modern waste management for kosovo
TRANSCRIPT
Leaders in the design, implementation and operation of markets for electricity, gas and water.
Modern Waste Management for Kosovo
Workshops no 5 and 6 / July 24 and 26 2007, AFA-Hotel, Prishtina
Ben Purcell – Solid Waste Management ExpertMartin Steiner – Solid Waste Management Expert
Leaders in the design, implementation and operation of markets for electricity, gas and water.
Modern Waste Management for Kosovo
Workshop no 5 July 24 2007
Waste Policy, Legal Framework and Landfill
3
Ben Purcell• Graduated as a civil engineer• 14 years’ experience in the waste management sector• Major projects include
− Research into new operational practice for landfills
− Design, construction and operation of composting and waste treatment facilities
− Waste strategy
− Waste policy review
− International work covering Kosovo, the Russian Federation, Lebanon and Ireland.
BP
4
• Independant Engineers & Consultants
...focussing on solid waste: - Waste Management Concepts (1992 - ´94 Zagreb, ´97 Ljubljana, 2004 Crna Gora)
- Design & Optimization of Waste Treatment Plants (Vienna, Milan, Istanbul)
- Consulting & Knowledge Transfer (Ljubljana 2004, Skopje 2007, …)
- Solid Waste Audits (Zagreb, Sofia, many projects in Austria, Italy, and overseas)
Martin Steiner & European Environmental Engineers at a glance:
MS
5Why is this workshop done, and what should be achieved?
1. Part of the present project “Institutional support to WWRO Water & Waste Regulatory Office”:TOR lists 3 key components for the “focus of the project”:
license administration tariff questions “waste handling procedures”.
2. Convey some understanding on how up-to-date waste management works
both in developed systems & developing / transitional countries
3. Supply a platform to decision makers to discuss how identified institutional weaknesses in Kosovo´s arrangements related to solid waste could be resolved and sustainably improved.
MS
6´Driving forces´ for proper management of solid waste... (answers by a course in Ljubljana, 2004)
to create a revenue
health protection
to reduce waste amounts
environmental aspects (clean air & water, soil protection)
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to save resources (material, energy)
MS
7
Main driving forcesMain driving forces for proper dealing for proper dealing with waste with waste = = main driving forcesmain driving forces for for environmental protection in generalenvironmental protection in general
HealthHealth Cost aspectsCost aspectsNatureNature
as a resource as a resource (eg. tourism)(eg. tourism)
Source of White Drin river
Lake in Tyrol / Austria
MS
8
Regular waste collection…
……is is not not supposed supposed to represent an issue to represent an issue of particular importance of particular importance in in ECEC legal framework … legal framework …
MS
European legal framework focuses on treatment and disposal………as collection is anticipated an issue being already as collection is anticipated an issue being already resolved rsp. satisfactorily organized by lowerresolved rsp. satisfactorily organized by lower administration levels…administration levels…
Council of Europe, Resolution No 1543/2007Essential content of Resolution 1543, adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on March 16, 2007
[…] There are significant differences between Council of Europe member states regarding solid waste management standards and practices. […] The Assembly therefore urges member states to develop an integrated approach to municipal solid waste management in order to contribute to sustainable urban development in Europe, in particular by:
1. ensuring compliance with occupational health and safety standards during the collection, processing and landfilling of all types of waste, in particular by banning any barehanded operations and any recovery of waste from landfills without proper protection and regular health checks for the persons involved;
2. establishing regular waste collection systems for all urban, suburban and rural areas (exceptions should only be granted for remote locations with approved, safe individual waste disposal facilities) and including in the relevant legislation phased targets for the provision of municipal solid waste collection systems in accordance with the requirements of European Union Directive No 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste;
3. enforcing compliance with strict standards for landfilling, for instance: - landfills must be fenced and patrolled;- waste accepted at landfills must be recorded;- waste placed in landfills must regularly be covered with suitable material (eg construction debris) in order to
reduce odour, windblown litter and vermin;- adjacent groundwater must be monitored;
4. depending on local hydrogeology, suitable measures for groundwater protection (such as landfill liners and leachate collection, etc) must be put in place;
5. planning waste management through the development of strategies including the gradual reduction/ phasing out of the landfilling of specific waste streams, given their recyclability and/or the impacts related to their disposal (eg biodegradable waste);
MS 9
10
• Utilization of certain waste components
• Minimization of amounts to be landfilled
• Stabilization of residuals to be landfilled
Driving Forces for MSW TreatmentMS
11
About the European approach…
…landfill emissions:
Landfill
Leachate
Gases (m ethane, odorous substances)
Groundw ater
MS
Sanitary landfill: The Multi-Barrier-System
Safeguard 1:Site selection (hydrogeology)Safeguard 2:Top sealing (capping)
Safeguard 3:Leachate control (mineral liner, mineral + HDPE liner)Safeguard 4:Leachate collection and treatmentSafeguard 5:Permanent covering during operation
Safeguard 6: Diversion / Pretreatment of biodegradable waste
About the European approach...
