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.

UZB‐ TA 8004 Appendix 3 Waste Characterization Study (WACS)

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012

Table of Contents SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS ------1 1.0 BACKGROUND ------2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ------2 2.1 PLANNING ------2 2.2 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ------3 2.3 WASTE COLLECTION ------3 2.4 WEIGHING OF WASTE ------3 2.5 WASTE SORTING ------3 2.6 DATA PROCESSING ------4 3.0 LIMITATIONS ------5 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ------6 4.1 WASTE COMPOSITION ------6 4.2 WASTE GENERATION ------9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------10

List of Tables Table 1: Typical Components of Municipal Solid Waste of Tashkent ...... 4 Table 2: Survey Features of WACS ...... 5 Table 3: Summarized WACS Results of Selected High Rise and Low Rise Residential Areas ...... 6 Table 4: Processed WACS Data of Commercial Waste ...... 8 Table 5: Summarized Population and Waste Generation Projections for Tashkent City ...... 9

List of Figures Figure 1: Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of High Rise units ...... 7 Figure 2: : Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of Low Rise units ...... 8 Figure 3: 25-Year Waste Generation Projection of Tashkent City ...... 10

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1 Summary of July 2012 WACS 11 Annex 2 Questionnaire for Households 12 Tashkent Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey (WACS) Annex 3 WACS Collection Form – High Rise Residences 13 Annex 4 WACS Collection Form – Low-Rise Residences 14 Annex 5 WACS Sorting Form 15

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 i SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS A Waste Characterization Survey (WACS) was undertaken at selected High and Low Rise residential areas in Mirzo Ulugbek district, Tashkent City from October to November 2012 as part of the Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project under ADB TA 8004- UZB. The WACS’s aim is to gather specific information on the waste composition and generation of the residential sector of Tashkent City, which could be used as inputs in developing plans for waste collection, recycling and disposal. The waste composition results show that vegetable and organic matter make up the bulk of the waste generated at the residential areas. This component accounts for 67% and 62% of the High and Low Rise household waste respectively, and can possibly be used to generate compost or soil conditioners. Programs for the establishment of composting plants should take into consideration that such facilities would require source-segregated biodegradable materials for sustainable operations. Use of mixed waste inputs into composting plants would greatly affect processing operations and significantly lower the quality of output. Potential recyclable materials from residential waste include PET and plastic bottles (2.5 to 3.9%), other plastic materials (2.5 to 3.4%), plastic bags and sheets (4.7 to 5.4%), metals (1.7 to 1.8%), carton/paper (5.3 to 7.9%) and glass (5.3 to 7.5%. Collectively, these materials make up 25 to 28 % of the household waste. Based on observed sorting practices, only about half of these materials (12 to 13%) can actually be recovered for recycling. Commercial waste contains slightly higher percentages of glass, metal and PET/plastic bottles. As observed and based on the survey of participating households, recovery of recyclable materials at source by households is not generally practiced. Recovery of recyclable materials is done by the informal sector at the collection points, collection trucks and at the Akhangaran disposal site. Sorting at the collection points focuses on the retrieval of clean PET and cartons/paper. Additional sorting of waste is undertaken at the Akhangaran disposal site where an undetermined quantity of PET, plastic sheets, other plastics, paper and carton and glass bottles is recovered and eventually sold to dealers of recyclable materials. The survey shows that per capita waste generation of High Rise residential units is 0.55 kg while that of the Low Rise units is 0.56 kg. The slight difference in per capita generation is attributed to the observed higher affluence in the private residences in the low rise housing sector within the latter compared to those residing in high rise apartments. The weighted per capita waste generation for the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District and indicatively for Tashkent residences is 0.56 kg. Using the official projected Tashkent City population of 2.32 million, (which may be underestimated), the estimated residential waste generation in 2012 is 1,288 tons per day. Commercial waste is estimated at 386 tons per day which was arrived at by applying the 30% Maxsustrans estimate for this sector. These translate to an indicative waste generation of 1,674 tons per day for Tashkent City. By 2020, it is projected that waste generation would reach 1,929 tpd and attain 2,615 tpd by 2037. The derived waste generation projections need to be validated through the conduct of waste characterization of both the residential and commercial sectors for all the four seasons. The results should also be correlated with the monthly waste collection records of Maxsustrans for the past five years.

