chap 8 brasov option analysis

8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis

1/64

CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS

1Sprijin pentru AM POS Mediu n vederea pregtirii portofoliului de proiecte finanate prin Axa 2 din POS Mediu

Consoriul EPEM Grecia/ISPE RomniaFEASIBILITY STUDY BRASOV COUNTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8 OPTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 48.1 Abstract ................................................................................................. 48.2 Introduction ............................................................................................ 58.3 Methodology of analysis ........................................................................ 58.4 Waste management zones .................................................................... 68.5 Location of the waste management infrastructure ................................. 9

8.5.1 Criteria of evaluation .............................................................................. 98.5.2 Locations under examination ............................................................... 10

8.6 Waste management alternatives ......................................................... 128.6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 128.6.2 Collection and transport ....................................................................... 128.6.3 Transfer stations .................................................................................. 178.6.4 Recovery of recyclable material........................................................... 228.6.5

Treatment of biodegradable waste ...................................................... 23

8.6.6 Waste landfill ....................................................................................... 288.6.7 Compatibility-check of chosen options in the integrated wastemanagement system ............................................................................................. 288.6.8 Evaluation of alternative options .......................................................... 29

8.7 Closure of existing non compliant landfills ........................................... 358.7.1 General................................................................................................ 358.7.2 Urban non compliant landfills .............................................................. 368.8 Summary of Option Analysis and preferred options ............................ 37 8.9 Transition period .................................................................................. 458.10 Special waste streams management ................................................... 458.11 Technical description of waste management infrastructure ................. 478.11.1 Transfer station in Rupea .................................................................... 47

8.11.2 Transfer station in Victoria ................................................................... 498.11.3 Temporary storage area ...................................................................... 498.11.4 MBT Plant ............................................................................................ 498.11.5 Sorting plant ........................................................................................ 56

8.12 Conclusions ......................................................................................... 63LIST OF TABLES

Table 8-1: Advantages and disadvantages of zonal waste management ....................... 6

Table 8-2: Criteria for the selection of waste infrastructure locations ............................ 10Table 8-3: Preliminary comparative analysis of alternative sites for the central waste

management facilities ................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ 11


2/64




Table 8-4: Truck types examined .................................................................................. 15Table 8-5: Collection needs in Brasov County .............................................................. 16Table 8-6: Comparative analysis of alternative transfer station systems ...................... 18 Table 8-7: Main assumptions used for the analysis of the need to develop TS with waste

compaction ............................................................................................................ 21Table 8-8: Targets for the recovery/recycling of packaging waste ................................ 22Table 8-9: Alternative options under evaluation ............................................................ 31Table 8-10: Transfer stations investment cost (constant 2012 prices) .......................... 32Table 8-11: Sorting plants investment cost (constant 2012 prices) ............................... 32Table 8-12: Waste treatment plants investment cost (constant 2012 prices) ................ 33Table 8-13: Closure of existing non-compliant landfills investment cost (constant 2012

prices) ............................................................................................................ 33Table 8-14: Operation costs (constant 2012 prices) ..................................................... 33Table 8-15: Revenues (/year Constant 2012 prices)................................................ 35Table 8-16: Financial performance of each option ........................................................ 35 Table 8-17: Main elements of urban non compliant landfills closure ............................. 36Table 8-18: options for waste management .................................................................. 37 Table 8-19: Recovery of recyclables in the sorting stations in Brasov .......................... 38Table 8-20: Recovery of recyclables in the sorting station in Fagaras .......................... 39Table 5-21: Recovery of recyclables in the sorting station in Prejmer........................... 40Table 8-22: Fulfillment of waste management targets in 2016 ...................................... 43Table 8-23: Collection needs for special waste streams in Brasov County ................... 46Table 8-24: Transfer stations design parameters ......................................................... 48Table 8-25: Quality characteristics of incoming stream ................................................ 50Table 8-26 Dimensioning of biological treatment .......................................................... 52 Table 8-27: Quality characteristics of incoming stream ................................................. 57Table 8-28: Hand-sorting capacities ............................................................................. 58

Table 8-29: Handsorting requirements.......................................................................... 58Table 8-30: Temporary storage .................................................................................... 60


3/64




LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8-1: The proposed alternative locations for the central waste management

facilities ............................................................................................................ 11Figure 8-2: The typical compaction truck ...................................................................... 15 Figure 8-3: Distribution of packaging waste per recyclable ........................................... 22 Figure 8-4: Mass balance of option 1 ............................................................................ 24 Figure 8-5: Mass balance of option 2 ............................................................................ 25 Figure 8-6: Mass balance of option 3 ............................................................................ 26 Figure 8-7: Mass balance of option 4 ............................................................................ 27 Figure 8-8: Flows of integrated waste management system in Brasov County ............. 42


4/64




8 OPTION ANALYSIS

8.1 Abstract

In this section the development of the alternative scenarios for the integrated waste

management system in Brasov County is carried out and the selection of the optimum system ismade.

Initially the County is divided in 5 waste management zones, namely:

Zone 1 covering the central-southern part of the county

Zone 2 covering the central-eastern part of the county

Zone 3 covering the western part of the county

Zone 4 covering the eastern part of the county

Zone 5 covering the northern part of the county

Then the location of the main waste management infrastructure is determined and morespecifically:

The central waste management facility, consisting of a sorting station and a MBT plantwill be located in Fagaras

The transfer station in Zone 5 will be located in Rupea

The other zones will be serviced by existing infrastructure including:

Landfill in Sacele

Sorting plants in Brasov and Prejmer

Transfer stations in Victoria and Prejmer (the existing transfer station in Rasnov will nolonger be in operation)

Composting plant in Victoria

Concerning waste collection, the examination of alternative schemes for selective collection (i.e.number of selected fractions) revealed that 4-bin system for the separate collection of paper /cardboard, glass, rest recyclables and rest waste will be implemented in the whole County.

The additional bin volume needed for the coverage of the whole county and the implementationof the selective waste collection is approximately 6.841 m3, while for trucks the demand is 592m3. The capacity of the new transfer station in Rupea will be 4.300 tn/y

Concerning recycling one sorting plant of capacity of 5.800 tn/year is proposed to be developedin Fagaras for the recovery and utilization of the recyclables collected in the respective bins.Also the existing sorting plants in Brasov and Prejmer will be utilized in capacities of 56.500tn/y.

With respect to the treatment of the biodegradable fraction, the biggest quantity including theone generated in Brasov municipality will be treated in the facility that will be developed in the2nd phase of the project, which is outside the scope of this study (propably a WtE plant on aregional level will be developed) In the northern part of the county, in Fagaras a MBT plant willbe developed. For this plant alternative technologies were examined including, comprehensiveMBT and, simple MBT. The analysis revealed that a simple MBT plant of total capacity of 9.900tn/year will be developed in Fagaras which will contribute to the diversion targets forbiodegradable waste in 2016. For reaching of the targets waste will be forwarded for co-


5/64




incineration in cement plants or other treatment solutions. The existing composting plant inVictoria of capacity of 3.800 tn/year will be maintained. Moreover, homecomposting will bepromoted in the rural areas

Concerning waste disposal, one compliant landfill is already in operation and will be maintained.

Finally, the urban landfills (6 in total) of total surface of 12,8 ha will be in situ closed according tothe provisions of the legislation.

8.2 Introduction

The main strategic decisions have been made during the elaboration of the Brasov CountyWaste management plan that was developed in 2011. These decisions refer mainly to:

The division of the County in waste management zones, in which all settlements willreceive common waste management

The location of the waste management infrastructure

The type of collection system that will be implemented

The waste treatment practices that will be implemented

This section describes the results of the analysis carried out in terms of alternative option in

order to finally select the optimum waste management system that should be implemented inBrasov County.

Also, in this section, the detailed description of the proposed waste management system ispresented.

