Drisla Landfill Feasibility Studydrisla.mk/uploads/Drisla-Landfill-Project-Feasibiity-Study.pdf · 4.2 Organisation and Structure of DLFC ... 5.7.3 MRF Footprint and Layout Requirements

Drisla Landfill FeasibilityStudy

Volume 1 of 2 - Main Findings - Final Report

August 2011Prepared for IFC by Mott MacDonald Ltd

282292 EVT EES 1 E

Drisla Landfill Feasibility Study, August 2011

18th August 2011

Drisla Landfill Feasibility Study

Volume 1 of 2 - Main Findings - Final Report

August 2011

Prepared for IFC by Mott MacDonald Ltd

Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

Integrated Solid Waste Management Project IFC, ul. Vasil Adzilarski b.b., Soravia Centre 3rd Flr. 1000 Skopje, fyr Macedonia


Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom T +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 30th June 2011 David Dray Simon Martin Simon Martin First and Second Issue

B 22nd July 2011 David Dray Simon Martin Simon Martin Final Issue

C 5th August 2011 David Dray Simon Martin Simon Martin Minor modifications

D 18th August 2011 David Dray Simon Martin Simon Martin Minor changes to footer and cover sheet

E 5th September 2011 David Dray Hannah Forbes Simon Martin Minor changes requested by Mayor ofSkopje

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

282292/EVT/EES/1/E 18th August 2011 Drisla Landfill Feasibility Study, August 2011


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 11.1 General ___________________________________________________________________________ 11.2 Tasks and objectives _________________________________________________________________ 11.3 Layout of the report __________________________________________________________________ 2

2. Solid Waste Management System in Skopje 32.1 Waste Catchment Area and Population___________________________________________________ 32.2 Municipal waste collection _____________________________________________________________ 72.3 Waste recycling in Skopje _____________________________________________________________ 72.4 Legislation ________________________________________________________________________ 10

3. Quantity and composition of wastes 11 3.1 Data from literature _________________________________________________________________ 113.1.1 Macedonian State Statistical Office _____________________________________________________ 113.1.2 Macedonian Waste Management Strategy _______________________________________________ 113.2 Household waste ___________________________________________________________________ 123.2.1 General __________________________________________________________________________ 123.2.2 Household waste registered at Drisla Landfill _____________________________________________ 123.2.3 Derivation of key figures (kg/capita/yr)___________________________________________________ 123.3 Construction and demolition waste _____________________________________________________ 133.4 Green waste_______________________________________________________________________ 143.5 Medical waste _____________________________________________________________________ 143.6 Other waste _______________________________________________________________________ 163.7 Household Waste Composition ________________________________________________________ 163.8 Conclusion ________________________________________________________________________ 193.9 Waste forecast _____________________________________________________________________ 20

4. Drisla Landfill 21 4.1 Geology, hydrogeology and seismology _________________________________________________ 224.1.1 Summary _________________________________________________________________________ 234.2 Organisation and Structure of DLFC ____________________________________________________ 244.3 Drisla Landfill Site __________________________________________________________________ 264.3.1 The Access Area ___________________________________________________________________ 274.3.2 The Disposal Site___________________________________________________________________ 274.3.3 Other areas _______________________________________________________________________ 28

5. Proposed development of the Drisla Landfill 31 5.1 Existing engineering at the landfill ______________________________________________________ 315.2 Remediation proposals ______________________________________________________________ 315.2.1 Leachate control____________________________________________________________________ 315.2.2 Surface water control ________________________________________________________________ 325.2.3 Waste stability _____________________________________________________________________ 335.2.4 Capex for Remediation ______________________________________________________________ 35

Content



5.3 Construction of a new landfill __________________________________________________________ 365.3.1 Approach _________________________________________________________________________ 365.3.2 Description of the chosen option _______________________________________________________ 375.3.3 Capping and sealing of the landfill ______________________________________________________ 395.3.4 Capex____________________________________________________________________________ 415.3.5 Opex and staffing___________________________________________________________________ 435.4 Existing reception and access infrastructure ______________________________________________ 445.4.1 Roads and Hard-Standing ____________________________________________________________ 445.4.2 Waste safety area __________________________________________________________________ 455.4.3 Diesel fuel tank installation ___________________________________________________________ 465.4.4 Septic Tank _______________________________________________________________________ 465.4.5 Parking area_______________________________________________________________________ 465.4.6 Warning, information and traffic signs ___________________________________________________ 475.4.7 Fence ____________________________________________________________________________ 475.4.8 Surveillance System_________________________________________________________________ 485.4.9 Vehicles and equipment______________________________________________________________ 485.4.10 Weather station ____________________________________________________________________ 495.4.11 Buildings__________________________________________________________________________ 505.4.12 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 535.4.13 Required Technical Assistance ________________________________________________________ 545.5 Leachate collection and treatment Strategy_______________________________________________ 545.5.1 Existing leachate control _____________________________________________________________ 545.5.2 Leachate composition _______________________________________________________________ 555.5.3 Leachate quantity___________________________________________________________________ 565.5.4 Leachate treatment strategy __________________________________________________________ 575.5.5 Short term leachate management ______________________________________________________ 575.5.6 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 605.5.7 Long term leachate management ______________________________________________________ 615.5.8 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 665.6 Gas extraction and treatment (waste to energy) ___________________________________________ 665.6.1 Current gas management ____________________________________________________________ 665.6.2 Gas control assessment _____________________________________________________________ 675.6.3 Description of the chosen option for gas extraction_________________________________________ 685.6.4 Grid connection requirement __________________________________________________________ 685.6.5 Capex and opex for extraction and flaring ________________________________________________ 685.6.6 Capex and opex for utilisation _________________________________________________________ 705.6.7 Potential revenue ___________________________________________________________________ 715.7 Municipal Solid Waste Separation ______________________________________________________ 715.7.1 Existing waste recycling in Skopje ______________________________________________________ 715.7.2 Description of the chosen option _______________________________________________________ 715.7.3 MRF Footprint and Layout Requirements ________________________________________________ 735.7.4 Capex____________________________________________________________________________ 765.7.5 Opex_____________________________________________________________________________ 775.7.6 Staffing___________________________________________________________________________ 775.7.7 Potential revenue ___________________________________________________________________ 785.8 Treatment of Construction and Demolition Waste __________________________________________ 805.8.1 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 805.8.2 Existing construction and demolition wastes treatment and disposal ___________________________ 815.8.3 Description of the chosen option _______________________________________________________ 815.8.4 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 84



5.8.5 Potential revenue ___________________________________________________________________ 865.9 Treatment of Green Waste (Composting) ________________________________________________ 875.9.1 Existing green waste collections and treatment____________________________________________ 875.9.2 Description of Chosen Option with Preliminary Design ______________________________________ 875.9.3 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 885.9.4 Potential revenues from composting ____________________________________________________ 905.10 Treatment of Medical Waste (Incinerator) ________________________________________________ 905.10.1 Existing medical waste incineration _____________________________________________________ 905.10.2 Description of the Chosen Option with a Preliminary Design _________________________________ 925.10.3 Clinical waste incineration technology options_____________________________________________ 935.10.4 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 945.11 Future treatment options – Mechanical Biological Treatment _________________________________ 955.11.1 Description of Selected Option with Preliminary Design _____________________________________ 965.11.2 Capex and Opex ___________________________________________________________________ 995.12 Potential revenue streams ___________________________________________________________ 1005.13 Implementation Plan _______________________________________________________________ 1005.14 Proposed staffing __________________________________________________________________ 1005.15 Technical assistance _______________________________________________________________ 101

6. PPP financing 107 6.1 Definition of Public Private Partnership (PPP)____________________________________________ 1076.2 PPP arrangements_________________________________________________________________ 1076.2.1 PPP without financing ______________________________________________________________ 1076.2.2 PPP with financing _________________________________________________________________ 1086.2.3 Principles of PPP __________________________________________________________________ 1096.2.4 Benefits of PPP ___________________________________________________________________ 1096.2.5 Prerequisites of a Successful PPP ____________________________________________________ 1106.3 Implications for Drisla Landfill Site_____________________________________________________ 110

7. Environmental and Operational Audit 113 7.1 Objectives of the audit ______________________________________________________________ 1137.2 Audit methodology _________________________________________________________________ 1137.2.1 Identification and assessment of documentation__________________________________________ 1137.2.2 Production of audit procedures, questions and plan _______________________________________ 1147.2.3 Site based study___________________________________________________________________ 1157.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ___________________________________________________ 1157.3.1 General management and procedures _________________________________________________ 1157.3.2 Specific management activities _______________________________________________________ 1177.3.3 Hazardous wastes _________________________________________________________________ 1257.4 Summary of conclusions and recommendations __________________________________________ 1257.5 Environmental Monitoring ___________________________________________________________ 1267.5.1 Meteorological data ________________________________________________________________ 1267.5.2 Emission data: water, leachate and gas control __________________________________________ 1267.5.3 Protection of groundwater ___________________________________________________________ 1277.5.4 Topography of the site: _____________________________________________________________ 1287.5.5 Air monitoring emissions ____________________________________________________________ 1287.5.6 Monitoring of surface waters _________________________________________________________ 1297.5.7 Monitoring Plan for ground and underground water in landfill Drisla___________________________ 1317.5.8 General demands for leachate monitoring, surface waters and the landfill gas __________________ 1317.5.9 Monitoring of the landfill body ________________________________________________________ 134



8. Training needs survey 135 8.1 Survey __________________________________________________________________________ 1358.2 Findings _________________________________________________________________________ 1358.2.1 Training need _____________________________________________________________________ 1358.2.2 Language ________________________________________________________________________ 1358.2.3 Training duration __________________________________________________________________ 1368.2.4 Training type _____________________________________________________________________ 1368.2.5 Training Modules __________________________________________________________________ 1368.3 General review of the questionnaire responses___________________________________________ 1368.4 Conclusions and recommendations____________________________________________________ 137

9. Public awareness and education 139 9.1 Background ______________________________________________________________________ 1399.2 Public awareness__________________________________________________________________ 1399.2.1 Requirements for public participation___________________________________________________ 1409.2.2 Public education campaigns _________________________________________________________ 1409.3 Stakeholders _____________________________________________________________________ 1419.4 Health impacts ____________________________________________________________________ 141

10. Socio-economic impacts 143

11. Climate change and CDM opportunities 145 11.1 Impacts of climate change ___________________________________________________________ 14511.2 National Policy and Regulation on climate change issues __________________________________ 14611.3 Structure of Macedonia’s Designated National Authority ___________________________________ 14711.4 Waste Emissions Mitigation Policy and Strategy on climate change___________________________ 14811.5 Climate change issues and the current Drisla landfill operations _____________________________ 14911.6 Climate change issues and the new infrastructure needed at Drisla landfill _____________________ 15011.7 Emission reductions associated with the new infrastructure investment needed at Drisla landfill ____ 15211.8 CDM Carbon Finance Eligibility _______________________________________________________ 15311.9 Other International Carbon Finance Mechanisms _________________________________________ 15411.9.1 Copenhagen Accord and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) ___________________ 15411.9.2 Other Climate Finance Funds ________________________________________________________ 15511.10 Carbon finance quantum ____________________________________________________________ 15611.11 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 157

12. Financial Analysis - Drisla Landfill Investments 158 12.1 Costs of the new Drisla Landfill _______________________________________________________ 15812.1.1 Capital costs - Summary ____________________________________________________________ 15912.2 Financial profitability of the project_____________________________________________________ 16112.2.1 Overview\investments ______________________________________________________________ 16112.2.2 Estimated annual operational costs____________________________________________________ 16112.2.3 Financial analysis/Disposal Fee calculation______________________________________________ 16112.3 (Medical) Waste Incinerator __________________________________________________________ 16612.3.1 Overview investment costs __________________________________________________________ 16612.3.2 Annual Operating costs _____________________________________________________________ 16612.3.3 Incineration Fee / ton _______________________________________________________________ 16712.4 Composting facility_________________________________________________________________ 168



12.4.1 Overview investment costs __________________________________________________________ 16812.4.2 Annual Operating costs _____________________________________________________________ 16812.4.3 Composting Costs / ton _____________________________________________________________ 16812.5 Sorting Costs/ton __________________________________________________________________ 16912.5.1 Overview investment costs __________________________________________________________ 16912.5.2 Annual Operating costs _____________________________________________________________ 17012.5.3 Sorting Costs / ton _________________________________________________________________ 17012.6 C & D processing facility ____________________________________________________________ 17112.6.1 Overview investment costs __________________________________________________________ 17112.6.2 Annual Operating costs _____________________________________________________________ 17212.6.3 C&D processing costs/ton ___________________________________________________________ 17212.7 MBT Facility ______________________________________________________________________ 17412.7.1 Annual Operating costs _____________________________________________________________ 17412.7.2 MBT Facility costs/ton ______________________________________________________________ 17512.8 Financing Options _________________________________________________________________ 17512.8.1 Investment Size ___________________________________________________________________ 181

13. Drisla Landfill Company Financial Status 182 13.1 Organisational Structure and Staffing __________________________________________________ 18213.1.1 Organisational Set Up ______________________________________________________________ 18213.1.2 Employee Numbers ________________________________________________________________ 18313.2 Financial Status Drisla Operating Company _____________________________________________ 18313.2.1 Profit & Loss Statement (2010-2011)___________________________________________________ 18313.2.2 Remarks: ________________________________________________________________________ 18413.2.3 DLFC Tariffs______________________________________________________________________ 18513.3 Balance sheet ____________________________________________________________________ 18513.3.1 Remarks_________________________________________________________________________ 18713.4 PE Komunalna Higiena _____________________________________________________________ 18713.4.1 PE Komunalna Higiena Balance sheet _________________________________________________ 18813.4.2 Remarks: ________________________________________________________________________ 18813.4.3 Income (P&L) Statement ____________________________________________________________ 18913.4.4 Remarks: ________________________________________________________________________ 190

14. Recommendations 191 14.1 Remediation of the existing landfill ____________________________________________________ 19114.2 Construction of a new landfill _________________________________________________________ 19214.3 Operation of the landfill _____________________________________________________________ 19314.4 Access and reception infrastructure, plant and equipment __________________________________ 19414.5 Sorting facility_____________________________________________________________________ 19414.6 Construction and demolition waste facility_______________________________________________ 19514.7 Composting ______________________________________________________________________ 19614.8 Medical waste incineration___________________________________________________________ 19614.9 Mechanical biological treatment_______________________________________________________ 19714.10 Procurement______________________________________________________________________ 19714.11 Other non-site related recommendations________________________________________________ 19814.12 Summary of recommendations _______________________________________________________ 198

15. References 200





Acronyms

AD Anaerobic digestion

AD MEPSO Electricity transmission system operator of Macedonia

BMW Biodegradable municipal waste

BOD Biological oxygen demand

BPEO Best practicable environmental option

C&D Construction and demolition

CCS Carbon capture and storage

CCTV Closed circuit television

CDM Clean development mechanism

CER Certified emission reduction

CIF Climate investment funds

COD Chemical oxygen demand

CQA Construction quality assurance

CTF Clean technology fund

DLFC Drisla landfill company (also known as PE Drisla)

DNA Designated national authority

DSO Distribution system operator

EAR European agency for reconstruction

EfW Energy from waste

ELV End of life vehicles

ETS Emissions trading scheme

FCPF Forest carbon partnership facility

FID Flame ionisation detector

FIP Forest investment program

GHG Greenhouse gas

HDPE High density polyethylene

IFC International finance corporation

IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change

ISWMP Integrated solid waste management program

LCS Leachate collection system

LDC Least developed country

LEDS Low-emissions development strategy

LLDPE Linear low density polyethylene

MBT Mechanical biological treatment

MDB Multilateral development bank

MDG Millennium development goals

MKD Macedonian denar

MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids

MoEPP Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning

MRF Materials reclamation facilities

MRV Monitoring reporting and verification



NAMA Nationally appropriate mitigation action

NCCC National climate change committee

NCV Net calorific value

NEAP National environmental action plan

NSSD National strategy for sustainable development

O&M Operation and maintenance

OD Outside diameter

P&L Profit and loss

pCER Primary certified emission reduction

PEKH PE Komunalna Higiena

PPCR Pilot program for climate resilience

PPE Personal protection equipment

PPP Public private partnership

RAS Recycled activated sludge

RDF Refuse derived fuel

SAS Surplus activated sludge

SBR Sequencing batch reactor

SCF Strategic climate fund

SPV Special-purpose-vehicle

SREP Scaling up renewable energy in low income countries program

SRF Solid recovered fuel

TOC Total organic compounds

tpa Tonnes per annum

UNFCCC United nations framework convention on climate change

VOC Volatile organic compound

WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment

WFD Waste framework directive

WID Waste incineration directive


i


CURRENT SITUATION AND CHALLENGES

Collection

The City of Skopje is well served in its waste collection service and the PE “Komunalna Higiena” (PEKH) collects and transports the household waste from nine of the Municipalities of the City of Skopje to the DLFC. The Municipalities of Aracinovo and Petrovec continue to dispose of their waste on illegal dumps.

There is no waste segregation, which limits the current potential for large scale recycling. Bring sites for the collection of plastic bottles are being rolled out across the capital. Scavenging is prevalent and it is believed that over 5,000 people are involved in unregulated scavenging of waste in Skopje. Scavenged material is then directly delivered to processors and scrap yards.

Landfill

Drisla landfill site has been operated by the Drisla Landfill Company (DLFC – also known as Public Enterprise Drisla) since 1994 and is the primary disposal site for the City of Skopje.

The existing landfill does not have an engineered lining system or measures to control environmental pollutants such as leachate and landfill gas. There is no phasing of the landfill, which results in large expanses of waste left uncovered, leading to the inherent problems of vermin, scavenging, odour, litter, excessive leachate production and uncontrolled gas escape. The landfill currently has no leachate collection system in place and precipitation readily enters the waste and leachate emerges, escaping at a series of levels and flows out of the waste and downhill into the stream at the base of the site which subsequently joins the Markova Reka (river).

A leachate collection system is required at the toe of the landfill; however as the toe bund is eroding a design to enhance the stability of the site to a toe-based failure is required. The leachate system may need to be supplemented by leachate extraction wells to control and manage the emerging leachate.

There is no gas extraction system in the current landfill and therefore gas is allowed to vent directly to the atmosphere.

Construction and demolition wastes are not disposed of to the landfill, but are instead delivered to unregulated and uncontrolled dump sites around the Skopje region.

Waste treatment processes at the landfill

Scavenging primarily for plastic wastes is undertaken at the landfill. The scavengers have recently been employed by a third party (i.e. not DLFC) to collect recyclable wastes. These wastes are then baled before being removed from site.

There is also a medical waste incinerator located at the site. This comprises a single line, fed as required from wastes stored (in bags) in open-topped skips. There is no flue gas emission abatement equipment, and temperatures achieved during combustion in the furnace and downstream are understood to be approximately 850oC to 900oC. This is not in compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID), which requires a medical waste incinerator to achieve at least 1100oC for a residence time of at least 2 seconds. This is not within the physical capability of the existing incinerator and therefore the only option

Executive Summary


ii


available is to replace the current incinerator with a WID compliant solution. Currently hazardous medical waste collections, from the Skopje region, are approaching 500 tonnes per year. The DLFC is understood to want a larger capacity facility to accommodate further increases in medical waste generation and so that the facility can act as a regional facility for the country. Consideration is also being given to co-combustion of hazardous waste oils. This will need to be considered when developing the specification when procuring the facility.

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS PROPOSED

The key technical solutions relating to this project refer to the following:

Landfill engineering

The existing toe bund is eroding, significant groundwater springs are known to enter the site and leachate is escaping from the toe of the site with unrestricted discharge to the river downstream of the site.

The following remediation measures are proposed: A gabion wall-based structure has been proposed to enhance the stability of the surface slopes at the

toe. A surface water drainage scheme has been proposed around the perimeter of the site to reduce

rainwater run-on and to direct surface water so that it discharges to the down stream river. A leachate collection system is proposed to reduce the direct discharge of leachate into the downstream

river. Capping and sealing the existing landfilled waste to reduce uncontrolled migration of pollutants and to

reduce the potential for leachate generation.

The existing landfill does not have an engineered lining system or measures to control environmental pollutants such as leachate and landfill gas. In order to meet legislative requirements a new, engineered landfill needs to be constructed. Development of new phases, engineered to contain the wastes and control environmental pollutants.

The total void space of these new phases, once constructed, is believed to be approximately 7 million cubic metres, which should at the current rate of filling provide an active operational lifespan of approximately 47 years.

The new phases have been designed to sit directly above the existing waste deposits. Analyses have been undertaken to review future tipping to ensure that it is placed in a manner that will not initiate failure mechanisms of the lower slopes.

Operational procedures will be introduced to maximise void-space, reduce the potential for damage to the pollution control systems and to reduce the environmental and nuisance impacts relating to the operation of the site.

Leachate control

A leachate control and treatment option scheme has been proposed. In the short term this will comprise a combination of leachate recirculation on its own or in combination with a reed bed treatment system.

Long term control measures should be based on: The development of a fully effective activated sludge-based leachate treatment system.


iii


The conceptual design is based on a series of assumptions that should be checked as part of the detailed design. Investigations were undertaken as part of the project works, however, these should be supplemented by further monitoring installations.

Gas control

There are no monitoring wells installed and no monitoring for landfill gas has been undertaken. However, gas modelling has been undertaken that suggests that there should be sufficient gas to economically power a 1MW engine. Gas collection systems have been proposed from the existing and proposed waste surfaces, and the provision of gas engines should be installed with a back-up flare if the engine fails or during maintenance.

Increased levels of recycling

Ideally, the sorting facility proposed should be based on the separation of dry recyclable materials that have been segregated by local householders. However, this scheme is reliant on the introduction of segregated waste collections and it is anticipated that this will not be introduced during the short to medium term. As a result, if sorting is to be undertaken, then it is proposed that a facility is developed which receives mixed wastes. The effectiveness of such a system is not as good as a facility based on a segregated waste input stream, as less material will be extracted and the quality of the material will not be as good. For instance, it is unlikely that paper can be collected from a mixed wastes system. The proposed facility has been sized based on handling wastes from the urban municipalities of Centar,

Aerodrom and Karposh, as these wastes are likely to comprise a greater proportion of plastic and metal wastes when compared to the more sub-urban and rural municipalities.

The process and equipment is adaptable, as it is based on hand sorting with magnetic separation of ferrous metals.

An enclosed area of approximately 2,700m2 is required to house the equipment for the MRF for a 45,000 tonne capacity plant, split between two feed lines and two shifts (i.e. 11,250 tonnes per line per shift).

Construction and demolition waste treatment

The quantity of C&D waste has been estimated as part of the Skopje Waste Management Plan (2009-2015). This appears to be based on quantities arising in similar European countries as no study has been undertaken to establish quantities. The estimate of the arisings is approximately 117,000-127,000 tpa. Currently this waste is delivered to unregulated and unmanaged dumpsites surrounding Skopje.

The proposed solution is based on two separate elements: A mobile crushing and screening plant has been proposed that could accommodate a throughput of

approximately 250,000tpa of concrete rubble, highways planings, brick, soils etc. In addition, a vibrofeed, conveyor, overband magnet, trommel and picking station system has also been

proposed. This could accommodate a throughput of approximately 50,000tpa to 60,000tpa of mixed construction and demolition wastes including domestic skip-type arisings, which is typically a less homogenous waste containing the higher value elements such as metal frames, pipes etc. plus window frames, wood and dense plastics.

The combined potential capacity of up to approximately 300,000 tpa provides some scope for the uncertainty of the current estimate of waste arisings.

The anticipated footprint required is 75m x 40m.


iv


Green waste composting

The landfill currently receives approximately 4,200 tonnes of segregated green waste from municipal and commercial services. The introduction of segregated green waste collections could result in a further 6,800-6,900 tpa being collected. The full site has therefore been designed to receive 11,000 tonnes per year with a footprint of 11,000m2. It comprises impermeable hardstanding and a sealed drainage system, which could be constructed in

phases and therefore a design could be prepared for an initial capacity of 4,200 tpa with a footprint of 4,200m2.

The facility requires dedicated plant for moving and turning the green waste windrows.

Medical waste incinerator

The existing medical waste incinerator receives 500 tpa of medical wastes. It operates at a temperature of approximately 850oC and has a retention time of less than 2 seconds. It also has no flue cleaning equipment. As a result, the existing facility will not meet the legislative requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive.

The key proposal is therefore that a new Medical Waste Incinerator be constructed that is compliant with the EU Waste Incineration Directive. It is understood that the manager of the DLFC anticipates that the required capacity will need to increase to approximately 2,000 tpa, as a result of recently enacted legislation. The new incinerator should be sized to be able to process a range of throughputs from 500 tpa to

2,000 tpa. In order to achieve the upper throughput range a 250kg/hr capacity incinerator is required that could be

operated for 8,000 hrs per year. The smaller tonnage could be accommodated by running the facility on a batched basis. Regular maintenance will need to be undertaken to coincide with periods of down time.

The manager wishes to co-incinerate other wastes with medical wastes. Potentially, this is feasible. However, it is not economic to treat or dispose of packaging specifically through incineration, whereas it is not appropriate to thermally treat electrical and electronic goods in a medical waste incinerator as this will result in the release of heavy metals with potentially toxic properties. If recovery of electronic elements is not available as an option, the electronic items should be disposed of to landfill.

INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS

The costs of the landfill rehabilitation have been analysed, along with the costs of the additional waste processing systems.

The estimated capital costs for the developments are shown in the table below: Drisla Land fill rehabilitation/upgrading EUR (*1000) EUR (*1000)

I. . Landfill remediation works 16,944

. Capping and sealing civil works 14,414

. Reception and access building works 3,446

. Leachate treatment 3,473

. Gas collection and treatment 1,639

Engineering / Supervision 2,022

Miscellaneous/unforeseen (5%) 2,123


v


Drisla Land fill rehabilitation/upgrading EUR (*1000) EUR (*1000)

Total 44,588

II. Additional facilities

. (Medical) waste incinerator 1,680

. Composting plant 1,120

. Sorting plant 2,512

. C & D plant 1,056

. MBT plant 31,485

Total 37,853 GRAND TOTAL 82,441

In order to estimate the cost to DLFC of the landfill, the development costs have been profiled to take into account the phasing proposed. The initial sealing of the old landfill, gas extraction and access infrastructure will need to be carried out before the new phases can be developed, meaning that is a significant upfront payment. However, the remaining capital costs have been profiled to allow for a maximum income from gate fees to be earned before the next phase is developed. This minimises the size of the loan required to upgrade the landfill infrastructure although the actual phasing will depend on the rate of filling the landfill as well as the funding profile adopted.

The calculated required gate fee is significantly above the present disposal fee charged. This will require additional funds to be made available, potentially through charging waste producers a higher fee for collection and disposal.

The gate fees anticipated depend on the form of funding and the expected internal rate of return (IRR). A base case for each cost item was created, in order to compare the costs for each technology and development. The base case gives the project an IRR of 15%. This level of return would generally be acceptable to private companies operating similar facilities. In order to calculate the IRR in the base case it has been assumed that the discount rate is 7.8%. This figure is reached assuming that a soft (below market interest rate) loan can be achieved for 80% of the required capital, with the remaining 20% being funded by Drisla. For this, it has been assumed that the interest rate for the soft loan is 6% and for the self funded capital is 15%. This has been used as a base case as it is unusual for banks to be willing to fund the full capital expenditure. For a PPP project it is possible that equity funding would be available at a rate of 20%.

The following table shows the anticipated gate fee for the various activities at 7.8%, 15% and 20% IRR. Estimated Gate Fee (€ / tonne) Process

IRR 7.8% IRR 15.0% IRR 20%

Landfill disposal (covering remediation measures and new landfill infrastructure)

18.15 25.96 30.82

Sorting (45,000tpa dirty MRF)

7.50 10.83 13.38

Composting (11,000tpa) 18.66 24.78 29.47

C&D facility (250,000tpa) 2.87 3.17 3.41


vi


Estimated Gate Fee (€ / tonne) Process

IRR 7.8% IRR 15.0% IRR 20%

(100,000tpa) 4.12 4.89 5.49

(50,000tpa) 6.21 7.75 8.96


(2,000tpa) 270.29 317.66 354.18

Mechanical biological treatment

(150,000tpa) 31.14 45.72 57.34

The gate fees already take account of the potential revenue from gas utilisation and the sale of recyclables from the sorting facility.

For illustrative purposes only, on the basis € 6.4 per tonne of CO2 reductions, the Drisla Project has the potential to generate approximately € 240,000 per year or € 3.3 million over a 14 year period. However, it is not guaranteed that this revenue will be achieved for the Drisla facility and therefore no consideration has been included for carbon credits. In addition, no revenue has been assumed from the sale of materials from either the composting of C&D facilities.

One of the concerns over the financial aspect is the DLFC’s operating result to a loss of 5.5% project for 2011 as a result of: a lower average gate fee/tonne (to be charged to Komunalna Higiena), reduced subsidies from City of Skopje for investments an increase in the cost of uncollectible (bad) debts.

PROCUREMENT OPTIONS

The following table identifies potential procurement options, together with consideration of the respective costs, the potential suitability and requirements of the investors.

Funding Option

Cost Suitability of contracting type

Potential Investors’ Requirements

Borrowing from a bank

Dependant on loan terms. A soft loan could allow an

interest free period and low interest rates whereas a

commercial bank will charge a higher rate.

Development banks and green banks may offer

attractive terms for borrowing.

Suitable for Drisla LFC/City of Skopje to

directly borrow. This may be necessary if a third

party is not involved. For example, this could be

used for landfill remediation.

Bank(s) will require assurance that repayments can be made, through gate fee earnings and are

likely to require a parent company guarantee. Borrowing from a bank will usually require a

third party technical review of proposed solutions.

It is estimated that approximately 20% of the total capital expenditure would need to be

funded by equity so this would need to be raised internally.

A bank may seek assurance of the amount of waste arising and its composition, through

studies and independent advice.

Raising equity internally

This depends on the cash available in the City of Skopje

and the internal charging rates.

This allows control of the investment to remain

internal. If the initial money is not required to be paid back it could be

used to fund future infrastructure.

To be determined internally.

PPP contract

PPP is generally more expensive than other means

This is regularly used for waste treatment

Risk transfer is a key issue to minimise cost and ensure an operable contract. PPP should


vii


Funding Option

Cost Suitability of contracting type

Potential Investors’ Requirements

of financing as the private sector and their funders will require a profit. However, it

removes the need for DLFC/the City of Skopje to

raise finance. PPP generally protects the public sector from delivery

risk as payment is made for service only. The Contractor will set a service charge, or gate fee, that will cover the

cost of infrastructure and operation.

The amount of risk passed to the private sector will affect the gate fee. The more risk

the private sector is expected to take, the more expensive

the contract is likely to be.

technologies as the private sector has

detailed technical and operational knowledge.

It is most suitable for contracting where the

operations can be ring fenced from other

activities.

prevent the public sector paying for services until infrastructure is delivered. However, the

private sector will usually require a guarantee as to the minimum amount of waste throughput

requiring treatment so that incomes from gate fee can be guaranteed.

The private sector (and their funders) will want to be indemnified from risks arising to pre-

existing assets (i.e. the landfill). It may be necessary to provide a parent

company guarantee that gate fees will be paid to satisfy funders.

PPP generally takes a minimum of 18 months from pre-qualification of bidder to financial close,

with additional time often being required if funders are involved and if the contract is

complex. PPP is usually procured in a number of steps,

including pre-qualification, solution submission (in 1- 3 stages) and final tender. This allows the

public sector to refine requirements during the procurement process and ensure that bidders

are bidding on a like for like basis. It is recommended that specialist independent technical, legal and financial advisors are

employed by the public sector.

Attracting subsidies

The cost of subsidies should be lower than commercial

terms or not have a financial cost. However, stipulations

would usually need to be met to qualify for the subsidy.

Subsidies are attractive if the terms are not too

onerous. They are increasingly available for

producing renewable energy rather than landfill

alone but suitable ones may exist.

The contractor may be required to report a significant amount of data, allow a large number of visitors, test works more regularly than usual

etc. Subsidies may provide grants for capital,

increase the price that can be earned from the sale of electricity or reduce tax charges.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A full list of recommendations has been included in Section 14 and a timeline for the development of facilities has been included in Section 5.13.

Decisions relating to the development will be based on a combination of factors such as the economic viability and affordability, the need to meet European and National legislative targets, local issues and conditions. Local issues include the overall need for the facilities, the impact of the facilities on the surrounding environment, the impact and the economic affect on the scavengers working in Skopje and the landfill. In addition consideration needs to be given to the health and safety of the staff and resident population at and around the landfill.

The recommendations proposed are based on an assessment of the key driving factors. However, it is possible that events may arise that lead to these recommendations needing to be modified in the future.

Some options are essential and funding should be found to undertake these in order not to risk the existing construction. These include: Remediation of the existing landfill in terms of stability, leachate control and surface water management.


viii


Without these actions the landfill will continue to cause significant environmental pollution and could result in a major failure requiring more expensive remediation works.

Other aspects should be undertaken on a legislative basis, and in order to further protect the environment. These include: Sealing the existing landfill and ceasing disposal in unlined cells. Development of new engineered phases with gas and leachate control measures, including containment

of the wastes and the environmental pollutants. Development of a sorting facility and composting site in order to assist the country in meeting

biodegradable municipal waste landfill diversion requirements. Installation of a new WID compliant medical waste incinerator.

The operations can be improved to reduce the impact on the surrounding environment from issues of nuisance such as odour, litter, vermin etc.

In order to properly manage the above, there will be a need to develop new reception and access infrastructure.

The development of new landfill controls and infrastructure will have significant capital and operational expense that will need to be funded. The resulting fees are likely to be at least double the existing fees for disposal and treatment options, with the exception of the medical waste incinerator which will see the price per tonne fall principally as a result of increased capacity.

The development of C&D facilities and the future development of an MBT facility could be required as a result of legislation. With C&D this would relate to the unregulated disposal of materials elsewhere in Skopje, whereas the MBT may be required to meet the more onerous biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of future years. A review should be undertaken of the most technically and economically viable treatment options once the other facilities have been commissioned and the impacts on material recovery are known and understood.

Various procurement options are available to fund the development of the infrastructure. The City of Skopje should assess the potential of obtaining funding through the means identified and seek further advice with respect to the implementation of the procurement.

The affordability of increased fees to the collection contractor is questionable and therefore the City of Skopje, as major stakeholder for both the PE Komunalna Higiena and Drisla LFC, should consider and decide their measures and options to increase the waste revenues to be collected from the city’s waste generators. This needs to be to such a degree that both PE Komunalna Higiena and the Drisla LF company can execute their responsibilities in a technically sound and financially viable way.


1


1.1 General

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) has allocated funding to carry out an advisory mandate through its Integrated Solid Waste Management Program (“ISWMP”), a donor-funded advisory services programme. The objective of the ISWMP in Macedonia is to improve waste management services and practices in the country by laying the groundwork, improving regulatory framework, and capacity building to facilitate private sector participation and investment in the municipal waste management projects (waste disposal, treatment and collection).

The majority of the wastes generated in the capital of Macedonia, Skopje and the region surrounding the capital are disposed of at the Drisla Landfill, which is operated by the Drisla Landfill Company (“DLFC”). The IFC will assist the DLFC in the rehabilitation of and the improvement of the operations at the Drisla Landfill.

As part of this assignment, IFC ISWMP drew upon the services of a Technical, Environmental and Financial Consultant with an extensive portfolio of international experience. A contract accordingly was signed between The World Bank Group (The Client; IFC, 2121 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433 and Mott MacDonald (Consultant) Limited, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom on December 10, 2010. Mott MacDonald Ltd led a consortium comprising Euroconsult Mott MacDonald (The Netherlands) and Geing Krebs and Kiefer International and Others Ltd (Macedonia).

1.2 Tasks and objectives

The assignment covers the following tasks: Review existing technical documents already prepared for Drisla (technical, environmental, financial and

operational); Perform a technical, operational and financial assessment of the existing facilities and estimate

investments needed to improve service quality and upgrade existing landfills to meet environmental and operational international standards;

Analyse opportunities for development at the disposal site for: − extraction and utilisation of landfill gas, − construction of a line for secondary waste selection, − separation and processing of construction waste, − operation of an incinerator for medical waste, − construction of a green waste composting facility;

Assess Carbon Development Mechanism potentials; Analyse the suitability of various options for financing, with focus on private sector participation option.

The Project’s objective is the preparation of a feasibility study including technical solutions for the: rehabilitation of the Drisla landfill and improvement of its operations and services; extraction and exploring potential for utilisation of landfill gas and CDM financing under Kyoto protocol; construction of a line for mechanical solid waste treatment at the site; separation and processing of construction waste; new incinerator for medical waste; composting facility for bio/organic waste and landfill closure.

1. Introduction


2


It is expected that all proposed actions are to be undertaken in accordance with industry best practice and by ensuring sustainability and compliance with international and EU standards in waste management. In addition, reference has been made to “Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities”, IFC December 2007 and to “Performance Standard 1 – Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems”, IFC July 2007.

1.3 Layout of the report

The report is set out in two volumes. The first volume summarises the findings of the feasibility study. The second volume includes the Appendices to the summarised text. The Appendices provide a greater level of detail and are provided to show the approach taken to reach the recommendations presented in the summarised text within the first volume.

References to more detailed text in Volume 2 is provided, where appropriate.


3


This section describes the wider waste management system in the region of Skopje including the legislation impacting on waste management operations, the municipal structure and population of the region and waste collection and recycling services in the region. The Drisla landfill comprises an important element of the total waste management system provided for Skopje and this is discussed in more detail in Section 4.

2.1 Waste Catchment Area and Population

Skopje1 is the capital and largest city of the Republic of Macedonia with about a quarter of the total population of the entire country. The last full census was in 2002. This showed that there were 506,926 inhabitants of Skopje. The total population for the FYR Macedonia was found to be 2,022,547. The State Statistical Office shows that the total population of Macedonia is 2,052,722 and of the Skopje region are 601,0572.

The city of Skopje is a separate administrative unit in the Republic of Macedonia. Skopje has 10 constituent municipalities3: Aerodrom, Butel, Gazi Baba, Gjorche Petrov, Karposh, Kisela Voda, Saraj, Centar, Chair and Shuto Orizari. Ranking these municipalities by number of inhabitants, the largest municipality in the capital Skopje is Gazi Baba with 72,617 inhabitants, and the smallest is Shuto Orizari with 20,800 inhabitants. Ranking by surface area, the largest municipality in Skopje is Saraj with an area of 229.06km² and municipality with lowest area is Chair with and area of 3.52 km².

Figure 2.1: Constituent Municipalities of Skopje

Table 2-1 illustrates the municipalities in the city of Skopje, with information’s on their total area and population. Appendix V of Volume 2 provides a description of the Municipalities.

_________________________ 1 www.Wikipedia.org / population census (2002) 2 http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/MakBrojki2010web_eng.pdf “Macedonia in Figures”, State Statistical Office 2010 3 Article 7, “Official gazette of R. Macedonia“ num. 55/04

2. Solid Waste Management System in Skopje

Captions: 1. Centar; 2. Gazi Baba; 3. Aerodrom; 4. Chair; 5. Kisela Voda; 6. Butel; 7. Shuto Orizari; 8. Karposh; 9. Gjorche Petrov; 10. Saraj;


4


Municipalities in Skopje with their total area and population

Table 2-1 Municipalities of Skopje Municipality Total area (km2) Number of inhabitants4

Aerodrom 20 72,009

Butel 54.79 36,154

Gazi Baba 110.86 72,617

Gjorche Petrov 66.93 41,634

Karposh 35.21 59,666

Kisela Voda 34.24 57,236

Saraj 229.06 35,408

Centar 7.52 45,412

Chair 3.52 64,773

Shuto Orizari 7.48 22,017

Total 571.46 506,926

Around the city of Skopje there are 7 additional municipalities located, also called suburban communities. They are: Aracinovo, Zelenikovo, Ilinden, Petrovec, Sopishte, Chucher Sandevo and Studenichani. These Suburban Municipalities belong to the Drisla Landfill catchment area, as well.

_________________________ 4 The data are in accordance with the population census conducted in 2002


5


Figure 2.2: Municipalities of the Skopje Region

Table 2-2 Sub-urban Municipalities surrounding Skopje Sub urban communities Total area (km2) Number of inhabitants

Arachinovo 24 15,000

Zelenikovo 176.95 4,077

Ilinden 97.02 15,894

Petrovec 198.86 8,255

Sopishte 222.1 9,522

Chucher Sandevo 240.78 8,493

Studenichani 276.16 17,246 Total 1235.87 78,487

The total population of the Skopje waste catchment area according to the census 2002 is (506,926 inhabitants form Skopje and 78,487 inhabitants from surrounding suburban communities) 585,413.


6


Table 2-3 presents a classification of the municipalities in to: urban, rural, and mixed (rural-urban).

Table 2-3 Classification of the municipalities in the city of Skopje Urban municipalities Rural municipalities Mixed municipalities

(semi urban)

Centar Saraj Gazi Baba

Aerodrom Shuto Orizari Kisela Voda

Karposh Arachinovo Gjorche Petrov

Zelenikovo Chair

Ilinden Butel

Petrovec

Sopishte

Chucher Sandevo

Studenichani

Total population

177,087 135,912 272,414

The Government of Macedonia intends to organise the country into regions following the EU requirements for allocation of funds.

According to the Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Macedonia (2008 - 2020): “In the first priority, the improved and new waste management infrastructure shall be established for collection and final disposal of municipal solid waste on the regional level which shall comprise more than 200,000 inhabitants in order to achieve the adequate economic thresholds for investment and operation of the municipal waste management facilities and acceptable prices for executed services.”

According to the National Waste Management Plan (2008-2014) of the Republic of Macedonia: “The concept of the regional municipal waste management system represents the link between the state and municipalities; the majority of responsibilities and tasks shall be passed over to a regional level on behalf of the joint municipalities and their habitants, with the consent and active participation of the MoEPP. Applying the economy of scale optimally, the Republic of Macedonia shall organise 5-7 waste management regions, all having more than 200,000 inhabitants …”

Currently, details about the number, size, catchment area, etc of the Waste Management Regions have not been decided. However, since the Skopje region already covers a waste catchment area of more than 600,000 people and is operated by a functional waste management system, it is assumed that the Skopje region will be organised as a single Waste Management Region. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any changes concerning the size and number of inhabitants of this waste catchment area.


7


2.2 Municipal waste collection

PE “Komunalna Higiena”5 (PEKH) is a unit within the City of Skopje, Department of Municipal Affairs in the field of communal hygiene, maintenance and use of parks and greenery. It collects and transports the household waste from nine of the Municipalities of the City of Skopje as shown in Table 2-4.

There are also several private companies6 (PC), which collect and transport waste from semi-urban and rural Municipalities. The Municipalities Aracinovo and Petrovec dump their waste on illegal dumps7. An estimate of the total amount disposed of by these municipalities is provided in Section 3.2.

Table 2-4 Municipal collection arrangements Urban municipalities Rural municipalities Mixed municipalities

(semi - urban)

Centar PEKH Saraj PC Gazi Baba PEKH

Aerodrom PEKH Shuto Orizari PEKH Kisela Voda PEKH

Karposh PEKH Arachinovo Gjorche Petrov PEKH

Zelenikovo PC Chair PEKH

Ilinden PC Butel PEKH

Petrovec

Sopishte PC

Chucher Sandevo PC

Studenichani PC

2.3 Waste recycling in Skopje

Formalised waste recycling is not particularly well established in Skopje and there is no significant pre-sorting by the households. There is currently a scheme to roll out bring sites across Skopje which will receive plastic wastes.

Informal recycling through scavenging is prevalent and the norm for the region.

Formal recycling

Typically, recyclable materials are collected through a variety of methods including specific collections by individual private companies, collections from scrap yards and informal recovery (scavenging). There are no specific door to door collections of segregated recyclables.

Responses to questionnaires for a study in 2004 showed the following quantities of materials were collected from scrap yards for recycling in Skopje:

_________________________ 5 Source: PE “Komunalna Higiena”, Information for the uploaded amounts of MSW in 2010 by municipalities for 1,1 m3 containers

and other types of containers 6 JKP “Saraj” (Municipality of Saraj), JKP “Sopishte“(Municipality of Sopishte), JKP “Zelenikovo“(Municipality of Zelenikovo), JKP

“Studenichani“ (Municipality of Studenichani), JKP “Ilinden“(Municipality of Ilinden), JKP “Mirkovci“ (Municipality of Chucher Sandevo)

7 Source: National Waste Management Plan 2009 – 2015 of the Republic of Macedonia, page 33


8


Table 2-5 Quantity of materials recycled by scrap yards in 2004

Commodity Collected/ processed total in tonnes 2004 No. of companies

Paper and cardboard 7,125 9

Metal-ferrous 46,986 10

Copper 713 6

Aluminium 1,350 5

Hard plastic 199 7

PET 0.2 1

Film 92 4

Batteries 2,983 10

Glass 0 0

Tyres 170 3 Source: Annex V to the National Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Studies, 2005

Paper recycling is undertaken from individual commercial and public premises; there are individual containers located around Skopje for the public to use and large containers at specific industrial outlets. Small quantities of PET bottles (39 t in 2010) and paper (15 t in 2010) were placed in specialised bins managed by PE “Komunalna Higiena” which are spread around the City area. The main factory for paper and cardboard in Skopje “Komuna Ad” is understood to be in a phase of reorganization.

There is a well-established network of collectors and/or brokers for recovered scrap metals, as well as a strong and stable market. PET is not collected by the scrap yards mostly because of the costly collecting system due to big volume of PET bottle and low weight.

The USAID Plastic Recycling Project has established a new partnership with all stakeholders in the field to include informal collectors in the existing recycling and waste management system. Participants in the project are the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Employment Service Agency, the City of Skopje, Public Utility Company “Komunalna Higiena” and PAKOMAK (the first authorised entity for management of packaging waste). Further information is provided on PAKOMAK as Appendix B in Volume 2. Further information relating to recycling companies is included as Appendix D.

In the rural areas, organic waste is used as food for small animals or poultry. Paper and cardboards are used as fuel for heating and cooking in the rural areas. The quantity of wastes disposed of within the households is unknown. Generally, this type of usage should be encouraged; however, the public should be made aware of the types of materials that can be safely combusted and those that should be disposed of. For instance, it is recommended that plastic materials and treated wood are not combusted at home, as the burning of these can lead to the emission of dioxins and furans, which are carcinogens and so hazardous to health.

Scavenging

Scavenging of waste is prevalent across the city of Skopje (Figure 2.3). Primarily the focus of the scavenging is on the collection of plastic waste fractions from 1.1 m3 containers placed in the municipalities in the city of Skopje. Although they will also collect paper, metal etc. There are also approximately 70 scavengers collecting PET bottles from the waste collection trucks that are discharging their loads at the Drisla landfill. Plastic waste recovery is common, at present, because the price of plastic that can be


9


obtained is currently more favorable than other material types such as paper or cardboard. It is understood that one large sack filled with PET bottles will earn the collector 250 MKD.