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 1 1.0 BACKGROUND This report presents and evaluates the results of the Waste Characterization Survey (WACS) undertaken at selected High Rise and Low Rise residential units at the Mirzo Ulugbek District of Tashkent City, Uzbekistan. The survey was conducted during the period from October 25 to November 1, 2012 as part of the Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project under ADB TA 8004-UZB. Solid waste management in the City of Tashkent corresponds to a collection and disposal system managed by a company known as Maxsustrans. Based on data provided by this organization, about 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste are collected and disposed per day. Around 70% or 1,400 tons corresponds to waste generated by the residential sector with the balance accounted for by the commercial and budget sectors. The residential sector is made up of those residents occupying the High Rise, multi-unit buildings (apartments) and those which live in single detached, privately owned households referred to as Low Rise units. Based on the 2011 collection records of Maxsustrans, High Rise and Low Rise waste respectively correspond to 42% and 58% of the residential waste. Maxsustrans refers to the combination of waste from market stalls, supermarkets, restaurants, eateries and hotels, other self-financing companies, schools, hospitals, colleges, polyclinics, universities and other learning institutions as commercial waste. Prior to this survey, the only recorded indication of the amount and composition of waste in Tashkent City are those found in the waste collection and disposal records of Maxsustrans and the results of the WACs undertaken in July 2012 which focused in determining the composition of the commercial and household waste of the Mirabad District and the high rise residential communities of the Mirzo Ulugbek and Uchtepa Districts (Annex 1). It was also reported that the assumed per capita waste generation is 0.870 kg. The current WACS aimed to gather more specific information on the waste composition and generation of the residential sector of Tashkent City which could be used as inputs in developing plans for waste collection, recycling and disposal. With due consideration of the available time and resources, the survey focused on the Mirzo Ulugbek District which is deemed to be representative of the residential sector of Tashkent City.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The survey was undertaken in accordance with the following sequence: 2.1 Planning The district of Mirzo Ulugbek was selected to represent the residential sector of Tashkent City. Within the district, the cluster of nine High Rise residences along Fayzulla Khodjayeva Street was chosen. Residents of this chosen cluster bring their household waste to Collection Point No. 19. The strip of Low Rise residential units along Kibray and Khirmontepa streets was selected as representative of this sector. Waste from this residential area is collected every Thursday and Monday by the trucks of Maxsustrans. A total of 100 units (households) was targeted for each of the selected High Rise and Low Rise residences, making a total of 200.

The WACS for the selected residences were scheduled and undertaken in accordance with the following:

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 2 High Rise residences: October 26 to November 2 Low Rise residences1: October 25 to November 1

2.2 Household Survey A survey of each of the selected residential units was made prior to the collection of waste. The main purpose of the survey was to determine the number of persons residing in each unit and to ascertain if recovery and storage of recyclables are done at the household level. The designated waste collector issued the survey form (Annex 2) and directly solicited the required information from the household. 2.3 Waste Collection For each of the selected High Rise residences, a labeled plastic waste bag was issued every morning for eight consecutive days with instructions that the household’s daily waste generated would be collected the following day. The designated collector collected the waste-filled bag from the selected units and issued a new bag for the waste for the following day. For tracking and systematic recording, a form for recording collected waste bags and corresponding weights is used (Annex 3) For the Low Rise residences, two batches of generated waste from each selected household were collected. Batch 1 represents the waste generated from October 25 to October 28. Three large bags were issued to accommodate the waste for the 4-day period. Batch 2 corresponds to the waste generated from October 29 to October 31. Batch 1 and Batch 2 were collected and subjected to sorting on October 29 and November 1, respectively. During the collection of waste from the Low Rise residences, it was noted that at least one of the issued plastic bags was used by the residents for the placement of tree leaves and other trimmings, household waste and mixture of household waste and leaves. All such bags were also collected and weighed and the results recorded in a separate form for Low Rise residences (Annex 4). 2.4 Weighing of Waste The collected waste bag from each High Rise residential unit was weighed and the result duly recorded. In the case of the Low Rise residences, the waste bags from each household were weighed and summed and likewise recorded. The bags filled with tree leaves and trimmings and those where trimmings and household waste were mixed were also weighed and recorded. The household waste from each bag was placed in a 100 liter plastic drum of known weight. The completely filled drum was then weighed to get the weight of the waste. This process was made for all the collected waste bags from both High and Low Rise residences. All measurements were recorded into the waste sorting form (Annex 5). The above-mentioned steps were repeated for seven days for waste collected from High Rise residences and once on November 1 for waste collected from Low Rise residences. 2.5 Waste Sorting After weighing and volume measurements, the collected waste was placed on a plastic mat for segregation into the various components indicated in Table 1.

