DRIVERS AND BARRIERS FOR THE APPLICATION OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN GREECE

Transcription

1 DRIVERS AND BARRIERS FOR THE APPLICATION OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN GREECE MAVROPOULOS ANTONIS o, SKOULAXINOU SOTIRIA o, KARKAZI ANNA o, MENTZIS ANDREAS o o EPEM S.A., Acharnon 141 Β, Athens, Greece SUMMARY: Although there is uniform waste management legislation throughout European Union, the implementation of it depends strongly on local conditions and technical, financial and human resources. Greece is one of the few countries of EU that do not incorporate thermal treatment in their waste management systems. The aim of this paper is to outline the main barriers and drivers for WtE concepts in Greece taking into account the experiences gained from the preparation of two regional waste management facilities in Western Macedonia and Achaia Prefecture. The short review of the case-studies will be followed by an outline and discussion of the national waste drivers and barriers for WtE technologies. 1. INTRODUCTION In EU, it seems that Waste to Energy (WTE) concepts either in the form of direct incineration of MSW or in the form of thermal utilization of secondary fuels (RDF or SRF) are strongly preferred as a mean to fulfil the targets that have been set for biodegradable waste management. Currently approximately 50 million tones of waste are thermally treated each year in about 400 Waste to Energy Plans (WEPs) in Europe (Stengler E., 2005). Greece is one of the few MS that does not incorporate thermal treatment in waste management systems. The aim of this paper is to outline the main barriers and drivers for WTE concepts in Greece taking into account the experiences gained from the preparation of two regional waste management facilities in Western Macedonia and Achaia Prefecture. The studies elaborated for the two Regions indicated several barriers and drivers that actually, apply nationally. These drivers/barriers that most of the people working in the waste management have thought of perhaps more than once, were clearly identified in the work done and will be outlined in the following. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO CASE-STUDIES 2.1 The Western Macedonia Region Case Study Short profile The Region of Western Macedonia (WMR) is located at the northwestern part of Greece and

2 consists of four prefectures, namely the prefecture of Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina. The population of the region is approximately citizens of which more than 50% live in the prefecture of Kozani. The total area of the region is approximately hectares. The WMR is characterized by the extensive excavation activities of lignite for the production of energy and the respective units of power generation. These excavations and depositions have irreversibly affected the relief of the area. Due to the fact that much of the power generated in Greece is actually produced in the WMR (approximately 70% of the national power generation), the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the area is approximately 3% of the national GDP (approx m and / capita). The 55% of the GDP of the area is produced in the Kozani prefecture, where most of the excavation and power generation activities take place Data on waste quantity and quality - current waste management status The WMR possesses a pioneer, at least for the Greek reality, regional municipal waste management system consisting of the collection of the waste and the transportation through a network of nine transfer stations to the regional sanitary landfill, which began its operation in This waste management system refers to the waste generated in the whole region of the Western Macedonia and this fact is also avant-garde in Greece. In addition, in the four biggest cities of the region (Kozani, Ptolemaida, Florina and Grevena) as well as in several municipalities, systems for the separate collection of paper and cardboard are currently operating, covering approximately the 65% of the total population of the region. However it is already planned and will be implemented in the very near future, a more comprehensive selection at source system, for all recyclates (paper, plastics, metals and glass), will be implemented covering approximately 80% of the population of the region. These fractions of recyclates will be collected and processed in the 5 local and 1 regional recycling facilities in order to be utilized. The total amount of waste generated in the WMR is approximately tons / year. The waste generation appears to be relatively stable over time. The total cost of the waste management system (excluding the waste collection, which is the responsibility of each municipality and including the costs of depreciation) is approximately 2,9 m, resulting in a gate fee of 27,5 / ton (it refers to a total annual generation of tons of waste, that are currently been collected). From this gate fee the 18,5 / ton refers to the operation of the whole network of transfer stations and 9 /ton to the operation of the regional landfill. The estimation cost for the selection at source system will be approximately / year, considering the expected revenue for the utilization of the recyclables (approximately / year). The operator of the aforementioned waste management system is DIADYMA SA (Management of Municipal Waste of Western Macedonia S.A.). DIADYMA is a societe anonym, whose only stakeholders are: The Local Unions of Municipalities and Communities of the prefectures of Grevena, Kastoria, Kozani and Florina The Municipalities of Grevena, Kastoria, Kozani and Florina DIADYMA was established in 1997 and during the first years of its operation it was responsible for the design and preparation of all the studies necessary for the development of the integrated regional waste management system. At present, DIADYMA is responsible for the operation of the existing waste management (transfer stations network and landfill operation) and the development of the new infrastructures and systems, namely the development of the selection at source system for recyclates and the design, construction and operation of a treatment unit for mixed municipal waste. DIADYMA is considered a very successful Waste

