Incentives Research
Center Design

72. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Residual Better
Economic Separation &
Industrial
Incentives Research
Center Design
Temporary Landfill

73. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Residual Better
Economic Separation &
Industrial
Incentives Research
Center Design
Temporary Landfill 2020

75. “ The Fantastic 3”
The San Francisco system

76. Composting plant for San
Francisco

77. Local farmers are using the
compost to grow fruit and
vegetables for San Francisco

78. “ The Fantastic 3”
The San Francisco system

79. MATERIALS RECOVERY
FACIILITY
at Pier 96

81. MATERIALS RECOVERY
FACILITY

82. San Francisco
 Population = 850,000
 Very little space
 50% waste diverted by 2000
 63% waste diverted by 2004
 70% waste diverted by 2008
 72% waste diverted by 2009
 75% waste diverted by 2010
 GOAL:100% by 2020 (or very close!)

83. Italy
 Over 2000 communities in Italy
are achieving over 50%
diversion using “door to door”
collection systems
 Over 200 communities
achieving over 70% diversion

84. Italy
 Novara - (a city near Turin,
population = 100,000)
achieved 70% diversion in just
18 months!

85. Italy
 Salerno(near Naples, pop
145,000) 18% to 72% diversion
in one year!

86. Belgium
In Flanders they have
achieved 75% diversion
with reuse, recycling,
composting etc – VERY
CREATIVE programs

87. 5. Reuse,
Repair
&
Deconstruction

88. Value of Los Angeles discarded materials
Reusable items

89. Reuse, Repair & Deconstruction
Urban Ore, Berkeley, California

94.  Urban Ore
operating for 30
years
 Grossing $3 million per year
 27 full-time well-paid jobs

95. VIDEOS ONLINE
 Examples of Reuse and Repair
Centers from California, Vermont,
Nova Scotia and Australia
 AmericanHealthStudies.org

96. 1 2 3
Materials Residual
Composting
Facility
Recovery Fraction
Facility
Reuse
&
Repair Centers

97. We have to minimize the
residual fraction with…
1) Waste reduction initiatives

98. 6. Waste
Reduction
Initiatives

99. Ireland
 Government put a 15 cent
tax on plastic shopping
bags
 reduced use by 92% in one
year!

100. Italy
 Severalsupermarket chains
are providing dispensers which
allow customers to refill
shampoo and detergent
bottles…

101. Effecorta,
A food store
in Capannori,
Tuscany, Italy
L’esperienza effecorta
a cura di Pietro Angelini,
scio fondatore ed ideatore effecorta
Capannori, 23-01-2010

102. 60 dispensing systems for solids

103. 60 taps for liquids

105. We have to minimize the
residual fraction with…
2) Economic incentives

106. 7. Economic
Incentives

107. “ Save as you throw” system
1 2 3

108. “ Save as you throw” system
1 2 3
free

109. “ Save as you throw” system
1 2 3
free free

110. “ Save as you throw” system
1 2 $
The less
free free you make,
the more
you save!

111. “ Save as you throw” system
1 2 $
The less
REWARD you make,
SYSTEM the more
you save!

112. Italy
 Villafranco
d’Asti
(Piedmont, population =
30,000) has reached 85%
diversion

113. Spain
 Usurbilin Basque Country
 Has gone from 28% to 86%
in 7 months

114. Part 2

115. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility
Residuals
?
Reuse & Repair
& Deconstruction

116. 8. Residual
Separation &
Research
Facility

117. RESIDUAL SEPARATION &
RESEARCH FACILITY
 1. Built at entrance to landfill
 2. No material can enter landfill without it
being separated and screened
 3. More material recycled
 4. Toxics removed and identified
 5. Dirty organics biologically stabilized
 6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED

118. RESIDUAL SCREENING FACILITY
DIRTY
ORGANIC
MORE MORE TOXICS FRACTION
RECYCLABLES
This type of facility is
currently running in NOVA BIOLOGICAL
STABILIZATION
SCOTIA, Canada
INTERIM LANDFILL for non-recyclable and stabilized organic fraction

119. RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY
DIRTY
ORGANIC
MORE MORE TOXICS FRACTION
RECYCLABLES
NON-RECYCLABLE FRACTION
BIOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
STABILIZATION
CENTER
INTERIM LANDFILL

120. NON-RECYCABLE MATERIALS
Local Or
University Technical College
ZERO WASTE
RESEARCH CENTER

121. Zero Waste Research Center
 TASKS:
 Improve capture rate of recyclables etc.
 Collect best practices on waste
avoidance/reduction measures
 Develop local uses for some materials
 Recommend better industrial
designs to industry on packaging
and products

122. The Message to
Industry:
• If we can’t reuse it, recycle it or compost
it,
• Industry shouldn’t be making it
• We need better industrial design for the
21st Century

123. 10. An interim landfill
for biologically
stabilized dirty organic
fraction

124. Separazione
alla Raccolta Compostaggio
sorgente Porta a Porta
70 - 80%
Iniziative
Riduzione
Riutilizzo
Riparazione e
Riciclaggio
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY la
Centro per
rifiuti Comunita’
Residual
Separation & Better
Incentivi Research Industrial
Economici Facility Design
INTERIM LANDFILL
2020

125. Separazione
alla Raccolta Compostaggio
sorgente Porta a Porta
70-80%
Iniziative
Riutilizzo
Riparazione e
COMUNITY Riduzione
Riciclaggio RESPONSIBILITY per la
Centro
rifiuti Comunita’
Incentivi
Economici
20-30%
Separazione
del residuo e
Centro di
migliore
design
ricerca industriale
INDUSTRIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
INTERIM LANDFILL 2020

126. Industrial Responsibility
1. Design for sustainability
2. Clean production
3. Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR)
(government incentives would help here)

127. Conclusions
 We do not need mega-landfills or
incinerators!
 There is a better alternative
 The ZERO WASTE strategy is
 Better for our health (LESS TOXICS)
 Better for the economy,
 Better for our children, and
 Better for the planet (MORE
SUSTAINABLE)!

128. Please Note
Mass burn incineration only gets
75% diversion from landfill.
For every 4 Tons of waste burned
you get at least 1 Ton of Toxic Ash.

129. Round One

130. Incineration
75% reduction
San Francisco
75% reduction

131. Incineration
75% reduction
25% toxic ash
San Francisco
75% reduction
25% residuals

132. Round Two

133. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS

134. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS

135. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL

136. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL
RESIDUAL
SEPARATIO
N
FACILITY

137. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL
RESIDUAL ZERO
WASTE
SEPARATIO RESEARC
N H
FACILITY CENTER

138. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL
RESIDUAL ZERO
INTERIM LANDFILL
WASTE
SEPARATIO RESEARC
FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”
N H ORGANIC
FACILITY CENTER FRACTION

139. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL
RESIDUAL ZERO
INTERIM LANDFILL
WASTE
SEPARATIO RESEARC
FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”
N H ORGANIC
FACILITY CENTER FRACTION
FEEDBACK FOR WASTE
REDUCTION AND BETTER
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

140. Part 3

141. Arguments against incineration
1) It is not sustainable
2) It is a poor economic investment. Most
of the money spent will leave PR
Incineration is the MOST expensive way
of handling waste
Incineration is the SECOND MOST
expensive way of producing electricity

142. Arguments against incineration
3) Very few jobs created for very large
capital investment and there is very
little stimulation of local economy

143. Arguments against incineration
4) Incineration is very unpopular with the
public
In the US over 300 incinerator proposals
defeated between 1985-95
No new trash incinerator permitted in the
US since 1995!

144. Arguments against incineration
5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or
more the monster has to be fed

145. Arguments against incineration
6) It wastes energy!

146. Arguments against incineration
7) It generates a toxic ash - It
doesn’t get rid of landfills
 For every four tons of waste
burned you get one ton of ash
(or more)
 That nobody wants!