1 Waste from the selected Low Rise residential units is collected twice a week every Monday and Thursday

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 3

Table 1: Typical Components of Municipal Solid Waste of Tashkent

Component Description Glass Bottles of wine, soft drinks, vodka, beer, other drinks Metal Tinned food containers, drink cans, other metals Cartons of milk and drinks, paper sheets, cigarette Carton and paper packs, shoe boxes, occasional large boxes, wrappers Bottles of mineral water, soft drinks and drinks, bottle PET caps Plastic bags and sheets Plastic bags, sheets Plastic cups, containers, occasional clothes hangers, Other plastics detergent containers, toys, occasional styrofoam Vegetables, fruits, vegetable and fruit peelings, food Vegetables and other organic matter waste, occasional bones, egg shells Wood Pieces of wood from house appliance, frames Textile Old clothes, socks, rags Leather/rubber Shoes, bags, belts Hazardous waste Light bulbs, lighter, syringes, aerosol cans, batteries Residual materials Sanitary napkins, ceramics, small sachets

Where present, construction waste which includes concrete debris, window glass, paint containers, formworks, electrical wires, plugs and sockets was segregated and weighed. The segregated components were then placed in plastic bags and weighed separately. The process was repeated for seven days for waste obtained from High Rise residences and undertaken on October 29 and November 1 for waste from Low Rise Residences. The weights of the corresponding waste components were then recorded using the waste sorting form (Annex 5).

2.6 Data Processing The obtained weight recorded for each day in the case of the High Rise residences was divided by the number of household occupants to determine the per capita generation. In the case of the Low Rise residences, the weights of the waste bags under Batch 1 were measured, summed and divided by 4 to arrive at the daily waste generation per household. The weight of Batch 2 waste per household was divided by three to get the daily waste generation. The daily waste generation per household was then divided by the number of occupants to get the per capita waste generation. The values of the per capita waste generation obtained per household for both High Rise and Low Rise residences were then averaged to get the per capita generation of the residential areas of Mirzo Ulugbek district, and generally for the City of Tashkent. Waste density is obtained by dividing the sum of the weights of the sorted waste by the total volume. The results obtained for each of the 8-day period are averaged to get the density of

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 4 waste from the High Rise residences. The densities of Batch 1 and Batch 2 wastes are averaged to get the average density of waste from the Low Rise residences, The weights of the various components from residential units were tabulated, averaged and represented in the form of pie charts. Table 2 shows the number of households which were surveyed and sampled during the WACS.

Table 2: Survey Features of WACS

Survey Features High Rise Low Rise Residences Residences Surveyed 100 100 Households Sampled Households 51 89 per day Average Waste 95 186 collected per day Average number of 3 3.5 household occupants

The survey coincided with the National Holiday on October 26 which preceded the weekend of October 27 and 28. The waste collected on October 29 at the High Rise units registered higher values which reflect the effect of the increased waste generation and accumulation during the three-day period. These values were not considered in the analysis of per capita waste generation as these reflected rates greater than 1 kg per person per day which are not realistic for a city with the current economic development like Tashkent. The same assessment was applied for the waste generation rates computed in the households belonging to the Low Rise residences.

3.0 LIMITATIONS The survey was undertaken in autumn in only one of the eleven districts which make up the Tashkent City and covered only the residential sector. Operationally, WACs should be conducted in at least three districts four times within the year to account for seasonal and spatial variation in waste generation and composition. This four-season survey should also cover the establishments which generate commercial waste as defined by Maxsustrans. Notwithstanding these conditions, the results obtained provide an indication of the properties of the waste generated and generation rate by the residential sector of Tashkent City. The results of this survey were correlated with the WACS that was conducted in July 2012, the visual observations of solid waste management practices in the city and the collection and disposal data provided by Maxsustrans.

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 5 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Waste Composition The summary of the results of the WACS of the selected High Rise and Low Rise residential units of Mirzo Ulugbek is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Summarized WACS Results of Selected High Rise and Low Rise Residential Areas

High Rise Low Rise Weighted Properties 8-day 7- day Average № Average Average Avg. Density (kg/m3) 130 142.5 137.25 Components Percentage % %

1 Glass 5.29% 7.48% 6.56% 2 Metals 1.73% 1.76% 1.75% 3 Paper, cardboard, carton 5.30% 7.95% 6.84% 4 Plastic bottles/PET 3.90% 2.47% 3.07% 5 Plastic bags, sheets 5.83% 4.68% 5.16% 6 Other plastics 2.55% 3.44% 3.07% 7 Vegetable/Organic 66.72% 62.14% 64.06% 8 Textiles 2.53% 1.28% 1.81% 9 Leather/Rubber 1.46% 1.16% 1.29%

10 Hazardous 1.27% 0.31% 0.71%

11 Residuals/Other Waste 3.41% 6.09% 4.96% 12 Construction Waste 1.23% 0.71% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Potentially Recyclable Materials 24.61% 27.78% 26.45% Compostable Materials 66.72% 62.14% 64.06%

The typical 11 components of municipal solid waste are generated at both the High and Low residential areas. Construction waste is present in the Low Rise residences but was not encountered in the High Rise residences, at least during this survey. It is inferred that the limited space in High Rise units precluded construction activities in them thus reducing the likelihood of generating this type of waste in these households. Vegetables and organic matter make up the bulk of the waste generated at the residential areas. This component accounts for 66.7% and 62.1% of the High and Low Rise household waste respectively. If segregated at source, this type of waste could be used to generate compost.