8.3 Methodology of analysis

The integrated waste management system consists of the following stages:

Waste collection (mixed, source separated)

Waste transfer (to transfer station, recycling facility, treatment plant or landfill)

Waste collection in transfer stations

Waste mechanical separation (material recovery and recycling facility)

Waste treatment (thermal, physical, chemical or biological treatment)

Waste disposal to sanitary landfill (SL)

Closure of existing non-compliant landfills

For each of the aforementioned steps several alternatives exist, each one having its own prosand cons, and the most suitable combination should be identified, tailored to the needs ofBrasov County.

In order to compare the performance of alternative options the indicator of ENPV will be used,namely the option with the highest ENPV will be promoted.

The main strategic and technical decisions that characterize each integrated solid waste

management plan refer to the following aspects:

Division of the county in waste management zones, in which all settlements will receivecommon waste management

Location of the waste management infrastructure

Specific technologies / practices used for:

o Waste collection / transport


6/64




o Transfer stations

o Treatment of biodegradable waste

o Recovery of recyclable material

o Waste landfill

o Closure of existing non-compliant landfills

The selected infrastructure has to be appropriate to the needs of the specific County, especiallyin relation to the quantity and type of the waste generated in the County. The specific designparameters for the integrated waste management system in Brasov County have beenpresented in Chapter 7.

8.4 Waste management zones

The cornerstone of every integrated waste management system is the development of theappropriate waste management zones and the settlements, which are included in each zone,will receive common treatment, i.e. will be served by the same waste managementinfrastructure (treatment plant, transfer station, landfill, etc).

The successful selection of these zones determines to a great extend the effectiveness of theproposed waste management system. The following table illustrates the advantages anddisadvantages of the zonal waste management.

Table 8-1: Advantages and disadvantages of zonal waste management

Advantages Disadvantages

Size escalation /

Reduced management costs

More waste truck routes / increasedabsolute cost () for waste transfer

Bigger financial capability -

Better environmental performance in wastemanagement

Increase air emissions from wastetrucks

More effective technical and administrativemanagement

Reduced flexibility

Potential to implement moderntechnologies and recycling programs

-

Central planning allows the control andmonitoring of the environmental conditionsaround waste management infrastructure

Increase environmental impacts fromwaste management facilities

Until today there is no specific methodology for the distribution of areas in waste managementzones.

The basic criteria for the optimization of the zoning system are categorized as follows:

Physical planning criteria:

o The geographical/natural division of the area, mainly due to mountains/hills

o The population in order to reach levels in which the wastemanagement/treatment solutions become technically and financially viable

o The geomorphology of the area


7/64




o The social / planning coherence of the neighbourhood municipalities

o The existing road network

o The existence of protected areas.

Environmental criteria

o Land-uses, current state of the environment, waste generation, hydrogeological

and geological characteristicso The current state of any waste existing management infrastructure

o Hydrological coherence of neighbourhood areas

o Equal distribution of environmental deterioration in the zones

o Minimization of environment impacts from waste management at zonal andcounty level

o The existence of protected areas and cultivations

Techno-economical criteria

o Size escalation. The waste collected / treated in each zone should result inacceptable waste management fees, considering the investment and operation

cost of the system

o Minimization of total cost, in /ton

o Existing waste management projects

o Planned projects

Social criteria

o The traditional relationships between neighbourhood areas

In order to divide the county in zones and besides the aforementioned qualitative criteria (whereapplicable) the current design of the existing projects (current landfill, phare projects, privateinitiatives, etc) was taken into account. With respect to existing projects the following should benoted:

A compliant private landfill, serving the Brasov Municipality greater area and othercommunes, already exists in Sacele

A sorting plant has been developed in Brasovusing funds from the Environmental Fund oftotal capacity of 100.000 tn/y, operated by FINECO SA

A sorting plant has been developed in Brasovoperated by Urban SA of total capacity of30.000 tn/y

A transfer station and sorting line has been constructed in Prejmerunder phare and is in theprocess of receiving the permits to initiate its operation. It is designed to serveapproximately 26.500 inhabitants (capacity approx. 20.000 tn/y). The project also includesseparate collection

A selective collection system is implemented in Bran area under phare, serving 5.000citizens

A selective collection system is implemented in Augustinarea under phare, serving 5.000citizens

A transfer station and composting has been constructed in Victoria under phare. It isdesigned to serve approximately 26.500 inhabitants (capacity approx. 10.000 tn/y). Theproject also includes separate collection


8/64




A selective collection system is developing (to be finished) in Recea area under phare,serving 8.000 citizens

A selective collection system is developing (to be finished) in Sercaia area under phare,serving 16.400 citizens

The aforementioned projects will be respected and be incorporated in the integrated wastemanagement system of the County. In this respect the county is split in the following 5 waste

management zones (the map is included in Annex 8.1).In this respect, the examination of the existing infrastructures, the distance of each locality fromthe waste management facilities, the landscape and the generated waste quantities as well asthe consultation with the local beneficiaries resulted in the following conclusions:

Waste Management Zone 1 Brasov

This zone will be served by the new waste treatment facility that will be developed in the future(phase 2 of the project), the existing sorting plants in Brasov and the existing landfill in Sacele.Also the new temporary storage area in Majerus is located in this zone. The total population ofZone 1 is 418.606 inhabitants (corresponding to 76% of the total county population). Zone 1 ismainly covered by urban areas (approx 84%). The waste generation in zone 1 is estimated atapproximately 162.200 tn/year.

Waste Management Zone 2 FagarasThis zone will be served by the new MBT and sorting plant in Fagaras. The residues from theplants will be forwarded to the existing landfill in Sacele. The total population of Zone 2 is63.100 inhabitants (corresponding to 11% of the total county population). Zone 2 is almostequally covered by urban and rural areas (urban areas approximately 49%). The wastegeneration in zone 2 is estimated at approximately 17.200 tn/year

Waste Management Zone 3 Prejmer

This zone will be served by the existing transfer station and sorting plant in Prejmer. The wastefrom the transfer station will be forwarded to the new waste treatment plant to be developed inthe future (phase 2 of the project). The total population of Zone 3 is 28.100 inhabitants(corresponding to 5.0% of the total county population). Zone 3 is totally covered by rural areas.The waste generation in zone 3 is estimated at approximately 3.200 tn/year.

Waste Management Zone 4 Victoria

This zone will be served by the existing transfer station and composting plant in Victoria, thenew sorting plant in Fagaras and the landfill in Sacele. The total population of Zone 4 is 12.800inhabitants (corresponding to 2% of the total county population). Zone 4 is mainly covered byurban areas (approx 58%). The waste generation in zone 4 is estimated at approximately 3.900tn/year.

Waste Management Zone 5 Rupea

This zone will be served by the new transfer station in Rupea. The waste from the transferstation will be forwarded to the sorting plant in Sacele and the new waste treatment facility to bedeveloped in the future (phase 2 of the project). The total population of Zone 5 is 26.300inhabitants (corresponding to 5% of the total county population). Zone 5 is mainly covered byrural areas (approx 80%). The waste generation in zone 5 is estimated at approximately 4.700tn/year.

The selection of the specific areas, as well as the localities, which will be covered byeach station were discussed and agreed with the local beneficiaries.


9/64




8.5 Location of the waste management infrastructure

8.5.1 Criteria of evaluation

The selection of the appropriate location of waste management infrastructure and especially forwaste landfills and treatment plants has always been a tricky part in every integrated wastemanagement system. The Not In My back Yard (NIMBY) and even worse the Built Absolutely

Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) Syndromes may generate significant problems infinding a suitable location for the development of the waste management infrastructure.

In this framework, it is necessary for the selection of the location of the treatment and disposalfacilities to be transparent based on solid technical, environmental and financial criteria.Moreover the development of the infrastructure should be such in order to ensure the absoluteprotection of the environment and public health.