3 Management Authority and is always the pioneer in introducing novel concepts and systems in the Greek territory. As a result the waste management system of WMR is considered the most successful in Greece, having solved the problem of waste and residues disposal and already seeking for alternative ways of waste management Description of the problem and applied approach for its solution DIADYMA SA recognizes that further steps are needed in order to address need for integrated waste management and maximum utilization of materials included in the waste. It also recognizes the gap that has to be covered in order to fulfill the EU and national legislation specific targets for the recovery of materials from the waste (packaging materials) and the diversion of biodegradable waste from being disposed of in landfill sites. In this framework, the DIADYMA implemented a technical study for the construction and operation of a municipal solid waste treatment unit. This study, which was finalized in March 2006, aimed at selecting a suitable waste treatment technology, tailored to the needs of the specific region and preparing the technical design for the selected solution. The methodology that was followed included the following steps: Firstly, waste quantities, composition and properties were determined in order to be utilized during the comparison of the alternative scenarios. Then, the alternative waste management scenarios were determined based on extensive consultation with DIADYMA to determine the specific needs of the region and of the waste management operator. The conclusions of this consultation included: The preference to technologies that produce energy, which is an easily marketable commodity The preference to technologies that significantly reduce the volume and mass of the waste that will end up into landfills The preference to relatively simple technologies, of modular form The preference to technologies that are not very sensitive to changes in composition and are capable to handle commingled waste Study trips to several waste management units in Europe took also place as well as a market research for the products that would derive from the alternative waste treatment technologies. The result of these activities was the development of 4 alternative scenarios, all focused on energy recovery, either via the production of Refuse Derive Fuel or Solid Recovered Fuel (RDF / SRF) or via the generation of biogas. A mass-burn option was also included. These alternatives were compared based on their technical, financial and environmental performance in order for DIADYMA to assess, which technology suits best the WMR. It was evident that the gate fees for the waste management in WMR would significantly increase. This increase would be no less than 30 / ton and up to 100 /ton, depending on the selected scenario and the source of the funding. The on going failure of the MBT projects in Greece due to poor diversion rates and high operational cost drives WMA to confront MBT only as supplement to thermal treatment and not as a solution by itself. By that way it is a driver for WtE. On the other hand this failure also poses as a barrier because it creates a lot of questions whether the capacity of WMA is enough to sustain a WtE plant. The public of the WMR is not opposed to the WtE technologies, as it may be the case for other places in Greece. This is mainly due to the fact that the area of the abandoned lignite mines, where all waste facilities will be located, is already a heavily degraded area. Also, the power plants in the area contribute to the further environmental degradation of the region. As a result the potential operation of a WtE facility in the region does not create any strong public opposition. The waste management facility that will be developed in the region will be located close to the existing landfill, in the old lignite mines. As a result, the Not in my back yard syndrome will not be

