Integrated and Sustainable Waste Management System in 3 counties in Croatia the case of Split-Dalmatia, Karlovac and Dubrovnik-Neretva County

Transcription

1 Integrated and Sustainable Waste Management System in 3 counties in Croatia the case of Split-Dalmatia, Karlovac and ENVIROPLAN S.A., 23 Perikleous & Iras str., Gerakas-Athens, , info@enviroplan.gr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2014, the counties of Split-Dalmatia, Karlovac and Dubrovnik-Neretva launched procurement procedures for technical assistance services in relation to the elaboration of Feasibility Studies and EU project funding applications. The aforementioned 3 projects were awarded to a consortium consisted of Enviroplan S.A., Brodarski Institut and Procurator Vastitatis d.o.o. The three project areas include: Karlovac County - the North eastern part of Lika-Senj County and the Western part of Sisak-Moslavina County with 158,388 citizens/51,727 t of municipal solid waste (2013); with 122,509 citizens/65,072 t MSW (2013) and Split-Dalmatia County with 454,711 citizens/193,779 t MSW (2013). For the identification and assessment of the existing waste management situation, the Consultant performed field assessments in all 3 counties. During the field assessments, the Consultant organized waste characterisation surveys in each of the counties, which provided unique data for the actual waste quantities and compositions at municipal and county level. Furthermore, the Consultant prepared waste survey questionnaires in order to evaluate the socio-economic data of each municipality and the financial feasibility of the existing waste management systems. The EU and national legislative framework was analysed and the key targets and objectives for Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfilling of waste and 2004/12/EC for packaging waste, were presented analytically. Targets are expected to be achieved through sorting at the source and the new proposed regional waste management centres. Option analysis of various identified possible suitable technical options and the development &evaluation of waste management scenarios with the associated elements (collection, transportation, transfer, treatment, including energy recovery and landfilling) per county that fulfil the above pre-requisite are described in this paper. The main criteria considered in selecting the best technological solution are economic and financial such as DPC, ENPV, ERR and B/C ratio. Additionally a Multi-criteria analysis was undertaken using the PROMETHEE model. The resulting selected options were:for Split-Dalmatia project -a 3 waste stream collection (recyclable, residual waste and biodegradable waste), 6 transfer stations, 1 mechanical-biological (aerobic composting) treatment facility with production of CLO, RDF and Recyclables, 1 landfill for residues and non hazardous industrial waste and 1 landfill for inert waste; for Karlovac project - a 2 waste stream collection (recyclable and residual waste), home-composting actions, 4 transfer stations, 1 mechanical-biological (biodrying) treatment facility with production of RDF, Recyclables and biodried product, 1 bio-reactor landfill for residues and non hazardous industrial waste and 1 landfill for inert waste; for Dubrovnik-Neretva project - a 2 waste stream collection (recyclable and residual waste), home-composting actions, 6 transfer stations, 1 mechanical-biological (anaerobic digestion with CHP and biostabilization of digestate) treatment facility with production of RDF, recyclables, CLO, 1 landfill for residues and non hazardous industrial waste and 1 landfill for inert waste. Based on the above detailed outcomes of the option analysis, the investment projects were described in depth from operational and technological point of view. More specifically, CAPEX, OPEX, revenues and reinvestment costs were analysed for all components of the new waste management systems. Consequently, the economic analysis has been elaborated according to EU guidelines of New CBA Guide for investment project, which it is based on the incremental approach, comparing economic cost and benefits of the project. Furthermore, risk assessments were performed for each of the selected outcomes based on EU regulation no.1303/2013, for the approval of major projects. Within the environmental and social assessments elaborated for each of the project areas, data, points and conclusions of EIA Study were detailed. Furthermore, the incremental greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (units of CO 2 equivalent) were calculated for both with and without project scenarios. Both direct and indirect GHG emissions for the different 1

2 components of the waste management systems were calculated and considered based on Jaspers methodology. Correspondingly, the EU Guidelines SWD (2013) on adaptation to climate change / resilience in relation to waste management, were investigated. Coherent, flexible and participatory approaches were proposed and prioritised for optimum mitigation of any unavoidable climate impacts and their economic, environmental and social costs. 1 INTRODUCTION Waste management in the Republic of Croatia is one of the most important environmental issues, as well as one of the most challenging areas in terms of compliance with the standards of the European Union (EU). Solving these problems and moving towards integral and modern waste management is one of the environmental priorities of the Republic of Croatia. According to the Strategy on Waste Management in the Republic of Croatia (OG 130/05) and the Waste Management Plan in the Republic of Croatia for the period (OG 85/07, 126/10 and 31/11), the establishment of regional and county waste management centres on a long term basis should be done. The counties and the City of Zagreb are obliged to prepare waste management plans that will define the waste management system consisting of not more than one WMC in each County and the city of Zagreb. Speaking of Waste Management Plans of project areas: Waste Management Plan for the County of Split Dalmatia is determined and adopted Regional Plan for Split - Dalmatia which determined the location of WMC at the Lećevica-Kladnjice site in the Municipality of Lećevica, and the location of transfer stations. Waste Management Plan for the County of Dubrovnik