MS 12
13Targets given by EC Directive No 1999/31 („EU Landfill Directive“)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Year
BM
W B
iode
gr. M
unic
ipal
Was
te
„Quick“ member states
(Germany, Austria, Benelux, Italy...)
Percentage of Biodegradable Municipal Waste of the total amount of MSW in relation to the relevant amount in 1995
„Slow“ member states
(Majority of the „10 newcomers“, England, Spain...)
MS
14
Waste management architecture
Government or Federal level
Province or Regional level
Municipality level
Sets waste policy & national targets
Prepares & implements detailed strategies for delivering national targets
Carries out waste management operations (collection and perhaps disposal). Determines costs, control tenders for service delivery
Obligation to EU
Transfer of responsibilty
BP
15
Changes in waste management structure
• The Kosova Waste Law (02/L-30) provides municipalities with the power and responsibility for waste management service provision
• The Kosovo Status Settlement Proposal (Ahtisaari Plan, Ref S/2007/168/Add.1) proposes municipal control of publicly owned enterprises (PoEs)
• But incorporated PoEs should be excluded from the transfer of power/ownership to the municipal level
• Governance of incorporated PoEs should be exercised by KTA
16
Policy flows
• The Government must set policy and objectives for waste management
• Government should prepare a strategy for consultation• Strategy consultation with other stakeholders on policy
decisions, e.g. environmental regulator, waste management organisations etc.
• Strategy should deliver legislative objectives or targets;• Capacity for infrastructure investment and institutional
strengthening; • Maximise the environmental benefit from the infrastructure
investments.
BP
17
European waste law
• 2 No. legislative bodies in the European Union• The European Parliament (785 members)• The Council of the European Union (one minister
from each member state)− Most decisions now are co-decisions but in some areas
the Council has superior powers.
• Directives (laws) must be passed by both houses before they can be adopted
BP
18
Waste policy & law
• Before law or directives, must come waste policy.• Bad policies make bad laws and vice-versa. Laws
without policies are even worse.• Need to develop policy setting capacity to ensure
consensus building before legal drafting• ‘The most useful step in improving the quality of
legislation is the recognition that policy development is an essential precursor to drafting law’
− Laws without Policy, Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Development, No. 4. November 2006.
BP
19
European waste policy
• European waste policy: three main pillars.− Waste prevention and minimisation
• The less waste we generate, a reduction in its hazardousness makes the management of the waste easier
− Recycling and reuse• Wastes, like packaging, that cannot be prevented should be
recycled− Improving final disposal and monitoring
• Where waste cannot be recycled or reused, it should be safely burned (incineration) and landfilled as a last resort. Both of these disposal methods are tightly controlled to minimise their impact or harmful effects on the environment.
BP
20
European waste policyBP
21
European waste policy• Has it delivered?