4 an issue in this case. One major finding was that thermal treatment was impossible without a grant for the construction of the facility. Even if this grant was available, the waste quantity is relatively small in order to have an affordable gate fee for the operation of a thermal treatment unit. Finally, a PPP procedure will not be viable if it concerns a thermal treatment unit. The possibility of production of RDF in order to provide it for co-incineration was also examined and it was found also viable, too. Main reasons were high transfer costs and reluctance by the potential users (strict quality specifications were requested and abatement measures where mentioned necessary for compliance with the WID directive). Taking into consideration the European experience, an additional cost of euros/ tone of RDF should be added to the expenses of the waste treatment unit in order to ensure RDF utilization in industrial incinerators. Thus the analysis that was carried out indicated that the two most favorable scenarios for the management of the waste produced in WMR were: The mechanical treatment followed by anaerobic digestion of the waste for the production and utilization of biogas The mechanical biological treatment for the production of a stabilized material, which would be landfilled followed by the addition of large amounts of water for the production and utilization of biogas (flushing bioreactor). The following table summarizes drivers and barriers for WtE projects in Western Macedonia Region. Drivers and barriers that apply at the national level will be mentioned in the following. Table 2.1: Drivers and barriers for WTE in Western Macedonia Region SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM (1-3 years) (3-5 years) DRIVERS BARRIERS STRONG WEAK WEAK STRONG Uncertainty for the success of source separation Failure of MBT efforts Public familiar with energy production activities Failure of MBT efforts WMA is a driver: it promotes sustainable waste management Reduction of available landfill volume (although there is a lot of space available) Reluctance of potential users to co-incinerate produced RDF Lack of funds - grants Cost barrier (in terms of gate fee) LONG TERM (5-8 years) Energy production means safe income Easy connection with the power distribution network Location of the plant creates no NIMBY Small capacity - Lack of sufficient waste quantities 2.2 The Achaia Prefecture Case Study Short profile The prefecture of Achaia lies on the north-western edge of the Peloponnese Peninsula and

5 along with the Prefectures of Hlia and Aitoloakarnania formulate the Western Greece Region. The position of Achaia is strategic because it provides with a link between the north and the south part of Greece as well as between Greece and Italy. The harbour of Patras is one of the biggest in the country, with tons of goods being transported every day. The city of Patras, the capital of the Prefecture, is the third largest city of Greece in terms of population and hosts a rather famous university with numerous students. The coastal areas are highly populated forming a quite typical urban environment like the cities of Patras, Rio and Aegio. Total population in the prefecture is 322,789 habitats with 63% of the population living in the aforementioned cities. Lately, two major works in the field of road infrastructure have been completed, enhancing the strategic position of the area: the Rio Bridge, connecting Peloponnese with north Greece and the peripheral road that bypasses the city of Patras and leads to the southwest coast of Peloponnese. All the above have resulted in a growth in the prefecture s GDP, which is now 50% of the GDP of Western Greece Region (3,486 m over a regional total of 7,034 m ) and reaches 2.5% of the National GDP Data on waste quantity and quality - current waste management status The amount of waste generated in the entire prefecture reaches 200,000 tons, of which 60% is accumulated in the area of Patras and Rio municipalities. Indicatively, waste generation per capita reaches 1.8 Kg/cap.*d in the area of Patras and Rio and does not exceed 1.5 Kg/cap.*d in the rest of the prefecture. Compared to the national average per capita generation (1.14 Kg/cap.*d), it is obvious that waste production is high, mainly due to the urbanization in the city of Patras. Currently, there is one organized sanitary landfill in the prefecture, which serves the city of Patras and partly of Rio. Landfilling costs do not exceed 10 /ton, while data on collection/transfer costs are not available. Except for the Patras Landfill, the rest of the prefecture is not served by a sanitary landfill (SL). However, one SL is about to begin its operation (approx. 7,000 tons/y), while another one in Western Achaia is under construction (approx. 20,000 tons/y). It is expected that by end of 2007, the population served by a SL that fulfills the specifications of 99/31/EC directive, will reach 82%. The municipalities do daily waste collection and transfer. Patras Landfill is operated by Patras Municipality (Waste Management Authority). The municipality of Patras is a rather experienced municipality in terms of waste management since the landfill is in operation for many years. The two new landfills will be the responsibility of the WMAs that have been formulated for this purpose by the municipalities to be served. Except from landfilling, recycling schemes for packaging waste are applied in the city of Patras and an MRF has been established (within landfill boundaries). The MRF is operated successfully by the Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation HERRCO that is the official authority for the recycling of packaging waste in Greece. The schemes began in 1999 and are expanding gradually to serve larger numbers of population Description of the problem and applied approach for its solution The scientific and technical community in Achaia is quite strong and pressures towards a more sustainable waste management system. The source separation schemes and the successful operation of the MRF poses a good example to alternative means of waste management but the infrastructure is such that a small proportion of the population is served. Therefore small quantities are currently diverted from landfill.

6 While efforts have been made to establish an integrated waste management system in Achaia that is according to the waste hierarchy, still the dependency on sanitary landfilling is present. Waste amounts are large and the major waste producer, Patras Municipality, depends on a landfill that has only 2-4 years of lifetime left and in the same time, the morphology of the prefecture (mountainous inner part, tourist coastal areas), makes it almost impossible to establish new landfills close to the urban areas. It is a real no way out since the morphology mainly, but social reasons as well (NIMBY syndrome), prevent from finding new areas to establish a landfill. So it has become urgent to reduce drastically, the amount of waste being landfilled, via waste treatment. For that reason a study was elaborated, similar to the one described in the case of WMR. Due to the fact that mass and volume reduction of waste is of major concern, a preference to WtE technologies was also demonstrated. In particular, site visits and consultation with the stakeholders concerned (municipality, prefectural authorities, university representatives, technical chamber representatives, etc.), resulted that the technologies evaluated should fulfill the following criteria (EPEM 2003, Skoulaxinou et. al., 2003): Waste types: the technology should be capable to treat mixed municipal waste and it is desired to treat other waste streams as well (eg. sludge) Waste Quantities: it is necessary to increase the served area in order to maximize waste quantities and thus reduce the operational cost of treatment Energy Recovery: It is considered the most crucial part of the facility because energy is considered as an easily marketable commodity. It is desired to maximize the production of energy, too. Residues: It should not exceed 25-30% w.w. of waste input. It is desired that this residue is mainly inert Material Recovery: recovery of Compost Like Output should be avoided because it increases finally the residual volume. The treatment unit should not be in competition with the necessary source separation programmes. Flexibility: the treatment unit should be capable to handle changes in organic fraction content of waste. The possibility of modular construction was welcomed. Based on the above directions, the technologies evaluated were: MBT with production of RDF and compost, MBT with production of biogas and RDF, MBT with production of SRF and mass-burn incineration. All the designed scenarios included an energy recovery facility for the RDF/SRF/biogas. A crucial conclusion was that the actual cost of landfilling was too low and it cannot sustain an effective operation of the landfill. Moreover it was not in accordance with the guidelines of Landfill Directive. An estimation of the real cost of landfilling drove to a gate fee of 30 euros / tone instead of the 10 euros / tone that is charged. Another major finding was that the implementation of a thermal treatment unit should be combined with a grant in order to avoid excessive increase in gate fees. Otherwise, a PPP procedure should be followed. In this case however, the total waste amount should reach tones/ year, which means the expansion of the served area in the neighboring prefectures. However, the morphology of the area and the necessity to establish the plant closer to Patras, will increase a lot transfer costs for the rest of the served area. Perhaps, this may be a barrier for the rest of the municipalities against a centralized facility. The following table summarizes local drivers and barriers for WTE projects in Achaia and Western Greece Region.

7 Table 2.2: Drivers and barriers for WTE in Achaia - Western Greece Region SHORT TERM (1-3 years) MEDIUM TERM (3-5 years) LONG TERM (5-8 years) Uncertainty for the success of source No way out for landfill space separation Strong scientific STRONG technical group pressing for sustainable solutions DRIVERS BARRIERS WEAK WEAK STRONG Failure of MBT efforts WMA familiar with waste treatment and source separation Failure of MBT efforts No easy connection with the power distribution network WMA is a driver but not so well organized Reduction of available landfill volume NGOs against thermal solutions Recycling of plastic and paper in competition with thermal utilization Lack of will for coincineration from potential users Lack of funds - grants Morphology increases transfer costs Reduction of environmental impacts of landfills Minimization of residual waste Energy production means safe income Low Landfill Cost 3. NATIONAL BARRIERS AND DRIVERS The description of the drivers/barriers at the local level as presented in the two case studies, may have already revealed several national drivers and barriers, that are common to the whole country, even though Greece is not a uniform place and incorporates mountainous areas and islands, high income touristic places and low income rural areas as well as highly urbanized cities. 3.1 The history barrier Up to now, there were three remarkable efforts to introduce WTE in Greece. The first one took place at early 90s in Zakynthos Island and it was a complete failure. A small and old fashioned incinerator was installed and after a short test period it shut down due to big operational as well as environmental problems. In the middle 90s there was another effort to establish a small incineration unit in Thira Island. With a total capacity of 15,000 tones/ year that incinerator was planned to work for 6-7 months per year, while the rest of the period the waste was going to be balled and stored until the next operational period. Although there was a big financial support from EU, local municipalities and the Greek government were not finally persuaded for the feasibility of the project, especially due to high operational cost and limited technical experience of similar projects. The most important effort for a WtE project is the big Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility of Athens. This facility is operational now and it has been planned to produce

8 (among others) tones of RDF per day. Still, there is no solution regarding the utilization of RDF, either in a co-incineration concept (e.g. in local cement industry) or in a dedicated RDF incinerator. It is clear that this is a planning failure as well as a systematic fault in the preparation of such a facility. Thus in terms of history, it is clear that the three failures described above create a barrier for the selection of WtE projects. 3.2 The political barrier It is well known that Greek Government was practically against WtE concepts especially in the period The main reasoning was the high cost and the unsuitability of incineration for the national - local conditions (waste composition, technical capacity of employees, dependence on equipment and maintenance etc.) These political positions in combination with the ecological NGOs attitudes against incineration have created a political barrier that cannot be ignored and sometimes must be considered as remarkable. The political attitude against thermal treatment has changed and it is clear that WtE projects will be supported form the Greek government from now on. There is also another policy mater that makes the introduction of WTE concepts more difficult. Greece lost the opportunity to provide substantial funds for integrated waste management approaches during the 3 rd Community Support Framework. With only one exception in Chania (MBT facility), only new landfills and transfer stations were eligible. More than 300 million Euros were spent between in order to create a total landfill capacity around 2,5 million tones / year (Mavropoulos, Kouskouris, Chagios, 2006). This political choice drove the most developed and well-organized Waste Management Authorities (WMA) just to expand their landfill capacity, although there were a lot of them that were prepared to build waste treatment units. 3.3 The landfill dependence and cost barrier Greece is the first country in the EU in terms of dependence on landfilling and the third in absolute quantities of MSW driven to landfills. Table 3.1 presents the relevant data. Table 3.1: Landfill dependence of EU countries (European Commission 2005) Country range Use of landfill as the main waste management activity MSW to Landfill 1 Greece Ireland 2 Sweden UK 3 Ireland Greece 4 Portugal Spain 5 Spain Portugal 6 France Italy The landfill dependence means practically that most of the country citizens and waste management authorities are used in very low operational cost in the range of 8-35 euros/ tone of waste (Mavropoulos, Kouskouris, Chagios, 2006). This cost range does not even cover the typical needs for a good landfill operation, monitoring and aftercare. Taking into account that the incineration costs are between 100 and 280 Euros/ton of waste (Goerner 2003, Bilitewski et. al., 2005) it is clear that costs are a big barrier for WtE concepts. With the exception of the region of Attica and Thessaloniki the waste generation figures in the rest of the country require the installation of small capacities waste treatment units, even if

9 they refer to the regional level. Only in cases of interregional waste management system, or in big regions, will the capacities of the waste management units significantly increase and thus related gate fees may become affordable. 3.4 The national legislation and public administration barrier The existing specifications for the WtE facilities were developed in 1997 and hence they do not include recent technological advances. As a result the fact that the WtE technologies have improved their environmental performance in the last years, cannot be identified in these specifications. The standards for the RDF, as they are described in the Greek Legislation (JMD /1997), requiring less than 20% moisture, and more than 95% content in paper and plastics may be difficult to achieve by the treatment of mixed municipal solid waste. Besides, the absence of putrescibles that such specifications prescribe, may result in RDF being characterized as non renewable energy source. Other implications also appear, due to possibly high chlorine concentrations (increased plastics content), making difficult for RDF co-incineration (at least in cement factories). The fact that even at the EU level, standards for the secondary fuels have not been set yet, restricts further the potential production of secondary fuel from waste. One more serious problem is that in Greece there is still lack of compliance control measures and institutional development. This situation results in facing the waste management legislation more as a wish and less as an obligation. 3.5 The Waste Management Authorities barrier One of the most important issues for the development of integrated waste management systems in Greece is the Waste Management Authority problem (WMA). Today in Greece there are more than 40 WMA. Few of them are in a position to provide integrated waste management services while most of them are facing problems of poor technical, financial and institutional capacity. There is a need for the modernization (Mavropoulos, Kouskouris, Chagios, 2006) of their legal status and improvement of their human resources in order to be able: To apply cost efficient gate fees To develop long and medium term business plans To work in PPPs This issue should be faced as a barrier to WTE concepts, but there are movements that show that some initiatives are prepared to solve the problem. 3.6 The RDF market barrier The basic products of WtE technologies are energy (from in situ utilization of biogas or waste) and secondary fuel (RDF, SRF). While the energy market is well established and is not associated with high risk, the secondary fuel market is problematic. The strict standards for RDF utilization, combined with the need for the RDF/SRF combustion units to install abatement systems, has resulted in keeping the market at very low level. Also, the fact that the basic destination of the secondary fuel is the cement factories (3 big companies are active in Greece) has resulted in some very interesting conclusions: the cement companies, knowing that they are the only player in RDF utilization, have in many cases unreasonable financial and technical demands, in order to accept the RDF. In any case, WtE unit operator may not anticipate for revenue from the commercial use of the secondary fuel he produces. Additionally, the lack of end-of-waste criteria at EU level but more importantly at national level is quite confusing for possible users of RDF and creates implications regarding whether such products can be characterised as waste, or as fuel.

10 3.7 The EU legislation driver It is clear that the Landfill Directive and the whole EU framework for waste management push hardly for the implementation of waste treatment facilities. It is also important to mention that according to the European Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES Electricity) 2001/77/EC, the biodegradable fraction of waste is considered as biomass and thus a renewable energy source. Regulations and concepts regarding climate change will also contribute to the expansion of thermal treatment in EU (Stengler E.,2005 and Goerner, 2003). The Landfill Directive obliged all MS to create a national strategy for Biodegradable Waste Management. Such a strategy has been created for Greece (Skoulaxinou et al, 2004) but without the necessary legal tools to enforce its implementation. According to the EC legislation, the biodegradable waste ending up in landfill should be significantly reduced in the years to come. However, the authorities have not been able to determine how this will occur in a systematic way. It is left to the regional authorities to decide how they will contribute in reaching the national target on the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills. Therefore, each region may have its own perception on how to divert the biodegradable waste from landfill, usually looking for the lowest cost technology. In many cases, this fact excludes WtE from even been seriously considered, since most regions are mainly examining mechanical and biological waste treatment technologies. While it is obvious that the reduction of the landfilled biodegradable fraction will have positive environmental impacts, it is not sure if such a reduction can be achieved without central facilities and in particular incineration plants which lead to massive volume reduction and produce energy that can be sold more easily. The national targets for biodegradable waste management in Greece are presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2: Targets for BMW management in Greece Targets for landfilling & Diversion of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) 2010 (mtons) 2013 (mtons) 2020 (mtons) Maximum BMW that may be driven to Landfills 1,95 1,30 0,90 Minimum BMW that should be diverted 1,10 1,90 2,70 It has been reported (Mavropoulos, Kouskouris, Karkazi, 2006) that the achievement of those targets presupposes that 10 waste treatment facilities should be developed until 2015 with an investment capital of million Euros. 3.8 The Energy Driver In Greece the annual consumption of electrical energy per capita is continuously rising as well as the needs for alternative energy sources. Between 1994 and 2005 the annual consumption of electrical energy per capita increased by almost 50% (PPC S.A, 2005). Figure 3.1 provides the relevant data. Although the per capita consumption is still low comparing with other EU countries, the Greek Market is one of the rapid developed energy markets with an annual increase of 4-4,5%. Taking into account the evolution of oil prices, it is clear that the energy needs in Greece will be an important driver for WTE. This factor may be of major importance for big Greek islands that often face lack of energy and problems in electrical power distribution.

11 Figure 3.1: Evolution of annual consumption of electrical energy per capita in KWh (PPC S.A, 2005) 3.9 The Public Private Partnership Driver Until recently it was very difficult or even impossible to move with Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in waste management in Greece. After the law 3389/2005 there is a new framework that is more convenient and helps a lot in creating PPPs in general. Although this is a big step forward, there are still a lot of problems that have to be solved in order to create effective PPPs in waste management (Mavropoulos, Kouskouris, Karkazi, 2006) like: The formulation of procedures for the documentation of PPP requirement The creation of standard tender templates and sample contracts with the minimum legal and environmental requirements The development of performance criteria for each waste treatment The modernization of the Waste Management Authorities legal status (see below) The modernization of legislation regarding incineration, MBT and secondary fuels 3.10 The Landfill Space Driver Space, is not plenty in Greece let alone for establishing new landfills. Touristic places have high land prices, mountainous territory has steep slopes and protected areas, islands are small and windy, therefore landfills already constructed should have the maximum possible capacity. Strong NIMBY syndromes make it even more difficult to find new areas. For these reasons, treatment with increased diversion from landfill rates, like WtE, seem favourable. Table 3.3 summarizes national barriers and drivers in WTE projects in Greece.

12 Table 3.3: National drivers and barriers for WTE in Greece SHORT TERM (1-3 years) MEDIUM TERM (3-5 years) EU Legislation driver LONG TERM (5-8 years) Energy driver DRIVERS STRONG Landfill Space BARRIERS WEAK WEAK STRONG PPP driver Greek legislation WMA barrier History barrier Political attitude Lack of compliance control mechanisms RDF regulation RDF Market Landfill dependence and cost barrier Small capacities 4. CONCLUSIONS From the case studies that were presented it is obvious that local conditions are well combined with national legislation and EU regulation problems creating significant barriers for the implementation of WtE projects in Greece. Although the political attitude against incineration has changed, there are certain issues that have to be arranged before the implementation of WtE projects becomes easier, even for Attica and Thessaloniki the two biggest cities. The cost barrier seems to be the most important barrier because there is a big gap between current gate fees (disposal fees) and future treatment fees. A landfill tax may be necessary to solve this problem. Modernization of national standards for RDF and incineration is also a top priority issue in order to create conditions favourable to waste treatment. The formulation of EU standards for RDF quality and co-incineration, as well as the development of end of- waste criteria will provide a major contribution at WtE across Europe. These changes are also required, among others, in order implement PPPs in waste management investments. Besides, the improvement of WMAs in terms of organisation and technical/financial capacity is also an important issue, especially if PPPs are applied. The main drivers for WtE on a national level are the EU legislation for waste management, renewable energy regulations and climate change legislation, as well as the increasing energy needs of Greece. The new law for PPPs could be a remarkable driver if some practical preparation for waste management projects will be implemented soon. Landfilling problems and space limitations are also drivers towards WtE because the reduction of waste going to landfill may become the major issue after some years when al the new constructed landfills reach designed capacities. On a local level, it seems that the cost barrier is the biggest problem, as well as lack of grants. Small capacity is also a problem in most of the regions of the country. Monopoly circumstances in the potential users of RDF create difficulties in co-incineration projects.

13 Another important driver is that energy as a product ensures a safe income, which of course is not the case regarding several recyclates. It is also important to notice that at the local level, the example set by previous efforts is taken under serious consideration. MBT failures in Greece act both as a driver for WtE and as barrier too. As a final remark, authors would like to conclude that a lot of things regarding WtE future to Greece are depending on the final formulation and the eligibility of projects during the forthcoming 4 th Community Support Framework. If WtE projects are eligible even for a part of the construction cost, then 6-8 WTE projects will be implemented within next 6 years; otherwise maximum 2-3 projects will be implemented to serve the big cities. REFERENCES Bilitewski B., Schirmer M.(2005) Thermal treatment of waste State of the art, Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium EPEM SA (2005) Feasibility Study and Preliminary Technical Design Study, for the establishment of a MSW treatment plant in Waste Macedonia Region EPEM SA (2005) Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a MSW treatment plant in Achaia Prefecture European Commission (2005) Study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31 EC on the landfill of waste Goerner K. (2003) Waste incineration European State of the Art and New Developments, IFRF Combustion Journal, Article Number , Mavropoulos A., Kouskouris A., Chagios F. (2006) The implementation of landfill directive in Greece Proceedings of the 2nd HSWMA Conference Mavropoulos A., Kouskouris A., Karkazi A. (2006) Public - Private Investment in the sector of SWM n Greece Proceedings of the 2nd HSWMA Conference Public Power Corporation - PPC S.A. (2005) Key Figures, Skoulaxinou S., Mavropoulos A., Karkazi A., Lasaridi K.E. (2004) Developing the strategy for biodegradable waste management in Greece, Biodegradable and Residual Waste Management, 1 st UK Conference and Exhibition Skoulaxinou S., Mavropoulos A., Solid Waste Management Technologies The Achaia Case- Study, 2003 Hellenic Association of Chemical Engineers Stengler E. (2005) Waste to energy in Europe Where are we and Where are we going? Proceedings, The future of residual waste management in Europe 2005