Neretva is determined and adopted Regional Plan for Dubrovnik which determined the location of WMC at the site of Lucino Razdolje in settlement Trnovica (1 km away), and the location of transfer stations. Waste Management Plan for the County of Dubrovnik Neretva is determined and adopted Regional Plan for Dubrovnik which determined the location of WMC at the site of Lucino Razdolje in settlement Trnovica (1 km away), and the location of transfer stations. When the WMCs will be constructed, it will allow the closure and rehabilitation of the current landfills in the relevant counties, as well as final disposal of the remaining non-hazardous waste. Procurement subject of these projects task is the feasibility studies which will represent the best option of the waste management system for the area covered by the aforementioned projects and the projects applications needed for the projects applications WMCs of Lećevica, Lucino Razdolje and Babina Gora for co-financing from the Cohesion Fund, whose main purpose is to provide financial assistance to meet the requirements arising from EU legislation on the basis of strategic documents of the Republic of Croatia. In order for the waste management system to be optimal in terms of efficiency, economic viability and environmental acceptability, is very important to know the composition of mixed municipal waste, which changes depending on a number of factors of which the most important are the population, the type of areas of economic activity, the purchasing power of the population, season considerations and so on. The final result of all activities covered by the aforementioned projects tasks is a feasibility study and project applications (apps) for co-financing projects through the EU cohesion fund, accepted by the competent national authorities and that can reasonably be expected to be accepted by the European Union. The feasibility study and the project application were made as a complete document, together with all necessary supports, supplements and documents, which are precisely the subject of this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the European Union. Feasibility study demonstrates the choosing process of the most acceptable solution to the technical - technological and financial - economic aspects, and as such was the basis for all technical solution and associated project documentation (preliminary and final design, documentation for the implementation of procedures for environmental impact assessment and documentation for the impact assessment procedure for the ecological network) for all study provided facilities, equipment and vehicles needed for integrated waste management system. 1.1 Background The existing waste management system in is still not fully in line with the legislation provisions. 2

3 The waste collection system has not been established in its entirety. The work of collection municipal waste in the is performed by eighteen (18) utility companies. Work is carried out under contract of local governments and waste collectors. Waste collected by communal companies from the area of 22 local government units is deposited in eight official dumps in the area of. Organized collection of municipal waste covers all settlements in five towns and 17 municipalities of (100%). The collection frequency depends on whether it is an urban or rural area. The service fee is calculated in different ways: according to the number of household members, the volume of waste, surface area and unique. Split-Dalmatia County The existing waste management system in Split-Dalmatia County is still not fully in line with the legislation provisions. The activities of waste collection in Split-Dalmatia County are performed by thirty (30) utility companies. The greatest amount of mixed municipal waste in Split-Dalmatia County in 2012 was collected by Čistoća d.o.o. Split (42%). The waste is landfilled in the 15 official landfills in the Split-Dalmatia County while waste from the municipality Gradac is being transported to the landfill Lovornik in. Currently, biodegradable municipal waste is not collected separately. The lack of separate collection of biodegradable waste was considered the most serious problem in 77.3% of the received questionnaires. Another significant problem is the lack of financial resources, as it was considered a very serious/serious problem in 68.2% of the received questionnaires. Poor response to waste minimisation (reuse/recycling) was reported as a very serious/serious problem by 68.2% of the received questionnaires. Lack of collection equipment, old vehicle equipment and the lack of capability to maintain/repair the existing vehicles/equipment was considered a very serious/serious problem in almost 55% of the received questionnaires distributed in County municipalities. Karlovac County, NE part of Lika-Senj County and W part of Sisak-Moslavina County The existing waste management system in Karlovac County, NE part of Lika-Senj County and W part of Sisak- Moslavina County is still not fully in line with the legislation provisions. According to the received questionnaires (Karlovac and northern part of Lika-Senj County), the total number/capacity of various containers for mixed waste in residential and commercial areas is 38,901/111,836 m 3 and 2,081/5,903 m 3 respectively. Additionally, the total number/capacity of various containers for packaging waste in residential and commercial areas is 38,901/111,836 m 3 and 2,081/5,903 m 3 respectively. Waste collected in the field of 22 local government units is deposited in seven landfills in Karlovac County, 3 landfills which served the NE part of Lika-Senj County and 2 landfills which served the W part of Sisak-Moslavina County. Landfill is managed by utility companies based on licenses for the activity of waste disposal. 1.2 Project objectives The final result of all activities covered by these projects tasks was a feasibility study which has included also Cost Benefit Analysis and project applications (apps) for financing projects through the EU Cohesion Fund, accepted by the competent national authorities and that can reasonably be expected to be accepted by the European Union. The feasibility study and project application were made as complete documents, together with all necessary supports, supplements and documents, which are precisely the subject of this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the European Union. 