− No− Between 1990 and 1995, the amount of waste produced by 10%− Most of it (67%) was either incinerated or landfilled− By 2020, the OECD estimates we could be generating 45% more
waste than we do today
− and yes− Recycling rates have increased in England from 12% in 2000 to 27%
in 2005− Landfill has been reduced from 79% in 2000 to 62% in 2005− Recycling rates have increased progressively in Europe. Paper
recycling has doubled from 25% in 1991 to 50% in 2004.
BP
22
European waste management
• Turnover at over €100bn for EU-25• 1.2 – 1.5 million jobs• Recycling industry provides the raw materials for:
− 50% of the paper and steel− 40% of non-ferrous metals
• EU disposes of almost half of its waste to landfill, almost a 20% to incineration and 30% is recycled or composted
• Waste growth still a problem− 1990-1995 waste grew by 10%− By 2020, this could increase by a further 43% (Joint Research Centre)
• Figures can be misleading:− Amount of plastic waste going to landfill increased by 27% (1990-2002)
− Yet percentage of plastic waste dropped from 77% to 62%!
BP
23
Directive on Waste
• Directive on waste 2006/12/EC (05/06/07)− Defined waste as any substance or object (set out in Annex 1)
which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard− The main thrust in-line with the Waste Directive (75/442/EEC):
prevention and reduction of the harmful effects of waste production
− Recycling and reuse and the use of energy recovery− Disposal as a final option with minimal impact on the
environment− Establish a competent authority or authorities (for issuing
permits etc)− Draw up, prepare waste management plans
BP
24
Directive on the landfill of waste
• Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC)− Written in accordance with the Waste Directive (75/442/EEC),
now superseded− Central aim to prevent or reduce the negative effects on the
environment on the landfilling of waste, during its whole life cycle
− How?• Classifying landfills and design requirements,• Restricting waste input types (e.g. biodegradable matter, tyres,
liquids)• Imposing tight controls on the management of landfill emissions,
both liquid and gaseous• Aftercare periods for landfills
BP
25
Other relevant directives• Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste
− Established definition of hazardous waste, working method for the acceptance, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste
• Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
• Council Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
• Council Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste
26
Where does this leave us?• Legislative guidance from Europe on:
− how to define and categorise waste (waste directive)− how to manage wastes, from their collection through to their
treatment and disposal
• Policy guidance from Europe on:− waste hierarchy− thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling
• Experience and best practice examples across many European countries on developing a waste management industry
BP
27
Kosovo Waste Law (02/L-30)
• The law was developed but where was the policy? • A waste strategy was prepared for the support provided
by the European Union for the development of the regional landfills.
• But we still need a clear policy on municipal waste.− How should Kosova manage its waste?− What targets should be set for waste management?− How is it to be funded now and in the future?
BP
28
Kosovo Waste Law (02/L-30)
• The Law has been based around the European Directive on Waste, though not fully and with no policy on waste behind the law.
• It creates powers for both the MESP and the municipalities, though does not appear to make provision for KEPA or other competent authorities (KTA, WWRO)
• But power brings responsibility for waste management plans, local plans
• Are they being prepared?
BP
29
Other issues (Waste Law)
• Does the MESP and the municipalities have the institutional capacity to administer licensing and enforcement (what about KEPA)
• Municipalities should determine tariffs based on a competitive tender arrangement with the service providers.
