Appendix 1 Cost Benefit Analysis

UZB‐ TA 8004 Appendix 1 Cost Benefit Analysis

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

BN Ingenieure GmbH GlobalWorks

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Solid Waste Management Strategic Options ...... 2 2.1 Introduction ...... 2 2.2 Option A: Akhangaran Regional Landfill ...... 2 2.3 Options B and C: Inter-Regional Landfill ...... 4 2.4 Other Options for Waste Disposal ...... 6 3.0 Cost Benefit – Least Cost Analysis of the Options ...... 7 3.1 Introduction ...... 7 3.2 Capital Expenditure Comparison ...... 7 3.3 Operational Cost Comparison ...... 7 3.4 Other Costs and Benefits ...... 8 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 13

Figures

1 Tashkent and Surrounding Region 2 2 Landfill Siting Assessment Overview 3 3 Option A: Akhangaran Landfill 4 4 Potential Sites for Inter-Regional Landfill 5 5 Potential Landfill Site at Hovos 5 6 SWM Development Scenarios for Each Option 9 7 Cost Benefit Matrix 11

Annexes

1 Tashkent City Solid Waste Projections 2 Option A: Capital Expenditures 3 Option B: Capital Expenditures 4 Option C: Capital Expenditures 5 Option A: Transfer System Operational Costs 6 Option B: Transfer System Operational Costs 7 Option C: Transfer System Operational Costs

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program i

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

1.0 Introduction This cost benefit analysis has been prepared to assist the Government of Uzbekistan (GoU) to evaluate municipal solid waste (waste) disposal options for Tashkent city, covering the period up to the year 2060 and beyond. Tashkent’s 2.3 million people are currently served by a conventional three-stage solid waste management (SWM) system, which accommodates all household, commercial, institutional and other wastes. The system includes about 700 community collection points, an waste collection service incorporating over 300 collection vehicles, three waste transfer stations, and the Akhangaran dumpsite located 35 km to the southeast of the city, which accommodates virtually all of Tashkent’s waste. The large peri-urban area of Tashkent Province surrounding the city is served by similar SWM systems, albeit of a rudimentary nature. In rural areas outside of these areas, SWM systems where they exist are even less organized with many small-scale dumpsites serving communities. The Tashkent SWM system needs immediate improvement. Many of the community collection points require rehabilitation, the entire collection vehicle fleet needs to be replaced, and the transfer stations need to be refurbished and upgraded. Of direct relevance to this analysis, a new properly designed sanitary landfill facility is also needed to replace the almost full Akhangaran dumpsite; a facility that currently lacks properly engineered environmental protection systems and is most likely already polluting the surrounding environment. Where they exist, the SWM systems of the peri- urban and rural areas are in even worse condition, characterized by dilapidated collection equipment and a proliferation of open dumpsites. Recycling is also in its infancy throughout the region. These challenges have been fully recognized by the GOU, which in addition to prioritizing this Project initiative, is currently in the process of acquiring replacement waste collection trucks through lease-to-own in order to improve Tashkent’s waste collection system. It is also developing an additional 30-hectare dumpsite facility adjacent to the existing Akhangaran dumpsite as an emergency disposal measure in order to avert a future disposal crisis. Tashkent is estimated to generate approximately 650,000 tons of waste per year. By 2030, its generation rate is conjectured to accelerate to over 850,000 tons per year. Through the evaluation of waste composition data obtained as part of the Project, it is likely that with aggressive recycling strategies, about 20 percent of the waste stream could eventually be recycled, up from the current estimate of about 5 percent. Assuming that recycling programs are implemented to achieve and maintain a recycling efficiency of 20 percent by 2020, Tashkent would still generate a total of about 700,000 tons per year. All of which would require disposal. Annex 1 presents these waste generation and recycling projections. In summary therefore, even with the implementation of waste minimization and recycling programs, the residual waste disposal demand for Tashkent are considerable. As the Akhangaran dumpsite approaches its maximum capacity, and with only a modest 30-hectare dumpsite facility planned, the GoU has recognized that Tashkent needs a longer-term solution to properly address this demand. The GoU also recognizes that the continuation of rudimentary dumpsite operations into the future is no longer considered to be an appropriate solution for a growing, modern international capital city such as Tashkent. The GoU therefore plans to upgrade the system to include modern sanitary landfill solutions that meet international best practice in terms of design and operation. Waste management information utilized in this assessment has been sourced from the Maxsustrans database and from Consultant’s resources. Equipment and construction information is based on international price lists, modified for local conditions. Due to the absence of any national railway cost data for the assessment, rail data has had to be sourced from generic European data.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

2.0 Solid Waste Management Strategic Options

2.1 Introduction Project analysis indicates that a single sanitary landfill facility to accommodate Tashkent’s waste for at least the next 50 years would require a total land area of about 250 hectares. In order to maximize efficiencies, this facility would, for example, most likely include a single waste pile of dimensions 1,200m by 1,600m, with a maximum height (thickness) approaching 120m. Such a facility is commonplace for cities similar to Tashkent.

2.2 Option A: Akhangaran Regional Landfill Figure 1 shows a satellite image of Tashkent and the surrounding region. The urban area of Tashkent is surrounded by peri-urban and rural communities which also extend throughout the province. The land outside of these populated areas is almost entirely comprised of irrigated, agricultural land, which is utilized for active farming. Unproductive, idle land is almost entirely absent within the entire Tashkent corridor, between the north-western border with Kazakhstan and the south-eastern mountain ridge of Shin-Than.

Figure 1: Tashkent and Surrounding Region

Figure 2 below shows the results of a landfill siting assessment conducted within the Tashkent region, in order to identify potential sites which might be suitable for the development of a 250- hectare regional landfill facility for Tashkent. Considering a range of criteria, the analysis progressively discounted land areas due to, for example; their proximity to communities, rivers and floodplains, and areas of unsuitable land morphology.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 2

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Figure 2: Landfill Siting Assessment Overview

The assessment resulted in 21 potentially suitable areas, which were then subjected to further scrutiny. Based on this, a total of seven regional areas were identified, resulting in the screening of four potential areas for further assessment. One of these priority areas is a 450-hectare land parcel immediately adjacent to the eastern extremity of the existing Akhangaran dumpsite. As this area is immediately adjacent to both the existing dumpsite and the planned location of the 30-hectare dumpsite expansion, it is therefore considered a priority in terms of its potential on which to develop a 250-hectare regional landfill facility for Tashkent. For the purposes of this cost benefit analysis, this location is referred to as ‘Option A: Akhangaran Landfill’. Figure 3 shows the general layout of this facility, which as stated above, has the potential to accommodate all of Tashkent’s residual waste for at least 50 years. Due to it being located immediately adjacent to the existing Akhangaran dumpsite, it would share the same access corridors as the dumpsite and the same facility entrance. Residual waste could be transported to the facility from Tashkent’s transfer stations in specially designed and more efficient truck and trailer waste transfer units. Similar to the existing system, they would enter the site, travel to the active disposal face to deposit the waste, following which they would return to the transfer stations to load again.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 3

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Figure 3: Option A: Akhangaran Landfill

As the land proposed for the landfill is currently productive irrigated agricultural land, there is an opportunity cost in converting this land from its current productive use to a landfill. This would also result in the need for associated compensation and resettlement payments to the owners, occupiers and agricultural workers of the land. In addition it is reported that because of government restrictions it is extremely difficult to convert agricultural land to other land uses, and that this is a major obstacle to the development of this facility. As discussed earlier, virtually all land within the land corridor to the north and south of Tashkent and to its eastern and western international borders is either populated or utilized as irrigated agricultural land. It therefore follows that similar land use conversion restrictions exist for other sites identified in the landfill siting assessment. In summary therefore, it is highly unlikely that suitable idle and undeveloped land parcels of the size needed for the development of a regional landfill for Tashkent exist near to Tashkent. Probably the nearest such land parcels are located a minimum distance of 160 km to the south of Tashkent.

