1 / 32

MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA Dr . Alexei Atudorei, Romanian Association of Solid Waste Management (ARS )

MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA Dr . Alexei Atudorei, Romanian Association of Solid Waste Management (ARS ) BOARD MEMBER - INTERNATIONAL SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION (ISWA). General Information Present situation on waste management Prognosis for 2013 , 2016 and 2020 Case Studies

pier
Download Presentation

MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA Dr . Alexei Atudorei, Romanian Association of Solid Waste Management (ARS )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA Dr. Alexei Atudorei, Romanian Association of Solid Waste Management (ARS) BOARD MEMBER - INTERNATIONAL SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION (ISWA)

  2. General Information • Present situation on waste management • Prognosis for 2013, 2016 and 2020 • Case Studies • Conclusions

  3. Location: Romania is situated in the south-east of Central Europe, in the lower Danube basin, bordering in East with the Black Sea • Area: 237,500 sq km • Population: 21,469,959 inhabitants (51.1% lives in urban areas) • Capital: Bucharest – 2,000,000 inhabitants • Romania is divided into 8 regions, 41 counties, including 423 towns and municipalities, 2,859 communes and 12,951 villages ROMANIA IS A MEMBER STATE OF EUROPEAN UNION FROM 2007

  4. Present situation on waste management • Romania join the EU in 2007 and the harmonization of legislation in waste management field has been completed, including transposition/translationof the UE Directive 2009/98/CE in Romanian legislation (Law 211/2011). • Transition periods have been granted to Romania by 2017 for certain types of landfills of waste, aiming compliance with EU Directives: municipal landfills – transition periods by 2017 (while temporary storage of industrial hazardous waste – 2009; industrial non-hazardous waste landfills – transition periods by 2013).

  5. DATA BASE

  6. The most important problems in municipal waste management in Romania are: • The collection of municipal waste is not generalized at the country level • Around 90% of the population is served by sanitation services at national level; the urban share is of 100% and in rural areas 80% • The amount of municipal waste collected by specialized services of the town halls or public health was 5.82 mill. tonnes • Total quantity estimated to be generated – 7.8 mill. tonnes. • The percentage of separate collection of municipal waste is about 4%. • 95% of MSW generated are disposed • 5% of MSW generated is recycled and recovered

  7. The improvement of the present situation couldbe realized through national programs cofinanced by EU, as are Sectorial Operational Program Environment 2007–2013 - Priority Axis 2 “Development of integrated waste management systems and rehabilitation of historically contaminated sites”. Objectives are: • Increase the population covered by municipal waste collection and management services of adequate quality and at affordable tariffs; • Reduce the quantity of landfilled waste; • Increase the quantity of recycled and reused waste; • Set up efficient waste management structures; • Reduce the number of historically contaminated sites.

  8. WHERE THE MONEY CAMES? 2007 – 2013 – SOP ENVIRONMENT The Priority Axis 2 is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and National Budget. • Community Funding – 934,223,079 Euro (85%); • National Counterpart - 233,555,770 Euro; • Total Funding - 1,167,778,849 Euro. • Waste Management – 80% The investments will cover, for each county, the costs for the implementation of: separate collection of waste, trasportation, transfer stations, sorting stations (manual sorting), composting plants (aerobic) and landfills (maximum 2 landfills for each county/150,000 inh.). “CLASSIC MWM SYSTEMS”

  9. BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA: • “Door-to-door system” for biodegradable and residual waste (bins of 120/240 l) and collection of recyclable waste (containers of 1,1 cm) through “bring systems” - collection points per three fractions (paper and cardboard, glass and plastic and metals). • The collection points for recyclable waste shall be placed as follows: - One collection point for every 250 inhabitants in the area of individual households in urban area; - One collection point for every 125 inhabitants in the area with apartment buildings in urban area; - One collection point for every 300 inhabitants in rural area. • Waste transfer stations are indispensable for the areas covered by an integrated waste management system where the distances to be covered exceed 50 km (minimum capacity – 3,000 t/y) • Sorting plants – minimum capacity – 5,000 t/y • Landfill – one landfill for a area with maximum 150,000 inhabitants

  10. Situation at the end of September 2013 (SOP Env.) • 30 landfills, • 23 centers for waste management, • 63 transfer stations, • 16 composting plants, • 24 sorting plants, • 9 MBT plants, • 112 municipal dumps were closed (163) We consider that is a success! 1. Preparation and approval of an application at UE – 3…4 years, construction – 2…3 years, start-up of the operation - 1 year (bidding procedure, contestations, aso) 2. Rate of absorption of UE funds in Romania – 21% (see 1.!)

  11. CONCLUSIONS (1) for SOP 2007 - 2013 JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions) Report 2013 - (UE) “Although there are currently several projects under implementation (mainly for landfill capacity but also related waste management infrastructure) work is progressing slowly. The performance of the solid waste management sector is weak and key challenges include: • Institutional arrangements suffer gaps and inconsistencies; • Crucial supervision and enforcement capacities remain weak – monitoring and data collection are limited; • Lack of coherent planning and weak consultation procedures; county planning is still weak; • Focus on investment has obscured cost recovery needs – most local tariffs are insufficient, even to cover recurring costs.” JASPERS OFFICE IN BUCHAREST ROMANIA - OPENED IN 2007