2 METHODOLOGY For the implementation of the feasibility studies (one for each County) the following steps and chapters were prepared: Background information and review of the existing waste management system. This chapter includes background information regarding previous studies; provide information regarding project and its relationship with the national waste management strategy and its objectives. Also describes the project location, environmental and infrastructure aspects, collection and treatment system, an overview of current waste streams, waste generation and management, recycling and recovery industry in usage and existing waste management system costs. Socio-Economic Context. This chapter includes the current status and future projections regarding demographics, the current status and future projections regarding tourism, the current status and future status regarding affordability and economic aspects. Waste content and future generation forecast. This chapter includes morphological composition of the mixed municipal waste, physical-chemical properties of the mixed municipal waste, future waste generation and its content. 3

4 Market analysis. This chapter includes supply and demand analysis. Institutional framework-legal and policy context. This chapter includes EU waste management policy and legal instruments, national political and institutional framework, local spatial policy, the implications of the legal and policy issues on the project, available sources of financing. Project determination and its objectives. This chapter includes a GAP analysis based on chapters 2-6, and a definition of the project boundaries. Option analysis. This chapter includes option analysis regarding location, collection system, Transfer Stations and technologies for WMC. Also will include financial analysis regarding the proposed technologies for WMC and a multi criteria analysis in order to justify the selected technology for WMC. Proposed investment project. This chapter describes the future waste management system from operational and technological point of view. This chapter will provide detail CAPEX, OPEX and re-investment costs analysis. Also promoter organization should be described together with the current competences level. Environmental and social assessment. This chapter includes all relevant information from the Environmental Impact Assessment and also will include a CO 2 footprint calculation (including without/with project scenario) and a report in climate change adaptation/resilience. Financial analysis and Economic valuation. Cost Benefit Analysis of the proposed waste management system. Risk analysis. This chapter includes the evaluation of risk matrix, risk mitigations and management. Procurement and implementation. This chapter provides the procurement strategy and propose of future contract arrangements and also will provide detail project implementation plan. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Split-Dalmatia County The data for the permanent population are according to Census 2011 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics). In order to calculate the future population, the Publication Population projections of the Republic of Croatia of the Croatia Bureau of Statistics was taken into account. In this report used three variants of population projections were used (middle, high and low variant). It is decided that population forecast with medium growth rate variant as used in calculations. Based on Croatian Bureau of Statistics and the Master Plan of Touristic Development in SDC, , the number of unregistered overnight stays, mainly connected to private accommodation, was estimated to be 15% of the registered overnight stays. In order to make a projection of the number of overnight stays for the reference period (30 years), four regression models were examined and one (the linear function) was selected. The Gross Domestic Product for the Republic of Croatia and of Split Dalmatia County is presented in the following table. Table 1: Gross Domestic Product for the Republic of Croatia and of Split Dalmatia County Croatia Split Dalmatia County GDP per Capita (HRK) 76,755 60,007 The average income per household which was estimated using data from Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the total charges from residential users stated in the received questionnaires and the number of households in the municipalities served. Then, the affordability for current charges was calculated. In order to quantify the waste which will be transferred to WMC after the elaboration of source separation of different waste streams, 4 samplings took place in 7 landfills of Split-Dalmatia County during the following periods: 17-22/11/2014, 13-18/10/2014, 25-29/8/2014 and 4-9/8/2014. The standards that have been used for the determination of waste composition analysis comply with international standards. According to the Terms of Reference, the analysis of physical-chemical characteristics and biodegradability of municipal solid waste were performed on representative samples taken from the previous analysis of the composition and morphological properties. The analysis was performed in 2 phases and for two locations, Karepovac landfill in Split and Kozjačić landfill in Imotski. The collected data were statistically elaborated in order to identify the quantities of total produced waste in Split- Dalmatia County for 2013, per category of European Waste Catalogue and per Town/Municipality that will be served for 4