2.3 Options B and C: Inter-Regional Landfill Figure 4 shows the nearest areas to Tashkent of potentially idle and undeveloped land of the size required for the long-term development of the Tashkent landfill facility. As shown, these areas are at least 160 km south of the Tashkent agricultural corridor. They are assumed to be low-value, un- irrigated lands, which can presumably be acquired at minimal cost and without complex transfer procedures and expensive resettlement and compensation issues.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 4

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Figure 4: Potential Sites for Inter-Regional Landfill

Figure 5 shows a hypothetical example of such as area identified at Hovos in Jizzak Province, around 175 km to the south of Tashkent. The available land at this location appears to far exceed Tashkent’s requirement of 250 hectares, indeed, subject to favorable feasibility assessment, a landfill facility located in this location could conceivably accommodate Tashkent’s waste for well over 100 years.

Figure 5: Potential Landfill Site at Hovos

From a land use perspective, while such a facility has many advantages over a landfill facility located at Akhangaran (Option A) - as it would not require the conversion of existing irrigated, agricultural land - its use is complicated by the extra complexity and cost of transferring Tashkent’s

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 5

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options waste to this location, at a distance of 175 km from Tashkent. Practically, there are only two options available for waste transfer to the site: either by road or by rail. For a road-based alternative, ideally waste would be transported in specially configured truck and trailer units from Tashkent’s transfer stations directly to the landfill. This method would be similar to that used for Option A Akhangaran Landfill, except obviously that transfer vehicles would be traveling a far greater distance (175km cf. 40km). For the purposes of this analysis, this option is referred to as ‘Option B: Inter-Regional Landfill / Road-Transfer’. A rail-based transfer system would however be different. In this system, waste would be loaded at the Tashkent transfer stations in sealed containers directly onto specially designed railway wagons of a waiting waste train at purpose-built railway siding nearby. The loaded waste train would then travel to another rail loading/unloading siding facility located at the landfill, where it would be unloaded by a special crane for transfer by truck to the landfill for final disposal. The empty waste containers would be transported back through the system to the transfer stations in Tashkent for refilling. For the purposes of this cost benefit analysis, this option is referred to as ‘Option C: Inter- Regional Landfill / Rail-Transfer’.

2.4 Other Options for Waste Disposal It is reported that the GoU, due to excessive costs and other reasons, do not consider alternative waste treatment and disposal options feasible. These include Waste-to-Energy and incineration technologies. In summary therefore, a sanitary landfill is considered by the GoU to represent the most feasible option for the disposal of solid waste for Tashkent city and the nation for the long- term.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 6

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

3.0 Cost Benefit – Least Cost Analysis of the Options

3.1 Introduction In order to simplify the multitude of parameters involved in the cost-benefit/ least-cost analysis of the three identified options, a development scenario has been assumed for each option, as summarized in Figure 6. This assumes the same volume of waste per year is handled for each option. The analysis evaluates the options in terms of three basic criteria. These are; (i) initial capital expenditure, (ii) operational cost comparison and (iii) comparison of other costs and benefits. The capital and operational costs are those that directly relate to the different options; costs that are common to all three, such as the cost of waste collection are not included.

3.2 Capital Expenditure Comparison The indicative initial capital expenditures of the options are presented in Annexes 2, 3 and 4 respectively, and summarized as follows;

Option A: Akhangaran Landfill US$ 38 million

Option B: Inter-Regional Landfill (Road Transfer) US$ 38 million

Option C: Inter-Regional Landfill (Rail Transfer) US$ 63 million As indicated, Option C requires a far higher initial capital investment than either Option A or B, due to the additional investments needed for the railway infrastructure (sidings and spur line) and rolling stock (locomotives, wagons and containers). The capital expenditure of Options A and B are however considered to be similar.

3.3 Operational Cost Comparison The three options are identical in their waste collection system, up to the point where the waste is compacted into the waste transfer containers at the transfer stations. They are also assumed to be identical in that they would handle a similar amount of waste with similar-sized landfills for waste disposal and management. It is only in their respective waste transfer systems however, that differences exist between them. The differences are summarized as follows: 1. Option A includes the transfer of waste containers by road vehicles over a distance of about 40 km from the Tashkent transfer stations to the Akhangaran landfill. 2. Option B is similar to Option A, except that the haulage distance is much larger, estimated at 175 km to the landfill facility located at Hovos, or a similar location. 3. Option C is different however, using a waste-to-rail system with the waste containers transported by the railway for the 175-km journey to the inter-regional landfill. The cost benefit analysis of operational costs therefore estimates the transfer costs of these three options, expressed as US$ per ton. The results for Options A, B and C are presented in Annexes 5, 6 and 7 respectively, and summarized as follows:

Option A: Akhangaran Landfill US$ 7 per ton

Option B: Inter-Regional Landfill (Road Transfer) US$ 23 per ton

Option C: Inter-Regional Landfill (Rail Transfer) US$ 12 per ton

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 7

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

3.4 Other Costs and Benefits In addition to capital and operational costs, there are also other costs and benefits to be considered. These are presented on Figure 7 and summarized as follows: Legal Issues: One of the most critical development issues facing long-term waste disposal is that of land acquisition. Indeed, it is reported that because of government restrictions on the conversion of irrigated land the approval to acquire the planned 30 ha extension to Akhangaran took over three years to complete. The challenges to acquire 250 hectares of agricultural land for the long-term facility therefore appear considerable. In fact this may represent the one factor that determines the long-term future of waste disposal and the relevance of an inter-regional system. If land conversion/acquisition is not an issue, then Option A could proceed; otherwise it would necessitate an inter-regional solution, as in Options B and C. Although of lesser importance, there is also an issue of existing technical and planning restrictions,. For example, the height restriction on the Akhangaran landfill facility which restricts its maximum height to below a certain level. This would need to be modified to allow the facility development to achieve the full potential of the site long term. It is likely therefore that Option A faces several restrictions, whereas a new inter-regional landfill (Options B and C) may not necessarily face these restrictions. In other countries, there are sometimes issues with the transfer of waste across provincial and jurisdictional boundaries. This may or may not be an issue in Uzbekistan, but if it is, then Option A may be more favorable, as there would be little modification in waste transfer routings or methodology from the existing system. Conversely, Option B requires newly established road routes to the facility, and Option C requires rail transfer, where there could be additional complexities and restraints. Environmental Issues (Waste Transfer): There are, potentially, major environmental advantages of rail transfer for Option C when compared with the road transfer of Option A and particularly Option B. Rail transfer of waste has a much lower carbon footprint through lower vehicle emissions, is safer than road transport, and would have less road traffic, road deterioration, and less traffic, noise, dust and odor. The rail system would however require more land for the railway sidings, spur line and other infrastructure and storage areas. Environmental Issues (Waste Disposal): Developing a inter-regional landfill facility as in Options B and C would provide significant technical and environmental advantages over the development of the Akhangaran landfill of Option A. If it is located on idle, undeveloped land, in a more remote areas there would be no need to convert higher value agricultural land as would be necessary for the Akhangaran facility. Also, as the remote facility would not be constrained by land availability, it could eventually be a lot larger than the Akhangaran facility, resulting in a far more cost effective utilization of the land and the available waste volume. The availability of more land for expansion would also allow space for the adoption of new technologies in the future, for example, using adjoining land for future handling and waste processing facilities accommodating waste disposal needs for decades to come. Conversely the available land at Akhangaran could only accommodate waste for the next 50-years or so, with limited potential for future expansion without further conversion of agricultural land and costly involuntary resettlement of affected people. Social Issues: The development of an inter-regional facility is less likely to involve involuntary resettlement, whereas development of the Akhangaran landfill in Option A does involve some resettlement. In terms of the impact on communities, there is more risk of negative impact using road transport through road corridors in settle areas than from the rail based option. Also, although considered minor, there is more chance of social impacts on communities at