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 6 Potentially recyclable materials include PET and plastic bottles (3.9 to 2.5%), other plastic materials (2.5% to 3.4%), plastic bags and sheets (5.8 to 4.7%), metals (1.7 to 1.8%), carton/paper (5.3 to 7.9%) and glass (5.3 to 7.5%). Collectively, these materials make up 25 to 28 % of the household waste. Based on the observed sorting practices, only about half of these materials (12 to 13%) can actually be recovered for recycling. As observed and based on the household survey, PET and plastic bottles are targeted by waste pickers at both the guarded and unguarded collection points. It is estimated that about 50% of the PET and plastic bottles is recovered at the collection points. The remaining 50% reaches the Akhangaran disposal site where recovery of about 20 to 30% is attained by the waste pickers. The quality of carton and paper material recovered at the collection points and at the Akhangaran dumpsite is poor. Based on visual observations, it is estimated that only 10 to 20 % of this component is actually recyclable. Metal content in the waste is low. This is attributed to the preference of the residents for fresh meat and fruits over canned goods. The preferred use of glass bottles for beer and PET for soft drinks and juices likewise contributed to the low metal output from the household waste. It is estimated that 70 to 80% of metals are recovered from the waste stream. Plastic bags and sheets make are also of low quality and have poor potential for reuse or recycling. A conservative estimate of 10% of these materials can likely be recycled. About 30 to 50% of the other plastics can be recycled. About 80% of the glass can potentially be recovered for recycling. Figures 1 and 2 visually represent the composition of the waste generated at the selected High Rise and Low Rise residences.

Figure 1: Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of High Rise units

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 7

Figure 2: : Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of Low Rise units

The WACS conducted in July 2012 by the SWM study provide indications of the amount and percentages of the different components of commercial waste. Table 4 shows the processed data of the commercial waste from Mirabad District. The sampling and sorting included a large percentage of construction waste which accounted for 29%. Compared to residential waste, commercial waste contains higher percentages of glass, metal and PET/plastic bottles. Commercial establishments are observed to use more products which utilize such materials as containers and packaging.

Table 4: Processed WACS Data of Commercial Waste

№ Components % 1 Glass 10.57 2 Metals 2.83 3 Paper, cardboard 4.10 4 Plastic bottles/PET 3.19 5 Other plastics 4.44 6 Vegetable/Organic 27.88 7 Wood 9.25 8 Textiles 5.21 9 Leather/Rubber 2.46

10 Hazardous Waste 1.07

11 Residuals/Other 29.01

Total 100.00

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 8

4.2 Waste Generation Per capita waste generation of High Rise residential units is estimated to be 0.55 kg (Annex 6) while that of the Low Rise units is 0.56 kg (Annex 7). The slight difference in per capita generation is attributed to the observed higher affluence in the private residences within the Low Rise Areas as compared to those residing in the High Rise units. The weighted per capita waste generation for the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District and indicatively for Tashkent residences is 0.556 kg, or about 0.56 kg per capita per day. Using the projected Tashkent City population of 2.32 million, the estimated residential waste generation in 2012 is 1,288 tons per day. Commercial waste is estimated at 386 tons per day which was arrived at by applying the 30% Maxsustrans estimate for this sector. These translate to an indicative current waste generation 1,674 tons per day of Tashkent City (Table 5). By 2020, it is estimated that waste generation would reach 1,929 tpd and attain 2,615 tpd by 2037. The graphical 25-year waste generation projection of Tashkent City is presented in Figure 4.