In this way the selection may be accepted by the public and future delays in the actualdevelopment of the disposal and treatment facilities will be avoided.

The methodology for the selection of the locations of the main waste management infrastructurewill consist of a set of exclusion and selection criteria.

It is noted that the existing specifications for the waste treatment infrastructure are strict enough

to allow their development close to urban areas, cultural sites, environmental protected areas,etc. However, this is usually avoided in order to reduce potential public opposition.

Usually the location of waste treatment and disposal facilities is not:

In areas of archaeological and cultural interest

In traditional areas

In protected natural areas (SPA, NATURA 2000, etc)

Near residential areas

In forests

In areas with specific land uses such as:

o

Urban developmento Sports and leisure infrastructure development

o Constantly irrigated areas

o Vineyards

o Crop land

o Industrial zones

Besides these general criteria the exclusion and selection criteria presented in Annex 8.2 areproposed to be used for the selection of appropriate locations for the waste treatment anddisposal facilities.

The following presents the relevant significance of each criterion and each category of criteria


10/64




Table 8-2: Criteria for the selection of waste infrastructure locations

Criterioncode

Criterion descriptionRelevant significance

(%)

1 Environmental criteria 25

SC1.1 Climatic conditions 10

SC1.2 Current activities in the area - state of pollution 30

SC1.3 Distance from residential areas 20

SC1.4 Visual isolation 40

2 Implementation criteria 40

SC2.1 Road accessibi lity 30

SC2.2 Distance from main waste generators (on average) 30

SC2.3 Level of public acceptance 40

3 Financial criteria 35

SC3.1 Land value 40

SC3.2 Cost for waste transfer 60

The values of the relevant significance is based on the international experience from similarprojects in Greece and the Balkans and neighborhooding countries, as well as to the definitefact that the location of waste management location depends mainly on social criteria, such aspublic acceptance as well as implementation criteria, and particularly the lifetime of the landfills.Also, financial criteria always play an important role in decisions making. These two sets ofcriteria are assumed to govern almost of the decision making while the remaining is relatedto environmental criteria.

8.5.2 Locations under examination

Concerning the MBT and sorting plant to cover the northern part of the county, the consultantdiscussed extensively with the final beneficiary about the available sites. The county council in

collaboration with the consultant has identified three alternative areas for the location of the

facilities 1 in Fagaras, 1 in Calborand 1 in Sercaia.


11/64




Fagaras Sercaia Calbor

Figure 8-1: The proposed alternative locations for the central waste managementfacilities

These locations are not excluded based on the exclusion criteria and therefore, a comparativeanalysis of the three sites is carried out.

The specific results of the comparative analysis of the three sites under examinations arepresented in Annex 8.2.

The following table summarizes the results of the aforementioned analysis.

Table 8-3: Preliminary comparative analysis of alternative sites for the central wastemanagement facilities

Criterion descriptionRelevant

significance (%)Scores


Environmental criteria 25 7,9 8,3 8,3

Climatic conditions 10 7 7 7

Current activities in the area -state of pollution

3010 10 10

Distance from residential areas 20 1 3 3

Visual isolation 40 10 10 10

Implementation criteria 40 5,3 2,5 2,5


12/64




Criterion descriptionRelevant

significance (%)Scores


Road accessibility 30 8 6 6

Distance from main wastegenerators (on average)

303 1 1

Level of public acceptance 40 5 1 1

Financial criteria 35 5 5 5

Land value 40 5 5 5

Cost for waste transfer 60 5 5 5

TOTAL SCORE 5,80 4,80 4,80

The comparative examination of the locations resulted to the conclusion that the MBT andsorting plant should be constructed in Fagaras mainly due to:

Its visual isolation

Public acceptance

It will not influence significantly the environmental conditions in the area

Its good road accesibility

Its closeness to the main waste generator

Concerning the location of the other transfer station, its selection was made after the Countywas distributed in the waste management zones.

The examination of the available public land resulted in the following location for new transferstation, which will be developed in Rupea (Zone 5) and is 82 km far from the Tarlungeni site.

8.6 Waste management alternatives

8.6.1 Introduction

It is considered of prior importance that the selected options for each waste management stageare in line with the needs and restriction of the upstream / downstream activities. In other words,waste treatment technology depends on the collection scheme that will be selected. Thereforethe alternatives that will be examined in this section shall refer on system alternative and not ona stage by stage alternative. Certainly, where applicable the analysis will refer to more specificcharacteristics of the waste management practice.

8.6.2 Collection and transport

8.6.2.1 Introduction

Currently (2012) the connection rates regarding waste collection are 100% for both urban andrural areas. Therefore the main target is to maintain the above percentages and upgrade andmodernize the existing collection and transportation equipment (receptacles, containers andtrucks).

The municipal solid waste generated in Brasov county and need to be collected is


13/64




approximately 191.200 tn/year (in 2016).

As presented in Annex 8.3 the demand in waste bin volume, for the collection of recyclablesand other waste (selective collection) is 6.841 m3(total need is 10.721 m3). Similarly for wastetrucks the required additional volume is 592 m3(total demand is 1.228 m3).

As the development of the selective collection system in Brasov County is one of the frameworkobjectives and the main mean to fulfil the targets related to recycling (selective collection also

contributes to the target related to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills) it is veryimportant to decide on the type of collection scheme to be implemented. More specifically,initially the number of differently coloured bins to collect different waste streams should bedetermined.

In principle the collection system in all areas should move from mixed waste collection toselective collection as it is imposed by the recent waste framework Directive (2008/98/EC). Therecently adopted legislation (GD247/2011), requests the selective collection system to includeat least the separate collection of the following fractions:

Paper/cardboard

Glass

Rest recyclables

Rest waste

Considering the above it is proposed that until 2014, the existing systems to be maintained andbe expanded in the areas not already covered and also be expanded in relation to therequirements of the new legislation for selective of recyclables in at least 3 fractions. In the ruralareas of the county 2-3 bins for the separate collection of glass will be used in each commune(at the central points of the communes, schools etc).

Based on the above, collection in 4 fractions (paper, glass, rest recyclables and wet fraction) willbe implemented in all Zones.

With respect to the similar to household waste from institutions and commerce, the separatedcollection as implemented by the institutions will continue, otherwise they will be incorporated inthe collection scheme of household waste.

In the rural areas home-composting is also promoted. More specifically, the aim is thatapproximately 30% of the organic waste generated in the rural areas will be home-composted.

Following several other aspects, such as bin and truck type, size, etc, are examined, which arenot included in the overall comparable analysis but are dealt with separately.

8.6.2.2 Container type, size, volume and colour

The priority is to successfully manage capacity and taking into account that: limiting the capacityfor the activity that you want to discourage, enhancing capacity for the activities that you want toencourage.

The size of waste container is dependent primarily on how many people are served. Wherelarge shared waste bins are allocated, the actual number required will depend on size and type

of units and anticipated occupancy.

In bring systems, the householders transport the materials from their home, whereas in kerbsidecollection they are collected from the home. In reality however, bring and kerbsides are just thetwo ends of a spectrum of collection methods. In order to decide which system is better, thefollowing elements were examined:

Kerbside collection is the most common method for collection of waste from lowrise buildingsand the sort system requires a separate box for collections of dry recyclables such as paper,


14/64




aluminium and steel cans, plastic bottles, glass and textiles. The materials are sorted at thekerbside usually into a compartmentalised vehicle. This system can be useful in areas with arelatively small population. Where a large number of households (i.e. in urban areas) require aseparate collection however, this system may prove inefficient. The kerbside sort system mayalso be inappropriate in narrow streets and areas with traffic congestion problems, or in areaswith cold and rainy climates, such as Brasov. The collection in kerbside systems is labourintensive, and requires more operatives per collection round than for instance a wet-dry fraction

collection as well as increase collection time. In areas where traffic congestion is a problem,traffic can build up behind the collection vehicle. For this reason, this system may not besuitable for urban areas. Finally, kerbside collection is related with higher investment andoperational cost (more bins per household and more trucks, due to higher collection timeneeded)

On the other hand the bring collection system is simple to use. This generally means that all dry(recyclables) and wet streams are collected each unsorted in different single containers. Thissystem would be suitable in most areas where there is a clearly defined kerbside area forhouseholders to leave their materials for collection. These systems allow faster and moreefficient collections.