Figure 2.3: Scavenging in Skopje

Figure 2.4: Plastic collected by scavengers

There are no studies about the number of people, gender issues etc. for those who are taking part in the informal collection of plastic and other waste fractions. PAKOMAK8 estimates the number9 of scavengers to be between 4,000 and 5,000 people in Skopje.

It is evident that informal waste collectors make significant contributions to modern waste management in Macedonia. Estimates of the total wastes collected by scavengers are provided in Section 3.2.3. As a result, some effort is being made by USAID to recognise the contribution made by these collection services to help them to register their activities and become a legal part of the formal waste management system for the country.

The USAID Plastic Recycling Project has established a new partnership with all stakeholders in the field to include informal collectors in the existing recycling and waste management system. Partners signed an agreement to cooperate in resolving the social, health, employment and waste management issues of the

_________________________ 8 Pakomak are the country's first commercial packaging recovery association comprising 11 local companies (See Appendix B of

Volume 2) 9 Source: Information according to the meeting held on 05.04.2011 with PAKOMAK


10


informal collectors. The USAID Plastic Recycling Project will target 500 informal collectors from the Municipalities of Skopje, Tetovo, Kumanovo, Strumica and Bitola, focusing on increasing their knowledge and abilities related to basic business skills, negotiations with buyer companies, and compliance with legislation. Informal collectors interested in starting up their own businesses will be supported through the Project’s self-employment initiatives and grant schemes.

2.4 Legislation

EU Directives relating to waste management are in a phase of transposition into Macedonian legislation, according to the demands of National Programme for adoption of EU legislation Chapter 27 – Environment. A description of the transposition of some of the EU Directives into Macedonian legislation that are relevant to this Study and the Drisla Landfill in terms of waste disposal, medical waste incineration, composting, sorting, recycling etc. are included in Appendix A of Volume 2.


11


Not all waste generated is collected and treated as part of the formal solid waste management system implemented by the Municipalities. Waste quantities and composition is likely to vary over the year.

As discussed in Section 2.3, the informal sector in Skopje is taking care of a significant element of the total waste collection. Scavengers are separating out recyclable materials from waste containers and bins, such as: paper, cardboard, PET-bottles, aluminium tins, and scrap metals, as well as other waste fractions. It has been estimated that scavenging accounts for approximately 20% of the total wastes generated from households in Skopje.

3.1 Data from literature

The total quantity of waste generated has been determined and recorded in a number of sources. This is discussed in further detail in Appendix D of Volume 2.

3.1.1 Macedonian State Statistical Office

Data from the State Statistical Office showed that the total amount of collected municipal waste in the Republic of Macedonia in 2009 was 552,230 tones. This was an increase of 4% over the data recorded for 2008. The majority of waste collected (approximately 82%) was household waste, with the remainder being from commercial premises. The National Waste Management Plan for 2006 – 2012 & 2009-2015 showed the total waste generated to be 572,000 tonnes with a split of 73% household and 27% commercial in 2005.

The total amount of solid municipal waste generated in the Republic of Macedonia in 2009 was 725,97610 tonnes. This equates to 354 kg per person, which is 1.4% more than the same amount in 2008.

3.1.2 Macedonian Waste Management Strategy

The Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Macedonia 2008 – 2020 indicates the following quantities of wastes generated and its compositional breakdown for 2008.

Table 3-1 Estimated quantity of wastes generated across Macedonia in 2008 Type of waste Estimated quantity (tons/ year)

Municipal waste 420,000

Commercial waste (constituents similar to household waste) 150,000

Hazardous waste from healthcare institutions 1,000

Construction and Demolition waste 500,000

Industrial non-hazardous waste 2,120,000

Industrial hazardous waste 77,500

Waste from mining 17,300,000

Agricultural waste – animal by-products 4,900,000

_________________________ 10 http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/MakBrojki2010web_eng.pdf, http://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie_en.aspx?rbrtxt=80

3. Quantity and composition of wastes


12


Type of waste Estimated quantity (tons/ year)

Agricultural waste – plant by-products 550,000

Used tyres 5,000

Used mineral oils 8,000

End of life vehicles 17,500

Used accumulators 3,500

Total Approx 26,000,000

3.2 Household waste

3.2.1 General

Almost all of the households in the Skopje region (excluding Aracinovo & Petrovec) have a formal wastes collection and disposal system predominantly provided by “Komunalna Higiena” and a small number of private utilities.

It is known that two Municipalities (Aracinovo & Petrovec) are currently disposing of their wastes at illegal dumps. The total waste disposed of from these municipalities is believed to be 3,387 tonnes. It is recommended that these two Municipalities utilise the newly engineered disposal cells at Drisla once complete.

According to information provided by PE “Komunalna Higiena” 130,926 tonnes of household waste were collected in 2009 and 124,152 tonnes in 2010.

3.2.2 Household waste registered at Drisla Landfill

Records of wastes deposited at the Drisla landfill weighbridge date back to 1995. The figures are shown in Appendix C of Volume 2. According to these records the amount of waste delivered to Drisla Landfill during 1997 – 2010 vary between 138,000 and 160,000 tonnes/year. The total amount of municipal solid waste provided to the Drisla landfill (2009) was 149,663 tonnes (which equates to 410 tonnes / day), and in 2010 was 138,217 tonnes (or 379 tonnes / day).

3.2.3 Derivation of key figures (kg/capita/yr)

The derivation of individual wastes included in Table 3-2 is presented in Appendix D3 of Volume 2.

Table 3-2 Quantification of total household wastes generated in Skopje (2010) Waste practice Total in tonnes

Waste dispose of at illegal dumps (Aracinovo & Petrovec) 3,387

Household waste generated in 4 suburban communities (adapted amount) 9,283

Household waste recycled, reused, fed, etc 3% of collected waste 4,147 Recycled by households

PET 39

Paper / Cardboard 15

Paper collected by ECOPAC 2,500

Waste landfilled 138,217


13


Waste practice Total in tonnes

Recyclables sorted out by Scavengers

PET 14,780

Paper / Cardboard 25,150 Total household waste generated (t) 197,518

The total catchment population for the Skopje region is estimated to be 590,455 inhabitants (see Appendix G (Table G-3) of Volume 2. Assuming the above total of 197,518 tonnes of wastes generated per year, this equates to 335 kg waste generated/ capita / year for 2010. This figure is consistent with ranges anticipated in the general literature.

Assuming 197,518 tonnes of waste is generated and only 138,217 tonnes is deposited, it can be concluded that about 30 % of the total waste generated in the Skopje region is recovered/disposed of through informal channels.

3.3 Construction and demolition waste

According to the Waste Management Plan – City of Skopje (2009 – 2015) “The quantity of construction and demolition waste (C&D waste)... produced in 2008 is assessed as 117,000-127,000 tonnes.” This is based on an estimated waste generation rate of 230-250kg/capita/year and was estimated based on information from other (unnamed) countries.

A study was undertaken across the EU covering the period from 1995-200311 which showed that proportionally construction and demolition wastes comprised a much smaller proportion of the total waste generated in candidate countries compared to those established in the EU. The values identified that 31% of waste material generation was construction waste from established EU countries compared to just 3% for candidate countries. “About 510 million tonnes of waste (1 126 kg/person) were generated by the construction sector. With regard to construction waste the data indicate a significant difference between old and new Member States. Measured as waste per GVA the EU 15 generates double the amount of the NMS 10 countries. Expressed as waste per person the arising in EU 15 (1 321 kg/person) is about ten times higher than that of the new Member States (135 kg/person). The big discrepancy not only reflects real differences in construction activities, but also differences in coverage of construction waste streams between old and new Member States.”

PE “Komunalna Higiena” Skopje reported 15,000m³ of inert waste disposed at the “Drisla” landfill in 2008.

Just 130.52 t of C&D waste are reported by Drisla Company to be disposed at Drisla Landfill in 2010, which suggests that there is a problem with the data management at the landfill site in terms of wastes classification.

In reality, construction and demolition wastes can vary considerably depending on the population growth, the economy and availability of funding streams for reconstruction and development. It is not possible to

_________________________ 11 Waste generated and treated in Europe (1995-2003), dated 2005, EU http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-69-05-755/EN/KS-69-05-755-EN.PDF


14


predict with any certainty the growth or otherwise of construction and demolition. As a result, the key will be to ensure that sufficient capacity is provided for within the treatment facility for such wastes at the site.

3.4 Green waste

According to the Annual report for 2010, prepared by PE Drisla the following amount of green waste was delivered:

Table 3-3 Quantities of green waste disposed at Drisla Landfill in 2010 Companies collecting green waste Green waste in t

AD Skopje Bazaar 3,063.46

PE Parks & Greenery 876.18

Eko Flor 288.56

Eko Rast 17.7

Eko Team 19.22

Total 4,265.12 Source: Waste Management Plan for City of Skopje (2010 – 2015)

Currently 4,265tpa of organic waste is being delivered to the landfill which has the potential to be diverted directly to a composting facility. To increase organic waste composting and landfill diversion, it would be productive to introduce a separate collection for green waste from households. The introduction of source segregated waste collection has a higher chance of success with garden waste as the waste is produced outside of the home and is therefore less likely to be contaminated, be the least difficult system for residents to understand, and also be the simplest to implement. It is reported that there are 46,000 households with gardens within the 5 municipalities, and assuming 150kg of green waste per household per annum, this provides the potential of a further 6,900tpa of green waste from this source, resulting in a total of 11,128tpa.

The growth of green waste generation over time is difficult to estimate as production is associated with the number of gardens, the quantity of green space, weather, social trends, the implementation of home composting etc. In addition, the capture rate of green waste also has a major impact on the quantity available. As a green waste collection service is introduced, it is likely that greater numbers of residents will use the service rather than composting from home.

Growth does not tend to increase proportionally to economic and population factors. In fact, it is possible that a decline in green waste per household could be expected in the long term as population and the economy grow. The reason for this is that as these factors increase there is greater built-development and therefore less green space.

For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed that green waste generation will not increase year on year, although there may be increases in the capture rates up to the 11,128tpa total assumed.

3.5 Medical waste

The Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Macedonia is indicating that the total wastes generated at healthcare institutions is 6,670 tonnes of which Hazardous ‘Waste from Healthcare Institutions’ is approximately 15% of the total healthcare waste or 1000 tonnes/yr, at present.


15


General waste quantities in the Strategy are assumed to rise at 1.7% per year for 10 - 12 years, though it is not known whether this figure has been applied to individual waste categories. In reality, unless there is a significant change in legislation which changes the classification of wastes, it is likely that waste quantities will only increase in line with population.

Data has been provided showing the quantities of medical waste burned in the incinerator at Drisla for each year from 2000 to 2010. This shows a generally increasing trend, from 115 tonnes during 2000 to 444 tonnes in 2010, though the 2009 figure was higher, at 499 tonnes. The Drisla site therefore appears to handle around 50% of the medical waste of Macedonia, through focussing on the arisings from Skopje which has the largest concentration of healthcare institutions in the country.

Assuming a population increase of 0.3% per year until 2020 and then 0.4% thereafter, by 2025 the total medical wastes collected for treatment should be 520 tonnes per annum. Year by year estimates are included in Appendix G of Volume 2. However, there should be a degree of caution with respect to taking these quantities as medical waste incineration has been increasing on average by 20% each year from 2000 to 2009.

Figure 3.1: Increasing growth in medical waste

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Gro

wth

Source: Drisla Landfill Company

In reality, medical waste is being attracted to the facility, which is the reason for the significant increases particularly in the first few years. The average increase over the period from 2006 to 2009 is 5.2% each year. If medical waste were to continue to grow at the rate of 5.2% per year, the total waste to be incinerated in 2025 would be 1,123 tonnes.

Discussions were held with the General Director of the DLFC. He recognised that the current throughput for the incinerator was 500 tpa. This comprised approximately 70% medical waste and 30% other materials, which were described as electrical, hazardous and packaging wastes. An official Government gazette released in January now requires all medical institutions (private or public) to dispose of all their hazardous medical wastes through incineration by the end of the year. It was felt that this would result in approximately 1,200tpa of medical wastes being delivered to Drisla. The DLFC would want to co-incinerate


16


this with other materials totalling 500tpa. The capacity requirement of any new incinerator could, therefore, be between 1600-2000 tpa.

3.6 Other waste

According to the “Report for the amounts of waste deposited provided by private and physical entities in 2010” prepared by the “Department Entrance – severance” of PE Drisla the following amounts of technology and food waste were provided to Drisla Landfill.

Table 3-4 Quantities of technological and food waste disposed of at Drisla Landfill in 2010 Technological waste12 in tonnes Food waste13 in tonnes

2,056.02 1,298.78

3.7 Household Waste Composition

Data from the National Waste Management Plan (2009-2015) of the Republic of Macedonia indicates the following quantities of waste (2005) are generated each year in Macedonia.

Table 3-5 Quantities of wastes shown in National Waste Management Plan (2009-2015) Classification number

Type of waste tonnes / year %

20 01 / 20 02 Biodegradable waste 148,819 26

15 01 Package waste 97,305 17

20 03 07 Bulky waste 28,619 5

Other 297,638 52

Total 572,381 100

An executed mechanical and manual sorting system (NWM Plan, Annex 5, Special Study A, Part A: Municipal/Household Waste Analyses) results in the following figures:

Table 3-6 Quantities of wastes separated out into constituent material types Classification number


20 01 / 20 02 Biodegradable waste 148,819 26

20 01 38 Wood 15,454 2.7

20 01 01 Paper and cardboard 68,113 11.9

20 01 39 Plastics 54,949 9.6

_________________________ 12 Technological waste is waste from each types of industries, technologies in the city of Skopje, such as: metallurgy, leather, fur, slag

waste, waste from petroleum refining, and other types of waste which are non hazardous. 13 Food waste is food collected from markets with expired time of duration, and food which doesn’t fulfilled the legal standards

according to the decision of the Market Inspection


17


Classification number


20 01 02 Glass 20,033 3.5

20 01 11 Textiles 16,599 2.9

20 01 40 Metals 14,882 2.6

15 01 05 Composite packaging 12,592 2.2

Other waste (complex products, inert material, other categories)

42,929 7.5

20 01 Hazardous household waste 1,145 0.2

20 01 / 02 / 03 Fine mixed particles (< 10 mm) 176,866 30.9

Total 572,381 100

According to a waste sorting exercise undertaken by Komunalna Higiena in 2007 the waste fraction are as following:

Table 3-7 Larger waste classification Number Type of waste %

1. All types of plastic 12%

2. Paper and cardboard 10%

3. Iron and metal which reacts to electro magnet up to 2%

4. Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper) up to 2%

5. Rubber Leather Textile up to 4%

6. Bulky wood waste max 1,5% up to 2%

7. Construction demolition waste, ceramics and similar inert waste 8% up to 10%

8. Biodegradable waste (food, garden waste, and waste from cemetery)

46% - 50%

9. Glass 2%

10. Ashes and other undefined components of the waste (earth, stones)

8%

Overall 100%

In order to get a more accurate overview on the waste composition at the landfill a household waste sorting exercise was conducted from 28.01.2011 and 17.02.2011 supervised under this contract. The sorting was undertaken as part of this feasibility study, but was also undertaken to provide the representatives of the site with “on the Job” training. It is recommended that the Drisla Landfill Company considers this initial sorting as a starting point for a series of compositional analyses over the year or series of years. For more accurate results, the waste analysis should be conducted at least four times a year to determine the potential for seasonal variation in the waste stream. A description of the procedures for undertaking the waste analysis is given in Appendix F of Volume 2.

Table 3-8 shows the result of the sorting structured according to the origin of the waste:

• Samples from 5 trucks with waste from urban areas,

• Samples from 5 trucks with waste from mixed areas and

• Samples from 5 trucks with waste from rural areas.


18


Table 3-8 Household waste composition analysis - summary Fraction / areas Range Average waste quantity

Max (%) Min (%) urban (%) mixed (%) rural (%) total (%)

Food waste 25.11 0.75 19.9 12.3 13.5 15.2

Green waste 7.63 0.00 1.0 2.4 2.5 2.0

Glass 21.58 0.81 9.8 4.5 2.3 5.5

Plastic 21.28 9.86 11.0 12.0 14.2 12.4

Paper/cardboard 35.02 6.67 16.7 15.3 13.8 15.3

Tetra Pack 5.28 0.16 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0

Metal 2.42 0.43 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2

Textiles 22.05 0.70 5.9 3.8 7.6 5.8

Electrical 1.03 0.00 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2

Other non degradable / miscellaneous other 24.99 2.96 10.6 12.9 12.2 11.9

Material smaller than 40mm x 50mm 51.99 1.03 21.6 33.4 30.6 28.5 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Inert 46.08 19.69 27.47 24.42 24.05 25.31

Source: Waste composition study, Drisla 2011

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results, which are summarised above, but are presented in Appendix F of Volume 2: Only a small percentage of organic waste is bigger than 40 x 50 mm. In each municipality the most common waste fraction is material smaller than 40 x 50 mm, and the least

common is electrical waste. For each of the municipalities, approximately 80% of the waste fraction that is smaller than 40mm x

50mm is highly biodegradable wastes (such as mixed food and garden waste) and 20 % of the wastes are other fractions such as: paper, plastic, mixed with ashes, soil, cigarettes etc.

In urban municipalities there is a higher percentage of paper/cardboard. There is also a higher proportion of glass and plastic, mostly PET bottles, in the urban municipalities when compared to the more rural municipalities.

The textiles fraction is most prevalent in wastes originating from the municipality of Shuto Orizari. This is a result of the main commercial activity of the population of Suto Orizari being the manufacture and sale of clothes. The region is also known to have a clothes street market.

The Waste sorting was undertaken during the winter season and accordingly the biodegradable fraction was small. Although the figures are in the range of the figures presented in the “NWM Plan, Annex 5, Special Study A, Part A: Municipal/Household Waste Analyses”, the Consultant recommends that the data derived from this sorting exercise is used with caution. The data should be supported by further similar exercises, undertaken at periods representing the full year, in order to extend the database. Once a seasonal basis has been established, it should then be possible to utilise the extended database for strategic planning or other decisions.

Noting the warning on the use of the data, the generated waste composition/quantities are estimated to be as follows:


19


Table 3-9 Assumed quantity and composition of household waste

Waste fractions Average waste composition %

Generated waste amount

without pre-sorting in

tonnes

Pre-sorted fractions in tonnes

Quantity of fractions

generated in tonnes

Food waste 15.2 23,565 23,565

Green waste 2.0 3,101 3,101

Glass 5.5 8,527 8,527

Plastic 12.4 19,224 14,819 34,043

Paper/cardboard 15.3 23,720 27,665 51,385

Tetra Pack 2.0 3,101 3,101

Metal 1.2 1,860 1,860

Textiles 5.8 8,992 8,992

Electrical 0.2 310 310

Others 11.9 18,449 18,449

Material smaller than 40 x 50 mm 28.5 44,185 44,185

Total 197,518

The full derivation of above is presented in Appendix F of volume 2.

3.8 Conclusion

Knowledge about the quality and quantity of municipal solid waste and the waste stream is necessary in order to organise the collection, transport, processing, treatment and disposal of waste in a proper economical and ecological professional manner.

The composition of the household waste stream is described in the National Waste Management Strategy, the National Waste Management Plan and the Waste Management Plan for Skopje City. This data is based on the same source, but the scope and basis of the sorting exercise was not detailed. However, it would appear that the compositions were based on a single sorting exercise.

The waste analyses conducted in January and February 2011, as part of this project, provided figures which appear to support the data exercise used for the Management Plan for Skopje City. However, as discussed, these analyses were undertaken during the winter and further analyses should be undertaken as recommended, in order to provide an improved data set on which to base strategic decisions relating to waste collection and treatment facility sizing.

The total waste input to the Drisla landfill has been recorded over the past decade and provides sufficient data on the amount deposited at the landfill. However, there are no accurate figures of the waste generated at the households and no description is available about the ad-hoc recovery of materials after it is initially discarded, as a result of informal collection arrangements. The information provided in Section 3.2.3 has been presented in order to provide an indication of the magnitude of wastes potentially generated within the Drisla landfill catchment. The series of assumptions indicate that the amount of waste generated is estimated to be 197,518 tonnes for 2010.


20


It is recommended that further studies are undertaken to establish the accuracy of this estimate by investigating the waste stream from the point it is discarded to the point of disposal. It is also recommended that the Municipalities that are currently not delivering their wastes to Drisla are encouraged to do so.

3.9 Waste forecast

It is assumed that the waste quantity requiring treatment and disposal will only change as a result of increases to the population and the economic waste index. These are discussed in detail in Appendix G of Volume 2.

Potentially, waste minimisation measures could be introduced and localised scavenging practices may change affecting the total waste stream, but overall these are not expected to be major influences in the short to medium term.

The introduction of waste segregation by the public, the development of sorting facilities, green waste composting and eventually the development of an MBT facility will impact on the quantity of wastes requiring disposal. For instance, it is assumed that all wastes currently collected for landfilling would be directed through the MBT process. A proportion of this waste would be collected as recyclable materials; part of the output would be a compost-like material with the remainder (assumed to be 50%) of the input being sent to the landfill. Eventually, this will lead to a reduction in the waste quantities requiring disposal to be less than half of the waste amount collected.

Table 3-10 Estimated amount of household waste generated, recycled, treated and landfill over the planning horizon

Year Waste generated Recycling* MBT Waste collected /

landfilled

2010 197,518 138,217

2011 200,092 140,018

2012 202,699 141,843

2013 205,340 143,691

2014 208,016 145,563

2015 210,726 147,460

2016 213,472 149,381

2017 216,253 3,700 147,628

2018 219,071 3,700 149,600

2019 221,926 3,700 151,597

2020 224,817 3,700 153,621

2021 227,974 3,700 155,829

2022 231,174 3,700 158,069 79,035

2023 234,420 3,700 160,340 80,170

2024 237,711 3,700 162,643 81,322

2025 241,049 3,700 164,979 82,489 * Note the sorting facility is sized to treat 45,000 tpa, removing an estimated quantity of approximately 3,700tpa of recyclable material.


21


The Drisla landfill site has been operated by the Drisla Landfill Company (DLFC – also known as Public Enterprise Drisla) since 1994. The landfill has a proposed 45 year lifetime with 29 years remaining.

The landfill was constructed over a four year period from 1990 – 1994. The DLFC was established by the Assembly of City of Skopje in 1994. At the beginning of 2003 this company was established as a joint venture with Public Enterprise Komunalna Higiena. This arrangement remained in place until December 2009 when the DLFC started to operate as an independent, publicly owned, company. The PE Komunalna Higiena is the public company in the City of Skopje, which is responsible for waste collection, street cleaning, septic tank cleaning, public hygiene and public realm waste clearance.

There is an agreement in place for Drisla to accept the waste from the PE Komunalna Higiena.

The Drisla landfill is the primary disposal site for the City of Skopje. It is located 14 km southeast of Skopje and to the north of the nearby village of Batinci and the river Markova Reka (Latitude 41°55'35.95"N / Longitude 21°27'20.37"E).

Figure 4.1 below shows the location in the form of a map as well as a satellite image.

Figure 4.1: Street map: Drisla Landfill and surroundings

Source: Google maps

4. Drisla Landfill

Drisla Landfill


22


Figure 4.2: Satellite Image of landfill

Source: Google maps

4.1 Geology, hydrogeology and seismology

The terrain and wider region is part of the Pelagonian horst-anticlinorium. This large tectonic unit is characterised by the presence of numerous faults and fault zones, with folded and fractured strata.

Rare quaternary sediments are present in the vicinity of the landfill. They are represented by clays, diluvial material (flood deposits), limestone, and alluvial deposits (clay, sand and gravel).

Regarding the engineering geological characteristics, the terrain in the east zone of the landfill comprises several types of Pliocene sediments. The following types of deposits are found: Fine to medium grained quartz sands containing some silty materials, generally poorly consolidated Sandy clays and silty sandy clays Clay-stones, marl clay, marlstones (calcareous mudstone)

The materials can be broadly classified as follows: Poorly consolidated –clay and silt horizons of the Quaternary and Pliocene; Unconsolidated – lake deposits comprising fine to medium sand; Consolidated - this group is characterised with a mix of marl and marlstone with a characteristic blue-

green colour. The marl is well compacted and the marlstone is poorly to medium compacted.

The following table summarises the geology.


23


Table 4-1: Summary of geology at Drisla Text Comments

The area is classified as part of the Pelagonian Horst anticline

The unit is distinguished by its faulting and lithology

The Base valley was formed in the Tertiary

Lowest point of the landfill is 320m above sea level and the highest 440m above sea level.

The local geology is formed of Quaternary deposits overlaying Miocene Deposits

The Quaternary deposits are not commonly seen in the area and are formed of soils underlain by poorly consolidated quartz sands and silty clays. Underlying the sands are silty sandy clays

It is assumed the sandy soils are quaternary to recent deposits. The silty sandy clays may be Miocene or later.

Below the Quaternary deposits the Miocene deposits are formed of clays and clay marls

Clay marls are produced from underlying Marl which can be seen on the geological map to the south west. The

brief indicates that the rock is deep and not seen at the site.

The Sands Silts and Clays are all classified as weaker deposits in engineering terms This is dictated by the Macedonian Building Regulations

All of the above strata are either aquifers (water bearing) or aquitards (barriers to groundwater flow). With respect to the lake deposits, the terrain is hydrogeologically complex with both permeable and low permeability characteristics. The medium and fine granular sands act as aquifers and the marl, marlstone and marl clay act as aquitards.

Springs and damp zones are present. Generally the groundwater is found in small quantities and has a low hydraulic gradient.

The area is seismically active. The area around the landfill, however, is not thought to be at risk. The EMSC has not recorded any earthquakes over a magnitude of 3 in the area recently. More information on geology, hydrogeology and seismology is included as Appendix W in Volume 2 of this report.

4.1.1 Summary

Overall the impermeable layers within the geology afford some natural protection to the local groundwater. However, as this geology is interbedded with sand lenses, which provide pathways for leachate, the protection provided is not consistent. The natural geology does not, therefore, provide an effective barrier in itself and there will be a need to enhance the protection through containment measures. The groundwater and surface waters are known to be contaminated by leachate from the existing tipping and therefore, any measures undertaken to reduce contamination will be of benefit, but it is unlikely that the local groundwater and surface waters will be free of the influence of the existing landfill for many decades.

Leachate contaminated water flows downhill into the stream at the base of the site which subsequently joins the Markova Reka. This is classified under national legislation (decree for water classification) as a Category 2 water course. The Category 2 classification relates to a slightly polluted, mesotrophic water course. The Markova Reka flows in to the River Vardar. The Markova Reka is used for ad-hoc irrigation by villagers locally and receives rural domestic wastewater.


24


The geology, at depth, principally comprises clays and marls and as a result it is unlikely that the local groundwater will be a Principal aquifer and therefore of high resource value, which should be protected.

As a result, it is an appropriate location to continue landfill operations when compared to an area that has not been previously affected by contaminative uses.

In relation to seismology, the area is seismically active and therefore the design needs to take account of the potential for earthquakes such that there is not a major failure.

4.2 Organisation and Structure of DLFC

The PE Drisla organisation is presently set up according to the following structure:


25


Figure 4.3: Organisational Structure of the Drisla Landfill Company

The DLFC employs 125 people and is a large local employment facility as shown in Figure 4.4 below:


26


Figure 4.4: DLFC Staffing I. Disposal & Operations No.

. Waste reception-severence 14

. Waste disposal section 11

. Collection/transport medical waste 14

. (Medical) Waste incineration 9

. Mechanisation 18

. Servicing-repair 6total 72 58%

II. Finance/Administrations. Overall management 5. Legal issues and HRM 4. Accounting and finance 8. Laboratory testing 3. Security 12. Support of the general manager 6. Occupational health and safety issues 15

total 53 42%Grand total 125

Source: Drisla

In addition to the permanent staff identified above, there are a further 13 temporary workers.

The staffing levels are based on the site operating on a 3 shift, 24 hour operations. This is due to the main client and former owner, Komunalna Higiena, having insufficient truck capacity for waste collection to collect the waste in Skopje during the day time.

Additional trucks are due to be purchased, and the site could return back to a more traditional 2 shift operation. This would have an impact on the current work force levels.

4.3 Drisla Landfill Site

The Drisla landfill covers an area of 76 hectares. Of this total, 55 hectares is intended to be used for landfilling. A seven metre wide asphalt road connects the landfill to the city of Skopje. The main seven metre wide road running east-west across Macedonia is approximately 1,300 metres to the south of the landfill. This road provides good access links to the main towns of the region and links with the city of Skopje. The connection between the regional road and the road accessing the landfill has a carriageway width of 6 metres.

The area of the Drisla Company can be divided in three parts: access area disposal site other areas.


27


4.3.1 The Access Area

The access area of the disposal centre consists of: reception weigh bridge (electronic scale); administrative building; washing facility; storage; workshop.

Figure 4.5: Site entrance and weighbridge office

Source: Mott MacDonald

4.3.2 The Disposal Site

Figure 4.6: View of disposal area


28



The original design foresees a capacity of 26 million cubic metres. Annually about 150,000 t of waste is deposited at the landfill. The total quantity of waste deposited to date is included as Appendix C of Volume 2. It is the only legally operating landfill in the country, but it still lacks basic environmental infrastructure, e.g. proper lining and a drainage system to prevent polluted leachate entering the groundwater and a methane recovery system. The site does have a non-compacted clay-based layer in the base of the site.

The disposal site comprises: disposal area temporary haul roads; an area for waste disposal – known as the “platform”; a toe bund – also referred to as a “filter-prism”; concrete culvert, referred to as an “evacuator” rainwater collection channels.

The "Evacuator" is a reinforced concrete outfall, which is the discharge point for water from the culvert that was installed in the base of the valley prior to wastes deposition. The outfall is shown below:

Figure 4.7: Landfill toe including the outfall (evacuator)


4.3.3 Other areas

The other areas consist of: The Medical waste Incinerator The Baling facility


29


The Medical Waste Incinerator

A medical waste incinerator was established in 2000 and in 2009 handled approximately 500 tonnes of hazardous medical waste.

The incinerator was financed from a grant from DFID, UK. The incinerator was supplied by the British company INCINCO and is a two chamber incinerator. The main working specification details for the incinerator are as follows: Capacity: 200 kg waste per hour; Temperature in chamber 1: 800oC and in chamber 2: 1,000oC; No flue gas cleaning system installed.

Figure 4.8: Medical waste incinerator

Source: Geing

The Baling Facility

The company GREENTECH MK DOO signed a contract with Drisla Company and installed a baling press. The subject of this contract is manual selection, baling and sale of packaging waste that has been collected at the Drisla landfill. As part of the agreement, the operator (GREENTECH MK DOO) is required to employ workers from the territory of the village of Batinci. The operations at the baling facility were concentrated on the removal of plastic. Approximately 700 tonnes of PET plastic was recovered in 2010.

It is understood that the prices for plastic collected, sorted and primary processed are currently (July 2011) 11 MKD per kg (approx €179 per tonne) for PET bottles, hard plastics such as high density polyethylene and polypropylene and soft plastics such as low density polyethylene.

The prices exclude VAT of 18 %.


30


Figure 4.9: Baling facility



31


5.1 Existing engineering at the landfill

The site was developed in a former valley trending northwest to southeast with the lowest point towards the southeast. There is very little engineering at the site. The former stream which ran through the valley has been culverted beneath the site and a non-engineered clay layer was laid across the base of the landfill. Three soil berms were installed towards the toe of the landfill to support the waste, but there are no leachate or gas collection systems at the site. The geology, hydrogeology and seismic activity in the area of the site are described in Section 4.1 and Appendix W of Volume 2.

The valley has been filled in horizontal layers, starting at the valley’s lowest point. The horizontal layers comprise 2.5m of waste (reported to be compacted) followed by a 0.3m clay cover, as per the phasing plans. The layers are not divided into sub-phases and, as a result, the operational area covers a significant area. The placed wastes are left uncovered during general operations and the 0.3 metre cover is only placed once the layer is complete. Issues such as compaction plant breaking down, weather constraints and poor control over the expanse of the open area has meant that the waste has not been covered for a significant period.

The lack of engineering and poor operational controls has resulted in uncontrolled leachate discharge to surface waters, stability issues of the waste body and presence of a groundwater spring within the filling area. These three issues are considered to be the major concerns with reference to the existing operation, although other issues such as nuisance impacts (litter, odour, vermin etc) caused by the lack of appropriate management practices such as the placing of daily cover and a complete lack of landfill gas control are also significant.

Three main actions have been identified to ensure that the existing waste is stable and the impact from it has been reduced prior to the development of the new engineered phases. These comprise: Leachate control Surface water control Waste stability

These three actions are briefly discussed in Section 5.2.

5.2 Remediation proposals

5.2.1 Leachate control

As there is no leachate collection system and precipitation can readily enter the waste, leachate emerges from the waste. Leachate escape is clearly visible along a series of levels which coincide with the use of the 0.3 metre thick cover. Leachate flows out of the waste and downhill into the stream at the base of the site which subsequently joins the Markova Reka (river).

The leachate also leads to localised saturation of the waste, which reduces the stability of the waste locally and reduces decomposition. The quantity of leachate emerging from the waste is reported to be worse between October and March.

5. Proposed development of the Drisla Landfill


32


The collection and treatment of leachate is a major concern, as it is clearly impacting on the quality of the local surface and ground water. This is compounded by the lack of engineered leachate control or treatment and the lack of an engineered geological barrier at the base of the landfill.

Therefore, the aim of the leachate control proposed is to prevent pollution of the Markova Reka and surface waters within the proximity of the landfill. Leachate control and treatment is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.5.

The proposal is for leachate control to be undertaken in stages:

Stage 1 comprises the capture of leachate for recirculation back into the body of the landfill. Stage 2 is then to introduce a form of limited low-cost treatment such as using reed beds. The final stage (Stage 3) is then to develop an effective specific leachate treatment facility designed to reduce the potential contaminants to concentrations that can be discharged to the river downstream.

To allow for long term monitoring of the pollution of groundwaters, it is recommended that the existing piezometers P1 and P2 should be repaired. In addition, a new piezometer should be installed in the vicinity of the leachate tank.

5.2.2 Surface water control

The site was formed in a valley which had a stream running through the middle. This stream was culverted in a 1.2 metre diameter concrete culvert prior to the deposition of wastes. However, it was also fed by springs from the adjacent slopes. There is a groundwater spring on the eastern side of the site which is related to the presence of a sand layer in the natural soils. It was reported that during the preparation of the site the spring was not a problem as it was pumped. However, once the waste got to the level of the spring, water started to emerge and it now provides a significant contribution to the surface water in the area. The spring feeds directly into the waste at the eastern end of the site. It began to saturate the waste in the landfill and led to an increasing flow of leachate through the slopes at the toe of the landfill. At times during the year, it has produced leachate pools that are visible at the surface of the landfill close to the spring. These pools appear to have an affect on the stability of landfill. Waste filling in this area has been suspended, and channels have been formed in the surface to catch spring waters and to direct them away from the landfill area. This has only been partially successful.

A further design has been prepared by Geing (who are part of the study team) to supplement the existing channels. Originally the construction works were to be undertaken during 2010, but these have been delayed by bad weather conditions.

The design is based on the following: A 109 metre long deep drainage trench is to be excavated with the aim of lowering the groundwater

level. This will include the use of geomembranes and will take account of the local geology which includes both geotechnical aquifers and aquitards;

Drainage pipes will be installed, as appropriate; Leachate collection sumps will be installed within the landfill. These will be similar, in construction, to

manholes. As the landfill body increases these sumps will be extended with extra rings. The manholes will be constructed so that they are easily accessible and it is envisaged that they will protrude 0.5-1.0 m points above the surrounding terrain;


33


The drainage pipes, which shall collect the spring water, will extend out of the landfill body and will discharge into an open concrete channel. This channel also accepts rain waters from the local area.

Waste disposal will be restricted and will not be permitted in the area of the construction. This will reduce the risk of leachate infiltration into the drainage pipes. A fence will be constructed to prevent unauthorised access to this area;

A protection layer of 2.5 m of local soil material is to be applied above the drainage trench; A ring drainage channel around the landfill was proposed in the design for collecting atmospheric

surface waters, together with cross channels which would present an efficient drainage system. This drainage system will protect rainfall water infiltration in the landfill and will reduce the generation of leachate in the landfill.

The scheme has not yet been implemented by the DLFC and the conclusions are still applicable.

5.2.3 Waste stability

The Drisla landfill was constructed in a valley. A toe bund was constructed in order to provide a firm foundation against which to dispose of waste materials. However, over time erosion has destroyed some parts of the protective layers installed. This has led to concern with respect to the localised slope stability of the protective layers and with the global stability of the landfill itself.

Photo 5-1 Erosion of existing toe bund

Source: Geing

A few years ago the authorities undertook steps to solve the problem by commissioning a design for rehabilitation of the protective layers and enhancement of the stability of slopes. A design was prepared by Geing based on assumed geotechnical properties for the wastes and local soils and a topographical survey undertaken in July 2010. The following conclusions and recommendations have been drawn: Collection and drainage of surface waters from the downstream slope and the catchment area has a

significant impact on the stability conditions as well as the quantity of the leachate generated;


34


If there are changes to the geometry of the downstream slope, i.e. future eroding and destruction of the drainage prism, further stability analyses will be required to take account of changes of the input parameters of the modelled solution;

The proposed drainage system that is to be constructed is expected to lower the groundwater level and will see a reduction of leachate generated. This will lead to a reduction of the leachate requiring treatment through recirculation;

From the aspect of downstream slope stability, benchmark points should be placed for future monitoring of soil movement and erosion. It should be noted that wastes will continue to degrade and hence the waste mass will settle for the foreseeable future.

The slope stability may be adversely affected by heavy rainfall. As a result, it is recommended that the remediation solutions proposed are enacted as soon as it is practicable to do so.

It is proposed that the toe bund is supported through the provision of an engineered retaining structure. This would incorporate a series of gabions lined with a 2mm impermeable geomembrane (as shown in Figure 5.1). Its primary function is to add stability to the toe of the slope. However, it also has a role in preventing the escape of leachate and directing the leachate towards a drainage pipe from where it can be collected. Leachate will be collected through a combination of drainage geocomposite material and collection pipes

Figure 5.1: Filter prism detail

Source: Geing

At present the scheme has not been implemented by the DLFC, but the conclusions are still applicable.


35


5.2.4 Capex for Remediation

The costs here are purely indicative and based on 2011 prices. The costs will be impacted by ground engineering, exchange rates, energy costs, material prices etc as would be the case on other potential infrastructure costs that have been referred to in this document.

Table 5-1: Capex Task Cost

Stabilising existing slopes

Main design for Stabilisation of the downstream slope of drainage prism in the toe of the sanitary landfill “Drisla” 25,481

Main design for Rehabilitation of drainage prism in the toe of the sanitary landfill “Drisla” 78,884

Sealing layer 15,771,260*

Perimeter channel 750,000**

Surface water drainage 146,666

Leachate collection and treatment (Short term reed bed) 171,483***

Total of above 16,943,774 Design and Engineering supervision (5%) 847,189

Contingency fees (5%) 889,548

Total 18,680,511 *see Table 5-2 **see Table 5-3 ***see Table 5-4

A geosynthetic clay material has been used for the purpose of costing, due to the variability of cost of engineered clay, which is dependent on availability and on the transport distances required. It may be that significant savings could be made if a suitable clay could be sourced locally.

Table 5-2 Costs for sealing layers Double-composite liner (with geosynthetic liner), geonet and geocomposite

Material Unit Quantity Price Total Euro (€)

Drainage (gas vent) layer m3 131,000 22 2,882,000

Geotextile 1200 gr/m2 m² 275,220 6.50 1,788,930

Geocomposite drain m² 262,710 8 2,101,680

Primary geomembrane HDPE 2.0 mm/ LLDPE 1.0mm m² 281,220 9 2,530,980

Geosynthetic clay liner m² 275,220 10 2,752,200

Geotextile 1200 gr/m2 m² 275,220 6.50 1,788,930

Geonet 150 kN/m m² 275,220 7 1,926,540

Total investment for sealing (EUR): 15,771,260


36


Table 5-3 Costs for perimeter channel Material Unit Quantity Price Total Euro (€)

Construction of perimeter trapezoidal channel b/h=1/1m, made of reinforced concrete MB 30 reinforced with 80kg/m3, complete with surveying, earthworks (excavation and filling with compaction) m' 2,500 300 750,000

The following costs have been included within the overall costs for leachate extraction and treatment.

Table 5-4 Costs for main leachate collection pipe Material Unit Quantity Price Total Euro (€)

HDPE Corrugated collecting pipe OD315, SN8, complete with soil excavation, preparing subsoil, installation, testing and filling with soil from excavation m 655 24 15,720

Reed bed treatment facility sum 59,460

Temporary treatment of leachate sum 96,303

Total 171,483

Operational costs are limited to the control of leachate through recirculation and/ or reed bed treatment. These costs are covered in Section 5.5.6. Staffing of these elements is also included under a general landfill staffing section (see Section 5.3.5).

5.3 Construction of a new landfill

5.3.1 Approach

The current operations and engineering do not comply with National or European legislation and as a result a newly engineered landfill is required. This landfill must provide space for waste generated from Skopje, the municipalities surrounding Skopje and potentially from further afield.

As there is significant void space remaining and the waste reception infrastructure has already been developed, it has been determined that the Drisla landfill should be developed into a regional landfill facility that meets European and National legislation.

The landfill has been operated such that large areas are left uncovered, which results in issues of nuisance such as litter, odour, vermin etc, but also results in the generation of excessive quantities of leachate as a result of rainwater infiltration.

It is proposed that the current filling is prepared such that new, engineered phases can be developed over the placed wastes. This is unlikely to be straightforward as there will be issues of existing instability, significant settlements (both uniform and differential in nature) and existing pollution control measures that will need to be taken into account prior to construction. These issues have been addressed as part of the conceptual design for the new landfill. The measures proposed should, however, be reviewed as part of the full design.

The phases will be sized to reduce the area of the site that is open at any one stage. Rainwater will be encouraged to run off the site, and will be captured for discharge to the downstream river.


37


5.3.2 Description of the chosen option

Two options were considered for the layout of future landfilling. These are detailed in Appendix H of Volume 2. The options were presented to the Drisla Landfill Company in March 2011 and it was agreed that one of the options should be taken forward to conceptual design.

Some minor modifications have been undertaken during the development of this option, subsequent to the recommendation to proceed with this scenario to align the landfill base more closely with the existing surface. This reduced the amount of cut required to approximately 60,000m3, which compared to the original estimate of 344,000m3. The cut excavations are within the natural soils, as shown in Figure 5.2 and will result in slopes of 1:2. The cut excavations are provided to ensure sufficient area and basal slopes are available prior to the construction of the newly engineered landfill. The maximum slope within the base of the site and in the placed wastes will be 1:3 (1:4 for the south-east side). These slopes have been chosen to ensure stability. Outputs from slope stability calculations are included as Appendix W of Volume 2.

The top height of the waste will be 440.00m above sea level (m.a.s.l.) and the total void space volume is approximately 7,000,000 m³.

Figure 5.2: Profile of completed phasing

The number of phases proposed was also reduced to 12 sections rather than the original the 13. The intention would be to prepare the first two engineered phases initially. Further phases would then be constructed as the original phases are completed.

Each phase is 300 m long, with varying widths of between 45m and 60m. The phases abut each other on their longest edge. The total length is 590m and the total width is 300m. It is proposed that each phase will have a longitudinal slope of 1% and cross sectional slope of 3% (or more) post settlement in order to make better adjustments with existing surface.

Longitudinally, the pre-settlement slopes of the landfill base are: 4%, 6.45% and 11.18%, where 3 sections with 50 m widths and 4‰ slope, 2 sections with 45 m widths and 6.45% slope, 4 sections with 50 m widths and 4‰ slope, 2 sections with 45 m widths and 6.45% slope, 1 section with 60 m width and 11.18% slope.

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

0+020

398.

82

0+040

387.

05

0+060 0+080

375.

39

0+100

375.

59

0+120

375.

79

0+140

375.

99

0+160

376.

19

0+180

376.

39

0+200

376.

59

0+220

376.

79

0+240

376.

99

0+260

377.

19

0+280

377.

39

0+300

377.

59

0+320

377.

79

0+340

377.

99

0+360

378.

19

0+380

381.

62

0+400

388.

29

0+420

394.

94

0+440

401.

58

0+460

396.

23

0+480

394.

17

0+500

395.

15

403.

02

375.

29

375.

29

440.

00

440.

00

378.

29

402.

22

393.

12

65

1:3

1:3


38


Figure 5.3: Typical base profiling for phases

A leachate drainage pipe will be installed at the bottom of the “V” shaped cross section in each phase section. These pipes will comprise High Density PolyEthylene (HDPE) and will have an outside diameter (OD) of 315 mm. The pipes will be located within a gravel leachate drainage blanket, which will either be 500mm thick or a combination of a 300mm thick layer supported by a drainage geogrid.

The drainage pipes from each of the 12 phases drain leachate to a leachate sump located at the toe of each phase. These sumps will be connected into a leachate ring main that discharges the leachate by gravity towards the leachate treatment facilities for the site. The sumps can also be used for visual inspection, as a point of access for CCTV inspection, should this be required, and potentially they can also be used as a point of access for rodding and cleaning of the pipes within the waste. If feasible, the upper end of the drainage run should also have a rodding point and this should be considered as part of the full detailed design. The typical design is shown in Figure 5.4. If falls to the leachate treatment facility are not appropriate then it would be possible to install submersible pumps in the manholes. In addition, should settlement of the existing waste have a detrimental affect on the gravity based leachate collection system within the base, then it would be possible to install leachate extraction wells.


39


Figure 5.4: Leachate collection system proposed

In order to determine the effectiveness of the leachate drainage system, it is recommended that two leachate monitoring sumps are installed within each phase at a location which is remote from the central spine drain. These are used to measure leachate depths and can potentially be used for pumped leachate extraction, if required.

5.3.3 Capping and sealing of the landfill

One of the main methods of reducing the impact from the existing and future landfilling is to provide appropriate engineering in the form of a landfill cap and in the form of basal lining.

It is understood that no engineered lining was prepared for the existing tipping cells; however, a 0.8 metre thick layer of compacted clay was placed at the base of the original tipping phases. It is proposed that, for future phasing, an engineered barrier is required. This barrier is required to reduce the potential impact on the environment and to meet the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive, as transposed into Macedonian legislation.

The feasibility study considered several solutions for isolation of the landfill. A description of the main elements that could comprise the sealing layer is as follows:


40


Figure 5.5: Landfill basal engineering

The system for sealing the base of the new phases has several components and comprises the following: Filter soil – used as transition layer between the waste and the gravel, this separation layer reduces

the potential for clogging of the leachate collection layer and can be a geotextile fabric. Gravel layer – the gravel layer is typically 500mm thick or a combination of gravel of approximately

300mm thick and drainage geonets. It is provided to collect the leachate at the base of the site and encourage the flow of leachate towards a sump from where the leachate can be monitored and extracted.