• Confusion over Ecological Permits, Waste Management Licences,
• And the environmental regulator should be independent of the municipality and ideally from government control
BP
30
Waste management plans
• Compliance with waste policy & target acheivements• Outline waste characteristics, the treatment and
disposal capacity• Development of technological solutions• Investment requirements• Comprise three main elements
− Background to waste management− Status (i.e. waste streams, sources, quantities and options)− Planning objectives and action for collection, treatment and
disposal options, including financial investments
BP
31
Waste management plans
General considerations& background
Status(waste quantities etc)
Planning
Implementation
consultation
consultation
consultation
Planned Revision
BP
32
Waste management structure
Government (Department of Food, Environment & Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)
Responsible for waste policy, laws and regulations
Waste collection authority(Municipalities)
Waste disposal authority(Regional Organisation)
Direct Service Organisations Private Operators
Private operators for recycling, treatment and disposal
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY(Environmental Regulator. Licenses, inspects, enforces)
(Non-governmental organisation)
BP
33
Essex County, Eastern England• Essex population: 1.32m • Waste generation: 720,000 tonnes of municipal
waste per annum (0.54kg/h/a)• 75% landfilled, 25% recycled in 2003/04• Area – 3,469km2
• Population/km2 - 377
• Kosovo – 2.4m• Area – 10,877km2
• Population/km2 – 200• Waste generation estimate: 0.44kg/h/a
BP
34
Essex County, Eastern England• Essex waste management cost: €100m/a• Per head of population per annum: €76 • Equivalent to Kosovo waste charge at an occupancy
of 6 = €38/mth per household• GDP - €28,000 per head
• Kosovo – €6.3m (4.8m collection + €1.5m KTA)• Per head of population per annum: €2.63• Equivalent to waste charge of: €3.5/mtn per hh• GDP - €850 per head
BP
35
Essex County, Eastern EnglandBP
Description Essex County Kosovo
Waste charge per annum € 100m € 6.3mEquivalent household charge in Kosovo € 38/mth€ 3.5/mthGNDI (Gross National Disposal Income) € 21,500€ 1,320
36
Essex County, Eastern England• Municipal waste in Essex collected by each collection authority• Disposal of 75% of its waste to about 6 privately operated
landfills, 3 main landfills (diagram).• Landfills operated by 3 different waste management contractors. • Essex County Council charges households as part of a general
rates bill (including other services e.g. schools, transport, health care and waste)
• Essex provides funding for each collection authority to operate a collection service
• Essex tenders the disposal of waste between a number of waste management contractors
• Best value tender is awarded for long-term contracts (+10 years)
• All collection and disposal operations regulated by the Environment Agency
BP
37
Waste management structureBP
38
What is the policy
Government Minister for Waste (Ben Bradshaw)Department of Food, Environment & Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)
Waste policy (2007) to comply with European Directives:• Divert waste from landfill and increase our recycling
rates • Improve public environmental consciousness
(concerns for dangerous climate change.• Raise our target, deliver quicker progress to reach
European levels of recycling and diversion.
‘No strategy (to deliver the policy) can stand still. Alongside our plans to deliver, we will continue to develop and adapt our approach to take account of new thinking, new evidence and new approaches.’
BP
39
Policy Objectives
The Government’s key objectives are to:• Decouple waste growth (in all sectors) from economic
growth - waste prevention and re-use;• Deliver the Landfill Directive diversion targets;• Increase waste diversion from landfill, integrate
treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste;• Secure infrastructure investment; • Maximise the environmental benefit from the
infrastructure investments.
BP
40
Achieving those objectives
• Incentivise efforts to reduce, re-use, recycle waste and recover energy from waste;
• Reform regulation to drive the reduction of waste and diversion from landfill while reducing costs to compliant businesses and the regulator;
• Target action on materials, products and sectors;• Stimulate investment in collection, recycling and recovery
infrastructure, and markets for recovered materials• Improve national, regional and local governance, with a clearer
performance and institutional framework
BP
41
Key dataBP
42
Key dataBP
43
Key dataBP
44
0
500
1972
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
year
1.000 t/aOther Recycleables
Packagings(Plastics, Metals)
Biowaste
Glass
Paper
Bulky waste
Residual MSW
Waste from households, total
Waste disposed of1974
1982
1976
1980
1978
1990
1988
1986
1984
1992
1998
1996
1994
2000
1.000
kg/inh.a
250
300
400
350
200
Case study AustriaMS 44
45
Since January 1, 2004 it is forbidden in Austria
to dispose of untreated Municipal Solid Waste on any landfill !
