-
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
2/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
2Sprijin 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 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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
3/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
3Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
4/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
4Sprijin 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
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-
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
5/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
5Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
6/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
6Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
7/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
7Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
8/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
8Sprijin 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
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
9/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
9Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
10/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
10Sprijin 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 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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
11/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
11Sprijin 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
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
Fagaras Sercaia Calbor
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
12/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
12Sprijin 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
Criterion descriptionRelevant
significance (%)Scores
Fagaras Sercaia Calbor
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
13/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
13Sprijin 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
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,
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
14/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
14Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
15/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
15Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
16/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
16Sprijin 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
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
17/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
17Sprijin 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
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 2: 2.300 homecomposters
Zone 3: 2.000 homecomposters
Zone 4: 400 homecomposters
Zone 5: 1.500 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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
18/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
18Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
19/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
19Sprijin 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
Advantages Disadvantages Comments
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
20/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
20Sprijin 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
Advantages Disadvantages Comments
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
21/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
21Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
22/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
22Sprijin 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
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
23/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
23Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
24/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
24Sprijin 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
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
25/64
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
26/64
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
27/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
27Sprijin 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
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 Losses of volatiles and water during biological treatment 15%
of input
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
o Approx 15% of the incoming organic waste is assumed not to
have beenstabilized and ends up in the landfill
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
28/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
28Sprijin 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
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 Losses of volatiles and water during biological treatment 25%
of input
o Production of SRF approximately 45% of input
o
Recovery of ferrous metals approximately 50% of incoming ferrous
metalso Residues the rest
o Approx 10% of the incoming organic waste is assumed not to
have beenstabilized and ends up in the landfill
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
29/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
29Sprijin 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
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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
30/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
30Sprijin 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
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
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
o Option 2: 66.600 tn/y
o Option 3: 65.700 tn/y
o Option 4: 65.400 tn/y
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
32/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
32Sprijin 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
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).
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
33/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
33Sprijin 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 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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
34/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
34Sprijin 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
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
Victoria composting plant 2.100 tn/y 10 21.000
Option 3: -SRF
9.100 tn/y 65 (for facility) +7(for SRF disposalcorresponding
to15/tn including
trasnport)
655.200
Victoria composting plant 2.100 tn/y 10 21.000
Option 4: MBT - AD 9.100 tn/y 70 637.000
Victoria composting plant 2.100 tn/y 10 21.000
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.
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
35/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
35Sprijin 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 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
-
8/13/2019 CHAP 8 Brasov Option Analysis
36/64
CHAPTER 8 OPTION ANALYSIS
36Sprijin 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
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