Geonet – is usually used for the collection of leachate. Other geogrids can however be provided to assist with stabilisation of the settlements in order to reduce the tension strain in the geomembrane.

Geomembrane – An impermeable geomembrane is provided to act as a sealing layer. Typically where the lining provided is above wastes a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane is specified as these have high elongation characteristics and are more flexible than high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes. HDPE geomembranes are more robust, but are less flexible and are therefore used for basal lining on firm foundations. Each geomembrane will need to be protected from the waste and gravel in contact with the geomembrane. Protective geofabrics are used to provide this protection. The primary function of the geomembrane is to provide a barrier to environmental pollutants such as leachate and landfill gas. The water transmissivity through the geomembranes varies between 0.5x10-12 to 0.5x10-15 m/s.

Engineered clay – This is primarily used for its low permeability characteristics. It provides a robust layer that is effective in compression, but less so in tension. It is typically used in combination with the geomembrane sealing layer.

Composite liner – Other alternatives are available such as geocomposite clay liner, bentonite enhanced soils and asphalt. It is, however, likely that a clay/geomembrane composite system will be an economical and effective way of managing pollution control at the landfill.

On completion of tipping, once the waste has achieved the final proposed contours, it will be necessary to cap the landfill. The final cap is likely to be a multilayered system similar to the basal scheme shown in


41


Figure 5.6. The aim is to reduce rainwater infiltration and reduce the potential for pollutants to migrate from the site.

The most common components of a fully restored landfill cap are: Erosion control layer – this is a topsoil layer that provides erosion control. The most commonly used

material for the erosion control is a fully vegetated fertile topsoil. This reduces the effect of rainfall and wind velocity at the soil surface.

Protection layer – this layer lies beneath the erosion control layer. It has the function of minimising the potential for frost penetration and protects the geomembrane from accidental intrusion or other detrimental effects.

Drainage layer – this is placed below the protection layer and above hydraulic barrier layer. It has three principal functions: to reduce the head of the water on the barrier layer, to drain water from the overlying soil and to reduce and control the pore water pressures at the surface on the underlying barrier layer.

Hydraulic barrier layer – is required to minimise percolation of water through the cover system. Typically, for a municipal soil waste landfill this comprises a composite layer made up of a geomembrane overlying a compacted clay liner. Although it is possible to provide a single barrier system supported through risk assessments.

Gas vent layer – has a function to vent gases generated from decomposition of the waste. This layer is often omitted from the design where gas extraction utilises gas wells that are bored into the completed waste profile.

Foundation layer – the lowest layer of the final cover system. This layer acts as a regulating and stable formation layer on which to place the other materials.

Figure 5.6: Typical capping detail

The base and cap will each cover an area of approximately 250,000m2 including the bottom and the sides of the landfill.

5.3.4 Capex

The following tables contain values for the different activities that have to be implemented. It should be noted that the costs presented only relate to material costs and do not include for installation, supervision etc.


42


The costs here are purely indicative and based on 2011 prices. The costs will be impacted by ground engineering, exchange rates, energy costs, material prices etc as would be the case on other potential infrastructure costs that have been referred to in this document.

Table 5-5: Investment costs for new landfill construction Investment costs Drisla Land fill rehabilitation EUR

A. Capping and Sealing

Leachate collection system 442,600*

Engineering preparation for phasing 600,000**

Capping and restoration layers 13,971,142***

Total 15,013,742 B. Reception and Access Infrastructure (see Section 5.4)

Road rehabilitation 1,670,000

Other Infrastructure improvements 1,776,300

Total 3,446,300 C. Leachate Treatment (see Section 5.5)

Long term leachate treatment 3,400,000

Total 3,400,000 D. Gas extraction and treatment system (see Section 5.6)

Extraction and flaring 616,586

Grid connection 200,000

Gas utilisation facility 822,000

Total 1,638,586 Total 23,498,628 E. Engineering Supervision 5% 1,174,931 G. Unforeseen/contingencies 5% 1,233,678 Total Investment (EUR) 25,907,237

*see Table 5-6 **The site will be developed in phases. An allowance of €50,000 per phase has been included to allow for engineering preparation. ***see Table 5-7

Table 5-6 Costs for leachate collection system Material

Unit Quantity Price Total Eur(€)

Drainage layer around drainage pipe (sand) m3 5,200 28 145,600

HDPE Drainage pipe SDR 11, S5, PN16 bar, OD315mm butt welded m 3,624 75 271,800

HDPE Shafts ID1000mm, complete with excavation, preparing of the bottom, installation, testing, and filling and compacting with soil from excavation around shaft no. 14 1,800 25,200

Total investment for LCS (EUR): 442,600


43


Table 5-7 Costs for capping and restoration layers Cover-geocomposite drainage layer and geosynthetic liner

Material Unit Quantity Price Total Euro (€)

Top soil m3 38,025 30 1,140,750

Drainage layer m3 152,100 22 3,346,200

Geocomposite drainage layer m² 266,175 8 2,129,400

Textured geomembrane 1mm m² 284,850 9 2,563,650

Gas vent (drainage geocomposite) m² 266,175 8 2,129,400

Geosynthetic clay liner m² 266,175 10 2,661,750

Total investment for capping (EUR): 13,971,142

5.3.5 Opex and staffing

The estimated operational costs are shown in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8 Operating costs for new landfill Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 150,660

Staff overheads 75,330

Energy & Utility costs

Electricity, lighting, pumps 13,100

Vehicles 29,700

Daily cover material 20,000

Repairs and maintenance 230,800

Miscellaneous and contingency costs 5% 25,980

Total 545,570

It is assumed that the landfill will be operated over two number eight hour shifts. In total, 34 employees are needed to operate the landfill, as shown in Table 5-9. This includes the security guards who will be responsible for the whole site, irrespective of the number of technologies that are constructed on site. The overhead cost is assumed to be 50% of the salary cost and covers administration and office costs, along with regulatory reporting. A 5% contingency is included in the operating costs, which are shown at cost value.

The landfill will require the following staff:

Table 5-9 Staff costs for new landfill Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

per shift total

Manager 1 1 1,200 14,400 14,400

Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 2 4 500 6,000 24,000

Drivers (skilled) 2 4 370 4,500 18,000

Secretaries and Guards (skilled) 2 6 375 4,500 27,000

Operators (skilled) 3 3 375 4,500 13,500

Operators (unskilled) 8 16 280 3,360 53,760


44


Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

per shift total

Total staff 19 34 - - 150,660 Office overheads (50% of salary) 75,330 Total staff and overheads 225,990

*Skilled operators required for leachate and gas extraction and treatment

The above staff levels are shown per shift and in total. In reality, certain positions do not need to be replicated for a two shift basis, such as the landfill manager and skilled operators for the leachate and gas systems, whereas for security 24hr coverage (i.e. three shifts) will be necessary.

The salaries shown in Table 5-9 have been assumed through the operational cost estimations for each of the proposed facilities at the site. For each operation, the level of skill required is highlighted and the costs shown above are used. These salaries are those currently using at Drisla and may change in the future.

5.4 Existing reception and access infrastructure

In order to be able to fulfil the legal requirements concerning the Macedonian legislation for landfills, especially for: General requirements for all classes of landfills, Waste acceptance criteria and procedures Controlling and Monitoring Procedures in operation phase

It will be necessary to improve existing infrastructure and provide additional infrastructure to support future management activities. Further information on legislation requirements is included as Appendix A of Volume 2.

The following sections identify and describe the existing ancillary infrastructure, provide proposals for upgrading this current infrastructure and for new infrastructure. The existing and proposed layouts for the landfill and the other waste management facilities are shown as Appendix AA in Volume 2.

The existing ancillary infrastructure includes: Roads and hardstanding Site reception area including offices and weighbridge Fuel storage/refuelling area Wheel wash Security fencing

This section of the report discusses the type of ancillary infrastructure required for the normal site operations. Additional facilities that are to be provided such as recyclable materials sorting facility, construction and demolition wastes sorting facility, leachate treatment plant etc. are covered in the following sections of this chapter.

5.4.1 Roads and Hard-Standing

The existing roads and hardstanding around the site have been developed to be functional for the purpose of disposal. The roads are typically sized to allow two-way traffic and are free of major potholes. However,


45


they are unlikely to be able to accommodate ongoing heavy use over an extended period without major maintenance/remediation.

Further areas of hardstanding will be required for the new sorting and treatment facility infrastructure, such as recyclable sorting, construction and demolition sorting, leachate treatment plant etc. In addition, roads will need to be constructed to connect these new facilities to the road network for the site and the access road.

All site roads will need to be maintained and enhanced. These comprise the access road, main road, temporary haul roads and paved hard-standing in the area of the weighbridge, waste reception offices and garage.

It is recommended that additional roads are constructed to standards that are appropriate to regular, near-continuous use by heavy vehicles and plant. Whilst under construction, it will be necessary for the existing site road network to be maintained to ensure that access for the waste collection trucks is maintained from the gate to the landfill areas.

The new access road should comprise: A paved road with 2 traffic lanes; and A width of at least 6.00m;

Haul routes from the new access road to the tipping face and a new perimeter access route around the landfill should comprise, as a minimum: A road with 1 traffic lane; and A roadway width of at least 4.00m

Areas of hard-standing and parking in the vicinity of the Landfill Management Office and Garage shall be constructed to a similar standard as that of the main roads on site.

5.4.2 Waste safety area

The Macedonian By-law for the “Requirements for technical assets and equipment for performing the activity of waste disposal, and the requirements and manner of training of the employees and programme for employee training (“Official Gazette of R.M“ num.108/09), Annex – Technical assets and equipment for performing the activity waste of disposal, Point 2 – Basic infrastructure elements of the landfill” requires that: 200 m² of hard-standing within the vicinity of the reception area must be set aside as a waste safety

area. The area has to be sealed with a concrete liner.

In accordance with Macedonian legislation, containers should be provided for the storage of wastes that have been received, but are not permitted at the site due to their hazardous nature or otherwise.

Two steel containers are required: Container 1: 6.00 x 2.45 x 1.0m (L x B x H) with a volume of 14m³ Container 2:: 6.00 x 2.45 x 2.3m (L x B x H) with a volume of 32m³


46


Both containers should be fitted with PVC or polyethylene watertight covers, sized accordingly. These should be fixed to the containers using eyelets and rubber cable. Both containers should be equipped with hooks to allow for fixing the covers.

The safety area should also be used for the storage of wastes observed to be on fire. At present, there is no specific area for this function. A water hydrant is located within the vicinity of the weighbridge but there is no area of hard-standing within the immediate vicinity for the purpose of extinguishing wastes that are on fire.

In addition to paving, consideration should be given to the appropriate drainage measures provided. The quarantine part of this area should not be connected to the site drainage system as the wastes stored at the location may have residues that would be toxic to the natural ecosystems. Liquid emerging should be contained, collected and disposed of appropriately. Drainage should be provided in areas where wastes that are on fire are stored. A water supply should also be provided to help douse the flames. The drainage should be such that it can accommodate the water used to put out fires from the area.

5.4.3 Diesel fuel tank installation

The fuel tank for the site is located near to the workshop. It is buried and there is no specific protection should the tank be damaged. The area is not paved.

It is recommended that a refuelling station is constructed, which is under the roofed area of the garage. This should be used for fuelling the compactor, the wheeled loader and the tractor with diesel. The refuelling station should be within a hard-paved area surrounded by a low bund wall that prevents diesel spillages or uncontrolled discharges from affecting the surrounding environment. The retaining wall should be able to accommodate 110% of the volume of the fuel tank that it surrounds.

5.4.4 Septic Tank

It is understood that there is currently no septic tank at the site. The foul wastes from the toilets are allowed to drain towards the Markova Reka (river).

The sewerage water from the waste management office and garage will be discharged into a septic tank. The septic tank is an underground, reinforced concrete construction with the interior dimensions 2.00 x 6.30 m and interior height 2.50 m. The tank will need to be maintained and regularly emptied to ensure that capacity is available at all times.

5.4.5 Parking area

Parking areas are provided, as shown in the Photo 5-2. The main parking area appears to be sufficient for the task, but new parking areas will need to be constructed to take account of the additional services provided at the site. The new parking areas should use the same construction details as the proposed new access road. The area and the pavement shall have kerbed edges.


47


Photo 5-2 Parking area close to the administration building

Source: Geing

5.4.6 Warning, information and traffic signs

The road signs provided are generally relate to traffic calming measures and comprise signs identifying the speed limit and also a sign identifying that there is a road hump. However, there is a sign at the weighbridge directing users onto the weighbridge.

Further traffic signs should be installed around the site to inform visitors, drivers, vehicle operators and other staff in accordance with the By–law for the requirement that landfills should fulfilled (“Official Gazette of R.M“num.78/09), Article 10 – Physical security. The signs should provide health and safety information, directions to each of the facilities, directions to use the wheelwashing facilities etc. On completion of the design, a review should be undertaken to strategically determine the type, number and location of signs required. These signs should be legible and consistent in their design.

5.4.7 Fence

The existing metallic fence is not fit for purpose. It comprises 2.5 m long and 2 m high panels, which do not comply with the Macedonian By–law relating to the design of landfills (“Official Gazette of R.M“num.78/09), Article 10 – Physical security, Point 1 in which landfills are required to be surrounded by a 2.3 metre high security fence.

Large areas of the fencing provided have either been broken or stolen for the scrap metal. It is, therefore, not appropriate to simply upgrade and replace sections of the current fencing. Instead a new security fence should be provided. The new security fencing should surround the entire perimeter of the site and should be designed with the aim of not only preventing access, but also designed to make stealing the fencing and vandalism more difficult. The fence should consist of a high strength welded steel mesh with minimal apertures to prevent climbing, but maintain visibility to allow effective monitoring. Closely spaced 4mm diameter steel wires present the most severe barrier to cutting, hand and power tools.


48


Photo 5-3 Fencing panel overlooking the site

Source: Mott MacDonald Photo Archive

5.4.8 Surveillance System

Site surveillance comprising a closed video surveillance system should be provided in accordance with the Bylaw for the requirement that landfills should fulfilled (“Official Gazette of R.M“num.78/09), Article 10 – Physical security, Point 4. This CCTV system should be set up for surveillance, to detect and prevent illegal activities on the landfill and illegal waste discharges.

A site surveillance system currently exists at the site entrance in which cameras feed a live stream back to the site manager’s office. It is clear that security is not fully effective though, as the fencing has been stolen and there is a history of scavengers on the site.

It is recommended that infrared video cameras for day/night use should be provided for the following areas: Main gate access – camera 1 Degassing plant – camera 2 Reception desk and weigh bridge – camera 3 and 4 Leachate treatment plant – camera 5

Pictures from these cameras should be accessible to the security staff and the site manager.

5.4.9 Vehicles and equipment

According to the Macedonian Bylaw for the requirements regarding the technical assets and the equipment for performing the activity of waste disposal, and the requirements and manner of training of the employees and programme for employee training (“Official Gazette of R.M“ num.108/09), Annex – Technical assets and equipment for performing the activity disposal of waste, Point 1 – the following equipment is provided: Compactor; Bulldozer; Loader/bagger; Truck – tipper.


49


The site has equipment as listed above, but it is all old (> 10 years old), poorly maintained and in the instance of the compactor – typically out of use. The full list of vehicles and plant is included in Appendix I of Volume 2.

It is recommended that new equipment is purchased and that a vigorous and well-documented maintenance procedure is followed for each item of plant.

Compactor

For future landfill operation the compactor must be able to distribute and compact up to 200,000m³ of wastes per year. Replacement parts should be provided to ensure that the compactor can be maintained and operational for a period of approximately 12 months. The spare parts held in storage should include: filters, gaskets, hydraulic hoses, electric fuses, bulbs and teeth of the bucket tyres.

Wheeled loader

A wheeled loader should be provided for future landfill operations together with spare parts to ensure that, with appropriate maintenance, the plant can continue operation for at least 12 months. The spare parts should include filters, gaskets, hydraulic hoses, electric fuses, bulbs and tyres.

Multi purpose vehicle for internal transport

A tractor for cleaning the landfill reception area is needed. This will primarily be used in conjunction with a 2m³ capacity water bowser, which will be used to dampen the waste disposal area, the access roads etc. in order to reduce dust. The tank has to be equipped with a simple water drizzling system. Spare parts should be provided to allow for use over a period of approximately 12 months including filters, gaskets, hydraulic hoses, electric fuses, bulbs and tyres.

High pressure water cleaner

Cold-water high pressure cleaner with low speed three-phase motor is required to assist with the removal of debris and for washing down around the offices.

5.4.10 Weather station

According to the Bylaw for the manner and procedure of working, monitoring and control of the landfill during the operation, monitoring and control of the landfill in a phase of closure and after closure, as well as the manner and requirements for landfills after they stop working (“Official Gazette of R.Macedonia“ num. 156/07), Article 4 – Monitoring of the landfill should include the collection of meteorological data from the landfill site. Meteorological data should be collected according to the Annex 1 from this Bylaw, which is as follows:

Table 5-10 Meteorological data monitoring requirements Operations Phase of post closure and care

1.1. Amount of rainfall (mm) daily Daily, added to the monthly values

1.2. Temperature (oC) daily Average on a monthly base

1.3. Direction and power of the dominant wind (m/s) daily Not required


50


Operations Phase of post closure and care

1.4. Evaporation (lysimeter)14 daily Daily, added to the monthly values

1.5. Atmospheric humidity (at 14.00 hour) daily Average on a monthly base

Note: Measurements of the parameters should be performed at 14:00 by Central European Time.

At present, the site does not have a weather station and therefore a new facility will need to be provided to collect rainfall, temperature, wind speed and direction, evaporation and humidity information.

5.4.11 Buildings

The buildings on site include: Security hut Weighbridge office Welfare area for the workers on site Workshop/Garage Wheelwash Administration building

Security hut and weighbridge office

The security hut is a standalone hut near to the entrance. The weighbridge office is situated near to the security hut, but immediately adjacent to the weighbridge.

Photo 5-4 Site entrance and security hut Photo 5-5 Weighbridge hut

Source: Geing Source: Geing

It is proposed that the weighbridge office and security building are combined in a purpose-built facility at the entrance of the site. It should have barriers to prevent unauthorised access, good all-round vision and be located between two weighbridges; one for vehicles entering the site and one for those exiting.

_________________________ 14 Or some other adequate methods


51


Welfare facilities

Welfare facilities have recently been provided to those working at the site. The building comprises a portakabin-style facility with a toilet, showers and an area for the workers to relax and eat during breaks. The facilities are not suitable for continued use and should be replaced by a more permanent building that provides an appropriate area for the workers to relax, eat and get clean.

Workshop/Garage

The workshop/garage is a recent construction and is a brick-built building with roller shutter doors.

This building would appear to be effective for continued use, but a review should be undertaken during the full design.

Photo 5-6 Workshop/Garage

Source: Geing

Wheelwash

The wheelwash is located near to the garage/workshop. At present, the wheel washing system is located in a reinforced concrete enclosure where drivers are required to park their vehicles before getting out and washing down the vehicles themselves. Drainage directs the wash water through a sediment trap before discharging to the Markova Reka (river).

The current wheelwash is likely to encourage inconsistent use without firm supervision by the site staff and the water has the potential to contaminate the local surface water bodies within the vicinity of the site.


52


Photo 5-7 Wheelwash

Source: Geing

It is recommended that this building is replaced by a drive through wheelwash, which does not require the drivers to leave their vehicles. Screens can be used to reduce the escape of spray during the process of cleaning. The water can be collected in a sump, which can include a settlement area for re-use of the water, if necessary. The sump will need to be drained on occasions to remove the build up of sludges. The sludges should be dewatered before placing within the landfill. The water should be analysed prior to discharge, and it is likely that the water will need to be directed towards the leachate treatment facility, once constructed. Direct discharges from the wheelwash to the Markova Reka should be prevented.

Administration building

This building is of a similar construction to the garage/workshop. It has also only been recently constructed. The main problem with the building is that it is too small. The people occupying this building are working in relatively cramped conditions. The administration building includes a single toilet, which is understood to be poorly maintained. It is recommended that the administration building is either supplemented by a further construction, or alternatively it is demolished and replaced with a suitably sized and designed facility.


53


Photo 5-8 Administration building

Source: Geing

5.4.12 Capex and Opex

In the table below the investments costs for the rehabilitation of the access area is estimated.

Table 5-11 Estimated rehabilitation investment costs

Units Unit Price

Euro (€) Total Euro (€)

The main access road in metres 500 700 350,000

The secondary maintenance road in metres 4400 300 1,320,000

Platforms and the parking area in m2 1000 300 300,000

Waste safety area 200 m² 1 15,000 15,000

Waste Management office (WMO), equipped in m2 319 1,200 382,800

Weigh bridge with building & Equipment, equipped 1 100,000 100,000

Garage / workshop 1 150,000 150,000

Diesel fuel tank installation 1 3,500 3,500

Septic Tank 1 15,000 15,000

Wheel washing system 1 50,000 50,000

Parking area in m2 100 300 30,000

Fence in m 5000 50 250,000

Compactor 1 250,000 250,000

Wheel – loader 1 50,000 50,000

Multi purpose vehicle for internal transport 1 50,000 50,000

High pressure water cleaner 1 3,000 3,000

Weather station 1 7,000 7,000

Container for safety area 2 20,000 40,000

Warning, information and traffic signs 1 60,000 60,000

Surveillance System 1 20,000 20,000

Total amount 3,446,300


54


The costs here are purely indicative and based on 2011 prices. The costs will be impacted by ground engineering, exchange rates, energy costs, steel prices etc as would be the case on other potential infrastructure costs that have been referred to in this document.


Civils 3,446,300

Design & Supervision 5% 172,315

Contingency 5% 180,930

Total 3,799,545

The operation costs for the administration staff and office costs are covered as overheads for the landfill staff as shown in Table 5-9.

5.4.13 Required Technical Assistance

Technical assistance is recommended for the rehabilitation of the access area. A “Technical Assistance” Consultant should be contracted in order to prepare the detailed design and specification documents according to FIDIC or similar. They will need to participate in the tender stage, provide answers to clarifications and participate on the Evaluation Committee. They should also undertake the role of Construction supervision as FIDIC Engineer of the Works.

5.5 Leachate collection and treatment Strategy

5.5.1 Existing leachate control

The Drisla landfill site has been developed without a leachate collection system. As a result, there is no treatment of leachate.

The only control currently undertaken is to monitor surface and/or groundwater at four locations every 3 months, where leachate is currently emerging. These four locations are at: Stream Meckin Dol, just before it enters the Markova Reka; Markova Reka upstream of confluence with Meckin Dol; Markova Reka, downstream of confluence with Meckin Dol; A groundwater piezometer downstream of the landfill.

These locations are shown in Figure 5.7.


55


Figure 5.7: Location of groundwater monitoring points

Source: Google Maps

1. Reservoir for water (sanitary, hydrant); 2. Reservoir for water from facility for vehicles washing; 3. Place where water from facility for vehicles washing is discharged; 4. Proposed future locations for additional piezometers; 5. Piezometer for monitoring of ground water (sampling location); 6. Stream Meckin Dol (sampling location); 7. Markova Reka upstream of confluence with Meckin Dol (sampling location); 8. Markova Reka downstream of confluence with Meckin Dol (sampling location).

5.5.2 Leachate composition

The samples are analysed at the laboratory of the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning. An example of the results obtained has been included as Appendix J of Volume 2. These samples were taken on 12th and 20th December 2010, 6th February 2011 and 25th April 2011.

The leachate is likely to vary across the landfill as the concentration of contaminants varies with the stage of the biological processes within the landfill. For instance acetogenic leachate, which occurs when wastes are first placed is typified by high concentrations for COD, BOD, TOC, oxygen bearing compounds such as sulphates and phosphates, and volatile fatty acids, whereas methanogenic leachate, which occurs in aged wastes is typified by significantly lower concentrations of these contaminants. In addition, non hazardous and hazardous substances can also be observed at significant concentrations such as ammoniacal nitrogen and chlorides (non hazardous) and cadmium (hazardous).

1

2

4 4

5

3

8

7 6


56


The most concentrated leachate observed in the new construction appears to be consistent with literature data for typical domestic waste leachate15. The only unusual aspect is that the pH appears to be relatively alkaline. However, this is within normal working ranges for a typical leachate treatment facility. The other aspect to note is that, from the limited leachate analyses undertaken, the heavy metals of arsenic, silver, cadmium, mercury, lead, tin and selenium are all lower than detection limits. As cadmium and mercury (hazardous substances) are apparently not found at detectable concentrations these comply with the EU Groundwater Directive. Non hazardous substances such as ammoniacal nitrogen have been recorded at significant concentrations and their compliance with the Directive needs to be assessed by a Tier 1 groundwater risk assessment. In reality, a concentration for ammoniacal nitrogen of 1,020mg/l will exceed the relevant screening criteria and therefore collection and treatment is required prior to discharge to controlled (ground and surface) waters.

As the analysis has shown that the leachate obtained is within typical ranges for literature data for leachate, literature data has been used to determine the loads anticipated at this conceptual stage.

Table 5-13 Typical leachate quality data Parameter Specific Drisla Analyses Value Range Units

pH 8.4 – 9.0 7.5 to 6.2

COD 985 – 6,200 100 to 63000 mg/l

BOD5 1,250* 2 to 38000 mg/l

TOC Not tested 20 to 19000 mg/l

Ammoniacal Nitrogen 40 – 1,020 50 to 1000 mg/l

* Reference 7, 20th December 2010

Further analyses, in addition to the above parameters, are included as Table J-1 and J-2 in Appendix J of Volume 2.

5.5.3 Leachate quantity

The quantity of the generated leachate has not been measured, because the emerging leachate is uncontrolled and is combined with other water sources such as that from vehicle washing. In summer, especially in June and August, leachate does not emerge due to evapotranspiration and the high temperatures during these months. A water balance calculation has been undertaken to estimate the quantity of leachate likely to be generated and therefore require treatment. This is included as Appendix K of Volume 2 and identifies that dependent on the time of year, the influence of groundwater springs, the loss of water to the local groundwater, the moisture content of the waste itself – the quantity of leachate requiring treatment could vary from 0m3 per day to 406m3 per day. Although, the minimum amount has been calculated to be no leachate generation, in reality this is unlikely and as a result a minimum quantity has been taken to be 40m3 per day, which coincides with the minimum infiltration anticipated.

_________________________ 15 Results from typical composition of leachates from solid wastes in landfills in the UK taken from DOE Waste Management

Paper No.26 (Department of Environment 1986) as published in "A Review of the Composition of Leachates from Domestic Wastes in Landfill Sites, Research and Development, Technical Report CWM 072/95, Environment Agency, page A5, Table 2


57


5.5.4 Leachate treatment strategy

The optimum strategy is for the provision of a staged solution that provides an interim short term solution that will meet the immediate requirements for the site and will enable the DLFC to put in a permanent long term solution for the site.

The interim solution will be designed to handle and treat leachate in the short term (up to 5 years), whereas the long term solution will be expected to manage leachate for a further 25 years.

5.5.5 Short term leachate management

Leachate collection

The initial requirement will be to construct leachate collection systems within the existing waste. This will be undertaken by improving and enhancing the existing drainage structures at the site (filter prism – see Section 4.3.2. The leachate generated will be captured from where it emerges from the landfill. This is located on the west slope of the landfill. The captured leachate will be directed through a controlled system of channels excavated into berms and through the crest drainage, which are installed along the edges of the landfill. It is anticipated that leachate will also be extracted from the waste at the toe of the landfill and collected in a reservoir/tank at the rate of 2.6 l/sec. At this stage, it will mixed with the more dilute leachate that has emerged from the waste and been captured.

The collection of leachate is being designed by Geing on behalf of the DLFC (“Main project for treatment of the leachate that is generated in landfill for solid waste“, GEING, 18.01.2011). This project also involves the assessment and design of leachate recirculation systems.

Leachate recirculation

The leachate will be stored in the reservoir to allow suspended particles to settle out of the leachate. The leachate will then be discharged to a tank from where it will be pumped to the surface of the waste and recirculated. Recirculation typically reduces the quantity of free leachate as it makes best use of the available absorption capacity of the wastes deposited. This results in a reduction of the leachate during the summer months as the sprayed leachate is subjected to evaporation. Recirculation also increases the moisture content of the deposited wastes, which leads to enhanced biological decomposition of organic matter in the waste.

Recirculation is used extensively across the world, as a low cost, yet effective way of managing leachate.

Recirculation should be controlled so that it is undertaken in areas away from human activity, it should be within the waste mass and not affect neighbouring properties. The discharge point will need to be moved on occasions so that no individual part of the waste mass becomes overly saturated. Also it may be necessary to stop recirculation during particularly windy, wet and icy conditions in order not to contaminate the environment.

Short term treatment

A relatively inexpensive way of providing a limited treatment is through using reed beds. This option is a short term treatment measure that is proposed in order to supplement the option of leachate recirculation.


58


A reed bed system is not the most effective process for the treatment of a high strength ammonia effluent. These systems are usually used to provide tertiary treatment. Due to this, a performance guarantee and references for similar applications should be obtained from the reed bed designer.

Figure 5.8: Examples of reed beds

The choice of options and a detailed description of reed bed construction and operation are included in Appendix L of Volume 2.

The area required for the construction of a reed bed lagoon at the Drisla landfill is anticipated to be approximately 300 metres long and 8 metres wide. The anticipated preferred location for the reed bed lagoon is near to the existing drainage prism. The design of the reed bed that will be constructed (an example of which is shown in Figure 5.9) will be determined during the full design process. The layers inlet and outlet pipes, should be selected so that the environment is protected in terms of limiting contamination of the soil, ground and surface water. It will be necessary to confirm the design and obtain the appropriate licenses from the competent authorities such as Ministry of environment and physical planning etc. prior to constructing the reed bed.

Figure 5.9: Construction of a typical reed bed


59


Reed bed lagoon that should be constructed at the Drisla landfill will include the following structural elements (Figure 5.10) with the following parameters/dimensions16: Stabilisation bed for mechanical pre-treatment (30 m length, 8 m width and 0.4 m depth); Sludge drying bed (30 m length, 8 m width, 0.4 m depth); Bed for filtration (50 m length, 8 m width, 0.5 m depth); Two beds for treatment of leachate with vertical flow (50 m length, 8 m width, 0.5 m depth); Polishing beds (50 m length, 8 m width, 0.5 m depth); Bed reservoir for the purified leachate (40 m length, 8 m width, 0.5 m depth).

Figure 5.10: Scheme of reed bed lagoon

_________________________ 16 The dimensions are given approximately, more current figures will be given in the project for construction of reed bed lagoon


60


Constraints

For the option proposed, the following key criteria for the pre-treatment of landfill leachate apply: Pre-aeration is required to reduce high strength BOD concentrations to at least 250 mg/l prior to release

to reed beds.17 The volume of pre-aeration tank/zone and power requirement of aerators should be carefully selected. Flow control is required to limit washout of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) from the aeration tank

to the reed beds.

In addition, the following key criteria for the treatment of landfill leachate apply: The maximum ammoniacal nitrogen concentration of the leachate discharged to the reed bed should be

limited to 100 mg/l18 (at 20oC and pH 7.0) to avoid inhibition of the nitrification process. This value may need to be adjusted for site specific temperature and pH values.

To ensure that the nitrification process is not inhibited at high concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen, it may be necessary to recycle the final effluent from the reed bed to dilute incoming concentrations.

Vertical flow reed bed systems require a minimum head of 2 metres19 or additional inter-stage pumping will be required.


The costs here are based on our knowledge of reed bed processing and are purely indicative. They are subject to change based on ground engineering, fuel costs, costs for planting of reeds etc. The operational costs should be based on a 5 year life for a reed bed. This period may be extended if the reed bed is well maintained and operated, or can decrease if incorrectly used. Accurate costs for staff, insurance, permitting, for design of the reed beds (layers of reed bed, pipes), for harvesting/planting of the reed beds, recultivation of the area have to be included in the project for construction of the reed bed.

Table 5-14 Cost of construction of typical reed bed Costing Element Costs €

Construction of the structural elements - beds of the reed bed lagoon (excavations, loading, transport on 50 m distance )

3,60020

Placement of impermeable layer - geomembrane 21,60021

Placement of geotextile on both sides of the geomembrane 19,20022

Placement of filter material (gravel, sand) 8,80023

Placement of pipes 4,50024

Planting of reed beds 1,76025

_________________________ 17 Review of the design and management of constructed wetlands. CIRIA 1997 18 Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. 4th Edition Metcalf and Eddy. 2004 19 Review of the design and management of constructed wetlands. CIRIA 1997 20 Price for excavations of 1 m3 land is app. € 3 21 Price for 1 m2 is app. € 9 22 Price for 1 m2 is app. € 4 23 Price for 1 m3 is app. € 10 24 Price for 1 m pipe is € 30 25 Cost for one reed rhizome is app. 20 cents, so assuming 8 800 reed rhizomes to be planted on area of 1 760 m2 (5 rhizomes on 1

m2) the appr. costs for rhizomes and planting procedures are around € 1,760


61


Costing Element Costs €

Capex Total 59,460 Design & Supervision 5% 2,973

Contingency 5% 3,122 Total 65,555

In calculating the operating costs it should be assumed that the frequency of visits to the reed beds will be at 3 monthly intervals. Typically, each reed bed requires 1 hour of maintenance conducted by a 2 man team each visit. For the 6 number reed beds (including the pre-aeration bed) proposed, this would equate to 12 man hours per visit or 48 man hours per year. Additional hours may be required depending upon specific site requirements. These staff costs have been included in Table 5-9 allowing for skilled operators for the leachate treatment system. The overheads included in Table 5-9 take into account any utility and maintenance costs.

5.5.7 Long term leachate management

A leachate treatment plant is being considered for the treatment of leachate from the Drisla Landfill site. There has been little site specific background information to support this review at present. As a result, data from landfills in the UK have been used, which has meant that it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions in order to determine the treatment options feasible for this site. It will be necessary to review these assumptions once further information is available.

It is considered that, for the treatment of leachate from Drisla Landfill Site to comply with standards for discharge to the environment, a reduction of organic matter (COD & BOD26) and ammonia will be required. It has been assumed that a normal domestic landfill leachate would not require a special metals removal step. If sampling subsequently reveals high levels of heavy metals, additional treatment stages may be required.

In the absence of other standards, it has been assumed that treatment should produce an effluent to comply with typical Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive standards in terms of BOD and ammoniacal nitrogen, but not COD. A significant amount of COD will be removed as a result of BOD removal. If removal of refractory COD is required, additional treatment steps will be required.

It should be noted that if a discharge to sewer can be made available, the treatment requirements would be very significantly reduced. At present, however, it is assumed that the treated effluent will be discharged to the Markova Reka (river) watercourse, downstream of the landfill.

It is possible for significant variations in concentrations of various leachate parameters to be observed within landfills. This could be the result of individual deposits of a particular waste or the stage of degradation (age) of wastes. It is not appropriate to finalise the long term treatment option design based on a small dataset over a limited timescale. In addition, the leachate strength is likely to change in the future as wastes are placed in engineered phases with reduced infiltration from surface, rain and ground waters. The strength of the leachate will therefore need to be assessed to determine the full design for the

_________________________ 26 COD – Chemical oxygen demand BOD – Biological oxygen demand


62


long term leachate treatment option once a full collection scheme has been developed and is being operated.

A detailed study, including surveys of leachate quality and flow and a comparison of the options and cost analysis, should be undertaken once the leachate is being collected for short term treatment to identify the optimum long term treatment method and suitable disposal routes for the wastes from the treatment processes.

In the meantime, it is recommended that the existing borehole sampling regime is modified to include the analysis of heavy metals, suspended solids, iron and sulphate. If it is considered necessary to reduce the concentrations of these constituents, bench testing of samples to identify optimum chemical dosing for reduction in these parameters may also be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to undertake treatability trials to confirm the long term treatment process and to refine the design.

Further information on leachate treatment is included as Appendix L of Volume 2.

Loading

From the leachate quality and quantity data provided in Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 a range of loads to the plant has been developed.

(i) Loads

The following loads to the treatment plant were calculated from flow and quality: BOD < 1,520 kg/day COD < 2,520 kg/day NH4N < 40 kg/day

(ii) Effluent Quality

We have assumed the following effluent quality requirements. BOD < 25 mg/l NH4N < 5 mg/l

This will need to be reviewed in the light of actual discharge consent conditions applied.

Recommended Option

The most cost effective form of treatment for high levels of BOD, COD and ammonia is biological oxidation through activated sludge treatment. A traditional activated sludge plant, utilising a biological tank followed by a settlement stage, has been proposed in order to treat this high strength effluent. This comprises a selector zone, aeration tank and final settlement tanks. Other activated sludge based treatment options and configurations are feasible, and if the space for the plant were restricted, it would be preferable to have a SBR (Sequencing Batch Reactor). The footprint proposed is based on that required for a conventional activated sludge system that could accommodate additional treatment steps, if found necessary.

The option proposed involves several elements which are described below:


63


(i) Raw Influent Lift Station

The gravity flow of combined leachate and groundwater shall be introduced to an in-ground wet well containing a set of non-chokeable, submersible pumps in which the duty units shall deliver a suitable range of flows to the treatment plant up to the maximum anticipated flow in that line. At least one standby pump shall be installed which shall actuate on failure of a duty pump or on the attainment of a high water level in the wet well.

(ii) Fine Screening

To prevent particles of debris of larger than 2 mm in size from fouling the treatment processes, a duty and stand-by pair of self-cleaning fine screens with 2 mm apertures shall be installed above the Pre Aeration Tanks, discharging the screenings to skip via a vertical chute.

(iii) Metals Removal

As there is no data to indicate the need for metals removal, we assume that biological treatment will be sufficient to meet environmental discharge standards.

(iv) Pre-aeration tanks

A pre-aeration stage may be required, comprising a tank or vessel with about two hour’s retention capacity, equipped with an aeration grid and a compressor or blower to provide the necessary air. The principal functions of the pre-aeration stage are to promote oxidation of reduced species and to strip dissolved gaseous hydrogen sulphide. The efficiency of this latter function of stripping hydrogen sulphide depends on the pH of the wastewater. The overall pre-aeration process is more efficient if carried out in a packed column. This also makes it easier to capture and treat any gases released, which may be very odorous and toxic. However, for the purposes of this exercise we have assumed an open tank will be adequate. The tank will also serve the function of providing some initial buffering of strong influents.

(v) Biological Treatment

To remove organic components from wastewater, a biological treatment process is generally used. Other physical and chemical processes can also be used but are more expensive to operate. In biological treatment, processes that occur in nature are harnessed. A population of micro-organisms is cultivated and their growth is optimised by controlling the environment. In this way the decomposition of pollutants is speeded up. The micro-organisms may be maintained in suspension, as in the activated sludge process, or fixed to media such as stone or plastic, as in percolating filters. By virtue of their greater buffering volume, suspended growth processes offer more resistance to shock loads are so are more suited to leachate treatment. We would propose to use the activated sludge process of which there are many configurations.

We have assumed that a fully nitrifying plant will be required, but that a denitrification stage will not be required. This will need to be reviewed when the effluent discharge standards become clearer.

A conventional activated sludge plant would comprise an aeration tank of about 3,200 m3, with a depth of about 5 to 6 metres fitted with an aeration grid. This would operate at a mixed liquor concentration of


64


about 3000 mg/l. The mixed liquor comprises the activated sludge combined with the incoming wastewater.

A selector zone will be provided at the inlet to the tank. The selector zone is designed to promote conditions favourable to growth of the desired purifying micro-organisms, particularly those that form well-settling flocs. The influent wastewater is combined with the recycled activated sludge at the inlet to the selector zone.

Aeration is provided by blowers or compressors and the degree of aeration controlled by measurement of dissolved oxygen and ammonia.

Solids separation is achieved in radial flow settlement tanks. The settled activated sludge is recycled (RAS) to the head of the aeration tank or selector zone and the clarified effluent discharged to the environment or the next stage of treatment. (Note: Depending on the effluent discharge standards applied additional stages of treatment, such as sand filtration, may be required.)

Once the desired concentration of mixed liquor has been achieved in the aeration tank, the surplus activated sludge (SAS) is discharged from the plant to maintain this concentration. At equilibrium, this is equivalent to the amount of new sludge generated each day.

The sludge is sent for treatment, as described below.

Improved effluent quality and space saving could be achieved by the use of membrane filtration for solids separation rather than settlement tanks.

(vi) Sludge Treatment

No allowance has been made for sludge treatment. Biological sludge can be dewatered to about 18% Dry solids. This sludge will probably not be suitable for beneficial use on agricultural land and so the likely disposal route will be to landfill. It has been assumed that the surplus activated sludge (SAS) produced can be disposed of to the landfill without dewatering.

(vii) Final Effluent

It is assumed that a consent will be obtained to discharge effluent to the environment. We have assumed typical UWWTD27 standard of 25 mg/l for BOD but not for COD, total nitrogen or phosphorus as these would have significant implications for treatment. We have also assumed a 5 mg/l Ammoniacal nitrogen standard. This would represent a considerable improvement on the current situation where untreated leachate discharges to the environment. Provision will be made to recycle a portion of the effluent to the landfill.

(viii) Footprint

The above treatment process units can be contained in an area of about 4,000 m2 making allowance for an access road around the site. An indicative arrangement is shown in Figure 5.11. _________________________ 27 Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, 91/271/EEC, 21 May 1991 c0ncerning urban wastewater treatment


65


Figure 5.11: Schematic of Leachate Treatment Plant Layout

If additional treatment steps are needed or flows or loads are higher than estimated the footprint may increase. However, detailed design may also find methods of reducing the footprint e.g. through Optimising the plant loading Use of SBRs

48 m

85 m

Blower House

Car Parking

Control Room /

Admin/LabDC

Inlet PS

RAS/SAS PS

Pre Aeration

Bio

logi

cal T

reat

men

t

Bio

logi

cal T

reat

men

t

Final Settlement

Tank

Final Settlement

Tank

80 m


66


Using membranes for solids separation Increasing the depth of tanks, etc.

(ix) Utilities Consumption

The basic treatment plant described will require approximately: 2400 kWh of electricity per day


The total project cost for the long term biological treatment facility currently suggested would be in the region of €3.4 million, excluding land costs. Any additional treatment steps will increase the cost. Costs are likely to vary in Macedonia. In relation to the leachate collection requirements, these are shown along with the landfill phase preparation works in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 and total €442,600.

Table 5-15: Capex for leachate treatment Task Cost

Civils 3,400,000

Design & Supervision @ 5% 170,000

Contingency @ 5% 178,500

Total 3,748,500

Estimations of the opex costs are provided in Table 5-16. The likely energy consumption would be 876,000 kWh per annum. The electricity price at Drisla is currently 8.3c/kWh so this would lead to a cost of €72,708 per annum. A single skilled operative will be required to monitor and manage the leachate treatment plant this has already been costed for in the staffing arrangements for the new landfill, Table 5-9. Maintenance will cost approximately 4% of the capital expenditure, or €138,000 per annum. Operating costs for any additional processes or chemicals that may subsequently be found necessary for treatment would be extra.

Table 5-16 Operating costs Task Cost per annum

Staff costs and overheads covered in the estimations for landfill

Energy & Utility costs covered in the estimations for landfill


Utilities and electrical demand 72,708


Total 221,243

5.6 Gas extraction and treatment (waste to energy)

5.6.1 Current gas management

At present, no controls are in place to manage gas. There is limited engineering and the site has not been capped to control migration. In addition, there are no monitoring wells installed and no monitoring for landfill gas has been undertaken.


67


5.6.2 Gas control assessment

Annex I of the EU Landfill Directive requires that “landfill gas shall be collected from all landfills receiving biodegradable waste and the landfill gas must be treated and used. If the gas collected cannot be used to produce energy, it must be flared.” This has been transposed into Macedonian Law for waste management (Official gazette 68/04; article 79) as well as the By law regulating the standards that landfills are required to achieve (official gazette 78/09).

The aim of gas extraction is to reduce the risk of gas migration; affecting the surrounding environment, potentially harming the local population and reducing the global warming potential.

Typically, gas extraction would be considered as part of the engineering measures required for permitting a landfill and would be based on a quantitative risk assessment. The risk assessment would use a conceptual site model for the landfill area and would characterise the source term, the potential pathways and receptors. The aim would then be to: quantify the production of landfill gas from the landfill site; identify potential hazards posed by landfill gas generation ; identify potential receptors and pathways for gas migration; provide a qualitative health risk assessment as a result of landfilling activities to those potentially

exposed; propose and assess realistic mitigation measures to remove or minimise identified potential pollution or

Health and Safety risks

A gas risk assessment has been prepared and is included as Appendix M of Volume 2. This has shown that the risks to habitable receptors are limited because of their remoteness from the site. Should there be any new residences constructed closer than the dwellings already in place, then this assessment should be reviewed. As a result, protection of the environment is the principal concern. This should be achieved through following the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive (as transposed into Macedonian legislation) in terms of engineering and monitoring. Engineered containment should be provided at the base, sides and eventually the surface to minimise the risk of migration of gas from the landfill. Gas extraction measures should be installed both in the historic tipping as well as any further tipping that is to be undertaken in newly engineered cells.

In addition, monitoring should be undertaken in accordance with a gas management plan to identify whether migration of gas is occurring.

Gas prediction modelling has been undertaken, which shows that, at present, it should be feasible to extract approximately 500m3/hr of landfill gas. A 1MW gas engine would typically require between 520m3/hr to 560m3/hr of gas (this relates to gas engines with efficiencies of between 38% to 41%). Gas engines can also be turned down to generate less power. Assuming 50% turn down this would allow the engine to operate at approximately 260m3/hr of landfill gas. The model shows that potentially a 1MW engine could be operated at its full capacity up to the late 2030s and then at a reduced capacity until the mid 2040s.

The gas availability at this landfill is likely to be poor initially, as gas escape is generally uncontrolled, as the site is uncapped. The new phases are to be constructed over the top of the existing waste, which will also constrain the ability to extract gas from that waste already placed. Despite this, it would appear that there is sufficient gas to power a 1MW engine.


68


The economics of installing a 1MW gas engine need to be considered. However, it is clear that a gas extraction system comprising pipework and flare could be installed. It is proposed that a 1,000m3/hr flare is installed initially. This will have an operating range of 200m3/hr to 1,000m3/hr as it should have a 1:5 turndown ratio. Should a gas engine be installed then the flare will only be provided as a back-up in case there is a failure in the gas engine.

5.6.3 Description of the chosen option for gas extraction

Alternative design options will be required for the extraction of gas from the existing waste and from the proposed new engineered phases. This is discussed in detail in Appendix M of Volume 2. However, it is generally based on extracting gas from a gas venting layer on top of the existing wastes and supplementing this in time from boreholes drilled into the waste deposited in contained cells in the future.

