593* For correspondence.Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 17 , No 2, 593–602 (2016) Solid waste management CARBON FOOTPRINT IMPORTANCE… [601364]

593* For correspondence.Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 17 , No 2, 593–602 (2016)
Solid waste management
CARBON FOOTPRINT IMPORTANCE FOR AN
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
E. GRECUa, D. C. PETRILEANb, I. IONELa*
aPolitehnica University of Timisoara, 2 Victoriei Square, 300 006 Timisoara,
Romania E-mail: [anonimizat]; [anonimizat]
bUniversity of Petrosani, 20 Universitatii Street, 332 006 Petrosani, Romania
Abstract. The main difficulty in choosing a preferential site of a number of possible sites is the fact that the environmental impact and transport cost of each location cannot always be quantified easily. This paper analyses the environmental impact by evaluating the carbon footprint and transport cost of such a waste collection system which can be implemented in Timis County. In order to minimise handling costs, the location of waste landfills should be as close to the source of waste generation as possible. Expected to be achieved initially near the largest town in Timis (the village Covaci), the project was met with opposition from the neighbourhood population; another option is the location situated 50 km from Timisoara, in Ghizela village, operating with 4 transfer stations (Timisoara, Deta, Jimbolia, Faget). In particular, this paper offers a carbon foot analysis to establish a compari –
son between the variation of the carbon footprint and the waste transport cost, using trucks from 4 different areas of the county to 3 possible landfills.
Keywords: footprint, cost of transport, environmental impact of waste land filling, study case Timis
County.
AIMS AND BACKGROUND
In order to justify the importance of the assessment, it must be therefore highlighted that the open air or even the dedicated special waste landfills are an important soil, water and air pollution generator, the environmental impact being a significant and a long term one, landfills being considered possible pest holes. Ecological landfills are final waste deposits, set up in areas which cannot be used for economic-social purposes, located outside the cities, built and fitted with installations which do not allow in any way the pollution of the environment.
Currently, many EU countries (such as Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Bel-
gium, Denmark and Sweden) have complex systems of waste collection. They deposited to landfill less than 5% of the waste they produce
1. In addition, these
countries have outstanding performance in terms of biodegradable waste recovery (waste to energy concept). Regional Waste Management Plan for the West 5 regions

594(comprising Timis, Arad, Caras Severin and Hunedoara counties) is presumed to
apply the concept of effective solutions in terms of waste management costs2. For
this purpose, the use of modern technologies focused on creating deposits within the meaning to be environmentally friendly and safer. Through effective awareness of selective waste collection process was intended to make possible the selection of many waste fractions.
In recent decades, due to the general increase in living standards and increas-
ingly extensive use of packaging technologies, the quantities of organic waste and packaging increased and changed considerably. To counter over this situation, specific objectives have been defined: selective waste collection, recycling reus-able resources and reducing the quantity of biodegradable waste landfilled. An optimistic approach regards the selective collection of waste: paper and tar boards, glass, plastics, metals, leather and rubber, wood, textiles, food garbage. Therefore, several approaches regarding waste management are imposed, considering the perspective brought forward in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Priorities regarding the waste management approach
The following aspects need to be taken into account when choosing the loca –
tion of the integrated waste management system:
– Eliminating the risk of pollution of underground and surface waters;– Reducing the effects the flow of polluted water, resulted from rain water
which goes through the waste, has on the soil;
– Reducing the pollution of soil with plastic, paper or other light waste, which
may be taken by wind and spread on the adjacent surfaces;
– Eliminating the discomfort of citizens by reducing the unpleasant and non-
hygienic aspect of the points of collection and specific landfill;
– Eliminating possible pest holes;– Reducing the amount of waste which can be stored by increasing the collec –
tion rate of recyclable waste (glass, metal, plastic, paper, organic waste);
– Improving the quality of waste collection services, which leads to the im-
provement of citizens comfort and quality of life
3;