Based on the above the bring system especially for recyclables is consider suitable for Brasovcounty, especially for recyclables.

Smaller containers with limited capacity must be collected more frequently to ensure that asmuch of the recyclable fraction is captured as possible. Boxes generally require a more frequentuplift service than bins, unless more than one box is provided. If collections are, monthly,fortnightly or even weekly, a bin may be the most suitable container because it provides morecapacity than a box and can be stored outside of the house or group of houses (assuming thereis space).

With respect to the type of receptacles to be used for collection, the following are proposed forBrasov County:

Bins of 120 lt/ 240 lt for bring system collection

Containers of 1,1 m3 for collection of recyclables and in block of flats (for separate papercollection 660 lt receptacle may also be employed)

Bell containers for separate glass collection of 1,5 m3may be used

It is proposed to use plastic bins which are cheaper and easier to be handled during thecollection as they are lighter.

Bins already existing and which are in good condition will be maintained.

In relation to homecomposting the citizens in rural areas will be provided with 220 lt specializedhomecomposters in order to use them for the composting of the biodegradable waste theygenerate.

8.6.2.3 Frequency of collection

Collection frequency typically is designed in conjunction with other factors such as existing

refuse collection schedules and container types provided, as well as the designed capacities ofthe transfer stations. Higher recovery rates tend to be achieved with more frequent collectionsand when recyclables are collected on the same day as the normal refuse.

Smaller containers with limited capacity must be collected frequently to ensure that as much ofthe recyclable fraction is captured as possible.

Regarding urban areas, the waste collection frequency for recyclables will be at least 1 2 daysper week while for the wet and biodegradable fraction the frequency will be more often so as the


15/64




waste not to stay in the receptacle for more than 2 days (especially during summer time).

Regarding rural areas, the waste collection frequency for recyclables will be at least 2 4 timesper month while for the wet and biodegradable fraction the frequency will be more often so asthe waste not to stay in the receptacles for more than 3 days (especially during summer time).

For glass collection the frequency can be 1 time per week, in both urban and rural areas.

In any case the logistics and the collection frequency will be optimised by the operator as soon

as the system begins to operate.

8.6.2.4 Vehicles Required for Waste Collection

Compaction trucks are the economically most suitable vehicles for the proposed door-to-doorcollection in the conventional areas and in the low and medium density residential areas.

There has been a trend throughout Europe over the last 30 years, for municipal solid wastecollection vehicles to become larger in size. That trend has been coupled with an increase incomplexity and higher compaction ratios. However, that increase in size has raised issues ofmanoeuvrability in congested streets, road safety issues, noise, and the environmental impactof such large trucks. For the proposed collection scheme in Brasov the following vehicle typesare examined.

Table 8-4: Truck types examinedVehicle Type rear loader with internal compactor

Capacity 12 m3, 16 m

3

Tonnage 9tn, 6,5tn

Cost of 1 compact vehicle, 12m3 100.000,00 (EURO) (with out taxes)

Cost of 1 compact vehicle, 16m3 115.000,00 (EURO) (with out taxes)

The 12m3 vehicle for rural and the 16m3 urban areas was selected considering the bestavailable option combining capital and functional cost, daily and future collection needs, transferstations accessibility, manoeuvrability.

In the calculation of investment needs that follow, the chosen vehicles have the characteristicsbelow:

Rear loader with internal compactor

Capacity 16m3for urban and 12m3for rural areas

Payload 6,5tn for 12m3vehicles and 9,0tn for 16m3

Compaction factor 1:4 1:5

Fill factor 90%

Figure 8-2: The typical compaction truck


16/64




In densely populated areas, vehicles move more slowly as many stops have to be made withina short distance but this means that collection rounds are relatively short in terms of totalmileage. Less densely populated areas require less frequent stops, which may allow vehicles tomove faster, but are likely to involve longer distances to cover all the properties in the area.Therefore the number of properties it is possible to serve in a day will affect the total number ofvehicles and operatives required. In high density population areas the distance to the nearestcontainer is less than 180m.

8.6.2.5 Conclusions

The following table presents the results of the calculations (presented in Annex 8.3), whichgroups equipment needs by zone. The demand in waste bin volume, for the collection ofrecyclables and other waste (selective collection) is 6.841 m3 (total demand is 10.721 m3).Similarly for waste trucks the required additional volume is 592 m3 (total demand is 1.228 m3).

It is noted that all bins have been calculated to correspond to 1,1 m3bins for recyclables, 1,5 m3bins for glass,120 lt bins in rural areas (for wet fraction) and 240 lt bins in urban areas (for wetfraction) and trucks to 16m3in urban areas and 12 m3 in rural areas.

Table 8-5: Collection needs in Brasov County

Bins

Necessarycapacity

Availablecapacity

Additionalnecessarycapacity

Number of additional bins needed Cost ofadditionalbins

(m3) (m

3) (m

3) 120lt 240lt 1,1m

3 1,5m

3 ()

Zone 1 Brasov 8.365 2.860 5.505 1.376 7.271 1.686 1.160 1.621.000

Zone 2 Fagaras 1.323 249 1.074 662 763 697 30 200.675

Zone 3 Prejmer 418 354 64 445 0 0 7 16.725

Zone 4 Victoria 261 193 68 116 182 0 7 17.600

Zone 5 Rupea 354 224 130 385 93 30 19 34.725

Total 10.721 3.880 6.841 2.984 8.309 2.413 1.223 1.890.725

Trucks

Necessarycapacity

Availablecapacity

Additionalnecessarycapacity

Number of additional trucksneeded

Cost ofadditional

trucks

(m3) (m

3) (m

3) 12 m

3 16 m

3 ()

Total 1.228 636 509 8 31 4.365.000

In Annex 8.3 and indicative distribution of the bins per locality is presented. It is noted that this isa preliminary indication of the bins distribution and the final distribution should be decided by thelocal authorities and the respective waste collection operators.

The trucks will be requested to be provided by the operator, when the respective operationtenders will be published.

It is noted that according to the waste projections the waste quantity in Brasov county is notexpected to be increased significantly until 2040 (approx. 40.000 tn/year in total). Therefore thecollection of the additional waste quantities may be achieved via the optimization of thecollection logistics and not by the purchase of additional equipment. In any case new equipmentwill have to be purchased as soon as the existing ones complete their lifetime.


17/64




The same applies for the possibility to expand the selective collection schemes to 4-binsystems. This can also be implemented easily via the optimization of the waste logistics, withoutthe need to purchase additional bins or even change the configuration of the sorting plant.

With respect to homecomposting the citizens in rural areas will be provided with approximately10.900 specialized homecomposters of 220 lt capacity in order to treat at home thebiodegradable waste they generate (approximately 2.500 tn of waste is expected to behomecomposted). The homecomposting will be applied mainly to waste from fruits, vegetables,

wet paper, domestic flowers, coffee and other drinks, eggs, green waste etc. Dairy, meat and oilwaste should be avoided as they attract bugs, vermins, rodents, etc. All zones will be benefitedfrom the homecomposter:

Zone 1: 4.700 homecomposters



Zone 4: 400 homecomposters


The cost for homecomposters will be approximately 218.000 .

