TEAM 3 Sanja Besovic Montenegro Lea Kai Lebanon

TEAM 3 Sanja Besovic (Montenegro) Lea Kai (Lebanon) Medea Inashvili (Georgia) Virtual Technical Training on updating the national Greenhouse gas inventories for the waste sector Western Balkan and Eastern Europe

Sector Overview • Emissions from solid waste disposal in SALEMEA have NOT been reported in 2018 due to a Sanitary crisis • Emissions from Wastewater handling is a KEY category • GWP used AR 5 • Methodology: IPCC 2006 + IPCC 2019 Emission summary for 2018: • Biological treatment: 2, 260 Gg CO 2 eq. • Incineration and open burning: 169 Gg CO 2 eq. • Wastewater handling: 1, 485 Gg CO 2 eq. 2

Biological treatment of solid waste Biological treatment in SALAMEA includes: Composting (non-household) Composting (household) Anaerobic digestion (non-agricultural) Mechanical biological treatment 3

Biological treatment of solid waste • Emissions summary and remarks 2, 260 Gg CO 2 eq. for 2018 56. 9 Gg CH 4 (from composting 40. 4 and Anaerobic digestion 19. 2) 2. 52 Gg N 2 O (from composting only) • Methodological issues • Sources of activity data: associations of recycling and composting, administration, districts, site-specific • Summary of parameters used: defaults EF – dry waste basis • Weaknesses : dry waste/wet waste, unit conversion, no indication on recovery of methane, not clear if MBT is aerobic or anaerobic • Strengths: completeness: home composting, oversees territories 4

Incineration and open burning of waste Salamea has incinerators for - municipal waste, industrial, sanitary and sewage sludge – - co-incineration in industrial plants – especially for wooden furniture - Incineration of human bodies in crematoria • Methodological issues • Sources of activity data: type and amount of waste incinerated (municipal, industrial, etc. ) from plants - Only emissions from fossil fuels, (35% for municipal waste), are included • Summary of parameters used: plant specific data ( year of the construction, upgrade, the typology of combustion chamber and gas treatment, energy recovery • Weaknesses: different sources IPCC GPG 2000 + EMEP CORINAIR + IPCC 2006 + IPCC 2019 refinements- AD in NIR is not easy to be used • Strengths: improvement made through analysis on waste composition resulting in new (25. 5%), plant specific data, country-specific emission factors 5

Incineration and open burning of waste • Emissions summary and remarks 90. 1 Gg CO 2 eq from incineration 79. 3 Gg CO 2 eq. from Open burning 6

Emission factors CO 2 • for municipal waste: implied EF for CO 2 based on real emission data from a large sample of Italian incinerators - carbon content equal to 23% • for industrial waste and waste oil: emission factors estimated on the basis of the allowed levels authorized by the Ministerial Decree average of values of investigated industrial plants • for hospital waste: EF used for industrial waste - average of values of investigated industrial plants • for sewage sludge: in absence of specific data, emission limits for the authorization of existing plants issued on the Ministerial decree agriculture residues burnt OFF-SITE , mostly from olive tree pruning. • CH 4 an N 2 O from the amount of crop produced, the ratio of removable residue in the crop, the dry matter content of removable residue, the ratio of removable residue burned, the fraction of residues oxidized in burning, the carbon and nitrogen content of the residues • all are burned in open air (e. g. on field) taking in consideration the higher emission factors (without abatement) Agriculture residues burnt ON-SITE are reported in the agriculture sector Open burning • AD estimated from population data + fraction of rural people (9. 4%) + per capita waste production + rate of the waste amount that is burned relative to the total amount of waste treated (0. 4%) 7

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks The sub-sector WWT (5 D) introduces about 29% of GHG emissions into the national total in 2018 where the CH 4 emissions comprise 27. 3% and N 2 O – 1. 6. The sub-sector represents a key source (KS) by both level and trend. Salemea reports separately GHG emissions from Domestic and Commercial WW (5 D 1) and Industrial WW (5 D 2), for CH 4 and N 2 O emissions. The WW in Salemea is treated mainly in WWT plants of small, medium and large size, and septic tanks. There are 19500 WWTPs for domestic, commercial and industrial WW treatment. The major part (80%) of domestic WW is connected to collectors and treated in WWTPs, and about 18% of it is treated in septic tanks, rarely having biological filters. Only 2% of inhabitants release their WW directly to natural aquatic environment without treatment. The trend of this distribution is steady for years. Part of IWW is treated in common WWTPs together with domestic WW, other part is treated in situ 8

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks CH 4 emissions from WW and sludge are calculated separately, with different EFs. For Domestic WW: WWTPs have well-functioning biological treatment and most of the organic matter is removed as sludge. Thus, CH 4 is calculated for only those WWTPs that still have natural lagoons (about 2% of all WWTPs) as the only sources of methane (due to anaerobic conditions that can take place only there), and septic tanks; The lagoons usually are shallows (less than 1 m deep) in Solemea’s common practice. The CH 4 emissions from IWW, are treated either in WWTPs, via collector, or in situ. No discharge of IWW without treatment is allowed. Treatment of IWW in WWTPs is fully aerobic. Thus, no CH 4 from IWW is emitted from WWTPs. In situ treatment is also effective and the only the treatment with lagoons are considered as sources of methane. Large industries with high concentration of degradable organic material (paper, wood, carton) have no lagoons, they are used only by small industries with low organic load. 9