The anticipated layout is shown on Drawing 282292/EES/001 included as Appendix BB of Volume 2.

5.6.4 Grid connection requirement

The Drisla site has an existing connection to the Macedonia grid via a 10.0.4 kV power transformer which is rated at 250 kVA. The proposed generation project would generate more electricity than could be used to supply the local Drisla demand. Furthermore, under the local pricing regime, the produced electricity can be sold for 13 c€/kWh. The price of used electricity for the Drisla site is circa. 8.3 c€/kWh + VAT. Therefore, a separate generation connection is likely to be preferred to export all of generated power, rather than a shared connection with the generated output also utilised to supply the local Drisla demand. To achieve this, a separate 0.4/10kV step-up transformer would be required to connect to the local distribution system.

The proposed connection point is the TS Dracevo 110/10 kV substation which is approximately 6 km distant from the Drisla site. The coordinates for the substation are Latitude 41°56'9.68"N and Longitude 21°30'44.20"E. Based upon our experience of other projects in Eastern Europe, a connection cost in the region of €100,000 to €300,000 is estimated. For the cost modelling it has been assumed that the connection will cost €200,000. The actual cost will be dependent upon the local system constraints and requirements.

5.6.5 Capex and opex for extraction and flaring

The price for gas extraction from the existing wastes are included as part of the remediation costs in Table 5-2. The new engineered cells are anticipated to cover an area of approximately 300 metres by 650 metres. Assuming that the wells are spaced at approximately 50 metre centres, the total number of wells to be installed will be 79, as shown on Drawing 282292/EES/001 included as Appendix BB of Volume 2. The wells will need to be replaced approximately every 5-7 years.

The following list of prices is based on an average well depth of 40 metres.

Table 5-17: Capex for gas extraction and flare Item Rate Dimension Quantity Total

Drilling wells € 46.00 per metre 79 x 40 €145,360

Casing installation € 24.39 per metre 79 x 40 €77,072


69


Item Rate Dimension Quantity Total

Well head chambers € 906.06 per well 79 €71,579

Extraction pipe € 40.25 per metre ≈4300 €173,075

Condensate traps € 1,150.00 per trap 10 €11,500

Compound including pumping plant, flare and access € 138,000.00 sum 1 €138,000

TOTAL €616,586

In order to maintain the compound and the gas wells, it is proposed that the site manager and at least one other employee are trained in balancing the gas field to ensure that gas extraction is undertaken in an efficient manner. In addition, training would be required with respect to maintaining the equipment. It is recommended that a service contract is let with the flare/gas engine installation contractor for the first year with a view to the installation contractor providing training to technicians on site. This contract could be extended, if required, but may be expensive as it is unlikely that the contractor would have an office local to the facility.

The technicians should be trained to manage and maintain the flare, gas engine and medical waste incinerator.

The staffing costs are already accounted for in Table 5-9, the tables below offer a breakdown cost for the gas extraction and flaring processes.

Table 5-18 Operating costs – gas extraction and flaring Task Cost per annum

Staff costs (2 skilled operators) included in landfill staffing

Energy & Utility costs 0

Repairs and maintenance – civils (assuming replacement programme)

20,766

Repairs and maintenance – mechanical and electrical 32,880


Total 56,328

Table 5-19 Staff costs – extraction and flaring Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Manager 0 1,200 14,400

Operator (skilled) 2 375 4,500 9,000

Operators (unskilled) 0 280 3,360

Total staff 2 - - 9,000 Staff overheads 4,500

Total staff + overheads 13,500


70


It should be noted that the staff cost for gas flaring is already accounted for in the costs for the new landfill construction in Table 5-9.

5.6.6 Capex and opex for utilisation

Unless otherwise stated, this estimate excludes the following costs: delivery, testing, commissioning, project management, planning and permitting, site investigation and lease, civil works, electrical installation (including transformers and cables) and grid connection charge. The capex estimates for the systems that will make up the gas utilisation facility are shown in Table 5-20. Capex and opex costs need to be compared to the revenue that could be generated as a result of the sale of electricity.

Table 5-20: Capital cost estimate for proposed Drisla landfill gas utilisation facility Item Capital cost (€)

GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM (400 - 2000 Nm3/hr) Condensate knockout vessel

3 micron particle filter

Centrifugal gas blower

Valves, flow meters etc

Gas treatment sub-total 42,000

POWER GENERATION SYSTEM 1MW Jenbacher J320 gas engine set 690,000

Balance of plant* 90,000

Power generation sub-total 780,000

GRID CONNECTION Connection to existing grid in Macedonia 200,000

Total 1,022,000 *Balance of plant includes: engine water cooling system, lube oil replenishing system, generator switchgear, container oil system, flow meters, remote monitoring, etc.


Table 5-21 Operating costs – gas utilisation Task Cost per annum

Staff costs and overheads - allowed for in previous gas flaring costs

Energy & Utility costs 0

Repairs and maintenance – power generation system 84,000*

Repairs and maintenance – mechanical and electrical 13,200*

Insurances 9,600


Total 112,140

An O&M cost estimate of €112,140 equates to 1.402 cents/kWh, where the equivalent annual cost is based on a 1MW plant operating for 8,000 hours per annum.


71


5.6.7 Potential revenue

It is anticipated that produced electricity can be sold for 13 c€/kWh. Taking account of the auxiliary load requirements and the typical running time, this is likely to generate between €900,000 and €1 million per annum.

The gas extraction system and flare will need to be installed to meet national and European legislation and therefore the revenue obtained should be compared solely to the additional cost of gas utilisation equipment and connection costs. Obtaining revenue of approximating €1 million per annum clearly shows the benefit of utilising the gas extracted.

5.7 Municipal Solid Waste Separation

5.7.1 Existing waste recycling in Skopje

This is covered in detail in Section 2.3, but comprises limited formal collections of household recyclables and a thriving informal collection system. A number of scavengers recover materials from the site. This process has been made more formal, as the scavengers are now employed by GREENTECH MK DOO.

The capture of recyclable materials from the general waste stream is an important aspect of the future development of the Drisla site. The potential for this service is difficult to gauge from current European and international waste management practices due to the different characteristics of the waste arisings. However, due to the large population of the City, the quantity of recyclable materials available from the residual waste arising should ensure that it is appropriate to construct a facility for the recovery of these materials.


There are two types of Materials Reclamation Facilities (MRFs), a ‘clean MRF’ and a ‘dirty MRF’. A clean MRF is one which receives recyclables that have been collected as a segregated source from households. A ‘dirty MRF’ is one where the input material has not been segregated.

The aim should be for a ‘clean MRF’ to be developed, as it will produce a greater quantity of recyclables, the recyclables obtained will be less contaminated and therefore of a better quality, and the health and safety risks to workers removing the recyclable materials are reduced as they are less likely to come into contact with hazardous or unpleasant wastes.

A ‘clean MRF’ will therefore require the implementation of a source segregated recyclable wastes collection service at the households. At this stage, it is difficult to know how successful the implementation of such a system is likely to be. It is unclear how much segregated waste will be generated as the quantity will be dependent on the ability of the municipality to introduce a segregated waste collection system, the proportion of households to which this system will be readily available, the take-up of householders (i.e. the number of households participating in recycling), and the proportion of the waste stream available at each household that is actually separated. Further studies will be required to trial selected areas of the city to determine how much waste is separated, the material types and best method for storing these wastes at the households.


72


The scheme proposed should be able to readily accommodate an initial throughput of 5,000tpa of separated recyclables during a single shift. The aim should be to develop a solution that can be expanded as waste recycling becomes more prevalent. This could either be undertaken by modifying the structure and plant within the MRF or by increasing the number of shifts. A second shift would increase the throughput at the facility proposed to 10,000tpa. For the purpose of the financial model, it has been assumed that the first two years would be operated on a single shift basis whilst the segregated waste collection system is established and rolled out across Skopje. After this time, we have assumed that there will be sufficient recyclables to operate the facility on a two shift basis.

As discussed, the development of a clean MRF is dependent on the successful introduction of a segregated waste collection scheme. This is outside the control of the Drisla Landfill Company. There is a general feeling that Skopje will not be able to introduce a fully effective, city-wide source segregated recycling collection scheme within the next ten years. If, for any reason, there is a delay in introducing a segregated waste collection scheme, it would be feasible either to use the infrastructure provided as a ‘dirty MRF’ in the short term, or to develop a larger facility specifically to accommodate a mixed waste input material.

The use of the facility with a mixed waste input stream is feasible as the proposed process is based on hand sorting and a magnet. However, if it is felt that a household segregation scheme is unlikely to be implemented for an extended period, it may, in this instance, be preferable to also include a trommel to remove the undersized, essentially organic waste prior to the hand picking. This would be recommended for health and safety reasons. The process and equipment is adaptable, and could be used to sort both segregated and unsegregated waste. The key benefit of hand sorting is that it is possible to specify and modify the materials that should be collected. The speed of the conveyor can be adjusted to ensure that the most economic balance for removal and capacity. This is likely to also reflect the ability of the individual waste collectors.

For the sorting of metals, it is intended that a magnetic separator is included in order to recover ferrous metals. However, an eddy current separator may be considered depending upon the proportion of ferrous to non ferrous metals. Eddy current separators tend to be more expensive than the simpler magnetic separators; however the income from non ferrous metal is higher than for ferrous metal, so the justification would centre on the cost.

If it is not possible to utilise the MRF as a clean MRF paper and card are unlikely to be collected in significant quantities when obtained from a mixed waste stream. The quality of paper and cardboard that is collected largely dictates the end-market that is available. Of particular importance is to ensure that it is free of glass and stones if it is intended for paper pulp/ paper manufacture. However, due to its suitability as a fuel (where there are facilities which can use waste as a feedstock) there may be a market for this even if there is a degree of contamination.

Glass has a number of outlets, recycling as well as use as an aggregate. The decision as to whether glass is collected and separated by colour will be determined by the end-user market. However, it is most likely that glass will be collected as a mix of colours initially, which will therefore limit the use of the material to being an aggregate.

Recovery rates from dirty MRFs can vary hugely, but it is thought generally that 15% would be achievable. As much as 25% has been claimed, which in a recyclable rich stream may be possible, however, if unofficial removal of high value materials is carried out it is unlikely that the recycling rate will be this high.


73


Recovery rates from clean MRFs relate to the amount of contaminants that find their way into the collected feedstock. Contamination rates would typically be in the range of 4% to 8% for a well managed system. The percentage of contaminants is likely to be at the top of this range or possibly higher initially whilst the public are learning which materials they can and cannot segregate.

5.7.3 MRF Footprint and Layout Requirements

Figure 5.12 shows that an enclosed area of approximately 1,000 – 1,500m2 is required to house the equipment for the MRF for a 5,000 – 10,000 tonne capacity plant. This would be sufficient for the clean MRF or alternatively the clean MRF, when used as a dirty MRF.

If, having taken into consideration the difficulty in introducing a segregated recyclable collection scheme and the intention is to develop a dirty MRF that will be used for an extended period, then it is more appropriate to design the facility to receive a greater quantity of input material. It is recommended that the facility should be sized to receive the materials from the urban municipalities, as it is these that are likely to contain the greatest quantities of recyclable materials. Table 2-3 shows that approximately 30% of the total population of Skopje live in the urban municipalities of Aerodrom, Centar and Karposh. If it is assumed that the total waste disposed of to landfill is approximately 150,000 tpa then the dirty MRF should be designed with a throughput of 45,000tpa. Assuming that this is undertaken over two shifts the area of the facility is likely to be approximately 2,700m2.

Figure 5.12: Graph Showing the Optimum Floor Areas for MRFs


74


Source: UK Government Note: the grey line shown above is extrapolated from the real data shown in blue. the shaded area shows an upper limit of 10,000tpa and a lower limit of 5,000tpa

The general layout of the proposed plant and equipment is shown in Figure 5.13 below.

Figure 5.13: Proposed layout

The input stream of either separated mixed recyclables or mixed wastes are deposited from vehicles into hoppers buried in the ground or onto an area of hard standing, from where a low loader, tulip grab or shovel can move the waste onto the main conveyor. Figure 5.13 shows a pit for the receipt of waste materials. This is not essential and it would be possible to provide an area of covered hardstanding and a push wall against which a low loader could scoop up wastes to place the material on to the conveyor. If a low loader is used, this provides an opportunity for the driver to place similar wastes onto the conveyor and to contact the picking crew to inform them of the principal recyclable component of the material to be sifted and sorted.

The conveyor raises the waste up to a picking shed. An example of an operational mobile picking shed is shown below:


75


Figure 5.14: Mobile picking shed

Space is provided for the hand picking crew. The stations for the hand picking crew are adjacent to shafts which are located above containers. The crew members are instructed to remove a particular material type and they place these down their respective shaft.

Once the individual materials are bulked they will need to be baled so that they can be efficiently transported. The baling method is often determined by the requirements of the reprocessor. However, with a small scale MRF it is important to ensure that one baler is suitable for baling each material stream. Determining the number of crew members is a balance of available space, efficiency of removal, speed of conveyor etc. For a clean MRF, it is expected that a minimum of eight staff should be employed per shift, assuming a capacity of 5,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), with one eight hour shift a day, six working days a week, and an average sorting rate of 300 kg/hour/sorter. For a MRF to sort 10,000 tpa, a minimum of 15 staff should be employed in a single shift or potentially two shifts of eight staff.

The sorting process for a dirty MRF differs to that for a clean MRF. Rather than removing contaminants from a waste stream, the recovered material would be extracted from the input material. Increasing the number of staff would not necessarily see a proportional increase in the quantity of material recovered and therefore it is more appropriate to base the staffing on the most effective size for a team, rather than just increasing the numbers. For a throughput of 22,500tpa per shift, it is recommended that a two line system should be installed with 8 staff per line.

For a clean MRF it is anticipated that the foreman would undertake managerial activities to ensure the smooth operation of the facilities, but would also undertake the role of a picker on a part-time basis. For a two-line dirty MRF, the level of management would be greater and therefore the foreman would not be involved in picking as much.

Potentially, with lighting, the site could be operated up to 24 hours per day in three shifts. The operational hours will be determined by the capacity of the plant, the number of hand picking crew members, any operational planning constraints etc.


76


5.7.4 Capex

The recommended option is to provide a ‘clean MRF’ operated initially on a single shift basis, but eventually increasing this to a two shift basis. The cost of a trommel would not be required for this scenario. However, it would appear that, although not preferable, the only sorting operation in the medium term would be to use a dirty MRF.

Potentially the cost of the equipment could be as follows in Table 5-22:

Table 5-22 Capex for clean MRF Item Cost €

Civils

Infrastructure paving and drainage 600,000

Building / Offices 280,000

Plant and equipment

Wheeled Loader 45,000

Conveyor / Picking Line 56,000

Overband magnet 51,000

Baler 40,000

Hopper 11,000

Total 1,083,000 Design and supervision (@ 5%) 54,150

Contingency (@ 5%) 56,858

Total 1,194,008

A trommel appropriate for a 45,000tpa dirty MRF facility would typically cost €60,000.

Table 5-23: Capex for dirty MRF

Task Cost (€)

Civils (infrastructure, paving and drainage) 1,336,800

Utility Connection Covered in previous cost estimates

Plant and Equipment 2 No. trommels 120,000

2 No. Wheeled Loader 90,000

2 No. Conveyor / Picking Line (incl additional conveyors) 168,000

2 No. Overband magnet 102,000

2 No. Balers 80,000

2 No. Hoppers 22,000

Total for plant and equipment 582,000

Design & Supervision 217,519

Contingency (@ 5%) 119,635 Total 2,512,344


77


5.7.5 Opex

Energy consumption and staff salaries are going to be the highest operational costs. However, this will largely be offset by the revenue that could be expected from the sale of recyclates.

A typical MRF with annual throughput of 5,000 tpa will have an energy requirement of approximately 300,000 kWh per annum, and approximately 600,000 kWh per annum for a 10,000 tpa MRF. However, it is possible that as the MRF proposed has little automation that the operational energy requirement provided allows for a safety factor. Generally 4% of the capex relating to plant and equipment and 0.5% of the capex relating to civils should be expected as an annual maintenance cost for the basic MRF suggested. The plant and equipment maintenance cost may increase to 6% if there is a more complex system is used and if there is a high level of glass that will be sorted through the MRF, to account for additional maintenance and earlier replacement of glass-handling conveyor belts. Using these figures, maintenance costs are likely to be approximately 12,500 Euros a year.


Table 5-24 Operating costs – clean MRF Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 84,600

Energy & Utility costs 26,300

Repairs and maintenance – civils 12,500

Insurance 1,000


Total 130,620

Table 5-25 Operating costs – dirty MRF Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 200,700



Mechanical consumable spares 144,613


Total 586,087

5.7.6 Staffing

For a clean MRF approximately 8 sorters are required per shift, for a 5,000-10,000 tpa capacity MRF. The staff will include 7 unskilled labourers and a skilled foreman. The foreman is likely to spend a large amount of his time carrying out picking along with the unskilled labourers. Additional staff, such as a manager, administration, equipment maintenance may also be required. It is likely that the existing scavengers at the site would be employed to undertake this task.


78


Table 5-26: Staff costs – clean MRF Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

5000tpa 10000tpa 5000tpa 10000tpa

Manager 0 0 1,200 14,400 - - Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 1 500 6,000 6,000 6,000 Secretaries and Guards (skilled) 0 0 375 4,500 - - Operators (unskilled) 7 15 280 3,360 23,520 50,400 Total staff 8 16 - - 29,520 56,400 Staff overheads 50% 14,760 28,200 Total staff + overheads 44,280 84,600

For the dirty MRF, the throughput is greater and therefore the number of staff and management is also likely to be greater. As a result, it is assumed that the foreman will only undertake a small proportion of his time picking along with the other staff

Table 5-27 Staff costs – dirty MRF Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Manager 0 1,200 14,400 0 Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 500 6,000 6,000 Drivers and other skilled staff (skilled) 6 375 4,500 27,000 Operators (unskilled) 30 280 3,360 100,800 Total staff 37 - - 133,800 Staff overheads 50% 66,900 Total staff + overheads 200,700


Revenue will be generated through the sale of sorted recyclables. However, if unofficial removal of high value materials is carried out it is unlikely for the revenues to be as high as they could be. In addition, potentially if a household segregation service is introduced; it becomes easier for the scavengers to remove the materials before they are collected by the official collection service. Enforcement to control the scavenging of separated recyclables may be necessary. The quality of separated recyclables is also likely to be variable.

The sorting facility is based on an overband magnet to remove the ferrous element and a picking belt to remove selected materials or contaminants from a bulked-up source-segregated stockpile. The materials that could be hand selected would be determined by market forces and by availability. Potentially, if a good market price could be achieved for a specific material (e.g. aluminium, plastic) then the hand picking crew could be tasked with extracting aluminium from a segregated waste stream. Alternatively, the various plastic fractions could be separated, with different individuals being tasked with removing different plastic polymers.

A review of material prices undertaken in July 2011 reveals the following: PET: 11 MKD per kg (the highest price is 14 MKD)


79


Iron: usually depends on the iron quality but it goes like this: low quality 11 MKD per kg; high quality 13 MKD per kg

Copper: 280 MKD per kg Paper 2.5 MKD per kg

Plastic, paper and card and metal are likely to comprise the bulk of materials to be segregated further at the facility, with the potential for glass to be bulked separately. Proportionally, of the throughput, plastic is likely to comprise approximately 40-45%, paper and card approximately 50-55% and 5% being metal. However, the proportions may change with the roll out of further bring sites for the collection of plastic and therefore it is recommended that further compositional analysis is undertaken of the incoming waste stream. Assuming 10%-15% contamination this would generate the following quantities:

Table 5-28 Approximate compositions of recovered recyclables from a clean MRF Materials 5,000 tpa

throughput (tonnes)

Estimated revenue assuming July 2011 prices*

10,000 tpa throughput

(tonnes)


MKD Euros MKD Euros

Plastic 1,700-2,025 20.5 million 335,900 3,400-4,050 41 million 671,800

Paper/card 2,125-2,475 5.75 million 94,300 4,250-4,950 11.5 million 188,600

Metal 210-225 2.4 million** 39,200 420-450 4.8 million** 78,400

Contaminants 500-750 - - 1,000-1,500 - -

Total 28.65 million 469,400 Total 57.3 million 938,800 * Assuming an average recovery from range ** Assuming predominantly low quality iron/steel

As this is a new service for Macedonia, it is unclear how much material can actually be recovered and the quality of that material. As a result, it is difficult to determine the actual revenues that may be obtained, particularly as markets prices tend to be variable. The uncertainty in quantity and quality of the materials recovered from a clean MRF, together with that of fluctuating prices for recyclables should be reflected in any financial modelling. In this respect, it would be appropriate to assume that contaminants could be as high as 20% and a factor of between 0.7 and 0.9 should be applied to prices obtained to cover the risk of price fluctuation. Financial decisions relating to the construction of the sorting facility, including an assessment of the assumptions, should be undertaken nearer the time of construction and once a decision has been taken on the scope of segregated waste collection.

For a dirty MRF, it is even more difficult to determine the revenue that could be obtained. Income is estimated assuming a 60% capture rate of plastic and metal from the waste. From the composition analysis carried out it is estimated that 12.4% of the waste is plastic and 1.2% is metal. As identified above, the composition is likely to change as plastic recycling is rolled out further and therefore further compositional assessments should be undertaken. The income for plastic and metal is estimated at 11MKD/kg or €180/tonne as this is the income the materials have been attracting.


80


Table 5-29 Approximate compositions of recovered recyclables from a dirty MRF Materials Average

percentage in waste stream


and 60% recovery (tonnes)

Estimated revenue assuming July 2011

prices*


and 60% recovery (tonnes)


MKD Euros MKD Euros

Plastic 12.4% 744 8.2 million 134,400 3,348 36.8 million 603,300

Paper/card 15.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Metal 1.2% 72 0.8 million** 13,000 324 3.6 million** 59,000

Total 9 million 147,400 Total 40.4 million 662,300

As with the clean MRF, a factor of between 0.7 and 0.9 should be applied to the revenue received, as part of the financial modelling. This is to cover the potential fluctuation in prices received for recovered recyclable materials. The total revenue should therefore be assumed to be between €463,600 and €596,100 for a 45,000tpa throughput.

5.8 Treatment of Construction and Demolition Waste

5.8.1 Background

The capture of recyclable materials from the general waste stream is an important aspect of the future development of the Drisla site. There are two main sources of construction and demolition (C&D) waste typically found at landfill sites; domestic and commercial sources. These can vary considerably in nature and composition.

Domestic sources of waste tend to arise from small building and upgrading of facilities within the house. This has the effect of producing a composition consisting of rubble and other inert materials, wood, glass, metals, and some hazardous materials, usually left over from painting and cement use. Other materials commonly found in this waste stream are plasterboard and insulation materials.

The most common receptacle for this type of arising is a skip or dumpster, principally of a size in the region of 7.5m3, or a capacity of approximately 10 tonnes.

Commercial sources range in scale for those operations which serve the domestic market and discussed above to much larger enterprises, and those with specialist applications. The former are largely from the construction and demolition of multiple dwellings or larger single buildings. For construction wastes, these typically contain a significant proportion of wood used as packaging for bulky materials, and plastic films again used as packaging for materials being delivered to site. Plastics such as PVC from the construction of services such as water and gas pipes and metals from water and central heating may also form a significant proportion of the waste stream.

In the case of demolition projects other materials may be encountered including those that are no longer used in construction due to their hazardous nature such as lead from drainage piping and potentially asbestos.


81


The main difference in the wastes arising from demolition lies in the large quantities of materials such as concrete, stone and brick which may be re-used in the case of bricks, if they are in good condition, or recycled into aggregates by crushing and screening.

Another common source of C&D wastes from a local authority perspective lies in Highways maintenance. This is a source that can yield high tonnages of a single material stream with a high potential for recycling. For instance, a concrete or tarmac road surface can be crushed and used as a base material for other highway projects.

5.8.2 Existing construction and demolition wastes treatment and disposal

As stated in Table 3-1 the quantity of construction and demolition wastes generated in Macedonia is believed to total 500,000tpa. In Section 3.3 it has been assessed that between 117,000 and 127,000 tonnes of construction and demolition wastes are generated in Skopje.

PE “Komunalna Higiena” Skopje reported that 15,000m³ of inert waste was disposed at the Drisla landfill in 2008, whereas the DLFC reported that only 130.52 t of C&D waste were disposed of to the landfill in 2010. This suggests that there is a problem with the data management at the landfill site in terms of wastes classification.

It is understood that in Macedonia unsegregated C&D wastes are currently deposited at unregulated landfills. These landfills have no formal engineering or pollution control measures; they have no lining, leachate control or gas extraction. Strong regulation should see this practice significantly reduce and therefore it is likely that the quantity of construction and demolition wastes received at the landfill is likely to increase.

Further information relating to description of options and applicable legislation can be found in Appendix O of Volume 2.


As the size of the available waste stream that could be delivered to the landfill is unknown, the equipment proposed in this section is applicable for an operation to treat up to 300,000tpa of domestic and commercial based construction and demolition waste. If operating at full capacity on a three shift basis, this would exceed the total quantity of construction and demolition wastes thought to be generated during a year from Skopje.

To reduce the quantity being disposed of to landfill it is recommended that all wastes are treated through the segregation of inert materials such as hardcore and brick from the remaining mix of wood, plaster, glass etc. A mobile crushing and screening plant has been proposed that could accommodate a throughput of approximately 250,000tpa of concrete rubble, highways planings, brick, soils etc. A vibrofeed, conveyor, overband magnet, trommel and picking station system has also been proposed. This could accommodate a throughput of approximately 50,000tpa to 60,000tpa of mixed construction and demolition wastes including domestic skip-type arisings, which is typically a less homogenous waste containing the higher value elements such as metal frames, pipes etc. plus window frames, wood and dense plastics. The proposed layout is shown in Figure 5.20.


82


It is anticipated that the combined plant could viably be operated with a reduced throughput to approximately 50,000- 60,000 tpa. It would still be possible to operate the site were much lower throughputs attained, although this would not fully utilise the staff responsible for operating the process and therefore other tasks would need to be found for them. Alternatively, the staff could be employed on part-time contracts.

It is proposed that the waste is delivered to a reception area approximately 50m x 65m as an initial stockpile prior to separation. An excavator with a “Tulip” grab attachment then separates high value larger elements of this waste and potentially hazardous materials (e.g. Liquid Petroleum Gas canisters) from the waste for storage in open top containers. Higher value large materials are likely to predominantly comprise metals.

This would mainly leave aggregates and wood which can potentially be further sorted into waste streams and placed into smaller stockpiles using the grab and/or a large four wheeled loading shovel. Some hand sorting of materials could also take place from the smaller stockpiles at this stage. The waste stockpiles could then be fed through a mobile crusher to reduce the typical diameter of the aggregate and timber elements.

The resultant waste stream would then be sorted further using a trommel screen to remove small diameter wastes (i.e. predominantly aggregates) before passing on to a conveyor. The conveyor would pass under an overband magnet to recover ferrous metals before passing on to a picking station. At the picking station hand sorting of the wastes will occur for the removal of non ferrous and other valuable materials.

The major equipment items are shown below.

Figure 5.15: Excavator with standard bucket attachment Figure 5.16: Orange Peel Grab Attachment for Excavator

Source:http://www.consultantsurveyor.com/accessories/orange_peel_scrap_grab.jpg


83


Figure 5.17: Trommel with conveyor/ hand picking line Figure 5.18: Front end loader feeding an Aggregate Crusher

The mobile crusher could also be used for the recovery of highways related wastes. The throughput could be expected to achieve up to approximately 120 tonnes per hour and therefore the crusher has the potential to process up to 250,000 tpa on a single 8 hour shift basis.

Figure 5.19: Aggregate Crusher/ Magnet/ Conveyor (Rubble Master RM70)

The overall proposed design for the plant is shown in Figure 5.20. The plant would be expected to utilise an optimum of 4 staff on the picking line in addition to the drivers and the foreman. Depending on whether the plant is used full time there can be some cross-over of roles.


84


Figure 5.20: Proposed C&D Waste Plant Conceptual Layout

A homogenous waste stream that consists of entirely inert materials could potentially be disposed of in a facility licensed to receive inert wastes, or more likely the material could be reused as an engineering material in access roads etc. In order to encourage the recovery of inert materials financial measures have been used. In the UK, for instance, there is a landfill tax which is set at a prohibitive level for organic and mixed wastes and a significantly reduced level for inert materials. Re-use of inert materials will not attract a tax. This is now supported through an aggregates tax, where excavation of naturally occurring aggregates is taxed to encourage the re-use of materials.


The capex cost estimates below have been based on research carried out into second hand sales of equipment throughout Europe, taking into account depreciation to estimate costs as would be new. Equipment costs are very variable dependent on size and manufacturer. Prices provided here are considered mid-range (+/-10%).

Energy consumption and staff salaries are going to be the highest operational costs. Some revenue will be made from the sale of recyclates but this will not cover operational costs.


85


Potentially the cost of the equipment could be as follows:


Civils

Hardstanding 187,500

All activities take place under cover (optional) 300,000 Total Civils 487,500

Electromechanical

Orange Peel Grab 15,000

Excavator 110,000

Loading Shovel 45,000

Trommel Screen 85,000

Conveyor / Picking Station 75,000

Crusher / Magnet 140,000

Total electro-mechanical plant and equipment 470,000

Total of above 957,500 Design & Supervision (@ 5%) 47,875


Total 1,055,644

Hard standing costs have been estimated at approximately €50/m2. The approximate cost = €162,500 (for 3,250m2) plus roads at approximately €25,000 adds €187,500 approximately to the overall capital costs.

It should be noted that by operating without the ‘Dutch Barn’ a considerable saving in capital cost could be found, although there may be issues with dust control that would necessitate the use of equipment such as a tractor/ bowser. Also this would not be suitable as a permanent full time solution for staff welfare reasons. The other main disadvantage would be in increased maintenance to the equipment due to exposure to the elements.

The principal staff and other costs are estimated below. Note these are the headline costs and do not include depreciation, lifecycle replacement of equipment and ongoing maintenance of equipment (which is likely to be in the range of 4-6% of capital cost).

Table 5-31 Operating costs – Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 47,700




Insurance costs 2,275


Total 611,586


86


It is expected that the facility will employ two drivers, five labourers, and a foreman/ fitter.

Table 5-32 Staff costs - Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 500 6,000 6,000 Drivers (skilled) 2 375 4,500 9,500 Operators (unskilled) 5 280 3,360 16,800 Total staff 8 - - 31,800 Staff overheads 50% 15,900 Total staff + overheads 47,700


The materials that could be targeted for recovery comprise ferrous and non-ferrous metals, wood, plastic and aggregates. The size of the operation would be dictated by the source of the waste. It is split into two elements: a mobile crushing and screening plant has been proposed that could accommodate a throughput of approximately 250,000tpa of concrete rubble, highways planings, brick, soils and 50,000tpa sorting and screening facility for mixed C&D wastes.

There is no typical breakdown in waste composition for mixed C&D wastes as the composition is highly dependent on the source from where the waste originates. However, on a national strategic level the composition could be assumed to be similar to the following, which is the composition for the UK.

Table 5-33 Estimated quantity of C&D wastes by composition Composition* Assuming 50,000tpa

Hardcore (concrete, brick) 39.12% 19,560

Asphalt etc 1.87% 935

Soils 53.34% 26,670

Wood 2.75% 1,375

Metals (non-ferrous less than 10% of this stream) 1.84% 920

Plastic 0.18% 90

Gypsum 0.87% 435

Asbestos / insulation 0.04% 20

100.00% 50,005 * Source: Construction, demolition and excavation waste arisings, use and disposal for England 2008" WRAP CON900-001: Final

Report

The majority of the materials recovered will have little or no sale value. The main benefit will be ensuring that the material is not deposited in an ad-hoc dump site in its mixed form or it does not fill the void space of the engineered landfill.

The crushed hardcore waste could be used as temporary haul roads at the landfill and the material could be graded for use by the municipality as subgrade for newly constructed roads (dependent on the properties of the recovered hardcore). Soils could be used for landscaping and for daily cover within the landfill.


87


5.9 Treatment of Green Waste (Composting)

5.9.1 Existing green waste collections and treatment

At present there are no separate collections of household waste and therefore no source segregation takes place within the region around the Drisla landfill. The quantity of green waste both currently and potentially available is discussed in Section 3.4. This shows that currently 4,265tpa of organic waste is disposed of at the landfill and there is a potential of a further 6,900tpa of green waste from segregated household waste collections. The potential total is therefore estimated to be 11,128tpa.

5.9.2 Description of Chosen Option with Preliminary Design

Further background information relating to the discussion of options, implementation etc. can be found in Appendix P of Volume 2.

The preferred option for Drisla is to treat green waste using the open windrow composting system. The management of the windrow composting depends on the size of the windrows and the machinery employed to turn them. As the proposed plant at Drisla is estimated to have a throughput of just over 11,000 tonnes, a simple system can be implemented that is relatively low in terms of capex. As the basic infrastructure comprises hardstanding and drainage, it is relatively straightforward to increase the footprint and thereby the capacity treated, if necessary.

A design of the plant should be to ensure that the windrow is a long pile of shredded organic waste with a roughly triangular cross section to a height of approximately 2 metres. The shape of the windrow promotes passive airflow as hotter gases exit from the top of the windrow a flow of air into the sides occurs. The windrows are typically turned at frequencies ranging from a few days to weeks. Turning promotes pathogen kill by moving material from the cooler outside to the hotter core and restores permeability. Turning can be undertaken by a number of methods; however the most effective is the lateral turn device which is shown in Figure 5.21. The lateral turn device allows a one way movement of compost from one side of the facility to the other. This promotes quality control as adjacent windrows are always at a similar state of treatment, therefore reducing the opportunities for waste to by-pass the treatment process.

Figure 5.21: Self propelled windrow turner with lateral turn device


88


Source: Mott MacDonald Archive

A more costs effective option could be the provision of a compost turner which is towed behind a tractor as shown in Figure 5.22. This option may be more appropriate to Drisla as it will enable existing plant and equipment to be utilised on the compost plant. Alternatively windrows can also be turned using bucket loaders or excavators, although this method does not have the vigorous mixing effect which occurs when a dedicated turning machine is used and therefore does not result in the same level of porosity.

Figure 5.22: Tractor powered windrow turner


Larger windrows have become common place in the UK composting industry, with heights up to 5 metres high. However expanding windrow size leads to odour problems and increased processing times, due to passive airflow being proportionally reduced. It also increases the likelihood of anaerobic conditions developing in the larger core zone. Therefore efficient management of a windrow composting facility is highly dependant upon the day to day operational management and as the tonnages within Drisla are relatively small a lower sized windrow is recommended.


For a green waste windrow composting facility to have sufficient size for efficient treatment and operations it is generally safe to assume 1m2 for every 1 tonne of annual capacity. This is a reasonable assumption to make but it should be understood that the treatment/storage time and/or machinery used can have a significant impact on the space requirements. Therefore a total hard standing area of 11,000m2 would be suitable for this project. The runoff storage lagoon is additional to this area and the size required for this would be dependant upon the local rainfall and water management policies, but a further 2,000m2 is likely to be sufficient. The whole facility should be made secure.

A minimum plant requirement for major plant items would be a wheeled loader, green waste shredder, windrow turner and trommel screen. This assumes that a weighbridge is available near by. It may also be desirable to have a tractor and trailer, dust suppression system and air separation equipment for the removal of plastics from the product.

The costs here are intended as an indication only; cost may be substantially impacted by ground engineering, exchange rates, energy costs, steel prices etc. They apply to the provision of an open


89


windrow facility with captured drainage and storage. It is assumed that the facility will be located adjacent to the landfill and therefore a weighbridge, office and staff amenities have not been included. Infrastructure paving and drainage = € 600,000

No office costs are included as it is assumed that the office facilities will be shared with the landfill. If an additional office is required it will cost approximately €25,000.

The following plant costs were assumed in calculating the capex costs:

Table 5-34 Plant costs for composting facility Plant Costs

Wheeled loader € 56,500

Shredder € 145,000

Windrow turner €170,000

Trommel screen € 85,000

Total € 456,500



Civils 600,000

Plant and machinery 456,500


Contingency 53,325

Total 1,119,825

The operational costs are based on a 10 year life for the plant and machinery. This period may be extended if the equipment is well maintained and operated, or can decrease if incorrectly used. It was assumed that there are 2 full time staff and one part time member of staff. The staff can all be unskilled. Fuel, maintenance (which are high for shredders and windrow turners) and staff are the main costs for the Composting plant. It is assumed that the composted product will be either sold or given away at no cost, and not landfilled. It is expected that, at least in the first 5 years of operations, any income from product sales will be offset by the costs and effort required to promote, market and administer any sales.

Table 5-36 Operating costs – Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 12,600



Insurance 5,300


Total 95,125


90


Table 5-37 Staff costs - Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Manager - 1,200 14,400 - Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) - 500 6,000 - Secretaries and Guards (skilled) - 375 4,500 - Operators (unskilled) 2.5 280 3,360 8,400 Total staff 2.5 - - 8,400 Staff overheads 4,200 Total staff + overheads 12,600

5.9.4 Potential revenues from composting

The green waste composting facility proposed is anticipated to have a throughput of approximately 11,000 tonnes of green waste per year. This would be expected to generate between 4,500 and 5,000 tonnes of compost.

This is unlikely to have a significant market value and the main value may be in keeping this type of material out of the engineered landfill. However, there would be a potential for the municipality and the landfill operator to use the compost as part of the general landscaping/soil improvement works.

Material could be placed in bags for sale to local residents, however, it is not expected that this would bring in significant sums.

5.10 Treatment of Medical Waste (Incinerator)

5.10.1 Existing medical waste incineration

As discussed in Section 4.3.3 there has been a medical waste incinerator at the Drisla landfill since 2000. The incinerator is a single line, fed as required from wastes stored (in bags) in open-topped skips, and there is no flue gas emission abatement equipment, which is not in compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). Heating of the combustion chamber is carried out using diesel oil, and start-up to achieve operating temperature takes one hour. There is no information on the amount of diesel oil that is consumed to get the plant up to temperature and then to support combustion once medical waste is introduced into the combustion chamber. No analyses, bulk density or calorific value information has been provided on the medical waste itself.

The incinerator has a rated throughput of 100 kg/hr, and operates daily for up to 12 hours. (Potential daily input is approximately 1.2 tonnes). It seems probable that these figures relate to the average operation over the last three years (which was one of our requested parameters), rather than necessarily to the plant ‘rating’, since these throughputs appear to have been exceeded, without undue problems, during 2009 and 2010. It is understood that the incinerator operates on a daily basis (assumed to be for six days per week), in accordance with the availability of manpower. Originally, a single-shift operation (up to 8 hours, including start-up) was possible, but the waste quantity has now increased to the point where the incinerator needs to be operated for 12 hours per day, which has led to a higher manpower involvement.


91


Temperatures achieved during combustion in the furnace and downstream are understood to be 850 to 900oC. Emission measurements on flue gases are recorded monthly. Three of the most recent analyses are included in Appendix Q of Volume 2. These show that the incinerator uses about 200% excess air, which is relatively normal, but they also show that the emissions of dust, CO, SO2, NOx are well above the limits. A 'new' incinerator would be designed to Waste Incineration Directive emission limits, which are in accordance with those stated in the Macedonian legislation.

The EAR Report, from 2005, includes a Table showing ‘Technical characteristics of the incinerator at the Drisla site’. This lists the rated capacity as 200 kg/hr, and that it has two combustion zones, designed to operate at 800oC and 1000oC respectively. There is no flue gas treatment system, and (as is normal with small, intermittent medical facilities) no heat recovery. The incinerator is not complying with the provisions of the WID.

Figure 5.23: Medical waste incinerator (external) Figure 5.24: Medical waste incinerator (internal)

Source: Geing Source: Geing

The December 2007 Strategy referred to above stated as regards the Drisla incinerator:

“The incinerator cannot fulfil the requirements according to EU directive 2000/76/EC on waste incineration [the Waste Incineration Directive, WID], nor will it within reasonable costs be possible to up-grade the incinerator to do so.”

Mott MacDonald would agree with this conclusion, noting especially that WID includes a requirement, for medical waste, to achieve at least 1100oC for a residence time of at least 2 seconds which will not be within the physical capability of the existing incinerator.

The only option that is available is to replace the current incinerator that is not operating in compliance with WID with a new solution for the processing of the material.

The Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Macedonia indicates that ‘Waste from Healthcare Institutions’ is estimated at 1000 tonnes/yr currently. General waste quantities in the Strategy are assumed to rise at 1.7% per year for 10 - 12 years, though it is not known whether this figure has been applied to individual waste categories.


92


Data has been provided showing the quantities of medical waste burned in the incinerator at Drisla for each year from 2000 to 2010. This shows a generally increasing trend, from 115 tonnes during 2000 to 444 tonnes in 2010, though the 2009 figure was higher, at 499 tonnes. The Drisla site therefore appears to handle around 50% of the medical waste of Macedonia, through focussing on the arisings from Skopje which has the largest concentration of healthcare institutions in the country.

The period 2000 to 2010 has seen a reorganisation of the methods for medical waste disposal within Macedonia, driven by Government strategy and funding, in favour of the use of the Drisla incinerator. Therefore it can be expected that much of the observed increase in annual throughput, averaging more than 25% per year, has been due to this cause, and once the new methods are established then further increases may be more in accordance with the rise in quantities of general waste.

If burned continuously through the year, this peak quantity of 499 tonnes/yr would be around 60 kg/hr. In practice, thermal treatment is more likely to have been undertaken sporadically with a daily operation of approximately 1.5 tonnes/day.

Medical waste from public healthcare Institutions in Macedonia is generally source-separated into ‘infectious/hazardous’ waste (yellow bags) and ‘non-hazardous’ wastes (black bags). The ‘National Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Studies’ report prepared by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) in September 2005 noted that medical waste from public institutions in Skopje and in nearby Kumanovo was collected and sent to the incinerator at Drisla, funded by the Government. Negotiations were on-going, over fee levels, to include private healthcare institutions in these arrangements. The Skopje region was estimated to produce just under half of the medical waste of the country. (About 400 tonnes/yr, compared to 934 t/yr for Macedonia as a whole, in 2005)

Elsewhere in Macedonia, source-separation of the wastes was not always carried out, according to the EAR report, and even when it was separated both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes were disposed of to landfill sites. It was not thought practical at that time to establish a national collection system centred on incineration at Drisla for all the hazardous medical waste in Macedonia – even though the incinerator capacity, after it’s commissioning in 2000, was regarded as sufficient to serve the whole country.

Further national legislation is likely to see an increase in the quantity of wastes being delivered to Drisla. It has been estimated that this will result in 1,200tpa of medical wastes requiring incineration.

Information relating to the discussion of medical waste treatment options and associated legislation is included as Appendix Q of Volume 2.

5.10.2 Description of the Chosen Option with a Preliminary Design

A new incinerator will be required, in order to meet all relevant EU standards for operation and environmental emissions. A key parameter will be what design capacity to use, in the face of increasing medical waste quantities from both population rise and the implementation of Macedonian national policy to capture more of the country’s medical waste for incineration, probably at Drisla. The effectiveness of this policy will determine the required capacity in future, and so leads to significant uncertainty.

As discussed, although current medical waste collections, from the Skopje region, are approaching 500 tpa, it is expected that tonnages will continue to increase to approximately 1,200tpa. In addition, the


93


DLFC wants to undertake co-incineration with other hazardous wastes. This is expected to comprise approximately 500 tpa of electrical and electronic wastes, waste oils and packaging wastes.

It is not economic to treat or dispose of packaging specifically through incineration, whereas it is not appropriate to thermally treat electrical and electronic goods in a medical waste incinerator as this will result in the release of heavy metals with potentially toxic properties. If recovery of electronic elements is not available as an option, the electronic items should be disposed of to landfill.

Based on an assumption that medical wastes are generally increasing, the new incinerator should be sized to be able to process up to 2000 tonnes/yr of waste with continuous operation (i.e. 8000 hours per year, allowing for maintenance).

This preliminary assessment should be reviewed depending on the standard sizes of incinerator that may be available commercially, and on further information on trends in annual tonnages. Prior to the design capacity being set a further review of the clinical waste tonnages should be undertaken and the review of proposed changes in clinical waste collection within Macedonia. Depending on the outcome of this modelling, a larger plant capacity could be put forward or plans for a second shift so that the plant is operating up to 16 hours per day or a second line to be built onto the plant in the future if national collection plans come to fruition.

5.10.3 Clinical waste incineration technology options

Clinical incineration technologies are available within Europe and the process thermally destructs the clinical waste at high temperatures.

Techtrol – Pyrotec Incinerators

Techtrol is an ISO 9001 and 14001 accredited UK manufacturer of solid waste incineration systems used by hospitals, research institutions, governments and private contractors all around the world. The company has been in existence for over 25 years and manufacture incinerators suitable for all types of waste ranging from clinical, animal to general waste.

The Pyrotec range is specifically tailored for burning clinical waste from hospitals and research institutions and is equipped with all the necessary gadgetry of control, secondary chamber and gas cleaning equipment to satisfy all environmental requirements especially the EU WID.

Todaysure – Surefire® Incinerators

Todaysure is an ISO 9001 accredited UK company that specialises in the design, manufacture and installation of the Surefire® range of incinerators and combustion systems. The company has expertise in the production of individually tailored designs ranging from basic incineration systems to larger turn-key engineered plants that meet the relevant legislative or environmental requirements of the client. They have undertaken work not only in the UK, but in Europe and the rest of the world for a vast client base which includes hospitals and clinics, governments, military organisations, abattoirs, etc.

They design manual loading systems with capacity of up to 200 kg/hr and automatic systems well above this capacity. Incinerator types such as fixed hearth, hot hearth, stepped hearth and rotary incinerators are available to cater for a wide range of waste either on a batch or continual basis.


94



The capex and opex cost estimates below have been provided by Todaysure based on budgetary quote enquiries made by Mott MacDonald for a continuous process 250 kg/hr EU WID compliant incineration system. All prices are in Euros. A second quote was obtained from Pyrotec for a 250kg/hr EU WID compliant incineration system. This showed that the price quoted by Todaysure was of a correct magnitude. The Pyrotec quote has not been reproduced, as it was generated in response to a lower annual throughput incinerated on a batched basis.

The following equipment, its installation and/or other services are excluded from the estimates: building and civil works; provision of the electrical supply to the main control panel; provision and connection of a fuel supply to incinerator termination point; provision of incinerator bottom ash collection skips; compliance testing and permitting requirements; and other non-specified are not included in the capital cost estimate in the table below.