595– Creating new jobs;
– Reducing environmental pollution by reducing the carbon footprint;– Reducing transport expenses considering the location, i.e. the landfill should
be as close as possible to the waste generating source.
The assessment deals with the last two aspects regarding the location of the
ecologic landfill, namely:
– The comparative study regarding the variation of the carbon print through
the change of the location of the ecologic landfill in 3 possible locations (i.e. Covaci, Cheveresu Mare and Ghizela). The transport is ensured by a fleet of 4 types of trucks, with different emission factors (Euro 2, Euro 3, Euro 4, Euro 5) the transport capacity being comprised between 30–40 t/truck;
– The comparative study regarding the variation of cost generated with the
transport of waste to the 3 locations (Covaci, Cheveresu Mare and Ghizela), taking into account the transport for 3 different tariffs foreseen by the transport legislation in force (in Timisoara, Jimbolia, Deta and Faget).
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials and method. Storing waste in ecologic landfills is considered to be the most popular waste management methods. Correctly choosing the site of the landfill, adequately designing the landfills as well as the necessary studies to be carried out represents an essential element of any waste management programme
4.
The main difficulty in choosing a preferential site of a number of possible sites
is the fact that the environmental impact and transport cost of each location cannot always be quantified easily. The impact of a site can be linked to costs, footprint, but also the visual aspects and the effect on human health
5.
The harmful effects of waste (pollution, contamination), but especially those
determined by inappropriately set-up landfills are determined by:
(1) Harmful gas emissions generated by the decomposition process of organic
waste (produced by fermentation), with effects on air quality;
(2) Leaks and infiltrations from rainwater and infiltrations of substances, dis-
solved and diluted, transported with this type of waters as well as the humidity degree of solid components, the effect of which is the pollution of surface waters, ground waters and soil of the adjacent areas and the soil of the site of the landfill
6.
The main conditions for the site of the landfill regard the following7:
– Intensive use of the allocated space as simultaneously it should bring forward
stability regarding environmental conditions;
– The ground should correspond from a geotechnical point of view and it
should also present stability considering seismic phenomena;
– It should exclude the danger of flooding or rain water flushing and the crea –
tion of water planes or mud slides;

596– The zone must be isolated from all communication ways, utility networks
(energy, water, wastewater, telephone networks, etc.), human settlements, industrial
areas and protected areas such as reservations, archaeological sites, parks, and others, as much as possible, but must have an appropriate access route as well.
For depleted quarries, natural depressions, slums, totally degraded fields the
recovery means investing a large amount of money, efforts and planning and it is hardly recommended to be use waste deposit sites. The implementation plan must demonstrate that it is possible to obtain cost effective to achieve the objectives in terms of collection, treatment and disposal of Romania and proposed targets for packaging waste and reducing biodegradable waste deposits
4.
Table 1 presents the constituents in solid wastes of Timisoara area6.
Table 1. Constituents in solid wastes of Timisoara area
No Components Average
(mass.%)Variation frames
(%)
1paper and tar boards 8.2 4–23.9
2glass 13.1 1.8–14.3
3plastics 6.2 1.6–9.0
4metals 1.1 0.71–5.9
5leather and rubber 1.8 0.24–2.6
6wood 0.3 1.6–3.0
7textiles 4.9 1.29–11.0
8food garbage 37.0 25.5–39.6
9no identified with prevailing biological origin 27.4 3.8–71.94
Figure 2 brings the evolution in the composition of waste for the past few years.
Fig. 2. Evolution of the composition of waste during 2011–2014

597In order to determine the carbon footprint generated by waste transportation
using trucks to all three possible sites/locations of deposits/ during a year, the fol-
lowing relation is used:
FP = fCO2 × L × 10–6 × 365 t/year (1)
where fCO2 is the footprint resulted from the train manufacturer, g/km; L – distance
covered, km.
The comparative determination of transport costs to all possible sites is realised
using the following relation:
price = L × Sc Euro (2)
where L is the distance covered, km; Sc – specific cost, €/km.
Case study. The project ‘Ecological Zone Landfill Timisoara’ began by late 1996. The initiator of this project (Timisoara-City Hall) wanted to achieve, in accord-ance with European environmental standards, a modern landfill. It would have to replace the landfill near Timisoara (from the side Parta) which needs to be closed. First solution was an ecological land filling site in the locality Covaci, about 10 km
from Timisoara. Against this project there was a strong opposition from the civil society
4. Therefore, because of protests against the location of Covaci, the European
Union blocked the funding. By 2006, a new location was established for landfill: a land in the commune Cheveresu Mare, 25 km from Timisoara. The project was not completed because the inhabitants rebelled against its location on their locality, as well. After further negotiations and delays, it was decided to build an ecological landfill in Gisela, a village located 50 km from Timisoara. Concerning this location acceptance from citizens occurred, as they associated this project with the hope of creating jobs (in an area otherwise disadvantaged and with a significant level of unemployment) and the creation of a transport infrastructure and utilities was as well expected. Ghizela landfill is part of the Integrated Waste Management in Timis County and involves three waste collection and transfer centres in the county (Jimbolia, Deta, Faget) and a transfer station in Timisoara. The deposit is one of the largest in the country (a total capacity of 5 131 300 m
3). The number of people
to be served by the landfill covers up to 700 000 inhabitants.
In order to minimise transporting costs, the location of landfill should be as
close to the source of waste generation. If handling costs would be the only criterion for placement, the optimum location of the landfill would be centred around a point whose coordinates should be equal to the weighted average of the corresponding values of waste generation points, depending on the quantities of waste generated
1.