Table 5: Summarized Population and Waste Generation Projections for Tashkent City

Year 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2037

Projected Tashkent City 2.32 2.39 2.51 2.64 2.77 2.92 2.97 Population2 Per capita waste generation (kg) 0.56 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.71 Total Residential Waste 1,288 1,368 1,511 1,669 1,843 2,036 2,119 Generated per day (tons)3 Commercial Waste Generation per 386 398 418 439 462 485 495 day (tons) Total Waste Generation per day 1,674 1,765 1,929 2,108 2,305 2,522 2,614 (tons)

2 Assumed 1% annual growth rate 3 Assumed 1% increase in the per capita waste generation

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 9 Figure 3: 25-Year Waste Generation Projection of Tashkent City

6,000

5,000

4,000 Total Waste Generation per 3,000 day Tons Commercial Waste Per day 2,000 Total Residential Waste 1,000 Generated per day

‐

Year

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the WACS provide the per capita generation of the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District for the autumn season. Together with the established 30% commercial waste collection of Maxsustrans, it can be used to prepare indicative waste generation projections for the City of Tashkent. The derived waste generation projections need to be validated through the conduct of waste characterization of both the residential and commercial sectors for all four seasons during the year. The results should be correlated with the monthly waste collection records of Maxsustrans for the past five years. The amount of potentially recyclable materials comprises about 26% of the generated waste. However, realistically, only about 10% to 12% can actually be recovered for recycling or reuse. Data on the actual amount of recyclable materials recovered from both residential and commercial waste is not available. As observed, and based on the survey of participating households, recovery of recyclable materials at source by households is not generally practiced. Recovery of recyclable materials is done by the informal sector at the collection points, collection trucks and at the Akhangaran disposal site. Sorting at the collection points mostly focuses on the retrieval of clean PET and cartons/paper. Additional sorting of waste is undertaken at the Akhangaran disposal site where an undetermined quantity of PET, plastic sheets, other plastics, paper and carton and glass bottles is recovered and eventually sold to dealers of recyclable materials. The bulk of the residential waste is made up of biodegradable materials which could potentially be used for generating compost or soil conditioners. Programs for the establishment of composting plants should take into consideration that such facilities would require source-segregated biodegradable materials for sustainable operations. Use of mixed waste inputs into composting plants would greatly affect processing operations and significantly lower the quality of the output.

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 10 ANNEX 1: Summary of July 2012 WACS

Low Rise High Rise High Rise Commercial Units at Units at Units at Mirzo at Mirabad № Components Mirabad Uchtepa Ulugbek

1 Glass 10.57 11.10 3.02 4.57 2 Metals 2.83 2.94 0.64 3.42 3 Paper, cardboard 4.10 2.75 1.50 5.35 4 Plastic bottles/PET 3.19 1.42 2.53 3.60 5 Other plastics 4.44 5.79 0.48 2.64 6 Vegetable/Organic 7.88 32.37 61.42 57.81 7 Wood 9.25 5.38 1.03 1.95 8 Textiles 5.21 4.43 0.90 1.63 9 Leather/Rubber 2.46 2.89 0.70 0.85 10 Hazardous Waste 1.07 1.59 - 0.22 11 Residuals/Other 29.01 29.34 27.77 17.96

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 11 ANNEX 2: Questionnaire for Households Tashkent Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey (WACS)

High Rise Low Rise

Name of Head of Family

Adult Children less Number or Persons in than 10 Household years old

Unit No. Household Address Building No. Street Name

Collection Method Tick Relevant Box Directly by MT Truck Waste Collection Method Guarded Collection point Unguarded CP Private Waste Picker

Material Glass Metals PET/Plastic bottles

Materials Recycled Paper/Cardboard from Waste Food/Organic Materials Wood Leather/Rubber Other (Please Specify)

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 12 ANNEX 3: WACS Collection Form – High Rise Residences

Collection Date Street Name District Name Building No. Unit No. Bag No. Bag Weight (kg) Remarks No.

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 13 ANNEX 4: WACS Collection Form – Low-Rise Residences

Collection Date Street Name District Name No. of House HH4 TR5 HHTR6 Collected HH (wt) HH (wt) TR (wt) TR (wt) No. (wt) (wt) (wt) Bags

4 HH – Bags with household waste 5 TR – Bags with trimmings 6 HHTR – Bags with mixed household waste and trimmings

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 14 ANNEX 5: WACS Sorting Form Waste Volume and Weight

Drum Volume (liters) 100 Weight of Waste (kg) Weight of Drum (kg) 2.3 Weight of Drum 1 + Waste Weight of Drum 2 + Waste Weight of Drum 3 + Waste Weight of Drum 4 + Waste Weight of Drum 5 + Waste Weight of Drum 6 + Waste Weight of Drum 7 + Waste Weight of Drum 8 + Waste Weight of Drum 9 + Waste Weight of Drum 10 + Waste

Waste Composition

№ Components Weight in kilograms 1 Glass 2 Metals 3 Paper, cardboard, carton 4 Plastic bottles/PET 5 Plastic bags, sheets 6 Other plastics 7 Vegetable/Organic/Food 8 Wood 9 Textiles/Clothes 10 Leather/Rubber