MS 45
46Specific generation rates of MSW, recyclables and compostables by country. 2005 data. Source: CoE
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
FL MC E
CH AND
FIN S A
SLO GR H LT EST
CG PL
kg/in
h., y
r
Quantity of compostables Quantity of recyclables Quantity of MSW
MS
47Data on landfill levies (on municipal or national level) by country. 2005 data. Source: CoE
€ 0
€ 10
€ 20
€ 30
€ 40
€ 50
€ 60
€ 70
€ 80
€ 90
€ 100
A B* S DK UK** FIN SLO IRL CZ E PL EST BG D H LT MC B* Flanders region UK** England, Wales
€/t
MS
Princ ip le s o f M o d e rn Wa ste M a na g e m e ntAvo idance - Recycling - Trea tm ent
Two reasons for separate collection & treatment: QUALITY aspects !
in any European country
!!!
MS 48
49
w aste quantity
landfillsan ita tion
PR m ea sures
tra in ing sourcesepara tedco llectio n
user feesys tem
im plementation
w aste trea tm e ntfac ilities
recyclin gco llectionin fra stru ctu re
w astecom p osit ion
existing situation
master plan
different scenarios
co llectio nsys tem
SA b fa llw irts c ha ftK o m p os tie ru ng
ge tre nn t e S a m m lun g
Focus of inter-national donors
in Kosovo so far
Procedures and elements of a modern solid waste management concept
MS
50
KlinaKlina
IstogIstok
DeçaniDecani
GjakovaÐakovica
PejëPec
PrizrenPrizren
DragashDragaš
MalishevëMališevo
RahovecOrahovac
ŠtrpceShtërpcë
SuharekëSuva Reka
Zubin PotokZubin Potok
LeposavicLeposaviq
ZvecanZveçan Mitrovicë
Kosovska Mitrovica
SkenderajSrbica
VushtrriVucitrn
PodujevëPodujevo
GllogovciGlogovac
ObiliqObilic
LipjanLipljan
ShtimeŠtimlje
KamenicaKosovska Kamenica
GjilaniGnjilane
Fushë KosovaKosovo Polje
FerizajUroševac
KaçanikKacanik
VitiVitina
Novo BrdoNovobërdë
19.000 t/a
2,6 mio.
24.000 t/a
1,2 mio.
47.000 t/a
5,0 mio.
54.000 t/a *)
PrishtinëPriština
*) based on 2 weeks recording 0,9 mio.
8.800 t/a
Landfill
Colour indicates overall construction & operational standard:1,0 mio.
50.000 t/a
good fair poor
Current catchment area of disposal site (not indicating that settlements of the designated municipality are connected
and/or delivering to the disposal site)all
regularly
very poor Not assessed
Transfer station
10.000 t/a
KLMC sites visited by IPA during preparation of a cost assessment study
MS
51
Data on landfills donated by EAR, managed by KLMC Name of landfill & total volume
Construc-ted by
Operated by
Technical characteristics *)
Observed shortcomings (shown above by photos) & problems to be expected
Pristina 3,0 mio. m3
TSB Kastrioti Mono-cell landfill erected in former lignite pit. Clay liner.
Proper leachate treatment not possible at present (due to mixing of surface water with leachate water).
Prizren 2,6 mio. m3
Doni & G.
Doni Multi-cell landfill. Combined bottom liner (clay + HDPE)
Leachate collection as de-signed and executed results at present in flow-off of untreated leachate. HDPE liner exposed to sunlight will deteriorate and loose its function (impermeability).
Gjilani 1,2 mio. m3
Alpenbau Alpenbau Clay liner. Gas collection in gas domes (erected by “lost scaffolding” principle)
Poor access conditions (40 tonne transfer trucks damaging a small road in a village nearby) results in acceptance problem. Con-siderable explosion risk if no gas treatment gets applied.
Podujeva 0,9 mio. m3
TSB Alpenbau Not visited during the study
MS
52
Solid waste treatment & disposal tariffs in AustriaMS
53Range of typical disposal costs - red: including pretreatment (incineration or similar), black: landfilling
€ 0
€ 10
€ 20
€ 30
€ 40
€ 50
€ 60
€ 70
€ 80
€ 90
€ 100
€ 110
€ 120
€ 130
€ 140
€ 150
€ 160
CH A D SLO H UK CZ EST TR RO BG MK*) KS AZ GE
€/t
5,26
*) Calculated as a national average landfill cost which includes eg. a municipal charge and aftercare
MS
54
Investment data on landfills managed by KLMC
Name of site Rolling stock (compactor etc.)