598Table 2. Waste area and possible and selected storage (Regional Waste Management Plan)
Area Total population
served (thou-
sands inhabit –
ants)Possible storage
Covaci (km)Possible storage
Cheversu Mare
(km)Storage selected
Ghizela
(km)
Area 1 Timisoara 399970 10.9 24.1 50.4
Area 2 Jimbolia 70673 51.3 66.9 93.4
Area 3 Deta 27070 55.1 51.9 94.7
Area 4 Faget 27689 92.7 69.6 56.0
Area 0 Ghizela 98056 55.4 45.0 0.0
According to this criterion, including possible alternatives, the solution chosen
was less favourable in terms of handling costs. The largest quantity of waste is
generated by the Area 1 Timisoara (which serves about 60% of the total popula-tion) and must be transported to landfill Ghizela covering a distance of over 50 km. This is a double distance than if the site should have been selected near Cheveresu Mare and nearly five times higher than if the site had been chosen to be Covaci. It should be noted that the Regional Waste Management Plan was developed at a moment, when the feasible landfill was still proposed to be located near Timisoara.
Also, it is notable to mention that the amounts corresponding to Area 2 Jim-
bolia and Area 3 Deta (corresponding to a population that is 15% of the population served) are transported over a distance of more than 90 km to the landfill Ghizela. All these wastes are transported by road and cause damage to the environment in terms of pollutants emitted from exhaust gases, not mentioning the damaging of the routes for transport and noise/vibrations generated (as all routes are travers-ing villages). Moreover, between operators of transfer stations are found marked differences in the activity of sorting, recycling and transportation; The operator station transfer 1 Timisoara performs sorting waste at a rate of about 40%, of which about 20–30% of waste is recycled (providing a final recovery rate of 8–12% by recycling), after which the waste is packaged in wrapping pallets of 1.5–1.8 t and transported by trucks with a capacity of 35–40 t to landfill from Ghizela. In ad-dition, even unsorted waste is transported over 90 km, because only the landfill Ghizela is prepared/equipped to achieve sorting. A more advantageous solution for the environment could be railway transport; but the location chosen for the landfill, Gisela has no access to rail.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The relocation of the waste deposit site leads to significant changes concerning the distances from the main waste generating source enhancing, therefore the envi-ronmental impact of the carbon footprint. Moreover, the waste transport expenses

599will increase for the decades to come, aspect leading to the main aspect involved
in the correct managerial decision8.
Waste transport is ensured by a fleet of different trucks, the carbon emissions
declared by the manufacturer being presented in Table 3 (fleet functioning on fossil fuel):
Table 3. Carbon emissions according to Euro type
No Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5
Value (g/km) 600 550 500 450
The transport is carried out once a day with each type of truck (with different
emissions, as analysed). The determination of carbon emissions is considering the distances from the waste generating sources to the three possible sites as indicated in Table 2. The comparative determination is carried out for the determination of the carbon footprint as well as for the determination of transport costs from the waste generating source to the 3 possible sites (Covaci, Chervesu Mare and Ghizela). (Timisoara-Covaci; Jimbolia-Covaci; Deta-Covaci; Faget-Covaci). The transport tariff is considered to be comprised between 0.6 and 0.7 Euro/km.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 present the variation of the carbon footprint depending on
the variables, namely the distance and the carbon emissions.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 bring forward the dependencies of the cost of transport
considering the 2 variables: distance and transport.
Fig. 3. Linear dependence of the footprint on the following routes: Timisoara-Covaci; Jimbolia-
Covaci; Deta-Covaci; Faget-Covaci, if the waste deposit site is located in Covaci (fCO2 =450, 500,
550, 600 g/km)