8.6.3 Transfer stations

There are three transfer stations in the county, 1 in Rasnov of capacity of 19.300 tn/y, one inPrejmer of capacity of 3.700 tn/y and one in Victoria of capacity of 2.700 tn/y (this TS in notoperational). It is noted that the TS in Rasnov will no longer be in operation according to thedecision of its owner.

As already mentioned, 1 new transfer station will be constructed in Rupea with total capacity of4.300 tn/y, serving the northern part of the county.

The transfer station that will be constructed will have the capacity to cover the waste generationneeds in the respective zone, namely:

Transfer station in Rupea: total capacity 4.300 tn/year, 2.500 tn/y of wet fraction, 1.300

tn/y of recyclables and 500tn/y of street sweeping wasteIn relation to the transfer station proposed to constructed in Rupea, which will have a relativelylow capacity (approx 4.300 tn/y for the design year 2016), a separate financial analysis iscarried out in order to examine the need of this transfer station. The main assumptions used forthe analysis are the following:

Assumptions for Option A: Transportation of the waste generated in this Zone tothe new waste treatment facility to be developed in the future via a transferstation in Rupea

o Distance between Rupea TS to Tarlungeni (possible location of future treatmentfacility): 82km

o Average distance covered by the trucks for waste collection: 25km per collection

dayo Cost for collection and transportation of the waste to Rupea: 36/tn

o Investment cost for the construction of the transfer station: 961.955 (constant2012 prices)

o Operation cost of the TS (including the transport to the new treatment facility inTarlungeni): 39,9/tn


18/64




Assumptions for Option B: Direct transportation of the waste generated in thisZone to the waste treatment facility in Tarlungeni

o Cost for collection and transportation of the waste directly to Tarlungeni:108,3/tn. This figure derives considering that:

The transport cost correspond to approx 35% of the primary collection cost (i.e.approx 12,6/tn of the 36/tn). In Option B the trucks will need to transport the

waste an additional distance of 82 km (one way), compared to the averagedistance of 25km per collection day and it is assumed that for these additional82km the transportation cost is 75% higher than the average 12,6/tncorresponding to 25km (taking into account also that the trucks will need to traveladditional 82km to return to their base).

In both options it is assumed that the same number of trucks will be necessary to be acquired,but in option B it is assumed that these trucks will need to be replaced every 6 years, while forOption A every 8 years.

Considering the above mentioned assumptions, the financial comparison of the two optionsrevealed that:

FNPV (@ 5%) of Option A: 5.668.424 FNPV (@ 5%) of Option B: 6.549.158

Therefore it appears that option A seems to give better financial results that Option B and theconstruction of the Rupea TS will be for the benefit and cost effectiveness of the project.

In Annex 8.4 an analysis of the existing transfer station schemes is presented, based on whichthe selection of the specific transfer station technology was carried out. The following tablepresents the comparative analysis of the different systems.

Table 8-6: Comparative analysis of alternative transfer station systems

Advantages Disadvantages Comments

Direct dischargenon-compaction

station

shutdown is unlikely, due tolittle hydraulic equipment

used

less cost intensive

easy drive througharrangement

simple equipment needed

less requirement for waste

handling

larger trailers than

compaction stations Dropping bulky items

directly into trailers candamage trailers

Number andavailability of stalls

may not be adequateto allow direct dumping

during peak periods

Requires bi-levelconstruction

Hygiene, odour andaesthetic issues

Non waste volumereduction

Increase transferstation surface

Requires specialequipment for the

waste arrangement

This solution is notproposed mainly due

to the fact that thewaste volume is notreduced, minimizingthe benefits from the

TS operation

Also the hygieneodour and aestheticissues related to this

TS type are quitesignificant


19/64





within the container

Does not allowrecovery of material

Far more vehiculartrips and increased

transport costs, than in

the compactionalternative

Pit or Platform

Non-compactionStations

Convenient and efficientwaste storage area is

provided.

Uncompacted waste can becrushed by bulldozer in pit

or on platform.

Top-loading trailers are lessexpensive than compaction

trailers.

Peak loads can be handledeasily.

easy drive througharrangement

Simplicity of operation andequipment minimizespotential for station

shutdown.

Can allow recovery ofmaterials

Non waste volumereduction

Higher capital cost,compared to other non

compactionalternatives, forstructure andequipment.

Increased floor area tomaintain.

Requires larger trailersthan compactionstation

Increase wastehandling

Hygiene, odour andaesthetic issues

Far more vehiculartrips and increased

transport costs, than inthe compaction

alternative

This solution is notproposed mainly due

to the fact that thewaste volume is notreduced, minimizing

the benefits from theTS operation

Also the hygieneodour and aestheticissues related to this

TS type are quitesignificant

CompactionStation withcompactor

Less cost intensive thanpress containers for largertransfer stations of morethan 200 tn/day capacity

Waste volume reduction

High level of environmentaland health protection

No temporary wastestorage

Smaller trailers needed

Extrusion/log compactorscan maximize payloads in

lighter trailers. Far less vehicular trips and

reduced transport costs,than in the non-compaction

alternative

More cost intensive

than non-compactionstations

Operation problem ifthe compact does not

operate

Not very flexible interms of increase ofthe station capacity

since it is highlydependent on the

compact

Compactor capacitymay not be adequate

for peak flow needfor the waste trucks to

wait

Cost to operate andmaintain compactors is

high

It is preferable tonon-compaction

stations and also forlarge TS, but notproposed for thetransfer station in

Rupea which havecapacity of less than170-200 tn/day andthe financial data

indicate that this type

of station is moreexpensive

Compaction Less cost intensive than More cost intensive It is preferable for the


20/64





Station withpress container

compactors for smallertransfer stations of lessthan 200 tn/day capacity

Waste volume reduction

High level of environmentaland health protection

No temporary wastestorage

Flexible in the increase ofthe capacity via the

purchase of additionalpress containers

Smaller trailers needed

Far less vehicular trips andreduced transport costs,

than in the non-compactionalternative

Each container has its own

compactor. No problem if acontainer fails, because youcan proceed with the

transfer operation using theothers.

Simplicity of operation andequipment minimizespotential for station

shutdown

No need for skilledoperators in the transfer

station

than non-compactionstations

Transport cost fromtransfer station to

central facility higher,since the container has

the additional burdenof the press

Increased capital costcompared to staticcompactors in large

incoming wastequantities (more than

200 tn/day).

Difficult to manage inlarge incoming wastequantities (more than

200 tn/day).

transfer station inRupea which has

capacity of less than170 - 200 tn/day and

the financial dataindicate that this type

of station is lessexpensive than thecompactor stations

HopperCompaction

Station

Aforementionedadvantages for compaction

stations

Aforementionedadvantages for

compaction stations

It is less cost

intensive than pushpit compaction

station and hencepreferable

Push PitCompaction

Station

Aforementionedadvantages for compaction

stations

Pit provides waste storageduring peak periods

Increased opportunity forrecovery of materials

Aforementionedadvantages for

compaction stations

Increase capital cost

It is more costintensive than hopper

compaction stationand hence not

proposed

The comparative assessment of the alternative systems indicated that the direct dischargecompaction station (via hopper) using press container is preferable mainly for the followingreasons:

Press containers are less cost intensive than compaction station with stable compactorfor this level of TS capacity

Hopper stations are less cost intensive than push pit stations


21/64




The small incoming waste quantities in Rupea (less than 20 tn/day) indicate that presscontainers are more cost efficient than static compactors.

Compaction stations are preferable from non-compaction stations mainly due to the factthat the waste volume is not reduced in non-compaction stations, minimizing the benefitsfrom the TS operation. Also the hygiene odour and aesthetic issues related to the non-compaction stations are quite significant.

The Long drive routes (82 km from Rupea) indicate that compaction is absolutelynecessary.