5 each Transfer Station that will be constructed (Data from CEA, PL-SKO form for 2013) and the same quantities taking into consideration the assumptions for bulky waste and the assumption for garden and park biodegradable waste. The waste production results were further elaborated in relation to Census 2011 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics) and estimation of 2013 from Croatian Bureau of Statistics regarding population of each town/municipality and overnight stays and the forecast for permanent and seasonal population was calculated. Also there were examined three scenario cases for the evolution of waste production rate (regarding municipal solid waste). Waste production quantities resulting using low scenario case: Table 2: Waste production calculation overview in Split Dalmatia County Population, Waste Production Rate, Produced Municipal Waste Permanent Population 454, , ,573 Seasonal Population 38,232 (year 2014) 44,096 77,285 Quantity of produced Municipal Waste (t) 193, , ,261 Waste production Rate for permanent population (t/ca/year) Waste production Rate for seasonal population (t/ca/year) Source separated Recyclable waste Household Recyclable waste Commercial Recyclable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 1,457 25,334 Future situation/year 2020 (t) * 25,843 34,356 Percentage of Recycling (according method 2 of Decision 2011/753/EU) Current situation/year 2013 (%) 23.4% Future situation/year 2020 (%) 52.5% Source separated biodegradable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 0 Future situation/year 2020 (t) 3, Total waste that will be delivered to WMC (t) 109, ,772 * The quantity of the household recyclable waste is the quantity that resulting after Mechanical treatment of the source separated household recyclable waste. We mentioned this quantity due to the fact that this quantity has been taken into consideration for the target calculation according dir. 2008/98/EC. Additionally took place a quantification of specific targets which determined from dir. 2008/98/EC, 2004/12/EC and 1999/31/EC. The recycling from sorting at source is 52.5% in 2020 and the recycling from treatment in the WMC will be 17.0%. Therefore the total recycling (source separated recyclables and recyclables from WMC) is 69.5%. The above rates have been calculated according the method 2 of dir. 98/2008. Also, the proposed project will reach the new targets regarding the circular economy package presented by the Commission on In order to identify the most feasible solution to be suggested in the new Integrated Waste Management System in Split Dalmatia County, took place an option analysis relating to the location of WMC, Collection system, Transfer Stations and Waste Management Centre Technology. Different criteria were set and by the use of MCA tool (PROMETHEE Model), were selected the site for the construction of a landfill and therefore for the construction of a WMC to be the Kladnjice Lećevica site. Additionally, different alternative solutions were identified regarding waste collection system, as presented in the following table. 5

6 Table 3: Waste collection system alternatives in Split Dalmatia County a. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Two way stream: b. Collection of residual municipal waste a. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Three way stream: b. Separate collection of biodegradable waste c. Collection of residual municipal waste SWOT analysis has been completed for the above two alternative options. Then, taking into consideration the geopolitical characteristics of the project area and the produced waste quantities, it is advised to keep the current collection system in force i.e. three waste streams. Additionally, the number of collection bins and trucks required in the project area is determined. The Total Cost for purchased collection equipment is calculated as 2,714,480. Additionally, different alternative solutions regarding transfer stations technology, technical characteristics of standard transport equipment and transfer stations locations. As for the analysis of the necessary number of TS the variants that were created are shown to the following table. Table 4: Waste TS alternatives in Split Dalmatia County Variant 0 Variant 1 Variant 2 Variant 3 Variant 4 Direct transport to WMC 9 TS 8 TS 7 TS 6 TS Split Split Split Split Sinj Sinj Sinj Sinj Zagvozd Zagvozd Zagvozd Zagvozd Brač Brač Brač Brač 55 LSGU Hvar Hvar Hvar Hvar Vis Vis Vis Vis Trogir Trogir Trogir Šolta Šolta Vrgorac Finally, for the selection of the preferred variant was based according to waste transfer technologies option analysis, total operational costs, Monthly waste amounts Waste transport frequency, TS operational needs (personnel and equipment), Investment costs in TS construction and equipment. The analysis of variants of transporting waste from the point of its generation to the location of its treatment showed that 6 transfer stations construction is justified: Split, Sinj, Zagvozd, Brač, Hvar and Vis, in the case of mechanical and biological treatment at the same location namely in Kladnjice, Municipality of Lećevica. In order to support decisions regarding future solutions for the Waste Management in Split -Dalmatia County, reliable strategies and concepts are needed. For this purpose, four main waste management scenarios have been defined. The scenarios are based on objectives and recent national legislation for waste management and take into consideration waste production of the County and composition as well as existing waste system infrastructure. The Scenarios are: Table 5: Proposed WMC technology alternatives in Split Dalmatia County Proposed Scenarios Description Scenario 1 Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF and Biological treatment (Aerobic composting) for production of CLO Scenario 2 Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF, Anaerobic Digestion with electricity production and further Aerobic composting for production of CLO Scenario 3 Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF and Biological Treatment (Biodrying) for production of SRF Scenario 4A Biological treatment (Biodrying) for production of low SRF quality and mechanical separation with recovery of Fe/Al Scenario 4B Biological treatment (Biodrying) for production of high SRF quality and mechanical separation with recovery of Fe/Al Scenario 5 Thermal treatment unit (mass burn incineration) for electricity production Then, the targets of National Legislation for all scenarios were calculated. The quantifications of targets that correspond to 2008/98/EC European Legislation and 1999/31/EC European Legislation are presented below: 6