Table 5-38 Capital cost estimates of a 250kg/hr capacity Surefire incineration system Scope of supply (250kg/hr medical waste capacity)

Surefire SFR250 rotary incinerator Capital cost (€)

Bin Elevator / Tipper 28,750

Ram Loader Combustion System Primary Chamber Secondary Chamber Ash Handling system Transfer Duct Work Emergency by pass system

569,250

NOx Reduction System (Selective non catalytic reduction (SNCR) 65,550

Waste Heat Boiler 146,050

Sorbent Injection System Abatement Plant Induced Draught Fan

327,750

Emission Monitors 161,000

Maintenance / Access Platforms 34,500

Exhaust Chimney 42,550

Control System 80,500 Total Ex Works Price 1,455,900 Delivery (from the UK, CIF to Macedonia) 51,750

Installation (by 4 UK engineers) Installation of the plant Installation of fuel pipe work Installation of the boiler ring main Installation of the electrical wiring Inclusive of initial static testing Setting of work Commissioning Operator training

92,000

Grand Total 1,599,650


95


The total capex estimate for Todaysure’s Surefire SFR250 incineration system including delivery and installation is €1,599,650.

Table 5-39: Capital Costs of medical waste incinerator Task Cost

Civils and mechanical 1,599,650

Utility Connection Included in landfill connection


Total 1,679,633

Table 5-40 Operating costs – medical waste incinerator Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 16,080

Planned maintenance (three visits per year) 75,900



Total 353,230

Table 5-41 Staff costs – medical waste incinerator Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 500 6,000 6,000 Operators (unskilled) 3 280 3,360 10,080 Total - - 16,080

5.11 Future treatment options – Mechanical Biological Treatment

In the short term, the proposed waste treatment facilities referred to in Sections 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 will be beneficial in increasing recycling and composting. However, Table 3-10 identifies potentially 150,000 tonnes of MSW that is suitable for processing through Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) would be available by 2022.

MBT is a combination of both biological and physical processes which can be arranged in a number of different ways to treat waste, so there is no single process which defines MBT. It is commonly used to treat MSW, is capable of dealing with both mixed waste and source separated waste, recovers recyclables from the waste stream and is often used to produce a soil conditioner (often referred to as a compost-like output) and/or refuse derived fuel (RDF – sometimes also known as Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF)).

MBT is an established waste treatment technology and many of the key technology suppliers are European.

There are 3 main types of MBT system that process the organic element of the waste stream:- Aerobic stabilisation via an extended composting process

The key aim of this approach is to stabilise the waste and hence reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going to landfill. The stabilised waste can then be landfilled or, through further refinement, a compost-like output can be produced.

Biological drying via partial composting of the (usually) whole waste through high levels of aeration


96


The scope of this approach is to make use of the energy content of the waste by means of the production of a (high quality) RDF which is then used for energy production.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) This system is used to process a segregated organic fraction with generation and utilisation of methane gas during the most active phase, typically combined with aerobic stabilisation using a composting process

What is common to all types of biological treatment is that there is a front end mechanical processing of the waste. This will be through some form of maceration, or shredding, and additional treatment to separate the organic from the non organic materials. In order to minimise environmental nuisance from odours, fly infestations and noise, these facilities are required to be housed within a building which is usually kept under negative pressure with ventilation and odour control through the use of bio-filters.

5.11.1 Description of Selected Option with Preliminary Design

As described, it is envisaged that potentially 150,000 to 160,000 tonnes of MSW would be available for processing through an MBT. The preferred option for Drisla could not be determined at this stage without a more detailed feasibility study being undertaken. However, the most appropriate treatment technology process for MSW material is likely to involve the shredding of material followed by a drying process.

The following treatment phases occur within the proposed MBT plant: Reception Pre-treatment Biological treatment Refining

MBT Reception

Vehicles deliver waste to the plant directly through quick opening doors into an aerated reception pit.

Figure 5.25: Bridge Crane with Grab at MBT reception

Source: Mott MacDonald Archive Photo


97


Waste is moved from the reception pit and fed into a fast rotary drum by an automatically controlled bridge crane equipped with a grab (see Figure 5.25). The action of the drum opens bags and enables the separation of any oversize fraction.

Pre-treatment

The oversize fraction, which is removed, comprises mainly plastic, paper and card which would not benefit from going through the biostabilisation process. This oversize fraction can be directly recycled if possible and its removal increases the efficiency and capacity of the bio-oxidation phase. Alternatively, if unsuitable for recycling it is directed to the refinement section for refining, where the majority will be suitable for incorporation into SRF.

Biological treatment – Bio-drying

Approximately 25 to 30% of the input mass is lost through evaporated water in the bio-drying hall.

The material from the biological phase emerges largely stabilised, due to the degradation of the organic putrescible fraction. With the water content being greatly reduced due to evaporation this makes further mechanical refining much easier to undertake. This largely stabilised material is moved to a refinement section using the overhead cranes; the refinement section is located in a separate building beside the bio drying hall. The refining aims to produce a solid recoverable fuel (SRF), which can be used as a fuel for cement kilns thereby producing the fuel to a defined specification to a defined specification and remove the metals and other recyclates. An alternative to the SRF production is the processing of the organic rich fraction through an anaerobic digestion process. The final decision would be dependant on the potential of the SRF market in Macedonia which would require a more detailed market and feasibility study prior to commencing this process.

Figure 5.26: MBT drying plant Figure 5.27: Biodryers in use with odour reduction

Source: Mott MacDonald Archive Photo Source: Mott MacDonald Archive Photo

MBT Refinement

The stabilised material is unloaded into a discharge hopper while the over-screen coming from the pre-treatment section is unloaded into a primary shredder and then conveyed to the refining section, joining the stabilised material.

Primary Oversize Shredder – in this step the oversize material from the fast rotating trommel is shredded to the same size as the mesh in the trommel.


98


Primary screening trommel - in this step, material <20mm, mainly inerts, are separated, and removed. This operation allows removal of most of the ashes (inerts) which are not desirable in the cement kiln. This stream is sent to the landfill or if required can be further stabilised to achieve higher levels of BMW diversion.

Air classification – the aim of the air classifier is to split the stream into a low density and high density fraction. The low density stream contains mainly plastic, paper, card and organics collectively having a higher calorific value and is the source of the high quality SRF. The high density stream generates a lower quality SRF or waste depending upon the SRF specification. This step can be finely calibrated depending on the SRF specification required.

SRF shredding - the SRF is then shredded to achieve a final particle size of between 20 and 100 mm. It is proposed to shred the SRF to 30mm for the Ballyconnell Cement Works.

Iron and other metals removal - in order to increase SRF quality and material recycling, ferrous metal is removed by a magnet after air classification. An Eddy Current separator is used to divert non-ferrous metals.

Compaction and storage – The SRF can be compacted within a container press or a press baler for storage or transport in 22-25 tonne loads. The fines will also be compacted within a container press and will be taken to landfill for disposal. The heavies will fall into a 32m

3 skip and will be taken for either additional

sorting or taken to landfill. The metals will fall into suitable skips and will be taken to suitable specialist metal recycling companies.

Figure 5.28: Sketch of typical plant layout within the refinement element of a mechanical treatment facility


For a 150,000 tonne MBT plant will require a footprint of 1 hectare in order to have sufficient size for efficient treatment and operations.


99




Task Cost

Civils € 8,800,000

Utility Connection € 825,000*

Electromechanical € 19,921,000

Design & Supervision € 440,000

Contingency €1,499,300

Total €31,485,300

*This assumes that additional utilities connections will be needed for the MBT facility, which will come on line later than the other facilities. If there is capacity in the existing connection this cost will be reduced.

The operational costs are based on a 25 year operational life for the process plant and equipment. It has been assumed that there are 15 full time members of staff including the plant manager and this number includes both operational and maintenance staff. It is assumed that the plant will process the materials into a valuable SRF resource which will be either sold or given away at no cost, and not landfilled. The following plant costs were assumed in calculating the operating costs:

Table 5-42 Operating costs - MBT Task Cost per annum €

Staff costs 88,110 *

Energy & Utility costs 564,400**




Total €1,568,018 * See Table 5-43 ** Assumes 6,800MWh consumption per annum at €0.083 per kWh

Table 5-43 Staff costs - MBT Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

Manager - 1,200 14,400 - Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 500 6,000 6,000 Administration - 350 4,200 - Secretaries and Guards (skilled) 5 375 4,500 22,500 Operators (unskilled) 9 280 3,360 30,240 Total staff 15 - - 58,740 Staff overheads 29,370 Total staff + overheads 88,110


100


5.12 Potential revenue streams

At present, there are no firm plans to develop an MBT or a thermal treatment option. The by-products of an MBT depend on the type of biological process involved.

The typical end products from an MBT process are: Recyclable materials Biogas from an Anaerobic Digester Compost-like material Refuse derived fuel (RDF) / Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) for energy recovery in a purpose-built thermal

treatment facility

The RDF/SRF produced is likely to have a calorific value of approximately 17-19 MJ/kg which is relatively high when compared to untreated MSW that is approximately 9 MJ/kg. The SRF can be used in a dedicated power plant on or off site, and this often results in transporting the SRF some distance. If there is no market for the SRF then this material would have to be landfilled and it would not be considered to be ‘inert’ with respect to the EU Landfill Directive.

Revenues from the sale of recyclables and from the compost-like outputs are unlikely to be significant. The revenues obtained for recovering energy from the RDF and from the gas emerging from anaerobic digestion are also outside the scope of this report.

5.13 Implementation Plan

Figure 5.29 shows the anticipated implementation plan, although many of the activities could potentially be undertaken earlier or later than that shown. Figure 5.30 shows the individual assumed procurement elements of implementation plan. It should be noted that there will also need to be a detailed design period prior to the development and implementation of the procurement stage. This has not been shown in the following figures.

5.14 Proposed staffing

The staffing requirement is referred to across the whole of this section of the report. Table 5-44 draws this information together to provide a full site-based staffing complement should all the facilities be constructed. Office overheads have been included at 50% of the salaries paid. The DLFC will need to consider whether the sums identified are sufficient to cover their costs for administration staffing and office costs.

Table 5-44 Staff costs for new landfill Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

per shift total per annum Landfill

Manager 1 1 1,200 14,400 14,400


Drivers (skilled) 2 4 370 4,500 18,000


Operators (skilled) 3 3 375 4,500 13,500



101


Job Description Staff No.s €/month €/annum Total €

per shift total per annum Dirty MRF Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 1 1 500 6,000 6,000

Drivers and other skilled staff (skilled) 3 6 375 4,500 27,000


C&D facility


Drivers (skilled) 2 2 375 4,500 9,500


Composting

Head of a unit (qualified and skilled) 0 0 500 6,000 0

Operators (unskilled) 2.5 2.5 280 3,360 8,400




MBT


Administration 0 0 350 4,200 -



TOTAL - 100.5 - - 399,980

5.15 Technical assistance

For each element of the works described in Section 5 technical advisory services will be required. Typically, these can be summarised as follows: Confirming the findings of the conceptual design, Assessing further information requirements and any changes of information since the conceptual stage, Developing planning and permitting applications, Developing a detailed design, Developing a technical specification and tender drawings, Managing the procurement process, and Providing site supervision

The first step in any solution delivery process is to ensure that the requirements and technical specifications will not change due to the overall strategy changing. Therefore any proposed solutions should be integrated into the total waste management solution, and any coordination issues are finalised prior to initiating the delivery process. This will ensure that time consuming and expensive aborted work streams are not incurred.

Following this process is the planning and permitting process which should be initiated prior to finalisation of the infrastructure budgets. The initial work should ensure that the desired solution method and design is in principal agreed with the planning and permitting authorities. This will ensure that budgetary problems are minimised through the demand to change by the planning and permitting process. Planning and


102


permitting can be long drawn out procedures and can be very time consuming, and is greatly dictated by the local and regional systems.

The procurement process will require the production of technical specifications for infrastructure and each item of plant, and a transparent technical and financial evaluation process. If a design, build, operate and maintain contract is required the procurement process will increase substantially. The period and complexity of the procurement process will be partially driven by the funding providers. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6 and Section 12.

Irrelevant of the procurement process the construction stages will require supervision and design understanding, and the delivery of any facility should ensure that the performance of that system is as specified.


103


Figure 5.29: Implementation plan Activity

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Construction of a new landfillProcurementConstructionOperation

Leachate collection & treatmentProcurementConstructionOperation

Construction of a reed bed lagoonProcurementConstructionOperation

Long term leachate treatmentProcurementConstructionOperation

Gas UtilisationProcurementConstructionOperation

Municipal Solid Waste SeparationProcurementConstructionOperation

C+D Waste TreatmentProcurementConstructionOperation

Green Waste CompostingProcurement (Plant and Construction)ConstructionOperation

Medical Waste IncineratorProcurementConstructionOperation

MBTProcurement (Competitive Dialogue)ConstructionOperation

2021 20222017 2018 2019 2020Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



104


Figure 5.30: Procurement phases of implementation plan

Activity Week Number

Construction of a new landfill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Production of Procurement Docs

Tender Period

Return and evaluation of tender

Tender Award and contract close

Post Tender negotiations

Project implementation (Operation)

Meetings of Tender commission

Meetings and site visits with Tenderers

Leachate collection & treatment- short term treatment options, design of the lagoons and project for environmental protection procurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Tender Period



Preparation of the project for construction/design and project for environmental protection

Potential Tender Meetings

Leachate collection & treatment- short term treatment options, Construction of a reed bed lagoon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Tender Period



Mobilisation, preparation period

Construction activities (24 weeks)


105


Leachate collection & treatment- long term treatment options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Outline Design

Production of Tender Documents

Issue of Tender Notice

Return and Evaluation of PQQ

Issue of Tender Documents

Evaluation of Tenders

Post Tender Negotiations

Financial Close


Gas extraction & treatment (waste to energy), Construction Procurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Agreement and production of procurement documents

Tender returns

Tender analysis and award

Mobilisation

Construction period

Gas extraction & treatment (waste to energy), Plant Procurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Agreement and production of procurement documents

Tender returns

Tender analysis and awards

Delivery period

Municipal Solid Waste Separation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26







Financial Close



106


Treatment of Construction & Demolition Waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26







Financial Close


Treatment of Green Waste (Composting)- Construction Procurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Tender Period



Mobilisation

Construction Commencement

Financial Close


Treatment of Green Waste (Composting)- Plant Procurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Tender Period



Delivery Period (24 weeks)

Treatment of Medical Waste (Incinerator) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26







Financial Close



107


There is increasing involvement with the private sector in the operation of waste management services, as they have the financial strength to be able to invest in the development of the waste infrastructure. The modernisation and development of waste management services require a high level of capital investment and this can be best provided through the provision of public private sector partnerships.

6.1 Definition of Public Private Partnership (PPP)

PPP is usually connected to a contractual arrangement between the Public Sector and a Private Sector Operator that involves partial or full provision of capital assets by the private party thereby relieving the Public Sector of making parts of or the full investment. However, PPP can also cover traditional service contracts where capital investments are provided by the Public Sector and only operation (and related equipment) is provided by the Private Sector.

There is, therefore, an important distinction to be made if the PPP contract is to provide financing of assets (e.g. investment in a landfill extension). This is where PPP becomes an approach with interesting perspectives for the Public Sector in terms of providing high quality facilities and services financed by the private operator and thereby stretching scarce public finance. When considering PPP with finance of assets, the paramount considerations are those of transfer and maintenance of the assets and the minimisation of the financial risk. Where financial risk, in a waste management project, usually focuses on guarantees for waste quantities in the service and the tariff payment to be made by or guaranteed by the public sector. However, environmental liabilities may also occur in, for example, landfill contracts affecting the risks to the private sector.

The legislation relating to obtaining licences and PPP concessions and tenders is included as Appendix R of Volume 2.

6.2 PPP arrangements

PPP arrangements can take place either with or without the provision of third party finance. There are two key types, which are PPP without finance and PPP with finance.

6.2.1 PPP without financing

PPP without finance is a procurement process whereby the private sector is involved in the provision of wastes management infrastructure, but the financing is provided by the client (DLFC) or potentially by the contractor without involving outside funding from a third party. If the contractor were responsible for financing then they would charge a gate fee for the use of the facility.

PPP28 covers in principle all contractual arrangements involving the private sector and there are therefore many options for contract setups. For introduction purposes the following five main types are mentioned:

_________________________ 28 The following links can be used to access key documents concerning public-private partnerships: European Commission, DG Regio: Link to Guide on successful PPP:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/pppguide.htm Links under World Bank’s Planning Guide for Solid Waste Management to PPP guidance pack:

http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%20folder/Guidance%20Pack%20TOC.pdf

6. PPP financing


108


Service (O) contracts involving the private sector in a limited role providing conventional services such as operation of a landfill;

Design-Build-Operate (DBO) contracts where the private sector designs, builds and operates a facility financed and owned by the public sector;

Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contracts where the private sector finances, designs, builds and operates a facility later transferred to ownership of the public sector ;

Concession contracts (DBFO) where the private sector plan and invest in infrastructure and services in a defined area. The concessionaire is allowed to charge tariffs for services to the users in the area approved by the public sector;

Joint-ventures or similar setup with shared ownership of a dedicated company for operation of a public service.

It would also be correct to mention a management contract as a PPP format, although there are few examples of this contract format in waste management. A management contract is used to support the development of public utilities by making a private operator responsible for the utility for a set period which is normally 5-7 years. During this period the private operator provides an experienced manager and key-staff to the utility and the operator takes responsibility for the operation of the utility. In most cases, the management contract shall contain a performance-based payment, so the operator will have an interest in improving the financial result of the utility.

6.2.2 PPP with financing

PPP with financing is where the client enters into a procurement process with a contractor and finance is provided by a third party funding organisation.

The factors which might cause the public sector to consider PPP with financing are presented below: Delivery of quality services that provide value for money. PPP with financing encourages a long term

approach to the creation and management of public sector assets. Achieving value for money in the provision of a service requires that full account is taken of the risks and costs over a long timescale as opposed to focusing on short term capital expenditure. Quality services can then be sustained over many years at the lowest long run economic cost.

New options for public sector finances. In many sectors, demand for new infrastructure projects is growing in quality and quantity. In addition, there is the rising pressure for funds to renew, maintain and operate the existing infrastructure. Competition for such funding is often intense not just between infrastructure projects but also with the many other demands on public sector finance.

Some forms of PPP with financing have the additional benefit of relieving short term pressure on the public finances, because a link is made between public sector financial obligations and the delivery of the service. However, the use of PPP does not imply “free” infrastructure; neither does it involve skewing public finances or evading responsibility for the proper governance of assets. It is important that PPP projects are selected where the service requirements can be clearly defined at the outset and are unlikely to vary much over the lifetime of the contract.

_________________________ UNDP: PPP for the Urban Environment. Homepage: http://pppue.undp.org/


109


Efficient procurement practices. Although budgetary constraints have played a part in encouraging several projects to explore PPP solutions, others have adopted the approach in order to promote efficient procurement practices.

6.2.3 Principles of PPP

PPP with financing allows each partner to concentrate on activities that best suit their respective skills. For the public sector the key skill is to procure services that are consistent with long term policy priorities, while for the private sector the key is to deliver those services at the most efficient cost. The nature of the PPP process may help to address any historical shortcomings in public sector procurement management in the following ways: Procurement efficiency, meeting monetary and time budgets which are frequently overrun in

conventional procurement contracts - The nature of the PPP contract means the public sector does not have to make any payments until the asset is delivered and operational. Any cost or time overruns have to be borne by the private sector;

Improved accountability - Proper consideration of the long-term ongoing liabilities that arise, avoiding the possibility of short-term policy decisions taken solely on a cash accounting basis;

Risk management - Assessment of risk allows projects to proceed with a full range of risks being fully accounted for and priced into the procurement contract. Public officials are not trained, measured or rewarded for taking such risks.

6.2.4 Benefits of PPP

A number of projects have identified significant benefits associated with PPP with financing: Evidence of value for money - PPP projects can often deliver greater value for money compared with

that of an equivalent asset procured conventionally; Synergies from combining design, construction and operation - While there may be an additional

financing cost for the use of private sector funding, this will in many cases be offset by the synergies gained from combining design, construction and operation. This should contribute to a reduction in operating costs, an enhanced level of service, and the benefit gained from the transfer of risk to the private sector. Private finance and operation will usually avoid the cost and timetable slippages that have been common under traditional public procurement. This approach encourages bidders to focus on the whole life costs of the asset over the project life cycle because those responsible for the building of an asset are also responsible for long-term maintenance and operation;

Strengthening of infrastructure - The aspects of PPP that encourage innovation and efficiency can also enhance the quality and quantity of basic infrastructures such as water, wastewater, energy supply, telecommunications and transport. They can also be widely applied to other public services such as hospitals, schools, government accommodation/ real estate, defence and prisons;

New facilities provided efficiently and effectively - Because the private sector does not receive any payment until the facility is available for use, the PPP contract structure fosters the use of construction and procurement methods that encourage efficient completion and minimise the risk of defects. The private and public sectors will have to work together to overcome potential problems such as capacity constraints or backlogs that would otherwise undermine service provision;

Innovation and spread of best practice - The expertise and experience of the private sector encourages innovation, resulting in reduced costs, shorter delivery times and improvement in the functional design, construction and facility management processes. Developments in these processes can be applied to future projects, facilitating the spread of best practice within public services;

Standards maintained - Assets and services will be maintained at a pre-determined standard over the full length of the concession. The public sector client will only pay in full for the service when it is


110


delivered to the required standard. This may contrast with conventional public procurement where maintenance of assets and service quality are dependent on the public sector continuously making funds available to maintain the asset and service;

Flexibility - A PPP has the inbuilt flexibility to be introduced successfully to most types of infrastructure, and the principles that underpin PPP can be adapted to many situations.

6.2.5 Prerequisites of a Successful PPP

The prerequisites for a successful PPP are: Political commitment - Political commitment at the policy level is important for the private sector,

because unless PPP is seen to offer continuing business opportunities, firms will be reluctant to develop the necessary resource that is required to bid for PPP contracts;

Enabling legislation - PPP projects often need to be supported by enabling legislation, which is firmly embedded in the legal structure of the host country. Key aspects of this include: the existence of a concession law that can be readily applied to PPP, the removal of tax anomalies that can weigh against PPP; and refining of public expenditure capital controls to accommodate PPP;

Expertise - Both the public and private sectors must have the necessary expertise to deal with the PPP process. The pubic sector procurer, for example, needs to be able to negotiate individual project contracts and to access the appropriate financial, legal and technical expertise;

Project prioritisation - The government needs to identify those sectors and projects that should take priority in the PPP process. A review of the commercial deliverability of the scheme, prior to the commencement of the procurement, can be a source of comfort to the private sector. It helps to reduce the incidence of unsuccessful procurements and avoid the associated bidding costs that would otherwise be incurred;

Deal flow and standardisation - A regular and predicable flow of deals, based on recognised risk allocation templates, assists the development of a successful PPP programme.

6.3 Implications for Drisla Landfill Site

In looking at the financing there are a range of options available to the DLFC. The options available to the DLFC will be dependent on the company’s financial stability/strength. This will be based on whether the DLFC can accommodate the potential level of debt on its books if it was to undertake the project improvements through traditional procurement methods.

The most promising option would appear to be for DLFC to establish a PPP. This would be undertaken, as a partnership with equal rights, through a joint-venture(s) with shared ownership with an experienced/specialist private company.

The development of a PPP would see the establishment of a common company as a Holding Company with the majority of shares being held by the Municipality (City of Skopje). The Holding Company may then form sub-companies, so called “Special-Purpose-Vehicle (SPV)29, and the majority shareholding being with the private company.

The Holding Company operates under one overarching concession contract with the City of Skopje within an agreed Waste Management Plan, which includes a business plan, with provisions for decision-making, tariffs etc.

_________________________ 29 A company, which develops, builds, maintains and operates the asset for a contracted period.


111


The assets lie with the Holding Company, whereas the vehicles and equipments etc remain with the SPVs.

The organisation and the money flow are shown in the Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Organisation of a Holding Company and a SPV for Landfill Operation inclusive money flow

Figure 6.2: Waste management company organogram


112



113


This section presents the findings of a comprehensive environmental and operational audit of the Drisla landfill. The audit comprised a desk-based review followed by a site audit. The site audit was conducted by an experienced landfill auditor from Mott MacDonald on 30th March 2011.

The findings of the audit are provided within Appendix S of Volume 2.

7.1 Objectives of the audit

The aim of the audit was to obtain information on the management of the landfill in terms of its operations and the staff organisation, and to make recommendations as to what further work is required in order for the site to meet EU, National and Regional legislation and requirements.

This report sets out the findings of the audit of: The procedures and practices in place by the DLFC for the operation and management of waste treated

and disposed of in the confines of Drisla Landfill, including the incinerator and sorting area; Training received by site operatives and the level of understanding retained by them; Paperwork handled on site; The capabilities and resources that enable the operator to ensure proper execution of the activities

under the conditions of the permit, Landfill Directive and the relevant national and regional law of Macedonia.

In addition the report outlines areas of improvement and provides recommendations which will assist the overall development and management of the landfill in being compliant with the current regulatory requirements.

7.2 Audit methodology

All available documentation relevant to the landfill and audit was reviewed, by the auditor, prior to and during the visit to Skopje. This highlighted any information that was not available and allowed the auditor time to identify information that needed to be obtained from the landfill operator. The information reviewed was used to inform the auditor of questions to be raised during the site visit.

The review covered EU legislation and, in parts, the relevant regional and national legislation for Macedonia. It also reviewed any procedures produced by the Drisla Landfill Company, and examined whether the procedures were adequate to ensure compliance. The review was undertaken prior to the development of the audit in order that the procedure could be informed by the quality of the information provided. Its purpose was to determine the relevant legislation and guidance and to investigate whether or not the documented procedures and permits were theoretically compliant. It also aimed to provide a record of whether the Drisla Landfill Company undertakes what they say they do on site, prepared for the audit in which the actual practices were investigated and, where possible, observed. Prior to the audit being carried out, a brief audit procedure and checklist was written to ensure that the audit process would be comprehensive and the information obtained relevant.

7.2.1 Identification and assessment of documentation

The following documents were obtained or requested prior to the site visit.

7. Environmental and Operational Audit


114


Drisla Documentation Photographs of site; Description of the landfill; Comparison of EU and Macedonian legislation.

Documents obtained during or since the audit IPPC content; Current site permit; Fire management procedure; Waste acceptance procedure; Records from MoEPP inspections; Accident form; Legal compliance records – waste transfer notes.

Documents not available

The following list of documents was unavailable and would be expected for a well managed landfill in other European countries. Written procedures for ALL activities and operations carried out on site; Environmental Risk Assessment; Health and safety risk assessment. Daily site inspection checklist; Daily site log and records of action taken on site; Complaints record; Training records; Monitoring records – water, odour, noise, leachate, gas etc; Contractor and supplier records; Incident reports; Records of test for emergency preparedness; Audit results; Management review results; External communications; Records of significant environmental aspects; Environmental meeting minutes; Environmental performance information.

7.2.2 Production of audit procedures, questions and plan

The audit procedure and specific questions were developed after a review all available relevant information prior to visiting Skopje. Once in Macedonia, additional information was reviewed and the conclusions from the review informed the questions to be raised in the site audit.

Prior to the audit being carried out, an audit plan was drawn up to show how the audit would be structured. It comprised a procedure and checklist and was produced to ensure that the audit process would be comprehensive and to check that actual practices and procedures observed on site were as reported. The procedure stated how the audit was to be carried out and focussed on the main areas to be observed or reviewed. Consideration was taken as to the need to modify the plan and procedures during the audit, as it is not possible to pre-empt all issues that may arise during the audit.


115


7.2.3 Site based study

A site based audit was carried out as a means of auditing the quality and robustness of the procedures and systems in place and suggest what improvements could or should be made. This audit provided the opportunity to query and question the site operators on different issues which have a bearing upon both responsible management of waste and compliance with the requirements of the Landfill Directive and relevant national and regional legislation.

The site audit commenced with a meeting with the person responsible for environmental issues at the site and the site manager to obtain further information and respond to questions. This was followed up with a site tour to gain an understanding of the flow of waste and layout of the site and related activities. Operations were observed from the waste acceptance at the weighbridge through to the sorting and disposal on the landfill, although no access to the tipping face was being permitted by the landfill company. The audit concluded with a close out meeting to discuss the findings and obtain clarification to answers to any of the questions each party had.

7.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

A number of issues can be drastically improved upon to provide a more definitive means of ensuring that the DLFC can meet and maintain compliance with the relevant waste regulations and relevant permits.

These issues have an impact upon compliance at present, and improvement would actually assist them in the future to ensure that they are all able to provide a clearly documented list of procedures which can be easily audited by external parties in particular when meeting ISO standards.

Any permit obtained for the Drisla Landfill should specify the types of materials that the site is licensed to receive. However, it should be noted that the site is the only regulated landfill in the region and therefore any rejection of wastes on the grounds of waste acceptance criteria will almost certainly lead to the waste being disposed of at an unlicensed dumpsite. This is liable to have a greater environmental impact and could potentially be hazardous to human health. It is recommended that the Municipality considers the potential for non-compliant wastes that could be delivered to the site and the quantity and hazardous nature of these types of waste materials.

The audit revealed some major issues with the procedures currently in place and the activities performed. , There are procedures that are carried out and although some recommendations were made at the time of post audit meeting, the principal response was that with the Company was implementing ISO9000 standards at the end of 2011 which would resolve these issues.

All recommendations made are required to ensure that the compliance with relevant waste legislation is achieved. The immediate implementation of these recommendations will assist with the development of the ISO procedures and system that is being developed and implemented in late 2011. It is important that the recommendations are passed to those responsible for implementing them and a timescale for implementation is agreed.

7.3.1 General management and procedures

There are 120 employees who work for the Landfill Company. This excludes the scavengers on the landfill, who are employed by GREENTECH MK DOO. The total number of employees is high and unsustainable for a landfill site of this size.


116


Some of the staff observed did not appear to be undertaking any particular function; one example was observed where there were 8 people standing around the security office not actively undertaking any tasks. Generally instructions appeared to be given verbally and on an ad-hoc basis. The principal recommendation made was to ensure that all staff have a defined and written job description and a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities to comply with what the organisation is trying to achieve.

The benefit of a written job description and a defined role was evident. For instance, the site staff who appeared not to have written procedures to follow found it difficult to describe their roles and functions at the landfill. Conversely, the weighbridge operator, who had a very clear understanding of what was required of her position, had obviously had a clear explanation of her role and her approach to this role was subject to review and monitoring.

An evaluation of the procedures that have been produced by Drisla showed that they are not well developed in that there appears to be little or no training provided to implement them. The training for a site operator comprises of a single day, usually the first day they start, to be trained on all the wastes that Drisla are allowed to accept. This is inadequate and no one appears to be overseeing the inspection/validation of the waste coming into the site. Improvements to training and assessing levels of understanding are required for all staff. A training needs assessment has been undertaken as part of this study and is included as Section 8.

In general, the operational practices and processes observed and discussed during the audit of Drisla Landfill are inadequate to ensure the safe, efficient and compliant disposal of wastes. The site has very few written instructions. There are a number of improvements that need to be made including the production of site procedures and training of all site operatives and personnel, to facilitate adequate understanding of the procedures and ensure that compliance with the relevant waste legislation can be achieved. The instructions and procedures should be presented in the form of an operating manual, which describes how the DLFC operates their site, can be used to confirm any verbal instructions and acts as a base document for further audits.

A summary of the key conclusions and recommendations relating to general management and procedures are as follows: The current operations fall short of what would be expected for a well managed landfill. The DLFC need

to be supported in the development of new infrastructure and appropriate operational procedures in the form of an operating manual.

The procedures should be developed, implemented and audited with a view to complying with ISO 14000.

A follow up audit should be undertaken in 3-6 months to ensure any recommendations suggested have been implemented and further audits should be undertaken on, at least, an annual basis through an independent company;

Procedures should be written for the handling, treatment, storage etc of waste and activities on site to clearly identify what should be done, how it should be done, why it should be done and by whom, along with any reporting requirements;

These procedures should be reviewed annually and be signed and dated with the version number provided once a review has been undertaken. If there is an incident on site then a review of the procedure may be necessary to ensure there is no re-occurrence of the incident. A record of the date and a signature of who carried out the review will be required;

In addition to the independent audits, regular internal audits of all the site’s activities and operations should be carried out to ensure that the procedures are being followed adequately and to ensure continued compliance with all relevant legislative requirements relating to the activities.


117


A clear audit trail should be made for all waste entering and leaving the site including non-conforming waste and rejects;

There should be a form of recording all inspections and activities undertaken on site. Copies of these completed forms should be kept and maintained centrally;

A daily/weekly/monthly inspection checklist should be produced for activities that need to be undertaken;

Improvements to training and assessing levels of understanding are required for all staff. Regular in-depth, relevant and ongoing training should be provided for all employees, such as regarding waste acceptance procedure, work instructions, H&S etc. This should be relevant to their roles and mandatory. Training can include classroom based activities, site observations and tool box talks.

A record of all training provided, received and who attended should be produced so that follow up and refresher training, where needed can be provided at the correct time.

Any written procedures will need to be backed up with adequate training and review to ensure that the operational procedures are understood and being followed correctly.

Job descriptions and roles and responsibilities for each role should be prepared e.g. security to walk the perimeter fence and identify repairs needed and other security breaches. This will need to be recorded in a daily inspection log or site diary and reported to the senior management to action.

7.3.2 Specific management activities

Management plans should be prepared for each of the tasks and activities in the following sub-sections. The plans should identify the scope and brief description of the task, the objectives of the specific activity, the people responsible for undertaking and supervising the task, the specific procedure and any reporting requirements.

Security There needs to be a documented procedure that relates to the management of security throughout the

site and the monitoring/maintenance of security infrastructure; The Site Manager should be responsible for ensuring that measures installed to prevent unauthorised

access are in place and maintained to a satisfactory standard; Ensure there is a site notification board and that it contains the correct information as per the permit

condition mentioned; Introduce a signing in/out system for staff, legal scavengers and visitors that requires everyone to go

through the security gate. This will assist the Drisla Landfill Company in identifying who and how many people are on the site at any one time and assist them with implementation of Health and Safety Risk Assessment and safety of all employees and visitors;

Install and repair the perimeter fencing, as identified in the adjustment plan, and/or install a fence that is difficult to be cut, removed or climbed e.g. galvanised steel slatted fence, during the course of 2011. This will immediately make unauthorised access to the site difficult for both humans and animals and will also ensure that other measures for security in place (e.g. gated entrance, CCTV) are effective at preventing and monitoring unauthorised access to the landfill;

Ensure the integrity of the perimeter fencing is inspected on a daily basis by the Security Guards on duty and weekly by the Site Manager. The inspection and any actions taken or required to be taken should be recorded on a daily site inspection checklist or site log. These can include but are not limited to:

− any damage to the fencing, the location of the damage, what measures are required to repair the fencing and actions taken and when this is planned to be done.

− if unauthorised access is suspected, then the Site Manager will attempt to determine how entrance was achieved and any measures that could be put in place to avoid this from recurring.


118


Waste acceptance The waste acceptance procedure document needs to relate to all operations across the entire site,

including incineration, and will be required to be extended to composting and sorting once these facilities have been constructed and commissioned.

The Site Management Team should ensure that all staff are aware of their responsibilities with respect to operation of the site. Therefore training to ensure these responsibilities are understood needs to be provided to all site operatives. In particular, training should be provided to the weighbridge operators and landfill site operatives including the compactor and bulldozer drivers on all shift patterns. Training needs to be ongoing to ensure the continual understanding of legislation and permit requirements etc. Set up a series of tool box talks aimed at providing the right sort of communication to a range of employees in small quantities.

All site staff should be made aware of the acceptable categories of waste permitted to be deposited at the site. Training should be provided for staff to enable them to identify non-conforming wastes and ensure that they are aware of procedures required to deal with the wastes, once identified.

There needs to be a period of induction and a level of competence needs to be shown. It is not possible for one person to know what the requirements of the permit are and the procedures they need to follow in one day. In addition, if the requirements and procedures are not written down then it is difficult for that person to read them through to get a clearer understanding.

Ensure there is a copy of the permit in the weighbridge office to ensure that it is easily accessible to all who need to have access to it. In addition, once the procedures are written and signed off, a copy of all operational procedures and management plans should also be kept in the weighbridge office.

Ensure all incoming and outgoing vehicles are logged and the weights of all incoming wastes and outgoing materials are recorded.

Ensure that there is a quality control system for measuring the tare weights (i.e. weight of unloaded vehicle) in place to keep the records up to date. It is recommended that each vehicle is re-weighed empty at least once every 3 months or after a full maintenance inspection.

Ensure that the waste composition is also included on the transport and identification sheets to fully demonstrate Level 3 requirements under the Landfill Directive waste acceptance criteria.30

Wastes, which are not easily verified for compliance by visual means, must not be accepted without the appropriate chemical analysis reports, demonstrating Level 2 requirements for compliance testing.

All waste must be inspected at the tipping face to ensure it complies with the permit. The compactor operator should be responsible for inspecting each load deposited; however, periodic spot checks should be made by the Site Manager to support this requirement.

Establish a recording system of any waste that is rejected from the site, stating the date, time, weight, name of company involved and reasons for the rejection. It is also recommended that advice be given to the driver as to how the material can be reasonably disposed of/treated. However, as there is no duty of care in Macedonia and no other legal landfills it is difficult to identify other sites that could take it and it will therefore likely be disposed of in an illegal landfill. By having a method of recording non-conformances will cover Drisla of any potential liability in the future and provides the MoEPP with an idea as to the quantity/extent of materials that are rejected from the landfill.

Ensure there is a system for quarantining non-conforming waste that has been tipped at the site and cannot be re-loaded back onto the vehicle. If the deposited waste cannot be reloaded into the delivering vehicle, it should be isolated using marker tape and cones or barriers and suitable covered until appropriate measures can be undertaken to deal with or remove it. Guidance should be sought

_________________________ 30 Level 1: Basic characterisation - determining the properties of the waste to establish its suitability for landfill; Level 2: Compliance

testing - periodic testing of the waste to ensure that its properties have not changed; and Level 3: On-site verification - checking that the waste arriving at the landfill is as expected.


119


from the MoEPP in dealing with such incidents. No further waste should be deposited in this area until guidance has been received and the incident dealt with accordingly. Ensure the incident is recorded on an incident log sheet.

Introduce procedures such that any hazardous waste coming onto site is reloaded and sent away again. In the event of any hazardous waste that could cause immediate safety problems or harm to human health being deposited at the site, the landfill site must be closed and the operational staff and others (e.g. scavengers and site visitors) evacuated from the working area. The MoEPP should be informed immediately and appropriate action taken to remove the waste by means of a specialist contractor operating to the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Directive or local and national Macedonian legislation.

If there is a lack of capacity or resources at the site to deal with a certain type of waste, whether or not it falls within any of the acceptable categories, the waste in question should be turned away. These may include wastes banned, either by the permit or the Landfill Directive, or those requiring specific disposal, handling or unloading considerations, which cannot be catered for at this site.

It is recommended that there be a separate section within the Waste Acceptance Procedure for accepting waste at the incinerator and, in time the composting and sorting areas.

Ensure regular audits of the processes and procedures for waste destruction is undertaken and identify where improvements can be made.

In the event of uncertainty as to which category a waste falls into, or if a certain waste stream may exceed its annual limit, the advice and prior written approval of the MoEPP will be sought before accepting that waste for disposal. Details of exceedences should be recorded along with incidents of this type.

The Site Manager should report any occasions where prohibited waste was identified at the site in an incident log book or site daily diary.

Leachate There is no leachate management currently on-site but leachate is ponding on the surface and can be a

cause of significant odour and pollution. Measures should be taken to ensure that rainwater infiltration to the waste is limited and the site

manager should review options available to reduce leachate production on a regular basis. Once leachate treatment facilities are in place (including leachate recirculation) specific procedures

should be developed to review and monitor the processes involved.

Gas There is no landfill gas management currently on-site. Measures should be taken to ensure that gas control measures are initiated and that the impact from

gas is monitored, reviewed and understood. Once gas extraction, flaring and utilisation facilities are in place specific procedures should be

developed to review and monitor the processes involved.

Environmental Risks No Environmental Risk Assessments have been undertaken for any activity at the site. The Site

Manager should be responsible for identifying situations that could potentially cause a nuisance and for undertaking measures to reduce the impact on the surrounding sensitive receptors.

Such measures will be required for future infrastructure and construction works at the site in the form of an Environmental Risk Assessment.

There needs to be written procedures, Environmental Risk Assessments etc produced so that when the new incinerator is constructed and commissioned then the training is in place for the correct procedures for handling, treatment, H&S etc and the operation of the site to minimise its environmental impact.


120


Procedures and training need to be put into place for when the new sorting and composting operation is up and running.

Dust, Mud and Debris The Site Manager should be responsible for the control of dust from the site activities and maintain an

awareness of the production of dust at all times. It is recommended that dust suppression is carried out along the whole length of hard-paved roads

(access road as well as the internal haul road), when required. Any loads of waste that have been identified as liable to generate dust should be covered with either

daily cover materials or other non-dust generating wastes as soon as possible after deposition to limit the potential nuisance.

If the control of dust on site is deemed to be insufficient by MoEPP and is generating a regular cause for concern, the Site Manager will need to agree monitoring requirements (locations, frequencies and target values) with the regulators.

The Site Manager should undertake inspections, at least daily but more frequently during times perceived to be higher risk e.g. wet weather, of the access roads and all concreted and paved areas and will consider whether it is necessary to remove any mud and debris found. Any inspections undertaken should be recorded on a daily inspection log and what actions need to be or have been taken to remove the mud and debris.

The Site Manager should identify any incidents where dust nuisance may have caused to the surrounding environment and/or sensitive receptors and any incidents and actions taken to rectify the problem should be recorded in the daily inspection log.

The Site Manager should also inspect the wheel wash area to ensure that the correct procedure for washing is generally being followed by the users and provide instructions for use where this is not occurring.

Litter and wind blow materials The Site Manager should be responsible for the litter, aerosols and windblown materials at the landfill It is important to minimise the potential escape of litter from the site and to maintain the site in a

generally tidy state. The Site Manager (or Security Guard during the perimeter inspection) should undertake a daily inspection of the entire site and the immediate surrounding area for the presence of litter. All windblown litter observed by the Site Manager or site operatives outside the boundary of the site should be cleared within 24 hours of it being observed.

All wastes should be covered with soil at the end of the working day and this material should only be stripped for re-use from an area where tipping operations are going to take place during the next working day.

Install mobile litter fences and a litter fence on the perimeter fence in the direction of the prevailing wind will help prevent litter and windblown materials from blowing offsite. Mobile litter fences should be constructed around the operational area.

The Site Manager should assess the location of the mobile screens and get them manoeuvred to ensure they are suitably positioned to take consideration of the wind direction, to collect any fugitive windblown litter.

The litter fences should be cleared and maintained regularly to ensure they remain effective and efficient. Littering fencing should be cleared several times a day during periods of high winds to relieve strain and prevent the fencing from failing.

The working area needs to be reduced in size and kept small to minimise the amount of litter that can be blown away.


121


Litter picking and litter inspections should be recorded in the daily inspection log. Fences should be inspected on a daily basis for litter and maintained in working condition at all times. All inspections and actions taken should be recorded in the daily inspection log or site diary.

Drivers entering the site with insecure or un-netted loads may be turned away from the site at the discretion of the Site Manager. Should a vehicle be observed causing a litter nuisance its registration plate should be recorded, if possible, in order to inform the driver.

Aerosols The Site Manager should assess any activities that appear to be generating aerosols to determine

whether any control measures are necessary. A record should be made in the daily inspection log of any measures required or actions undertaken. A key source for aerosols generation is in the sprayed recirculation of leachate. Ensure that staff and

scavengers are kept away from any areas where recirculation of leachate is occurring Consider the need for aerosol masks. Provide suitable daily cover. Suitable leachate and gas management measures should reduce aerosol production.

Noise and vibration Regular noise monitoring should be considered, both on and off-site and at the nearest sensitive

receptors (nearest dwellings and site office), to ensure no noise nuisance or impact is generated during the operation of the landfill. The general background noise needs to be established (noise level without any vehicles/equipment running) and the general day to day noise levels monitored in order to allow planning of appropriate control measures/techniques.

Monitoring should be undertaken during the construction of the new incinerator and infrastructure of the site e.g. installation of the leachate and gas management systems etc.

Efforts to minimise noise should be considered at all stages of operation from construction through to aftercare.

Other noise and vibration management may be required at other times for activities associated with the operation that are undertaken at irregular intervals. E.g. bird scaring, drilling, use of temporary pumps.

The Site Manager should consider whether a particular operation may lead to noise or vibration impacts at the sensitive receptors and should arrange for additional monitoring to the undertaken if necessary.

Additional monitoring should also be considered if there is a change of operational procedures such as alternative plant and equipment used etc.

Details of any noise and vibration monitoring identified and undertaken needs to be recorded in the daily log.

Odour The Site Manager should maintain an awareness of odour generated at the landfill. It should be noted,

however, that the sensitivity of odours generated is lessened with prolonged contact and therefore will not necessarily be easy for site operatives to undertake this role.

There needs to be a detailed programme of improvement works at the site. This should include the removal and treatment of any leachate ponding at the surface.

It is recommended that the neutralising agent, as identified in the adjustment plan, is purchased during 2011 and used when required. If the agent is soluble in water and is applied in the form of a spray/mist install a misting system around the perimeter of the site closest to the nearest dwellings. When wind is blowing in that particular direction, switch on the misting system and disperse the agent. In time this could be connected to an on-site weather station which will automatically turn on the odour control system when the wind is blowing in a particular direction.


122


The tipping face is too large to assist with the control of odours (and other nuisances). The exposed tipping face needs to be greatly reduced so that only a small area is worked on at any one time. This is considered good operational practice and will reduce the impacts of odour.

Daily cover is not applied at the appropriate rates/times. Daily cover can assist with minimising a number of nuisances on site e.g. litter, odour etc. The tipping face should be worked on in smaller areas and once 2.5m of waste is deposited then the 30cm daily cover must be applied before moving onto the next area. In some areas the waste has been 10-15m deep before any form of daily cover is applied.

Consideration should be given to capping the site on completion of tipping to the proposed final contours. A schedule of capping should be developed and implemented to reduce the potential of odour from completed parts of the site.

Compaction of waste was not observed. Ensure waste is compacted properly as this will assist with minimising some odours.

Management should be responsible for ensuring odour is sufficiently controlled on site, for identifying where there may be a heightened risk of odour occurring and for maintaining awareness of odour generated at the landfill.

Ensure that if there is a heightened risk of odour from a particular activity or waste type then the operatives inform the Site Manager who should instruct them on the appropriate mitigation method.

Wastes considered to produce a highly offensive odour will be covered with other wastes as soon as practicable after deposition. All waste delivered to the site should be immediately compacted into the waste face.

The Site Manager should undertake a daily inspection for the odour at the boundary of the site, downwind of the main waste activity and record this in the site inspection log.

Additional inspections should be undertaken at times when there might be a heightened risk of odour impact as a result of a specific activity being undertaken at the site or if a complaint is made as a result of odour.