11 Hazardous Waste

12 Residuals/Other 13 Construction Waste

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 15 UZB‐ TA 8004 Appendix 4 Collection Point Survey (COPS)

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

Collection Points Survey

A complete survey of all Maxsustrans waste collection points in Tashkent City (650 guarded and 350 unguarded) was carried out as part of the SWM study in July 2012. All 1,100 collection points were surveyed to record their location (geo-reference), condition, type of community served, volume of waste, number of bins and each photographed as a record of each one. This information is capable of being recorded in a cross-referenced database to allow easy access to any particular collection point and used for determining the most cost-effective waste collection routing and schedule. An example of the record for two collection points (guarded and unguarded) is included in Annex 4 to show the information that is available.

Following shows two sample sheets out of the survey for unguarded and guarded community collection points.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

WASTE COLLECTION POINT SURVEY Tashkent Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Rayon: Yakkasaray Point Number 6-016 Address Serving following station

Okilova “Khamza” “Yakkasaray” “Yunusabad” Akhangaran Other 60 Transfer Transfer Transfer Landfill Station Station Station * Supervisor Abdulkhayeva Rayhongul Makhmadovna – Usarova Gulnara Name, Phone GPS Longitude Latitude

69º15’47.40” 41º17’57.67” Collection Point Description (Circle the Correct Option) Type Guarded * Unguarded

Waste Collected Household Commercial Mixed *

Collection Daily Once a Twice a Week Weekly Other Schedule Day *

0,75 m3 1,1 m3 Other new used bad new used bad new used bad Number of Bins

6 2

Recycling/ segregation Yes * No

Adjacent Recycling Yes No * Business

Water Power Yes * No

Sewage connection Yes * No

Photographs Taken Yes * No

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

Yuldoshev Khondamir, Phone +99890 934 93 39 Other Comments

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 4

WASTE COLLECTION POINT SURVEY Tashkent Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Rayon: Yakkasaray Point Number Address Serving following station

Glinka “Khamza” “Yakkasaray” “Yunusabad” Akhangaran Other 45 Transfer Transfer Transfer Landfill Station Station Station * Supervisor Name, Phone GPS Longitude Latitude

69º15’58.33” 41º17’00.28” Collection Point Description (Circle the Correct Option) Type Guarded Unguarded *

Waste Collected Household Commercial Mixed *

Collection Daily Once a Twice a Week Weekly Other Schedule Day *

0,75 m3 1,1 m3 Other new used bad new used bad new used bad Number of Bins

Recycling/ segregation Yes No *

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 5

Adjacent Recycling Yes No * Business

Water Power Yes No *

Sewage connection Yes No *

Photographs Taken Yes No *

Yuldoshev Khondamir, Phone +99890 934 93 39 Other Comments

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 6

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 7

UZB-8004 Appendix 5 Waste Collection Assessment

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

1.0 SWM System Summary: Tashkent

1.1 Organizational Set Up of SWM in Tashkent

Solid waste management operations are organized and executed by MAXSUSTRANS. This organization is the City owned department for waste management. Maxustrans’s operation, although monitored by the City’s “TAS Public Utilities Operation TUED” is a relatively independent organization within the City’s administration. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present the organizational chart of Maxsustrans and the administrative rayons (districts) that it serves.

Figure 1.1: Organizational Chart of MAXSUSTRANS

Figure 1.2: Administrative Districts (Rayons) of Tashkent

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 1

Figure 2.3: Administrative Rayon Population and Densities

Based on the information gathered in several official meetings with concerned regulatory agencies, the strongest influence of municipality on the waste management sector is the final review and determination of the fees every person has to pay for the public waste management service. On the other hand, it seems that Maxsustrans is not hardly controlled or regulated in regards to technical and economic matters.

1.2 Domestic Waste Generation and Composition

According to Maxsustrans, the daily average tonnage collected for the city of Tashkent is pegged at 2,000 tons per day (TPD). This figure was based on the data collected from weighbridges with a collection efficiency of 100%, based on ‘city norms’, which are calculated as 1.0kg/d waste generated per person. Further, considering the collection efficiency, it is projected that the company is able to service 2.3 to 3.0 million inhabitants of Tashkent which includes 11 rayons (city districts) and Chirchik, a small town located northeast of Tashkent. The figures below present the total waste recorded between 2007 to 2011 for the city of Tashkent and Churchik, respectively.