7 Table 6: Evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Split Dalmatia County European Directive 2008/98/EC European Directive 1999/31/EC Article 55 of Act on Sustainable Waste Article 24 of Act on Sustainable Waste Management (OG No 94/13) Management (OG No 94/13) Percentage (*) Achievement of target Percentage(**) Achievement of target Scenario % Yes 16.4% Yes Scenario % Yes 16.4% Yes Scenario % Yes 16.4% Yes Scenario 4A 54.2% Yes 30.6% Yes Scenario 4B 54.1% Yes 38.9% No Scenario % Yes 13.7% Yes (*) Recycling percentage (combination of source separation and Mechanical treatment in WMC) calculated according Dir. 2008/98/EC. Analytical calculations are presented in chapter 7 of the present study (**) Percentage of biodegradable waste that will be deposited in landfill, in relation to the total produced biodegradable waste in DNC that was produced in year Finally the paragraph describes the financial and economic analysis. Specifically, for each scenario, investment cost, operational cost, revenues and dynamic prime cost were calculated. The results are summarized below: Table 7: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Split Dalmatia County Proposed Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4A Scenario 4B Scenario 5 Total Investment costs (Including contingencies) 38,586,043 41,914,786 47,584,556 51,723,166 34,767,574 37,752,655 36,559,625 41,147,442 41,326,961 44,902, ,499, ,390,062 Total Operating Cost /y 3,999,428 4,512,599 3,960,038 4,212,522 4,214,673 6,497,712 Revenues 1,054,541 2,010,174 43,462-1,379, ,664 4,470,655 Dynamic Prime Cost Note: The quantities of investment and operating cost and revenues referred to average quantities of the period The criteria selected in the MCA PROMETHEE Model were classified into four groups incorporating Legislative, Environmental, Technical and Financial. There were three group weights calculated for every criterion (A, B, C). From the final ranking, the most preferred option among the legislative, environmental, technical and financial criteria, for all the scenario weights, is achieved by Scenario 1. A GHG footprint calculation took place in order to calculate the Greenhouse gases emissions generated from activities of the proposed waste management system. GHGs include the seven gases listed in Kyoto Protocol. Jaspers suggests considering Scope 1 Direct GHG emissions (physically occur from sources that are operated by the project within the project boundary) and Scope 2 Indirect emissions (generated by the electricity that is consumed by the project) as well as avoided emissions as a consequence of material or energy recovery by the project. Avoided emissions create a net benefit to society that clearly has to be included as an economic benefit of the project. The following table presents the total GHG emissions, in t CO 2 (eq), for the different components of the waste management system in the with-project scenario, in the baseline (without-project) scenario and the incremental GHG emissions that are calculated when subtracting the GHG emissions in with project scenario from GHG emissions without project scenario. Table 8: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Split Dalmatia County Total With Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -91,149 Total Without Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -1,842 Total Incremental GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -89, The data for the permanent population are according to Census 2011 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics). In order to calculate the future population, the Publication Population projections of the Republic of Croatia of the Croatia Bureau of Statistics was taken into account. In this report used three variants of population projections were 7

8 used (middle, high and low variant). It is decided that population forecast with medium growth rate variant as used in calculations. Based on Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the number of unregistered overnight stays, mainly connected to private accommodation, was estimated to be 15% of the registered overnight stays. In order to make a projection of the number of overnight stays for the reference period (30 years), four regression models were examined and one (the linear function) was selected. The following table presents the total tourist nights for the evaluation period The Gross Domestic Product for Dubrovnik Neretva County is presented in the following table. Table 9: Gross Domestic Product in Dubrovnik Neretva County Croatia GDP per Capita (HRK) 76,755 74,129 The average income per household which was estimated using data from Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the total charges from residential users stated in the received questionnaires and the number of households in the municipalities served. Then, the affordability for current charges was calculated. In order to quantify the waste which will be transferred to WMC after the elaboration of source separation of different waste streams, there were selected 5 sampling sites (which cover about 92.2 % of the population in Dubrovnik Neretva County) out of the 8 active landfill sites. During the tests were taken 12 samples of mixed municipal waste from around 250 kg each. The standards that have been used for the determination of waste composition analysis comply with international standards. The waste composition analysis has been elaborated in period 2-4/2/2015 and in 16-18/6/2015. According to the Terms of Reference, the analysis of physical-chemical characteristics and biodegradability of municipal solid waste were performed on representative samples taken from the previous analysis of the composition and morphological properties. The analysis was performed in 3 samples (50kg weight) on 05/02/2015 in "Grabovica"- Dubrovnik location, and in 3 samples (65 kg weight) on 18/06/2015 in the same location. The projections of produced MSW have been calculated for the next 30 years from 2015 [3 years implementation period ( ) of the County Waste Management Centre and 25 years operational phase of this Centre ( )]. Also there were examined three scenario cases for the evolution of waste production rate (regarding municipal solid waste). The following tables present the forecast of municipal solid waste, municipal solid waste that will be delivered to Lucino Razdolje WMC. Table 10: Waste production calculation overview in Dubrovnik Neretva County Population, Waste Production Rate, Produced Municipal Waste Permanent Population 122, , ,773 Seasonal Population 16,932 19,838 32,794 Quantity of produced Municipal Waste (t) 65,072 64,056 65,259 Waste production Rate for permanent population (kg/ca/year) Waste production Rate for seasonal population (kg/ca/year) Source separated Recyclable waste Household Recyclable waste Commercial Recyclable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 4,367 2,307 Future situation/year 2020 (t) 13,963 * 2,476 Percentage of Recycling (according method 2 of Decision 2011/753/EU on Dir. 2008/98/EC) Current situation/year 2013 (%) 20.2% Future situation/year 2020 (%) 50.3% Source separated biodegradable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 0 Future situation/year 2020 (t) 2, Total waste that will be delivered to WMC (t) 43,345 44,159 8