A record should be made of all odour inspection, findings and actions taken or to be taken to mitigate it. The record should also include the atmospheric conditions at the time of the survey.

If odour is evident then an investigation into the source should be made and steps taken to reduce its impact. All investigations and actions taken should be recorded.

Fires The Site Manager should ensure that the fire procedures are followed, but all site operatives need to be

aware of their responsibilities in the event of a fire on site. This should be achieved through training and tool box talks.

There must be a ‘NO SMOKING’ policy at the site with signs posted on the site entrance and at other key locations. This policy must be enforced. Smoking will only be permitted in designated smoking areas. The Drisla Landfill Company needs to consider what action to take should this rule not be abided by, but should consider the potential for expelling people from the site who continually flout the policy.

Consider a ‘contract’ between the landfill operators and the scavengers’ employers stating what the scavengers can or cannot do on the site and the consequences should they fail to abide by the rules, such as eviction or suspension from site.

All offices and plant should be fitted with fire-extinguishers and/or smoke alarms. Fire detection is visual so consider using an air horn or other audible signal to make people aware that a fire has broken out.

The Drisla Landfill Company is responsible for carrying out the tasks for fire protection. The site needs a dedicated named person on site who has overall responsibility and training for fires (and other Health and Safety issues)

All incidences of fire and actions taken to deal with it should be recorded on the daily inspection log.


123


Pests, vermin and animals The Site Manager should be responsible for the control of flies and other insects at the landfill and when

the decision for spraying has been made. There needs to be records of the pesticide spraying occurring and who decides why or when the

spraying has taken place. Ensure there is a record of inspection and the times, dates and places that spraying has been carried out. It could be included as part of a daily or weekly inspection checklist.

The site should be inspected at least weekly for the presence of insects during the winter months (1st November to 30th April); more frequently, at least daily, during the summer months (1st May to 31st October), when flies can be a particular problem. Additional inspections should be undertaken especially if there is perceived to be a risk of infestation.

The inspection and appropriate actions taken should be recoded in a daily inspection log. All incidents of infestations and the actions taken should also be recorded in the site inspection log.

There should also be a procedure for recording and informing the Site Manager if a Site Operative feels there is a heightened risk or evidence of an insect infestation occurring. The Site Manager should then investigate and, if an infestation is confirmed, the Site Manager should arrange for a suitably qualified/experienced pest control contractor or site trained personnel to take the necessary steps to eradicate the infestation.

If an infestation has been confirmed then monitoring should take place more frequently until the infestation has been eradicated.

The site’s management team have the responsibility of keeping vermin under control. The site should be inspected monthly for the presence of vermin. If it is observed or suspected that

there is a presence of vermin, the Site Manager should arrange for a pest control firm or deal with the situation directly on site, to take the necessary steps to deal with the vermin.

The inspections and any actions taken should be recorded in the daily inspection log. Follow up inspections should be undertaken to check whether the bait has been taken. The Site Manager should keep a daily record through the site inspections log of any mitigation

measures taken as a result of the presence of vermin. The Site Manager should be responsible for the control of birds and other scavengers on the site. Consideration should be given to the measures that could be employed to scare off the birds and animal

scavengers. As a minimum this should include the use of daily cover, as described in other sections of the chapter.

Meteorology The Site Manager should be responsible for obtaining weather data and ensuring that this data is

available to the MoEPP through the annual environmental report or when requested e.g. during complaints etc.

Drisla should consider installing their own computerised weather station rather than relying on the local weather forecasts online or through other media. Weather monitoring results could be taken either near to the weighbridge office or the tipping face. The on-site weather station could also be connected to the odour control system so that when the wind is blowing towards the residential areas the odour control system is automatically switched on.

Any weather station needs to be maintained and calibrated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

The Site Manager should maintain a copy of the daily weather data and should provide this data to the MoEPP or other interested party upon request. It can be included as part of the annual environmental review report.


124


Maintenance Ensure there is a maintenance schedule for all vehicles and a Planned Preventative Maintenance

Management Plan is produced detailing the procedures and requirements for this.

Training and Technical Competence Article 8 (a) (ii) of the Landfill Directive states that the management of the landfill site must be

technically competent to manage the site and that professional and technical development and training of landfill operators and staff must be provided. The Management should be responsible for ensuring that all staff are aware of their role on site, for the potential impacts (both in terms of the environment and health and safety) that could be caused if their role is undertaken incorrectly and for arranging for training to be provided as required.

In addition, all site staff must be competent to undertake their respective roles and be aware of the impact that their role has on the management of environmental impacts.

The operator needs to implement a training programme for all employees to ensure that they are fully conversant with their responsibilities for compliance with the soon to be implemented Environmental Management System and the Permit.

Training needs must be established individually for each employee and records of training should be kept.

The respective line managers should be responsible for identifying training needs with respect to awareness of and compliance with new or emerging legislation, as well as arranging refresher training.

A review should be carried out annually to determine whether the needs of the employee have changed and also to identify any additional information that might be required specific to that employee’s role on the site.

All staff roles need to be reviewed annually to ensure that staff are fully aware of any new training requirements and managers are aware of the training and instruction needs of the staff on site.

In addition, more general training on facility-wide matters should be provided such as emergency procedures and health and safety.

The site management team will be required to show Technical Competence to operate a non-hazardous landfill of this kind. This qualification is relative to the activities that are undertaken on the site.

Health and Safety The site management team should be responsible for ensuring that adequate precautions are in place

prior to major site operations being undertaken; ensuring that all site staff are aware of procedures to be followed in the case of an accident or an emergency; ensuring these procedures are being followed and appropriate action is taken in the event of an emergency occurring and for reporting any incidents to interested parties and those that need to be informed.

The Site Manager should inspect site operations daily and consider whether any operations being undertaken would be considered unsafe either to site personnel, visitors or to the environment. Issues highlighted will, where necessary, be acted upon immediately and any actions will be recorded in the daily inspection log or site diary. Incidents occurring will be recorded on the daily inspection log.

Procedures need to be written and communicated to staff to ensure they know what to do in the event of an accident or environmental incident.

Ensure that ALL staff have the correct personal protection equipment (PPE) for working on the site prior to entering the site. This includes scavengers and visitors if they are required to go on any part of the site.

Complaints Complaints, and actions taken, should be recorded in the daily site log or on a complaints form.


125


The Drisla Landfill Company needs to work closely with MoEPP in identifying the sources of complaints and MoEPP should provide the details of any complaints made to them to Drisla.

If the site receives a complaint directly then a complaints form should be completed and shown to the MoEPP when they next inspect the site. The forms should be used as evidence that any complaints received have been taken seriously and that actions have been taken to rectify any problems identified.

Complaints should be investigated promptly and any appropriate remedial action taken. The complainant and anyone else likely to have been affected, should be informed about what has been found and actions taken. The details of the complaint and the actions taken will be recorded in the site log.

The aim for the site will be to undertake measures to prevent complaints from being raised.

Monitoring Ensure there is a monitoring plan and monitoring is undertaken at regular intervals as required. Ensure the results are provided to the MoEPP

7.3.3 Hazardous wastes

It is understood that the Municipality has recognised the need for a location for disposal of hazardous materials such as asbestos pipes and other asbestos products. As a result, the steps have been undertaken to prepare technical documents, designed in accordance with EU standards, for deposition of this type of hazardous waste at a particular location within the Drisla landfill. The Municipality has commissioned Geing Krebs and Kiefer International and Others Ltd of Macedonia to design an appropriate containment solution for these types of wastes.

Prior to the development of a suitable location, the Municipality should consider alternative treatment and/or disposal routes and the DLFC should be instructed on how they should proceed and also how they report occurrences.

7.4 Summary of conclusions and recommendations

Some recommendations that should be considered and implemented to ensure compliance with the landfill directive and associated regulations as well as for protection of the environment and human health. Follow up audit in 6 months to ensure any recommendations suggested have been implemented; Write procedures for the handling, treatment, storage etc of waste and activities on site to make it clear

about what needs, how, why and by whom; Ensure existing procedures are reviewed annually and are signed and dated and version number

provided once review has been undertaken; Ensure that a clear audit trail can be made for all waste entering and leaving the site including non-

conforming waste and rejects; Ensure there is a form of recording all inspections, activities undertaken etc on site and this is kept

centrally. Produce a daily/weekly/monthly inspection checklist for activities that need to be undertaken, which are then audited by the management of the DLFC;

Provide regular, relevant and ongoing training for employees e.g. waste acceptance procedure, work instructions etc, relevant to their roles. This can be done with a series of toolbox talks or observations on site;

Carry out regular internal audits of all sites activities to ensure that the procedures are being followed adequately to ensure continued compliance with all relevant legislative requirements relating to the activities.


126


7.5 Environmental Monitoring

The monitoring of all the emissions in basic mediums from the Drisla Landfill should be undertaken in accordance with the By law for the manner and the procedure for operation, monitoring and control of the landfill during the operation period, monitoring and control of the landfill in the phase of closure and aftercare for the landfill, as well as the terms for maintenance of the landfills after closure (Official gazette of RM nr. 156/07).

The monitoring points of the emissions of the media, will be determined in the IPPC A integrated application (which has recently been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Physical planning).

7.5.1 Meteorological data

Figure 7.1: Meteorological monitoring

Source: EU Landfill Directive

7.5.2 Emission data: water, leachate and gas control

Sampling of leachate and surface water, if present, must be collected at representative points. Sampling and measuring (volume and composition) of leachate must be performed separately at each point at which leachate is discharged from the site31.

Monitoring of surface water shall be carried out at not less than two points, one upstream from the landfill and one downstream.

Gas monitoring must be representative for each section of the landfill. The frequency of sampling and analysis is listed in the following table. For leachate and water, a sample, representative of the average composition, shall be taken for monitoring.

The frequency of sampling could be adapted on the basis of the morphology of the landfill waste (in tumulus, buried, etc). This has to be specified in the permit. _________________________ 31 Reference: general guidelines on sampling technology, ISO 5667-2 (1991)


127


Figure 7.2: Leachate monitoring frequency


7.5.3 Protection of groundwater

The measurements must be such as to provide information on groundwater likely to be affected by the discharging of waste, with at least one measuring point in the groundwater inflow region and two in the outflow region. This number can be increased on the basis of a specific hydrogeological survey and the need for an early identification of accidental leachate release in the groundwater.

Sampling must be carried out in at least three locations before the filling operations in order to establish reference values for future sampling. Reference: Sampling Groundwaters, ISO 5667, Part 11, 1993.

The parameters to be analysed in the samples taken must be derived from the expected composition of the leachate and the groundwater quality in the area. In selecting the parameters for analysis account should be taken of mobility in the groundwater zone. Parameters could include indicator parameters in order to ensure an early recognition of change in water quality32.

_________________________ 32 Recommended parameters: ph, TOC, phenols, heavy metals, fluoride, AS, oil/hydrocarbons


128


Figure 7.3: Groundwater monitoring frequency


A trigger level must be determined taking account of the specific hydrogeological formations in the location of the landfill and groundwater quality. The trigger level must be laid down in the permit whenever possible.

The observations must be evaluated by means of control charts with established control rules and levels for each down-gradient well. The control levels must be determined from local variations in groundwater quality.

7.5.4 Topography of the site:

Figure 7.4: Monitoring the structure of the landfill


7.5.5 Air monitoring emissions Control parameter Monitoring Basic equipment

Permanent burning permanent with alarm detector of flame or properly approved equipment

Gas extraction permanent with alarm or call detector of flame or properly approved equipment

The operator must maintain appropriate approach to the permanent equipment or parts of the equipment to provide efficient operation of the system to reduce the hazardous consequences.


129


The following gas emissions monitoring will be required from the gas treatment facilities.

Parameter Burner(closed/fenced) Monitoring, frequency

Facility Monitoring Frequency

Analytical method/ technique

Entrance

Methane (CH4) % v/v Permanent Weekly infrared analyzer or properly approved

equipment

Carbon dioxide (CO2) % v/v Permanent Weekly infrared analyzer or properly approved

equipment

Oxygen (O2) % v/v Permanent Weekly infrared analyzer or properly approved

equipment

Process parameters

Temperature of burning Permanent at three months Temperature samples/ data record

Residence time at three months at three months determined from the terms of the licence

Emissions

CO Permanent Permanent analysis of exit gas/ data

record or properly approved equipment

NOx At two years At two years analysis of exit gas/ data


SO2 At two years At two years analysis of exit gas/ data


suspended solids not applicable annually isokinetic/gravimetric

method or properly approved method

All the analysis should be carried out in certified laboratory using standards or internationally accepted procedures.

7.5.6 Monitoring of surface waters

Parameter Surface waters/ frequency of monitoring

Visual check/odour daily

Lagoon level daily

Dissolved oxygen daily

Conductivity permanently

Not ionized ammonia (in NH3) weekly

Total ammonia (in NH3 shape) weekly

Chlorides weekly

pH weekly

Total organic compounds (TOC) weekly

Total suspended solids weekly

Biological oxygen demand BOD5 at three months


130


Parameter Surface waters/ frequency of monitoring

Chemical oxygen demand at three months

Metals/ non metals annually

list of I/II organic substances annually

Mercury annually

Sulphates (SO4) annually

Nitrates annually

Total phosphorous/ ortho phosphates annually

Faecal coliforms annually

Total coliforms annually


Where it is obvious that there is a high concentration, additional samples should be analysed for the full set of parameters shown. The following parameters should be taken into consideration: metals and elements analysed through atomic absorption/inductive plasma: Br, Cd, Ca, Cr (total), Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Ni, K, Na, and Zn.

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry or other appropriate techniques should be used for the analysis of organic compounds.


131


7.5.7 Monitoring Plan for ground and underground water in landfill Drisla

Sampling and analysis for the qualitative and quantitative composition of surface and groundwater, where impacted by the landfill, should follow the respective regulations for monitoring, which are established in the By-law for the manner and the procedure for operation, monitoring and control of the landfill during the operation period, monitoring and control of the landfill in the phase of closure and aftercare for the landfill, as well as the terms for maintenance of the landfills after closure (“Official gazette of RM“ nr. 156/07).

At present, at the Drisla landfill there is no leachate collection system installed and therefore generated leachate is not treated. There is limited monitoring of surface and groundwater where leachate is discharged. Every 3 months, samples of the following four spots (see Figure 5.7), where leachate is discharged, are taken for analysis: Stream Meckin Dol; Before the entrance of the stream in to the river Markova Reka; Markova Reka (after entrance of the stream in to the river); Piezometer for monitoring of the groundwater.

Analyses of some chemical and physical parameters of taken samples are conducted in the laboratory of the Ministry of environment and physical planning. The quantity of the generated leachate is not measured, although the flow of the leachate is anticipated to range between 0.5 l/s (40m3/day) and 4.7 l/s (406m3/day) with an average of approximately 2.6 l/s. See Appendix K of Volume 2.

The possible contamination of the ground and underground water to be avoided some measurements of leachate treatment should be considered, such as: Construction of reed bed lagoons for the first phase of leachate treatment. Before the construction of the

reed beds (tender period, construction activities etc) collection of the leachate and its recirculation in the landfill, according to the prepared project (“Main project for treatment of the leachate that is generated in landfill for solid waste“, GEING, 18.01.2011) should be established;

Construction of a plant for leachate treatment as long term measure. Accurate design parameters of the plant should be determined according to the analyses of the samples of the leachate.

7.5.8 General demands for leachate monitoring, surface waters and the landfill gas Operative phase Phase of closure and after care

Leachate volume monthly every six months

leachate composition at three months every six months

Volume and composition of the surface water at three months every six months

Potential gases and emissions and atmospheric pressure Monthly every six months/ standard procedure

The frequency of sample taking and determination of the volume and the content should be adjusted on the content and the type of the waste in the landfill. This should be determined in the licence (an integrated application).

The parameters that should be analysed should take account of the wastes deposited and the full suite of testing should be determined in collaboration with the MoEPP.


132


Leachate monitoring

Parameter Leachate / monitoring frequency

Visual check/ odour daily

Level of leachate weekly

Biological oxygen demand at three months

Chemical oxygen demand at three months

Chlorides at three months

Ammonia at three months

conductivity annually

pH annually

Metals/ non metals annually

Cyanides (total) annually

Fluorides annually

Hazardous/non hazardous organic substances annually

Mercury annually

Sulphates (SO4) annually

Total phosphorous/ orthophosphates annually

The frequency of sampling and determination of the volume and the content should be adjusted dependent on the content and the type of the waste in the landfill. This should be determined in the licence (an integrated application).

The levels of the leachate should be determined at all control points of the cell, the collection manholes and leachate sumps. The quality of the leachate should be analysed from the leachate sumps.

Monitoring of Leachate collection system

Monitoring of Leachate Collection System (LCS) is essential for proper functioning of landfill as a whole. Monitoring of LCS is an operational activity that must be implemented. This activity actually consists of two parts: Video inspection of drainage pipes within the landfill body, and Cleaning of deposits in the drainage pipes that limits proper function of LCS, followed by video

inspection

Video inspection should provide visual information primarily for deposits in the drainage pipes, and eventual physical deformations or damages of pipes also. It should be repeated periodically. Time between two inspections will be determined through experience of other, similar landfills. Cleaning should be undertaken, where proven by CCTV assessment.

Operation of video inspection and cleaning needs technologically advanced equipment. Two approaches are feasible: Buying equipment followed by training of staff for using of that equipment, so this operation can be

executed by employed staff, or Hiring a company that provides such services.


133


A key aspect though, will be to ensure that the drainage system is designed to accommodate inspection and has rodding and cleaning points built in.

Monitoring of the landfill gas Parameter Monitoring frequency Analysis methods/ techniques

Methane (CH4) Monthly Infrared analyzer (FID)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) Monthly Infrared analyzer (FID)

Oxygen Monthly electrochemical cell

Atmospheric pressure and trend monthly standard methods

Two options are available for the installation of gas extraction pipework, namely development as the site is infilled or drilling once the site is complete. These options are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6.3.

General data on monitoring of the groundwater Operative phase Phase of closure and after care

Level of underground water every six months every six months

Composition of the underground water depending of the location depending of the location

If the levels of groundwater observed at the site significantly change, the frequency of the monitoring should be reviewed and potentially increased. Trigger levels should be determined in agreement with the MoEPP and an action plan should be developed based on measures to undertaken should these values be exceeded. The first measure is likely to be the need to take further samples and potentially to increase the frequency of testing generally. The need for further action should be reviewed through a hydrogeological risk assessment.

Parameters and frequencies for monitoring of the underground waters Parameter Monitoring frequency

Visual check/ odour monthly

Level of underground water piezometers monthly

flow ( pumped water ) permanently

Dissolved oxygen daily (during the release of the drainage level of the underground water)

Conductivity daily (during the release of the drainage level of the underground water)

Ammonia monthly/ at three months

Chlorides monthly/ at three months

pH monthly/ at three months

Sulphates monthly/ at three months

Metals annually

Hazardous / non hazardous organic substances annually

Mercury annually

Nitrates annually

Total phosporous/orthophospates annually

Faecal coliforms annually

Total coliforms annually


134



The following parameters should also be considered: metals and elements analysed through atomic absorption/inductive plasma: Br, Cd, Ca, Cr (total), Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Ni, K, Na, and Zn.

7.5.9 Monitoring of the landfill body Operative phase Phase for after closure of the landfill

Structure and content of the landfill body annually

Subsidence annually annually

Data required to monitor the condition of the landfill body includes: volume and content of the waste, methods and technology of landfilling, time and duration of the landfilling, calculation of the free capacity of the landfill which is available.

Geodetic monitoring must be established, and is necessary from several aspects. One of the aspects is geodetic monitoring of landfill settlements on the contact between old dump and new landfill. If the settlements are higher than the predicted in the further project documentation for landfill Drisla, measures shall be consider. Geodetic monitoring also is necessary for the drainage construction in the toe of the downstream slope of the landfill. The drainage construction has to be rehabilitated according to existing project.


135


8.1 Survey

The Environmental Audit of the DLFC identified that the Drisla site is a significant regional employer and waste operation that has some significant operational shortcomings in the way in which the site is being managed. The number of staff who were observed not working made it clear that as part of the development strategy for the sites, a training needs analysis of the staff would be of benefit to identify the key skills and shortcoming relating to the employees.

A questionnaire was produced by the Consultant and provided to each of the workers at the Drisla Landfill Site and to relevant members of the municipality of Skopje.

In total, 25 questionnaires were completed, covering approximately 20% of the staff employed by DLFC. Of these twenty four were employees of the Drisla Landfill Company and one was an employee of the municipality.

The split in terms of roles within the company was as follows: 6 No. Managers 1 No. Financial Manager 1 No. Administrator 16 No. Others

The roles were spread across all sectors, such as operations, mechanics, environmental specialists, site control, welfare, medical waste transport and medical waste combustion. It did not appear from the titles of the respondees that anyone considered themselves to be a labourer, plant operator or materials recycler. These roles are also likely to require formal training, as these people should be made aware of the environmental consequences of their actions, health and safety issues and the requirement for reporting.

8.2 Findings

8.2.1 Training need

Nine people stated that they felt that they actually needed training, with the remainder stating that they felt that training might be of benefit. The roles and seniority undertaken by these nine that saw a need for training were varied and therefore training needs to be aimed at staff from all backgrounds and seniority.

It is clear from the audit undertaken that all staff should receive some degree of job specific and site generic training.

8.2.2 Language

Information was requested on the ability of staff to speak and understand English. As would be expected, most people responding did not fully understand English and therefore, if international experts are required to provide some of the training, translation will be required. It should also be noted that one of the respondees was an interpreter translating Macedonian to Albanian and vice versa. Training should therefore consider the needs for translation from English (if necessary) into Macedonian and Albanian.

8. Training needs survey


136


8.2.3 Training duration

Interestingly, despite most people showing some uncertainty as to whether training was required, all of the respondees felt that the training needed to be extensive and that the minimum duration for training should be five days.

8.2.4 Training type

When asked whether the respondee would welcome one-to-one training there was a mixture of responses. The responses were fairly well spread between yes, probably, probably not and no. No reason was requested or given as to why the respondee answered positively or negatively. The structure of the training will therefore need to be given further consideration. The training provided is likely to vary in style from group sessions for more generic group training such as an introduction to landfill practices, whereas specific training such as financial accounting or composting procedures are likely to be provided on a smaller group or individual basis.

8.2.5 Training Modules

A selection of possible training modules was proposed covering: Module 1 - Personal Development, Module 2 - General Project Management, Module 3 - Standard Tender Dossiers and Procurement Actions, Module 4 - Contract Management, Supervision and Commissioning, Module 5 - Solid Waste Management, and Module 6 - Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).

These training modules are included as Appendix T of Volume 2.

8.3 General review of the questionnaire responses

The following table lists the number of sessions that each individual respondee considered would be of use in undertaking their role on site. The table also shows as a proportion the summarised preferences of all staff.

Table 8-1 Staff module preferences

Staff reference no. Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 TOTAL

Total number of sessions per module 8 7 6 5 4 3 33

Maximum potential attendance – (i.e. total number of respondees [24] x total number of sessions in each module) 192 168 144 120 96 72 792

Potential demand (i.e. number of sessions within a module where respondees have expressed an interest to attend) 50 27 19 32 54 22 204

Percentage of maximum attendance where interest has been expressed 21.88% 11.90% 9.03% 22.50% 52.08% 26.39% 21.59%


137


The full version of Table 8-1 is shown in Appendix T of Volume 2.

A review of the responses shows that: 96% of the respondees believed that they would benefit from personal development training, 42% did not feel the need for any management training, 67% did not feel the need for any training in tender documentation and procurement, 38% did not feel the need for any contract management, supervision and commissioning training, 29% did not feel the need for general solid waste management training, and 38% did not feel the need for any training in relation to public private partnerships.

The review also showed some collaboration as some of the managers and the deputy managers of various sectors identified almost identical opinions on what training they required. This could, of course, have been done separately and, in reality, there is little problem in having collaboration. However, it may be beneficial to provide the assessment again on an individual basis once the content and scope of the individual training sessions has been established.

There was no ranking of the preferences and therefore it is not clear whether the training would be viewed as essential or preferable.

The servicing manager and deputy felt that they did not need much training with none of the proposed training modules being of interest to them. Conversely, the environmental adviser was most interested in the training options available considering twenty of thirty three (including the term “other”) to be of interest. On average, respondees identified between seven and eight options that they would like to consider.

The most popular were those in Module 5 as of the total options available for all twenty four responses over half were chosen. Modules 1, 4 and 6 were the next most popular at between 20%-25% of all available options chosen, then Modules 2 and 3 with approximately 10% of all available modules chosen. This demonstrates that there is a consistent interest in the general management of the landfill and its associated activities, whereas the issues relating to personal development, contract management etc. were of lesser general interest. It is recommended therefore that the general waste management module is made available to everyone and that individuals should be assessed to determine whether they would benefit from other training.

At this stage, it is not recommended that sections are dropped from being considered for training even where no one has shown an interest in the current questionnaire responses. This is because people may realise that the section of the module may be of interest once the detail has been determined. However, the responses may help to devise how much time is spent on these subjects within each module.

8.4 Conclusions and recommendations

Although the questionnaire was only completed by a selection of the staff, there are some key conclusions that can be expressed that should be applied to the entire work force.

All staff should be provided with some form of generic site training as well as specific task training.

Outline training programmes should be devised for each of the modules identified in the training needs assessment. Having established the outline training programmes, these should be discussed with key representatives of the Drisla Landfill Company with a view to ensuring that these programmes include the aspects considered to be of greatest interest to the staff.


138


The staff should then be given the opportunity to comment and identify whether there are any other aspects that they feel should be included or excluded from the overall programme.

Once all modules have been developed in outline, a member of the Drisla Landfill Company with responsibilities for staff training and development should assess with each staff member whether they would benefit from specific training. A record of each member of staff’s personal training needs should be maintained. A prioritisation of training modules can then be established.

It is expected that initial training is likely to include: an introduction to general waste management practices, health and safety and environmental controls. It is likely that all members of staff will need some form of training in each of these subject areas. Further specific training can then be developed for smaller groups and potentially for individuals.

When developing the training consideration should be given to the requirement for translation, potentially from the trainer’s own language (if non-native to Macedonia) to both Macedonian and Albanian.


139


9.1 Background

The Republic of Macedonia has developed a National Waste Management Plan (2008-2020) which defines the fundamental directions in waste management for the coming period, on the basis of recognition of serious impacts to the living and natural environment caused by improper waste management at present and in the past.

It sets out the key principles for waste management, which are: Sustainable development; Proximity principle and self-sufficiency; Precautionary principle; Polluter pays principle; Waste hierarchy; Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO); and Producer responsibility.

The underlying aim of this project is to encourage wastes to be managed in accordance with these principles. However, there are some significant constraints in the implementation of these systems that need to be overcome before successful implementation can be achieved. One of these primary constraints is the general level of understanding of the environmental and waste issues within Macedonia. The National Waste Plan identifies that people are not aware of the risks and adverse effects of improper waste management on their health and on the environment. People are also not aware of their role and responsibilities as producers of waste.

It is understood that there is limited waste recycling or segregation of waste streams and that a significant quantity of household, commercial and construction and demolition wastes are disposed of at unregulated dump sites.

9.2 Public awareness

Improving public awareness and participation has been addressed in this strategy through the key principles and some strategic objectives.

These include: Establishing a contemporary technical waste management system which takes into account different

technical options regarding waste avoidance, reducing the hazardous potential of waste and reduction at source, material/energy recovery and utilisation of waste and safe final disposal of stabilised residues according to BPEO with the aim of preserving non-renewable natural resources, minimising emissions and adverse effect of the waste treatment/disposal processes on the living and natural environment as well as on public health;

Raising public awareness and awareness of all stakeholders; Introducing separate landfills or landfill cells for hazardous and non-hazardous waste; and Closing down and/or remediation of existing unlicensed municipal dumpsites.

All the measures suggested in this report are to improve the landfill’s impact on the environment. Additional facilities that are proposed for development at the landfill site (e.g. the recovery of recyclables and the composting of green waste) have been recommended to reduce the quantity of waste going to

9. Public awareness and education


140


landfill. Some of these, such as the separate collection of green and recyclable wastes will involve participation from the population. The performance of these will be dependent on the extent of public cooperation, and this will require a public awareness campaign to promote participation.

9.2.1 Requirements for public participation

Most of the proposed initiatives will ideally lead to some source segregated waste collections. This would divert biodegradable material from landfill, as well as recovering a higher proportion of valuable materials that would otherwise be landfilled.

A separate garden waste collection would be the easiest system for residents to understand, so may be the most appropriate separate collection with which to begin. This would hopefully engage the public, who would start thinking where their waste goes and what happens to it once they have thrown it away. Then further separate collections could be introduced gradually.

Segregated collections for dry recyclables could either be co-mingled or separate from one another. It is thought that separate collections yield a greater proportion of uncontaminated material. However, it may be more appropriate to introduce a co-mingled collection for a population who are unused to environmental issues or separate collections. Either way, an education campaign will have to be launched to inform the public of what to do and why they should do it.

Any public participation scheme should be geared towards: Recognising the role of consumer behaviour and public participation; Recognising the contribution of innovation and new waste management technology solutions as well as

the better application of established methods; and Working towards waste prevention, and contextualising this at local and regional levels.

Other recyclables collection methods could be introduced, such as local bring banks and household amenity sites. Minimisation/avoidance schemes could also be rolled out. This can include home composting, as well as campaigns to reduce waste and reuse items. For example, this could include preventing food waste and promoting furniture reuse schemes, nappy washing services, local refillable schemes and low packaging shops and markets.

9.2.2 Public education campaigns

The ultimate goal of a Public Education Campaign should be to promote a reduction in waste arising from households and business organisations and to increase the amount of recyclable material recovered from the waste stream. This would be focused on introducing the concept of waste as a resource and waste management starting in the home and workplace.

The campaign would need to be comprehensive and involve all relevant stakeholders as required. The campaign would provide people with information to improve awareness and change behaviour by the following means: Driving a cultural change in attitudes to waste from being something that is discarded to a material that

is considered as a valuable and useful resource. Encouraging residents and workers in Skopje to take personal pride in their environment and to take

responsibility for the waste they produce. Promoting greater social responsibility and sustainable waste management practices.


141


It is recommended that a combination of measures is used, as this is the best way to reach a wide audience. An education campaign could include canvassing face-to-face with residents on their doorsteps or campaigns through schools, delivering newsletters or leaflets, setting up a web page or operating a telephone hotline service. Public road shows and presentations could be set up to allow the public the opportunity to raise any concerns about their involvement. In addition, it is recommended that local media is used to help spread the message.

It is important to continually reinforce the message with regular information about the services. Informing the population about what happens to the waste materials once they have been collected also encourages participation, to help them understand why it’s being done.

An outline programme is identified in Appendix U of Volume 2.

The literacy rate in Macedonia is high (96%)33, so it is not proposed this will be a barrier to any leaflet campaigns. It may be necessary to print leaflets or provide information in Albanian as well as Macedonian, as Albanian speakers make up a significant proportion of the population (over one-fifth). Consideration should also be given to the Turkish, Roma and Serb communities, who make up a further 8.3% of the total population.

The key to any campaign is to ensure that the message is simple. The information should be provided in advance of any proposals, as the proposals are being rolled out to the population and then backed up by further campaigns after implementation to ensure correct use.

9.3 Stakeholders

In addition to the public there are a number of stakeholders who will either have an impact on the decision-making processes and services provided at the site or potentially will be impacted by the site. These stakeholders are shown in Appendix Z of Volume 2.

9.4 Health impacts

The assessment of the effects of human impacts should be evaluated to ensure that the emissions to air from the proposed waste facilities do not impact on the region around the site.

The emissions from the proposed facilities could potentially contain elements that have effects on human health simply by reference to ambient air quality standards. Health effects could occur through inhalation. As such, an assessment needs to be made of the overall human exposure by the local population and then the risk that this exposure causes.

The report has recommended the following: A MRF is developed on site to recover some of the recyclable materials from the waste stream. It is

suggested that initially this be a ‘dirty’ MRF as this would not require a source segregated waste stream. Hand sorting could be adopted, which would be flexible with regards to the types of materials being recovered. It is also recommended that a magnetic separator is included to recover ferrous metals. Eddy current separators could also be included to recover non-ferrous metals, but as they are more expensive, the ratio of non-ferrous to ferrous metals would have to be examined to establish whether it

_________________________ 33 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26759.htm


142


is a viable option financially. This equipment and separation methodology could also be used in a ‘clean’ MRF, which would separate recyclables from each other, if separate recyclates collections were to be introduced. This should be the ultimate aim.

Recovery methods have been proposed for C&D wastes. It has been suggested that higher value larger items (likely to be metals), as well as potentially hazardous materials, be removed initially using an excavator with a ‘Tulip’ grab attachment. This would leave mainly aggregates and wood which could be further sorted and crushed. The resultant waste stream would go through a trommel screen before passing onto a conveyor. An overband magnet and hand sorting would recover any further ferrous and non-ferrous metals, as well as any other valuable materials.

A windrow composting facility has been proposed to divert some organic waste from landfill. It is currently proposed that the green waste already collected from parks, cemeteries and other municipal areas, be treated in this facility. A separate garden waste collection would have to be introduced to collect enough waste to fill the proposed 11,000 capacity facility. It is thought that source segregated waste collection has a higher chance of success with garden waste as it is produced outside of the home and therefore less likely to be contaminated, be the least difficult system for residents to understand, and also be the simplest to implement.

To divert further organic compostable waste from landfill it will be necessary to either source segregate and compost food waste, or pass the residual waste through a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) system. The MBT system would need to have a biological treatment stage which would reduce the biodegradable content of the food waste in this residual waste. However due to contamination rates the treated product is unlikely to be suitable for recycling to land, however it could be used as landfill cover.

For the technologies identified a health impact assessment would not normally be carried out as the processes would not impact on the general population. However, there will be potential health and safety impacts on the workforce and this should be considered through risk assessments as part of the permitting process for the facilities.


143


The development of the Drisla site and the introduction of waste collection and sorting on the site will have an impact of the livelihood on the current employees of the Drisla site and the informal sector

The recommended developments for Drisla which will have a direct social impact include: Construction/Re-engineering of the landfill Sorting/Recycling on site Sorting of Construction and Demolition waste Improving Security and Fencing at Site

Currently Drisla employs approximately 125 members of staff at the site to manage and operate the current landfilling operations. When the proposed efficiency measures and new developments are put into place, this will result in job losses, as the number of staff required is estimated to be only half of the current levels. This will lead to unemployment of approximately 60-70 staff from various roles dealing with landfill operations. A retrenchment exercise will need to be executed.

However, it is thought that staff will be required to manage other operations that are proposed as part of the development such as sorting/recycling, composting, monitoring activities at the landfill etc. If these staff have the ability, following training, to swap roles, then this should be considered in the first instance and will reduce the significance of the impact.

If unemployment of staff is undertaken, the process must be handled in a professional, economically efficient and legal manner. This means taking efforts to minimise the number of job losses, ensuring compliance with the terms of national law and applicable collective bargaining agreements, informing and involving all relevant parties – and workers in particular – as well as supporting affected workers so as to mitigate the impact of the retrenchment on local communities and labour markets.

The informal waste sector tends to scavenge waste throughout the full process of waste management (before the waste is collected at dumps etc and in particularly while waiting to be landfilled. Approximately 60 to 70 scavengers collect PET bottles from the waste collection trucks that are discharging their loads at the Drisla landfill. It is likely that once a sorting operation is put in place at the site, the scavengers will find that it is not advantageous for them to continue to operate on the site. In addition, it is expected that security measures will be enforced, such as secure fencing and security staff that will make it more difficult for the scavengers to live off the proceeds. Also, it is expected that wastes that have been placed will be managed more appropriately with freshly placed material being pushed by bull dozer, compacted and covered, at the end of each day. This will impact upon the livelihoods of the 60 to 70 scavengers that currently scavenge at Drisla, taking away the resources they collect.

One way around this would be for the informal sector to take a more active role in the recycling of waste materials prior to collection and arrival at the landfill site. This will involve a more detailed feasibility study to be undertaken by the municipalities and is outside the scope of this assessment. However the provision of upfront recycling will provide potentially a more lucrative opportunity for the informal sector than the operation on the landfill with its health and safety issues of scavenging on the landfill face.

This approach to managing the impact of the informal sector to develop options for redeployment or alternative systems of employment would assist in minimising the economic impacts of the modernisation o the DLFC and mitigate the impact of the retrenchment on local communities and labour markets.

10. Socio-economic impacts


144


Although there is likely to be a significant impact on the livelihoods of some member of the community due to loss of income, there will be a vast improvement to the environment and to the sanitation in the community through household waste sorting. This will also have an impact on the overall cleanliness within Skopje through reduced littering, increased recycling, frequent collection and this will have a positive impact on the community, staff and health of the population.


145


The unique wealth and diversity of species and ecosystems found in the Republic of Macedonia results from its geographical position, climate, geology, geomorphology and hydrographical characteristics. The wealth of biodiversity encompasses more than 16,000 species and numerous endemic plants, fungi, flora and fauna. With more than 37% of its land area covered in forests, hydrographical network and agro biodiversity with imperative economic context, the Republic of Macedonia has recognised that it needs to implement efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate climate change effects at the regional and global level.

11.1 Impacts of climate change

Projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that average annual temperatures in southern Europe will warm by 2.2 to 5.1oC by the year 2100. The greatest changes are projected for the alpine and sub-alpine regions of the Republic of Macedonia and for the summer season. Results indicate warming of 1.6 to 2.1oC by 2050 and 2.7 to 5.4oC by 2100.34 Climate models show good agreement that there will be a decrease in precipitation in the Mediterranean basin. Decreases for Macedonia are estimated to be -2 to -7% by 2050 and -5 to -21% by 2100. Heat-waves and droughts are likely to become more frequent, and the return period for extreme precipitation events will decrease.

Additional regional climate modelling and/or statistical downscaling is needed to further explore local changes within Macedonia, as it can be expected that the complex topography of the country will lead to significant local modifications to national average change predictions.

The temperature increase would increase evapo-transpiration, which will amplify the effects of decreased precipitation and lead to reduced water availability. Run-off could decrease by up to 25% in some areas by 2100, with the east of the country likely to experience greater water stress than the west35. There is a large information gap on monitoring water resources, with no soil or groundwater monitoring currently in place, and this will need to be addressed. A decrease in the amount and duration of snow-cover and earlier snow-melt will also affect the hydrological regime in the country.

Rising temperatures mean that the Alpine ecological zone could be lost in many places within 50 years, threatening species such as the Balkan Chamois, and reducing biodiversity in the country. Forest fires are likely to intensify and become more frequent due to hot, dry conditions; increasing the levels of damage to economically valuable forests (forest fires in summers cause several Euro million worth of damage).

Macedonia’s key policy priorities include mitigation of climate change effects and enhancing its sustainable development plans. In that context, the Republic of Macedonia has developed international and regional alliances with other governments and multilateral organizations in order to respond to climate change issues and achieve its sustainable development strategic goals.

The country is working on several initiatives to incorporate international practice into its national environmental legislation through the rationalisation of the process of policy development and the implementation of planning frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

_________________________ 34 IPCC 2007, MOEPP 2008 35 UNFCC 2008

11. Climate change and CDM opportunities


146


11.2 National Policy and Regulation on climate change issues

Macedonia has started to integrate climate change into national strategic planning documents and laws. Article 4 of the Law on the Environment explicitly mentions 'Restraining greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere' and encourages the use of clean technologies and renewable energy36. In the Law on the Environment it is stipulated that Macedonia should adopt a National Plan on Climate Change. The Second National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) both include climate change, with Energy and Climate being identified as key elements in achieving the goals of the NSSD37. The focus in the NSSD is to develop a less carbon intensive energy sector (through both switching supply and increasing efficiency) and to engage strongly with the CDM. Adaptation is recognised in the strategy but is secondary to mitigation.38 Measures in the strategy to conserve and manage natural resources will also improve the adaptive capacity of ecosystems.

The focus of the government has been on mitigation rather than adaptation to climate change, however there is an Inter-Sectoral Adaptation Action Plan which includes integrating climate change adaptation into the management strategies for different sectors, establishing early warning and monitoring systems and building the capacity of different actors through training and the provision of additional funding.

Decentralisation is a key pillar of the national strategies of Macedonia, and as such it is local government and other local actors who will be tasked with the implementation of many of these plans. The government recognizes the need to rapidly build the capacity in these actors if national environmental strategies are to be successfully implemented.

Insufficient solid waste management in Macedonia is causing environmental issues in water, air and land. Most landfills are inadequately designed. There are large numbers of illegal dump sites (approximately around 1000 sites) and so far none of the existing landfills in the country comply with the EU standards. Furthermore, there are very limited systems for separating recyclable material and hazardous components of waste.

Out of approximately 500,000 tons of municipal waste generated annually in Macedonia, roughly one third (150,000 tons) is being disposed of at the Drisla landfill near Skopje.

National Policy Framework on climate change issues The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MOEPP) coordinates environmental policy, which

is implemented by a range of public and private entities. The MOEPP also monitors and reports environmental data.

In January 2002, the Climate Change Project Office was established within the ministry to engage with national and international institutions, including the UNDP. A National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) was also set up to act as an advisory body for climate change policy. A number of climate change studies have been undertaken including Climate Change Scenarios for Macedonia (University of Nova Gorica) and the Environmental and Climate Change Policy Brief, prepared by the University of Gothenburg.

_________________________ 36 MOEPP 2005: Law on the Environment 37 MOEPP 2008 38 NSSD 2008a


147


GHG mitigation policy is promulgated, in part, via the National Strategy for the Clean Development Mechanism39, the National Communication on Climate Change and the Law on Environment. The Law on Environment stipulates that a National Plan for climate change be adopted to stabilise GHG concentrations to a safe level.

Macedonia has not established firm targets for GHG reductions, although Article 4 of the Law on Environment explicitly mentions “restraining greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere” and encouraging the use of clean technologies and renewable energy. The law also requires the development of a National Plan on Climate Change.

Membership to the EU is likely to formally restrict GHG emissions to contribute to achieving the EU’s 20-20-20 targets. The extent to which the country will be required to reduce or limit the growth of emissions is not clear.

GHG strategies related to waste are integrated into a number of regulations and plans. The National Waste Management Plan (2009 - 2015) of the Republic of Macedonia acts as the underlying GHG mitigation plan for the waste sector. Municipalities are also developing Waste Management Plans.

Figure 11.1: Relevant sectors included in climate change issues

Source: SNC Macedonia

11.3 Structure of Macedonia’s Designated National Authority

Macedonia’s Designated National Authority (DNA) for the CDM is located within the MOEPP according to a “Single Ministry Model”.

According to this model, the MOEPP has final legal authority on project review, approval, and signature of the host country endorsement and/or approval letter, Figure 11.2. The MOEPP is also authorised to enter into special CDM project agreements or MOUs with potential investor countries.

_________________________ 39 National Strategy for Clean Development Mechanism for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol 2008 – 2012


148


The DNA Secretariat is housed by the MOEPP, within the Department of Sustainable Development. It is responsible for CDM outreach and acts as a contact point to the public, including project developers, validators, potential investors, and the CDM Executive Board.

In addition, the Secretariat is responsible for internal review of CDM projects, coordination of expert review by other relevant ministries, and drafting of the decision letter. The Minister of the MOEPP is the final decision maker and will provide the signature for any endorsement and approval letters.

Figure 11.2: DNA structure in Macedonia

Source: SNC Macedonia

11.4 Waste Emissions Mitigation Policy and Strategy on climate change

The Second National Communication on Climate Change lays out GHG reduction targets for nine landfills.

Mitigation measures at the Drisla landfill are projected to reduce GHG emissions by 77,760 tCO2 eq annually (roughly 0.6% of the nation’s emissions). Reductions of an additional 84,700 tCO2 eq/annum are anticipated from the other landfills. Mitigation measures include technical improvements at existing landfills and the installation of recovery and flaring systems. Other mitigation measures proposed in the communication include: Improving methane collection potential by constructing regional solid waste disposal sites Additional

GHG reductions could potentially be obtained by waste segregation and displacement of grid generated power with the production of energy;

Reducing N2O emissions from uncontrolled burning through legislation and public awareness; Reducing methane emissions from wastewater.

Additional mitigation measures related to direct emissions in the waste sector may include: Displacing grid emissions with power generation at methane recovery sites; Reducing land disposal of biodegradable waste and utilising technologies such as anaerobic digestion

and composting; Encouraging legal disposal of waste at managed landfills through measures such as enforcement,

attractive price structures and convenient collection mechanisms.


149


11.5 Climate change issues and the current Drisla landfill operations

The Drisla landfill was not designed following environmental and operational international standards or guidelines. It does not have either eco-membrane material isolating the liquids generated from the landfill from the underground water, or a capping and collection system.

The current structure of GHG emissions under the baseline scenario at the Drisla Landfill is shown below

Table 11-1: Structure of GHG emissions under the baseline scenario at the Drisla Landfill Source GHG Justification / Explanation Estimated emissions value

CH4 The major source of emissions in the baseline.

N2O

N2O emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills.

Emissions from decomposition of waste at the landfill site CO2 CO2 emissions from the

decomposition of organic waste. These emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills.

According to the LFG prediction model the following figures have been achieved: Starting from about 74,260 tCO2eq per year in 2011 (10,000 tCO2 and 3060 tCH4) with light increase year by year till peak value around 98,230 tCO2eq per year in 2035 (13,600 tCO2 and 4030 tCH4) and then going down by 2050.

Emissions due to waste transportation

CO2 Emissions due to transporting of the waste to the landfill by trucks.

Based on the following assumptions: 4 t of waste/truck (conservative scenario) average distance from the waste collection points to the landfill ~ 20 km one way 150,000 tones waste/year Motor fuel used: diesel The average emissions are 1011 tCO2eq per year

Emissions from electricity consumption

CO2 Electricity may be consumed from the grid to cover the needs of landfill operator on-site in the baseline scenario.

No data provided, however this emissions will remain the same in case the project activity is implemented.


CO2 Electricity and fossil fuel consumed to destroy the medical waste on-site.

Based on the following data: Average petroleum consumption 22 t/yr; Average electricity consumption: 4800 kWh/yr the average emissions are 78 tCO2eq per year

Estimated total emissions associated with the current operation and maintenance of the Drisla landfill: this is the emissions baseline.

ca. 75,649 tCO2 eq/yr by 2011 ca. 99,319 tCO2 eq/yr by 2035 ca. 28,580 tCO2 eq//yr by 2050

Comments: Landfilling biodegradable wastes will lead to methane production will not be captured, and will contribute

negatively to climate change. Landfilling of material that could be recycled, e.g. aluminium cans, creates GHG emissions when

materials have to be replaced, in spite of the high market value of aluminium cans (>USD 1,500 per tonne)


150


The MOEPP40 has computed Drisla’s projected GHG emission reductions at 77,760 tCO2 eq/yr if the new infrastructure investment needed is implemented following international standards or guidelines. However that reduction estimation does not include details on the proposed mitigation measures such as landfill gas collection efficiency factor. Similar situation happens with the treatment of the additional emission reductions from a composting system for the waste organic materials and the emission savings from recyclable processes and materials recovery such as construction & demolition materials, rubber, aluminium cans and so forth.