A separate financial analysis is carried out in order to examine the type of transfer station,namely with or without compaction. The main assumptions used for the analysis are presentedin the following table

Table 8-7: Main assumptions used for the analysis of the need to develop TS with wastecompaction

Parameters

Rupea TS

Option I: WithCompaction

Option II: WithoutCompaction

Capacity - tn/y 4.300 4.300

Distance to the disposal/treatment - km 82 82

Investment cost (excl containers and trucks) - (constant2012 prices)

521.955 521.955

Investment cost for the containers - (constant 2012 prices)

4 presscontainers of24m

3, with

price of45.000 each =180.000 EUR

6 skip containersof 32m

3, with price

of 5.000 each =30.000 EUR

Investment cost for the hauling trucks - (constant 2012

prices)

2 haulingtrucks, with

price of

130.000 each= 260.000EUR

3 hauling trucks,with price of

130.000 each =390.000 EUR

Operation cost (including the transport to the treatment plantin Tarlungeni)- /tn

39,9

43,9

10% increasecompared to option

A due to morepersonnel (driversneeded) as will tothe more routes to

thedisposal/treatment

that need to bemade

Considering the above mentioned assumptions, the financial comparison of the two optionsrevealed that:

FNPV (@ 5%) of Option I: 3.303.915

FNPV (@ 5%) of Option II: 3.305.439


22/64




Therefore it appears that option I seems to give better financial results than Option II and the TSshould include waste compaction.

Due to the above mentioned characteristics of the designed transfer stations, it is economicallymore efficient to compact waste in order to reduce transfer costs and to use press containers inorder to reduce capital costs.

The specific design of the transfer station is presented in section 8.11.1.

8.6.4 Recovery of recyclable material

The following table presents the targets that need to be fulfilled in relation to therecovery/recycling of the packaging waste.

Table 8-8: Targets for the recovery/recycling of packaging waste

Quantity of packaging waste(tons)

2013 2014 2015 2016

Paper and cardboard 10.822 10.931 11.040 11.150

Plastic 4.979 5.028 5.079 5.130

Glass 7.201 7.273 7.346 7.420Metals 2.481 2.506 2.531 2.556

Wood 996 1.006 1.016 1.026

Total recycling 36.879 37.248 37.620 37.996

Total recovery 40.232 40.634 41.040 41.451

Packaging material in Brasov County is approximately 69.100 tn/year, which is distributed to thevarious recyclable fractions as indicated in the following figure.

Figure 8-3: Distribution of packaging waste per recyclable

How the recyclable material will be recovered shall depend on the collection system. Currentlysignificant fraction of approximately 26.800 tn/year of recyclables is recovered, in the existingsorting plants in Brasov and Prejmer.


23/64




In Annex 8.5, the mechanical separation technologies are listed. Considering the fact that nosorting capacities exist to cover the needs of the central-eastern part of the county it isproposed that 1 sorting station to be developed in Fagaras, in order to cover the recovery /recycling needs of this area (Zone 2). The sorting plant will accept the content of the recyclablebins collected in Zone 2. The estimated capacity of the sorting plant is 5.800 tn/year. The outputof this sorting plant will be:

Paper and cardboard

Ferrous metals and aluminium

Different types of plastics

Glass

With respect to the wood (approximately 6.800 tn/year), it is mainly generated by thecommercial and industrial facilities. The wood will be separated by these facilities and it will bedelivered to the utilization plants (the recovery target is 1.026 tn for 2016). Therefore there is noneed to separate the wood fraction in the sorting plant.

The fractions produced in the sorting plant will be relatively pure, since their primary collection ismade separately from the biodegradable fraction of the waste. They will be delivered in theexisting recycling firms, already active in Brasov County and the new firms that will definitely be

developed as soon as the system begins to operate.The specific design of the sorting plant is described in section 8.11.3 and is based on thefollowing criteria:

Available waste quantities

Limited budget

Need for simple and modular treatment technology

Employment opportunities (e.g. new positions for handsorters)

Typical quality demands of end user of recovered secondary products

8.6.5 Treatment of biodegradable waste

The targets related to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill are the following:

In 2016 the quantity of the biodegradable waste that should diverted from landfills is71.821 tn out of the 119.297 tn generated in the same year

Currently only 3.800tn/year (2.100 tn/y are estimated to actually be treated in this plant) ofwaste is treated to produce compost in the existing plant in Victoria. Hence it can be assumedthat biodegradable waste treatment in Brasov county starts from zero and the diversion needsare the ones presented previously.

As already mentioned the treatment of the biggest part of waste (corresponding to approx75.700 tn/y) will be developed (and is outside the scope of this study). This future plant isforeseen to include the development of a Waste to Energy plant at a regional/micro-regionallevel (exceeding the limits of Brasov County).

This section refers solely to the development of a small plant in the northern part of the countyin order to avoid the transportation of these waste quantities to the future treatment facility orlandfill in Sacele.

The separate collection scheme already presented will be the basis for the development of thealternative options for the further treatment of the biodegradable (wet) fraction of municipalwaste.

Initially the screening of the alternative options for the waste treatment is carried out. The


24/64




current waste management priorities of the authorities are to implement low-cost simpletechnologies, affordable to the served population. Also considering the very low wastequantities to be treated (less than 10.000 tn/y), option of the development of the WtE plant is notfinancially viable and thus it is excluded from the analysis.

In this respect the following alternative options are examined (their description is presented inAnnex 8.6 and mass balances in 8.7), noting that they refer only to the northern part of theCounty namely Zone 2 Fagaras and Zone 4 Victoria, while the rest of the county will be

served by the future facility that will be developed and is not part of the analysis:

Option 1:Simple MBT plant consisting of mechanical pretreatment (shreddings, sieving,etc) and recovery of metals and aerobic digestion (composting) for the production of CLO.The existing composting plant in Victoria will also be maintained. The following diagrammpresents the mass flow of this option.

Simple MBT Plant Composting

LandfillMaterial recyclingFacility / Companies 4.900 tn/y

CLO/compost

3.900 tn/y

2.800tn/y

Home-composting

Street sweepingZone 2: 2.300 tn/yZone 5: 550 tn/y

2.850 tn/y

Ferrous metals

200 tn/y

Zone 2: FAGARAS17.150 tn/year

500 tn/y

5.250 tn/y 9.100 tn/y

Zone 5: VICTORIA3.900 tn/year

100 tn/y

2.100 tn/y

3.600 tn/y

recyclables

1.150 tn/y

Figure 8-4: Mass balance of option 1

Option 2: Mechanical biological treatment of the waste, consisting of mechanicalpretreatment (shreddings, sieving, etc), recovery of metals and production of secondary fuel(RDF) aerobic digestion (composting) for the production of CLO. The existing compostingplant in Victoria will also be maintained. The following diagramm presents the mass flow of

this option.