9 * The quantity of the household recyclable waste is the quantity that resulting after Mechanical treatment of the source separated household recyclable waste. We mentioned this quantity due to the fact that this quantity has been taken into consideration for the target calculation according dir. 2008/98/EC. Additionally took place a quantification of specific targets which determined from dir. 2008/98/EC, 2004/12/EC and 1999/31/EC. The recycling from sorting at source is 50.3% in 2020 and the recycling from treatment in the WMC will be 18.5%. Therefore the total recycling (source separated recyclables and recyclables from WMC) is 68.8%. The above rates have been calculated according the method 2 of dir. 2008/98/EC. Also, the proposed project will reach the new targets regarding the circular economy package presented by the Commission on In order to identify the most feasible solution to be suggested in the new Integrated Waste Management System in Dubrovnik Neretva County, took place an option analysis relating to the location of WMC, Collection system, Transfer Stations and Waste Management Centre Technology. Different criteria were set and by the use of multi-criteria analysis tool (PROMETHEE Model), were selected the site for the construction of a landfill and therefore for the construction of a WMC to be the Lucino Razdolje site. Additionally, different alternative solutions were identified regarding waste collection system, as presented in the following table. Table 11: Waste collection system alternatives in Dubrovnik Neretva County Total investment a. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Two way stream: 2,479,100 (without home composting) b. Collection of residual municipal waste a. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Three way stream: b. Separate collection of biodegradable waste 2,503,140 c. Collection of residual municipal waste The proposed waste collection system is the current collection system, i.e. the two way stream system proposing also home composting actions. Additionally, different alternative solutions regarding transfer stations technology, technical characteristics of standard transport equipment and transfer stations locations have been taken into consideration. For the determination of the optimum number of TS in terms of logistics as well as investment cost, four variants were proposed and examined. It is concluded that the optimal option is to have six (6) TS (variant no. 3). Three (3) TS at mainland: Dubrovnik, Janjina and Metkovic Three (3) TS at islands: Vela Luka, Lastovo and Mljet The investment cost of the selected option is 6,012,500 and the annual OPEX of the selected option is 646,112 The DPC of the selected option is 33.3 /t. In order to support decisions regarding future solutions for the Waste Management in, reliable strategies and concepts are needed. For this purpose, four main waste management scenarios have been defined. The scenarios are based on objectives and recent national legislation for waste management and take into consideration waste production of the County and composition as well as existing waste system infrastructure. The Scenarios are: Table 12: Proposed WMC technology alternatives in Proposed Scenarios Description Scenario 1 Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF and biological treatment (aerobic composting) for CLO production Scenario 2 Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF, wet AD with electricity production and dewatering of digestate Scenario 3 Biological treatment (Biodrying) for production of low quality SRF and mechanical separation with recovery of Fe/Al Scenario 4 Mechanical Separation with recovery of recyclables and RDF, dry fermentation with electricity and heat production and bio-stabilization of digestate (Hybrid MBT) 9

10 Then, the targets of National Legislation for all scenarios were calculated. The quantifications of targets that correspond to 2008/98/EC European Legislation and 1999/31/EC European Legislation are presented below: Table 13: Evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Recycling target according European Directive 2008/98/EC Article 55 of Act on Sustainable Waste Management (OG No 94/13) Target on landfilling of waste according European Directive 1999/31/EC Article 24 of Act on Sustainable Waste Management (OG No 94/13) Percentage ** Achievement of target Percentage * Achievement of target Scenario % Yes 8.8% Yes Scenario % Yes 12.8% Yes Scenario % Yes 34.5% Yes Scenario % Yes 4.3% Yes (*) Recycling percentage (combination of source separation and Mechanical treatment in WMC) calculated according Dir. 2008/98/EC. Analytical calculations are presented in chapter 7 of the present study (**) Percentage of biodegradable waste that will be deposited in landfill, in relation to the total produced biodegradable waste in DNC that was produced in year Finally the paragraph describes the financial and economic analysis. Specifically, for each scenario, investment cost, operational cost, revenues and dynamic prime cost were calculated. The results are summarized below: Table 14: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Proposed Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Total Investment costs (Including contingencies) 20,185,943 23,821,830 18,230,485 24,231,940 Total Operating Cost 1,714,516 2,188,959 1,962,014 1,943,816 Average Revenues 341, , , ,374 Dynamic Prime Cost Note: The quantities of investment and operating cost and revenues referred to average quantities of the period The criteria selected in the MCA PROMETHEE Model were classified into four groups incorporating Legislative, Environmental, Technical and Financial Criteria. The