11.6 Climate change issues and the new infrastructure needed at Drisla landfill

Table 11-2 shows the potential GHG emission reductions at the disposal site if the new infrastructure needed is implemented; according to the scope of work and following environmental and operational international standards and best practice guidelines.

The structure of GHG emissions under the new baseline project scenario at the Drisla Landfill will be:

Table 11-2: Structure of the GHG emissions under project scenario at the Drisla Landfill Source GHG Gas Justification / Explanation Estimated emissions value

CH4

The major source of emissions in the baseline will be avoided by capturing CH4 and its further energy utilization, however not all CH4 will be possible

to capture

N2O

N2O emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills.

Emissions from decomposition of waste at the landfill site

CO2

CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste.

These emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills.

Usually negligible

According to the LFG prediction model the following figures have

been achieved: Starting from about 38,520 tCO2eq

per year in 2011 (4,500 tCO2 and 1620 tCH4) with light increase year

by year till peak value around 63,110 tCO2eq per year in 2035 (8,720 tCO2 and 2590 tCH4) and then

going down.

Emissions due to waste transportation

CO2 Emissions due to transporting of the waste to the landfill by trucks

Based on the following assumptions: 4 t of waste/truck (conservative

scenario) average distance from the waste

collection points to the landfill – 20 km one way

139,000 tones waste/year (11,000 t are excluded due to composting)

Motor fuel used: diesel The average emissions are 937

tCO2eq per year

Emissions from electricity consumption

CO2 Electricity may be consumed from the grid to cover the needs of landfill

operator on-site in the baseline scenario. Could be excluded if

sufficient electricity is generated on-site from LFG to cover the needs.

No data provided. However assumed to remain the

same as without any project activity.

CO2 Due to CH4 combustion Emissions from the on-site electricity N2O Negligible as conservative approach

Based on the following data: Installed capacity 1,064 kW

_________________________ 40 Second National Communication on climate change - http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/macnc2.pdf


151


Source GHG Gas Justification / Explanation Estimated emissions value generations Availability factor 90%

Methane capturing and energy utilization 550 m3/hr

The emission savings due to

substitution of the electricity in the grid will be around (-) 3,011 tCO2eq

per year

CH4 The composting process may not be complete and result in anaerobic

decay.

N2O May be an important emission source for composting activities. N2O is

emitted during anaerobic digestion of waste.

Composting

CO2 CO2 emissions from the decomposition or combustion of

organic waste are not accounted. Emissions due to transportation of the

green waste to the composting plant and due to transportation of the

compost to the selling points

Based on the following assumptions: 4 t of waste/truck

average distance from the waste collection points to the landfill – 1 km

one way (assuming collection carried out within the waste

transportation calculation) average distance from composting facility to fertilizer selling point – 20

km 1 way 11,000 t waste/year

Motor fuel used: diesel the average emissions are 156

tCO2eq per year

Medical Waste incineration

CO2 Electricity and fossil fuel consumed to destroy the medical waste on-site

Using specification figures of the new proposed installation for the

fossil fuel (natural gas) and electricity consumption depending

on the temperature at which the incinerator is operated (850C or

1100C) parameters and the medical waste having a low calorific value,

the average emissions are between 390 tCO2eq (850C) and 523 tCO2eq (1100C) per annum

Estimated total emissions after the new infrastructure investment needed at Drisla landfill is under operation

ca. 37,570 tCO2 eq/yr by 2011 ca. 61,714 tCO2 eq/yr by 2035 ca. 1,745 tCO2 eq//yr by 2050

It should be noted that the new medical incinerator will have higher CO2 emissions, mainly because a medical waste incinerator is there to eliminate toxic/bacteriological emissions and it does this by raising the temperature of the feedstock to meet new regulations (1100 C for 2 seconds). To do so will require more fuel - for the same feedstock - than in the existing plant, which was designed to meet lower standards. Auxiliary power may also increase due to extra pressure drops in the gas cleaning train not present on the existing unit. Our estimation of the CO2 emissions is based on the design figures. In practise, the amount of external fuel needed may well be lower than the 'design' figure, due to the calorific value of the feedstock itself; so comparing 'design' fuel use for the new unit with actual fuel in the existing unit will exaggerate the difference.

Key changes leading to reduce climate change effects include: Some of this methane can be captured, and energy generated from the landfill gas Recycling some materials reduces the GHG emissions as virgin materials can be replaced. The

emissions related to recycling activities are not included either in the First and Second Communication on Climate Change (See Appendix A of Volume 2); however if the activity is implemented it will add to the emission reductions as recycling adds to GHG reduction benefits in offsetting a portion of


152


“upstream” GHGs emitted in raw material acquisition, manufacture and transport of virgin inputs and materials (construction and demolition waste). If wood and paper products are recycled it increases the amount of carbon stored in forests.

11.7 Emission reductions associated with the new infrastructure investment needed at Drisla landfill

Despite the project activity leading to the reduction of emissions, there will be still residual carbon emissions left. The resulting emissions are schematically shown in Figure 11.3.

Figure 11.3: Solid waste cycle

Source: US EPA

The volume of emission reductions compared to the baseline over the period 2011-2050 is shown in Figure 11.4.

The cumulative emission reductions are as follows: over 7 year period (2011-2017) – 263,180 tCO2eq; over 10 year period (2011-2020) – 375,938 tCO2eq; over 14 year period (2011-2024) – 525,938 tCO2eq.


153


Figure 11.4: The Drisla landfill emissions, pre and post project baseline; emission reductions

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047

2048

2049

2050

t CO2/a Baseline Scenario Project Scenario Emission Reductions

Source: Mott MacDonald Ltd

11.8 CDM Carbon Finance Eligibility

Since its creation under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Framework administrated by UNFCCC has changed. UNFCCC has created specific rules such as “Prior Consideration”, introduced in 2008 and 2009, creating limitations to CDM project eligibility, in addition to the CDM Financial Additionality clause.

According to the “Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” (v.3) EB49, Annex 22, September 2009: if the gap between documented evidence of the project start-up is greater than 3 years, it should be concluded that continuing and real actions were not taken to secure CDM status for the project activity. In a UNFCCC meeting at Bonn, Germany in July 2011 further consideration was given to demonstrating prior consideration (CDM EB 62). This revision clarifies that the evidence for demonstration includes contracts with consultants for CDM/PDD/methodology services, draft versions of PDDs and underlying documents such as letters of authorisation, and if available, letters of intent, emission reduction purchase agreement (ERPA) term sheets. The revised guidelines state that letters, e-mail exchanges and other documented communications may help to substantiate the evidence, but DOE needs to confirm authenticity of such communications through interviews. This new outcome could be positive for assessing the potential CDM eligibility for the Drisla landfill project.

CDM projects cover a wide array of sectors and technologies involving energy consumption or generation, ranging from the installation of renewable energy generation plants to landfill methane capture, and from animal waste management to fossil fuel switching. The first CDM project – a landfill methane reduction project in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – was registered on 18 November 2004. Since then, more than 2,300 CDM projects (August 2010) have been registered worldwide, reducing more than 420M tonnes of CO2 per year.

The consultant has reviewed publicly available evidence of the project consideration under CDM:


154


In 2005, the Italian Ministry for the Environment Land and Sea signed a Memorandum of Understanding on “Cooperation in the field of the Environment and Sustainable Development” with the Macedonian Ministry of the Environment and Physical Planning. (Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and See.) This MoU included “Assessment of the projects´ potential in the fields of renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and forestry management, in the framework of CDM of the Kyoto Protocol in the Republic of Macedonia”, FYROM, 2007.

CDM Potential of Macedonia. Report of Mr. Adrian Stott. UNDP, March 2006 Study into Utilisation of Methane Gas at a Landfill Site in Skopje, Shimizu Corporation March, 2007 National Strategy for CDM for the period 2008-2012 (annex 6), February 2007 Presentation: CDM Opportunities in Macedonia, Leipzig, October, 2007 Technical Review Report, Municipal Solid Waste PPP in Skopje, Macedonia, prepared by Norman

Wietting, December 2009

These documents clearly show that the idea of landfill gas utilisation in a gas reciprocating engine, as well as flaring, has been investigated at least since the start of 2006.

In addition, a draft PDD for the Drisla Landfill was also prepared using methodology ACM 0001 - “Consolidated baseline methodology for landfill gas project activities”, in March 2010. The PDD was submitted by GESENU to the representatives of City of Skopje and PU Drisla41. However, the Consultant is not aware of the project activity scope included in the PDD or of any “Prior Consideration” communication to the Macedonian DNA and to the UNFCCC authority. The developers would have been required to do this in order to secure CDM status if the project start date was after August 2008. The project was intended to reduce GHG emission by nearly 671.990 tCO2eq for the time period 2008-2018 at a cost of € 1 million.

In conclusion, the consultant believes that all of the elements quoted above will represent a barrier to securing CDM carbon financing for the Drisla project activity in respect to the Landfill Gas-to-Energy project phase; however, it should be possible to get CDM carbon financing specifically covering the composting project if the Prior Consideration Rule is followed.

11.9 Other International Carbon Finance Mechanisms

11.9.1 Copenhagen Accord and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)

In December 2009, the International Climate Change Community met at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. The outcome of this meeting was the “Copenhagen Accord” which mentions the need for implementing emission reduction projects and mitigation actions in all countries to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

As one of the non-Annex I countries which submitted voluntary emission reduction mitigation actions as part of the Copenhagen Accord, the Republic of Macedonia should be eligible to fund those projects using the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

_________________________ 41 http://www.taskforcecee.com/activities/view/drisla-landfill-site-biogas-recovery-and-burning


155


The Copenhagen Accord has introduced three categories of such registered mitigation actions, referred to as “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action” (NAMA) as part of a “Low-Emissions Development Strategy” or (LEDS), implemented by developing countries within the context of an International Agreement with differentiated GHG Monitoring, Reporting and Verification requirements:

(i) Domestic mitigation actions, either implemented by the host country or with the support of another nation. Domestic projects can be implemented to a domestic GHG MRV regime. An international GHG MRV regime is required if the project is supported by another nation or carbon credits are to be sold on international markets.

(ii) Supported mitigation actions that are implemented with the support of donors/multilateral organisations; they are subject to an international GHG MRV regime, and

(iii) Supported mitigation actions that are implemented with the support of International Finance such as corporations or carbon markets; they are also subject to an international GHG MRV regime.

This last type of mitigation action is not explicitly mentioned in the Copenhagen Accord but is assumed to be implied and is referred to as “carbon finance actions” which are mitigation actions implemented with the support of international private players, corporations or carbon markets. This means that emission reductions achieved under such mitigation actions that are not needed for the voluntary compliance of the non-Annex I host country can be sold in the international carbon market or offset another country’s compliance with their own emission targets.

Carbon finance actions should meet the more stringent requirements of GHG MRV in line with international standards in order to enhance accountability and transparency.

Multilateral organizations such as the European Commission and World Bank have been working recently on projects for which the objectives are not only enhancing the fast-start funding mitigation actions according to the Copenhagen Accord, but also clarifying for developing countries the potential for improving GHG Monitoring, Reporting and Verification frameworks in line with International Standards, Low Carbon Emission Development Strategies and NAMAs concepts.

11.9.2 Other Climate Finance Funds

Since 2008, there are two multi-donor Trust Funds: the “Clean Technology Fund (CTF)” and the “Strategic Climate Fund” (SCF) within the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIF).

The CTF aims to support the rapid deployment of low-carbon technologies on a significant scale, with the objective of cost-effective reductions in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

The SCF is an umbrella vehicle for the receipt of donor funds and disbursements to specific funds and programmes aimed at piloting new development approaches or scaling up activities aimed at specific climate change challenges or sectoral responses. There are three funds under the SCF framework: the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), the Forest Investment Program (FIP) and the Scaling Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries Program (SREP).

In addition, climate-specific funds already exist both within and outside the UNFCCC that support projects in developing countries. These funds include the Global Environment Facility, the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Country (LDC) fund, and the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF),


156


among others. Bilateral agencies and multilateral development banks (MDBs) have also started to take climate change into account as they funnel significant resources toward energy projects in developing countries.

The voluntary carbon market also provides a market for GHG reductions, but prices are lower than the CDM market.

11.10 Carbon finance quantum

Proposed improvements at the Drisla Landfill will reduce GHG emissions relative to the “business as usual” baseline scenario. Most of these emission reductions will come from the landfill methane controls with an estimated 525,938 tCO2eq.of emission reductions generated at the landfill over the next 14 years. Under the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), these reductions can be documented under a Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) scheme, and sold as “carbon credits” on international carbon markets.

Carbon credits can be generated under a number of different programmes. The most significant is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Carbon credits generated under the CDM mechanism are termed Certified Emission Reductions, or CERs. Each CER is equivalent to one tonne of reduced carbon emission relative to the baseline.

The potential for carbon revenue depends on a number of factors, most importantly supply versus demand. Recently prices of CERs have been dropping and prices beyond 2012 are impossible to predict with any degree of certainty. The World Bank is anticipating a situation of low demand and low supply as Kyoto expires, and investors lose confidence in CDM markets. Respondents to a World Bank Survey reported that post 2012 prices were anticipated to fall within the € 6-8 range, with € 7-7.5 being the median price42. The more recent 24 June IDEA Carbon pCER (primary CER) Survey projected post 2012 prices between € 6.00 and 7.00/tonne with € 6.44 being the average. The prices assumed that validation, registration, volume and regulatory risk are taken by the buyer.

Long term prices will largely depend on the outcome of international negotiations and progress in emerging carbon markets, such as those in California and Australia. Despite near term uncertainty, many developers are pressing ahead with CDM projects, in anticipating of markets eventually falling into place.

For illustrative purposes only, on the basis € 6.4 per tonne of CO2 reductions, the Drisla Project has the potential to generate approximately € 240,000 per year or € 3.3 million over a 14 year period.

Carbon reductions can also be sold on the voluntary carbon market, in accordance with either the Voluntary Carbon Standard or the Gold Standard. Voluntary carbon credits are purchased by businesses and individuals to offset their emissions and reduce their carbon footprints. Prices in 2010 averaged US$ 5.2/tonne for VCS credits and US$ 11.4 /tonne for Gold Standard credits. At these prices, approximately € 136,000 for VCS and € 296,000 for Gold Standard credits could be generated annually.

_________________________ 42 State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011, World Bank


157


11.11 Conclusion

Emission reductions are primarily achievable through landfill methane emission reductions. Transport reductions can provide additional emission saving opportunities. Proposed incinerator modifications will increase GHG emissions.

At present, there is a great deal of uncertainty in carbon markets. International climate change discussions have not arrived to agreement on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and uncertainties remain on details of Phase III of the EU ETS. At the same time, other emission trading schemes are under development, which can increase demand for carbon credits and prices.

To determine the best CDM option for Drisla, it will be necessary to approach carbon funds directly to assess their willingness to invest in this project and under what terms.


158


12.1 Costs of the new Drisla Landfill

The proposed investments in the rehabilitation and upgrading of the Drisla landfill concern the following main components:

1. Landfill area rehabilitation and upgrading, including: Drainage layers and geo-synthetic liner (on top of existing waste body/ area) Leachate System Gas extraction- treatment system Rehabilitation Access area Detailed Design / Engineering

2. Additional Waste processing/treatment systems: (Medical) Waste Incinerator Composting plant Sorting plant C&D plant MBT plant

The costs of the landfill have been analysed, followed by the costs of the additional waste processing systems. In order to create a base case for each cost item the gate fee has been set to give the project an IRR of 15%. This level of profit would generally be acceptable to private companies operating similar facilities. In order to calculate the IRR in the base case it has been assumed that the discount rate is 7.8%. This figure is reached assuming that a soft (below market interest rate) loan can be achieved for 80% of the required capital, with the remaining 20% being funded by Drisla. For this, it has been assumed that the interest rate for the soft loan is 6% and for the self funded capital is 15%. This has been used as a base case as it is unusual for banks to be willing to fund the full capital expenditure.

A spreadsheet is provided in conjunction with the chapter that allows DLFC to run scenarios, altering the discount rate and the gate fee to be charged. For the purpose of this report, sensitivities have been run using a discount factor of 7.8% and 15% and investigating the effect of gate fee on IRR. This has been used to suggest which facilities may be the most profitable. It will be important for DLFC to determine the time profiling for the investment and operation as this has a significant impact on the total amount which would need to be borrowed at any point and the IRR. Time profiling will actually be determined by a number of factors such as economics, European and National legislation, environmental concerns etc. A time profiling has been proposed for the development of each of the items of infrastructure identified. Modification of the time profiling will result in changes to the IRR for the gate fees proposed.

A contingency of 5% has been included for all capital expenditure to cover unforeseen events or overruns. For all plant items it has been assumed that insurance will cost 0.5% of the capital cost. This is variable depending on the type of insurance that Drisla uses and the agreements reached. Unless otherwise stated for all plant it has been assumed that maintenance and repairs will cost 4% of plant and equipment capital cost per annum and 0.5% of civil capital cost per annum.

12. Financial Analysis - Drisla Landfill Investments


159


12.1.1 Capital costs - Summary

The estimated capital and operational costs for the landfill and treatment technologies are discussed in Chapter 5. A summary of the capital is shown in Table 12-1.

Table 12-1: Capital cost estimates Drisla Land fill rehabilitation/upgrading EUR (*1000) EUR (*1000)

I. . Landfill remediation works 16,944

. Capping and sealing civil works 13,971

. Phase preparation 600

. Reception and access building works 3,446

. Leachate collection 442

. Leachate treatment 3,400

. Gas collection and treatment 1,639

Engineering / Supervision 2,022

Miscellaneous/unforeseen (5%) 2,123

Total 44,588

II. Additional facilities

. (Medical) waste incinerator 1,680

. Composting plant 1,120

. Sorting plant 2,512

. C & D plant 1,056

. MBT plant 31,485

Total 37,853 GRAND TOTAL 82,441

A financial model has been generated to determine the potential gate fees. The implementation programme assumed for the modelling was included in Figure 5.29. The annual cost breakdown is shown in Table 12-2 and Table 12-3.

It should be noted that the dates for commissioning the works are likely to vary depending on the affordability, the availability of funding, legislation and environmental and political requirements. As a result, the values in the tables should be viewed with caution and the actual spending profile should be re-examined through the financial model to demonstrate the impact on the gate fees to be charged.


160


Table 12-2 Capital costs for all potential infrastructure (2012 – 2026) Total 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Landfill 44,587,743 11,960,135 10,689,468 1,126,755 218,144 1,283,599 3,748,500 1,423,357 - 139,758

1,283,599 - 1,423,357 - 139,758 1,283,599

Incinerator 1,679,633 - - 1,679,633 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Composting 1,120,350 - - 1,120,350 - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 1,055,644 - - 1,055,644 - - - - - - - - - - - -

MRF 2,512,344 - 2,512,344 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MBT 31,485,300 - - - - - - - - 15,742,650

15,742,650 - - - - -

82,441,013 11,960,135 13,201,813 4,982,381 218,144 1,283,599 3,748,500 1,423,357 - 15,882,408

17,026,249 - 1,423,357 - 139,758 1,283,599

Table 12-3 Capital costs for all potential infrastructure (2027 – 2043) 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043

Landfill -

1,423,357 -

139,758

1,283,599 -

1,423,357 -

139,758

1,283,599 -

1,423,357 - 139,758

1,283,599 -

1,327,569

Incinerator - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Composting - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MRF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MBT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- 1,423,357 - 139,758 1,283,599 - 1,423,357 - 139,758 1,283,599 - 1,423,357 - 139,758 1,283,599 - 1,327,569


161


12.2 Financial profitability of the project

The Consultant has used the cost estimates for each of the landfill and additional facility items to create simple financial models. These models can be used for comparison and in order to aid decisions with respect to investment. All costs are real and based on 2011 prices. Inflation has not been taken into consideration so all IRR calculations show real IRR.

12.2.1 Overview\investments

Detailed technical descriptions of each of the items and the related investment cost estimates are given in Table 5-1 for the landfill remediation costs and Table 5-5 for the new landfill construction. Other costs relating to the other facility infrastructure are included in the relevant sub-sections of Section 5.

12.2.2 Estimated annual operational costs

The estimated operational costs are shown in Table 12-4. The assumptions behind the costs are discussed in chapter 5.

Table 12-4: Estimated annual operating costs - landfill Main Items € (*1000/yr)

1 Salary Costs (direct workers) 150.7

2 Overhead/office costs 75.3

3 Soil covering (daily) 20.0

4 Energy/fuel consumption 42.8

5 Maintenance & Repair costs 230.8

6 Leachate treatment costs 210.7

7 Gas extraction costs 53.6

8 Gas utilisation costs 106.8

7 Miscellaneous/contingencies 44.5

Annual Operational Expenditure (€/yr) 935.2

12.2.3 Financial analysis/Disposal Fee calculation

In order to estimate the cost to DLFC of the landfill the development costs have been profiled to take into account the phasing proposed. The initial sealing of the old landfill, gas extraction and access infrastructure will need to be carried out before the new phases can be developed, meaning that is a significant upfront payment. However, the remaining capital costs have been profiled to allow for a maximum income from gate fees to be earned before the next phase is developed. This minimises the size of the loan required to upgrade the landfill infrastructure. The proposed financial profile is shown in Table 12-5 and Table 12-6. It is assumed that 150,000tpa is landfilled, although the actual amount year on year will be variable and is likely to be affected by the developments proposed.

In order to remediate the landfill, develop the access and reception infrastructure, develop the first two phases of tipping, install a gas extraction system to the existing waste, provide short term leachate management €22.9 million would be required.


162



163


Table 12-5 Estimated spending profile for landfill capex and opex (2012 – 2027) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Waste Input

4,650,000

-

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

Leachate, surface water and ground stabilisation

422,513 -

-

71,098

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sealing layer

15,771,260

7,885,630

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Perimeter channel

750,000 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Capping

13,971,144 -

-

-

1,164,262

-

1,164,262

-

-

1,164,262

-

1,164,262

-

-

1,164,262

-

Reception and access work

3,446,300

1,723,150

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase preparation

600,000

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

Leachate collection and treatment

3,842,596

36,883

-

36,883

-

3,400,000

36,883

-

36,883

-

-

36,883

-

36,883

-

-

Gas collection

616,584 -

-

39,882

-

-

39,882

-

39,882

-

-

39,882

-

39,882

-

-

Grid connection and gas utilisation facility

1,022,000 -

1,022,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Engineering supervision

2,022,120

484,783

51,100

9,893

58,213

170,000

64,551

-

6,338

58,213

-

64,551

-

6,338

58,213

-

Contingency

2,123,226

509,022

53,655

10,388

61,124

178,500

67,779

-

6,655

61,124

-

67,779

-

6,655

61,124

-

Income from electricity

(26,100,000) -

-

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

Operating costs

28,993,717

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

Total Cost 47,481,460 11,624,749 2,062,036 253,425 1,318,880 3,783,781 1,458,638 35,281 175,039 1,318,880 35,281 1,458,638 35,281 175,039 1,318,880 35,281


164


Table 12-6 Estimated spending profile for landfill capex and opex (2028 – 2043) 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043

Waste Input

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

Leachate, surface water and ground stabilisation

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sealing layer

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Perimeter channel

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Capping

1,164,262

-

-

1,164,262

-

1,164,262

-

-

1,164,262

-

1,164,262

-

-

1,164,262

-

1,164,262

Reception and access work

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase preparation

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

50,000

-

50,000

-

-

-

Leachate collection and treatment

36,883

-

36,883

-

-

36,883

-

36,883

-

-

36,883

-

36,883

-

-

-

Gas collection

39,882

-

39,882

-

-

39,882

-

39,882

-

-

39,882

-

39,882

-

-

39,882

Grid connection and gas utilisation facility

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Engineering supervision

64,551

-

6,338

58,213

-

64,551

-

6,338

58,213

-

64,551

-

6,338

58,213

-

60,207

Contingency

67,779

-

6,655

61,124

-

67,779

-

6,655

61,124

-

67,779

-

6,655

61,124

-

63,218

Income from electricity

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

(900,000)

Operating costs

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

935,281

-

Total Cost 1,423,357 0 139,758 1,283,599 0 1,423,357 0 139,758 1,283,599 0 1,423,357 0 139,758 1,283,599 0 1,327,569


165


The full costs for all of the landfill related infrastructure requires a gate fee of €18.15/tonne in order to achieve an IRR of 7.8% and a required gate fee of €25.96 to achieve an IRR of 15%. This is over double the currently charged rate of €7.9 to €11.1/tonne so could realistically be difficult to implement. However, it would allow the landfill to be brought into line with EU requirements and provide a profit to DLFC. An IRR of 15% may be required to attract investment, which may not be possible given the significant increase in cost to PE Komunalna Higiena which may not be sustainable.

The following comments should be noted: The calculated required gate fee is significantly above the present disposal fee charged (€ 10/ton,

mainly to PE Komunalna Higiena). This is to be expected, as the capital costs of significant items such as the fully engineered landfill phasing, gas and leachate control measures, and leachate treatment are not currently covered by the gate fee.

It may be that PE Komunalna Higiena and the City of Skopje are unable to accept a significant increase of the average gate fee. If it is possible to apply for funding on a grant basis, the required gate fee could be reduced. Further, it may be possible to make some savings from the estimated costs if some of the existing buildings and infrastructure could be reused.

It should also be analysed whether, through ‘financial engineering’, the annual capital costs can be significantly reduced. When a PPP or JV with private sector is entered into the total investment costs are not usually reduced. The private company may provide/pay for part of the investments, however the capex will still be included in the disposal fee calculations.

The necessary reduction of the estimated investment costs (capex) may come from: − significant reduction of the total LF rehabilitation investment costs (i.e. simplified technical solutions,

fewer new facilities, value engineering, phased implementation) − increased own investment/funding from the City of Skopje/Drisla − better loan conditions (lower interest rate (modelled at 6%), repayment-interest exemption period for

the first years, longer loan periods etc.)

The Consultant has modelled the effect of a range of discount factors and gate fees which could be charged in order to provide DLFC with information to make decisions about the best approach for funding and gate fee setting. The tables below show the IRRs which can be obtained for the landfill rehabilitation alone. They do not include the other facilities which are covered below. The payback period is shown from the year that the capital costs are incurred. If required, further scenarios can be run in the financial model.

Table 12-7: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (landfill) 7.8% discount rate

Gate Fee (€) Project IRR Undiscounted Payback Period (years)

18.15 7.8% 14.4

15.0 4.9% 18.5

17.5 7.2% 15.0

20.0 9.5% 13.1

22.5 11.7% 11.4

25.0 14.1% 10.0

27.5 16.5% 9.1

30.0 19.1% 8.4

32.5 21.9% 7.8


166


Table 12-8: Discount factor sensitivity analysis (landfill) Variable discount rates

Discount rate Gate Fee (€) Undiscounted Payback Period (years)

5% 15.09 18.4

10% 20.60 12.6

15% 25.96 9.6

20% 30.82 8.2

12.3 (Medical) Waste Incinerator

A summary is given of the proposed investment, the related annual operating costs and the financial analysis associated with the medical waste incinerator. The incinerator is designed to treat up to 2,000 tonnes of waste per annum and is assumed to be constructed in 2014 to start operation at the beginning of 2015.

12.3.1 Overview investment costs

A detailed technical description of the incinerator and the related investment cost estimate is given in Section 5.10. The estimated capital costs of the incinerator as shown in Table 5-38 and Table 5-39. These costs are based on quotes from incinerator technology providers. The costs are replicated in Table 12-9.

Table 12-9: Medical Waste Incinerator Capital Costs Task Cost

Civils and mechanical 1,599,650

Utility Connection Included in landfill connection


Total 1,679,633

12.3.2 Annual Operating costs

It is expected that 1 full time skilled operator will be required to manage the plant with a further unskilled operative on-site for each of three 8 hour shifts. The operator will be responsible for running the facility, carrying out maintenance and monitoring the performance of the plant. Overhead and office costs are assumed to be 50% of salary costs. The facility would share an office with the landfill office so that overhead costs should be relatively low. The maintenance and repair costs are as stated by the technology provider but appear lower than would generally be expected.

Table 12-10: Medical Waste Incinerator Operating Costs Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 16,080

Planned maintenance (three visits per year) 75,900



Total 353,230


167


12.3.3 Incineration Fee / ton

The required incineration gate fee per tonne using a discount factor of 7.8% is €270 and it is €318 using a discount factor of 15%. All costs are related to the expected annual throughput of 2,000 tonnes/year.

The existing gate fee for the incinerator is €0.70/kg, or €700 per tonne. This suggests that it would be profitable to invest in a new incinerator, if the quantity of medical waste identified can be sourced. If this quantity is not available, then the facility would need to be operated on a batched basis, which would result in a higher gate fee for the lower quantity of wastes. It was estimated that a fee of approximately €500 per tonne would be required for a discount rate of 7.8% and a throughput of 500 tonnes per annum. This is still less than the existing gate fee.

The majority of the savings are made by having a greater throughput to cover the capital and operational costs. Other factors will also lead to savings such as reductions in the present number of staff linked to the operations of the incinerator compared to the existing incinerator.

The significant reduction in gate fee demonstrates that it would be feasible to charge at a discount factor of 15% and therefore the incinerator could easily be funded through a fully commercial loan. It would also be feasible to fund the facility using equity at a cost of 20%, if the funds are available.

Sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to show the different IRRs which can be obtained charging a range of gate fees so that the gate fee can be optimised by DLFC. If required, further scenarios can be run in the financial model.

Table 12-11: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (incinerator) 7.8% discount rate


270.29 7.8% 10.0

250.0 4.2% 12.4

275.0 8.6% 9.5

300.0 12.4% 7.8

325.0 16.0% 6.7

350.0 19.4% 5.8

375.0 22.7% 5.2

Table 12-12: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (incinerator) Variable discount rates


5% 254.10 11.8

10% 283.96 8.8

15% 317.66 7.0

20% 354.18 5.7


168


12.4 Composting facility


A detailed technical description of the composting facility and related investment costs estimate is given in Section 5.9. The main capital costs are shown in Table 12-13.

Table 12-13: Composting Facility Capital Costs Task Cost

Civils 600,000

Plant and machinery 456,500


Contingency 53,325

Total 1,119,825


It is estimated that 2 full time operatives and a part time driver. The estimated operational costs are shown in Table 12-14.

Table 12-14: Composting Facility Operational Costs Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 12,600



Insurance 5,300


Total 95,125

The maintenance and repair costs are assumed to be 10% of the composting equipment costs per annum due to the high level of wear that the equipment will be subject to. For example, the shredder teeth will need regular (weekly) replacing to maintain suitable material size for optimum composting.

12.4.3 Composting Costs / ton

It is assumed that there will be no income from selling compost in the first years of the project. The compost should be good quality and therefore suitable for use on land but there are associated transport costs with moving the compost to suitable locations and marketing costs associated with encouraging uptake of compost use, which are likely to offset any income gained from initial compost sales.

The required composting gate fee per tonne using a discount factor of 7.8% is €18.66 and it is €24.78 using a discount factor of 15%. These figures give rise to undiscounted payback periods of 11.2 and 7.3 years respectively so may allow for a bank loan. These figures are also lower than the cost of landfilling so would potentially offer a saving to the waste producer. However, this would need to be offset with the additional cost of separate green waste collection which would need to be charged to the waste producer.

If the current gate fee of approximately €10/tonne was charges the IRR would never be positive. Further, at a 7.8% discount rate the facility will not achieve undiscounted payback until after the end of its useful


169


economic life. This means that composting will only be viable if it is competing with the new landfill gate fee, not the current gate fee. Therefore the timing for introducing composting would be important to manage.

The environmental benefits from diverting organic material from landfill (reducing methane emissions to the environment) are not costed in this model due to the uncertainty of future pricing and of there being a market in Macedonia. If the carbon saved could be traded this would reduce the gate fee required or increase the profit that could be made.

The tables below show sensitivity analyses for changing the gate fee and the discount factor. If required, further scenarios can be run in the financial model.

Table 12-15: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (composting facility) 7.8% discount rate


18.66 7.8% 11.2

15.0 2.6% 17.0

17.5 6.3% 12.5

20.0 9.5% 10.0

22.5 12.4% 8.4

25.0 15.2% 7.2

27.5 17.9% 6.4

30.0 20.6% 5.8

Table 12-16: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (composting facility) Variable discount rates


5% 16.59 13.8

10% 20.42 9.7

15% 24.78 7.3

20% 29.47 5.9

12.5 Sorting Costs/ton


A detailed technical description of the sorting facility and related investment costs estimate is given in Section 5.7. The cost analysis that follows is based on the provision of a dirty MRF receiving 45,000tpa. The main capital costs are shown in Table 12-17.

Table 12-17: Sorting Facility Capital Costs

Task Cost (€)

Civils (infrastructure, paving and drainage) 1,336,800

Utility Connection Covered in previous cost estimates

Plant and Equipment 2 No. trommels 120,000


170


Task Cost (€)

2 No. Wheeled Loader 90,000

2 No. Conveyor / Picking Line (incl additional conveyors) 168,000

2 No. Overband magnet 102,000

2 No. Balers 80,000

2 No. Hoppers 22,000

Total for plant and equipment 582,000



Total 2,512,344


For the dirty MRF, it is estimated that a foreman, 6 drivers and 30 operatives will be required. The estimated operational costs are shown in Table 12-18.

Table 12-18 Operating costs – dirty MRF Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 200,700





Total 586,087

12.5.3 Sorting Costs / ton

The required MRF gate fee per tonne using a discount factor of 7.8% is €7.50 and it is €10.83 using a discount factor of 15%. These costs would be additional to the landfill fee charged for the proportion of waste that is still sent to landfill. Therefore it would only be financially viable if there are either financial incentives to recycle waste or non-fiscal drivers to divert waste from landfill. This could include a legal requirement to pre-treat waste before sending it to landfill.

Generally a MRF is only feasible if there are pre secured markets for the recyclable materials. This allows the gate fee to be consistently reduced. Currently there is a risk factor of 20% included in the model to allow for the fluctuations that are seen with respect to recyclates prices. If there are secure markets the risk factor can be removed or reduced.

The tables below show sensitivity analyses for changing the gate fee and the discount factor. If required, further scenarios can be run in the financial model.


171


Table 12-19: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (sorting facility)

Table 12-20: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (sorting facility) Variable discount rates


5% 6.38 13.0

10% 8.46 7.9

15% 10.83 5.3

20% 13.38 3.8

12.6 C & D processing facility


A detailed technical description of the C&D sorting facility and related investment costs estimate is given in Section 5.8. The capital costs are shown in Table 12-21. It is assumed that the C&D waste sorting plant will be constructed in 2014 and will commence operations at the beginning of 2015.

Table 12-21: C&D Processing Facility Capital Costs Task Cost

Civils

Hardstanding 187,500

All activities take place under cover (optional) 300,000

Total Civils 487,500

Electromechanical

Orange Peel Grab 15,000

Excavator 110,000

Loading Shovel 45,000

Trommel Screen 85,000

Conveyor / Picking Station 75,000

7.8% discount rate


7.50 7.8% 9.7

5.0 0.9% 21.3

6.0 4.0% 14.6

7.0 6.6% 11.0

8.0 9.0% 8.7

9.0 11.2% 7.2

10.0 13.3% 6.1

11.0 15.3% 5.2

12.0 17.3% 4.5

13.0 19.3% 4.0

14.0 21.2% 3.6


172


Task Cost

Crusher / Magnet 140,000

Total electro-mechanical plant and equipment 470,000

Design & Supervision (@ 5%) 47,875


Total 1,055,644


It is assumed that 8 employees will be needed to operate the plant. It is assumed that 125,000tpa can be sourced in the first year of operation (2015), with the full capacity of waste being sourced from 2016 onwards. No income is assumed for the sale of aggregates as generally the cost of transportation of the material offsets any income earned. The annual operating costs are shown in Table 12-22. The majority of the costs arise from energy and fuel requirements. Crushing material to make it a suitable size for use as aggregate is highly energy intensive. It is estimated that 400,000litres of diesel a year will be needed. This energy cost is in line with that seen at other similar facilities.

Table 12-22: C&D Processing Facility Operating Costs Task Cost per annum

Staff costs 47,700




Insurance costs 2,275


Total 611,586

12.6.3 C&D processing costs/ton

The required C&D processing gate fee per tonne using a discount factor of 7.8% is €2.87 and it is €3.17 using a discount factor of 15%. These costs are significantly lower than the current cost of landfilling; however the majority of C&D waste currently is disposed of at dumpsites which are assumed to be free. The driver for the correct disposal of C&D waste will have to be regulatory in order for there to be motivation for commercial entities to pay for waste disposal when they currently do not.

The proposed C&D processing facility has the capacity to treat 250,000tpa with the operating costs mainly comprising energy/fuel costs. This means that if there was a lower tonnage of waste being treated at the facility the variable operating costs could reduce in line with tonnage reductions. However a reduced tonnage would necessitate and increased gate fee to cover capital and fixed operating costs. There is a risk that it is difficult to attract third party waste to the facility when the competing outlets are free. It would be beneficial if are penalties for disposing of waste in dumpsites were introduced as this would reduce the risk of developing a C&D processing plant.

Scenarios have been run comparing a range of gate fees and discount factors with respect to the C&D processing plant. The results are shown in the tables below. Further scenarios can be run in the financial model, if required.


173


Table 12-23: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (C&D facility) 7.8% discount rate


2.87 7.8% 12.1

2.75 4.6% 16.1

3.00 11.1% 9.5

3.25 16.6% 7.0

3.50 21.7% 5.7

Table 12-24: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (C&D facility) Variable discount rates


5% 2.76 15.4

10% 2.95 10.2

15% 3.17 7.6

20% 3.41 6.1

Consideration has been given to the anticipated gate fees for reduced throughputs. Assessments were undertaken based on throughputs of 50,000tpa and 100,000tpa. In these instances, the capital costs of equipment will not change. The operational costs will change. The main variation will be that the energy/utility costs will be lower for lower throughputs. Other operational costs such as staffing will remain unchanged. For this financial review, it has been assumed that the energy/utility costs are proportional to the throughput, but all other operational and capital costs are unchanged.

Table 12-25: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (C&D facility) with varying throughputs 7.8% discount rate

50,000 tpa 100,000tpa

Gate Fee (€) Project IRR

Undiscounted Payback Period (years) Gate Fee (€) Project IRR

Undiscounted Payback Period (years)

6.21 7.8% 12.1 4.12 7.8% 12.1

5.25 2.1% 21.0 3.75 3.5% 17.8

5.50 3.7% 17.5 4.00 6.5% 13.4

6.00 6.7% 13.3 4.25 9.1% 10.9

6.50 9.3% 10.8 4.50 11.5% 9.3

7.00 11.7% 9.2 4.75 13.8% 8.1

7.50 13.9% 8.0 5.00 15.9% 7.2

8.00 16.1% 7.2 5.25 18.0% 6.6

8.50 18.1% 6.6 5.50 20.2% 6.0

9.00 20.2% 6.0


174


Table 12-26: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (C&D facility) Variable discount rates

50,000 tpa 100,000tpa

Discount rate Gate Fee (€)

Undiscounted Payback Period (years) Discount rate Gate Fee (€)

Undiscounted Payback Period (years)

5% 5.71 15.4 5% 3.87 15.4

10% 6.65 10.2 10% 4.34 10.2

15% 7.75 7.6 15% 4.89 7.6

20% 8.96 6.1 20% 5.49 6.1

It is evident that the price per tonne is significantly affected by the input rate and to make an economic case for developing the facility, it will be necessary to guarantee a minimum tonnage of C&D type wastes.

12.7 MBT Facility

A detailed technical description of the MBT Facility and related investment costs estimate is given in Section 5.11. The capital costs are shown in Table 12-27. The MBT facility will be more expensive that the other facilities and will treat a significant capacity of the waste that is currently sent direct to landfill. Therefore it is assumed that the facility will take 2 years to construct, in 2020 and 2021 in order to commence operations at the beginning of 2022. It is important to note that the introduction of the MBT could reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill and therefore extend the life of the landfill, if alternative waste is not source for Drisla.

Table 12-27: MBT Facility Capital Costs Investment components € (*1000)

1 Civil and building works 8,800

2 Utility connection 825

3 Equipment (mechanical and electrical) 19,921

4 Engineering / Supervision 440

5 Miscellaneous/unforeseen 1,499

Total investment costs 31,485


It has been assumed that there are 15 full time members of staff including the plant manager and this number includes both operational and maintenance staff. The cost of onward disposal or sale of the outputs from the facility is not included due to the level of uncertainty over potential costs and markets in the future. It will be important to review this closer to the development time in order for informed decisions to be made about investing in an MBT facility. The annual operating costs are shown in Table 12-28.

Table 12-28: MBT Facility Operating Costs Task Cost per annum €

Staff costs 88,110 *

Energy & Utility costs 564,400**




175


Task Cost per annum €


Total €1,568,018

12.7.2 MBT Facility costs/ton

The required MBT facility gate fee per tonne using a discount factor of 7.8% is €31.14 and it is €45.72 using a discount factor of 15%. These costs are significantly higher than the proposed new costs of landfilling. The actual cost of treatment could be higher than the gate fees shown if residues from the process continue require landfilling. However, it is not proposed to develop the MBT facility until 2022, by which time costs may have altered slightly and European legislation limiting the amount of organic waste that can be sent to landfill may be more stringent.

The Consultant does not believe that the MBT would offer a suitable process to invest in currently. However sensitivity analyses are included below for completeness and further analyses could be undertaken, if required.

Table 12-29: Gate fee sensitivity analysis (MBT facility) 7.8% discount rate


31.14 7.8% 13.1

25.0 4.1% 17.4

27.5 5.7% 15.3

30.0 7.2% 13.7

32.5 8.5% 12.5

35.0 9.9% 11.6

37.5 11.1% 10.8

40.0 12.3% 10.1

42.5 13.5% 9.5

45.0 14.7% 9.1

47.5 15.8% 8.7

Table 12-30: Discount rate sensitivity analysis (MBT facility) Variable discount rates


5% 26.40 16.2

10% 35.26 11.5

15% 45.72 9.0

20% 57.34 7.5

12.8 Financing Options

In order to investigate the financing options that could be used by the Drisla Landfill Company (DLFC) it has been assumed that the first items which will be developed, and therefore require investment, will be the landfill and the MRF. The landfill works that must be carried out initially (i.e. up to 2015) include the sealing of the current landfill and the access and reception infrastructure. This will be undertaken in parallel with


176


construction the first two phases of the new landfill, installing a grid connection and gas engine system. This will have a total capital cost of €24.0 million over the four year period.

The construction of the dirty MRF will be undertaken to remove recyclable material from the waste generated by the urban municipalities (Centar, Aerodrom and Karposh). The MRF will have a capacity of 45,000tpa and will process mixed waste to remove plastics and metals so that they can be recycled. It will have a capital cost of €2.5 million.

It is important to note that the gate fee that this analysis shows does not include any additional funds for future work. It may be necessary to add an amount to the gate fee in order to fund future investment for further phases. Each further phase of the landfill development will cost approximately €1.3 million and will last approximately 2.5 years depending on the tonnage of waste delivered to the site each year. The MRF gate fee would be additional to the landfill gate fee, however any material removed for recycling would not then be sent to landfill, increasing the capacity of waste that can be accepted onto site each year.

The financing options for the capital include: borrowing from a bank, raising equity internally, using a PPP contract or attracting subsidies, or a combination of the above.

In order to run sensitivity analyses, assumptions have been made about the cost of borrowing and the options for debt: equity ratios.

Bank funding involves taking a loan from a bank and repaying it over a period of time through the

income earned as a gate fee. The amount of interest charged by the bank will depend on a range of factors, including the risk of the investment, the repayment period and the amount of money borrowed. The interest rate charged would also depend on the type of bank from which the money is borrowed. Fully commercial banks are likely to charge a higher rate of interest than development banks. Generally banks will not lend the full project value to a company and will require the company to invest a proportion of the required capital from its own equity. As a rule this is a minimum of 20% equity, although it is highly dependant on the bank involved and the specific negotiations carried out. For this project, it has been assumed that the relevant discount factor for debt is 7.8%, irrespective of the amount of money borrowed.

The repayment period has been set at the useful economic life of each plant and the total operational life of the landfill. Banks are most likely to find the acceptable and favourable if there is a long term contract in place with PE Komunalna Higiena guaranteeing the delivery of waste to the Drisla landfill. Any contract would need to allow for the treatment of the waste to be changed, for instance if a composting facility was brought on line. Any additional capacity made available through diverting waste from landfill could then be sold to third parties where possible. This will give a bank security over the potential income streams during the repayment period.

Equity involves individuals or an organisation investing in the DLFC, or DLFC investing its own cash into

the project. From analysis of DLFC’s financial statements and budgets, it does not currently have enough capital or cash to independently fund the landfill and MRF investments. Therefore the equity would need to be externally sourced. In the case of Drisla this would be from the City of Skopje, which is DLFC’s major stakeholder. It is assumed that the cost of equity would be 20% if sourced externally and


177


lower if sourced from DLFC’s major stakeholder. The Consultant has not carried out an analysis of the City of Skopje’s financial position so no comment can be made on the amount of funding that may be available or the terms that it may be provided under. It is recommended that the financial capacity of the City of Skopje to raise finances be assessed in the future, as they will be the main funder for the works at the landfill.

However, according to recent S&P ratings, the credit rating for the Republic of Macedonia is at the moment ‘BB’. This should be used to guide the financial position of the municipality of Skopje /Government of Macedonia.

The term BB is described as follows:

BB, B, CCC, CC, and C

Obligations rated 'BB', 'B', 'CCC', 'CC', and 'C' are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. 'BB' indicates the least degree of speculation and 'C' the highest. While such obligations will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposures to adverse conditions.

BB

An obligation rated 'BB' is less vulnerable to non-payment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions which could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

The financial position of the republic of Macedonia thus doesn’t qualify in the AAA-A range, and also not even a BBB status. Therefore the financial position is not strong, and even subject to ongoing major uncertainties and exposure to risks of inadequacy to meet their financial obligations.

Clearly Macedonia’s BB rating should be viewed in relation to the current financial crisis of some EU states (i.e. ‘C/D’ status of Greece and some other EU countries, which are possible default threats). This may make negotiations for borrowing substantial amounts between the City of Skopje and commercial banks rather difficult. The support/backing of a financial institution such as the IFC may help in these discussions in relation to this investment. It is suggested that in this respect, that the IFC representatives undertake consultation with the ProCredit Bank (consortium of some EU banks), or other local/international banks in Skopje, in relation to the amounts available to borrow and the interest rates that would be incurred for a loan to be provided to the DLFC for upgrading the Drisla landfill. Based on results of these consultations, more attuned financial and sensitivity analyses could be undertaken.