  12. CONCLUSIONS (2) for SOP 2007 - 2013 Real problems are: • relatively short period of time for implementation (approval of the financing documents, tender procedure for building and procurement, period of building and procurement, tender procedure for operation, start up of the operation activities) and large number of contestations during the implementation procedure, • luck of experts at the local and central public administration level and “migration” of the trained experts from public administration to private companies involved in different phase of projects implementation, • on force tender procedure for building, procurement and operation which is based on the “lower price” as the most important selection criteria of the tenders, • population participation at separate collection of packaging waste, • population affordability to pay for the services,

  13. private operators of the existing systems (collection, transportation, sorting, composting, landfilling) are not involved in the elaboration of the financing documents (except data information); • private operators are interested to co-finance the projects that will be implemented in the period 2014 – 2020 based on Public-Private-Partnership systems, but are not technically involved in the identification of the future waste management projects. Political Involvement…

  14. POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT – Project started in2009 • March 2011 – The Constructor has delivered new landfill cell. • April 2011 – The Beneficiary has begun to make “technical tests” of the new landfill cell • July 2011 – the Consultant has delivered the tender documents for the landfill operation contract to the Beneficiary • July 2011 – significant selection criteria changes made by CA • August 2011 - Tender for landfill operation was published • December 2011 The TA contract ended • January 2012 – Contract awarded to constructor of landfill • February 2012 – legal appeals by competitors • 2013 – Procedure cancelled; Bacau Municipality provides the sanitation services BACAU COUNTY LANDFILL

  15. FINAL CONCLUSION FOR SOP 2007 - 2013 RESPONSABILITIES… DECISSIONS…

  16. 2020: Total municipal waste – 7,842,320 tn/y; • Total household waste – 5,881,740 tn/y;

  17. One of the solution is represented by WtE plants Case Studies (on-going projects) Brasov County and Bucharest The basic criteria for the implementation of WtE plants are: • Minimum capacity of 150,000 t/y; available after the compliance with targets for recycling; • Compliance with the provisions from EU Directive 2008/98/CE, Annex II – Recovery Operations, Energy efficiency; • The existence of heat consumers and distribution networks; • Mass Burning and mobile grates (incineration). • Population affordability the pay the tariffs (gate fee at WtEplants)

  18. BRASOV COUNTY • WtE plant of capacity of 156,000 t/y (energy recovery – 5,5 MW electricity and 27 MW of heat). • The investment costs for the implementation of integrated waste management system are 92,494,469 Euro, from which the WtE investment costs are 84,000,000 Euro • The temporal Profile of Operations, Maintenance and Administrative Costs (constant prices - 2011) include a gate fee of 35 Euro/tn and total O&M costs of 7,022,115 Euro/year. • The reduction of GHG emissions after the start-up of WtE plant is estimated at 110,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent/year.

  19. BUCHAREST • WtE plant of capacity of 380,000 tn/y (energy recovery - 14 MW electricity and 64 MW heat). • The investment costs for the implementation of integrated waste management system are 303,500,000 Euro, from which the WtE investment costs are 266,000,000 Euro • The temporal Profile of Operations, Maintenance and Administrative Costs (constant prices - 2011), include a gate fee of 32Euro/tn and total O&M costs of 17,100,000 Euro/year. • The reduction of GHG emissions after the start-up of WtE plant is estimated at 268,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent/year.

  20. Technology - Mass burning with mobile grates (incineration) Other “unconventional technologies” such as gasification and pyrolysisexists at the scale of “pilot plants”…

  21. One of the solutions for the implementation of WtE plants in Brasov County and Bucharest could be a PPP project. Romania has harmonised the EU legislation on PPP: i) Law No. 178/2010 regarding PPP ii) Decision no. 1.239/2010 on approving Methodological Norms for the application of PPP Law no.178/2010. EU will be happy - Funding Gap of 40% comparing with the classic systems – 85%

  22. CONCLUSIONS • Full implementation of the Landfill Directive's targets on diverting waste from landfill is crucial to reach the targets of EU Directives and to assure the GHG reduction potential in municipal solide waste management in Romania. • Previous studies suggest that if they are relatively high, landfill taxes can be effective in diverting waste from landfill and improving recovery of heavier waste streams in particular.

  23. Although there is still further research to be undertaken, the results of all the studies performed in Romania in the period 2006 – 2012, has shown that “new technologies”, as are WtE and anaerobic digestion, can deliver far lower GHG emissions than using conventional solution with landfilling of municipal waste or aerobic composting of biodegradable waste.

  24. Period 2014 – 2020 – SOP Env. 2 Investments to reach the targets for 2020 From counties to region IWMS • Anaerobic digestion plants – 20 plants • Biodrying plants – 10 plants • WtE – 8 plants (incineration) • Capital costs – 2.1 billions Euro, including the collection and transportation costs

  25. Three key areas were identified in case of Romania, in order to contribute to optimizing the sector: • Improving institutional arrangements • Operationalising national waste management plans • Progressing towards medium-term economic and financial sustainability

  26. ISO 9001 Concept with fully involvement of local experts

  27. KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR EFFICIENT WASTE MANAGEMENT • Appropriate Legislative framework • Capacity building to raise expertise • Waste management planning • Business friendly frameworks to encourage investments • Efficient measures for financing, e.g. EPR, fees • Awareness rising to motivate consumers

  28. WHY I/WE CONCERN… Thank you very much for your attention! Alexei Atudorei office@salubritatea.ro alexei.atudorei@yahoo.com Waste is the Visible Face of Inefficiency!

More Related