600Fig. 4. Linear dependence of the footprint on the following routes: Timisoara-Chervesu Mare; Jim-
bolia-Chervesu Mare; Deta-Chervesu Mare; Faget-Chervesu Mare (fCO2 = 450, 500, 550, 600 g/km.)
Fig. 5. Linear dependence of the footprint on the following routes: Timisoara-Ghizela; Jimbolia-Ghizela; Deta-Ghizela; Faget-Ghizela, if the waste site is located in Covaci (f
CO2 = 450, 500, 550,
600 g/km)

601Fig. 6. Variation of waste transport expenses/truck on the four routes considering the positioning of
the waste site in Covaci, the transport tariff varies between 0.6, 0.65 and respectively 0.7 Euro/km
Fig. 7. Variation of waste transport expenses/truck on the four routes if the waste site is located in Chervesu Mare, the transport tariff varies between 0.6, 0.65 and 0.7 Euro/km
Fig. 8. Variation of waste transport expenses/truck on the four routes if the waste site is located in Ghizela, the tariff varies between 0.6, 0.65 and 0.7 Euro/km
The lines in Figs 3–8 form a divergent bunch as the distance ran through by
the trucks increases. Also, from Figs 3–8 it may be observed a linear increase both

602of the carbon footprint, as well as of the waste transport expenses, the fCO2 and the
transport tariff, according to the distance. The results calculated for the study case
are specific, but still can be used as a model of a professional, logic analysis that should be run/achieved before establishing locations for landfills. By all means ecological support and social acceptance must be correctly taken into account.
CONCLUSIONS
The determination of the carbon footprint and of the waste transport expenses are determining factors in taking decisions. They are required and fluctuating in the quantification of the environmental impact, which is an important condition when choosing the final waste deposit site/location for a future landfill.
It is therefore considered that the carbon footprint and the waste transport
expenses are variable parameters with significant implications upon the environ-ment, the other conditions brought forward by the paper being státu-quó conditions.
When one intends to take a decision concerning the location of a landfill, the
method and diagrams as proposed can be used as a model to generate a database for making estimates on the carbon footprint and cost of transport, and leading finally to a conclusion and scientific decision, even with accepted risks.
REFERENCES
1. M. R. WÄCHTER, I. IONEL, A. NEGREA: New Concept for Landfill Disposal of Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration Residue. J Environ Prot Ecol, 14 (3), 947 (2013).
2. M. GOLUMBEANU, S. NICOLAEV , T. ZAHARIA, F. K. VOSNIAKOS: Tool of Training as
an Important Component of the Environmental Education and Public Awareness. J Environ Prot Ecol, 13 (2A), 1139 (2012).
3. E. GRECU: The Selection of a Landfill Site Timisoara Case. In: Proc. of the 11th International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Albena, V ol. 3, 2011, 731–738.
4. E. GRECU, C. E. TUREAC, M. L. EPURE-STAN: The Evaluation of the Environmental Policy.
In: Proc. of the 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Albena, V ol. 3, 2011, 677–684.
5. F. K. VOSNIAKOS, G. V ASILIKIOTIS, P. MENTZELOU, M. KATSANTONI, M. LIAKOS:
The Impact of Hospital Wastes in the Environment. Fresen Environ Bull, 12 (10), 1233 (2003).
6. O. FALUP, I. MIRCEA, R. IV AN, I. IONEL: Novel Approach for the Current State of Greenhouse
Gases Emissions. Romanian Case Study. J Environ Prot Ecol, 15 (3), 807 (2014).
7. O. V . BOLD, R. F. MORARU, J. GRABARA, U. ASGHER: Environmental Impact Assessment
for an Industrial Solid Waste Deposit Located in Constanta Harbour. Annals of Faculty Engineer –
ing Hunedoara – International Journal of Engineering, 2, 61 (2015).
8. F. NICOLAE, M. GOLUMBEANU: Environmentally Acceptable Sea Transportation. The Hu-
man and Technical Measures. J Environ Prot Ecol, 8 (1), 146 (2007).
Received 11 February 2016
Revised 16 April 2016