147. Arguments against incineration
8) It produces toxic air emissions

148. I have yet to see a documented
scientific response to either Cormier’s
paper
or
Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony
from
Any regulatory agency
Any incinerator builder
or
Any consultant promoting incineration

149. Arguments against incineration
9) Incineration is poorly monitored
 In the US monitoring of dioxins has been a
sick joke
 There is no regulation or monitoring of
nanoparticles

150. Arguments against incineration
10) There is a far better alternative strategy,
which is cheaper, creates more jobs and
business opportunities, does not create a toxic
ash and is sustainable.

151. Source Door to Door
Composting
Separation Collection
Reuse, Repair Waste
Recycling & Community Reduction
Center Initiatives
Residual Better
Economic Separation &
Industrial
Incentives Research
Center Design
Temporary Landfill 2020

152. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF
RESIDUALS
+ TOXIC ASH
LANDFILL
RESIDUAL ZERO
INTERIM LANDFILL
WASTE
SEPARATIO RESEARC
FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”
N H ORGANIC
FACILITY CENTER FRACTION
FEEDBACK FOR WASTE
REDUCTION AND BETTER
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

153. On Jan 23, 2010
Capannori launched its
Rifiuti Zero Research
Center
Rossano Ercolini
Ambientefuturo@interfree.it
338-28-66-215

154. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility Zero Waste
Research
Center
Maximize
Maximize
Capture rate
Reuse & Repair
& Deconstruction Capture rate

155. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility Zero Waste
Research
Center
Directory of
Directory
Best Practices
Reuse & Repair
& Deconstruction
of Best
Practices

156. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility
Zero Waste
Research
Find local uses
Center
for some
Reuse & Repair
&materials
Deconstruction

157. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility
Zero Waste
Research
Recommend
Center
Better
Reuse & Repair
Industrial design
& Deconstruction

158. 1 2
$ Waste
Reduction
Initiatives
Materials
Composting
Recovery
Facility
Facility
Zero Waste
Research
Research
Center
For Clean
Reuse & Repair
Production
& Deconstruction

159. FRAZIONE RESIDUA - Capannori Porta a Porta
1. Tessili e cuolo 16.52 %
2. Pannolini 13.95 %
3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 %
4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %
5. Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 %
6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica 7.45 %
7. Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 %
8. Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 %
9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
10 Giornali (quotidiani e riviste) 2.54 %

160. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori
1. Tessili e cuoio 16.52 %
2. Pannolini 13.95 %
3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 %
4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %
5. Questa e’ l’analisi del %
Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05
6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la
17% che rimane 7.45 %
7. separazione dell’ %
Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81
8. 83% del materiale %
Materiale organico da giardino 4.64
9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
raccoltoe riviste) a porta
porta
10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %

161. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori
1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 %
2. Pannolini 13.95 %
3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 %
4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %
5. Questa e’ l’analisi del %
Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05
6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la
17% che rimane 7.45 %
7. separazione dell’ %
Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81
8. 83% del materiale %
Materiale organico da giardino 4.64
9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
raccoltoe riviste) a porta
porta
10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %

162. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori
1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 %
2. Pannolini Recommend better design 13.95 %
3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 %
4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %
5. Questa e’ l’analisi del %
Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05
6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la
17% che rimane 7.45 %
7. separazione dell’ %
Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81
8. 83% del materiale %
Materiale organico da giardino 4.64
9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
raccoltoe riviste) a porta
porta
10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %

163. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori
1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 %
2. Pannolini Recommend better design 13.95 %
3. Materiale organico da cucina Education 10.56 %
4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %
5. Questa e’ l’analisi del %
Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05
6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la
17% che rimane 7.45 %
7. separazione dell’ %
Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81
8. 83% del materiale %
Materiale organico da giardino 4.64
9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
raccoltoe riviste) a porta
porta
10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %