W ASTE TO ENERGY IN MALTA

S CENARIOS FOR I MPLEMENTATION

SIEGMUND BÖHMER MOHAMMADALI SEIDI JOSEF STUBENVOLL HANS-JOERG ZERZ

Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01

Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner

Component 1 - Technical Report Waste-to-Energy in Malta

Scenarios for Implementation

Siegmund Boehmer Mohammadali Seidi Josef Stubenvoll Hans-Joerg Zerz

June 2008 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Index 1 Introduction ...... 3 2 General Information ...... 4 2.1 General data ...... 4 2.2 Distribution of Population ...... 5 2.3 Macro-economic data and information ...... 6 3 Legal background on European level ...... 7 4 Implementation of the “Solid Waste Management Strategy” ...... 10 5 Description of technologies for waste treatment ...... 13 5.1 Mechanical biological treatment ...... 13 5.2 Thermal treatment ...... 15 5.2.1 Introduction ...... 15 5.2.2 Thermal treatment techniques ...... 17 5.2.3 Flue gas cleaning ...... 19 5.2.4 Solid Residues and waste water ...... 21 5.2.5 Energy recovery ...... 21 6 Waste in Malta – current situation and forecast ...... 22 6.1 Data Sources ...... 22 6.2 Waste Quantities ...... 22 6.3 Waste composition ...... 24 6.4 Net Calorific values (NCV) ...... 25 6.5 Trends ...... 26 7 Waste-to-Energy Scenarios for the Maltese Islands ...... 29 7.1 Current situation ...... 29 7.2 Preliminary remarks and assumptions ...... 30 7.3 Scenarios ...... 30 7.3.1 Scenario 1: 2 or 3 Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plants (MBTs) in combination with a Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor (FBC) ...... 31 7.3.2 Scenario 2: 1 MBT in combination with a Grate Firing Combustion System (GFC) ... 31 7.3.3 Scenario 3: 2-3 MBTs and export of RDF ...... 31 7.4 Advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios ...... 32 7.5 Conclusions and recommendations by Maltese and Austrian experts ...... 32 8 Feasibility Analysis for certain scenarios ...... 35 8.1 Approach ...... 35 8.2 Results ...... 35 8.3 Conclusions of the feasibility analysis carried out during the working group meeting ...... 36 8.4 Estimation of the economic feasibility ...... 37 9 Site selection exercise for a thermal treatment plant ...... 38 9.1 Approach ...... 38 9.2 Results ...... 38 9.3 Conclusions of the site selection exercise ...... 39 10 Communication and Public Awareness Raising Measures ...... 40 11 Annexes ...... 41

Note:This report displays thousand digits as comma (,) and decimal digits as dot (.).

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 2 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

1 Introduction

This report summarizes the activities carried out during the Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01. The aim of component 1 of this project was to give assistance to the: “Formulation of a strategy for the Selection of an appropriate “Waste-to-Energy” technology for Malta and completion of Technical assistance in the planning and commissioning phase of the recommended Waste-to-Energy facilities.” To reach this goal a large number of seminars, workshops and side visits in Malta and Austria were held which included presentations, discussions and traineeships. A Technical Working Group on “Waste-to-Energy” was established with participants from different entities, including the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment (MRAE), The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA), WasteServ Malta, Enemalta and numerous other entities. The aim of the technical working group was – in cooperation with the Short Term Experts (STE) and based on information given in previous activities of this Twinning Project - to elaborate proposals for thermal waste treatment technologies and to answer specific questions related to waste incineration. Furthermore, guidelines for the application and permitting of thermal treatment plants have been finalized with the aim to assist both the authority and the applicant during the licensing and commissioning process of a thermal treatment plant. In addition, training on the use of these guidelines was also given by additional experts taking the thermal treatment plant in Marsa as a case study. Training Sessions were given to two WasteServ members with regards to the operation of Thermal Treatment Plants across Austria. Furthermore, a study visit was commissioned, where members from the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the Management Efficiency Unit, Enemalta as well as a representative from the NGO ‘Nature Trust Malta’ took part in a five day study tour around the different entities relating to Waste to Energy (e.g. plants as well as environmental agencies)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 3 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

2 General Information

2.1 General data

The following table shows general data about the characteristics of Malta:

Table 2-1: Characteristics of Malta Official name Republic of Malta (Repubblika ta' Malta) Form of Government Republic (EU member since 01/05/2004) Geography Archipelago in the centre of the Mediterranean Sea (93km south of Sicily and 288km north of Africa) with three inhabited islands - Malta: 246 km² (374,000 inhabitants) - Gozo: 67 km² (31,000 inhabitants) - Comino: 3 km² (< 10 inhabitants) and four unoccupied islands (Cominotto, Fifla, St. Pauls Islands, Fungus Rock) Climate Mediterranean climate with mild, humid winters (January: 13°C) and hot, dry summers (July: 26°C) Area (total) 316 km² Population (total) 404,962 (Census 2005) Population density 1,285 inh./km² Highest Peak 253 m above Sea level (Ta’Dmejrek, Dingli Cliffs) Largest localities Birkirkara (21,858), Mosta (18,735), Qormi, (16,559), Zabbar (14,671), San Pawl Il-Bahar (13,412), Sliema (13,242), San Gwann (12,737) Capital City Valletta (6,300) Currency Euro (since 01/01/2008): 1 Euro = 100 Cent

Figure 2-1: Malta, Gozo and Comino

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 4 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

2.2 Distribution of Population

Malta consists of 68 localities which are combined in 6 districts as shown in the following figure:

Figure 2-2: The six districts of Malta of Malta

The area, population and population density are shown in the next table:

Table 2-2: Details of the six Maltese districts District Area Loc. Population Population density (km²) 1995 2005 +/- (%) 1995 2005 Southern Harbour District 26.2 14 83,234 81,047 - 2.6 3,186 3,097 South Eastern District 50.2 11 50,650 59,371 + 17.2 1,019 1,184 Northern Harbour District 24.0 13 118,409 119,332 + 0.8 4,920 4,967 Western District 72.5 10 51,961 57,038 + 9.8 713 787 Northern District 73.7 6 44,852 57,167 + 27.5 609 776 Gozo and Comino 68.7 14 29,026 31,007 + 6.8 422 452 TOTAL 315.2 68 378,132 404,962 + 7.1 1,200 1,285

By far the biggest agglomeration of population is around Valletta with more than 250,000 inhabitants (Census 2005). That means that over 60 % of the total population live in this area. On the other hand, Valletta, the capital city, has only 6,300 inhabitants and is the smallest capital city in the European Union.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 5 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

2.3 Macro-economic data and information

Main economic sectors in Malta are: • Tourism industry (over 1 Mio tourist per year) • Financial services • Public sector (administration, utility services, public health, education) • Construction and quarrying industry • Agriculture and fisheries

In total 133,000 people are employed in over 54,000 enterprises. Almost 97 % of all enterprises have less than 10 employees. More than 42 % are employed in enterprises with more than 250 employees. Over 70 % are employed in the services sector (public sector, tourism, financial services). Tourism industries contribute approximately 25 % of the GDP (over 1 Mio tourist per year). Approximately 200 foreign companies are producing in Malta for export. The most important employers are • the Government (public administration, defence, social security, over 10,000 employees), • the Semi-conductor producer STMicroelectronics (2,400 employees), • the Malta Shipyards (1,700 employees), which are among the largest shipyards in Europe. The Maltese Islands do not have • energy resources (except sun or wind), • natural resources (except limestone minerals for construction purposes) and therefore depend on imports of resources.

Table 2-3: Maltese macro-economic data Unit 2003 2004 2005 2006 GDP Mrd. Euro 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.9 GDP per capita Euro 10,800 10,960 11,490 12,050 Real GDP – growth % - 1.8 0.1 3.1 3.2 rates Inflation rate % 1.30 2.79 3.01 2.77 Unemployment rate % 5.4 5.7 5.1 5.0 Source: National Statistical Office (NSO)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 6 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

3 Legal background on European level

An effective and well functioning ”Waste-to-energy” system requires smooth interaction of social, political and economic systems on different levels and involves a variety of treatment plants of different technology, size and complexity. This complexity is mirrored by the large number of relevant documents which define the legal framework of “Waste-to-Energy” on the EU-level. The most relevant are listed below:

Table 3-1: Documents defining the legal framework regarding “Waste-to-Energy” on the EU-level Legal document Main requirements Waste Framework Directive • Waste hierarchy (prevention/reduction – recovery – disposal) (2006/12/EC) • Requirement for waste management plans • Establishing a network of disposal installations • Prohibition of uncontrolled waste disposal • Registration and periodical inspection of waste collectors, transporters, recovery/disposal establishments by the competent authority • Definition of disposal operations (D1-D15) and recovery operations (R1-R13) Landfill Directive • Establishment of three landfill classes (incl. requirements and (1999/31/EC, as amended) waste acceptance criteria/procedures): - landfill for hazardous waste - landfill for non-hazardous waste - landfill for inert waste • Reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill (calculated against the amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995): - 75 % by 16/07/2006 - 50 % by 16/07/2009 - 35 % by 16/07/2016 (Postponement of the targets by 4 years, if > 80 % of municipal waste was landfilled in 1995) • Prohibition of landfilling of liquid waste, clinical waste, tyres and certain hazardous wastes • Waste has to be treated prior to landfilling Directive on the incineration • Applies to stationary and mobile waste incineration and co- of waste (2000/76/EC) incineration plants • Applies to hazardous and non-hazardous waste and establishes minimum requirements for waste incineration and co-incineration • Lays down specific requirements for waste acceptance, operating conditions, emission limit values (air and water) and quality of residues • Lays down monitoring requirements

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 7 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 3-1: Documents defining the legal framework regarding “Waste-to-Energy” on the EU-level (continued) Legal document Main requirements Directive on packaging and • Establish return, collection and recovery systems for packaging waste packaging waste (1994/62/EC, materials as amended) • Sets targets and timelines for recovery and recycling of packaging waste materials • “Recovery” refers to Annex II.b of the Waste Framework directive and includes also incineration with energy recovery Directive on waste electrical • Establish collection schemes and treatment facilities for WEEE by the and electronic equipment producers or third parties on their behalf. (WEEE) (2002/96/EC, as • Stipulates collection targets for WEEE from private households (4 amended) kg/inhabitant, year), to be achieved by 31/12/2006 (time-limit extended for Malta, Cyprus and Poland until 31/12/2008 by Council Decision 2004/486/EC) • Stipulates recovery and reuse/recycling targets for different types of WEEE by 31/12/2006 (time-limit extended for Malta, Cyprus and Poland until 31/12/2008 by Council Decision 2004/486/EC) • “Recovery” refers to Annex II.b of the Waste Framework directive and includes also incineration with energy recovery Directive on end-of-live • Establish collection systems, storage and treatment facilities for all vehicles (ELV) (2000/53/EC, ELVs as amended) • Stipulates targets for 01/01/2006 and 01/01/2015 for reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling ELVs • “Recovery” refers to Annex II.b of the Waste Framework directive and includes also incineration with energy recovery Directive on the disposal of Treatment hierarchy (regeneration – combustion – destruction/final waste oils (1975/439/EEC, as storage) amended) Any combustion shall be carried out under environmentally acceptable conditions Prohibit discharges and emissions of waste oils (water, soil, air) Prohibit mixing of waste oils with PCB/PCTs Regulation on shipments of • Procedures and control regimes for the shipment of waste, depending waste (2006/1013/EC) on - origin, destination and route of the shipment, - type of waste shipped, - type of waste treatment at the destination. Directive on the protection of • Stipulates limit values for the use of sewage sludge in agriculture the environment, and in • Prohibit the use of sewage sludge on specified categories of land particular of the soil, when within defined periods or where heavy metals in the soil exceed certain sewage sludge is used in limit values. agriculture (1986/278/EEC, as amended)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 8 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 3-1: Documents defining the legal framework regarding “Waste-to-Energy” on the EU-level (continued) Legal document Main requirements Regulation laying down health • Animal and public health rules for collection, transport, storage, rules concerning animal by- handling, processing and use of animal by-products (ABPs) products not intended for • Specification of three categories of ABPs: human consumption Category 1: TSE material, specified risk material etc. (2002/1774/EC) Category 2: Imported products from non-member countries, which does not comply with veterinary requirements, products with residues of veterinary drugs, slaughterhouse wastewater etc. Category 3: animal parts for human consumption, ABPs from products for human consumption, blood etc. • ABPs of category 1 have to be incinerated ABPs of category 2 and 3 may be used for digestion and composting after sterilisation • Transportation, storage and treatment of catering waste in biogas/composting plants shall be carried out in accordance with national law. Directive on the promotion of • Lays down targets on a MS level for the production of electricity from electricity produced from renewable energy sources renewable energy resources in • “Renewable energy sources” shall mean renewable non-fossil energy the internal electricity market sources from – amongst others – biomass, landfill gas, sewage (2001/77/EC, as amended) treatment plant gas and biogases. • “Biomass” shall also mean – amongst others – waste and residues from agriculture and the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste • The incineration of non-separated municipal waste should not be promoted under a future support system for renewable energy sources. • Malta’s target for the contribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources is fixed at 5 % by 2010. Directive concerning integrated • Integrated permitting regime for major industrial and waste activities pollution prevention and covering air, water and land pollution and including energy use, waste control (1996/61/EC, as minimization, vibration and noise amended) • Permits shall be based on Best Available Techniques (BAT) • Directive applies – amongst others - to - installations for disposal or recovery of hazardous waste (> 10 to/d), - installations for incineration of municipal waste (> 3 to/hr) - installations for disposal (D8,D9) of non-hazardous waste (> 50 to/d), - landfills, excl. inert waste landfills (> 10 to/d or total capacity > 25,000 to) • Requires periodic update of permit conditions • BAT is described in the European BAT Reference documents (BREFs) Directive on the assessment of Determines projects which shall be made subject to an Environmental the effects of certain public and Impact Assessment: private projects on the • In any case (amongst others): Disposal (incineration, chemical environment (1985/337/EEC, treatment) or landfilling of hazardous waste. as amended) • Determined by the Member States: Disposal (incineration, chemical treatment) of non-hazardous waste > 100 to/day

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 9 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

4 Implementation of the “Solid Waste Management Strategy”

This EU Twinning project contributes a series of activities to the implementation of the “Solid Waste Management (SWM) Strategy for the Maltese Islands” (issued 09/2001), especially with regards to waste treatment / processing. Part 5 of the SWM Strategy includes an indicative programme for strategy implementation with a series of measures/actions to be taken. The following table highlights relevant proposed measures/actions from the SWM Strategy and respective activities that were performed during this EU Twinning project.

Table 4-1: Twinning Project activities of proposed implementation measures from the Maltese Waste Management Strategy No. Proposed Implementation activities measures/actions in the during the EU Twinning project Waste Management Strategy

Policy & legislative measures

A1 Complete and adopt the National The Twinning Project contributes significantly to the actual update of Waste Management Strategy the Waste Management Strategy (see following sections). It is recommended that the results of this Twinning project are incorporated thus triggering the further developments of waste management in Malta.

A4 Establish national, legally binding Technical guidelines on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) technical standards / codes of and IPPC-licensing for waste incineration facilities as well as for practice relating to waste thermal power stations have been finalised. management The upgrade of the Abattoir Incinerator in Marsa (to treat also clinical and hazardous waste) was taken as a case study to apply the guidelines.

A7 Close down all existing non- As a consequence of the upgrade of the Abattoir Incinerator in compliant incinerators Marsa (permitting process and technical engineering supported by the Twinning project, see D11), the non-compliant hospital incinerator at St. Luke’s hospital was closed down after start-up of the new incinerator by end of 2007.

A10 Give priority in land use planning Three different scenarios regarding appropriate waste-to-energy policy to facilities for technologies for the Maltese islands have been elaborated (see recovery/recycling of waste chapter 7). Feasibility analysis for each scenario and a site selection exercise for a thermal waste treatment facility have been carried out (see chapter 8).

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 10 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 4-1: Twinning Project activities of proposed implementation measures from the Maltese Waste Management Strategy (continued) No. Proposed Implementation activities measures/actions in the during the EU Twinning project Waste Management Strategy

Institutional & organisational measures

B8 Carry out a human resource and The Twinning project included the following training measures training needs assessment for (summaries and conclusions of these training measures are given in public sector WM functions chapters 0 to 10): • 3 meetings of the Technical Working Group on waste-to-energy • 7 workshops/seminars on different topics related to waste-to- energy • 1 study tour to Vienna • 1 training session in Austria for thermal waste treatment • 2 sessions of media training Technical/operational measures

D3 Introduce source segregation Calculations for a concept to introduce/optimize and monitor the and separate collection of separate collection of dry-recyclables and bio-waste have been recyclable (including carried out biodegradable) materials from MSW

D10 Upgrade the Sant Antnin • Technical Workshops/Seminars on MBT’s, Digestion and Composting Plant Incineration helped to improve the knowledge of MEPA and WasteServ stakeholders on the technological aspects, advantages and disadvantages (see chapter 5). • Three different scenarios regarding appropriate waste-to-energy technologies for the Maltese islands have been elaborated, each scenario incorporates the upgraded MBT in Sant Antnin which is currently under construction (see chapter 7).

D11 Upgrade the slaughterhouse • The IPPC permitting procedure for the Abattoir Incinerator in waste treatment facility Marsa was supported by the Twinning project and also conducted on basis of the guidelines for waste incineration elaborated during the Twinning project. • Engineering measures for the upgrade of the Abattoir Incinerator in Marsa (to treat also clinical and hazardous waste) were initiated by the Twinning project.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 11 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 4-1: Twinning Project activities of proposed implementation measures from the Maltese Waste Management Strategy (continued) No. Proposed Implementation activities measures/actions in the during the EU Twinning project Waste Management Strategy

D18 Upgrade the healthcare waste As a consequence of the upgrade of the Abattoir Incinerator in treatment facility at St. Luke’s Marsa (permitting process and technical engineering supported by hospital the Twinning project, see D11), there is no need to operate the non- compliant hospital incinerator at St. Luke’s hospital. See also A7.

Other measures

E1 Develop and implement a A communication strategy to disseminate strategic waste programme for on-going management issues (waste hierarchy, achievements, need for communications with all additional – thermal – facilities) in a comprehensive way has been stakeholders over the life of the elaborated National Waste Management Strategy

E4 Mobilise/co-ordinate Non- • Meetings with Maltese NGOs on waste management were held Governmental-Organisations • One NGO stakeholder took part during waste-to-energy study (NGOs) support for stakeholder visit to Vienna communications and awareness raising

E5/6 Establish a national waste Available data has been processed to filter the necessary management information system information for waste management planning Data gaps have been identified and discussed

One important aspect of the SWM Strategy refers to Article 5 of the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which sets quantitative targets for biodegradable municipal solid waste (MSW) going to landfill. The amount is calculated against the 1995 baseline of 127.000 tons of MSW (of which 88.900 had biodegradable character). For the Maltese Island targets are defined as given in the table below:

Table 4-2: Maltese targets for the amount of landfilled waste according to the EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC) Year 1995 16/07/2010 16/07/2013 16/07/2020 Quantitative target for waste 100 % 75 % 50 % 35 % disposed of in landfills Mass in tons 88,900 66,675 44,450 31,115

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 12 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

5 Description of technologies for waste treatment

5.1 Mechanical biological treatment

A Mechanical-Biological-Treatment (MBT) facility consists of • a mechanical treatment component (shredding, separation of high organic, high calorific and inert waste fractions, separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals), • a biological treatment component for the high organic component (anaerobic and/or aerobic) The purpose of the mechanical part is to produce different fractions of waste, such as a high calorific waste fraction (plastic, paper/cardboard, wood etc.), valuable waste fractions (such as metals, glass) and a fraction which is disposed of in landfills. The high calorific waste fraction (sometimes referred to as “residual derived fuel (RDF)”) should have a calorific value above 14 MJ/kg and is usually thermally treated (e.g. in a Fluidized Bed Combustion Facility) with energy recovery. The biological treatment of the high organic fraction reduces the biological activity of the waste materials (Total Organic Carbon (TOC), calorific value (CV)), so that the waste is stabilized and does not produce organic contaminated leachate and landfill gas. The biological treatment can be carried out • aerobic (composting in tunnels or drums), • anaerobic-aerobic (quasi-dry or wet digestion with consecutive composting/oxidation of the digest). Although it is principally possible to use the digested/composted organic fraction for agricultural purposes, it will most probably not fulfil the environmental criteria with regards to soil and groundwater protection (heavy metals etc.). So the material has to be landfilled on a landfill for non-hazardous waste in compliance with EU-legislation and national legislation. The upgrade of the MBT in Sant Antnin – which is currently under construction – uses the “HAASE-Design” similar to the MBT plant in Luebeck (Germany). This type of plant uses the following process steps: • Mechanical step 1 (dry): Coarse-shredding – screening at 40 mm and 300 mm – ferrous metal separation – ballistic separation – non-ferrous metal separation – Fine-shredding, • Mechanical step 2 (wet) for the organic fraction : Watering/pulping – gravitational separation (organic vs. inert) • Biological step: 2-step anaerobic digestion (hydrolysis – methanation) – wet oxidation – dewatering (decanter) – drying/composting (heated drums).

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 13 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Figure 5-1: Material flows MBA Lübeck

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 14 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

In the following the advantages and disadvantages of MBT technologies are listed

Advantages: • “Clean technology” (less political conflicts) • Lower investment costs (if no thermal treatment facility for the RDF has to built) • Production of a high calorific waste fraction which can be incinerated with energy recovery in waste incineration or co-incineration plants • Possibilities for co-digestion

Disadvantages • Rather complex, various treatment facilities • Thermal treatment for RDF required • More space required • Reduction of input less than with thermal treatment (more landfill space required) • Energy balance not as good as with thermal treatment • Volatile organic compounds are only reduced, not eliminated

5.2 Thermal treatment

5.2.1 Introduction For a description of applied techniques as well as emission reduction measures and associated emission levels it is recommended to use the European Reference document on “Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Waste Incineration” (EU-Commission, 2005). Incineration is used as a high temperature treatment for a very wide range of wastes. Incineration itself is commonly only one part of a complex waste treatment system that altogether provides for the overall management of the broad range of wastes that arise in society. The objective of waste incineration is to treat wastes so as to reduce their volume and hazard, whilst capturing (and thus concentrating) or destroying potentially harmful substances that are, or may be, released during incineration. Incineration of waste (especially of mixed municipal solid waste) is usually done in a way that allows for the recovery of the energy (as steam and/or power). Incinerators come in a variety of furnace types and sizes as well as combinations of pre- and post-combustion treatment. There is also considerable overlap among the designs of choice for municipal solid waste, hazardous waste and sewage sludge incineration. Incinerators are usually designed for full oxidative combustion over a general temperature range of 850º–1,400º C. Gasification and pyrolysis represent alternative thermal treatments that restrict the amount of primary combustion air to convert waste into process gas, which may be used as a chemical feedstock or incinerated with energy recovery. However, compared to incineration, application of these systems is low and operational difficulties are reported at some installations. Waste incinerator installations can be characterized by the following: waste delivery, storage, pre- treatment, incineration/energy recovery, flue gas cleaning, solid residue management, and

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 15 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

wastewater treatment. The nature of the input waste will have a significant bearing on how each component is designed and operated. Depending on the composition of the waste incinerated, operating conditions and the flue gas cleaning system installed, acid gases (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride), particulate matter (including particle-bound metals), and a wide range of volatile organic compounds, as well as volatile metals (such as mercury) are emitted. Incineration of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste has also been shown to lead to the formation and release of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (PCDD/PCDF, PCB, HCB). However, in modern waste incineration plants where best available techniques are implemented emissions of pollutants into air and water are low. Depending on the combustion temperatures during the main stages of incineration, metals and inorganic compounds (e.g. salts) are totally or partly evaporated. These substances are transferred from the input waste to both the flue gas (from where they are removed by the flue gas cleaning system) and the fly ash it contains. Solid residues are produced in the form of fly ash and bottom ash and to a lesser extent as residues from flue gas de-sulfurisation and flue gas polishing (e.g. spent activated coke). The proportions of solid residue vary greatly according to the waste type and detailed process design. Other releases are filter cake from wastewater treatment, salts and releases of substances into wastewater. Principles of waste incineration according to best available techniques are: • Reduction of mass and volume (to reduce land-use for final disposal) • Inertisation / Mineralisation of organic material • Destruction of pollutants • Effective reduction of emissions to air, water and soil • Energy recovery • Recovery of secondary raw-materials (e.g. metals) For a good burn out of combustible gases the “3-T-Rule” applies which means that burn out is best when criteria of Temperature (as a rule > 850 °C), Time (as a rule residence time of flue gases in the high temperature zone should be at least 2 seconds) and Turbulence (i.e. good mixing of combustible gases with oxygen) are met.

Figure 5-2: Boiler Combustion Zones

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 16 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

5.2.2 Thermal treatment techniques Well proven and approved techniques for thermal waste treatment are: • Grate Firing Combustion (GFC) • Rotary Kiln Combustion (RKC) • Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) Examples for each technique are given in the figures below. The first figure shows an example of a grate firing system for the treatment of mixed municipal solid waste (Umweltbundesamt (2001): Draft of a German Report for the creation of a BREF- document „Waste Incineration“. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin

Figure 5-3: Grate firing system

The next figure shows an example of a rotary kiln for the incineration of hazardous waste (Federal Environment Agency – Austria/Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (2002): State of the Art for Waste Incineration Plants, Austria, Vienna

Figure 5-4: Rotary kiln system

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 17 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

The following figure shows an example of a fluidised bed reactor for the incineration of pre- treated waste fractions (Federal Environment Agency – Austria/Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (2002): State of the Art for Waste Incineration Plants, Austria, Vienna

Figure 5-5: Fluidised bed system

The following table indicates the technical properties and application ranges for the above mentioned techniques.

Table 5-1: Comparison of thermal treatment technologies (taken from: Weissbuch thermische Restmuellbehandlung in Oesterreich, BMUJF 1999) Fluidised Bed Parameter Grate Firing System Rotary Kiln Reactor Mixing of solid, paste-like and liquid materials with Intensive mixing of Combustion air flows combustion air in a slowly floating small-sized Process description bottom-up through bulk rotating tube, Burn-out of materials with hot materials on the grate combustion gas in a combustion gas secondary combustion chamber Max. thermal capacity 80 MW 160 MW 40 MW per line Required excess air medium low high Spectrum of acceptable limited broad medium calorific values Waste pre-treatment low high medium requirements Controllability of combustion process medium high low (incl. shut-down)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 18 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 5-1: Comparison of thermal treatment technologies (continued) (taken from: Weissbuch thermische Restmuellbehandlung in Oesterreich, BMUJF 1999) Parameter Grate Firing System Fluidised Bed Reactor Rotary Kiln Suitability of waste

types (examples) Mixed municipal solid well suitable pretreatment required limited waste Refuse derived fuel limited well suitable suitable Sewage sludge limited well suitable Suitable Screening debris from suitable pretreatment required limited waste water treatment Shredded plastics limited well suitable limited Whole tyres limited not suitable limited Shredder residues limited well suitable limited Shredded wood well suitable well suitable suitable Paintwork sludges not suitable suitable suitable Hazardous wastes in limited not suitable suitable small packages (e.g. laboratory waste)

5.2.3 Flue gas cleaning For a detailed discussion of possible combination of flue gas cleaning systems together with associated emission and consumption levels please refer to the European Reference document on “Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration” (EU-Commission, 2006). In general dry and wet processes are combined for the separation of the air pollutants dust, non- volatile and volatile (e.g. Hg) heavy metals, SOx, NOx, HCl, HF and organic compounds (dioxins and furans). These processes can be implemented independent from the used firing system. Possible combinations are listed below

Table 5-2: Possible combinations of flue gas cleaning systems

With the combination of flue gas cleaning systems emissions to air from waste incineration plants can be reduced to the values listed below (results of continuous measurements are given as half

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 19 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

hourly mean values in mg Nm-3; dioxin emissions are given in ng Nm-3; standardised at 11% O2, dry gas, 273 K and 101.3 kPa)

Table 5-3: Air emissions from waste incineration with combined flue gas cleaning (Source: Federal Environment Agency – Austria/Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (2002): State of the Art for Waste Incineration Plants, Austria, Vienna)

Table 5-3: Air emissions from waste incineration with combined flue gas cleaning (continued) (Source: Federal Environment Agency – Austria/Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (2002): State of the Art for Waste Incineration Plants, Austria, Vienna)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 20 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

5.2.4 Solid Residues and waste water The following table shows the solid residues from 1,000 kg input of solid waste (source: Federal Environment Agency – Austria/Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (2002): State of the Art for Waste Incineration Plants, Austria, Vienna)

Table 5-4: Solid residues from 1,000 kg input of solid waste Grate Firing Fluidised Bed Parameter Rotary Kiln System Reactor Slag -- 200 – 300 kg Bottom ash 200 – 300 kg 200 – 300 kg --- Boiler ash / filter dust 15 – 35 kg 15 – 35 kg 15 – 35 kg Fly ash / flue gas cleaning residues 1 – 10 kg 20 - 30 kg 10 - 20 kg Fe metal scrap 15 – 25 kg --- 10 – 20 kg Purified waste water (wet scrubbing) 300 – 400 litres 1000 litres 500 – 1500 litres

5.2.5 Energy recovery The energy supplied to the combustion chamber by the waste, auxiliary fuels and by preheated air is converted during the combustion process and transferred to a water-steam circle. The steam can be utilized to produce heat or electricity or – in the combined-heat-and-power generation mode – both. Heat can be produced for industrial purposes (process steam) or for district heating or district cooling. Energy recovery rates depend on • the calorific value of the input material related to the furnace capacity (-> furnace capacity diagram), • losses in the combustion process (convection, radiation) and steam-water cycle (condensation), • steam parameters (temperature, pressure), • type of energy recovery process (heat extraction, power generation, CHP).

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 21 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

6 Waste in Malta – current situation and forecast

The first step of a Waste Management Plan is to collect data on relevant waste streams – most important are type, mass, calorific value and physical and chemical composition. This section summarises available data and gives most recent estimations on quantities and composition done by Maltese and Austrian experts.

6.1 Data Sources

Calculations and estimations in this report are based on the following data Sources: • WasteServ Malta Ltd.: Weighbridge Data from Qortin, SantAntnin, Maghtab (2005) • MRAE: Waste to Energy Working Group draft report (2005) • MRAE: Waste Management Strategy (draft Update 2007) • MRAE/MEPA/Schnurer: Draft Waste Management Plan (2007) • MEU: Data from Waste Management Strategy (draft Update 2007) and related Studies • MEU/MRAE: Feasibility report on the upgraded Abattoir Incinerator (2006) • A.Hackl: Report Waste to Energy (2005) • SusTech/IBBK: Agricultural Waste Management Plan (2005) • Ashact Ltd.: Malta hazardous waste treatment and reception facility (2003)

6.2 Waste Quantities

The following table contains (1) Weighbridge data from WasteServ Malta Ltd. facilities for municipal solid waste (MSW) (Qortin, SantAntnin, Maghtab) for the year 2005. (2) Additional wastes streams from facilities, which are not contracted by WasteServ Malta Ltd. and where no weighbridge data were available, have been estimated and added to the database. (3) A Combination of the weighbridge data and the additional estimations, which leads to the estimated total amount of waste produced on the Maltese Islands during the year 2005

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 22 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 6-1: Compiled data on waste quantities from different sources Local Waste Fractions 1* 2* 2* Comments 3* Codes Estimated amount of WEEE in MSW (10 % of 1,.600 to = -160 to) and ELV – plastics/textiles (- 2,517 to); difference between Domestic waste D 161,930 -8,140 estimated hazardous waste – 153,790 MEU (6,299 to) and WasteServ (-16 to)/export (- 1,158 to), Abattoir waste (- 337.01 to) Estimated amount of WEEE in Bulky refuse B 49,180 - 480 48,700 bulky refuse (30 % of 1,600 to) Hazardous waste from industry Industrial wastes I / IZ 17,290 5,860 23,150 (MEU Animal husbandry (Sustech) – Agricultural wastes A 3,450 257,980 261,430 cattle, layer, rabbit) Hotels/restaurants H 12,890 12,890 wastes Estimated amount of C&D Constr./demol. waste CD 9,400 341,330 350,730 waste Excavations/ZRAR/SK EXC/Z Estimated amount of 7,790 1,858,670 1,866,460 ARAFIER R/SKR excavation material div. Commercial MPW / ELV (13,983 Units = 13,983 to) 8,600 15,580 entities Z und WEEE (1,600 to) Abattoir waste in 15,370 Industrial waste, MPW - 8,810 Abattoir waste sludge etc. Clinical waste (730 to), Hospital waste (clinic./ HOSP2 1,170 pharmaceutical waste (437 to) - 1,170 pharm.) MEU Paper/cardboard/woo P 3,940 3,940 d Beaches/Seaweed W 2,540 2,540 Roads/streets debris RDS 2,175 2,180 Hospital waste HOSP 1,990 1,990 (kitchen) Abattoir/Animal 9,850 MEU-Study (Dom./Ind.: 9,150 AA 9,850 carcasses to), Mob. Incinerator (700 to) 8,800 Sewage sludge from new STP Sludge SG 8,800 (working paper WtE) Slurry SR 12,700 Waste Oils (Umweltbundesamt) 12,700 Other fractions 2,440 2,440 Total 283,620 2,494,510 2,775,680 1*……Weighbridges WasteServ 2005 (tons/year) 2*……Estimated additional waste streams 3*…… Combination of weighbridge data and estimated waste streams

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 23 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

6.3 Waste composition

Different sources of information were used to estimate the composition of municipal solid waste (MSW). Municipal solid waste is defined as waste from households (domestic waste) and waste from trade, services and industry which is similar to household waste. Directly applied to the calculations was information received from • NSO: Household waste survey (2002/2003) • NSO: Hotels and restaurants waste survey (2003) • NSO: Municipal waste survey (2003) • Provincial Gov. Of Lower Austria: Bulky waste survey (1999) • Federal Waste Management Plan – Austria (2006) • Ministry of Environment (Austria): Studies on WEEE (2001) • F. Neubacher: Presentation in Malta on ELV (2006) • MEPA: Survey by Vince Gauci (1994)

For plausibility checks additional information on waste composition was used from the international literature on the composition of MSW.

Based on the literature the following composition of MSW was calculated

Table 6-2: Estimation of the composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) Malta 1989 Mean Value* Std.Dev.(+/-) Malta 2003 MSW component (Gauci (16 sources) (16 sources) (NSO) 1994) Organic 29.33 12.32 52.92 31.00 Wood 4.58 5.46 1.35 2.00 Paper and Cardboard 23.76 8.05 16.05 23.00 Plastics 10.35 2.32 12.38 9.00 Glass 4.39 2.37 2.31 5.00 Textiles/Leather/Shoes 3.03 0.77 3.86 3.00 Metals 4.36 1.53 5.04 6.00 Hazardous Household 0.90 0.79 0.00 0.00 Complex Products (incl. WEEE) 1.73 1.72 0.00 0.00 C&D/Inert 4.37 3.11 0.00 0.00 Other Categories (incl. Nappies) 10.86 8.10 3.71 0.00 Fines 2.36 2.55 2.38 21.00 Total (%) 100 100.00 100.00 *…..Mean value = value of data from 16 different references Compared to data from a variety of waste analyses it seems evident that the NSO survey of 2003 shows a rather high percentage of organic waste for the Maltese islands, compared to other data and also in comparison with the survey by Vince Gauci (1994). Compared to other investigations a major part of MSW is classified as fines by Gauci. Differences in the content of organics may be explained by the following: • there is practically no home-composting in Malta, so most of the garden waste is included in household waste

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 24 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

• Municipal waste in Malta is mainly collected with bags, which excludes the collection of larger quantities of inert materials with the household collection. This automatically leads to a higher percentage (by weight) of organics.

To facilitate detailed engineering and operation of thermal treatment plants it is recommended to collect accurate data on waste composition. This could best be done by sampling and analyses of waste input and output of the Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plant in St. Antnin once it is put into operation.

6.4 Net Calorific values (NCV)

The following table gives a compilation of net calorific values (NCV) of different waste streams:

Table 6-3: Net calorific values of different waste streams [MJ/tons] NCV NCV Source Waste type Source Waste type (MJ/to) (MJ/to) Paper and cardboard 32,880 H Plastic 13,750 N&W (pack,/non pack,) Waste Oils, spent act. 30,000 SCH/Z 13,750 Z Composite packaging carbon Absorbents, filter 29,500 H Tyres 10,600 H / Z materials, ink sludges, etc, MSW (domestic), 24,830 H Plastic, rubber (MTP) 9,500 WtE Hospitals/Hotels/Restaura nts 23,940 H Bulky waste, Mattresses 8,000 Z Mixed C&D waste, WEEE waste from wood Biodegradable waste, preservation, market waste, 20,000 Z 6,700 E&C adhesives, street-cleaning residues, pharmaceuticals agricultural waste, Wastes from pulp, paper Abattoir waste, animal and 17,500 N&W 4,200 B&T carcasses, cardboard animal-tissue waste prod,/processing 16,770 H ELV (textiles, plastics etc,) 1,645 WtE/Z Animal husbandry waste Sludges from animal/fruit/vegetables 16,200 N&W Wooden packaging 1,250 WtE/Z processing, sewage sludge (20% TS) 15,000 H Wood, sawdust 750 Z ELV (Mix) Excavations, concrete, bricks, soil, gypsum, glass, 13,800 N&W Textiles, textile packaging 0 Z ceramics, metals, ash/slag, batteries 13,800 Z Mixed packaging • B&T Barbieri & Tarozzi: Documents on the Abattoir Incinerator (2005) • E&C T.D.Eastop & D.R.Croft: Energy efficiency (1995) • H Albert Hackl: Report Waste to Energy (2005) • N&W H.Netz & W.Wagner: Betriebshandbuch Waerme (1996) • SBS R.Scholz, M.Beckmann & F.Schulenburg: Abfallbehandlung in thermischen Verfahren (2001) • SCH H.Schnurer: Information on draft Waste Management Plan (2007) • WtE Waste-to-Energy Working Group: Draft paper on waste to energy (2005) • Z Estimations by Hans-Jörg Zerz

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 25 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

On the basis of available data/estimations on waste quantities (see chapter 6.2) the – theoretical (!) - energy potential of waste in Malta (reference year: 2005) is calculated to be 4,169.4 TJ which is equivalent to a yearly input of 1,158 GWh or 130 MW. In a following step it has to be evaluated, which percentage of this theoretical energy potential can be used for energy production in a thermal treatment facility, bearing in mind • separate collection and recycling targets for various waste fractions (packaging waste, ELV, WEEE), • separate treatment of biodegradable waste (digestion, composting), • properties, amount and pre-treatment of sewage sludge (% DS, % VS) • treatment of agricultural waste.

6.5 Trends

Based on the data discussed so far and which includes • data for the year 2005 (see above), • waste data of previous years, • data from other countries Maltese and Austrian experts (three working groups) made a forecast of the arising of various waste streams for the years 2010 till 2013 (see Annex I). The estimations of the three working groups were averaged and used as a basis for the development of proposals for Waste Management Plans. According to the experts judgement waste accumulation may be as follows in the year 2013:

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 26 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 6-4: Potential waste accumulation for the year 2013 as estimated by the expert groups Waste fraction 2005 Non inert +/- 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Comments Mean Non (estimation) (%) (% p.a.) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Value inert Excavations etc. 1,866,454.94 0.00% 4.50% 1,866,455 2,974,846 2,364,369 2.,01,890 0 Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste 350,735.57 1.00% 4.00% 350,736 518,196 444,301 437,744 4,377 Plastic, wood, cardboard Agricultural wastes 261,419.39 80.00% 1.50% 331,158 261,419 261,419 284,666 227,733 Domestic waste 153,794.34 89.00% 3.00% 194,822 194,822 194,822 194,822 173,392 Bulky refuse 48,639.68 60.00% 4.00% 71,863 61,615 66,567 66,682 40,009 Industrial wastes 22,689.26 83.33% 1.33% 26,584 26,584 22,689 25,286 21,072 Commercial wastes 15,666.46 86.67% 4.00% 23,146 21,441 19,846 21,478 18,614 Hotels/rest. wastes 12,888.74 97.67% 2.00% 12,889 16,327 16,327 15,181 14,827 Slurry 12,859.42 66.67% 0.00% 12,859 12,859 12,859 12,859 8,573 Abattoir waste 9,850.00 100.00% -1.50% 7,720 9,850 9,850 9,140 9,140 Sludge 8,885.32 93.33% 10.50% 29,130 13,128 8,885 17,048 15,911 Paper/cardboard/wood 3,938.78 100.00% 3.67% 5,819 4,990 4,990 5,266 5,266 Beaches/Seaweed 2,535.57 95.00% 0.00% 2,536 2,536 2,536 2,536 2,409 Roads/street debris 2,175.07 25.00% 1.00% 2,175 2,755 2,175 2,368 592 Hospital waste (kitchen) 1,989.52 88.33% 0.33% 1,990 2,154 1,990 2,044 1,806 Hospital waste (clinical) 1,167.00 88.33% 0.33% 1,167 1,264 1,167 1,199 1,059 T/G/RYC/MAT/M/ Other fractions 2,421.10 50.00% 0.00% 2,421 2,421 2,421 2,421 1,211 MPW/Z/RF/BIN/E/BAT

- Recycling Target Paper/Cardboard -25,800 -25,800 Draft WMP - Recycling Target Plastic Packaging -5,900 -5,900 Draft WMP (max. Recyclingquote: - Recycling Target WEEE' -1,200 -1,200 75% of 1,600 to) (max. Recycling- - Recycling Target ELV -11,050 -11,050 /Reusequote: 85% of 13,000 to) TOTAL (to/a) 2,778,110.16 2,943,470 4,127,207 3,437,213 3,458,680 502,040 WMP…Waste Management Plan, T/G/RYC/MAT/M/ MPW/Z/RF/BIN/E/BAT ……Local Codes Weighbridges, WEEE…Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, ELV…End of Live Vehicles

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 27 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

It was the common understanding of all expert groups that the mass of waste will increase until 2013. By far the largest fraction is waste from excavations followed by construction and demolition waste – both are regarded as inert wastes. It has been assumed by the expert groups that the non-inert fraction will be in total about 550,000 t. From the figures given above the figures stipulated by various recycling targets (for paper/cardboard, plastic packaging waste, electric and electronic equipment and end-of-life vehicles) have been subtracted to obtain the mass of wastes for which suitable treatment and recovery options have to be implemented.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 28 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

7 Waste-to-Energy Scenarios for the Maltese Islands

Based on the information concerning waste quantities, waste composition, technical options for waste treatment and techniques for waste collection/treatment already in place Maltese and Austrian experts developed scenarios for waste treatment which includes waste incineration or co-incineration. As a basic requirement these scenarios should allow to: • Reach recycling targets for various waste streams; • Treatment of waste according to best available techniques which is to minimise impacts to the environment as a whole; • Energy recovery.

7.1 Current situation

Regarding “waste-to-energy” the current situation (January 2008) can be summarized as shown in the following table:

Table 7-1: Current situation regarding “waste to energy” Total amount of MSW Approximately 285,000 to/yr (2005, see chapter 6.2) Separate collection: • Dry recyclables from households, commercials and industry (glass, metals, paper/cardboard, Approximately 7,200 to/yr plastics) No separate collection, • Bio-waste/food waste Pilot project at ITS (Pembroke) • WEEE At CA sites since 01/2007 Approximately 2,500 to/yr high calorific fraction from • ELV scrap yards Treatment & disposal facilities • MBT + MRF Sant Antnin Under construction, MRF will start operating (35,000 to/yr MSW, 36,000 to/yr Dry recyclables) 04/2008, MBT will start operating 07/2008 • MBT Malta North Planning stage • MBT Gozo Planning stage • Thermal treatment (Abattoir Incinerator) • (13,000 to/yr abattoir waste, clinical waste, Commissioning phase, operating since 12/2007 hazardous waste) • Sewage treatment plant Malta North Under construction, will start operating 06/2008 • Sewage treatment plant Malta South Tendering stage • Sewage treatment plant Gozo Tendering stage • Agricultural Digesters Planning stage • Landfill for Non-hazardous waste (Ghallis) 1.7 Mio m³, operating since 04/2007 • Storage facility and landfill for hazardous waste 100,000 m³, commissioning phase (Ghallis) WEEE…Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment CA…. civic amenity sight ELV… End of Live Vehicles MBT… Mechanic-Biologic Treatment MRF.. Material Recycling Facility;

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 29 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

7.2 Preliminary remarks and assumptions a) The composition of the various waste streams (such as calorific value, chlorine-content, water content) was estimated on basis of existing Maltese and international surveys on waste composition. For more detailed concepts additional surveys (i.e. bulky waste, roads/street debris, C&D waste, and commercial/industrial wastes) might be necessary. b) A forecast of the accumulation of relevant waste streams for the year 2013 (waste types, mass, non inert compounds) has been carried out as a teamwork (3 working groups have been established), based on a proposal by the RTA, which was derived from available data (see also chapter 6.5). The estimations of the three working groups were averaged and used as a basis for the development of proposals for Waste Management Plans. The calculation table is attached to this paper (see Table 6-4 and attachment “forecast of waste streams”). c) The estimation of intermediate products and output streams of the proposed treatment facilities was made on the basis of experiences from treatment facilities abroad. More detailed information will be available after at least 1 year operation of local treatment plants (Sant Antnin, Abattoir incinerator). d) Parameters concerning quantity (mass) and quality (such as NCV) of RDF and heavy fraction from the Mechanical Treatment Plant (MTP) were estimated by participants based on available data from literature and treatment plants abroad. Input streams were assumed to be MSW (mixed solid waste) and Bulky waste. The results strongly depend on the organic fraction of the waste. e) The mass of material which should be thermally treated highly depends on the composition of MSW and Bulky waste, the rejects from MRF and the amount of high calorific fractions from commercial/industrial waste and C&D waste. Data of waste composition is available for MSW only, for the other fractions estimations were made by the participants, based on literature data.

All scenarios are based on the following assumptions: a) Effective separate collection of packaging wastes from households, commercials and industry is implemented, b) Material Recycling Facility (MRF) for sorting of dry recyclables (glass, metals, paper/board, plastics) is in operation, c) Treatment facilities for Construction & Demolition waste to separate high calorific fractions (plastic, board, wood etc.) are in operation, d) Rotary kiln for abattoir waste, clinical waste and some types of hazardous waste is in operation, e) Anaerobic digesters for agricultural waste and (uncontaminated, i.e. with low concentrations of metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)) sewage sludge are in operation.

7.3 Scenarios

Three scenarios for waste treatment have been elaborated by Maltese and Austrian experts on the basis of information given in previous workshops and summaries presented by Short Term Experts. These scenarios should be applicable to the specific Maltese situation and include the following treatment technologies: Scenario 1: Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT, three plants) + Thermal treatment using a Fluidized Bed Reactor Scenario 2: MBT (one plant) + Thermal treatment using a Grate firing System Scenario 3: MBT (three plants) + Export of Refuse derived fuel (RDF) They are explained in more detail now:

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 30 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

7.3.1 Scenario 1: 2 or 3 Mechanical-Biological Treatment Plants (MBTs) in combination with a Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor (FBC) • This scenario assumes that in addition to the Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant (MBT) in Sant Antnin one or two MBTs (located in Malta North, Gozo) have to be put into operation. • Bulky waste, rejects from the MRF and high calorific fractions from C&D waste will be treated in the MBTs • The digestate of the Biogas plants of the MBTs can most probably only be land filled (stabilized waste) due to its content of heavy metals, POPs and other pollutants or sent to thermal treatment in the FBC. • Separately collected organic waste (food, garden, etc.) from domestic waste, agricultural waste, restaurants/hotels/hospitals and maybe from road/street cleaning and seaweeds (relevant parameter: salt content) could be used directly in the digester(s) of the MBTs - if the quality is appropriate. Only in case that the input material does not contain mixed municipal solid waste the production of quality compost is possible. • Refuse derived Fuel (RDF) from the MBTs will be thermally treated in the Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor (FBC), which can also treat the dewatered digestate from sewage sludge digesters, if the material quality is not sufficient for agricultural use. • An option would also be the drying of sewage sludge (instead of anaerobic digestion) with waste heat from the FBC or by solar drying and consecutive incineration in the FBC. This option has the advantage that energy can be recovered even from the incineration of sewage sludge.

7.3.2 Scenario 2: 1 MBT in combination with a Grate Firing Combustion System (GFC) • In this scenario it is assumed that, in addition to the Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant (MBT) in Sant Antnin, there will be a grate firing incinerator (two lines) for the thermal treatment of all mixed domestic waste, mixed waste from commercials/industry, hotels/restaurants, road/street cleaning and the high calorific fraction from C&D waste. • The existing Mechanical Treatment Plant (MTP) in Sant Antnin will mainly treat Bulky waste to produce RDF for the grate firing incinerator and will act as a “stand by”-facility (producing RDF- bailes in cases of total standstill of the grate firing incinerator). • The Biogas plant in Sant Antnin will be used to treat separately collected – clean - organic waste (food, garden, etc.) from domestic waste, agricultural waste, restaurants/hotels/hospitals and maybe from road/street cleaning and seaweeds (relevant parameter: salt content). Only in case that the input material does not contain mixed municipal solid waste the production of quality compost is possible.

7.3.3 Scenario 3: 2-3 MBTs and export of RDF • This scenario assumes that beside the Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant (MBT) in Sant Antnin there will be one or two additional MBTs (Malta North, Gozo). • Residual derived Fuel (RDF) from the MBTs will be exported for thermal treatment. • Bulky waste, rejects from the MRF and high calorific fractions from C&D waste will either be treated in the MBTs (to separate inert/metals and produce RDF for export), exported without treatment or - partly – land filled. • The digestate of the Biogas plants from the MBTs can most probably only be land filled (stabilized waste). • Separately collected – clean - organic waste (food, garden, etc.) from domestic waste, agricultural waste, restaurants/hotels/hospitals and maybe from road/street cleaning and seaweeds (relevant parameter: salt content) could be used directly in the digester(s) of the MBTs. Only in case that the input material does not contain mixed municipal solid waste the production of quality compost is possible.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 31 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

7.4 Advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios

The following table shows the advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios.

Table 7-2: Advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

(MBT, FBC) (Grate firing) (MBT, Export) Recyclable materials (metals) can be extracted from the Less material for land filling No investments for Advantages Mechanical Treatment Plant (ash, slag) thermal treatment (MTP) During standstill of MBT, the Principle of autarky and No problems with public waste can be treated in proximity fulfilled perception (incineration) Thermal facility Pre-treated waste (RDF) can Grate firing easier to be stored in bails for longer operate than a FBC periods No intensive mechanical

pre-treatment necessary Non-hazardous clinical waste can be incinerated in

case of standstill of rotary kiln Cheaper than Scenario 1 Metals can be separated from slag (less impure than from MTP) Principle of autarky and

proximity fulfilled Less treatment plants than with scenario 1 (means also

less site selection processes) Storage capacity is limited Disadvantages Two additional MBTs required with size of reception Export costs bunker Remaining biological activity and contents of (heavy-

)metals in stabilized organic fraction

More material for land filling Intermediate storage and

(stabilized organic fraction) pre-treatment Dependent from prices High investment costs and situation abroad Intensive mechanical pre- Export (loosing) of large

treatment necessary energy resources More complex to operate than

a grate firing incinerator

7.5 Conclusions and recommendations by Maltese and Austrian experts

• Concerning waste quantities and qualities a) It is recommended to investigate especially the waste composition of Bulky waste and C&D waste to obtain more accurate data. b) Important: It is crucial to know the composition of the major waste input streams, especially of MSW and Bulky waste. Data are required to be able to do the following estimations: • Mass, composition and calorific value of the RDF • Mass and composition of the organic fraction treated by digestion

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 32 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

• Mass and composition of “inert” materials intended to be- disposed of • Mass of recyclable materials (metals) Having good knowledge on relevant waste streams (as listed above) is the basis either for designing waste treatment plants (such as additional MBTs, thermal treatment facilities) or for decisions making with regard to export of certain waste streams, c) Therefore data on the composition of these waste types should be collected periodically during the first year of operation of the MBT in Sant Antnin. This can be achieved by implementing a comprehensive sampling and analyses scheme on a long term basis (one or two years). d) Export of RDF: One disadvantage are the high quality criteria required for co-incineration in cement kilns (these quality criteria are difficult to reach with RDF derived from MSW)

• Concerning logistics a) Arrangements regarding storage of MSW, RDF and digester material for stand-still periods have to be made. b) Arrangements regarding intermediate storage of clinical waste during stand-still of rotary kiln have to be made (but storage possible in cooled reception area, because shredded abattoir waste can be incinerated in FBC). c) Export of RDF is highly dependant on international markets/prices (nearest cement kiln in Sicily, otherwise Germany/NL). d) Mixed waste has to be brought to a grate firing incinerator daily and can be stored for 5 days maximum, RDF can be stored for longer periods.

• Concerning scenario 1 and 2 a) Mass of solid residues which has to be disposed of in landfills is different between scenario 1 and 2 (a grate firing system generally “produces” less waste). b) Waste water treatment of MBT, digestion and wet-oxidation has to be specified/quantified. c) The possibility of co-digestion of certain waste streams (bio waste + animal manure, MSW + sewage sludge) should be further investigated, especially with respect to biogas yield, compost quality, emissions and costs.

• Concerning thermal treatment – process technology a) 2 lines of fluidized bed recommended (or reception bunker for standstill periods), Excess-air treatment during stand-still periods is required. b) It is technically not recommended to introduce all waste in one type of incinerator (abattoir, clinic, hazardous, liquid, MSW/RDF). c) Solvents can be burnt by installing a burner above the grate. d) 2 line incinerator recommended to avoid long standstill periods (standstill necessary for maintenance: 4 weeks/a). e) By incineration of 200,000 to RDF about 160 GWh electricity can be recovered (200,000 to * 14 GJ/to /3,6 MJ/kWh * min. 0,2 net electr. Efficiency). Producing this output by using fuel oil would consume about 35,000 t of fuel oil. f) An example for a synergy when a rotary kiln and FBC or Grate Firing are operated at the same site: it is possible to install a 2-step scrubber in each of the two facilities, but to have a common infrastructure (i.e. lime-conditioning, gypsum-separation and waste-water treatment). Other possible synergies should be investigated in more detail. g) Comparison of wet scrubbing and dry scrubbing systems:

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 33 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 7-3: Comparison of wet and dry scrubbing systems Wet scrubbing Dry scrubbing (spray absorption) Smaller amount of fly ash Investment cheaper Advantages Relatively clean gypsum No waste water treatment required Higher amount of waste from flue gas cleaning Waste water treatment required (mixture of fly ash, CaSO3, CaSO4, CaCl2, CaF2, non used reagent) which has to be land filled Disadvantages Investment more expensive Better quality of lime required Facility should be located adjacent to

the sea (water, waste water) h) Calorific values of the different waste streams and thermal capacity of the thermal treatment plant influences the mass of waste streams to be incinerated (i.e. incineration of bulky waste with a higher calorific value reduces the mass of MSW to be treated)

• Concerning gasification/pyrolysis a) Principles and problems of the process technology: • “Mechanical” treatment at a temperature of 800 – 1,000 °C. • Complex design: first chamber: Drying and gasification at 600 °C, second chamber: incineration of the gas produced in the first chamber. • Effect: Heavy metals are not in the flue gas, but in the solid residues (slag) • Pyrolysis gas from MSW contains a high amount of chlorine (Cl-) which leads to corrosion in the subsequent incineration/energy production at temperatures > 400 °C. b) Technology not recommended for mixed waste. c) No reference plants in operation within the EU. d) Plant producers with high technical standards and long experiences failed to establish this technology (Siemens KWU, VAI, ABB).

• Concerning treatment of sewage sludge a) The process-chain should be run energy-optimized (sewage sludge drying with solar or low pressure steam). b) With regard to energy efficiency sewage sludge and other contaminated wet organic material (MSW) should be dried rather than digested. After drying energy optimised incineration should be performed (to be energy optimized with regards to electricity production). c) Prospective mass of sewage sludge should be specified.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 34 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

8 Feasibility Analysis for certain scenarios

8.1 Approach

To assess whether the three scenarios (see chapter 7) are possible, practical and viable, a feasibility analysis was carried out. This was done during the 3rd meeting of the technical working group (on 23rd October 2007). The working group used a given criteria catalogue elaborated by the Austrian experts prior to the meeting (see Annex III). These criteria were assigned to the following categories: • Technical feasibility • Environmental feasibility • Economic feasibility • Further effects • Risks. The assessment of the criteria was carried out on the basis of the following figures: • +2 = Very positive • + 1 = Positive • 0 = Intermediate • - 1 = Negative • - 2 = Very negative If a criterion could not be assessed by the working group, this criterion was marked with a “??”. Two groups were formed, both investigating all three scenarios with the use of the distributed criteria catalogue. Additionally, two Austrian STEs (Seidi, Stubenvoll) made a feasibility exercise for comparative reasons. The results of the team works were presented by a speaker of each group and discussed in detail in plenary. Relevant comments are attached to the assessment sheets. The assessed figures were added for each scenario and the individual sum of each scenario was used for an overall comparison (see attached assessment sheets). A “sensitivity analysis” (i.e. normalisation of the used criteria due to state of knowledge and according to their importance, influence etc.) was not carried out, due to limited time.

8.2 Results

The members of the working group assessed most of the pre-defined criteria. Several criteria not included in the circulated list were added by the teams (such as climate change, public acceptance, economy of scale, financing, waste fees) and evaluated. The overall comparison of the summarized figures for all three scenarios (see chapter 7.3) led to the results shown in the following tables:

Table 8-1: Ranking of Group 1

Group 1 Consideration / Evaluation

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (3 MBT's + FBC) (1 MBT + GFC) (3 MBT's + RDF export)

TOTAL -14 -14 -30

Group 1 ranks scenario 1 and 2 equally on top, scenario 3 (“export scenario”) is the least favoured option.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 35 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 8-2: Ranking of Group 2

Group 2 Consideration / Evaluation

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (3 MBT's + FBC) (1 MBT + GFC) (3 MBT's + RDF export)

TOTAL -16 -8 -25

Group 2 considers scenario 3 as the most negative, whereas scenario 2 is ranked on top (i.e. least negative).

Table 8-3: Ranking of Group 3

Group 3 Consideration / Evaluation („STE group“)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (3 MBT's + FBC) (1 MBT + GFC) (3 MBT's + RDF export)

TOTAL 0 7 -8

Group 3 is strongly in favour of scenario 2 (grate firing technology), whereas scenario 3 is considered as the least feasible.

8.3 Conclusions of the feasibility analysis carried out during the working group meeting

A comparison of the results of the team works shows, that • scenario 3 is coincidently regarded as the least feasible option for the Maltese islands, where as • group 1 considered scenario 1 and scenario 2 as equal, but the assessment of both groups – and also the assessment of the STE-group – leads to the conclusion that scenario 2 (involving one MBT and a grate firing system) can be seen as the best option for waste-to-energy technologies for Malta. Remarks: • Especially with regards to the results of group 1 (equal assessment for scenario 1 and 2), a “sensitivity analysis” (with normalised criteria due to state of knowledge and according to their importance, influence etc.) should be carried out to achieve clear-cut results. This should be done, as soon as reliable data on waste qualities (e.g. NCV) and waste quantities are available. • Generally it has to be considered, that the stage of planning is very early for a feasibility analysis and several crucial parameters are not yet identified (e.g. technical details of the proposed facilities, including emissions etc.).

• Therefore it is recommended that - before taking a decision for the investments - additional investigations on specific issues should be carried out and discussed with the responsible, decision-making stakeholders. This will have to include also aspects, which are currently not known (such as waste data, development of waste qualities and quantities, technical performance of the first MBT, emissions from the proposed facilities to air and water etc.)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 36 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

8.4 Estimation of the economic feasibility

Financial implications of the three scenarios have been calculated, based on existing data from abroad (mainly Austria and Germany). Energy recovery rates were estimated, also based on experiences from abroad (mainly Austria and Germany) and financially evaluated either with Maltese prices (were available) or prices from abroad. The comparison of the scenarios was done through the modelling the NET PRESENT VALUE of each scenario for two economic situations: • Real model: Interest rate 3.00 % and inflation 0.00 % • Nominal model: Interest rate 4.25 % and inflation 3.00 % (based on current Maltese figures).

Results and conclusions are as follows: All NPV are negative (that means that sources for revenues to finance the investments are necessary). • The best scenario is scenario 2 (One MBT and Grate Firing), the least preferable scenario would be scenario 3 (Three MBTs and export of RDF). • Based on the information received, export costs are very high (1,750 EUR per 40ft container), but even with export costs at 600 EUR/40ft and disposal costs at 100 EUR/to, scenario 3 would still be least preferable. • Decisions for investments should be accompanied by recalculations of these tables with local prices.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 37 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

9 Site selection exercise for a thermal treatment plant

9.1 Approach

After an introductive presentation by STE Mohammadali Seidi on the site selection process for the new waste incineration plant in Vienna two teams did a site selection exercise for a waste incineration plant in Malta. The approach was similar to the feasibility analysis, that means: A catalogue has been prepared by the STE, which described relevant criteria for selecting a location for a waste incineration plant. These criteria were assigned to the following categories: • Infrastructure • Energy supply and dissipation • Transport • Location • Environment • “Knock-out” – criteria. The assessment of the criteria was carried out on the basis of the following figures: • +2 = Very positive • + 1 = Positive • 0 = Intermediate • - 1 = Negative • - 2 = Very negative If a criterion could not be assessed by the working group, this criterion was marked with a “??”. Both groups selected and assessed five different sites with the use of the prepared schedule. This resulted in an assessment of six sites in total (four sites were identical in both groups). The results of the team works were presented by a speaker of each group and discussed in detail in plenary. The presentations also included the reasons, why a certain assessment was made. Relevant comments are attached to the assessment sheets. The assessed figures were added for each scenario and the individual sum of each scenario was used for an overall comparison (see attached assessment sheets). A “sensitivity analysis” (i.e. normalisation of the criteria due to state of knowledge and according to their importance, influence etc.) was not carried out, due to limited time.

9.2 Results

The members of the working group assessed most of the pre-defined criteria. Some new criteria were added by the teams (such as availability of land, property rights, cost of land purchase, increase of traffic) and evaluated. The overall comparison of the summarized figures for the three scenarios leads to the results shown in the following table:

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 38 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Table 9-1: Ranking of Group 1

Group 1 Consideration / Evaluation

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 (Marsa (Xewkija) (Delimara) (Maghtab) (Hal Far)

TOTAL 10 3 17 5 14

That means, that site 2 (Xewkija, Gozo) is seen as the least preferable, where as site 3 (Delimara) is considered as most preferred location for a waste-to-energy facility. Nevertheless, the results are not clear-cut (site 3 and 5 are very similar) The decision for Delimara is mainly due to • the existing calorific power station, incl. availability of land on-site, • the proximity to the sea (water supply, excess water discharge, waste shipment), • the site is not too close to residential areas.

Table 9-2: Ranking of Group 2

Group 2 Consideration / Evaluation

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 (Marsa (Xewkija) (Delimara) (Maghtab) (Hal Far)

TOTAL -6 -1 3 2 0

Group 2 also assessed site 3 (Delimara) is as the most preferred location for a waste-to-energy facility, the least preferred option is site 2 (Kala Frana). The reasons for decision in favour of Delimara are the same as given by group 1.

9.3 Conclusions of the site selection exercise

A comparison of the results of the team works show, that Delimara is considered as the most preferable site for a waste-to-energy facility. Remarks: • The aim of this site selection exercise was to give a first overview of the approach and of possible locations for a waste incineration plant. All sites proposed and assessed by the members of the working group show certain advantages and disadvantages. It is recommended to make a fine- tuning of this exercise before a final decision about a site for a waste-to-energy facility is taken, including a “sensitivity analysis” (by use of normalised criteria). Special attention should be given to possible knock-out criteria (e.g. air traffic safety) and aspects, which are currently not known in detail (such as size of the plant, availability of land etc.) • Generally it has to be considered, that the stage of planning is very early for a final site selection of a waste-to-energy facility and several crucial parameters are not yet identified (see feasibility analysis).

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 39 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

10 Communication and Public Awareness Raising Measures

In Component 3 of this Twinning Project a public awareness campaign specialized on Waste-to- Energy has been developed taking into account the specific Maltese situation. The paper deals not only with the measures for public awareness raising with regards to waste-to- energy technologies but tackles the issues from a more holistic point of view:

- creating awareness of the actual situation and everyone’s contribution to it - reference to the waste hierarchy (3R: reduce – reuse – recycle), - Finally creating awareness and acceptance for the necessary treatment facilities as a consequence after all efforts by Government and each citizen (!) for waste streams which cannot be avoided or recycled.

The outcome of component 3 of this Twinning Project is published in a separate report.

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 40 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

11 Annexes

Annex 1: Estimation of future waste streams incorporating existing studies and actual developments

Annex 2: Waste-to-Energy Scenarios

Annex 3: Feasibility Analysis as a team work (schedule, results)

Annex 4: Calculations for the economic feasibility

Annex 5: Site selection exercise as a team work (schedule, results)

Annex 6: Photos from Malta

Annex 7: Photos from Austria (Study Visit 21st to 25th May 2007 and Staff Training 12th to 16th March 2007)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 41 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 1: Estimation of future waste streams incorporating existing studies and actual developments

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 42 / 96 Non inert +/- Non inert Waste fraction 2005 (G01-03 (G01-03 +/- 2006 +/- 2007 +/- 2008 +/- 2009 +/- 2010 +/- 2011 +/- 2012 +/- 2013 (Zerz) avg) avg)

(estimation) (%) (%) (%) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.) (% p.a.)

Excavations etc. 1.866.454,94 0,00% 0,00% 4,50% 4,50% 1.950.445,41 4,00% 2.028.463,23 3,50% 2.099.459,44 3,00% 2.162.443,23 2,50% 2.216.504,31 2,00% 2.260.834,39 1,50% 2.294.746,91 1,00% 2.317.694,38

C&D. Waste 350.735,57 5,00% 1,00% 4,00% 4,00% 364.764,99 3,50% 377.531,77 3,00% 388.857,72 2,50% 398.579,16 2,00% 406.550,75 1,50% 412.649,01 1,00% 416.775,50 0,50% 418.859,38

Agricultural wastes 261.419,39 100,00% 80,00% 1,50% 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39 0,00% 261.419,39

Domestic waste 153.794,34 92,64% 89,00% 3,00% 3,00% 158.408,17 3,00% 163.160,42 3,00% 168.055,23 3,00% 173.096,88 3,00% 178.289,79 3,00% 183.638,48 3,00% 189.147,64 3,00% 194.822,07

Bulky refuse 48.639,68 55,00% 60,00% 4,00% 4,00% 50.585,27 4,00% 52.608,68 4,00% 54.713,03 4,00% 56.901,55 3,00% 58.608,59 2,50% 60.073,81 2,00% 61.275,28 1,50% 62.194,41

Industrial wastes 22.689,26 85,00% 83,33% 1,33% 1,50% 23.029,60 1,50% 23.375,04 1,50% 23.725,67 1,50% 24.081,55 1,50% 24.442,78 1,50% 24.809,42 1,50% 25.181,56 1,50% 25.559,28

Commercial wastes 15.666,46 85,00% 86,67% 4,00% 4,00% 16.293,12 4,00% 16.944,84 4,00% 17.622,64 4,00% 18.327,54 3,00% 18.877,37 3,00% 19.443,69 3,00% 20.027,00 3,00% 20.627,81

Hotels/rest. wastes 12.888,74 85,00% 97,67% 2,00% 2,00% 13.146,51 2,00% 13.409,45 2,00% 13.677,63 2,00% 13.951,19 2,00% 14.230,21 2,00% 14.514,81 2,00% 14.805,11 2,00% 15.101,21

Slurry 12.859,42 95,00% 66,67% 0,00% 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42 0,00% 12.859,42

Abattoir waste 9.850,00 100,00% 100,00% -1,50% -1,50% 9.702,25 -1,50% 9.556,72 -1,50% 9.413,37 -1,50% 9.272,17 -1,50% 9.133,08 -1,50% 8.996,09 -1,50% 8.861,15 -1,50% 8.728,23

Sludge 8.885,32 100,00% 93,33% 10,50% 0,00% 8.885,32 0,00% 8.885,32 64,00% 14.571,92 160,00% 37.887,00 2,00% 38.644,74 2,00% 39.417,64 2,00% 40.205,99 2,00% 41.010,11

Paper/cardboard/wood 3.938,78 100,00% 100,00% 3,67% 4,00% 4.096,33 4,00% 4.260,18 4,00% 4.430,59 4,00% 4.607,82 4,00% 4.792,13 4,00% 4.983,81 4,00% 5.183,17 4,00% 5.390,49

Beaches/Seaweed 2.535,57 85,00% 95,00% 0,00% 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57 0,00% 2.535,57

Roads/street debris 2.175,07 50,00% 25,00% 1,00% 1,00% 2.196,82 1,00% 2.218,79 1,00% 2.240,98 1,00% 2.263,39 1,00% 2.286,02 1,00% 2.308,88 1,00% 2.331,97 1,00% 2.355,29

Hospital waste (kitchen) 1.989,52 85,00% 88,33% 0,33% 0,50% 1.999,47 0,50% 2.009,46 1,00% 2.029,56 1,00% 2.049,86 0,50% 2.060,10 0,50% 2.070,40 0,50% 2.080,76 0,50% 2.091,16

Hospitalwaste (clinical) 1.167,00 100,00% 88,33% 0,33% 0,50% 1.172,84 0,50% 1.178,70 1,00% 1.190,49 1,00% 1.202,39 0,50% 1.208,40 0,50% 1.214,44 0,50% 1.220,52 0,50% 1.226,62

Other fractions 2.421,10 50,00% 50,00% 0,00% 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10 0,00% 2.421,10

TOTAL (to/a) 2.778.110,16 2.883.961,58 2.982.838,07 3.079.223,74 3.183.899,20 3.254.863,76 3.314.190,36 3.361.078,03 3.394.895,92

- Recycling Target Glass Packaging' -1.683,30 -2.310,00 -3.125,00 -3.810,00 -4.690,00 -5.945,61 -7.200,00 -8.140,00 -9.240,00

- Recycling Target Metals Packaging' -562,50 -836,00 -1.053,00 -1.240,00 -1.394,00 -1.575,10 -1.763,00 -2.047,00 -2.275,00

- Recycling Target Paper/Board Packaging' -4.699,65 -6.600,00 -8.625,00 -10.800,00 -13.125,00 -16.303,98 -20.000,00 -22.825,00 -25.800,00

- Recycling Target Plastic Packaging' -825,00 -1.225,00 -1.800,00 -2.915,12 -3.456,30 -4.162,73 -4.736,16 -5.356,94 -5.861,03

- Recycling Target WEEE' 0,00 0,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00 -1.200,00

- Recycling Target ELV' 0,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00 -10.400,00

TOTAL #2 (to/a) 2.770.339,71 2.862.590,58 2.956.635,07 3.048.858,62 3.149.633,90 3.215.276,34 3.268.891,20 3.311.109,09 3.340.119,90 Domestic waste Excavations C&D waste Roads/Street debris Agricult. Waste Hotels/Restaurant waste (HH + SME) Commercial waste (2.300.000 to) (420.000 to) (2.500 to) (260.000 to) (15.000 to) (190.000 to) (20.000 to)

Animal Paper/ Topsoils Non haz. Plastic,board, Food, Glass Plast. Met. Food, Mixed Inert Inert Metals Hazardous Mixed C&D Mix. Organ. Mix. waste Mixed C&D husbandry Board etc. mineral wood etc Garden pack. Pack. Pack. Garden waste (2.000.000 to) (200.000 to) (20.000 to) ( ??? to) (500 to) (1000 to) (1.000 to) (5.000 to) (250.000 (12.000 to) Hospitals (Kitchen) (300.000 to) (180.000 to) (20.000 to) (5.000 to) (4.500 to) (1.500 to) (1.000 to) (31.000 to) (140.000 to) Industrial waste to) ??? (2.000 to) (25.000 to)

Non Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ Mixed Paper/ Packag. pack. Food Glass Plast. Met. Haz. Other pack. Pack. Pack. Board waste Board pack. Pack. Pack. Waste Waste B/C/D (7.000 to) (5.000 to) (9.000 to) (19.000 to) (600 to) (2.100 to) (900 to) (2.700 to) (1.700 to) (3.500 to) (4.300 to) (1.200 to) (7.000 to) (10.000 to) ??? ??? B/C/D B/C/D Non Packag. pack. B/C/D (18.000 to) (1.000 to) B/C/D ??? C&D waste B/C/D Treatment Metals Facility B/C/D B/C/D B/C/D Landfill for Intermediate Inert storage for re-use Waste

Disused Quarries, Land reclamation Paper/Board/ etc. Wood (5.000 to)

Material

Recycling Basic assumptions Recycling/Export Facility (MRF) (58.300 to) Hospitals (Clinical) Abattoir waste Slurry Glass Paper/Board Plastics Metals (??? to) A (1.200 to) (9.000 to) (13.000 to) (36.800 to) pack. (??? to) (8.400 to) Paper,Board, Waste Oils Food prep. wood etc. Pack. Non.Pack. Pack. Non.Pack. Pack. Non.Pack. Rejects (24.000 to) (12.800 to) (7.100 to) (??? to) (3.000 to) (??? to) (12.500 to) (500 to) (20.000 to) B/C/D (3.000 to)

Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ pack. Pack. Pack. Board 2 % 10 % 3 % 5 % (200 to) (800 to) (100 to) (1.900 to) Dewatering B/C/D

Abattoir Incinerator (13.000 to)

Other fractions Bottom Ash Fly Ash Bulky refuse Beaches/Seaweed (Sewage-) Sludge (Batteries, Tyres, (61.000 to) (2.500 to) (40.000 to) WEEE, etc.) (2.400 to)

Wood,Plas Metals, Seaweed Mix. waste tics etc. Glass etc. (1000 to) (1.500 to) Landfill for Haz. (36.000 to) (25.000 to) Or Non hazardous Adequate Waste Treatment B/C/D B/C/D B/C/D Domestic waste C&D waste Roads/Street debris Agricult. Waste Commercial waste Hotels/Restaurant waste (HH + SME) (420.000 to) (2.500 to) (260.000 to) (20.000 to) (15.000 to) (190.000 to)

Animal Paper/ Non haz. Plastic,board, Food, Glass Plast. Met. Food, Mixed Inert Metals Hazardous Mixed C&D Mix. Organ. Mix. waste Mixed C&D husbandry Board mineral wood etc Garden pack. Pack. Pack. Garden waste (200.000 to) (20.000 to) ( ??? to) (500 to) (1000 to) (1.000 to) (5.000 to) (250.000 (12.000 to) Industrial waste Hospitals (Kitchen) (180.000 to) (20.000 to) (5.000 to) (4.500 to) (1.500 to) (1.000 to) (31.000 to) (140.000 to) to) ??? (25.000 to) (2.000 to)

Paper/ Glass Plast. Met. Haz. Other Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ Mixed Board Food MBT Scenario pack. Pack. Pack. Waste Waste pack. Pack. Pack. Board waste (19.000 to) (9.000 to) C&D waste (3.500 to) (4.300 to) (1.200 to) (7.000 to) (10.000 to) (600 to) (2.100 to) (900 to) (2.700 to) (1.700 to) ??? Treatment Facility 1.000 to 140.000 to B Material Recycling Beaches/Seaweed Facility (MRF) (2.500 to) Paper,Board, (58.300 to) wood etc.

(20.000 to) Mix. waste Seaweed (1.500 to) (1000 to)

1.500 to Rejects 3.000 to 10.000 to (3.000 to) 1.700 to Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ pack. Pack. Pack. Board Bulky refuse 2 % 10 % 3 % 5 % (61.000 to) 20.000 to (200 to) (800 to) (100 to) (1.900 to) 61.000 to Waste Water 238.200 to 1.000 to Metals, Wood,Plas to 1.000 to 5.000 to 9.000 Treatment Plant(s) Glass etc. tics etc. 31.000 to (25.000 to) (36.000 to) RDF (+wood) MBT Plants (260.000 to) 250.000 to 50% from mixed waste 134.200 to 134.200 to (10 % spare capacity) 60% from Bulky waste Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical (Sewage-) Sludge from pre-sorted 95% C&D waste Treatment Treatment Treatment (40.000 to) Plant (MTP) Plant (MTP) Plant (MTP) ???

Metals 70.740 to 3% 45% 117.740 to 14.466 to from mixed waste 14.466 to from Agricultural Digesters Sewage Sludge Digesters Recycling/Export 15% from Bulky waste mixed waste Digesters (130.000 to) 250.000 to from pre-sorted 3% C&D waste (10 % spare capacity)

Sand, Glass 47.000 to 2% from mixed waste 18.794 to Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester

25% from Bulky waste Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic

from pre-sorted 2% C&D waste

Fluidized Bed

Combustion – 2.684 to 18.794 to Digestate (dewatered & (Waste-)Water FBC Digestate (dewatered (Waste-)Water & Sand, Glass aerob. treated) Digestate 150.000 to & aerob. treated) liquid digestate (Waste-)Water Sand, Glass (dewatered) 56% 22% (12 % spare capacity) 8% 80% 2% 15.560 + 10.340 to

Biogas 25.000 to

Bottom Ash Filter Cake Metals Bed (Water treatment) 22% Biogas Fly Ash Sand 39.620 to 5.000 to 20.000 to 20.000

200.000 to Biogas 25% 2% 2% 2% Landfill Non 10% hazardous 2.684 to 33.550 to 2.684 to Waste

15.560 + 10.340 to Agriculture Landfill Landfill for Haz. Landfill for Landfill for Landfill for for Inert Or Non hazardous Inert Inert Waste hazardous Waste Waste Agriculture Waste Waste 26.320 to Domestic waste C&D waste Roads/Street debris Agricult. Waste Commercial waste Hotels/Restaurant waste (HH + SME) (420.000 to) (2.500 to) (260.000 to) (20.000 to) (15.000 to) (190.000 to)

Animal Paper/ Non haz. Plastic,board, Food, Glass Plast. Met. Food, Mixed Inert Metals Hazardous Mixed C&D Mix. Organ. Mix. waste Mixed C&D husbandry Board mineral wood etc Garden pack. Pack. Pack. Garden waste (200.000 to) (20.000 to) ( ??? to) (500 to) (1000 to) (1.000 to) (5.000 to) (250.000 (12.000 to) Industrial waste Hospitals (Kitchen) (180.000 to) (20.000 to) (5.000 to) (4.500 to) (1.500 to) (1.000 to) (31.000 to) (140.000 to) to) ??? (25.000 to) (2.000 to)

Paper/ Glass Plast. Met. Haz. Other Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ Mixed Food Board pack. Pack. Pack. Waste Waste pack. Pack. Pack. Board waste (19.000 to) (9.000 to) (3.500 to) (4.300 to) (1.200 to) (7.000 to) (10.000 to) (600 to) (2.100 to) (900 to) (2.700 to) (1.700 to) ??? 1.000 to

140.000 to Grate Firing Scenario 10.000 to 1.700 to

1.500 to C

Material C&D waste Recycling Bulky refuse Beaches/Seaweed Treatment Facility (MRF) (61.000 to) (2.500 to) Facility (58.300 to)

Metals, Wood,Plas Mix. waste Seaweed Glass etc. tics etc. (1.500 to) (1000 to) (25.000 to) (36.000 to) Paper,Board, wood etc. Rejects (20.000 to) 250.000 to Waste Water (3.000 to) MBT Plant Treatment Plant(s) Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ pack. Pack. Pack. Board Shredded Wood, 2 % 10 % 3 % 5 % (Sant Antnin) 9.000 to (200 to) (800 to) (100 to) (1.900 to) 3.000 to Plastics etc. 1.000 to 1.000 to 5.000 to 20.000 to to 31.000 60% (Sewage-) Sludge 36.000 to Mechanical (40.000 to) Treatment ??? Plant (MTP)

9.150 to Metals Recycling/Export 15% Agricultural Digesters 47.000 to Sewage Sludge Digesters 250.000 to Sand, Glass etc. Digester Anaerobic Anaerobic

25% Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic 213.200 to Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic

Grate Firing Incinerator 15.250 to

(20 % spare capacity) 250.000 to Digestate (dewatered (Waste-)Water & Sand, Glass 4.264 to Digestate (dewatered (Waste-)Water & aerob. treated) liquid digestate Digestate & aerob. treated) 8% 80% 2% Sand, Glass (Waste-)Water (dewatered) 56% 22% 10.340 to 10.340

Bottom Ash Filter Cake Metals to 25.000 Fly Ash (Water treatment) Biogas Biogas

25% 2% 2% 5.000 to 20.000 to Biogas 200.000 to Landfill for 53.300 to 4.264 to 22% 10% Agriculture Inert Waste 10.340 to 26.320 to Agriculture Landfill for Haz. Landfill for Landfill for Agriculture Or Non Landfill for hazardous Inert Or hazardous Inert Waste Waste Waste Landfill Waste Domestic waste C&D waste Roads/Street debris Agricult. Waste Commercial waste Hotels/Restaurant waste (HH + SME) (420.000 to) (2.500 to) (260.000 to) (20.000 to) (15.000 to) (190.000 to)

Animal Paper/ Non haz. Food, Glass Plast. Met. Food, Mixed Inert Metals Plastic,board, Hazardous Mixed C&D Mix. Organ. Mix. waste Mixed C&D husbandry Board mineral wood etc Garden pack. Pack. Pack. Garden waste (200.000 to) (20.000 to) ( ??? to) (500 to) (1000 to) (1.000 to) (5.000 to) (250.000 (12.000 to) Industrial waste Hospitals (Kitchen) (180.000 to) (20.000 to) (5.000 to) (4.500 to) (1.500 to) (1.000 to) (31.000 to) (140.000 to) to) ??? (25.000 to) (2.000 to)

Paper/

Glass Plast. Met. Haz. Other Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ Mixed Export Scenario Food Board pack. Pack. Pack. Waste Waste pack. Pack. Pack. Board waste (19.000 to) (9.000 to) C&D waste (3.500 to) (4.300 to) (1.200 to) (7.000 to) (10.000 to) (600 to) (2.100 to) (900 to) (2.700 to) (1.700 to) Treatment ???

Facility 1.000 to 140.000 to D

Material Recycling Beaches/Seaweed Paper,Board, Facility (MRF) (2.500 to) wood etc. (58.300 to) (20.000 to) Mix. waste Seaweed (1.500 to) (1000 to)

1.500 to 3.000 to Rejects 10.000 to (3.000 to) Bulky refuse 1.700 to (61.000 to) Glass Plast. Met. Paper/ pack. Pack. Pack. Board 2 % 10 % 3 % 5 % (200 to) (800 to) (100 to) (1.900 to) Metals, Wood,Plas 20.000 to Glass etc. tics etc. 1.000 to to 9.000 1.000 to (25.000 to) (36.000 to) to 5.000 Waste Water

238.200 to 31.000 to

61.000 to to 250.000 Treatment Plant(s) Metals MBT Plants (260.000 to) 3% from mixed waste 14.466 to (10 % spare capacity) 14.466 to 15% from Bulky waste Recycling/Export Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical from pre-sorted (Sewage-) Sludge 3% C&D waste Treatment Treatment Treatment (40.000 to) Plant (MTP) Plant (MTP) Plant (MTP) ??? RDF (+wood) 70.740 to 45% Agricultural Digesters 134.200 to 50% from mixed waste 134.200 to 117.740 to from 250.000 to 60% from Bulky waste mixed waste Digesters (130.000 to) Sewage Sludge Digesters from pre-sorted 95% C&D waste (10 % spare capacity) 47.000 to

Sand, Glass

2% Digester Digester Digester from mixed waste Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic 18.794 to Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic Anaerobic 25% from Bulky waste

from pre-sorted 2% C&D waste

Digestate (dewatered & (Waste-)Water aerob. treated) Digestate (dewatered (Waste-)Water & Sand, Glass & aerob. treated) liquid digestate 56% 22% 8% 80% 2% 18.794 to 15.560 + 10.340 to 15.560 + 10.340

Export to 25.000 Digestate Sand, Glass (Waste-)Water Biogas (dewatered) Biogas 39.620 to 5.000 to 20.000 to 200.000 to 22% Landfill Non 10% hazardous Waste Agriculture 15.560 + 10.340 to + 10.340 15.560 Landfill for Biogas Landfill Non Landfill for Inert Inert Landfill for hazardous Waste Waste Inert Waste Waste Agriculture Agriculture 26.320 to Or Landfill Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 2: Waste-to-Energy Scenarios

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 48 / 96 C O M P A R I S O N O F S C E N A R I O S - C A L C U L A T I O N O F N E T P R E S E N T V A L U E ( i n E U R )

SCENARIO 1: 3 MBTs + FBC (150.000 to/a) SCENARIO 2: One MBT (Sant Antnin) + GFC (250.000 to/a) SCENARIO 3: Three MBTs + Export of RDF Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Jahr Zeit Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value (yr) p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation 3,00% 0,00% 3,00% 0,00% 3,00% 0,00% 2005 -2 -9.300.000 -9.300.000 1,0609 -9.866.370 -9.300.000 -9.300.000 1,0609 -9.866.370 -9.300.000 -9.300.000 1,0609 -9.866.370 2006 -1 0 -9.300.000 1,0300 0 0 -9.300.000 1,0300 0 0 -9.300.000 1,0300 0 2007 0 -24.341.952 -33.641.952 1,0000 -24.341.952 -24.341.952 -33.641.952 1,0000 -24.341.952 -24.341.952 -33.641.952 1,0000 -24.341.952 2008 1 -33.621.055 -67.263.007 0,9709 -32.641.801 -33.621.055 -67.263.007 0,9709 -32.641.801 -33.621.055 -67.263.007 0,9709 -32.641.801 2009 2 -23.759.796 -91.022.803 0,9426 -22.395.886 -23.759.796 -91.022.803 0,9426 -22.395.886 -23.759.796 -91.022.803 0,9426 -22.395.886 2010 3 -33.619.053 -124.641.855 0,9151 -30.766.196 -33.619.053 -124.641.855 0,9151 -30.766.196 -33.619.053 -124.641.855 0,9151 -30.766.196 2011 4 -8.825.319 -133.467.174 0,8885 -7.841.181 -8.825.319 -133.467.174 0,8885 -7.841.181 -8.825.319 -133.467.174 0,8885 -7.841.181 2012 5 -199.935.267 -333.402.441 0,8626 -172.465.918 -173.015.458 -306.482.632 0,8626 -149.244.654 -107.538.749 -241.005.923 0,8626 -92.763.870 2013 6 -15.355.925 -348.758.366 0,8375 -12.860.346 -14.610.861 -321.093.493 0,8375 -12.236.366 -41.389.408 -282.395.331 0,8375 -34.662.977 2014 7 -15.355.925 -364.114.291 0,8131 -12.485.772 -14.610.861 -335.704.353 0,8131 -11.879.967 -41.389.408 -323.784.738 0,8131 -33.653.376 2015 8 -15.355.925 -379.470.217 0,7894 -12.122.109 -14.610.861 -350.315.214 0,7894 -11.533.948 -41.389.408 -365.174.146 0,7894 -32.673.181 2016 9 -15.288.425 -394.758.642 0,7664 -11.717.305 -14.543.361 -364.858.574 0,7664 -11.146.275 -41.321.908 -406.496.054 0,7664 -31.669.801 2017 10 -15.288.425 -410.047.067 0,7441 -11.376.024 -14.543.361 -379.401.935 0,7441 -10.821.626 -41.321.908 -447.817.961 0,7441 -30.747.380 2018 11 -15.288.425 -425.335.492 0,7224 -11.044.684 -17.217.182 -396.619.117 0,7224 -12.438.059 -41.321.908 -489.139.869 0,7224 -29.851.825 2019 12 -15.288.425 -440.623.917 0,7014 -10.722.994 -14.670.682 -411.289.799 0,7014 -10.289.721 -41.321.908 -530.461.776 0,7014 -28.982.355 2020 13 -15.288.425 -455.912.343 0,6810 -10.410.674 -14.670.682 -425.960.482 0,6810 -9.990.021 -41.321.908 -571.783.684 0,6810 -28.138.208 2021 14 -15.288.425 -471.200.768 0,6611 -10.107.450 -14.670.682 -440.631.164 0,6611 -9.699.049 -41.321.908 -613.105.592 0,6611 -27.318.649 2022 15 -15.288.425 -486.489.193 0,6419 -9.813.058 -14.670.682 -455.301.846 0,6419 -9.416.553 -41.321.908 -654.427.499 0,6419 -26.522.960 2023 16 -15.288.425 -501.777.618 0,6232 -9.527.241 -14.670.682 -469.972.529 0,6232 -9.142.284 -41.321.908 -695.749.407 0,6232 -25.750.447 2024 17 -15.288.425 -517.066.044 0,6050 -9.249.749 -14.670.682 -484.643.211 0,6050 -8.876.004 -41.321.908 -737.071.314 0,6050 -25.000.434 2025 18 -15.288.425 -532.354.469 0,5874 -8.980.339 -14.670.682 -499.313.893 0,5874 -8.617.480 -41.321.908 -778.393.222 0,5874 -24.272.266 2026 19 -15.288.425 -547.642.894 0,5703 -8.718.775 -14.670.682 -513.984.576 0,5703 -8.366.485 -41.321.908 -819.715.129 0,5703 -23.565.306 2027 20 -15.288.425 -562.931.319 0,5537 -8.464.830 -14.670.682 -528.655.258 0,5537 -8.122.801 -41.321.908 -861.037.037 0,5537 -22.878.938 2028 21 -47.321.153 -610.252.472 0,5375 -25.437.451 -25.170.682 -553.825.940 0,5375 -13.530.482 -41.321.908 -902.358.945 0,5375 -22.212.562 2029 22 -15.657.980 -625.910.453 0,5219 -8.171.783 -15.170.682 -568.996.623 0,5219 -7.917.465 -41.321.908 -943.680.852 0,5219 -21.565.594 2030 23 -15.657.980 -641.568.433 0,5067 -7.933.769 -15.170.682 -584.167.305 0,5067 -7.686.860 -41.321.908 -985.002.760 0,5067 -20.937.470 2031 24 -15.657.980 -657.226.413 0,4919 -7.702.689 -15.170.682 -599.337.987 0,4919 -7.462.970 -41.321.908 -1.026.324.667 0,4919 -20.327.640 2032 25 -15.657.980 -672.884.394 0,4776 -7.478.339 -15.170.682 -614.508.670 0,4776 -7.245.602 -41.321.908 -1.067.646.575 0,4776 -19.735.573 2033 26 -15.657.980 -688.542.374 0,4637 -7.260.523 -15.170.682 -629.679.352 0,4637 -7.034.565 -41.321.908 -1.108.968.483 0,4637 -19.160.751 2034 27 -15.657.980 -704.200.354 0,4502 -7.049.051 -15.170.682 -644.850.034 0,4502 -6.829.675 -41.321.908 -1.150.290.390 0,4502 -18.602.671 2035 28 -15.657.980 -719.858.335 0,4371 -6.843.739 -36.703.410 -681.553.444 0,4371 -16.042.207 -41.321.908 -1.191.612.298 0,4371 -18.060.845 2036 29 -15.657.980 -735.516.315 0,4243 -6.644.407 -15.040.237 -696.593.682 0,4243 -6.382.270 -41.321.908 -1.232.934.205 0,4243 -17.534.801 2037 30 -15.657.980 -751.174.295 0,4120 -6.450.881 -15.040.237 -711.633.919 0,4120 -6.196.379 -41.321.908 -1.274.256.113 0,4120 -17.024.079 2038 31 0 -751.174.295 0,4000 0 0 -711.633.919 0,4000 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,4000 0 2039 32 0 -751.174.295 0,3883 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3883 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3883 0 2040 33 0 -751.174.295 0,3770 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3770 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3770 0 2041 34 0 -751.174.295 0,3660 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3660 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3660 0 2042 35 0 -751.174.295 0,3554 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3554 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3554 0 2043 36 0 -751.174.295 0,3450 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3450 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3450 0 2044 37 0 -751.174.295 0,3350 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3350 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3350 0 2045 38 0 -751.174.295 0,3252 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3252 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3252 0 2046 39 0 -751.174.295 0,3158 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3158 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3158 0 2047 40 0 -751.174.295 0,3066 0 0 -711.633.919 0,3066 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,3066 0 2048 41 0 -751.174.295 0,2976 0 0 -711.633.919 0,2976 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,2976 0 2049 42 0 -751.174.295 0,2890 0 0 -711.633.919 0,2890 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,2890 0 2050 43 0 -751.174.295 0,2805 0 0 -711.633.919 0,2805 0 0 -1.274.256.113 0,2805 0 NPV (Sum.) -548.893.286 NPV (Sum.) -506.136.785 NPV (Sum.) -831.600.974 C O M P A R I S O N O F S C E N A R I O S - C A L C U L A T I O N O F N E T P R E S E N T V A L U E ( i n E U R )

SCENARIO 1: 3 MBTs + FBC (150.000 to/a) SCENARIO 2: One MBT (Sant Antnin) + GFC (250.000 to/a) SCENARIO 3: Three MBTs + Export of RDF Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Pay-Off (Amortisation) Net Present Value (NPV) Jahr Zeit Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value Cashflow Cashflow NPV NPV Value (yr) p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation p. a. accum. Calc. Interest Inflation 4,25% 3,00% 4,25% 3,00% 4,25% 3,00% 2005 -2 -8.766.142 -8.766.142 1,1503 -10.083.310 -8.766.142 -8.766.142 1,1503 -10.083.310 -8.766.142 -8.766.142 1,1503 -10.083.310 2006 -1 0 -8.766.142 1,0725 0 0 -8.766.142 1,0725 0 0 -8.766.142 1,0725 0 2007 0 -24.341.952 -33.108.094 1,0000 -24.341.952 -24.341.952 -33.108.094 1,0000 -24.341.952 -24.341.952 -33.108.094 1,0000 -24.341.952 2008 1 -34.629.686 -67.737.780 0,9324 -32.288.752 -34.629.686 -67.737.780 0,9324 -32.288.752 -34.629.686 -67.737.780 0,9324 -32.288.752 2009 2 -25.206.767 -92.944.548 0,8694 -21.914.045 -25.206.767 -92.944.548 0,8694 -21.914.045 -25.206.767 -92.944.548 0,8694 -21.914.045 2010 3 -36.736.446 -129.680.994 0,8106 -29.778.666 -36.736.446 -129.680.994 0,8106 -29.778.666 -36.736.446 -129.680.994 0,8106 -29.778.666 2011 4 -9.932.974 -139.613.968 0,7558 -7.507.409 -9.932.974 -139.613.968 0,7558 -7.507.409 -9.932.974 -139.613.968 0,7558 -7.507.409 2012 5 -231.779.772 -371.393.740 0,7047 -163.338.674 -200.572.335 -340.186.303 0,7047 -141.346.327 -124.666.884 -264.280.852 0,7047 -87.854.619 2013 6 -18.335.778 -389.729.518 0,6571 -12.048.016 -17.446.132 -357.632.435 0,6571 -11.463.450 -49.421.117 -313.701.969 0,6571 -32.473.474 2014 7 -18.885.851 -408.615.369 0,6127 -11.570.589 -17.969.516 -375.601.950 0,6127 -11.009.187 -50.903.751 -364.605.720 0,6127 -31.186.646 2015 8 -19.452.427 -428.067.795 0,5712 -11.112.081 -18.508.601 -394.110.551 0,5712 -10.572.926 -52.430.863 -417.036.583 0,5712 -29.950.812 2016 9 -19.947.927 -448.015.723 0,5326 -10.624.832 -18.975.787 -413.086.338 0,5326 -10.107.042 -53.915.717 -470.952.300 0,5326 -28.717.040 2017 10 -20.546.365 -468.562.088 0,4966 -10.203.801 -19.545.060 -432.631.399 0,4966 -9.706.530 -55.533.188 -526.485.489 0,4966 -27.579.069 2018 11 -21.162.756 -489.724.844 0,4631 -9.799.455 -23.832.607 -456.464.006 0,4631 -11.035.734 -57.199.184 -583.684.673 0,4631 -26.486.192 2019 12 -21.797.639 -511.522.482 0,4318 -9.411.131 -20.916.885 -477.380.891 0,4318 -9.030.866 -58.915.160 -642.599.832 0,4318 -25.436.623 2020 13 -22.451.568 -533.974.050 0,4026 -9.038.196 -21.544.392 -498.925.282 0,4026 -8.673.000 -60.682.614 -703.282.447 0,4026 -24.428.645 2021 14 -23.125.115 -557.099.165 0,3754 -8.680.039 -22.190.723 -521.116.005 0,3754 -8.329.314 -62.503.093 -765.785.540 0,3754 -23.460.610 2022 15 -23.818.868 -580.918.034 0,3500 -8.336.075 -22.856.445 -543.972.451 0,3500 -7.999.248 -64.378.186 -830.163.725 0,3500 -22.530.935 2023 16 -24.533.434 -605.451.468 0,3263 -8.005.741 -23.542.138 -567.514.589 0,3263 -7.682.262 -66.309.531 -896.473.256 0,3263 -21.638.101 2024 17 -25.269.437 -630.720.905 0,3043 -7.688.497 -24.248.403 -591.762.991 0,3043 -7.377.836 -68.298.817 -964.772.074 0,3043 -20.780.647 2025 18 -26.027.521 -656.748.426 0,2837 -7.383.825 -24.975.855 -616.738.846 0,2837 -7.085.475 -70.347.782 -1.035.119.855 0,2837 -19.957.172 2026 19 -26.808.346 -683.556.772 0,2645 -7.091.226 -25.725.130 -642.463.976 0,2645 -6.804.698 -72.458.215 -1.107.578.070 0,2645 -19.166.328 2027 20 -27.612.597 -711.169.369 0,2466 -6.810.221 -26.496.884 -668.960.861 0,2466 -6.535.048 -74.631.962 -1.182.210.032 0,2466 -18.406.823 2028 21 -88.031.284 -799.200.653 0,2300 -20.243.878 -46.824.884 -715.785.744 0,2300 -10.767.959 -76.870.920 -1.259.080.952 0,2300 -17.677.415 2029 22 -30.002.309 -829.202.962 0,2144 -6.433.008 -29.068.596 -744.854.340 0,2144 -6.232.804 -79.177.048 -1.338.258.000 0,2144 -16.976.912 2030 23 -30.902.379 -860.105.341 0,1999 -6.178.087 -29.940.654 -774.794.994 0,1999 -5.985.816 -81.552.359 -1.419.810.360 0,1999 -16.304.167 2031 24 -31.829.450 -891.934.791 0,1864 -5.933.267 -30.838.874 -805.633.868 0,1864 -5.748.616 -83.998.930 -1.503.809.290 0,1864 -15.658.081 2032 25 -32.784.334 -924.719.125 0,1738 -5.698.149 -31.764.040 -837.397.908 0,1738 -5.520.815 -86.518.898 -1.590.328.188 0,1738 -15.037.598 2033 26 -33.767.864 -958.486.988 0,1621 -5.472.349 -32.716.961 -870.114.869 0,1621 -5.302.042 -89.114.465 -1.679.442.653 0,1621 -14.441.702 2034 27 -34.780.900 -993.267.888 0,1511 -5.255.496 -33.698.470 -903.813.339 0,1511 -5.091.937 -91.787.899 -1.771.230.552 0,1511 -13.869.420 2035 28 -35.824.327 -1.029.092.214 0,1409 -5.047.236 -83.974.748 -987.788.086 0,1409 -11.831.077 -94.541.536 -1.865.772.088 0,1409 -13.319.816 2036 29 -36.899.056 -1.065.991.271 0,1314 -4.847.229 -35.443.305 -1.023.231.391 0,1314 -4.655.995 -97.377.782 -1.963.149.870 0,1314 -12.791.991 2037 30 -38.006.028 -1.103.997.299 0,1225 -4.655.148 -36.506.604 -1.059.737.995 0,1225 -4.471.491 -100.299.116 -2.063.448.986 0,1225 -12.285.083 2038 31 0 -1.103.997.299 0,1142 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,1142 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,1142 0 2039 32 0 -1.103.997.299 0,1065 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,1065 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,1065 0 2040 33 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0993 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0993 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0993 0 2041 34 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0926 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0926 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0926 0 2042 35 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0863 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0863 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0863 0 2043 36 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0805 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0805 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0805 0 2044 37 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0750 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0750 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0750 0 2045 38 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0700 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0700 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0700 0 2046 39 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0652 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0652 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0652 0 2047 40 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0608 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0608 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0608 0 2048 41 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0567 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0567 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0567 0 2049 42 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0529 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0529 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0529 0 2050 43 0 -1.103.997.299 0,0493 0 0 -1.059.737.995 0,0493 0 0 -2.063.448.986 0,0493 0 NPV (Sum.) -496.820.380 NPV (Sum.) -456.198.320 NPV (Sum.) -724.246.745 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 3: Feasibility Analysis as a team work (schedule, results)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 51 / 96 Feasibility Check for Scenarios Group 1: Mary Grace Micallef, Mark O'Neill, Helmut Schnurer

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Importance Categories '0 = intermediate Comments Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (1 - 5) '-1 = negative (3 MBT's + (1 MBT + (3 MBT's + '-2 = very negative FBC) GFC) RDF export) ?? = currently not assessable

1.1 - Technical Feasibility Technical complexity -2 -1 -1 S2: Only 2 plants, S3: 1 plant, but export complicated S1: Biogas for Electricity+water is recycled, S2: Electricity production+less energy demand, Energy demand, Raw materials (water etc.) 0 1 -2 S3: High energy demand for transport

Infrastructure, site preparation -2 -1 -2 Number of plants S1: More personal, S2: Less personal, Synergies (personal, storage areas, handling of materials etc) -2 -1 -2 S3: Transport/storage,

S1: positive (all recycling+flue gas treatment), 1.2 - Environmental Feasibility Emissions (Air, water) 1 2 -2 S2: 2 plants=less emissions; S3: Transport S1: Electricity prod.; S3: Transport; Energy recovery 1 2 0 S2: More incineration=more electr.prod.;

Landuse -2 -1 -2 Depends on number of plants

Residuals -1 -1 2 S1/S2: Negative (waste production); S3: Export

Consequences on climate change

1.3 - Economic Feasibility Direct Costs (Investment costs, operational costs) -2 -1 -2 Number of plants (economy of scale)

Indirect costs (transport, external treatment/disposal costs) -1 -1 -2 S3: Transport

Revenues 2 1 -2 S1: Biogas=Electricity; S2: Output not maximised(?)

Post-operative costs (Decommissioning etc) -2 -1 -1 Depends on number of plants

Economy of Scale

Financing (loans, fundings etc:)

Influence on waste fees

2 - Further effects Influence on local Labour market / local added value 1 0 -1 S1: More plants=more jobs

Local influence on the waste management procedures 0 0 0

Timeframe for implementation -2 -2 -2

3 - Risks Improper waste data (quantities, qualities) -2 -2 -2

Development of waste quantities -1 -2 -2 S1: More flexible

Development of waste qualities (CV, compost quality etc.) -1 -2 -2 S1: More flexible

Changes in legislation ?? ?? ?? Development of prices (plant construction, treatment of residues, energy, raw materials etc.) 0 0 -2 Once the plants are built, no difference in operating costs

Amount and utilisation of recovered energy 2 2 -1 S1/S2: Electricity production

Development of separate collection (dry recycables, bio-waste) 1 0 1 Grate firing not restricted to separate waste

Delays during implementation period -1 -2 -1 S1: More flexible

Options to react in case of plant breakdown 0 -2 -1 S1: More flexible (RDF can be stored)

Public Acceptance -1 -2 -1

TOTAL -14 -14 -30 Feasibility Check for Scenarios Group 2: Godwin Micallef, Daniela Rieger, Andrew Vella, Siegmund Boehmer

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Importance Categories '0 = intermediate Comments Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (1 - 5) '-1 = negative (3 MBT's + (1 MBT + (3 MBT's + '-2 = very negative FBC) GFC) RDF export) ?? = currently not assessable

1.1 - Technical Feasibility Technical complexity -2 -2 -1 S1/S2: Very complex

Energy demand, Raw materials (water etc.) -1 0 -2 Operation of the plant

Infrastructure, site preparation -2 -1 -2 S2: Less intensive

Synergies (personal, storage areas, handling of materials etc) -1 -1 -2 S3: Lot of Handling; S1/S2: Storage space

1.2 - Environmental Feasibility Emissions (Air, water) 1 0 0 Compared with present state; S1 is better than S2

Energy recovery 2 2 0 S1/S2: Electricity recovery

Landuse -2 -1 -2 S2: Less intensive

Residuals 0 1 0 S2: Less from MBT

1.3 - Economic Feasibility Direct Costs (Investment costs, operational costs) -2 -1 -1 S1: Number of plants

Indirect costs (transport, external treatment/disposal costs) -2 -1 -2 S3: Transport

Revenues 1 1 0 Maintanance Costs, therefore S1 less good (number of Post-operative costs -2 -1 -1 plants)

2 - Further effects Influence on local Labour market / local added value 1 0 1 S3: needs separation for export, S1/S3: Number of plants

Local influence on the waste management procedures 1 1 1

Timeframe for implementation -2 -2 -2

3 - Risks Improper waste data (quantities, qualities) -1 1 -1 S2: Less risky

Development of waste quantities 0 0 -1 S3: More risky

Development of waste qualities (CV, compost quality etc.) -2 -1 -2 S3: More risky

Changes in legislation 0 0 -1 S3: Proximity principle may be violated Development of prices (plant construction, treatment of residues, energy, raw materials etc.) 0 0 -1 S3: Transport

Amount and utilisation of recovered energy 0 1 -2 S2: Larger quantities

Development of separate collection (dry recycables, bio-waste) 0 0 0

Delays during implementation period -2 -2 -2

Options to react in case of plant breakdown -1 -2 -2 S1: More flexible

TOTAL -16 -8 -25 Feasibility Check for Scenarios Group 3: Mohammadali Seidi, Josef Stubenvoll

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Importance Categories '0 = intermediate Comments Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 (1 - 5) '-1 = negative (3 MBT's + (1 MBT + (3 MBT's + '-2 = very negative FBC) GFC) RDF export) ?? = currently not assessable

1.1 - Technical Feasibility Technical complexity -1 0 1 S1: Most complex

Energy demand, Raw materials (water etc.) 1 1 -1 Shredding

Infrastructure, site preparation -1 0 1 S1: Most infrastructure+transport

Synergies (personal, storage areas, handling of materials etc) 1 0 -2 S3: No synergies

1.2 - Environmental Feasibility Emissions (Air, water) 1 1 -1 S1/S2: Equal, S3: transport

Energy recovery 1 1 -2 S3: Less recovery (biogas)

Landuse -1 0 1 S1: More plants

Residuals -1 0 -1 S1=S3 (global view)

1.3 - Economic Feasibility Direct Costs (Investment costs, operational costs) 0 1 -1 S3: More expensive

Indirect costs (transport, external treatment/disposal costs) 0 1 -1 S3: Transport

Revenues 0 1 -1 Energy recovery

Post-operative costs -1 0 -1 S2: Less residuals

2 - Further effects Influence on local Labour market / local added value 1 0 0 S1: More personal needed

Local influence on the waste management procedures 0 0 -1

Timeframe for implementation 0 0 1 S3: Less time needed for contracts

3 - Risks Improper waste data (quantities, qualities) 0 0 1 S3: Less risky

Development of waste quantities 0 0 1 S3: Less risky

Development of waste qualities (CV, compost quality etc.) 0 0 1 S3: Less risky

Changes in legislation 0 0 -1 S3: Legislation of other countries Development of prices (plant construction, treatment of residues, energy, raw materials etc.) 0 0 -2 S3: Most risky

Amount and utilisation of recovered energy 0 1 -2 S2: Most waste is burnt

Development of separate collection (dry recycables, bio-waste) 0 0 0

Delays during implementation period 0 0 1 S3: No implementation

Options to react in case of plant breakdown 0 0 1

TOTAL 0 7 -8 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 4: Calculations for the economic feasibility

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 55 / 96 Material densities 0,80 to/m3 Mixed waste (Dpt. 48) 1,00 to/m3 Mixed waste (WasteServ) 1,40 to/m3 C&D waste, inerts, slag (bulk) (Dpt. 48) 1,80 to/m3 Slag concrete (Dpt. 48) 0,92 to/m3 MBT - fresh organic fraction (Dpt. 48) 1,30 to/m3 MBT - stabilized organic fraction (BOKU) 0,70 to/m3 Ash, dust, filtercake - Hazardous 1,00 to/m3 Anorganic Liquids, sludges - Hazardous (Assumption) 0,20 to/m3 Anorganic solids - Hazardous (Assumption)

Landfill 1: Ghallis - Non hazardous waste landfill

Total Capacity 1.700.000 m3 Start-Up 2007 Investment Costs 10.000.000 MTL 23.293.734 EUR Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) 8,00% of Invest 1.863.499 EUR/yr Rehabilitation Cost (Invest) 42,93% of Invest 10.000.000 EUR Monitoring costs (after closure) 5,00% of Closure costs 500.000 EUR/yr

Annual Material streams Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Basic Assumptions 200.000 to/yr Non hazardous mixed waste 2007 2011 800.000 to 800.000 m3 1.200 to/yr Abb.Inc. - Slag/Bottom ash/fly ash (non haz.) 2008 2033 30.000 to 21.429 m3 8.820 to/yr MBT 1 - Stabilized organic fraction 2008 2011 26.460 to 20.354 m3 Scenario 1 39.620 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Stabilized organic fraction 2012 2027 594.300 to 457.154 m3 33.550 to/yr FBC - Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (Non hazardous) 2012 2027 503.250 to 359.464 m3 Scenario 2 53.300 to/yr GFC - Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (Non hazardous) 2012 2034 1.172.600 to 837.571 m3 Scenario 3 39.620 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Stabilized organic fraction 2012 2037 990.500 to 761.923 m3

Total 856.460 to 841.782 m3 1.097.550 to 816.618 m3 1.172.600 to 837.571 m3 990.500 to 761.923 m3 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 1.954.010 to 1.658.401 m3 2.029.060 to 1.679.354 m3 1.846.960 to 1.603.705 m3

Landfill 2: New Landfill for Non hazardous waste

Total Capacity 1.500.000 m3 Start-Up Investment Costs 9.300.000 MTL 21.663.173 EUR Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) 8,00% of Invest 1.733.054 EUR/yr Rehabilitation Cost (Invest) 42,93% of Invest 9.300.000 EUR Monitoring costs (after closure) 5,00% of Closure costs 465.000 EUR/yr

Annual Material streams Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 1.200 to/yr Abb.Inc. - Slag/Bottom ash/fly ash (non haz.) 2034 2037 3.600 to 2.571 m3 8.820 to/yr MBT 1 - Stabilized organic fraction 2012 2012 0 to 0 m3 Scenario 1 39.620 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Stabilized organic fraction 2028 2037 356.580 to 274.292 m3 33.550 to/yr FBC - Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (Non hazardous) 2028 2037 301.950 to 215.679 m3 Scenario 2 53.300 to/yr GFC - Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (Non hazardous) 2035 2037 106.600 to 76.143 m3 Scenario 3 39.620 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Stabilized organic fraction 2037 2037 0 to 0 m3

Total 3.600 to 2.571 m3 658.530 to 489.971 m3 106.600 to 76.143 m3 0 to 0 m3 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 662.130 to 492.542 m3 110.200 to 78.714 m3 3.600 to 2.571 m3

Landfill 3: New Landfill for Inert waste

Total Capacity 3.500.000 m3 Start-Up 2010 Investment Costs 10.000.000 MTL 23.293.734 EUR Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) 5,00% of Invest 1.164.687 EUR/yr Rehabilitation Cost (Invest) 42,93% of Invest 10.000.000 EUR Monitoring costs (after closure) 5,00% of Closure costs 500.000 EUR/yr

Annual Material streams Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Basic Assumptions 140.000 to/yr Mixed C&D waste 2010 2037 3.780.000 to 2.700.000 m3 500 to/yr Mixed C&D waste from road/street debris 2010 2037 13.500 to 9.643 m3 5.000 to/yr Mixed C&D waste from agricultural waste 2010 2037 135.000 to 96.429 m3 700 to/yr MBT 1 - Inerts 2010 2011 700 to 500 m3 5.000 to/yr Agricultural Digesters - Inerts 2010 2037 135.000 to 96.429 m3 285 to/yr Sewage Treatment - Inerts (19 Mio m3/yr à 0,015 kg/m3) 2010 2037 7.695 to 5.496 m3 Scenario 1 18.794 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Inerts 2012 2037 469.850 to 335.607 m3 2.684 to/yr FBC - Bed sand 2012 2037 67.100 to 47.929 m3 Scenario 2 15.500 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Inerts 2012 2037 387.500 to 276.786 m3 Scenario 3 18.794 to/yr MBT 1-3 - Inerts 2012 2037 469.850 to 335.607 m3

Total 4.071.895 to 2.908.496 m3 536.950 to 383.536 m3 387.500 to 276.786 m3 469.850 to 335.607 m3 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 4.608.845 to 3.292.032 m3 4.459.395 to 3.185.282 m3 4.541.745 to 3.244.104 m3

Landfill 4: Ghallis - Hazardous waste landfill

Total Capacity 100.000 m3 Start-Up 2007 Investment Costs 450.000 MTL 1.048.218 EUR Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) 10,00% of Invest 104.822 EUR/yr Rehabilitation Cost (Invest) 42,93% of Invest 450.000 EUR Monitoring costs (after closure) 5,00% of Closure costs 22.500 EUR/yr

Annual Material streams Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Basic Assumptions 200 to/yr Abb.Inc. - Filter cake (hazardous) 2008 2017 1.800 to 2.571 m3 (Total: 8.000 to/a) 2.000 to/yr Anorganic Liquids, sludges 2007 2017 20.000 to 20.000 m3 (Total: 5.400 to/a) 1.000 to/yr Anorganic solids 2007 2017 10.000 to 50.000 m3 Scenario 1 2.684 to/yr FBC - Filter cake (hazardous) 2012 2017 13.420 to 19.171 m3 Scenario 2 4.264 to/yr GFC - Filter cake (hazardous) 2012 2017 21.320 to 30.457 m3 Scenario 3 2012 2037 0to 0m3

Total 31.800 to 72.571 m3 13.420 to 19.171 m3 21.320 to 30.457 m3 0 to 0 m3 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 45.220 to 91.743 m3 53.120 to 103.029 m3 31.800 to 72.571 m3

Landfill 5: New Landfill for Hazardous waste

Total Capacity 300.000 m3 Start-Up Investment Costs 900.000 MTL 2.096.436 EUR Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) 10,00% of Invest 209.644 EUR/yr Rehabilitation Cost (Invest) 42,93% of Invest 900.000 EUR Monitoring costs (after closure) 5,00% of Closure costs 45.000 EUR/yr

Annual Material streams Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Basic Assumptions 200 to/yr Abb.Inc. - Filter cake (hazardous) 2018 2037 3.800 to 5.429 m3 (Total: 8.000 to/a) 2.000 to/yr Anorganic Liquids, sludges 2018 2037 38.000 to 38.000 m3 (Total: 5.400 to/a) 1.000 to/yr Anorganic solids 2018 2037 19.000 to 95.000 m3 Scenario 1 2.684 to/yr FBC - Filter cake (hazardous) 2018 2037 50.996 to 72.851 m3 Scenario 2 4.264 to/yr GFC - Filter cake (hazardous) 2018 2037 81.016 to 115.737 m3 Scenario 3 2037 2037 0 to 0 m3

Total 60.800 to 138.429 m3 50.996 to 72.851 m3 81.016 to 115.737 m3 0 to 0 m3 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 111.796 to 211.280 m3 141.816 to 254.166 m3 60.800 to 138.429 m3 Grate Firing Combustion

Capacity: 250.000 to/yr MVA Duernrohr (NOE) 300.000 to 145 Mio EUR MVA Pfaffenau (VIE) 250.000 to 225 MIO EUR MVA Rugenberger Damm (HAM) 320.000 to 225 MIO EUR Investment Costs Option 1 Option 2 (UBA Report 09/2002) (Heat) (Electricity)

Unloading Truck 8.800.000 8.800.000 EUR Combustion and Boiler (2 Lines) 28.000.000 28.000.000 EUR Water-Steam-Circle Heat extraction ("Waste-to-water") EUR Turbine (extraction, condensation) 16.000.000 14.500.000 EUR Fluegas cleaning (2 lines) baghouse filter 3.700.000 3.700.000 EUR Wet scrubber (Limestone) 7.000.000 7.000.000 EUR SCR 3.700.000 3.700.000 EUR

Total 1 67.200.000 65.700.000 EUR

Construction works 20,00% of Total 1 13.440.000 13.140.000 EUR Electrics, Measuring, Control 15,00% of Total 1 10.080.000 9.855.000 EUR Development Costs 15,00% of Total 1 10.080.000 9.855.000 EUR Unforeseen costs 10,00% of Total 1 6.720.000 6.570.000 EUR

Total 2 40.320.000 39.420.000 EUR

Purchase of property 400,00 EUR/m2 (Industrial area) 20.000 m2 8.000.000 8.000.000 EUR Real estate preparation 75,00 EUR/m2 (Industrial area) 20.000 m2 1.500.000 1.500.000 EUR

Total 3 9.500.000 9.500.000 EUR

Total 1-3 117.020.000 114.620.000 EUR

Increase of Prices since 09/2002 30,00% 35.106.000 34.386.000 EUR

Total 4 152.126.000 149.006.000 EUR

Operational Costs

Depreciation period 15 years Interest rate 6,00% Annuity factor 0,10296

Annual Capital Costs 15.663.313 15.342.070 EUR/yr Annual proportional Operational Costs 10.000.000 10.000.000 EUR/yr Fix Annual Operational Costs 4.000.000 4.000.000 Total annual treatment costs 29.663.313 29.342.070 EUR/yr

250.000 to/yr

Specific Operational Costs 40 €/t

Total specific treatment costs 100,00% 118,65 117,37 EUR/to

Energy Recovery 250.000 to/yr

Lower Calorific Value of Input 9.500 MJ/to Avg operation time 8.000 hours/yr

Thermal Capacity 82 MW

Specific Heat Recovery % 67 0 Specific Electricity Recovery % 9 20

Specific combined Recovery Heat 1.850 kWh/to waste Input Electricity 150 kWh/to waste Input

Total Heat Recovery 442.014 MWh/yr Total Electricity Recovery 59.375 131.944 MWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh 4.420.139 EUR/yr Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh 2.078.125 4.618.056 EUR/yr

Incl. use on plant !!! 6.498.264 4.618.056 EUR/yr

26 18 EUR/t refuse Fluidized Bed Combustion

Capacity: 150.000 to/yr WSO4 (VIE) 100.000 to 65 MIO EUR (excl. Property)

Investment Costs Option 1 Option 2 (UBA Report 09/2002) (Heat) (Electricity)

Unloading Truck 5.000.000 5.000.000 EUR Combustion and Boiler (2 Lines) 22.000.000 22.000.000 EUR Water-Steam-Circle Heat extraction ("Waste-to-water") EUR Turbine (extraction, condensation) 14.000.000 12.000.000 EUR Fluegas cleaning (2 lines) baghouse filter 3.000.000 3.000.000 EUR Wet scrubber (limestone) 6.000.000 6.000.000 EUR SCR 3.000.000 3.000.000 EUR

Total 1 53.000.000 51.000.000 EUR

Construction works 20,00% of Total 1 10.600.000 10.200.000 EUR Electrics, Measuring, Control 15,00% of Total 1 7.950.000 7.650.000 EUR Development Costs 15,00% of Total 1 7.950.000 7.650.000 EUR Unforeseen costs 10,00% of Total 1 5.300.000 5.100.000 EUR

Total 2 31.800.000 30.600.000 EUR

Purchase of property 400,00 EUR/m2 (Industrial area) 20.000 m2 8.000.000 8.000.000 EUR Real estate preparation 75,00 EUR/m2 (Industrial area) 20.000 m2 1.500.000 1.500.000 EUR

Total 3 9.500.000 9.500.000 EUR

Total 1-3 94.300.000 91.100.000 EUR

Increase of Prices since 09/2002 30,00% 28.290.000 27.330.000 EUR

Total 4 122.590.000 118.430.000 EUR

Operational Costs

Depreciation period 15 years Interest rate 6,00% Annuity factor 0,10296

Annual Capital Costs 60,00% 12.622.205 12.193.880 EUR/yr Annual proportional Operational Costs 6.000.000 6.000.000 EUR/yr Fix Annual Operational Costs 3.000.000 3.000.000 EUR/yr Total annual treatment costs 100,00% 21.622.205 21.193.880 EUR/yr

150.000 to/yr

Specific Operational Costs 40 €/t

Total specific treatment costs 100,00% 144,15 141,29 EUR/to

Energy Recovery 150.000 to/yr 10 Lower Calorific Value of Input 13.000 MJ/to 25 Avg operation time 8.000 hours/yr

Thermal Capacity 68 MW

Specific Heat Recovery % 68 0 Specific Electricity Recovery % 10 22

Specific combined Recovery Heat 1.850 kWh/to waste Input Electricity 150 kWh/to waste Input

Total Heat Recovery 368.333 MWh/yr Total Electricity Recovery 54.167 119.167 MWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh 3.683.333 EUR/yr Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh 1.895.833 4.170.833 EUR/yr

Incl. use on plant !!! 5.579.167 4.170.833 EUR/yr

37 28 EUR/t refuse Central Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) Plants for Animal Husbandry waste

Agricultural Waste Management Plan (Sustec 2005)

Animal Husbandry (Manure etc.) Cattle Pigs Broiler Layer Rabbit Total

Units 12.246 69.510 688.904 529.159 6.100 1.305.919 Units Wet Slurry (litres/Unit) 50,20 22,00 0,21 0,17 1,97 Density (to/m3) 1,000 1,000 0,503 0,944 0,717 Wet Slurry (to/a) 224.383 558.165 26.308 30.449 3.145 842.450 to/a Dry matter content (%) 10,18% 1,55% 46,15% 29,44% 26,28% Dry matter (to/a) 22.842 8.652 12.141 8.964 826 53.425 to/a

Digester Input (to/a) Gozo Malta North Malta South Without pigs and broiler !!!! Gozo 27% 66.120 3.401 0 69.521 to/a Malta North 35% 66.071 18.566 2.372 87.009 to/a Malta South 38% 92.192 8.481 773 101.446 to/a Dry matter content (%) 10,18% 29,44% 26,28% 257.976 to/a

Composter Input - Digestate (to/a) 4.435 5.290 6.400 16.125 to/a Dry matter content (%) 30,0% 30,0% 30,0% Missing !!! Composter Input - Broiler (to/a) 4.155 10.820 3.843 7.462 18.818 to/a Dry matter content (%) 46% 46% 46% Composter Input - Totale (to/a) 8.590 16.110 10.243 34.943 to/a Dry matter content (%) 37,7% 40,7% 36,0%

CAD 1 CAD 2 CAD 3 Total (Malta South (Malta North) (Gozo) Investment costs (excl. Transports)

CAD Plant 9.555.089 EUR 3.512.695 3.344.980 2.697.414 EUR Separation 359.889 EUR 119.963 119.963 119.963 EUR Composting 2.562.311 EUR 1.164.687 698.812 698.812 EUR

Total 12.477.289 EUR 4.797.345 4.163.755 3.516.189 EUR

Operational costs (excl. Capital costs) Payroll Costs 243.000 MTL/yr 217.634 188.891 159.513 EUR/yr Effluent disosal costs 92.000 MTL/yr 82.396 71.514 60.392 EUR/yr Repairs and maintenance 181.000 MTL/yr 162.106 140.696 118.815 EUR/yr Polymer Consumables 133.500 MTL/yr 119.564 103.773 87.634 EUR/yr Licenses and Insurances 100.000 MTL/yr 89.561 77.733 65.643 EUR/yr Water & Electricity 90.000 MTL/yr 80.605 69.959 59.079 EUR/yr Other Costs 93.000 MTL/yr 83.292 72.291 61.048 EUR/yr

Total 932.500 MTL/yr Total 2.172.141 EUR/yr 835.158 724.858 612.125 EUR/yr

CAD 1 CAD 2 CAD 3 Throughput Total (Malta South (Malta North) (Gozo)

CAD Plant Input Digester 257.976 t/yr 101.446 87.009 69.521 t/yr Dry matter content 11,90% 14,70% 11,10% Volatile Solids Content 10,00% 13,60% 8,60%

Separation Input (Digestate) 230.400 t/yr 91.400 75.600 63.400 t/yr Output Liquid fraction 214.272 t/yr 85.002 70.308 58.962 t/yr Output solid fraction 16.128 t/yr 6.398 5.292 4.438 t/yr

Composting Input (Solids + Broiler) 34.943 t/yr 10.243 16.110 8.590 t/yr Output Compost 19.526 t/yr 5.546 9.142 4.838 t/yr

Gas production + Electricity production

Biogas yield per tonne input digester 402 Nm3/to Calorific Value Biogas 6,0 kWh/m3 21,6 MJ/m3 Specific Plant capacity 100 Watt per 1 m3/d Biogas

Operating hours (per day) 24 hours/day Plant Availability 97% Operating hours (per year) 8.497 hours/year Electric Efficiency 36,75% Thermal Efficiency 46,86%

Input Digestion 257.976 to/yr 101.446 87.009 69.521 to/yr Input Digestion (Dry matter) 32.579 to/yr 12.072 12.790 7.717 to/yr Input Digestion (Volatile Solids) 27.957 to/yr 10.145 11.833 5.979 to/yr

Annual Gas yield 11.246.952 Nm3/yr 4.081.173 4.760.506 2.405.274 Nm3/yr

Plant capacities 1.118 1.304 659 kW

Total Electricity Recovery 24.056 MWh/yr 8.729 10.182 5.145 MWh/yr Total Heat Recovery 30.673 MWh/yr 11.130 12.983 6.560 MWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh

Electricity 841.944 EUR/yr 305.516 356.370 180.058 EUR/yr Heat 306.733 EUR/yr 111.304 129.831 65.598 EUR/yr Incl. use on plant !!!

Compost Sale

Market Price Compost (MEU) 4,75 EUR/to

Annual Compost production From Animal Husbandry waste 19.526 to/a 92.749 EUR Material densities 0,50 to/m3 RDF Bails (Dpt. 48) 1,40 to/m3 C&D waste, inerts, slag (bulk) (Dpt. 48) 1,80 to/m3 Slag concrete (Dpt. 48) ???? 0,70 to/m3 MBT - stabilized digestate (dewatered) 0,70 to/m3 Ash, dust, filtercake - Hazardous 1,00 to/m3 Anorganic Liquids, sludges - Hazardous (Assumption) 0,20 to/m3 Anorganic solids - Hazardous (Assumption) 0,20 to/m3 Paper, wood etc. from C&D facility (uncompacted) 0,40 to/m3 Paper, wood etc. from C&D facility (Compacted) 0,30 to/m3 Metals (Bulk)

Transport Activities (Overview) Scenario Basic assumptions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 start closure Material to be transported amount from to EUR/yr EUR/yr EUR/yr EUR/yr

Basic assumptions 2008 2011 RDF in bails 17500 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Storage Area 62.271 Basic assumptions 2008 2011 Dewatered digestate 8820 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Non haz. Landfill (Ghallis) 42.000 Basic assumptions 2008 2011 Metals 1050 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Recycling/Export 5.469 Basic assumptions 2008 2011 Inerts 700 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Inert waste Landfill 2.604 Basic assumptions 2010 2037 Paper, wood etc. 20000 to/yr C&D facility MBT 1-3 or GFC 78.125 Scenario 1 2012 2037 RDF in bails 134200 to/yr MBT 1-3 FBC 477.527 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Dewatered digestate 39620 to/yr MBT 1-3 Non haz. Landfill 188.667 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (FBC) 33550 to/yr FBC Non haz. Landfill 114.116 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Filter cake (FBC) 2684 to/yr FBC Hazardous Landfill 9.985 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Metals 14466 to/yr MBT 1-3 Recycling/Export 75.344 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Metals 2684 to/yr FBC Recycling/Export 13.979 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Inerts 18794 to/yr MBT 1-3 Inert waste Landfill 69.918 Scenario 1 2012 2037 Inerts 2684 to/yr FBC Inert waste Landfill 9.985 Scenario 2 2012 2037 Bottom Ash/Fly Ash (GFC) 53300 to/yr GFC Non haz. Landfill 181.293 Scenario 2 2012 2037 Filter cake (GFC) 4264 to/yr GFC Hazardous Landfill 15.863 Scenario 2 2012 2037 Metals 9500 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Recycling/Export 49.479 Scenario 2 2012 2037 Metals 4264 to/yr GFC Recycling/Export 22.208 Scenario 2 2012 2037 Inerts 15500 to/yr MBT 1 (St. Antnin) Inert waste Landfill 57.664 Scenario 3 2012 2037 RDF in bails 134200 to/yr MBT 1-3 Harbour (export) 477.527 Scenario 3 2012 2037 Dewatered digestate 39620 to/yr MBT 1-3 Non haz. Landfill 188.667 Scenario 3 2012 2037 Metals 14466 to/yr MBT 1-3 Recycling/Export 75.344 Scenario 3 2012 2037 Inerts 18794 to/yr MBT 1-3 Inert waste Landfill 69.918

Total 190.469 959.521 326.507 811.456 Total (Basic assumptions + Scenario) 1.149.989 516.975 1.001.924

Transport Activities (Details) Bails l 1,70 [m] b 1,15 [m] h 1,15 [m]

V 2,248 [m³] W 1,124 [to]

Transport of RDF Bails Transport of stabilized Digestate (dewatered) MBT 1 (St. Antnin) -> Storage Area MBT 1 (St. Antnin) -> Landfill for Non Hazardous waste (Ghallis)

MSW Input MBT 35.000 to/yr MSW Input MBT 35.000 to/yr RDF Output RDF 17.500 to/yr Digestate Output Digestate 8.820 to/yr

Bails Density 0,5 to/m³ Digestate Loading Density 0,70 to/m³ Bail weight 1,1 to/Bail Loading Volume Semi-trailer 30 m³ Number of Bails 15.568 Bails/yr

Filling level 100% Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Bails per Trailer 25 Bails/trip

Transport Load 28,10313 to/trip Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Transport Load 21,00 to/trip

Transport Trips 623 Trips/yr Transport Trips 420 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 62.271 EUR/yr Transport costs 42.000 EUR/yr 3,56 EUR/to RDF 4,76 EUR/to Digestate 1,78 EUR/to Input MBT 1,20 EUR/to Input MBT

Transport of RDF Bails Transport of compacted RDF in containers Transport of stabilized Digestate (dewatered) MBT 1-3 -> FBC MBT 1-3 -> FBC MBT 1-3 -> Landfill for Non Hazardous waste MBT 1-3 -> Harbour (Export) MBT 1-3 -> Harbour (Export)

MSW etc. Input MBT 238.200 to/yr MSW etc. Input MBT 238.200 to/yr MSW Input MBT 260.000 to/yr RDF Output RDF 134.200 to/yr RDF Output RDF 134.200 to/yr Digestate Output Digestate 39.620 to/yr

Bails Density 0,5 to/m³ RDF Loading Density 0,40 to/m³ Digestate Loading Density 0,70 to/m³ Bail weight 1,1 to/Bail Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Loading Volume Semi-trailer 30 m³ Number of Bails 119.382 Bails/yr Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Container filling level 100% Filling level 100% Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Bails per Trailer 25 Bails/trip

Transport Load 28,10313 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 25,60 to/trip Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Transport Load 21,00 to/trip

Transport Trips 4775 Trips/yr Transport Trips 5.242 Trips/yr Transport Trips 1.887 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 477.527 EUR/yr Transport costs 524.219 EUR/yr Transport costs 188.667 EUR/yr 3,56 EUR/to RDF 3,91 EUR/to RDF 4,76 EUR/to Digestate 2,00 EUR/to Input MBT 2,20 EUR/to Input MBT 0,73 EUR/to Input MBT

Transport of Bottom Ash/Fly Ash from FBC Transport of Filter cake from FBC (stored in 2m3 bags) FBC -> Landfill for Non Hazardous waste FBC -> Landfill for Hazardous waste

RDF Input FBC 134.200 to/yr RDF Input FBC 134.200 to/yr Bottom Ash/Fly Ash Output FBC 33.550 to/yr Filter Cake Output FBC 2.684 to/yr

Bottom Ash/Fly Ash Loading Density 1,40 to/m³ RDF Loading Density 0,70 to/m³

Loading Volume Semi-trailer 30 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Filling level 70% Container filling level 60%

Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Transport Load 29,40 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip

Transport Trips 1.141 Trips/yr Transport Trips 100 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 114.116 EUR/yr Transport costs 9.985 EUR/yr 3,40 EUR/to Bottom ash/Fly ash 3,72 EUR/to Filter Cake 0,85 EUR/to Input FBC 0,07 EUR/to Input FBC

Transport of Bottom Ash/Fly Ash from GFC Transport of Filter cake from GFC (stored in 2m3 bags) GFC -> Landfill for Non Hazardous waste GFC -> Landfill for Hazardous waste

MSW etc. Input GFC 213.200 to/yr MSW etc. Input GFC 213.200 to/yr Bottom Ash/Fly Ash Output GFC 53.300 to/yr Filter Cake Output GFC 4.264 to/yr

Bottom Ash/Fly Ash Loading Density 1,40 to/m³ RDF Loading Density 0,70 to/m³

Loading Volume Semi-trailer 30 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Filling level 70% Container filling level 60%

Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Transport Load 29,40 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip

Transport Trips 1.813 Trips/yr Transport Trips 159 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 181.293 EUR/yr Transport costs 15.863 EUR/yr 3,40 EUR/to Bottom ash/Fly ash 3,72 EUR/to Filter Cake 0,85 EUR/to Input GFC 0,07 EUR/to Input GFC

Transport of Metals from MBT 1-3 Transport of Metals from FBC MBT 1-3 -> Recycling/Export FBC -> Recycling/Export

MSW etc. Input MBT 238.200 to/yr RDF Input FBC 134.200 to/yr Metals Output MBT 1-3 14.466 to/yr Metals Output FBC 2.684 to/yr

Metals Loading Density 0,30 to/m³ Metals Loading Density 0,30 to/m³

Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Container filling level 100% Container filling level 100%

Truck + Trailer Transport Load 19,20 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 19,20 to/trip

Transport Trips 753 Trips/yr Transport Trips 140 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 75.344 EUR/yr Transport costs 13.979 EUR/yr 5,21 EUR/to Metals 5,21 EUR/to Metals 0,32 EUR/to Input MBT 1-3 0,10 EUR/to Input FBC Transport of Metals from MBT 1 Transport of Metals from MBT 1 Transport of Metals from GFC MBT 1 -> Recycling/Export MBT 1 -> Recycling/Export GFC -> Recycling/Export

Bulky Waste Input MBT 1 35.000 to/yr Bulky Waste Input MBT 1 61.000 to/yr MSW etc. Input GFC 213.200 to/yr Metals Output MBT 1 1.050 to/yr Metals Output MBT 1 9.500 to/yr Metals Output GFC 4.264 to/yr

Metals Loading Density 0,30 to/m³ Metals Loading Density 0,30 to/m³ RDF Loading Density 0,30 to/m³

Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Container filling level 100% Container filling level 100% Container filling level 100%

Truck + Trailer Transport Load 19,20 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 19,20 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 19,20 to/trip

Transport Trips 55 Trips/yr Transport Trips 495 Trips/yr Transport Trips 222 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 5.469 EUR/yr Transport costs 49.479 EUR/yr Transport costs 22.208 EUR/yr 5,21 EUR/to Metals 5,21 EUR/to Metals 5,21 EUR/to Metals 0,16 EUR/to Input FBC 0,81 EUR/to Input FBC 0,10 EUR/to Input FBC

Transport of Inerts from MBT 1-3 Transport of Inerts from FBC MBT 1-3 -> Landfill for Inert Waste FBC -> Landfill for Inert Waste

MSW etc. Input MBT 238.200 to/yr RDF Input FBC 134.200 to/yr Inerts Output MBT 1-3 18.794 to/yr Inerts Output FBC 2.684 to/yr

Inerts Loading Density 1,40 to/m³ Inerts Loading Density 1,40 to/m³

Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 12 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 12 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 12 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 12 m³

Container filling level 80% Container filling level 80%

Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip

Transport Trips 699 Trips/yr Transport Trips 100 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 69.918 EUR/yr Transport costs 9.985 EUR/yr 3,72 EUR/to Inerts 3,72 EUR/to Inerts 0,29 EUR/to Input MBT 1-3 0,07 EUR/to Input FBC

Transport of Inerts from MBT 1 Transport of Inerts from MBT 1 MBT 1> Landfill for Inert Waste MBT 1> Landfill for Inert Waste

Bulky Waste Input MBT 1 35.000 to/yr Bulky Waste Input MBT 1 61.000 to/yr Inerts Output MBT 1-3 700 to/yr Inerts Output MBT 1-3 15.500 to/yr

Inerts Loading Density 1,40 to/m³ Inerts Loading Density 1,40 to/m³

Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 12 m³ Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 12 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 12 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 12 m³

Container filling level 80% Container filling level 80%

Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip Truck + Trailer Transport Load 26,88 to/trip

Transport Trips 26 Trips/yr Transport Trips 577 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 2.604 EUR/yr Transport costs 57.664 EUR/yr 3,72 EUR/to Inerts 3,72 EUR/to Inerts 0,07 EUR/to Input MBT 1-3 0,95 EUR/to Input MBT 1-3

Transport of paper, wood etc. from C&D recycling facility C&D Facility -> MBT 1-3 C&D Facility -> GFC

C&D waste Input C&D facility 220.000 to/yr Paper, wood etc. Output RDF 20.000 to/yr

Paper, wood etc. (compacted) Loading Density 0,40 to/m³

Loading Volume Container 1 (20 ft) 32 m³ Container 2 (20 ft) 32 m³

Filling level 100%

Semi-trailer (18-wheeler) Transport Load 25,60 to/trip

Transport Trips 781 Trips/yr

Costs Price subcontractor 100 EUR/Trip

Transport costs 78.125 EUR/yr 3,91 EUR/to Paper, wood etc. 0,36 EUR/to Input C&D facility Material Recycling Facility (MRF)

MRF 1 MRF 1 MRF 2 MRF 3 Plant Description (St.Antnin) Extension) (Malta North) (Gozo)

Capacity: MTP 35.000 65.000 to/yr Digestion 35.000 15.000 to/yr MRF 36.000 22.300 to/yr

Investment costs

Tenders St. Antnin (04/2007) Civil Works 6.755.000 EUR MTP (35.000 to/a) 2.330.000 EUR Anaerobic Digestion (35.000 to/a) 13.045.000 EUR MRF (36.000 to/a) 1.940.000 EUR Total 24.070.000 EUR

Costs (incl. Civil works) MTP 3.238.989 5.654.189 EUR Formula from IPPC BREF - Economics and cross Media effects Digestion 18.134.170 8.458.991 EUR by = bx * (y/x)^e MRF 2.696.841 2.023.284 EUR e= 0,60 throughput as scaling parameter e= 0,65 output as scaling parameter Total 24.070.000 16.136.463 0 0 EUR e= 0,90 when equipment has to be duplicated

Total (only MRF) 2.696.841 2.023.284 00EUR

Operational costs MRF

Depreciation period 15 years Interest rate 6,00% Annuity factor 0,10296

Annual capital costs 60,00% 277.674 208.323 0 0 EUR/yr Annual Operational costs 40,00% 185.116 138.882 0 0 EUR/yr

Total annual treatment costs 100,00% 462.790 347.205 0 0 EUR/yr

Input 36.000 22.300 0 0 to/yr

Specific capital costs 60,00% 7,71 9,34 EUR/to Specific Operational costs 40,00% 5,14 6,23 EUR/to

Total specific treatment costs 100,00% 12,86 15,57 EUR/to

Production of recycled material

Material Input 36.000 22.300 to/yr

Output Paper/Board (pack.+non pack) 63% % of Input 22.723 14.076 to/yr Glass (pack.) 14% % of Input 5.188 3.213 to/yr Plastics (pack.) 12% % of Input 4.385 2.716 to/yr Metals (pack.) 5% % of Input 1.854 1.148 to/yr Rejects 5% % of Input 1.854 1.148 to/yr

Total 100% % of Input 36.004 22.302 to/yr

Sale of recycled material

Market Price (MEU) Paper/Board (pack.+non pack) 9,50 EUR/to 215.870 133.720 EUR/yr Glass (pack.) 0,00 EUR/to 0 0 EUR/yr Plastics (pack.) 18,10 EUR/to 79.365 49.162 EUR/yr Metals (pack.) 13,30 EUR/to 24.658 15.274 EUR/yr

Total 319.893 198.156 EUR/yr 518.050 EUR/yr Sewage Sludge Digesters

Basic Parameters Waste water BOD5 Load (specific) 60 g BOD5/ PE PE: Personel equivalent (EGW) BOD5 Load (Malta total) 31.270 kg BOD5/d Source: Agricultural waste Management Plan (Sustech 2005) Total PE's 521.167 PE Grid material 0,02 kg/m3 waste water Data from ARA Elgg (CH) Sand 0,015 kg/m3 waste water Data from ARA Elgg (CH)

Sewage Sludge Sludge production 29 kg/PE,a Dry matter (DM) 60 g/PE,d Dry matter (DM) 7,00% of Sludge Volume Volatile Substances (VS) 80,00% of Dry matter Retention time in Digester 15 days Specific Digester Volume 0,04 m3/PE Specific Gas yield #1 8,00 l/PE,d 2,92 m3/PE,yr Specifc Gas yield #2 0,5 m3/kg VS

Amount of waste water (Source: Report by Kevin Gatt, 2004) Malta South Treatmant plant 33.000 m3/d 12.045.000 m3/yr Malta North Treatment plant 6.000 m3/d 2.190.000 m3/yr Gozo Treatment Plant 5.500 m3/d 2.007.500 m3/yr Sant Antnin 6.850 m3/d 2.500.250 m3/yr Others 705 m3/d 257.325 m3/yr

Total 52.055 m3/d 19.000.075 m3/yr

Design of Digester Dry Matter (Total) 31.270 kg DM/d Volatile Solids (Total) 25.016 kg VS/d

Daily Sludge Volume (Vs) 446,71 m3/d Digester Volume (V) 6.701 m3

Volatile solids Digester load (B-VS) 3,73 Reference Values for B-VS 2,0 - 3,5 for 50.000 - 100.000 PE 3,5 - 5,0 for > 100.000 PE

Residues Annual sludge volume 163.051 m3/yr Reduction of volume by digestion 25% Reduction of DM by digestion 35% Range: 30 - 55 % without Desintegration (uv, Ozone) DM content of Digestate (wet) 7% DM content of Digestate (dewatered) 35% Annual digestate volume (wet) 105.983 m3/yr Annual digestate volume (dewatered) 21.197 m3/yr Specific weight of Dry matter 50 kg/m3 Specific weight of water 1.000 kg/m3 Digestate (dewatered) - Total 14.149 to/yr Composting or Incineration !!!

Grid Material (from STP) 380 to/yr Incineration Sand (from STP) 285 to/yr Landfill for Inert or nonhazardous waste

Gas Production Specifc Gas yield #2 0,50 m3/kg VS Calorific value 6,00 kWh/m3 21,60 MJ/m3 Daily Gas production 12.508 m3/d Daily energy recovery 75.048 kWh/d

Energy Production Specific Plant capacity 100 Watt per 1 m3/d Gas Plant capacities 1.251 kW Operating hours (per day) 16 hours/day Plant Availability 95% Operating hours (per year) 5.548 hours/year Electric Efficiency 35% Thermal Efficiency 50%

Total Electricity Recovery 6.072.009 kWh/yr Total Heat Recovery 8.674.298 kWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh

Electricity 212.520 EUR/yr Heat 86.743 EUR/yr Incl. use on plant !!!

Investment costs (Digester) 4.000.000 EUR Assumption

Operational costs (Digester) 600.000 EUR/yr Assumption excl. Capital costs C & D waste recycling facility

Mobile Crusher (incl. Metal Separator) 600.000 EUR Mobile Screener 300.000 EUR Wheel Loader 200.000 EUR Excavator (incl. Hydraulic hammer etc.) 200.000 EUR Hand sorting station 100.000 EUR Storage Area, Weigh Bridge etc. 100.000 EUR

Total 1.500.000 EUR Mechanical Biological Treatment - Scenario 1 + 3

MBT 1 MBT 1 MBT 2 MBT 3 Plant Description (St.Antnin) Extension) (Malta North) (Gozo)

120.000 to (+ 26.000 to Sewage sludge), MBT Luebeck MTP, Digester, Wet Oxidation 32,0 Mio EUR

Capacity: MBT Bassum 80.000 to (MTP, Digester, composter) 24,2 Mio EUR MTP 35.000 65.000 130.000 30.000 to/yr Digestion 35.000 15.000 65.000 15.000 to/yr MRF 36.000 22.300 0 0 to/yr

Investment costs

Tenders St. Antnin (04/2007) Civil Works 6.755.000 EUR MTP (35.000 to/a) 2.330.000 EUR Anaerobic Digestion (35.000 to/a) 13.045.000 EUR MRF (36.000 to/a) 1.940.000 EUR Total 24.070.000 EUR

Costs (incl. Civil works) MTP 3.238.989 5.654.189 10.551.089 2.952.850 EUR Formula from IPPC BREF - Economics and cross Media effects Digestion 18.134.170 8.458.991 26.290.864 10.907.158 EUR by = bx * (y/x)^e MRF 2.696.841 2.023.284 0 0 EUR e= 0,60 throughput as scaling parameter e= 0,65 output as scaling parameter Total 24.070.000 16.136.463 36.841.954 13.860.008 EUR e= 0,90 when equipment has to be duplicated

Total (excl. MRF) 21.373.159 14.113.180 36.841.954 13.860.008 EUR

Operational costs (MBT excl. MRF)

Depreciation period 15 years Interest rate 6,00% Annuity factor 0,10296

Annual capital costs 60,00% 2.200.640 1.453.132 3.793.349 1.427.065 EUR/yr Annual Operational costs 40,00% 1.467.093 968.755 2.528.900 951.377 EUR/yr

Total annual treatment costs 100,00% 3.667.733 2.421.887 6.322.249 2.378.441 EUR/yr

Input 35.000 65.000 130.000 30.000 to/yr

Specific capital costs 60,00% 62,88 22,36 29,18 47,57 EUR/to Specific Operational costs 40,00% 41,92 14,90 19,45 31,71 EUR/to

Total specific treatment costs 100,00% 104,79 37,26 48,63 79,28 EUR/to

Gas production + Electricity production

Biogas yield per tonne input digester 100 Nm3/to Calorific Value Biogas 6,0 kWh/m3 21,6 MJ/m3 Specific Plant capacity 100 Watt per 1 m3/d Biogas

Operating hours (per day) 16 hours/day Plant Availability 95% Operating hours (per year) 5.548 hours/year Electric Efficiency 35% Thermal Efficiency 50%

Input Digestion (Plant Capacity) 35.000 15.000 65.000 15.000 to/yr

Annual Gas yield 3.500.000 1.500.000 6.500.000 1.500.000 Nm3/yr

Plant capacities 959 411 1.781 411 kW

Total Electricity Recovery 4.655 1.995 8.645 1.995 MWh/yr Total Heat Recovery 6.650 2.850 12.350 2.850 MWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh 162.925 69.825 302.575 69.825 EUR/yr Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh 66.500 28.500 123.500 28.500 EUR/yr Incl. use on plant !!!

Compost Sale

Market Price Compost (MEU) 4,75 EUR/to

Annual Compost production From mixed waste 39.620 to/a Landfill From Biowaste 26.320 to/a 125.020 EUR From Animal Husbandry waste 20.000 to/a 95.000 EUR From Sewage Sludge ??? to/a ???

Mechanical Biological Treatment - Scenario 2

MBT 1 MBT 1 Plant Description (St.Antnin) Extension)

120.000 to (+ 26.000 to Sewage sludge), MBT Luebeck MTP, Digester, Wet Oxidation 32,0 Mio EUR

Capacity: MBT Bassum 80.000 to (MTP, Digester, composter) 24,2 Mio EUR MTP 35.000 26.000 to/yr Digestion 35.000 12.000 to/yr MRF 36.000 22.300 to/yr

Investment costs

Tenders St. Antnin (04/2007) Civil Works 6.755.000 EUR MTP (35.000 to/a) 2.330.000 EUR Anaerobic Digestion (35.000 to/a) 13.045.000 EUR MRF (36.000 to/a) 1.940.000 EUR Total 24.070.000 EUR

Costs (incl. Civil works) MTP 3.238.989 2.478.702 EUR Formula from IPPC BREF - Economics and cross Media effects Digestion 18.134.170 6.919.896 EUR by = bx * (y/x)^e MRF 2.696.841 2.023.284 EUR e= 0,60 throughput as scaling parameter e= 0,65 output as scaling parameter Total 24.070.000 11.421.881 EUR e= 0,90 when equipment has to be duplicated

Total (excl. MRF) 21.373.159 9.398.598 EUR

Operational costs (MBT excl. MRF)

Depreciation period 15 years Interest rate 6,00% Annuity factor 0,10296

Annual capital costs 60,00% 2.200.640 967.706 EUR/yr Annual Operational costs 40,00% 1.467.093 645.137 EUR/yr

Total annual treatment costs 100,00% 3.667.733 1.612.843 EUR/yr

Input 35.000 26.000 to/yr

Specific capital costs 60,00% 62,88 37,22 EUR/to Specific Operational costs 40,00% 41,92 24,81 EUR/to

Total specific treatment costs 100,00% 104,79 62,03 EUR/to

Gas production + Electricity production

Biogas yield per tonne input digester 100 Nm3/to Calorific Value Biogas 6,0 kWh/m3 21,6 MJ/m3 Specific Plant capacity 100 Watt per 1 m3/d Biogas

Operating hours (per day) 16 hours/day Plant Availability 95% Operating hours (per year) 5.548 hours/year Electric Efficiency 35% Thermal Efficiency 50%

Input Digestion 35.000 12.000 to/yr

Annual Gas yield 3.500.000 1.200.000 Nm3/yr

Plant capacities 959 329 kW

Total Electricity Recovery 4.655 1.596 MWh/yr Total Heat Recovery 6.650 2.280 MWh/yr

Revenues (Assumption) Electricity 0,035 EUR/kWh 162.925 55.860 EUR/yr Heat 0,010 EUR/kWh 66.500 22.800 EUR/yr

Compost Sale

Market Price Compost (MEU) 4,75 EUR/to

Annual Compost production From mixed waste 0 to/a Landfill From Biowaste 26.320 to/a 125.020 EUR From Animal Husbandry waste 20.000 to/a 95.000 EUR From Sewage Sludge ??? to/a ??? MBT 1: Sant Antnin

Investment EUR

Compaction Facility for RDF (incl. 30 Containers 30 m3) 2.500.000

Bailing Facility for RDF - Investment costs 500.000 Bail Opener facility 250.000

RDF Storage Area for 4 years

Input MTP 35.000 to RDF 50% Output RDF 17.500 to Bails weight 1,10 to Bails per year 15.909 pcs/yr Bail lenght 1,70 m Bail width 1,15 m Bail height 1,15 m Bail size 2,25 m3 Annual Bail volume 35.768 m3

Bail Base Area 1,96 m2

Storage time 4 yrs Bails (total) 63.636 pcs

Max. storage height 6 pcs Avg. Pcs per etage 10.606 pcs Storage Area 20.735 m2 Additional space (Handling, Pyramid stockpile) 100%

Total Area 41.470 m2 Total Height 6,9 m

Total Area (est.) 44.997 m2 Total Height (est.) 7,5 m

Price 6,44 MTL/m2 (AgroLand) 15,00 EUR/m2

Price for land 675.000 EUR

Installation costs 325.000 EUR

Total 1.000.000 EUR

RDF Export (Bails)

Container (20 ft) Lenght 5,90 m Width 2,30 m Height 2,35 m Volume 32 m3

Container (40 ft) Lenght 11,90 m Width 2,30 m Height 2,35 m Volume 64 m3

Bails Lenght 1,70 m Width 1,15 m Height 1,15 m Volume 2,25 m3

Number of Bails/Container Container (20 ft) 12 Container (40 ft) 28

Bails per year 15.909 pcs/yr

Container per year (20ft) 1.326 Container per year (40ft) 568

Shipment Costs (incl. Harbour) per 20ft equivalent 1000 EUR Shipment Costs (incl. Harbour) per 40ft equivalent 1750 EUR Info WasteServ: 700-800 MTL/40ft Container

Annual shipment costs (20ft) 1.325.758 EUR/yr Annual shipment costs (40ft) 994.318 EUR/yr

Disposal Costs 150 EUR/to Annual disposal costs 2.625.000 EUR/yr

Total 3.619.318 EUR/yr MBT 1-3

Investment EUR MBT 1 (Ext.) MBT 2 MBT 3 Compaction Facility for RDF (incl. 30 Containers 30 m3) 2.500.000

Bailing Facility for RDF - Investment costs 500.000 200.000 500.000 500.000 Bail Opener facility 250.000

RDF Storage Area for 2 weeks

Input MTP 1-3 238.200 to RDF 56% Output RDF 134.200 to Bails weight 1,10 to Bails per year 122.000 pcs/yr Bail lenght 1,70 m Bail width 1,15 m Bail height 1,15 m Bail size 2,25 m3 Annual Bail volume 274.287 m3yr

Bail Base Area 1,96 m2

Storage time 2 weeks Bails (total) 4.692 pcs

Max. storage height 6 pcs Avg. Pcs per etage 782 pcs Storage Area 1.529 m2 Additional space (Handling, Pyramid stockpile) 100%

Total Area 3.058 m2 Total Height 6,9 m

Total Area (est.) 3.000 m2 Total Height (est.) 7,5 m

Price 6,44 MTL/m2 (AgroLand) 15,00 EUR/m2

Price for land 45.003 EUR

Installation costs 4.997 EUR

Total 50.000 EUR

RDF Export (Bails)

Container (20 ft) Lenght 5,90 m Width 2,30 m Height 2,35 m Volume 32 m3

Container (40 ft) Lenght 11,90 m Width 2,30 m Height 2,35 m Volume 64 m3

Bails Lenght 1,70 m Width 1,15 m Height 1,15 m Volume 2,25 m3

Number of Bails/Container Container (20 ft) 12 Container (40 ft) 28

Bails per year 122.000 pcs/yr

Container per year (20ft) 10.167 Container per year (40ft) 4.357

Shipment Costs (incl. Harbour) per 20ft equivalent 1000 EUR Shipment Costs (incl. Harbour) per 40ft equivalent 1750 EUR Info WasteServ: 700-800 MTL/40ft Container

Annual shipment costs (20ft) 10.166.667 EUR/yr Annual shipment costs (40ft) 7.625.000 EUR/yr

Disposal Costs 151,90547 EUR/to Annual disposal costs 20.385.714 EUR/yr

Total 28.010.714 EUR/yr Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 5: Site selection exercise as a team work (schedule, results)

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 68 / 96 Checklist - Site selection

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Categories '0 = intermediate Comments '-1 = negative Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 '-2 = very negative ?? = currently not assessable

Infrastructure Fuel supply (e.g. for SCR, auxiliary burners) Water supply and water discharge Synergies (e.g. personal, storage areas, handling of materials)

Energy supply and dissipation Electricity Possibility of heat use (e.g. desalination, cooling purposes)

Transport (incl. Gozo/Comino) Transport of waste to the plant Transport of residues/waste from the plant

Location Designation of areas Recreation areas Cultural assets Air traffic safety Public acceptance

Environment/Polluted areas Proximity to residential areas (e.g. dust, NOx, Ambient Air quality other polluting activities) Impact on sensitive receptors

Knock out criteria flood areas

TOTAL Site selection ExerciseGroup 1: Ewa Harlascz, Mary Grace Micallef, Mark O'Neill, Helmut Schnurer, Josef Stubenvoll

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Categories Comments '0 = intermediate Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 4 Site 5 '-1 = negative (Delimara (Marsa) (Xewkija) (Maghtab) (Hal Far) '-2 = very negative ) ?? = currently not assessable

Infrastructure Fuel supply (e.g. for SCR, auxiliary burners) 0 -2 0 -1 0Close to the sea Water supply and water discharge 2 -1 2 2 1 Synergies (e.g. personal, storage areas, handling of materials) 2 -2 1 0 0S1: Existing incinerator

Energy supply and dissipation Electricity 2 2 2 2 2 Possibility of heat use (e.g. desalination, cooling purposes) 0 0 0 0 0

S1/S4/S5: Good road network in place; S2: Transport (incl. Gozo/Comino) Transport of waste to the plant 2 -2 1 2 2 Central location Transport of residues/waste from the plant 1 -1 1 2 1S4: Practically no transport needed Loading/Unloading/Harbour

Location Designation of areas 2 2 2 2 2Industrial areas (All location) S1: Sport-grounds; S3: Marsaxxlokk; S4: Recreation areas 0 2 1 -2 0 Recreational park in development Cultural assets 0 0 0 0 0 Air traffic safety 1 2 1 2 -2 Public acceptance 2 -1 1 -2 1S1: Due to Abattoir Incinerator

Environment/Polluted areas Proximity to residential areas -1 2 1 -1 2S2/S5: No residents (e.g. dust, NOx, Ambient Air quality -2 0 2 -1 2 other polluting activities) Impact on sensitive receptors -2 0 1 -2 1S1: Sports complex

Knock out criteria flood areas 1 2 1 2 2

Properties of the site Cost of land Availabilty of the land Increase on existing traffic

TOTAL 10 3 17 5 14 Site selection Exercise Group 2: Daniela Rieger, Andrew Vella, Siegmund Boehmer

Criteria Consideration / Evaluation +2 = very positive '+1 = positive Categories Comments '0 = intermediate Site 2 Site 3 Site 1 Site 4 Site 5 '-1 = negative (Kala (Delimara (Hal Far) (Marsa) (Maghtab) '-2 = very negative Frala) ) ?? = currently not assessable

Infrastructure Fuel supply (e.g. for SCR, auxiliary burners) 1 1 2 2 0S3/S4: Already available Water supply and water discharge 0 2 2 2 2 Synergies (e.g. personal, storage areas, handling of materials) 0 0 1 1 0

Energy supply and dissipation Electricity 0 0 1 2 0 Possibility of heat use (e.g. desalination, cooling purposes) 0 1 1 1 1

Transport (incl. Gozo/Comino) Transport of waste to the plant 0 0 -1 1 0 Transport of residues/waste from the plant 0 0 0 0 2

Location Designation of areas 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation areas 0 0 0 0 -1S5: Recreation area planned Cultural assets 0 0 0 0 -1 Air traffic safety -2 -1 0 0 0 Public acceptance -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

S4: New residental tower will soon be Environment/Polluted areas Proximity to residential areas -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 opened (e.g. dust, NOx, Ambient Air quality -1 -1 0 -2 0 other polluting activities) Impact on sensitive receptors -1 0 0 0 0S1: Cliffs

Knock out criteria flood areas 0 0 0 -1 0

TOTAL -6 -1 3 2 0 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 6: Photos from Malta

Malta 01 - Abattoir

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 72 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 73 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Malta 02 – Brincat Plastic Recycling

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 74 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 75 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Malta 03 – Maghtab Landfill

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 76 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 77 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Malta 04 – StAntnin

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 78 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 79 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Annex 7: Photos from Austria (Study Visit 21st to 25th May 2007 and Staff Training 12th to 16th March 2007)

Austria 01 - Spittelau Thermal Waste Treatment Plant

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 80 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 81 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 82 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 02 – Rinter Zelt Sorting Plant

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 83 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 84 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 85 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 03 – Rautenweg Landfill

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 86 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 04 – Flotzersteig Thermal Waste Treatment Plant

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 87 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 04 – Fernwaerme Wien GmbH “Simmeringer Haide”

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 88 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 89 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 05 – Construction site of the new MSW incinerator Pfaffenau

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 90 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Austria 06 – Construction site of the new bio gas plant

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 91 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Maltese Staff Training 12th to 16th March 2007

Asamer-Becker Recycling GmbH

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 92 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 93 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

AVN Dürnrohr MSW incineration

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 94 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 95 / 96 Twinning Project MT05-IB-EN-01 Assistance to explore long term projects to manage specific waste streams in a more sustainable manner Waste-to-Energy in Malta – Scenarios for Implementation

Niklasdorf : MSW incineration

Boehmer/Seidi/Stubenvoll/Zerz June 2008 Page 96 / 96