Public Private Partnership (PPP) usually involves a private company providing the capital for the project

and charging a gate fee to the DLFC for each tonne of waste that is processed at the facility(ies). The ability to borrow the money is determined based on the financial standing of the private company and the strength of the contract between the DLFC and the company. This is particularly affected by the risk allocated to the contractor and the certainty of receiving payment for services. The rates that the private company will be charged by banks, or will charge Drisla if the funding is from the company’s own financing, will be at typical commercial terms. The Consultant has assumed that the discount rate used by a private company would be 15%. These figures have been modelled to show the gate fee and real cost over 25 years to Drisla.


178


Generally the PPP model is more expensive over the full life of a contract than direct borrowing. However it may reduce the risk that DLFC is exposed to and will keep the cash flow requirements constant over the life of the project.

Subsidies may offer the most affordable method for raising money for the landfill and MRF investment

as they may have very low interest rates or a significant period before repayment is required. However, in order to attract a subsidy or qualify for a specific loan there may be conditions that the DLFC would need to meet and environmental benefits would need to be shown. As a result of the extensive range of potential subsidies that could be applied for, these have not been modelled.


179


Landfill remediation Gate Fee (€) Annual gate fee cost to DLFC (€)

Repayment period assumed Annual income to DLFC Required level of equity provision (€)

PPP (full investment by private sector)

21.95 3,292,500 n/a n/a 0

Maximum Debt (80%) 16.71 n/a 25 years from operation commencement

Gate fee: €2,506,500 - electricity income of

€900,000 used to reduce the gate fee

3,629,456

60% debt 19.43 n/a 25 years from operation commencement

Gate fee: €2,914,500 -electricity income of


7,258,912




10,888,367




14,517,823

Equity funding 27.06 n/a n/a but plant UEL is 25 years Gate fee: €4,059,000 -electricity income of


18,147,279

Soft loan funding (4% discount factor)

9.94 n/a 25 years from operation commencement

Gate fee: €1,491,000 - electricity income of


0


180


MRF Gate Fee (€) Annual gate fee cost to DLFC (€)

Repayment period assumed Annual income to DLFC Required level of equity provision (€)

PPP (full investment by private sector)

10.83 487,350 25 years from contract commencement

n/a 0

Maximum Debt (80%) 8.56 n/a 25 years from operation commencement

Recyclate income €529,000 used to reduce

the gate fee

502,469

60% debt 9.70 n/a 25 years from contract commencement


the gate fee

1,004,938



the gate fee

1,507,406



the gate fee

2,009,875

Equity funding 13.38 n/a 25 years from contract commencement


the gate fee

2,512,344

Soft loan funding (4% discount factor)

6.01 n/a 25 years from contract commencement


the gate fee

0


181


Using the assumptions outlined above it would be most cost effective to borrow the maximum amount of money possible to fund the investment. This is because debt should be cheaper than equity and DLFC is unable to raise sufficient equity for more than approximately 20% of the total capital expenditure required. Debt will be particularly attractive if the interest charged by the lending bank can be minimised and good terms can be agreed.

PPP is more affordable than a debt: equity ratio of 41:59. Therefore if banks are unwilling to lend more than 40% of the required investment PPP is likely to be more affordable. However the decision about the funding route used needs to take into account cash flows, risk allocation and Municipality preference.

12.8.1 Investment Size

The investment size will depend on the infrastructure that is delivered. The first step should be to remediate the existing landfill to bring it into line with EU legislation in order to ensure that there is a continuous disposal point for Skopje’s waste. The investment for this is recommended to be the amount required to remediate the existing landfill, upgrade the roads and access infrastructure and build the first two phases of the new landfill. The first phase should be constructed so that it can begin receiving waste and the second should either be constructed at the same time or in time for the first phase to be filled, again allowing continuous waste disposal. This investment is the amount required until 2015. This investment will total €24.0 million.

After 2015, there will be a continued requirement for landfill work, with the construction of each phase and the capping and bunding when it is full. This investment, which totals a further €20.6 million, is not included within the initial amount but it will be important to set an initial landfill gate fee which takes the future investment into account. Due to fact that the current cost of landfilling is lower than it will need to be it may be beneficial to increase the gate fee on a phased basis, ensuring that the amount at any point covers the required repayment and profit for the investment to date. This will mean that the final landfill gate fee is higher than it would be if the gate fee was set at an initial rate to cover future investments.

Of the waste treatment technologies, the MBT facility is the most expensive, at €31.5 million, and offers the fewest benefits. Given that a dirty MRF is proposed and the residues from the MBT will require landfilling it is recommended that an MBT facility is not developed unless additional measures are required to meet future legislative targets.


182


Drisla landfill is the primary disposal site for the City of Skopje. The location of the landfill is naturally suitable for waste disposal, but needs technical improvements to meet statutory landfill standards and to minimise emissions. The site requires upgrading to minimise potential pollution to the surrounding environment and to reduce nuisance impacts.

The project includes a review of the financial situation of the DLFC in order to assess the financial capacity to attract external loans, in particular relating to the proposed investments to rehabilitate/upgrade the existing landfill area and related infrastructure and facilities, totalling up to €48 million, or €77 million if the MBT facility is included.

13.1 Organisational Structure and Staffing

13.1.1 Organisational Set Up

On September 2009 the Council of the City of Skopje adopted the ‘Resolution for incorporating a public company utility waste disposal’.

Some of the main articles of the resolution with respect to performance criteria, the organisation structure and financial issues are as follows:

Article 4;

The Company is founded in order to provide a well organised and high standard solid municipal waste treatment and disposal operation. The company shall carry out the following activities: 38.2 – Processing and removal of waste 38.2.1- Processing and removal of non hazardous waste 38.2.2- Processing and removal of hazardous waste.

Article 6 The City of Skopje transfers to the Company the management and the use of the entire property and

assets of the existing sanitary disposal centre at Drisla, that is operating within the Public Company Komunalna Higiena Skopje, based on the inventory list of the assets with the condition from 31.12.2008

Article 7 The City of Skopje, PE Drisla and PE Komunalna Higiena Skopje shall execute a separate agreement

that shall regulate, (amongst others): − relations regarding the take-over of workers from JP Komunalna Higiena Skopje and their

appropriate distribution in JP Deponija Drisla − development and promotion of the process of collecting, transporting and disposing of waste.

Article 8 The PE Drisla, with its entire properties and assets, is owned by the City of Skopje

Article 10 Legal and natural persons may invest in the Company according to this Law.

13. Drisla Landfill Company Financial Status


183


Article 14 Bodies of the Company are: Management Board, Board for the control of the material and financial

operations and the director.

More PE legal status details can be found in the related Central Register of Macedonia, under nr. 6533191

13.1.2 Employee Numbers

The number of employees presently (2011) employed by DLFC is 125, including 72 in operations and 53 in finance and administration. There are an additional 13 temporary workers. These numbers are higher than would be expected in a standard landfill site. The staff numbers are based on a 3 shift, 24 hour operation as the main client, Komunalna Higiena, does not have sufficient capacity, i.e. trucks, to collect all of the waste in Skopje during the day. Once extra trucks have been purchased, which is expected to occur within a relatively short period of time, it may be assumed that the operations at the Drisla LF could return back to normal daily (2 shift) operations. This will significantly reduce the existing operations workforce.

In the Consultants’ opinion, 38 people are required for managing and operating the rehabilitated landfill and related facilities, from an operational perspective. This is considerably less than the number of staff employed at present.

It should be noted that that presently the overall overhead and finance/administrative staff account for approximately 42% of the total work force. This is an unusually high proportion and the senior management at the DLFC should consider carrying out a review of the roles undertaken in order to reduce the number of employees to a more sustainable level. At a typical waste management facility it would be reasonable to expect that the percentage of staff holding administrative and financial roles to make up about 20% of the total number of employees.

13.2 Financial Status Drisla Operating Company

The DLFC commenced financially autonomous operation in 2009, meaning that there is limited historical data available. The most up to date figures are presented in attached the internal reports ‘Financial results 2009-2010’and ‘Public Company Landfill “DRISLA” – Skopje; Financial Plan for 2011, Skopje - January 2011)’. An English translation of the most relevant parts of the report is given in Appendix Y of Volume 2. The following sections summarises and comments on the main items of the profit and loss (P&L) statement and Balance Sheet.

13.2.1 Profit & Loss Statement (2010-2011)

Drisla LF Operating Company Profit & Loss Statements 2010 - 2011 Percentage

change

MKD (x 1000) € €

REVENUES 2010 2011 2010 2011

Waste disposal/treatment

Municipal/domestic waste (City Skopje-other) 92,108 77,576 1,509,967 1,271,738 -15.8%

Medical waste 31,995 32,275 524,508 529,098 0.9%

Other wastes* 10,288 10,334 168,656 169,410 0.4%

Other/new activities 0 10 0 164 N/A

Extra ordinary incomes 37 39 607 639 5.3%

Provision uncollectible bills -13,075 -17,500 -214,344 -286,885 33.8%


184


Drisla LF Operating Company Profit & Loss Statements 2010 - 2011 Percentage

change

MKD (x 1000) € €

Total Revenues 121,353 102,734 1,989,393 1,684,164 -15.3%

Subsidies (for investments*) 20,000 5,000 327,869 81,967 -75.0%

EXPENDITURES 2010 2011 2010 2011

Salary/Personnel Costs 29,319 36,276 480,639 594,689 23.7%

Social security + taxes 14,624 17,292 239,738 283,475 18.2%

Temporary workers 7,833 5,413 128,410 88,738 -30.9%

Office/overhead costs 3,682 4,070 60,361 66,721 10.5%

Materials expenditures 5,093 5,246 83,492 86,000 3.0%

Energy/fuel costs 8,751 13,207 143,459 216,508 50.9%

M&R costs - spare parts 24,245 12,614 397,459 206,787 -48.0%

Services 3rd parties 2,398 2,470 39,311 40,492 3.0%

Accounting -financial costs Financial 1,568 1,615 25,705 26,475 3.0%

Total Expenditures 97,513 98,203 1,598,574 1,609,885 0.7%

Depreciation 'costs':

.Write-off (small) investments 3,345 3,445 54,836 56,475 3.0%

.Depreciation 5,203 6,780 85,295 111,148 30.3%

total 8,548 10,225 140,131 167,623 19.6%

Operating Result* 35,292 -694 578,557 -11,377 -102.0%

Overall Result** 15,292 -5,694 250,689 -93,344 -137.2%

(*excl. subsidies) 12.6% -5.5%

(**incl. subsidies)

13.2.2 Remarks: The P&L statement shows a significant profit in 2010 of about 12.5% excluding subsidies. However, a

considerable decrease of the operating result to a loss of 5.5% is expected for 2011. This is mainly due to − a lower average gate fee/tonne (to be charged to Komunalna Higiena), − reduced subsidies from City of Skopje for investments − an increase in the cost of uncollectible (bad) debts. The high cost of bad debts is mainly due to the fact that in the past invoices were sent to customers that were either incorrect or unjustified and/or are now old (and therefore no longer collectable). This had not been properly assessed or corrected. It is now being analysed and corrected by the new Drisla management, leading to a high one off cost.

In 2011 a significant increase in the salary costs is expected, which does not have a clear explanation. The significant increase in Fuel/energy costs is likely to be due to the international increase in the cost

of fuel. In the annual operating results for both years there is a relatively small amount for investment

costs/depreciation. If the investment/capital costs for the proposed investments will be included in the


185


P&L statements, the annual overall financial results of the Drisla LF Company will become strongly negative.

The present P&L statements do not provide comfort that the company could absorb the planned investment costs and increased operational costs without significant improvement. However, if debts can be effectively collected and staffing costs reduced, the company should return to profit.

In order to fund the material increase in investment costs/capex, it will be necessary to significantly increase the average disposal fee. This should be closely consulted with the PE Komunalna Higiena as well as the City of Skopje.

An overview of the present tariffs is given in section 13.2.3. For municipal waste the required gate fee will increase significantly from current rates, to approximately €30, depending on the funding terms obtained and the profit required.

13.2.3 DLFC Tariffs

Table 13-1 Overview of Drisla disposal fees (2011) Waste type MKD per tonne € per tonne

Municipal wastes

<10,000 tonnes per month 680 11.1

>10,000 tonnes per month 480 7.9

Industrial wastes

Food wastes 3,100 50.8

Technological wastes 2,900 47.5

Construction and demolition wastes 200 3.3

Mixed construction and household wastes 680 11.1

Hazardous wastes

Asbestos contaminated wastes 10,000 163.9

Medical wastes

Incineration 45 0.7

Collection and incineration (1kg) 65 1.1

Collection and incineration (>5kg) 77 1.3

13.3 Balance sheet

The balance sheet of the DLFC, as per September 2010, shows the following situation:

Table 13-2 Balance sheet (September 2009) ASSETS MKD EUR LIABILITIES MKD EUR

FIXED ASSETS (x 1000) EQUITY (x 1000)

MATERIAL Share capital 74,681 1,224,279

Land + Buildings 66,978 1,098,000 Transferred losses -250 -4,098

Facilities-equipment: 1,595 26,148 Annual net profit 23,669 388,016

Materials / tools 5,395 88,443 Provisions (business risks) 0 0

Total Material 73,968 1,212,590 Total Equity 98,100 1,608,197

LOANS 0


186


ASSETS MKD EUR LIABILITIES MKD EUR

IMMATERIAL(Intangible) 2,518 41,279 Loans (Medium/Long Term) n.a. 0

FINANCIAL n.a. n.a. Other 0 0

TOTAL 76,486 1,253,869 TOTAL 98,100 1,608,197

CURRENT ASSETS CURRENT

LIABILITIES

Work in progress n.a. 0 Repayments (LT/MT) loans n.a. 0

Inventory (new/existing) 6,779 111,131 Creditors 31,423 515,131

Receivables (Komunalna H) 49,765 815,820 Pre-payments of

debtors n.a 0

,, (other) (included) 0 Social premiums to be paid 3,754 61,541

Pre-paid costs /creditors n.a. 0 RC bank (overdraft) n.a 0

Liquidities 247 4,049

TOTAL 56,791 931,000 TOTAL 35,177 576,672

TOTAL ASSETS 133,277 2,184,869 TOTAL EQUITY and LIABILITIES 133,277 2,184,869

current ratio 1.61

solvability 100%

equity/total assts 74%

Table 13-3: Balance Sheet Ratios Additional ratios: 2010 2011

Return on Sales (RoS) 12,5% -5,5%

Capital Turnover (CTO) (=Revenues/Invested Capital)

1,64 1,04

Return on Investment (RoIC) (=CTO x RoS)

20.5% -5.75%

Current ratio 1.61 1.61

The above ratios show that in its first year of operation, Drisla showed a reasonable return on invested capital. However in 2011 a negative return is expect, due to decreases in revenues and increases in costs.

Despite the current ratio being above 1, DLFC may have a liquidity problem as the receivables days total approximately 176. This means that payment is not being made to DLFC for over 5 months after material is landfilled, which could lead to potential cash flow problems. This issue would be exacerbated if loans have been taken to finance new infrastructure as the terms of repayment would not allow for such long payment terms. It may also mean that the level of bad debts is understated and the level of current assets is overstated.


187


The financial figures may not be fully correct and to a recognised reporting standard. Drisla LFC many yet not completely follow the GAAP/IAS rules (for example for validation of fixed assets, stocks and accounts receivables).

13.3.1 Remarks At present the balance sheet of the Drisla LF Company shows a strong financial position on paper; the

current ratio (potential liquidity) is >> 1, which is good, while presently no medium or long term liabilities (loans) exist. However, it is questionable whether the company could independently (i.e. without external guarantees) attract loans in the order of magnitude as now proposed for the LF rehabilitation and related infrastructure and facilities (up to €84 million over the full development), due to the size of the loan required in comparison to annual turnover.

In the current financial market it is likely that Drisla would be required to provide capital within the region of 20% of the total investment amount. For the landfill alone the initial capital required is up to €22 million meaning that DLFC would be required to provide approximately €4.4 million. Assuming an acceptable ratio (for private businesses, having a solid positive net revenue income) of 25-30% solvency rate (i.e. own equity/total assets), then the loan capacity of Drisla LF Company, as an independent company, is about € 4-5-6 million. Therefore it may be possible for Drisla to secure third party loans for the funding of the landfill. However, this will be dependant on being able to guarantee income from landfilling waste and the ability to make a profit year on year, both of which can not be proven historically.

The ‘bankability’ of the proposed investments will be primarily determined by whether a sufficient annual net cash flow, (i.e. annual revenues received minus annual expenditures) can be generated to cover the capital and operating costs as well as the required profit. In order to achieve this, a significant increase of the average disposal fee/tonne will be required.

PE Komunalna Higiena is the main client of the Drisla LFC and pays for about 90% of the disposal revenues, a further assessment of the capacity and (political) willingness to pay the necessary strong increase of the disposal fee is to be investigated and should be discussed further with the responsible management within the PE Komunalna Higiena, as well as the City of Skopje. A key issue will be to reduce the time taken to receive payment from PE Komunalna Higiena. This should be reduced from the current ~176 days to 30 days to compete with private companies.

Both the Drisla LFC and the PE Komunalna Higiena are part of the City of Skopje structure. Therefore the responsible representatives of the City of Skopje should also take part and may take the lead in consultations about gate fees, waste collection methodologies, payment terms and future treatment options.

A revenue increase from other customers groups may be considered as a realistic option. However, in the short and medium term the City of Skopje/Komunalna Higiena will remain Drisla’s main customer.

13.4 PE Komunalna Higiena

This section provides an initial assessment of the financial status of the PE Komunalna Higiena.

The PE Komunalna Higiena is the public company in the City of Skopje, which is responsible for the following, although the list is not exhaustive: Selecting, collecting and transportation of solid and technological/industrial waste from private and legal

entities; Maintenance of the public hygiene in urban and other settlements, including the cleaning/washing and

sweeping of public roads; Cleaning of septic tanks; Catching/hunting of stray animals, and collecting dead animal corpses from public areas/roads;


188


Public realm waste clearance and cleansing.

Further information can be found on the company website at: http://www.khigiena.com.mk/Default.asp

13.4.1 PE Komunalna Higiena Balance sheet

Table 13-4 Komunalna Higiena Balance Sheet

30/09/2009 30/09/2010 30/09/2009 30/09/2010 Percentage

Change

А. ASSETS (x 1000 MKD) (x 1000 MKD) (€x1000) (€x1000)

FIXED ASSETS

Material fixed assets 222,197 163,675 3,643 2,683 -26.3%

Immaterial net assets 8,022 6,917 132 113 -13.8%

Financial investments 15,298 5,107 251 84 -66.6%

Total fixed assets 245,517 175,699 4,025 2,880 -28.4%

CURRENT ASSETS

Stocks 25,089 13,177 411 216 -47.5%

Outstanding Debts customers 638,648 628,250 10,470 10,299 -1.6%

Other Debts 6,360 10,052 104 165 58.1%

Cash 12,116 2,237 199 37 -81.5%

Pension fund 23 8,441 0 138 N/A

Total current assets 682,236 662,157 11,184 10,855 -2.9%

TOTAL ASSETS 927,753 837,856 15,209 13,735 -9.7%

B. EQUITY AND STOCKS

Equity capital 380,767 306,236 6,242 5,020 -19.6%

Legal stocks 6,401 6,401 105 105 0.0%

Accumulated profit 219,771 148,753 3,603 2,439 -32.3%

Profit / Loss for the financial year -22,126 -6,419 -363 -105 71.0%

Total equity and stocks 584,813 454,971 9,587 7,459 -22.2%

C. LIABILITIES

Liabilities to suppliers 74,448 142,542 1,220 2,337 91.5%

Liabilities to loans and credits 327 28 5 0 N/A

Advanced liabilities 20,473 3,030 336 50 -85.2%

Other liabilities (taxes, VAT) 240,681 229,099 3,946 3,756 -4.8%

Total liabilities to creditors 335,929 374,699 5,507 6,143 11.5%

D. RIA 7,012 0 0

TOTAL LIABILITIES 927,754 829,670 15,094 13,601 -9.9%

13.4.2 Remarks: It should be noted that the outstanding debts are relatively high (about MKD 630 million, while the

annual billings total to about MKD 530 mill.). It is not clear as to what percentage of this total debt should be considered doubtful, or not collectable. It is understood that 40-50% of the population is not paying waste collection bills. If the debt shown includes this proportion of the population it is likely that


189


the debtors are overstated. This would mean both a reduction in the current debtors and an additional expenditure item in the P&L.

The liquidity PE Komunalna Higiena appears robust, i.e. the current ratio is >> 1.0 and the solvency (i.e. own equity/total assets) is also good (about 55%), assuming the presented balance values are validated according to IAS standards. However the ratios are dependant n the ability of PE Komunalna Higiena to collect its outstanding debts.

It should also be noted that the activities of the PE Komunalna Higiena is not financed by any medium or long term loan arrangement, but for a significant amount by the suppliers. This means that there is a potential for cash flow issues due to the high number of debtor days, which is approximately 300 days. This should be further investigated to determine the viability of the balance sheet and the ability of the debtors listed to pay.

The Balance Sheet shows a significant liability to suppliers of 142million MKD. It is not clear how this amount is spread between the various suppliers, but it is a 91% increase on the previous year. It is not tax as this is shown as a separate line item, which is 229million MKD. The financial director of Komunalna Higiena stated that this liability relates to suppliers for oil, spare parts for vehicles and to other companies that are delivering goods/products and services to Komunalna Higiena. Therefore, these liabilities do not appear to be related to the DLFC. The total level of liabilities is a matter of concern.

13.4.3 Income (P&L) Statement

The detailed financial data for the years 2010 and 2011 are given in Appendix Y of Volume 2. A summary is shown in Table 13-5.

Table 13-5: Profit and Loss Account

Description I- IX/2010 I- IX/2009 Percentage change

Incomes (x 1000MKD) (x 1000MKD)

Sales income 528,069 554,614 5.0%

Rendering of services 158 63 -60.1%

Other income 18.810 47.042 150.1%

Short term investments 5 5 0.0%

Interest 4.639 9.170 97.7%

Total Incomes 551,682 610,894 10.7%

Expenses

Material expenses 155,903 131,553 -15.6%

Employees expenses 233,038 271,074 16.3%

Net salaries 159,484 180,790 13.4%

Pension fund contribution 41,242 51,480 24.8%

Social taxes and contribution 32,312 38,805 20.1%

Depreciation and amortization 15,802 22,463 42.2%

Value adjustment of short-term assets 74,948 126,207 68.4%

Other operating expenses 59,776 49,005 -18.0%

Interest expenses 10,449 24,508 134.5%

Total Expenses 549,917 624,810 13.6%

Gross Revenues ( I-II) 1,765 - 13,915 -888.4%

Income tax 8,185 8,211 0.3%


190


Description I- IX/2010 I- IX/2009 Percentage change

Net Loss -6,412 - 22,126 -245.1%

13.4.4 Remarks: PE Komunalna Higiena made a loss in both 2009 and 2010, although the net loss in 2010 (-6.4 mill

MKD/-100.000 mill €) was considerably less than in 2009. The P&L figures show clearly that the PE Komunalna Higiena cannot absorb any significant increase of

the disposal fee (which may cause an increase of 10% of their annual costs). The reasons given that the present operations are making a loss are that PE Komunalna Higiena is only

allowed (by the City of Skopje) to increase their tariffs in small/limited steps and that approximately 40-50% of the population is not paying their waste bills.

In order to invest in the Drisla landfill and associated facilities (being an essential part in the integrated waste management system of the City of Skopje) the rehabilitation must be carried out in a sustainable way. PE Komunalna Higiena has stated that it is only able to increase in tariffs in limited steps. The increases should be implemented as soon as possible.

A key issue is that approximately 40-50% of the population of Skopje is not paying waste bills. Increasing the payment rate would ensure, as a minimum, that the company is profitable.

As the City of Skopje is the major stakeholder for both the PE Komunalna Higiena and Drisla LFC, should consider and decide their measures and options to increase the waste revenues to be collected from the city’s waste generators, to such a degree that both PE Komunalna Higiena and the Drisla LF company can execute their responsibilities in a technically sound and financially viable way.

PE Komunalna Higiena’s five year plan includes applying for funding for a range of activities. This should be put into action as soon as possible to gain funding for all environmentally beneficial activities and development works.


191


A technical, operational and financial assessment has been undertaken of the existing facilities. Measures have been identified to improve the service quality and upgrade the landfill to meet environmental and international operational standards. Consideration has been given to the development of treatment technologies and the revenue that could be obtained. The financial assessment has examined potential financing options with a focus on private sector participation.

Decisions relating to the development will be based on a combination of factors such as the economic viability and affordability, the need to meet European and National legislative targets, local issues and conditions. Local issues include the overall need for the facilities, the impact of the facilities on the surrounding environment, the impact and the economic affect on the scavengers working in Skopje and the landfill. In addition consideration needs to be given to the health and safety of the staff and resident population at and around the landfill.

The recommendations proposed are based on an assessment of the key driving factors. However, it is possible that events may arise that lead to these recommendations needing to be modified in the future.

14.1 Remediation of the existing landfill

The existing landfill has inherent problems with stability, leachate control and surface water management.

The following works are required to reduce the potential for major failures and major environmental pollution events. The stability has been assessed and it has been shown that the existing toe bund needs to be

strengthened. A construction comprising a gabion wall has been proposed and should be installed as soon as practicable to minimise the risk of a major slope failure.

Surface water is known to enter the site from ground and surface water infiltration. The largest of these

springs is known to lead to leachate ponding at the site and has meant that infilling has had to be ceased in the area of this main spring. A design for the installation of surface water drainage channels has been proposed under previous studies and these should be constructed as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Excessive surface, ground and rain water infiltration has led to a build up of leachate at the toe of the

landfill. This leachate is known to escape and to enter the ground and surface water. Measures have been proposed for collecting this leachate, initially, as part of the gabion wall structure. Leachate collected will need to be discharged. Initially this will be undertaken through leachate recirculation, which is not ideal as the site does not have an effective leachate collection system and is uncontained. It may be feasible to provide limited treatment to the leachate through the development of reed beds. There are significant constraints on the input parameters for this process and, whilst the discharged treated leachate will be an improvement over direct discharge, this should not be viewed as a long term leachate treatment option.

From, both a legislative and an environmental protection standpoint, the existing landfill should be

closed. In order to maintain a disposal option this will not be undertaken immediately. However, once an appropriately designed landfill has been commissioned, filling in unlined cells should be completed. The only filling that should take place in these unlined areas should be to ensure that adequate falls are

14. Recommendations


192


provided for the construction of the new cells. Full-scale tipping in unlined cells should therefore cease within two to three years.

The closed landfill will need to be effectively capped. This capping will form the basal engineering for a

newly constructed landfill. Prior to capping the existing landfill, it will be necessary to install a gas venting layer incorporating gas

extraction pipework. This is required firstly to meet legislative requirements and also to ensure that the gas pressure within the site does not build up. Pressure build up could compromise the lining/capping works and could increase the potential for landfill gas migration. Initially, the pipework should be connected to a flare. Once sufficient gas is being extracted consideration should be given to installing gas engines with a view to utilising the gas and obtaining revenue from energy production.

The gas generation has been modelled and, if the biodegradable waste inputs and low collection

efficiencies assumed can be achieved, should mean that there is sufficient gas to power a 1 MW gas engine from the point of installation up to approximately 2040. Connection to the grid has been assessed, in terms of feasibility and economics, and it is evident that gas utilisation will lead to a significant and cost effective future revenue stream. This is irrespective of whether it will be feasible to obtain carbon credits to supplement the costs.

14.2 Construction of a new landfill

As discussed above, a new landfill is required to meet legislative and environmental requirements. The new landfill should be developed in phases. This will reduce the open area of filling, which will

ensure that leachate generation is minimised. Twelve phases have been proposed for the conceptual scheme. The proposed layout, sizing and number of phases should be confirmed as part of an Environmental Permit application.

The design and environmental permit applications should commence as soon as practically feasible, so

that construction and commissioning of new phases can be undertaken as soon as possible. The start time within the timeline will probably be dependent primarily on the ability of the DLFC to obtain sufficient funds to finance the construction. Consideration could be given to developing the application initially, irrespective of the overall funding, to reduce the impact of obtaining funding on the programme. This work is also likely to be required to increase the degree of certainty in relation to pricing the works.

The new landfill should have a leachate collection scheme installed at the base of each phase, which

drains towards a sump from where leachate can be extracted for initially recirculation or treatment. Once there is sufficient waste in these phases, leachate recirculation in the former waste deposits should cease. A long term solution for leachate treatment has been proposed based on an activated sludge process.

Gas extraction is likely to be installed to each phase retrospectively, although feasibly it would be

possible to extract gas whilst filling continues, if there is a need to maximise gas extraction to enable gas utilisation.

The total construction and remediation costs are estimated to be € 44.6 million of which the up-front

costs to remediate the existing landfill and to prepare the first two phases are estimated to be € 24 million.


193


Current gate fees are low by international standards, which reflect the fact that the landfill does not have

effective environmental protection measures. It is evident that the engineering works will require significant capital expenditure that will need to be recovered. Modelling indicates that the gate fee is likely to double. The introduction of such a significant increase in the short term may be unaffordable for the collection contractor (i.e. the PE Komunalna Higiena) and therefore a funding profile will need to be developed further, which relies on increasing the gate fee in increments. The aim will be to ensure that the fee covers the required repayment and profit for the investment at any individual point in time, and is affordable for the respective waste generators.

14.3 Operation of the landfill

An audit of the current operations was undertaken and has determined that the current operations at the landfill increase the potential for environmental pollution and nuisance events to occur.

A full list of recommendations is included in Section 7.3. The following summarises some of the key recommendations that should be considered and implemented in order to ensure compliance with legislation as well as for protection of the environment and human health: Procedures must be written, implemented and enforced for the handling, treatment, storage etc of waste

and activities on site to make it clear about what needs, how, why and by whom;

Procedures will cover all aspects of general and specific site management such as: security; waste acceptance; leachate; gas; environmental risks; dust, mud and debris; litter and wind blow materials; aerosols; noise and vibration; odour; fires; pests, vermin and animals; meteorology; maintenance; training and technical competence; health and safety; complaints and monitoring.

Written procedures should be reviewed annually under the direct control of the management at the

DLFC. These procedures should be signed and dated with a version number provided once a review has been undertaken;

A clear audit trail should be available for all waste entering and leaving the site including non-

conforming waste and rejects; All inspections, activities undertaken etc on site should be recorded and these records should be stored

centrally. Daily/weekly/monthly inspection checklists should be prepared for activities that need to be undertaken, which are then audited by the management of the DLFC. This audit process is separate to any independent audit undertaken by the Ministry of Environment or the City of Skopje Environmental. department;

Regular, relevant and ongoing training programme for all employees should be developed e.g. waste

acceptance procedure, work instructions etc. The training provided should reflect the roles of each member of staff;

Regular internal audits of all sites activities should be undertaken to ensure that procedures are being

followed adequately to ensure continued compliance with all relevant legislative requirements relating to the activities;


194


A follow up audit should be undertaken in 6 months to ensure any recommendations suggested have been implemented.

Operationally, there is no reason to prevent these recommendations being implemented immediately.

A monitoring programme should be developed and implemented in accordance with legislative requirements. This will need to be agreed as part of the Environmental Permit application.

The current staffing levels are excessive and it is clear that some staff are under utilised. New staffing levels have been identified and it is proposed that to cover the direct landfill operations and also activities associated with landfill operations, the staff numbers should total 34. This is broken down by ability and role in Section 5.3.5.

14.4 Access and reception infrastructure, plant and equipment

Consideration has been given to providing new and replacement infrastructure to enable the site to operate effectively. There will be a need for new roads within the site boundary to link the existing primary roads to the new facilities proposed. There will also be a need to replace and maintain the original security fencing, as the current fencing is either ineffective or absent. Additional foul drainage needs to be provided to prevent discharges that eventually end up in the river downstream of the site.

Other measures proposed are preferable and will improve operations at the site. These include the provision of a new wheelwash, a new reception area with associated security and in/out weighbridges. An extension or annex should be constructed to the administration building, which despite being relatively new, is not large enough for the number of staff that it houses.

Additionally, the plant and equipment at the site is old. Replacement and structured maintenance of the new equipment is important as break downs will lead to ineffective control and management of the wastes deposited.

The infrastructure costs are estimated to comprise € 3.4 million of the total landfill costs.

14.5 Sorting facility

The main recommendation with respect to the development of a sorting facility is that the facility should be based on a segregated, clean input stream of dry recyclable materials such as paper, plastic, glass, metals. In reality, it is unlikely that this segregated waste system will be implemented during the short to medium term. The effectiveness of the system is also questionable as firstly residents become accustomed to their role in wastes management and the fact that there is a significant scavenging element within Skopje, which could undermine the segregated waste collections.

As a result, consideration has been given to the development of a mixed waste input sorting facility, otherwise known as a dirty MRF. The main driver for developing the sorting facility will be to meet the legislative requirement for all wastes being disposed of to landfill to have been subject to treatment and to meet biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets. The dirty MRF should be sized to accommodate wastes from the urban environment, as these are likely

to contain the greatest amount of recyclable wastes. This is considered to be 45,000 tpa.


195


The estimated investment cost amounts to: € 2.5 million. Material recovery will be undertaken primarily by hand picking of selected material streams and by use

of an overband magnet. Materials recovered by the hand pickers are likely to comprise plastic and non-ferrous metals, although

it would be feasible to collect other materials should it become economically viable to do so. In total, it is recommended that a total of 37 staff will be required for the operation of the sorting facility

over the two 8hr shifts. The revenue obtained from the recovered materials is unlikely to fully subsidise the capital and ongoing

operational costs and therefore a gate fee will need to be applied. It has been estimated that the gate fee that will be required, in addition to the landfill gate fee, will be between € 6 per tonne to € 13.4 per tonne depending on the basis of the funding. The additional gate fee identified above is assumed to be applied only to those wastes that would be the subject of the sorting process. If the additional gate fee was applied across all wastes the gate fee per tonne would be approximately a third of the rates previously identified (i.e. € 2 per tonne to € 4.5 per tonne).

If the facility is considered to be affordable, it is recommended that the sorting facility be constructed as

soon as practicable. As with the landfill development, the timeline will be dependent on the availability of funding and the permitting and design processes.

14.6 Construction and demolition waste facility

At present, construction and demolition wastes are disposed of at dump sites with no environmental controls in the region surrounding Skopje. As a result of the manner in which these wastes are generated and managed, the precise quantity of these types of wastes is not known. A quantity totalling approximately 117,000 – 127,000 tonnes per annum was estimated within the “Waste Management Plan – City of Skopje (2009 – 2015)”. The main driver for developing the C&D facility will be to meet the legislative requirement to close unregulated dumpsites and also to extract usable material, which might not have a significant resale value, but will reduce the costs of extracting and purchasing virgin materials.

In order to allow for some variation, a facility has been recommended that could be operated over a large range of throughputs and up to a maximum capacity of 300,000 tonnes per annum. The recommended facility comprises two main processes; a soil and concrete crusher to screen down

materials of a uniform nature such as soils, road planings etc. and a picking belt with overband magnet to receive skip-type mixed construction and demolition wastes.

The concrete crusher would be able to accommodate a throughput of up to 250,000 tpa and the picking

belt would accommodate a throughput of approximately 50,000 tpa. The estimated investment cost amounts to: € 1.06 million.

The gate fee has been established based on throughputs of 50,000 tpa, 100,000 tpa and 250,000 tpa

and depending on different funding options. The full gate fee analysis is shown in Section 12.6.3. For funding options based on an IRR of 7.8% and 15% respectively, the gate fees are estimated to be € 6.2


196


- € 7.75 per tonne for a 50,000tpa facility, € 4.1 - € 4.9 per tonne for a 100,000tpa facility, and € 2.9 - € 3.2 per tonne for a 250,000tpa facility.

It may not be possible to develop this facility immediately as a programme will need to be implemented

to shut down or regulate the existing facilities. In addition, funding and permitting constraints will need to be overcome. At this stage, it has been estimated that the facility can be commissioned at the beginning of 2015. Consideration will need to be given as to where the resultant waste materials will then be deposited. It may be appropriate to use some of the recovered inert materials for use around the landfill, but it is not recommended that the inert waste fraction should be immediately deposited within the newly constructed landfill phases. Other opportunities for disposal and re-use should be investigated.

14.7 Composting

At present, the landfill receives approximately 4,300 tonnes of segregated green waste. Initially, it would be feasible for a composting facility to be constructed based on this tonnage with the aim of expanding the service once segregated green waste collections are introduced. It has been estimated that the total quantity of green wastes that could be made available, once segregated collection has been introduce, could amount to 11,000 tonnes per annum. Green waste composting is a relatively simple process requiring plant to turn the stockpiles of green wastes, known as windrows, on a hardstanding with a sealed drainage system. A composting facility should be constructed based on the current throughput of segregated green

wastes. This should be designed to allow for expansion of the service in the future. The maximum area

anticipated for the hardstanding is estimated to be approximately 11,000m2. Typically the area requirement is approximately 1m2 for each tonne of green waste composted.

Assuming that the full 11,000m2 area is developed, the estimated investment cost amounts to:

€ 1.12 million. The gate fee is unlikely to be significantly different to the gate fee for the main landfill and therefore the

gate fee is likely to not differ for this type of waste. The output is unlikely to generate significant revenue and probably should be used by the municipality

for landscaping or by the DLFC as part of the topsoil restoration layer for the landfill.

14.8 Medical waste incineration

The current medical waste incinerator is not compliant with EU legislation and will therefore need to be replaced with a new facility. The current gate fee for hazardous medical wastes is € 700 per tonne. Unlike the other facilities, it is estimated that the gate fee may decrease, following the establishment of a new facility and therefore it may be appropriate to install a new facility on commercial grounds. The new incinerator should be sized to be able to process up to 2000 tonnes/yr of hazardous waste with

continuous operation (i.e. 8000 hours per year, allowing for maintenance). This equates to a facility with a capacity of 250kg per hour.


197


The incinerator should be compliant with the EU Waste Incineration Directive and therefore should be operated at a temperature of 1100oC and a residence time of at least 2 seconds.

The estimated investment cost amounts to: € 1.68 million.

The anticipated gate fee for the incinerator, assuming a continuous throughput of 2000 tpa, would be

between € 270 and € 318 per tonne dependent on the form of funding. The manager wishes to co-incinerate other wastes with medical wastes. Potentially, this is feasible.

However, it is not economic to treat or dispose of packaging specifically through incineration, whereas it is not appropriate to thermally treat electrical and electronic goods in a medical waste incinerator as this will result in the release of heavy metals with potentially toxic properties. If recovery of electronic elements is not available as an option, the electronic items should be disposed of to landfill.

Should the existing waste throughput of the existing incinerator (500 tpa) be maintained, then it would

be feasible to operate the incinerator on a batched basis. The gate fee has been assessed for this lower throughput at approximately € 500 per tonne at an IRR of 7.8%.

It is assumed that to obtain funding for the incinerator would be more straightforward. However,

development of the facility and permitting will have a bearing on the timeline for implementation. It is assumed that the new incinerator would be commissioned by the start of 2015.

14.9 Mechanical biological treatment

The option of mechanical, biological treatment has been examined for processing the waste in the longer term (i.e. post 2022). At this stage, it is likely that the economics of developing such a facility would have altered and the legislation limiting the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill would be more stringent. As a result, the principal driver for development is likely to be meeting legislation. The preferred option for Drisla could not be determined at this stage without a more detailed feasibility

study being undertaken. This was outside the scope of this report. However, the most appropriate treatment technology process for MSW material is likely to involve the

shredding of material followed by a drying process. The estimated investment cost amounts to: € 31.5 million.

Processing the waste is estimated to require a gate fee of between €31.14 and €45.72 per tonne based

on various financing options and assuming a throughput of 150,000 tpa. It is not recommended that an MBT facility be developed in the short to medium term. This assessment

should be reviewed once the other facilities have been constructed and are operational. A more detailed review of various waste treatment options may be required in the future to meet legislative requirements. However, it is anticipated that waste processing will be more expensive than disposal.

14.10 Procurement

The type of funding and procurement selected will depend on the ability of DLFC and the City of Skopje to raise finance; whether any subsidies, grants and/or soft loans are available and the preference of the public


198


sector. It may be suitable to use a range of financing options for different parts of the required investment. For example, the treatment technologies may suit PPP more easily that landfill operations as they are new constructions and can be managed separately to the landfill. The landfill already exists and therefore could be more complex to transfer to a third party as there are risks due to the existing operations that a new contractor could be unwilling to inherit.

It is important that the technology and landfill operations that are procured are technically sound and designed in a way that will enable them to be flexible and reliable. In order to ensure successful contract close for the landfill and waste treatment facilities, it is recommended that technical, financial and legal advisors are employed. This is the case if a PPP method of contracting is selected or if technology is directly purchased and operated by DLFC.

Areas of particular importance are risk transfer and payment requirements. With respect to risk transfer, it is recommended that an independent advisor is employed to consider the extent of potential risks that could be transferred and their likely impacts. In addition, it is recommended that for environmental risks a baseline position is agreed with respect to contamination. With respect to payment requirements, it is key to have a rigorous commissioning testing procedure to ensure that payments are not made to a third party contractor until the technology is operating effectively and in line with specifications. For PPP contracts it is also important to have a mechanism for penalising the contractor if targets are not met, in a way that does not prevent the contractor from continuing the contract. An international consultant should be employed that has extensive experience of providing technical and financial advisory services in order to support DLFC and the City of Skopje as required. Support can include, for example, procurement strategies, preparation of tender documents, evaluation of bid submissions, negotiations with bidders and overseeing construction and commissioning.

14.11 Other non-site related recommendations

There are several aspects that are outside the control of the DLFC, but have a significant impact on the services provided. The following recommendations apply: The municipalities of Aracinovo and Petrovec should be compelled to use a regulated, sanitary waste

landfill. Consideration should be given to the implementation of specific door to door collections of segregated

dry recyclable material (such as plastic, glass, metal and paper) and green wastes. Further compositional analyses should be undertaken to improve the base data for planning decisions

and to provide a seasonal assessment. Enforcement is required to ensure that wastes are not tipped in unregulated dump sites. It is likely that

this type of tipping will increase, particularly if the cost of treatment and disposal rises.

14.12 Summary of recommendations

Some options are essential and funding should be found to undertake these in order not to risk the existing construction. These include: Remediation of the existing landfill in terms of stability, Leachate control and Surface water management.


199


Without these actions the landfill will continue to cause significant environmental pollution and could result in a major failure requiring more expensive remediation works.

Other aspects should be undertaken on a legislative basis, and in order to further protect the environment. These include: Sealing the existing landfill and ceasing disposal in unlined cells. Development of new engineered phases with gas and leachate control measures, including containment

of the wastes and the environmental pollutants. Development of a sorting facility and composting site in order to assist the country in meeting

biodegradable municipal waste landfill diversion requirements. Installation of a new WID compliant medical waste incinerator.

The operations can be improved to reduce the impact on the surrounding environment from issues of nuisance such as odour, litter, vermin etc.

In order to properly manage the above, there will be a need to develop new reception and access infrastructure.

The development of new landfill controls and infrastructure will have significant capital and operational expense that will need to be funded. The resulting fees are likely to be at least double the existing fees for disposal and treatment options, with the exception of the medical waste incinerator which will see the price per tonne fall principally as a result of increased capacity.

The development of C&D facilities and the future development of an MBT facility could be required as a result of legislation. With C&D this would relate to the unregulated disposal of materials elsewhere in Skopje, whereas the MBT may be required to meet the more onerous biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of future years. A review should be undertaken of the most technically and economically viable treatment options once the other facilities have been commissioned and the impacts on material recovery are known and understood.

The affordability of increased fees to the collection contractor is questionable and therefore the City of Skopje, as major stakeholder for both the PE Komunalna Higiena and Drisla LFC, should consider and decide their measures and options to increase the waste revenues to be collected from the city’s waste generators. This needs to be to such a degree that both PE Komunalna Higiena and the Drisla LF company can execute their responsibilities in a technically sound and financially viable way.

It is recommended that further technical assistance is obtained to ensure the smooth delivery of the proposed infrastructure, through detailed design, environmental planning and permitting, procurement, construction supervision and operation.


200


“Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities”, IFC, December 2007 “Performance Standard 1 – Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems”, IFC,

July 2007 “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011”, World Bank, June 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia#cite_note-stat.gov.mk-1 * “Macedonia in Figures”, Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office 2010

http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/MakBrojki2010web_eng.pdf * “Law on the Territorial Organization of the Local Self-Government of the Republic of Macedonia” (Article

7, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 55/04) “National Waste Management Plan 2009 – 2015 of the Republic of Macedonia”, Ministry of Environment

and Physical Planning, October 2008 “Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Macedonia (2008 - 2020)”, Government of the

Republic of Macedonia, March 2008 “Waste Management Plan – City of Skopje (2009 – 2015)” http://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie_en.aspx?rbrtxt=80 *, Republic of Macedonia State Statistical

Office, July 2011 “Waste generated and treated in Europe (1995-2003) 2005 Edition”, European Commission, dated 2005

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-69-05-755/EN/KS-69-05-755-EN.PDF * DOE Waste Management Paper No.26 (Department of Environment 1986) as published in "A Review of

the Composition of Leachates from Domestic Wastes in Landfill Sites, Research and Development, Technical Report CWM 072/95”, Environment Agency

“Review of the Design and Management of Constructed Wetlands: R180 (CIRIA report)”, CIRIA 1997 “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse” 4th Edition Metcalf and Eddy, 2004 “Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, 91/271/EEC”, European Union, 21 May 1991 “Construction, demolition and excavation waste arisings, use and disposal for England 2008" WRAP

CON900-001: Final Report European Commission, DG Regio: Link to Guide on successful PPP:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/pppguide.htm * Links under World Bank’s Planning Guide for Solid Waste Management to PPP guidance pack,2000:

http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%20folder/Guidance%20Pack%20TOC.pdf * UNDP: PPP for the Urban Environment. Homepage: http://pppue.undp.2margraf.com/en/index.htm * International Standards Organisation (1991), “ISO 5667-2: Water quality – sampling, Part 2: Guidance

on sampling techniques”, British Standards Institution, London. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26759.htm, US Department of State Bureau of European and Eurasian

Affairs, Background note on Macedonia “Law on the Environment”, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Republic of Macedonia,

2005 “National Strategy for Clean Development Mechanism for the first commitment period of the Kyoto

Protocol 2008 – 2012”, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Republic of Macedonia “Second National Communication on climate change”, December 2008 -

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/macnc2.pdf * Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Republic of Italy

http://www.taskforcecee.com/activities/view/drisla-landfill-site-biogas-recovery-and-burning *

* Accessed on 5th August 2011

15. References