Tashkent City Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Transfer Stations tons 424,400 414,800 421,200 418,600 409,800 2,088,800 Landfill tons 596,100 581,400 591,300 586,900 578,000 2,933,700

Figure 1.4: Waste Amount of Tashkent City Recorded by Weighbridges 2007-11 [Source: Maxsustrans]

City of Chirchik Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Landfill tons 31,766.6 32,268.7 34,527.6 34,379.2 34,907.8 167,849.9

Figure 1.5: Waste Amount of Chirchik City for 2007-11 (Source: Maxsustrans)

After the review on available records, it was observed that there is no reliable data regarding the composition of solid waste. A detailed Waste Characterization Survey and Assessment has already been started within the ADB Project and will deliver basic data for the development of the further direction of the waste management.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

1.3 Waste Collection

Household Waste Collection

Most rayons (districts) have implemented guarded (and unguarded) waste collection points (or CPs), which are supervised by two employees from Maxsustrans for the guarded CPs. Connected residents dispose their household waste at the designated waste bins at the CP. Maxsustrans collects these wastes once or twice a day to be transported to the landfill. The table below presents the existing number of CPs for the city of Tashkent.

Number of Collection Maxsustrans ATE Points (CP)

1 Mirabad-Maxsustrans 44 2 M.Ulugbek-Maxsustrans 63 3 Hamza-Maxsustrans 66 4 Shayhantaur-Maxsustrans 59 5 Yakkasaray-Maxsustrans 33 6 Chilanzar-Maxsustrans 118 7 Bektemir-Maxsustrans 20 8 Sergeli-Maxsustrans 64 9 Olmazor-Maxsustrans 45 10 Uchtepa-Maxsustrans 60 11 Unusabad-Municipality 104 Total 676

Figure 1.6: Overview of Existing Waste Collection Points in Tashkent

Figure 1.7: Collection Point (CP) at Unusabad District

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

According to Maxsustrans, the total households being served by the company is 420,000 households which accounts for 168,000 houses and 252,000 apartments. The household tariff (as of July 2010) is valued at 1,100 suom/person/month (equivalent to US$ 0.59/person/month) for every person, including children.

It was also observed that apparently population records are maintained at the community level to accurately assess consumer populations.

On the other end, household wastes generated from rayons near the landfill and detached family housing areas are collected on a regular door-to-door basis. Unlike the previously mentioned CPs, residents would place their wastes in garbage bags for collection directly on the road for collection. The following image shows the typical scenario for a door-to-door collection.

Housing Area served with door to door service

Commercial Waste Collection

Maxsustrans has a total of 30,000 commercial contracts for the collection of commercial wastes These include approximately 28,000 smaller establishments (with single 750 liter sized containers) and 2,000 larger establishments with larger containers. The commercial tariffs are negotiated independently with each waste generator.

Municipality Waste Collection Services / Green Wastes The Municipality of Tashkent collects green waste from public areas and wastes collected from road cleaning using its own equipment and delivers it directly to landfill.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 4

Municipality Waste collection truck for green waste

Initial Assessment on the Existing SWM for Tashkent

The municipality through its designated service provider has successfully implemented a workable waste management system for the City of Tashkent. The system is working well and as very visible within the city limits, it works very efficiently. The unique system of collection points is, based on informal waste segregation activities, a very valuable and efficient recycling unit for the city.

On the other hand, the door-to-door service seems to lag behind in terms of efficiency and transportation against time compared to the CP system. Often the waste bags were found ripped by scavengers and waste is scattered on the road.

Despite of some problems concerning the waste collection especially with the unguarded CPs and door-to-door collection, the general appearance of the city is very clean.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 5

1.4 Solid Waste Transport

There are three (3) operating transfer stations in the districts of Yunusabad, Yakkasaray and Hamza. These transfer stations are served by varying garbage collection trucks with capacities ranging from 6 to 10 m³ waste volume (2.5 to 5 tons weight capacity).

Waste truck with capacity of approx. 10 m³

Waste trucks with capacity of approx 6 m³

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 6

Waste delivering area at Transfer Station Yakkasaray

The transfer stations were constructed between 1998 to 2003 and were funded by the EBRD/World Bank. These stations utilize a dual push press system, equipped with machinery from Max Aicher, Germany.

Push press system at Transfer Station Yakkasaray

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 7

The transfer stations operate 24-hours daily with two shifts per day from 7 am to 8 pm (daytime shift) and from 8 pm to 5am (night time shift). Up to two hours are allocated daily for facility inspections and cleaning prior to the resumption of daily operations.

Each transfer station has a designed average operational capacity 550 to 600 TPD with a maximum capacity 700 TPD.

Based on the field interviews, the delivered German equipment worked for about five (5) years after its installation. However, Maxsustrans changed the hydraulic and electrical systems to available Russian techniques where spare parts were available and used as replacements due to financial reasons.

