C2 - Monitoring of the impact on the environmental problem targeted

C2 - Monitoring of the impact on the environmental problem targeted
Elaborate a monitoring plan with specific indicators
Regular monitoring activities
D8 - Monitoring and evaluation report about the environmental impact of the project

Organic fraction of municipal solid waste has a great high biodegradability part of content inside, this part risks to be disposed in air due to a long term storage to transport this waste to the composting plant.
Il fatto di poter raccogliere e trattare nell’arco della giornata la frazione organica previene sicuramente la formazione di sacche di anaerobiosi che porterebbero ad disperdere discreti quantitativi di CH4 in atmosfera.
La digestione anaerobica da letteratura ha un potenziale di emissione di gas serra sicuramente inferiore rispetto al tradizionale trattamento in compostaggio.
In fase di gestione si effettuerà un analisi specifica delle emissioni di CO2 che varieranno in base al sistema di trattamento della frazione organica attuato.

---

Description and methods employed (what, how, where and when)

What

Monitoring of the impact of COWS project on the environmental problem targeted reflects the two main facets of the project demonstration character:

• measuring the direct impact of the project in terms of reduction of environmental pressure and improved sustainability of OF-MSW and WWTP sludge management in Viareggio and Camaiore
• measuring the change produced by COWS' demonstration effects on decision determinants among waste policy makers and stakeholders; that is to say the propagation and long term effect of the project on the environmental problem targeted.

Monitoring will help:

• maintaining the project on track in pursuing its environmental objectives, which implies feedback to ongoing management activities;
• assessing the overall performance of the project and how it achieved its environmental goal.

How/Methods

Monitoring will be done on the basis of a plan drawn early after project start. It is a working document submitted by the Project coordinator to the Steering committee. The environmental monitoring plan will define in detail what monitoring task is associated to which indicator, who and when is in charge of the measurement or of data collection, which criteria apply and how in order to link the measurement to the monitoring objects and goals. In particular the COWS environmental monitoring plan will assign monitoring responsibilities also in relation to environmental monitoring activities

• that are compulsory beyond the implementation of COWS within the LIFE contract;
• that are determined by the LIFE contract.

The monitoring plan will also offer guidance about feedback procedures and triggering remediation actions when necessary. The plan is a quite stable document, but must match the actual context of project implementation; for this reason it will be revised by the Steering committee at least once in occasion of the first report to the Commission.

Monitoring data will be regularly update and visible in the project's website section dedicated to environmental monitoring.

Monitored data will certainly include the following indicators as they belong to the foreseen project impact:

• Mass balance quantities
  • sludge to digester: m3/year
  • biogas yeld: m3/day
  • specific gas production (SGP): m3/kgTVS feed
  • digestate produced (at 18%TS): ton/year
  • net OF-MSW feeding to digester ton/year
  • OF-MSW SGP: m3/kgTVS feed
  • digestate from OF-MSW: ton/year
  • digestate from co-digestion (at 25% TS): ton/year
  • expected sludge SGP increase: m3/kgTVS feed
  • biogas from co-digestion: m3/day
  • sludge not sent to composting/landfilling: ton/year (success threshold is 1800 ton/year)
  • OF-MSW digestate difference AD/composting: ton/year (success threshold is 1950 ton/year)

• Energy balance
  • sludge treatment (w/o OF-MSW): kWh/day
  • sludge treatment (w/o OF-MSW): kWh/day
  • biogas from co-digestion: m3/day
  • power from bioga: kWh/mc3
  • power from co-generation (w/ OF-MSW): kWh/day
  • net power surplus: kWh/day
  • saved electricity: TOE/year
  • saved trasportation OF-MSW: TOE/year
  • saved trasportation (digestate): TOE/year
  • total saved energy balance: TOE/year

• Emissions balance
  • sludge not sent to composting/landfilling: ton/year (success threshold is 1800 ton/year when COWS fully operational)
  • OF-MSW digestate difference AD/composting: ton/year (success threshold is 1950 ton/year when COWS fully operational)
  • saved TCO2 (transportation): tonCO2/year (successful threshold is 599 TCO2/year when COWS fully operational)
  • saved TCO2 (electric power): tonCO2/year (successful threshold is 853 TCO2/year when COWS fully operational)

In order to monitor the change produced by COWS' demonstration effects on decision determinants among waste policy makers and stakeholders, ad hoc probing will be done. Geographic scope and cause-effect evidence are critical issues of this monitoring because demonstration effects of COWS are not necessarily bound to the territory of demonstration, and it is very difficult to obtain objective evidence that a relevant decision (e.g. including COWS-like inventments in investment plans) has been deteermined by COWS results.

The methodology foreseen is to keep track of decision makers and opinion makers contacted during project deployment and ask them regularly to cross reference the project influence, estimating from their point of view the impact of COWS on others' related environmental choices.

Where

Action C2 will take place in Viareggio, Tuscany, IT.

When

06/09/13-28/04/16

Constraints and assumptions

• Constraints
  • Criteria, data sources and elaboration methodology must be overt; elaboration must be repeatable.
  • Validation must explicitly exclude exportation of problems (in terms of responsibility, type, time and geographic scope)
• Assumptions
  • Current models are applicable
  • Background environmental situation does not alter the validity of assessment.
• maintaining the project on track in pursuing its environmental objectives, which implies feedback to ongoing management activities;
• assessing the overall performance of the project and how it achieved its environmental goal.

Beneficiary responsible for implementation

The beneficiary resposible for implementation is P1 SEARIS.

Expected results

Principal results of this actions are

• maintaining the project on track in pursuing its environmental objectives, which implies feedback to ongoing management activities;
• assessing the overall performance of the project and how it achieved its environmental goal.

In fact this action will regularly update and make available on the project site a meter about

• the direct impact of the project in terms of reduction of environmental pressure and improved sustainability of OF-MSW and WWTP sludge management in Viareggio and Camaiore (for communication and better management)
• the change produced by COWS' demonstration effects on decision determinants among waste policy makers and stakeholders;
• the propagation and long term effect of the project on the environmental problem targeted.
• D8 - Monitoring and evaluation report about the environmental impact of the project

Indicators of progress

• Schedule and effort variance;
  • actual vs. planned start/duration of tasks;
  • actual vs. planned resource use (15% work overload and 5% budget variance are thresholds for triggering remediation actions)
• Performance
  • Delivery of compliant outputs: D8 - Monitoring and evaluation report about the environmental impact of the project

Torna all'indice