selected scenario was Scenario 4 including mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF, dry fermentation with electricity and heat production and biostabilization of digestate. A GHG footprint calculation took place in order to calculate the Greenhouse gases emissions from activities of the proposed waste management system. GHGs include the seven gases listed in Kyoto Protocol. Jaspers suggests considering Scope 1 Direct GHG emissions (physically occur from sources that are operated by the project within the project boundary) and Scope 2 Indirect emissions (generated by the electricity that is consumed by the project) as well as avoided emissions as a consequence of material or energy recovery by the project. Avoided emissions create a net benefit to society that clearly has to be included as an economic benefit of the project. The following table presents the total GHG emissions, in t CO 2 (eq), for the different components of the waste management system in the with-project scenario, in the baseline (without-project) scenario and the incremental GHG emissions that are calculated when subtracting the GHG emissions in with project scenario from GHG emissions without project scenario. Table 15: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Total With Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) 12,797 Total Without Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -24,432 Total Incremental GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -37,230 10

11 3.3 Karlovac County, NE part of Lika-Senj County and W part of Sisak Moslavina County The data for the permanent population are according to Census 2011 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics). In order to calculate the future population, the Publication Population projections of the Republic of Croatia of the Croatia Bureau of Statistics was taken into account. In this report used three variants of population projections were used (middle, high and low variant). It is decided that population forecast with medium growth rate variant as used in calculations. Based on Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the number of unregistered overnight stays, mainly connected to private accommodation, was estimated to be 15% of the registered overnight stays. In order to make a projection of the number of overnight stays for the reference period (30 years), four regression models were examined and one (the linear function) was selected. The following table presents the total tourist nights for the evaluation period The Gross Domestic Product for Karlovac County is presented in the following table. Table 16: Gross Domestic Product in Karlovac County County Croatia GDP per Capita (HRK) Karlovac County 57,310 NE part of Lika-Senj County 76,755 60,078 W part of Sisak-Moslavina County 61,064 The average income per household which was estimated using data from Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the total charges from residential users stated in the received questionnaires and the number of households in the municipalities served. Then, the affordability for current charges was calculated. In order to quantify the waste which will be transferred to WMC after the elaboration of source separation of different waste streams, there were selected 10 sampling sites that correspond to 10 different landfill sites. Sampling was done during 10 to 15 of December. During the tests were taken 18 samples of mixed municipal waste from around 250 kg each. The standards that have been used comply with international standards. In order to calculate the future waste generation forecast for the counties that will be part of the present study, data from Croatian Environment Agency for municipal waste (year 2013), construction waste (year 2013) and non-hazardous industrial waste (year 2013) have been used. Also there were examined three scenario cases for the evolution of waste production rate (regarding municipal solid waste). The following table presents the forecast of municipal solid waste, construction waste, sludges derived from wastewater treatment plant and non-hazardous industrial waste. Table 17: Waste production calculation overview in Karlovac County Population, Waste Production Rate, Produced Municipal Waste Total Permanent Population 158, , ,465 Seasonal Population 1,815 (year 2014) 1,910 2,373 Total Quantity of produced Municipal Waste* (t) 51,727 48,709 44,730 Waste production Rate for permanent and seasonal population (Kg/ca/day) Karlovac County: Western part of SisakMoslavina County: Northeastern part of Lika-Senj County: Source separated Recyclable waste Household Recyclable waste Commercial Recyclable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 1,148 10,389 Future situation/year 2020 (t) 6,329 ** 11,020 Percentage of Recycling (according method 2 of Decision 2011/753/EU) Current situation/year 2013 (%) 29.0% Future situation/year 2020 (%) 51.9% Source separated biodegradable waste Current situation/year 2013 (t) 183 Future situation/year 2020 (t) 1, Total waste that will be delivered to WMC (t) 36,809 33,810 11

12 * The Total Quantity of produced Municipal Waste includes the produced quantity from permanent and seasonal population. As for the quantity of seasonal population includes the produced quantity of overnights stays of all the touristic areas. The daily visitors did not take into consideration because their contribution to the total waste production can be assumed not significant. ** The quantity of the household recyclable waste is the quantity that resulting after Mechanical treatment of the source separated household recyclable waste. We mentioned this quantity due to the fact that this quantity has been taken into consideration for the target calculation according dir. 2008/98/EC. Additionally took place a quantification of specific targets which determined from dir. 2008/98/EC, 2004/12/EC and 1999/31/EC. The recycling from sorting at source is 51.9% in 2020 and the recycling from treatment in the WMC will be 17.5%. Therefore the total recycling (source separated recyclables and recyclables from WMC) is 69.4%. The above rates have been calculated according the method 2 of dir. 98/2008. Also, the proposed project will reach the new targets regarding the circular economy package presented by the Commission on In order to identify the most feasible solution to be suggested in the new Integrated Waste Management System in Karlovac County, NE part of Lika Senj County and W part of Sisak Moslavina, took place an option analysis relating to the location of WMC, Collection system, Transfer Stations and Waste Management Centre Technology. Different criteria were set and by the use of multi-criteria analysis tool (PROMETHEE Model), were selected the site for the construction of a landfill and therefore for the construction of a WMC to be the Babina Gora site. Additionally, different alternative solutions were identified regarding waste collection system, as presented in the following table. Table 18: Waste collection system alternatives in Karlovac County Total investment c. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Two way stream: 1,358,488(without home composting) d. Collection of residual municipal waste d. Separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic Three way stream: e. Separate collection of biodegradable waste 1,851,968 f. Collection of residual municipal waste The proposed waste collection system is the current collection system, i.e. the two way stream system adding also home composting. Additionally, different alternative solutions regarding transfer stations technology, technical characteristics of standard transport equipment and transfer stations locations have been taken into consideration. For the determination of the optimum number of TS in terms of logistics as well as investment cost, five variants were proposed and examined. It is concluded that the optimal option is to have six (4) TS (variant no. 1). Three (3) TS at Karlovac County: Otok Ostarijski TS, Slunj TS, Karlovac TS One (1) TS at NE part of Lika-Senj County: Podum TS The investment cost of the selected option is 4,163,000 and the annual OPEX of the selected option is 612,326 The DPC of the selected option is 33.5 /t. In order to support decisions regarding future solutions for the Waste Management in Karlovac County, reliable strategies and concepts are needed. For this purpose, four main waste management scenarios have been defined. The scenarios are based on objectives and recent national legislation for waste management and take into consideration waste production of the County and composition as well as existing waste system infrastructure. The Scenarios are: Proposed Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Table 19: Proposed WMC technology alternatives in Karlovac County Description Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF and Biological treatment (Aerobic composting) for production of CLO Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF, Anaerobic Digestion with electricity production and further Aerobic composting for production of CLO Mechanical separation with recovery of Recyclables and RDF and Biological Treatment (Biodrying) for production of Biodried product that will be deposited in a bioreactor landfill Biological treatment (Biodrying) for production of low SRF quality and mechanical separation with recovery of Fe/Al 12

13 Then, the targets of National Legislation for all scenarios were calculated. The quantifications of targets are presented below: Table 20: Evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Karlovac County European Directive 2008/98/EC Article 55 of Act on Sustainable Waste Management (OG No 94/13) Percentage * Achievement of target European Directive 1999/31/EC Article 24 of Act on Sustainable Waste Management (OG No 94/13) Percentage ** Achievement of target Scenario % Yes 5.3% Yes Scenario % Yes 5.3% Yes Scenario % Yes 34.7% Yes Scenario % Yes 27.8% Yes * Recycling percentage (combination of source separation and Mechanical treatment in WMC) calculated according Dir. 2008/98/EC. Analytical calculations are presented in chapter 7 of the present study ** Percentage of biodegradable waste that will be deposited in landfill, in relation to the total produced biodegradable waste in DNC that was produced in year Finally the paragraph describes the financial and economic analysis. Specifically, for each scenario, investment cost, operation cost, revenues and dynamic price cost were calculated. The results are summarized below: Table 21: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Karlovac County Proposed Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Total Investment costs(including 20,772,518 23,626,216 22,294,941 20,020,253 contingencies) Total Operating Cost Average Revenues 265, , , ,302 Dynamic Prime Cost Note: The quantities of investment and operating cost and revenues referred to average quantities of the period The criteria selected in the MCA PROMETHEE Model were classified into four groups incorporating Legislative, Environmental, Technical and Financial. From the final ranking, the most preferred option among the legislative, environmental, technical and financial criteria, for all the scenario weights, is achieved by Scenario 3which was selected as the best solution. A GHG footprint calculation took place in order to calculate the Greenhouse gases emissions from activities of the proposed waste management system. GHGs include the seven gases listed in Kyoto Protocol. Jaspers suggests considering Scope 1 Direct GHG emissions (physically occur from sources that are operated by the project within the project boundary) and Scope 2 Indirect emissions (generated by the electricity that is consumed by the project) as well as avoided emissions as a consequence of material or energy recovery by the project. Avoided emissions create a net benefit to society that clearly has to be included as an economic benefit of the project. The following table presents the total GHG emissions, in t CO 2 (eq), for the different components of the waste management system in the with-project scenario, in the baseline (without-project) scenario and the incremental GHG emissions that are calculated when subtracting the GHG emissions in with project scenario from GHG emissions without project scenario. Table 22: Economic evaluation of WMC technology alternatives in Karlovac County Total With Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -14,403 Total Without Project Scenario GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) 10,805 Total Incremental GHG Emissions (t CO 2 (eq)) -25,208 13