25/64


26/64


27/64




MBT Plant (AD) Composting

LandfillMaterial recyclingFacility / Companies

2.500tn/y

CLO/compost

3.900 tn/y

2.800 tn/y

Home-composting

Street sweepingZone 2: 2.300 tn/yZone 5: 550 tn/y

2.850 tn/y

Ferrous metals

200 tn/y

Zone 2: FAGARAS17.150 tn/year

500 tn/y

5.250 tn/y 9.100 tn/y

Zone 5: VICTORIA3.900 tn/year

100 tn/y

2.100 tn/y

3.600 tn/y

recyclables

1.150 tn/y

Energy from Biogas

1.500MWh/y

Figure 8-7: Mass balance of option 4

The following technical assumptions have been used in the elaboration of the scenarios:

Mechanical pretreatment and composting

o Losses of volatiles and water during biological treatment 15% of input

o Production of CLO approximately 32% of inputo Recovery of ferrous metals approximately 50% of incoming ferrous metals

o Residues the rest

o Approx 15% of the incoming organic waste is assumed not to have beenstabilized and ends up in the landfill

o Approx 50% of the CLO is assumed to be utilized for some purposes while therest will end up in the landfill

Mechanical pretreatment for the production of RDF and composting


o Production of CLO approximately 26% of input

o Recovery of ferrous metals approximately 50% of incoming ferrous metals

o Production of RDF approximately 19% of input

o Residues the rest



28/64




o Approx 50% of the CLO is assumed to be utilized for some purposes while therest will end up in the landfill

Mechanical pretreatment and production of secondary fuel (SRF) via aerobic treatment


o Production of SRF approximately 45% of input

o

Recovery of ferrous metals approximately 50% of incoming ferrous metalso Residues the rest


Mechanical pretreatment / anaerobic digestion and composting of digestate

o Water is needed in order to reach humidity of 70% prior to digestion. It isconsidered that the water needs are around 0,3 tn of water / tn of waste input(which consists of residual bin content)

o Losses of volatiles and water during biological treatment 35% of total input(waste and water)

o

Material concerted to biogas approximately 8% of total input (waste and water)o Energy produced from biogas approx 130 kwh/ input to digestion (water and

waste)

o Production of CLO approximately 25% of total input (waste and water)

o Recovery of ferrous metals approximately 50% of incoming ferrous metals

o Water recycling approx 50% of water input

o Residues the rest

o Approx 5% of the incoming organic waste is assumed not to have been stabilizedand ends up in the landfill

o Approx 50% of the CLO is assumed to be utilized for some purposes while the

rest will end up in the landfill

8.6.6 Waste landfill

As it has already been mentioned there is already one (1) county sanitary landfill in operation inSacele. This landfill will be integrated in the project and serve the whole county.

8.6.7 Compatibility-check of chosen options in the integrated wastemanagement system

As described in the previous sections, the proposed integrated solid waste management systemcovers all aspects and management needs of the solid municipal waste generated in the BrasovCounty. The system covers the whole life-cycle of waste management, namely:

Waste collection and transportation

Treatment of biodegradable fraction

Recovery and utilization of the recyclables

Safe disposal of the residues

All downstream activities are based on the selected collection scheme, namely the separatewaste collection in a 4-bin system. Based on the collection system the sorting stations to be


29/64




constructed seeks to separate the different types of recyclables (metals, glass, plastic andpaper / cardboard) in order to allow their utilization by the recycling companies.

Similarly the treatment plant seeks to treat the biodegradable fraction of the waste, which isseparately collected in the wet bin, in order to minimize the biodegradable waste that end up inthe landfill. The proposed systems are absolutely compatible with each other and in fact thehigher efficiency of the selective collection system will result in the optimization of the operationof the sorting and treatment plant and the maximization of the utilization of the secondary

products. The separate collection results in:

Improvement of the quality of the recyclables, which contain less impurities

The landfill that will be used is the final stage of the integrated system and it will receive the nonhazardous residues that will be generated by the sorting and treatment plants or the mixedwaste generated. The fact that the greatest majority of the waste that will be disposed off in thelandfill will be treated, results in reduced level of biodegradability, restricts the potentialenvironmental impacts from the landfill operation, which are mainly related with the generationof leachate and biogas.

Based on the above it is apparent that each component of the integrated system is in perfectcorrelation with the activities that follow in order to maximize the cost efficiency and

environmental benefits of the system.

8.6.8 Evaluation of alternative options

Main technical elements

The following section provides an overview of the proposed integrated waste managementsystem (including waste collection, transport and recycling, which have been analyzed in theprevious sections) and the alternative options examined in relation to the treatment of thebiodegradable fraction of the waste in the northern part of the county.

Measures for waste prevention (same for all options):

o Homecomposting of 2.500 tn/y of organic waste in the rural areas

Proposed waste collection scheme (same for all options)o Collection in 4 bin system: the system includes selective collection in the

following fractions: paper/cardboard, glass, plastic/metals and wet(biodegradable) fraction.

Proposed Transfer stations network (same for all options)

o One transfer station already existing in Prejmer (Zone 4), with total capacity2.300 tn/year

o One transfer station already existing in Victoria (Zone 5), with total capacity 1.900tn/year

o One transfer station to be developed in Rupea (Zone 6), with total capacity 4.300

tn/yearo 1 temporary storage area in Majerus equipped with 3 containers, 1 hauling truck

and 1 loader, which will be developed considering the high tourist potential ofthese areas

Proposed system for collection of recyclables (same for all options)

o Approx 29% of the total waste, which will be collected in the recyclables bins willbe sorted in the sorting stations already developed in Brasov (2 stations with


30/64




private operators) (Zone 1). The capacity for these sorting plants is 55.500tn/year and will produce 26.400 tn/year of recyclables and 29.100 tn/year ofresidues

o Approx. 3% of the total waste which will be collected in the recyclables bins inZones 2 and 5, will be sorted in the sorting plant to be developed in Fagaras. Thecapacity for this sorting plant is 5.800 tn/year and will produce 3.000 tn/year ofrecyclables and 2.800 tn/year of residues

o Approx. 0,5% of the total waste which will be collected in the recyclables bins inZone 4, will be sorted in the existing sorting plant in Prejmer. The capacity for thissorting plant is 1.000 tn/year and will produce 500 tn/year of recyclables and 500tn/year of residues

o Approx. 5,0% of the total waste which will be separated directly from theinstitutions will be forwarded directly to the recycling companies

o The materials that will be recovered include metal, glass, paper/cardboard, andplastic

o All residues that will be generated will end up in the landfill

Alternative options for the treatment of the biodegradable fraction of the waste:

The following table presents the options under evaluation for the treatment of waste inthe northern part of the County and includes also the overall disposal needs, which arerelated to each option. It is noted that for the rest of the County, a facility will bedeveloped in the future, which is not within the scope of this project. This future plant isforeseen to include the development of a Waste to Energy plant at a regional/micro-regional level (exceeding the limits of Brasov County). In this respect approx 75.700 tn/yof waste will be treated in this facility.


31/64

CHAPTER 8

Sprijin pentru AM POS Mediu n vederea pregtirii portofoliului de proiecte finanate prin Axa 2 din POS MedConsoriul EPEM Grecia/ISPE RomniaFEASIBILITY STUDY BRASOV COUNTY

Table 8-9: Alternative options under evaluation

TREATMENT OF BIODEGRADABLE FRACTION OF

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Simple MBT plant (aerobic treatment,

production of CLO) in Fagaras (Zone 2).Capacity: 9.100 tn/year and will produce 2.900tn/year of CLO, 200 tn/year of metals and 4.600tn/year of residues. The residues will end up in

the landfill of Zone 1 (Sacele)

MBT plant (aerobic treatment, production

of CLO and RDF) in Fagaras (Zone 2).Capacity: 9.100 tn/year and will produce2.400 tn/year of CLO, 1.700 tn/y of RDF,200 tn/year of metals and 3.500 tn/yearof residues. The residues will end up in

the landfill of Zone 1 (Sacele)

MBT plant (biodrying, production of

SRF) in Fagaras (Zone 2). Capacity:9.100 tn/year and will produce 4.100

tn/y of SRF, 200 tn/year of metals and2.600 tn/year of residues. The residues

will end up in the landfill of Zone 1(Sacele)

t

Existing composting plant (aerobic treatment, production of compost) in Victoria (Zone 5). Capacity is 2.100 tn/year and will produce 1.00residues. The residues will end up in the landfill of Zone 1 (Sacele)

WASTE DISPOSAL

The existing landfill in Sacele will be used for the disposal of the residues. The annual disposal needs are (referring to the total asystem and separated, per waste treatment option):

o Option 1: 67.800 tn/y





32/64




Financial elements

Following the investment and operation costs as well as the revenues for all options arepresented.