Weighbridge ´All above ground construction´ (i.e. all remaining investments)
No of staff
Assumed lifetime 8 years 15 years 20 years
Pristina landfill 434.555 € 89.112 € 3.036.333 € 14 - 15
Prizren landfill 434.555 € 29.112 € 3.241.003 € 10 - 11
Gjilani landfill 434.555 € 29.112 € 2.530.000 € 11 - 12
Podujeva landfill 168.805 € 29.112 € 837.083 € 7
Ferizaj transfer station 233.000 € 29.112 € 289.000 € 4
MS
55
Assets managed by KLMC: Comprehensive cost estimate All KLMC operated structures Waste input 136.000 t/y including 5%
4 landfills with 9,7 Mio. m3 total volume assumed increase for 2007
11,8 Mio. € total investmentper year per t rel.
1) Investment replacement costs € 490.000 3,6 €/t 27%
2) Repair & Maintenance € 160.000 1,2 €/t 9%
3) Energy € 550.000 4,1 €/t 31%
4) Staff 47 € 180.000 1,3 €/t 10%
5) Ongoing investments necessary to preserve the structure from being lost € 250.000 1,8 €/t 14%
6) Aftercare measures € 0 0,0 €/t 0%
7) Total site-related landfill cost (lines 1 to 6) € 1.630.000 12,0 €/t 90%
8) Overhead & management fee € 170.000 1,3 €/t 10%
by m3 (total) by invest by cost
Prishtina Landfill 51% 30% 35% € 640.000 11,2 €/t
Prizren Landfill 27% 31% 24% € 430.000 17,1 €/t
Gjilani Landfill 12% 25% 22% € 400.000 8,9 €/t
Podujeva Landfill 10% 9% 8% € 140.000 15,7 €/t
Transfer station Ferizaj - 5% 11% € 190.000 9,6 €/t
9) Total cost € 1.800.000 13,2 €/t 100%split up to single elements…
7%
-
by t/a
1,2 €/m3
42%
18%
33%
15% for ~ 7 staff, office, cars, PR, not on 1) investments of course
total
Consultant´s estimates
MS
56
Landfills in the UK
• England and Wales landfill 67% of their waste• We landfill approximately 20m tonnes of MSW
each year• The landfills are designed to strict engineering
standards set by the Environmental Regulator (e.g. lining, leachate & landfill gas control)
• Typical life of a landfill – 10 to 25 years
BP
57
How much waste is landfilledBP
58
Site development
• Careful selection of site• Requirements for site development
− Planning permission− Risk assessment with groundwater investigation− Permit approval (which cover all aspects of site management from
design through to operation)
• Noise• Transport• Visual impact…
− Without the above approvals, you cannot develop a landfill in the UK.
BP
59
Landfill Emissions
• Primarily protection of emission to land, air, water etc
• Both controlled by the EC Landfill Directive (1999/33/EC)− Leachate - Annex I & III− Landfill gas – Annex I & III− Nuisances and hazards – Annex I (e.g. noise,
odour, litter etc)
BP
60
Landfill gas generation
• Each tonne of MSW generates approx. 100-250m3 of landfill gas over a 10-25 year period
• With a million tonnes of waste, approximately 1MW (energy for 1,000 households) could be generated
• All EAR landfills have the potential to generate power from their landfill gas.
BP
61
Landfill gas management
Risk assessment stages
Initial site planning
Development of Gas Management Plan
Permitting
Operational and permit modification
Closure and aftercare
BP
62
Pollution history profileBP
63
Landfill gas utilisation (small engines)
• The engines are well suited to:• Site still active or closed no earlier than
1995 • Waste inputs were/are over 35,000
tonnes per annum • Domestic waste inputs at least 18,000
tonnes per annum
BP