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks CH 4 emissions from sludge Methane emissions from sludge, removed from WW, that is incinerated, used for biogas production, or landfilled in SWD sites, are reported in corresponding sectors. Under the 5 D the methane recovered from sludge removed from WW in digesters is reported. National studies performed for WWTPs and in-situ treatment served as a base for EFs (g CH 4/t sludge). Thus, the methane emissions from 5 D are as follows: Source category Kg DC Kt CH 4 recovered 1. Domestic wastewater 2. Industrial wastewater 1479. 55 87. 80 46. 90 40. 52 4. 00 23. 10 10

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Methodological issues • Sources of activity data: ØDB for Domestic WW, published annually by the Ministry of Environment (containing data on each WWTP (capacity, type, other parameters), quantity of sludge removed and their destination; ØRegistry of emissions of gases [19] Øla base de données OMINEA • Summary of parameters used : 2006 IPCC GLs for Bo, MCF, BOD, corrected according to national circumstances. Thus, BOD = 60 g BOD 5/capita/day (default), Bo = 0. 6 kg CH 4 / kg BOD / 0, 25 kg CH 4/kg COD (default), MCF = 0. 2 for shallow lagoons, MCF = 0, 5 for septic tanks. EF for CH 4 recovered from sludge: 5 kg CH 4/t sludge before 2001 and 8, 6 kg CH 4/t sludge after 2010 (for WWTP); and 8 617 g CH 4/t sludge for in situ treatment of IWW 11

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks N 2 O emissions are calculated sum of two types of emissions: indirect (in effluent without treatment) and direct (in effluent from WWTP). Formulae from 2006 IPCC are used for both cases. Indirect emissions : N 2 O Emissions = NEFFLUENT • EF N 2 O−N • 44 / 28 N EFFLUENT is calculated based on national value of Protein consumption (=110. 5 kg/person/yr), and N content in Protein (default 0, 16 g N / g protein), EF N 2 O−N is also default (= 0, 005 kg N 2 O-N/kg N). 12

Wastewater treatment and discharge Emissions summary and remarks N 2 O emissions For direct emissions (plants): Neffluent = Ninfluent * (1 -R), where N influent is the same as N EFFLUENT in the previous formula and calculated from national value of Protein consumption (=110. 5 kg/person/yr), N content in Protein (default 0, 16 g N / g protein), and R is share of N removed in WWTP (this share increased from 37% in 1990 to 82% in 2018). 13

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks N 2 O emissions For advanced WWTPs, the EF =3. 2 g N 2 O/person recommended by the 2006 IPCC GLs is used in formula: N 2 OPLANTS = P*TPLANT *FIND-COM *EFPLANT. Values of other parameters are provided in the Additional Information box in the CRF Table 5 D. Additional information Population (1000 s) Protein consumption (kg/person/yr) Fraction of nitrogen in protein FNON-CON FIND-COM TPLANT 67559413. 38 110. 50 0. 16 1. 00 NO 40. 33 14

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Emissions summary and remarks N 2 O emissions From IWW: There are no advanced technique for IWW treatment plants. For N influent (in WWTP) and N effluent (for in situ treatment) the values are taken from declared annual emissions by the industries. Other parameters are the same default from 2006 IPCC GLs as for domestic WW. Thus, the emissions of N 2 O from WWT (5 D) comprise: Source category Kt N 2 O 1. Domestic wastewater 1. 25 2. Industrial wastewater 0. 13 15

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Methodological issues • Sources of activity data: ØProtein consumption: Agriculture Chamber – consumption of organic products, technical paper, annex 2, August 2010. ØDB for Domestic WW, published annually by the Ministry of Environment (containing data on each WWTP (capacity, type, other parameters), quantity of sludge removed and their destination; ØRegistry of emissions of gases [19] ØElectronic DB OMINEA (Excel) ØIFEN – Data on environment 1999, 2002 and 2004 • Summary of parameters used : 2006 IPCC GLs for EFs - defaults, and national data on population and protein consumption provided in Additional information box 16

Wastewater treatment and discharge • Weaknesses : ØMethane emissions increased due to septic tanks use. Connecting to WWTPs is not increasing; ØStill there are WWTPs with lagoons ØThere are 30% of agro and food industries using lagoons ØThere are 2% of inhabitants non-collected to WWTP, nor using septic tanks ØToo many default parameters, no country-specific parameters (BOD, COD). • Strengths: ØGood reporting system and DB ØLarge number of WWTPs ØHigh-efficient treatment of WW; ØNo IWW released without treatment Ø Advanced N-removing practice in WWTPs ØAdditional Information box provided (filled with values of parameters) 17

Lessons Learned (strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities ) • Improvements come with time • Having associations/syntdicates facilitates AD collection • Completeness is important- even if it is a small source of emissions • 5 D: Lack of country-specific parameters; 18