Investment costs

Investment costs are needed for all stages of waste management, from waste collection to

waste disposal. These costs include:

Bins for waste collection: the respective costs are presented in Table 8-5 and refer to1.890.725 for bins and 4.365.000 for trucks (the trucks however are not included in theanalysis as they will be provided by the operator). For homecomposting bins the total costswill be 218.000 Euro

Transfer stations: No investments are necessary for the existing transfer stations inPrejmer, while the transfer station in Victoria, will require investments only for theequipment (containers and hauling trucks). The following table presents the estimated costsfor the transfer stations in Rupea and Victoria. These unit costs are based on the Romanianand international experience as well as recent prices from waste equipment suppliers(several transfer stations with similar capacities have been designed in Romania and therespective costs are utilized).

Table 8-10: Transfer stations investment cost (constant 2012 prices)

Capacity (tn/year) Total cost (Euro)

Rupea 4.300 961.955 (45% referring to civil works)

Victoria (only equipment) 1.900 51.750

Total 1.013.705

Temporary storage areas: one temporary storage areas will be developed, which willrequire the development of a platform equipped with 3 containers, 1 hauling truck and oneloader. The cost of the area is considered at approximately 441.113 Euro.

Sorting plants: No investments are necessary for the existing sorting plants in Brasov andPrejmer. The following table presents the estimated costs for the sorting plant to bedeveloped in Fagaras. These unit costs are based on the Romanian and internationalexperience as well as recent prices from waste equipment suppliers (several sorting plantswith similar capacities have been designed in Romania and the respective costs areutilized).

Table 8-11: Sorting plants investment cost (constant 2012 prices)

Capacity (tn/year) Total cost (Euro)

Fagaras 5.800 2.367.400 (35% referring to civil works)

Total 2.367.400

Waste treatment plants: No investments are necessary for the existing composting plantin Victoria. The following table presents the estimated costs for the treatment plant to bedeveloped in Fagaras. The costs refer in each option under examination separately. Theseunit costs are based on the Romanian and international experience as well as recent pricesfrom waste equipment suppliers (recent studies of DG Environment, World Bank and otherorganizations are being utilized as well as designed facilities in Romania with similartechnologies and capacities).


33/64




Table 8-12: Waste treatment plants investment cost (constant 2012 prices)

Capacity (tn/year)Unit cost(/tn/year)

Total cost (Euro)

Option 1: Simple MBT (CLO) 9.100 489 4.450.490 (45% referring to civil works)

Option 2: MBT - RDF 9.100 550 5.005.000 (45% referring to civil works)

Option 3: -SRF 9.100 600 5.460.000 (40% referring to civil works)

Option 4: MBT - AD 9.100 800 7.280.000 (45% referring to civil works)

Waste disposal: No investments are necessary for the existing landfill in Sacele.

Closure of non compliant urban landfills: The following table presents the estimatedcosts for the closure of the existing non compliant landfills in Brasov County. These unitcosts are based on the Romanian and international experience.

Table 8-13: Closure of existing non-compliant landfills investment cost (constant 2012prices)

Total cost (Euro)

Rupea 853.756

Fagaras 1.085.759

Victoria 481.383

Codlea 715.176

Sacele 1.895.762

Rasnov 1.006.867

Total 6.038.703

It is noted that the aforementioned costs are estimation based on recent knowledge ofRomanian and international market as well as from the design of certain facilities (e.g. urbannon compliant landfills, sorting plants, etc).

Operation costs

Operation costs are needed for all stages of waste management, from waste collection to wastedisposal. The following table presents the operation costs in all the stages of the proposedwaste management system. The costs are based on the Romanian and internationalexperience as well as on the current operation costs of the companies that are active in BrasovCounty.

Table 8-14: Operation costs (constant 2012 prices)

Capacity Unit costs(/tn/year)

Total cost (/year)

Waste collection 188.700 tn/year 36 6.793.200

Transfer stations 11.500 tn/year 22,5 258.750

Sorting plants 62.300 tn/year 28 1.744.400


34/64




CapacityUnit costs(/tn/year)

Total cost (/year)

WASTE TREATMENT

Option 1: Simple MBT (CLO) 9.100 tn/y 53,3 485.030

Victoria composting plant 2.100 tn/y 10 21.000

Option 2: MBT RDF

9.100 tn/y60 (for facility) +3(for RDF disposalcorresponding to15/tn including

trasnport)

573.300


Option 3: -SRF

9.100 tn/y 65 (for facility) +7(for SRF disposalcorresponding to15/tn including

trasnport)

655.200


Option 4: MBT - AD 9.100 tn/y 70 637.000


Landfill depending on option 33,7 Depending on option

Urban non compliantlandfills monitoring

6 landfills 5.000 30.000

Revenues

Revenues are expected from the selling of the recyclables as well as the selling of the energywhere applicable. The analysis seeks to comparatively evaluate the alternative options,

therefore the revenues from waste management tariffs are not considered at this level. It isconsidered that the average price for recyclables is 35 Euro/tn (according to the prices forECOROM Ambalaje per recyclable material), the price for the energy is 68 Euro/MWh, for greenenergy is 40/Mwh (ANRE Order 44/2007) plus 40 /MWh from the certificates (market valuebetween 27-55 ) and the average price for heat is 23 Euro/Mwh (75% of the market pricewhich is 30/Mwh). No income is considered from the marketing of the CLO and the RDF/SRF,at least for the first years of the system implementation. The following table presents theestimated revenues for each option under examination.


35/64




Table 8-15: Revenues (/year Constant 2012 prices)

Option 1 Simple MBT Option 2: MBT RDF Option 3: MBT SRF Option 4: MBT - AD

Recyclables 1.051.814 1.051.814 1.051.814 1.051.814

Energy - - - 110.400

Total 1.051.814 1.051.814 1.051.814 1.162.214

Evaluation of Options

The following table presents the financial elements for each alternative option. It is noted thatthe investment cost are related to the costs of the main infrastructure to be developed,excluding contingencies, and cost of designs, public awareness etc. The ENPV is calculatedwith the help of the model that has been developed for waste projects in Romania.

Table 8-16: Financial performance of each option

Investment cost() constant

prices

Operationcost (/year) -

constantprices

Revenues(/year)-constant

prices

NPV@5% ()Dynamic

primecost (/tn)

ENPV @5,5%()

Ranking

Option 1 16.479.436 13.885.533 1.051.814 -219.542.493 103,00 5.193.669 1

Option 2 17.033.646 13.926.623 1.051.814 -220.718.891 103,55 4.489.031 2

Option 3 17.488.646 13.921.712 1.051.814 -221.168.421 103,77 4.269.764 3

Option 4 19.308.646 13.960.128 1.162.214 -222.418.637 104,35 3.430.452 4

As it can be seen in the table above the Option 1 (Simple MBT Option) presents the higherENPV and thus is considered to be the most preferable option.

8.7 Closure of existing non compliant landfills

8.7.1 General

As already mentioned in Chapter 7, the Brasov County has 6 non compliant landfills which willbe closed in the framework of the project.

The selection of the closure works is such in order to ensure:

That they are technically simple

That they are financially affordable

That they are environmentally efficient

That they respect the national legislation and specifications

In any case the selected solution, though it seeks to implement the least cost-intensive practiceachieves the necessary level of environmental protection and the improvement of thedeteriorated landscape.

Taking into account the estimated environmental risks associated with each dumpsite and thecost limitation, the following strategy will be implemented:

In situ remediation: top capping of the urban compliant landfills according to the relevantRomanian legislation


36/64




The main objectives of the designed capping system are to:

Minimize infiltration of water into the waste;

Promote surface drainage and maximize run off;

Control gas migration and;

Provide a physical separation between waste and plant and animal life.The capping system normally includes a number of components which are selected to meet theabove objectives. The principal function of the capping system is to minimize infiltration into thewaste and consequently reduce the amount of leachate being generated.

8.7.2

chap 8 brasov option analysis

Documents