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 8

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

the Akhangaran landfill rather than at the remote site a long way from local communities. However as road-based waste transfer systems are more labor intensive than rail-based transport, more jobs would be created by the former than the latter.

Figure 6: SWM Development Scenarios for Each Option

Option A: Akhangaran Regional Landfill

Collection System:  Replacement of all waste collection containers.  Rehabilitation of existing guarded collection points.  Upgrading of 375 existing unguarded collection points to guarded collection points.  Provision of the entire waste collection vehicle fleet.  Rehabilitation of the city’s 12 fleet maintenance facilities.

Transfer System:  Rehabilitation of two existing transfer stations and closure of the third existing station.  Provision of the entire waste transfer vehicle fleet.

Disposal System:  Development of an initial 20-hectare cell of the new Akhangaran Regional Landfill Facility, including necessary civil works, equipment and machinery.

Option B: Inter-Regional Landfill (Road Transfer)

Transfer System:  Rehabilitation of two existing transfer stations and closure of the third existing station.  Provision of the entire waste transfer vehicle fleet.

Disposal System:  Development of an initial 20-hectare cell of the new remote inter-regional sanitary landfill facility, including necessary civil works, equipment and machinery.

Option C: Inter-Regional Landfill (Rail Transfer)

Transfer System:  Rehabilitation of two existing transfer stations and closure of the third existing station.  Development of railway sidings and hard standing areas adjacent to the two transfer stations to allow transfer trucks to load and unload containers on/off the railway wagons1.  Construction of an assumed 5 km spur line at the remote landfill destination to connect the existing railway infrastructure to the landfill site, with a similar rail siding and hard standing area.  Installation of a straddle crane at the destination landfill for rapid unloading of full containers from railway wagons and back loading of empty containers.  Procurement of necessary railway rolling stock: locomotives, flat top container wagons and 20 ton transfer containers.  Waste transfer trucks for the loading and unloading of containers at the Tashkent transfer stations and railway sidings and the haulage of containers at the remote destination landfill from the railway siding to the landfill.  Closure of the Akhangaran dumpsite and 30 hectare expansion.

Disposal System:  Development of an initial 20-hectare cell of the new remote inter-regional landfill facility, including necessary civil works, equipment and machinery.

1 It is proposed to upgrade the Yakkasaray and Yunus-Abad transfer stations, which are conveniently located next to the railway, and the close Khamza transfer station.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 9

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Strategic Potential: As discussed above, either of the three options identified would provide a suitable, long term waste disposal solution for Tashkent. In addition however, the development of any one of these systems also provides a potential to expand the coverage area of the facility to accommodate the waste of other adjacent areas. Regarding Option A, the Akhangaran landfill, there is obviously a potential to incorporate the waste of other nearby cities, towns and even rural areas within a certain economic distance of the facility. On initial assessment, this could include one or several of nine major towns of the province. Two primary factors limit the collection area around the Akhangaran facility, (i) the distance after which the waste transfer cost becomes prohibitive, and (ii) the landfill waste volume that the city is able to allocate for others, given that the facility has a limited 50-year life.

Option B, which involves the long distance road transfer of waste does not have any strategic potential; it is a necessity borne out of land unavailability. It is the rail transfer system of Option C which is considered to offer the greatest potential. This is because its potential capture area is not only defined by the ‘radius’ around the landfill, but also within a ‘corridor’ along each side of the railway line that could cover as much of the country as it is financially feasible to carry it on the rail.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 10

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Figure 7: Cost Benefit Matrix

Option A Option B Option C Criteria Akhangaran Landfill Inter-Regional Landfill (Road Transfer) Inter-Regional Landfill (Rail Transfer)

Financial

Capital expenditure (Initial) US$ 38 million US$ 38 million US$ 63 million

Operation expenditure (Initial) US$ 7 per ton US$ 23 per ton US$ 12 per ton

Legal

Land acquisition Difficulties in the conversion of highly Easier conversion of undeveloped, idle land Easier conversion of undeveloped, idle land valued irrigated, agricultural land

Technical and planning restrictions Site already has existing restrictions Restrictions unlikely Restrictions unlikely

Inter-provincial waste transfer Utilizes existing road transport corridors to Utilizes new road corridors on existing roads Utilizes mostly existing rail corridors, the Akhangaran dumpsite

Environmental

Waste Transfer:

Vehicle emissions Higher Highest Lowest

Road safety Lower Lowest Highest

Road fleet size Higher Highest Lowest h Road infrastructure demand Higher Highest Lowest (parking and other facilities)

Road deterioration Higher Highest Lowest

Road congestion, noise and Higher Highest Lowest vibration

Waste Disposal:

Agricultural land destruction Confirmed None None

Land utilization efficiency Lower Higher Higher

Potential to utilize modern Lower Higher Higher technological advancements

Long-term expansion potential Not possible without further involuntary High potential, as landfill to be located in a High potential, as landfill to be located in a resettlement, compensation and conversion remote area, to provide for long-term expansion remote area, to provide for long-term expansion of additional highly valued, irrigated agricultural land

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 11

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Figure 7: Cost Benefit Matrix

Option A Option B Option C Criteria Akhangaran Landfill Inter-Regional Landfill (Road Transfer) Inter-Regional Landfill (Rail Transfer)

Social

Involuntary resettlement Confirmed, although relatively minor Unlikely, as landfill is to be located in a remote Unlikely, as landfill is to be located in a remote resettlement issues area away from communities area away from communities

Access corridor impact potential Higher, due to movements of waste transfer Highest, due to movements of waste transfer Lower, as the rail system is utilized for the vehicles vehicles majority of the transfer distance

Social impacts of disposal site on Low impact Possible negligible impacts, as landfill is to be Possible negligible impacts, as landfill is to be surrounding communities located in a remote area away from located in a remote area away from communities communities

Job creation Slightly higher potential, primarily due to the Highest potential, primarily due to the need for Slightly lower, due to a reduced need for need for drivers and operational personnel drivers and operational personnel for the waste personnel to operate the waste-to-rail for the waste transfer vehicle system transfer vehicle system component

Strategic Potential

Regional service area potential Lowest: the system can potentially only Higher: the system can be expanded to serve Highest: the system can potentially serve serve Tashkent and cities and communities additional areas, up to a maximum economical Tashkent and cities and communities within a within an approximate 50 km maximum distance from the landfill facility 50 km radius of the landfill facility and 50 km radius of the landfill facility each side of the rail corridor, which extends from Tashkent to Samarkand and possibly beyond

Facility life Service life of the landfill is estimated as 50 Depending on the location, the service life of Depending on the location, the service life of years the SWM facilities could exceed 100 years. the SWM facilities could exceed 100 years.

Potential for parallel hazardous Limited by land availability constraints Virtually unlimited if the landfill is located in a Virtually unlimited if the landfill is located in a waste management system remote area with a significant amount of remote area with a significant amount of development adjacent idle and undeveloped land adjacent idle and undeveloped land

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 12

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions of this initial cost benefit analysis are as follows:

1. All shown options are technically feasible and are common approaches for metropolitan cities.

2. If it is acceptable to the GoU to convert 250-hectares of irrigated, agricultural land next to the Akhangaran dumpsite for landfill use (Option A), then this option appears to have the lowest capital and operational expenditure.

3. If land conversion is not acceptable to the GoU, then the development of an inter-regional landfill on idle land to the south of the city (Options B or C) appears to be the next favorable long term alternative.

4. Comparing Option B (road transport) and C (railway transport) economically, it appears that despite the much higher initial capital costs of Option C it is clearly the favorable solution because of its far lower operational costs.

It is recommended that GoU evaluates whether the associated environmental, social and strategic benefits of Option C are worth its marginal additional costs compared to Option A.

It is also acknowledged that the GoU needs time to fully evaluate, select and develop a preferred option to meet the long-term needs of the city and region. Realistically, this could take up to five years to complete. Meanwhile, there is a need to address the short term SWM demands of the city, and in this context, the city has secured approval to develop a further 30-hectares of land to accommodate its waste. Discussions with the city have identified a solution whereby this land would be developed as an interim, engineered sanitary landfill facility. Furthermore, this facility can be strategically located to become the first phase of the larger Akhangaran Landfill (Option A), should this option be selected. In the eventuality that Option C is selected, the facility would either be properly closed or could be utilized to serve the waste disposal demands of the local communities.

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Page 13

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 1: Tashkent City Solid Waste Projections

TASHKENT CITY POPULATION AND OTHER PROVINCES SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 23 24 25 Item 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2035 2036 2037 AKHANGARAN LANDFILL Tashkent City Population 2,319,465 2,342,660 2,366,086 2,389,747 2,413,645 2,437,781 2,462,159 2,486,780 2,511,648 2,536,765 2,562,132 2,587,754 2,613,631 2,639,768 2,774,422 2,915,946 2,945,105 2,974,556 Waste generation per capita kg/day 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.71 0.71 Adjustment for CPI increase 1% Total Waste Generated per day tonne 1,288 1,314 1,341 1,368 1,395 1,423 1,452 1,481 1,511 1,541 1,572 1,604 1,636 1,669 1,843 2,036 2,077 2,119 Recycling Percent 5% 5% 7% 12% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Net Household Waste to Landfill tonne 1,224 1,249 1,247 1,204 1,186 1,210 1,234 1,259 1,284 1,310 1,336 1,363 1,391 1,419 1,567 1,731 1,766 1,801 Commercial Waste 33% 400 404.00 408.04 412.12 416.24 420.40 424.61 428.85 433.14 437.47 441.85 446.27 450.73 455.24 478.46 502.87 507.89 512.97 Adjustment for CPI Increase 1% Recycling Percent 5% 5% 7% 12% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Net Commercial Waste to Landfill tonne 380 384 379 363 354 357 361 365 368 372 376 379 383 387 407 427 432 436 Total Waste to Landfill per day 1,604 1,632 1,626 1,566 1,540 1,567 1,595 1,623 1,652 1,682 1,712 1,743 1,774 1,806 1,974 2,158 2,197 2,237

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 1, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 2: Option A - Capital Expenditures

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 2, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 3: Option B - Capital Expenditures

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 3, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 4: Option C - Capital Expenditures

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 4, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 5: Option A – Transfer System Operational Costs

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 5, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 5, Page 2

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 6: Option B – Transfer System Operational Costs

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 7, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 7, Page 2

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

Annex 7: Option C – Transfer System Operational Costs

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 7, Page 1

Cost Benefit Analysis Tashkent Solid Waste Disposal Options

UZB-8004: Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program Annex 7, Page 2

UZB-TA 8004 Appendix 2 Technical Project Description

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012

INTRODUCTION

Based on the findings of this PPTA project there are at least 2 possible approaches on the long term strategy for the development of a sustainable regional Waste Management Master Plan. Main difference between these two approaches is the type of transport logistics. Here especially the possibility to transport the waste via road or railway.

Due to the planning consequences for the final decision on one of the approaches, the issue has to be studied in detail and a final decision is dependent on a due process on executive as also legislative decisions and can’t therefore be expected within short time.

However, the city of Tashkent has an urgent need on the availability of disposal space for its waste residuals of the city. The volume of the existing dumpsite is exhausted and the original plan of the city was to extend its dumpsite operations to an adjacent lot of additional 30 hectares of area. Totally aware of the inevitable environmental impacts through the extension of this practice, the city asked the national government for assistance in this matter. Based on these activities, the Cabinet of Ministers approved in summer 2012 the conversion of about 30 hectares of agricultural area for the utilization for waste management activities.

To avoid a waste management gridlock situation for Tashkent city, an interim solutions was developed to secure the continuously availability of disposal space for waste residuals.

The here presented project is a flexible landfill development approach combining existing facility utilization with a possible integration capability within a possible long time solution. The conceptualized Sanitary Landfill is a ‘standalone’ facility which can be easily integrated within a possible regional landfill solution which might last for 30 and more years. Otherwise, the approach is self-sustainable and can serve the city and parts of the Tashkent Oblast for at least 5 to 7 years, the time most possible needed to finally decide on the future on Tashkent’s waste management setup and to guarantee a smooth operation of the Tashkent waste management system. Further the project also covers the badly needed upgrade of Tashkent’s existing waste collection and transport system.

SITE DESCRIPTION

For the purpose of initially describing the proposed project site, the existing “dumpsite” facility was used as reference.

The Akhangaran landfill is located approximately 35 km south of the center of Tashkent City in the Akhangaran district of Tashkent Province. The facility has been in use since 1967 and is currently handling the wastes collected from Tashkent city and partial from Chirchik. The proposed site for a modern Sanitary Landfill is located at the eastern side of the existing Akhangaran Landfill. The total area will cover approximately 25 hectares of agricultural land. The picture below presents the relative distance and location of the existing landfill site from the city.

Location Map of Akhangaran Landfill

Bird-eye Image of the Akhangaran Dumpsite and the proposed 30ha SLF extension

Geological / Hydro-geological conditions

Intensive studies for the local geological and hydro-geological conditions are made for this location in 1994 and in 2002.

Therefore several geological survey drillings were conducted and partially developed as groundwater monitoring wells.

In general the geological structure for the first 150m of soil in the subsurface area indicate strong layers of loam with more or less important inclusions of sand and rocks and two clear defined groundwater aquifers. The for the landfill site selection most important area, the area direct below the landfill is here described as an about 33m strong layer of compact loam with small gravel inclusions. Available analyses show permeability as low as 1.9-10 m/s for this loam.

Geological cross-cut in the Akhangaran dumpsite area, showing a more 30m thick near to surface loam/clay layer (1994 Site Study)

Pictures XX – XX: location plan for Location plan for the geological survey as shown on the Map

In 33m to 52m depth the report describes the first of two groundwater aquifers, mostly build from metamorphic rock and gravel with filler of sand and loam. This ‘upper‘ aquifer is separated from the ‘lower’ aquifer by another about 20m strong layer of loam (again with inclusions of sand and gravel). The then following 30m strong ‘lower’ aquifer is built from igneous rock and gravel with sand filler. This aquifer is underplayed by again heavy clayish material followed by partial gravelite and calcareous rock which reaches then in about 140m of depth into tight siltstone.

The ‘upper’ aquifer is generally low watered. The ground water is characterized by a high total mineralization (solid residue 3.4 – 4.2 g/l), high sulfate content (1900-2350 mg/l) and by a higher total hardness (14.2-25.7 mg-equ/l). This aquifer is fairly reliable covered to the surface by an up to 33m thick layer of loam. However, ground water contamination that is characterized by high content of nitrates (NO3 -14-38.0 mg) is also registered. [BN2012: Earlier investigations suggest that the dumpsite might be the origin of this contamination. However, the actual geological conditions on site, the general meteorological circumstances, the utilization of the area as intensive irrigated agricultural land and the chemical pattern of

the analysis suggest that the major source of contamination within the first groundwater aquifer is most likely related to the intensive use of ammonium sulfate fertilizer within this area. Ammonium sulfate was widely used as fertilizer during the former USSR years as cheaper substitute to Ammonium Nitrate to increase the fertility of alkaline soils like clay or loam. Ammonium Sulfate is also a spray adjuvant for liquid insecticides, herbicides and fungicides which are also used in this area.]

The second (lower) aquifer is characterized by a large abundance of groundwater of good quality. The groundwater is fresh, total mineralization is only up to 1 g/l and total hardness is only up to 5.0 mg-equ/l. No contamination of groundwater could be registered in this aquifer. [Source: Summary based on “Geological-Hydrogeological Study Akhangaran Landfill site; Dr. Steffen Ingenieurgesellschaft GmbH - Worldbank 2002]

Due to volume and quality, only the ‘lower’ aquifer’s water is utilized for domestic use and for irrigation.

Due to the topographical structure of the area and the close distance of sites B, D and E to each other, it can be assumed that, at least for these sites, the geological and hydrogeological conditions are similar.

In general the groundwater is well protected and the geological conditions on this site can, at this stage of the project, be described as ‘ideal’ for the implementation of a Sanitary Landfill in accordance to international accepted standards

Seismic conditions

Uzbekistan is located in the middle of Central Asia within a zone of high seismic activity. It is located in the basin of the great Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers, in the desert subtropical zone, taking the part of Turan Lowland in the West and mountainous highlands in the East. Natural environment of the Republic is characterized by high seismic conditions. Ther are many cities such as Tashkent (the capital city), Samarkand , Bukhara and others which have expected seismic activities with an intensity YIII ans IX MSK as the intensity measured on the MSK scale of the former Sowjet Union (Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik scale; similar to the modified Mercalli scale as used in Europe and the States). Erthquakes in Uzbekistan are frequent and most dangerouse. Therefore Uzbekistn has since 1999 a law on earthquake disaster preparedness and also a special building codes for planning and construction (KMK 2.01.03-96 “Norms and Regulations for Construction in Seismic Zones” and KMK 2.07.01-94 “Town-planning, lay-out and building of urban and village settlements” [source: Conference

paper, 13th World conference on Erthquake Engineering, Vancover, Canada 2004; seismic Code of Uzbekistan, Mavlyanova, Inagamov, Rakhmatullaev and Tolipova)

Sensitive Land user within the area

Picture showing the active disposal area of Akhangaran Landfill and the adjacent agricultural land

Visibly, the adjacent areas are irrigated agricultural areas predominantly characterized by undulating valleys. There are no residential areas or industrial facilities within a 4-kilometer radius. Farmers come primarily from villages located about 5 kilometers from the site. At the landfill area, there are established basic facilities such as a weighbridge, administrative building, a maintenance shed, security gate, and record-keeping shed. The area is connected to the main road, Highway P2 via an asphalt access road that leads directly to the landfill. The distance from the highway to the landfill area is about a kilometer. Aside from the typical agricultural vegetation being grown, the area is characterized by reeds often found along the boundaries of each plot. Common farm livestock are common in the area.

Southern tip of the site viewing directly on the existing dumpsite

Northern tip of the dumpsite viewing directly on the site

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

LOGISTICS

Waste Collection Municipal and commercial waste collection within the city is the responsibility of the City of Tashkent and its operating company Maxsustrans. This company owned by the city government is in charge of the handling, transport, sorting, treatment and final disposal of the waste. Maxustrans is also responsible for the implementation of any measurement, procurement or construction of new facilities.

Waste Collection Points Waste collection starts at the households and / or at the premise of commercial or governmental institutions. Crucial points in the Tashkent waste collection system are the about 700 waste collection points distributed over the 11 districts of the city. The waste collection points are serving mostly residential areas, especially in high-rise residential clusters. These collection points have to be improved because they are a crucial element of Tashkent’s recycling efforts. The waste collection points are able to reduce the volume of waste for collection by manual segregation of recyclables. This system in its simplicity proved to be highly efficient. The recyclables are than handled by the informal sector and treated and processed for further use.

There are in general two types of waste collection points within the city; these are guarded and unguarded collection points. As shown at the collection point survey, there are 650 guarded and 350 unguarded collection points. Aim of the project is the increase the total number of collection points within the city as also to convert unguarded points into guarded collection points.

Guarded waste collection point, Tashkent city

Unguarded waste collection point, Tashkent city

Waste collected within the household should be slightly pre-segregated by the city’s inhabitants and would be brought to the collection point. There the waste would be received by the guardian and segregated into usable materials and residuals. The residuals would be picked up by Maxsustrans collection vehicle for final disposal and the recyclables would be forwarded to processing companies, these under the responsibility of the guard.

Therefore the collection point should be equipped accordingly with functional waste bins as also storage bins / cages for the recyclable materials. Further the typical collection point is fenced and has a simple operation shad. Further Infrastructure as e.g. pavement, power, water and sewage connection are envisioned.

Waste Collection vehicle fleet Maxsustrans operates right now 329 vehicles for the collection and the transport of waste within the city and for the adjacent city of Chirchik. The vehicles are mostly procured between 1998 and 2006, whereas most of the vehicles are older than 10 years. The vehicles are dilapidated by more than 60% and kept operational only by enormous efforts for maintenance and repairs. Even the exceptional skills within the workshops can’t ensure anymore that the existing vehicle fleet will be able to collect the waste within the city sufficiently for long. The exercised efforts are in general highly insufficient in financial terms.

Therefore it is highly recommended to replace the complete waste collection fleet of the city. An initial assessment also reveals that most of the types of used vehicles are not really proper sized for its purpose. A substantial part of the fleet is undersized for its task and contributes to unnecessary high operational costs.

The waste collection and its logistical approach is a major cost factor within the complete waste management system of the city. Actual efforts with e.g. the collection point database of this project and the actual development of a truck monitoring program through the city are initial efforts for an improvement of the logistical system for the collection fleet are under way. However, we recommend a full logistical study on this issue including the implementation and utilization of transport logistics optimizing software because the current tour planning for the waste collection trips are partial highly insufficient. Only such approach will insure long term sustainable planning of the operation of a sufficient waste collection system.

Due to the urgency of the replacement of vehicles, based on the initial assessment it is recommended to replace the existing vehicles within the following range:

Model Type volume tons Existing new Hyundai 120 RHS loading 8 4 94 none Hyundai 120 / new RHS loading 10 4,6 99 76 new RHS loading 15 6,9 66 Daewoo Back loading 10 4,6 48 none new Back loading 15 6,9 32 Daewoo / new Back loading 20 9,2 49 49 Presspack Hyundai 260 / new 20 9,2 22 22 backloading Hyundai 260 / new Arm Roll container 20 9,2 17 17 Waste collection vehicles 329 262 Waste collection fleet and replacement suggestion

There is no technical reason to maintain the extreme small vehicles with less than 10m3 transport capacity within the city; there are no places within the city which not could be reached by bigger units. Therefore it is recommended to abandon this kind of vehicle because of the operational and economical insufficiency of this type; the recommended minimum size should be 10m3 waste loading capacity. It is also recommended to replace the existing 10m3 capacity ‘back loading’ type vehicle with at least 15m3 capacity units. For the existing 20m3 units straight replacement is recommended.

Waste Collection bins Maxsustrans has right now about 10,000 – 12,000 thousand waste bins in operation. Also the waste bins a mostly procured between 1998 and 2006, no replacement was exercised up to today. A immediately replacement of the bins is also required if the city’s waste collection system should be maintained. The city utilizes mainly open 0.75m3 steel bins as also standard 1.1m3 bins within the city. This kind of bins proofed reliability and sufficiency and served its purpose well. It is recommended to purchase 500 pieces of 0.75m3 bins and 8,000 pieces of 1.1m3 bins immediately. It is also recommended to integrate the bins utilized within the city into the above recommended integral logistic software solution, this in conjunction with the waste collection point survey of this project.

Waste Transfer Stations Maxsustrans operates today three waste transfer station within the vicinity of the city. Original the WB project from 2002 recommended the installation of 4 stations. Calculations show clearly that with an improved waste collection fleet the amount of transfer stations could be reduced to two for the entire city. The transfer stations are served by hook-lift trucks carrying closed 27m3 container which are filled by the compaction unit of the station.

Existing and future waste transfer system

The initial assessment of the existing waste collection situation and the above discussed changes in the type of vehicles sizes used leads to the conclusion that only two transfer stations would be sufficient to surf the whole city and would also be of economic advantage. As already practiced, the eastern part of the city would be served by the bigger collection trucks which can travel to the landfill at Akhangaran directly.

It is recommended to abandon the Khamza district transfer station.

The transfer stations at Yakkarsaray and Yunusabad district are logistical favorable locations which would also allow possible future improvements and changes in the logistic and transport system (e.g. in case of envisioned waste to rail transport, these stations have direct access to the existing railway track).

Existing Transfer Station Yakkasaray with access area to the railway track

Existing Transfer Station Yakkasaray

Yakkasaray Transfer stations constructed 1998 to 2003 (EBRD/World Bank funded); dual push press system, equipped with electro-mechanical system Max Aicher, Germany.

Existing Transfer Station Yunusabad with access area to the railway track

Existing Transfer Station Yunusabad

Yunusabad Transfer stations constructed 1998 to 2003 (EBRD/World Bank funded); dual push press system, equipped with electro-mechanical system Max Aicher, Germany.

However, both existing stations need extensive overhauling for its buildings and infrastructure as also for its electro-mechanical components. Based on the initial discussed possible future concepts for the Tashkent waste management system, the existing transfer station system could be maintained. The system could serve the exiting road transport approach as also possible later waste to rail solutions without needed technology changes.

Proposed future transfer system for railway track

The utilized transfer system with hook-lift trucks as also the containers need urgent replacement. It is recommended to purchase a new generation of hook-lift trucks and equip them with trailers. The transport capacity would be doubled on the spot and would lead to substantial savings on capital expenditures as also on operational expenditures.

Maxsustrans hook-lift transport system; max capacity 27m3

Modern container transport; hook-lift truck with trailer 2x35m3

Transfer Station Estimated Amount of Container Loads per day Waste per Day in the (27m3 container) Year 2020 (tons/d) Hamza 0 0 Yakkasaray 1,500 95 Yunusabad 1,500 95 3,000 180

(35m3 container) Yakkasaray 1,500 63 Yunusabad 1,500 63 3,000 126 Waste capacity for transfer stations

For the containers itself, modern container systems can carry nowadays much more load; 23”food square shaped closed container for waste compaction can carry up to 35m3 volume or up to 24 ton of load. However, it might be advisable to maintain the existing brand due to the already established infrastructure. In view of possible future project developments, it might be advisable to consider purchasing containers which are permitted for railway transport.

Modern 35 m3 waste container for road and railway transport

The today utilized transfer system with hook-lift trucks as also the containers need urgent replacement. It is recommended to equip the new to procure hook-lift trucks with trailers. The transport capacity would be doubled on the spot and would lead to substantial savings on capital expenditures as also on operational expenditures.

AKHANGARAN INTERIM SANITARY LANDFILL FACILITY

Landfill site and design concept As discussed in the site selection, the location at the Akhangaran interim Landfill facility was chosen due to its ideal physical conditions taking into consideration the technical, environmental and social conditions at the site.

The project site would occupy about 25 hectare of agricultural area whereas about 19 hectares (14 hectares net) would be utilized as landfill. The remaining area would be used as environmental buffer zone and for the needed infrastructure for the landfill.

Sanitary Landfill Akhangaran / Landfill basis layout (green: existing Tashkent dumpsite)

The here conceptualized sanitary landfill with a maximum height of about 25m waste would have a volume of about 2,600,000 m3 or about 3,640,000 tons capacity and would last for about 5 to 7 years for Tashkent city only.

The here shown landfill concept follows mostly the natural topography of the area and therefore fits into the common visualization of the area. Minor earthmoving would be needed to construct the facility. Recognizing that the facility is only planned for a lifetime of 5 to 7 years it is recommended to construct the facility in one phase only. The typical approach to construct such project in several phases would not fit the tight schedule of the lifetime of the

project and disturb the operations of the facility. The technical standards for the project are explained in detail in the following chapters of this report.

Sanitary Landfill Akhangaran / Landfill cross cuts As visualized in the above shown cross cut and longitunal cut, the facility concept follows the natural topography of the area. Also the drainage for the landfill follows the natural topography to minimize construction costs.

Advanced design concept The planning and design for the described interim landfill is realized in a way that, dependent on possible future decisions, an extension of the landfill to a full blown waste management center would be possible. The planned facility would then be a part of the final solution, no additional costs would occur.

Sanitary Landfill Akhangaran / integration of the interim facility into the possible Mega landfill as part of the long- term waste management center of Tashkent (green: existing Tashkent dumpsite)

If the conversion of additional 150 hectares agricultural, irrigated land would be possible, it might be that it would be decided that the Akhangaran site, initially classified as most suitable site under these circumstances, would be the location for Tashkent’s long-term waste management facility. The area is capable to host a sanitary landfill with about 50 million tons capacity and has a standby area of about 10 hectares for future waste handling or treatment facilities. This facility could serve Tashkent and parts of Tashkent province for about 35 to 50 years.

As described earlier, the conceptualized 19 hectare interim facility could be fully integrated into such planning and would not need further additional treatment.

Technical Requirements Liner system In a semi-arid-country like Uzbekistan, it is envisaged that due to a relatively low annual rainfall, leachate generation is expected to be low (i.e. considering amount of rainfall vis-à- vis the absorptive capacity of waste and evaporation during summer months). Nonetheless, sound engineering practice dictates that preventive measures should be established to eliminate any leachate contamination potential. The basic technology behind every modern sanitary Landfill is typically the “Multi Barrier” approach to ensure a long term, environmental sound disposal solution. The principle of a liner system is presented in the figure below.

Waste

Gravel, 30

Geotextile, 10 mm, HDPE Liner, 2,5 mm

Clay, 50 cm

Underground, Soil and

Rocks

The Typical Liner System

This “Multi-Barrier-System” which will be applied at the landfill area shall consist of the following typical components:

 First Barrier: Geological barrier. This is the subsoil of the site itself (i.e. clay, loam, silty clay substrate readily available at the site)

 Second Barrier: Base sealing. The landfill base shall be covered by a redundant liner system from specially manufactured HDPE- plastic sheets and a mineral layer (clay, loam) with a very low permeability. The HDPE liner sheets will be welded with a double seam On top of the HDPE liner a protection layer of 10 mm thick (2000 grams per m²) geo-textile or permitted substitute is placed to avoid any puncture of the liner by sharp items. An approximately 30 cm thick gravel layer drains the leachate toward the leachate collection pipes

 Third Barrier: Waste landfill. It is a series of layers of highly compacted waste. The technically designed highly compacted layer of waste will be made possible with the use of specially designed compacting vehicle/equipment. This method of waste landfilling provides optimal protection against blown litter / garbage as well as prevention against rodents and at least a preventive measure for fire hazards (e.g. spontaneous combustion). This barrier will form the main body of the landfill.

 Fourth Barrier: Surface sealing. It is normally established after the backfilling to the maximum design volume of the landfill disposal cell. This surface sealing or enclosure has to be made of water and gas tight HDPE plastic sheets and is covered with a layer of topsoil. This seal prevents the intrusion of surface water into the main body of the landfill. Likewise, the surface sealing allows the collection of gases from the deposited waste if necessary / applicable. During normal operation a ‘temporary

surface sealing’ with ordinary soil will be implemented for the daily coverage of the waste.

waste surface sealing

mineral sealing layer substrate: base sealing system geological barrier

Typical Schematic diagram of multi-barrier system

Leachate Collection system To properly collect and treat any leachate generated in the landfill area, a collection system shall be installed.

Typical Leachate Profile and Collection Pipe

The landfill bottom will have 2 – 3% gradient profile from one side to the other in order to allow the leachate flow into the leachate collection pipes In addition, the leachate collection pipes have 2 - 3 % gradient to let the collected leachate inside the pipes to flow to the leachate collection shafts. The leachate collection pipes are perforated. These pipes will have a diameter of 30 cm and are re-enforced. The re-enforcement is necessary so that they can carry the load of the piled-up waste without collapsing.

Leachate Leachate Collection Collection Pipe Pipe

2 – 3 % 2 – 3 % gradient 2 – 3 % gradient gradient

15 to 100 m distance

Landfill Bottom Profile with Leachate Collection Pipes

Reinforced Drainage Pipes

Leachate Collection Shaft

Leachate Treatment / Handling system

Due to the limited amount of rainfall (hence limited leachate generation) a leachate “recirculation” system is being considered. Generated leachate can be sprayed over the waste disposal area for evaporation. The system is a flexible system of pipes, hoses and sprayer connected to the hydrants at a pump station.

Auxiliary Facilities

The following auxiliary facilities and other infrastructures shall be established in support to the functional requirements of the facility;

 Perimeter Fence  Entrance Gates / Guard House / Wash Bays  Weigh Bridge  Power Station  Administration Building

 Motor Shop / Work shop  Parking Areas  Leachate treatment reservoir  Social and Changing Room for Workers  Monitoring wells  Drainage System

The following are brief discussion of the technical details of some of the auxiliary facilities of the facility.

Weigh Bridge For proper recording and calculation of landfill space as also for accounting purposes, a truck scale (weigh bridge) will be installed on side. This weigh bridge should idealistically be an under floor drive through facility to assure minimal time losses on the entrance of the facility.

Typical Weigh Bridge (Flat Bunker)

Office and staff buildings The designed offices and staff buildings shall comply with the requirements of local building standards.

Road network / pavement All roads and vehicle places are designed for the utilization by Heavy Equipment as common on such facilities. Roads will be constructed as asphalt roads whereas extreme utilized areas would be implemented in concrete.

Monitoring wells The risk that leachate infiltrating into the groundwater is expected to be extremely low. For purposes of monitoring, additional wells should be established to monitor the possible impact of the project to the groundwater resources, when deemed necessary. At least five (5) monitoring wells shall be established. At least one monitoring well shall be established on the groundwater upstream and a line of wells should be established downstream of the landfill. These wells are installed for early detection of any leaks which may result to groundwater contamination.

Based on available data and existing geology of the project site with a consistent clay / loam layer as main protector to the first groundwater aquifer, a relatively deep groundwater level (>30 meters), a relatively low precipitation and the technical quality of waste to be disposed coupled with the planned liner system and quality management the actual risk of groundwater contamination is most unlikely.

This technical issue regarding the number of monitoring wells to be established has to be thoroughly discussed with the concerned agencies.

Drainage System It is acknowledge that in spite of the low rainfall, the presence of irrigation canals may pose as a threat to the landfill area (i.e. damage to irrigation canals causing water infiltrating the landfill). A drainage system is installed to divert and minimize the risk of irrigation water and/or rainwater infiltrating the waste column.

Perimeter Fence A perimeter fence with an entrance gate of reasonable height, 2 meters from the ground, shall be installed in order to prevent the entry of unauthorized persons and scavengers.

Site Preparation

A 25 hectare plot was beside the existing Akhangaran landfill is considered to be the site of the Sanitary Landfill and its associated facilities. Approximately 140,000 m2 of land (i.e. 56% of the total allocated area) will be opened for development and prepared for the establishment of the landfill, 28% for its associated facilities / expansion areas and 16% for buffer zones phase. The remaining areas shall be used for future expansions.

Photo of the Proposed SLF Site

There is also a need to carry out cutting and filling of the land in order to attain the designed ground elevation. During the process, areas above the design elevation shall be cut and spoils shall be used to fill areas below the designed elevation. The area is to be clean of any obstructions in areas where the general design elevation is already attained. Cut and fill activities will be carried out using mostly heavy mechanical equipment. Manual labor is expected to be negligible.

Earthmoving activities during site preparation for the Establishment of a landfill

The ground will be compacted until the desired ground bearing capacity is attained. This is to ensure that all structures, particularly the foundations to be erected are stable and will not be subject to subsidence, settlements and other earth pressures.

Construction of the SLF and its Components

The facility will have the following vital components. These are the following parts:

 Weighing System (WS);  Multi-Barrier System for the SLF; and  Associated Structures (AST) (e.g. leachate collection)

Operational Phase

Waste collection trucks and container vehicles will deliver wastes from the transfer station/s. After carrying out formal entrance inspection, these trucks will be ushered to the appropriate disposal area. The precise registration of waste delivered will be carried out through the proper documentation of the type and weight or volume of waste, and the specific location in the landfill where the waste will be deposited.

The acceptance and deposing of waste will be done daily, during the daytime. The prepared disposal areas, which will be filled during the transitional period, will first be covered with a

layer of waste to a thickness of about 2.0 m. This will be carried out from the ring roads using a front deposing method with a wheel loader. This to protect the lining system; above 2m the waste will be pushed and compacted by a special waste compactor.

The waste compactors will distribute the garbage delivered in an area-filling or horizontal method in layers of <0.5 m thickness. By doing so and by driving over the layers several times, good homogenization and intensive compaction of the material will be achieved. The deposing procedures will ensure a high degree of compaction of about 0.8 to 1.0 tons/m3 which will minimize the landfill volume required. Static security problems can be excluded on the whole as a result of these methods.

The operator will implement and provide all necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure the safety of personnel on any possible health risks and probable accidents. Regular monitoring and system checks will be conducted to ensure efficiency and to minimize the incidence of accidents.

A “Regulation of Use” manual for the proper and efficient operation of the sanitary landfill facility is mandatory. Herein included are the types and extent of waste to be disposed, the authorities as to who can dump waste, and delineation of disposal procedures. If the waste is not acceptable, it will be prevented from entering the facility.

The following are brief descriptions of how each of the components of the SLF will be operated and/or managed:

Administrative management and registration of Waste Stream

Once the facility is operational, it will require a minimum of about 10 employees in its operation (Note: this does not include employees engaged in the collection and transport of wastes).

Waste Reception (Weigh Bridge)

For operational, administrative and environmental reasons, it is crucial to know the exact volumes of wastes being received and processed. Therefore all trucks or vehicles which deliver waste to the site have to pass a weighbridge at the entrance of the SLF for proper recording. Once the truck enters the main gate of the facility, it shall follow the following procedures until it leaves the facility:

1. The loaded waste collection / transfer truck stops on the weigh bridge 2. The waste collection truck is weighed together with the waste 3. The weight of the truck together with the waste is recorded by a computer which is connected to the weigh bridge (gross weight) 4. The truck unloads the waste at the treatment facility 5. The empty truck is properly cleaned and would be weighted when leaving the facility 6. The weight of the empty truck is recorded by the computer (tare weight)

Each registered truck registered with the computer has all information from the truck (number plate, truck number, owner or operator, address etc.). All movements of the vehicles are registered in the system. The system, however, would still be monitored by a weighbridge operator who can add information of each load to the system, whenever necessary.

Typical weigh bridge system

Sanitary Landfill (SLF) All recorded wastes are then transported to the engineered sanitary landfill. The landfill is operated in a way that only a small area is open for disposal to avoid a large portion of the disposed waste to be exposed to the environment. This is the easiest way to minimize liter and vermin occupation at the landfill. Even in an event of a heavy downpour, only a small area could be contaminated. Therefore, disposed material would be temporarily covered with soil material readily available at the site.

After disposal, a waste compactor then spreads and compact the waste in relative thin layers to maximal compaction. Compaction is necessary because beside the simple volume reduction without this process, the fluffy mixture light materials (i.e. residual paper, cardboard, and plastic) would be easily blown away by the wind as liter and spread throughout the SLF.

Waste Compactor

Typical Wheel of a Waste Compactor

For the estimated amount of waste for disposal, two waste compactor would be sufficient. For proper operation, one or two ‘spotter’ should assist the compactor operator, directing the delivery vehicles to the right positions.

The landfill is equipped with a drainage system for the collection of leachate (wastewater) from the site. Despite the low precipitation, it is assumed that the occasional expected rain penetrating the waste disposal would generate contaminated leachate. The leachate can be can be “re-circulated” back to the landfill (disposal) area and spread over the waste for evaporation.

The ‘spotter’ is directly exposed to the waste and protective clothing is mandatory. However, due to the expected dry conditions and the insignificant amount of organic materials, health risks for the workers are minor.

Utilities Requirements

The existing infrastructure at the Akhangaran dumpsite has power as also water connection; these utilities would be able to serve also the new facility.

Installation of a Landfill Gas Collection System

The whole gaseous metabolic products which arise in landfill mass as a result of microbial decomposition processes are collectively termed as “landfill gas“ or LFG, which are basically they so called ‘greenhouse’ gases Methane and Carbon-Dioxide.

In order to reduce the damaging effect of methane on the atmosphere, a landfill gas (LFG) collection and utilization plant will be installed for the waste-filled areas. The LFG collection system will prevent the proliferation of nauseating odor in the landfill site, as well as in the adjacent areas. During the closure phase, the landfill facility will be equipped with systems for the collection and processing of landfill gas which is composed of gas wells, suction pipes, collection stations, transport pipes, a vacuum station and a distribution system to feed the LFG power plant or the flare systems that burn the gas.

gas well

covering system gas collecting station

electricity for public power supply

waste

leachate high temperature collector flare

combined technical geological barrier barrier heat ( hot water)

combined heat and power station (CHP)

Typical Landfill Gas Collection and Utilization System

In order to ensure optimum extraction of landfill gas, the following basic principles are considered during the planning process:

 An effective negative pressure must be introduced into the landfill mass,  The drawing off of air should be minimized,  The systems must be durable over a long period of time,  LFG removal by suction should be possible during operation, and  The extraction capacity must be adjusted to correspond to the level of gas production.

The avoidance of pollution by the landfill gases requires the use of correctly sized gas extraction systems. Biological decomposition processes cause the production of gas that leads to gas overpressure inside the landfill site. This eventually results to gas leaks from the landfill mass due to the convective transport effect.

The extraction concept to be utilized depends on a combination of vertical and horizontal systems. During the operation of the landfill, extraction is carried out by means of horizontal gas drainage with a leachate water draining system. This system is replaced or extended by a vertical gas well after the completion of filling over the site. The sizing collection elements guarantee an optimum degree of collection over the whole period of extraction with a significant degree of reliability.

The volume of gas that can be expected from one ton of waste under certain conditions is dependent upon the medium, the substrate carbon, the prevailing microbiology, the physical conditions and other environmental factors. It was calculated that between 120 m3 and 300 m3 of biological gas can be extracted from one ton of household waste.

The landfill gas which arise through microbial decomposition processes are 99% methane and carbon dioxide. Trace substances that are contained within are often far more problematic than the actual landfill gas because of their toxicity and carcinogenic properties. However, this becomes insignificant since they are rendered innocuous by combustion in either the flare or the engines of the power station.

In planning the gas collection system, two application situations are considered:

. Gas collection and extraction from the operation areas where waste is still being deposited, and . Gas collection and extraction from the closed profile areas which have already been partially or completely covered.

Extraction will be carried out by means of horizontal gas drainage with a leachate water draining system. This system is replaced or extended by a vertical gas well after the completion of the filling of the site.

LFG well head and LFG collection station

The collected landfill gas will run to the compressor system via the ring collector. The landfill gas that is collected from the waste material is almost fully water saturated. The cooling of the gas in the transport lines causes the condensate to separate which must then be removed from the piping system. Condensate precipitation of up to 100 g/m3 of gas can be expected. Thus, the suction lines between the collection units and the embankment shafts will be laid with a constant downward gradient so that the condensate drains away and no water traps can form.