The transfer stations are based on a closed container systems for pressed waste with a working capacity of volume 27 m³ each (about max. 18 tons each with a waste density of approximately 0.65 t/m³). According to site interviews, there were about 95 containers distributed for all transfer stations. However, about 50 are damaged and non-operational to date.

Press Containers at Transfer Station Yakkasaray

There are two (2) weighbridges installed in each transfer station; only one appears to be operational.

Weighbridges at Transfer Station Yakkasaray

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 8

Every transfer station (TS) has a computerized waste monitoring system recoding each truck delivery of waste.

Weight recording equipment at Transfer Station Yunusabad

Hooklift trucks are used to transport of waste from transfer station to landfill (transfer trucks).

Transfer Truck leaving Akhanagaran Landfill

Districts near the Landfill are served by 20 m³ waste collection trucks (back-loader) via door - to - door services. The trucks go directly to the landfill. Each truck has a loading capacity of about 10 tons each truck (density approx 0,5 t/m³).

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 9

Waste truck with capacity of 20 m³

Initial assessment of the Existing Waste Transport System

Based on the existing circumstances, the entire equipment (e.g. trucks, transfer stations, containers etc.) are well maintained. It was also noted that the technical staff seems highly motivated to fix everything using available replacements. Nevertheless, due to age, lack of spare parts (mainly due to the financial pressures) and regular downtime, most of the equipment is obsolete and would most likely remain idle.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 10

1.5 Solid Waste Disposal

The entire waste collected in Tashkent (and Churchik) is dumped into an existing dumpsite in Akhangaran, located 35 km southeast of Tashkent. The map below presents the relative distance and location of the dumpsite from the city.

Map with location of Akhangaran dumpsite

The dump has been in operation since 1966 and covers an area of 59 hectares. Picture 15 shows the map of Akhangaran Landfill.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 11

Area of LFG Capture Area

Area of current waste

dumping

Entrance of Landfill

Figure 1.8: Map of Akhangaran Landfill

There is adequate access to the site wherein access is “controlled’ via a security gatehouse; although it was noted that there is no fence around the facility. There is an operational weighbridge, an office / administration building and social facilities for workers.

The dump operates daily with two shifts (timings similar to the transfer stations). The facility is operated and managed by 65 staff / persons including one (1) director, one (1) engineer, one (1) mechanic and 19 security personnel acting as security.

Based on technical interviews and meetings, the landfill has no base sealing system, no leachate collection or no installed monitoring systems at all. According to information given by Maxsustrans, soil used as sub-base is sand, while the sand is also used as cover material as observed at the older part of the landfill. Typical waste pile thickness is reported to be between 15m to 25m.

Parts of the dump were burning.

According to Maxsustrans, there are two (2) water aquifers: first in depth of 120 m (not usable for drinking water), second in depth of 200 m (drinking water quality).

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 12

Waste dumped by truck at Landfill

Poor compaction of waste by bulldozer

It was also noted that there were about 20 to 30 waste scavengers in the area. While the single operating bulldozer levels the wastes, these scavengers are actively collecting recyclables from the freshly dumped wastes. It was also noticed that there is idle equipment which included three (3) waste compactors (Tana), one (1) additional wheel loader, one (1) bulldozer (D7 size), excavator (225 size) and three (3) 10-wheeler trucks. Apparently this idle equipment is either out dated or broken and appears to be obsolete.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 13

Broken equipment at workshop

It is notable that the facility has an installed landfill gas (LFG) collection system (initialized as a CDM project). This LFG collection system was installed in 2010 by Shimizu Corporation, Japan. The collection system is composed of 40 wells with a 1,800 Nm3/hour capacity into a single flare.

Single Flare for treatment of Landfill Gas (System Hofstaetter)

Initial Assessment of the Existing Akhangaran Landfill

Despite the installed landfill gas capture system, the conditions at the landfill site are poor and are below acceptable standards. The facility can be classified as a controlled dumpsite. Most of equipment is idle / obsolete, making landfill operations difficult, and not matching appropriate existing landfill standards and practices. It is noted that there is no environmental protection systems in place.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 14

1.6 Existing Recycling Systems

There are no official services for recycling offered in Tashkent. The recycling market is mainly operated by informal small entrepreneurs. Based on initial interviews conducted, recyclable materials are collected by waste pickers / scavengers either;

• At collection point where in the CP operator calls private companies for collection • At informal operated collection point/s dedicated only for recyclables materials • At private “recycling shops” often located near CPs

These collected recyclables are then delivered to “recycling shops” similar to the picture presented below.

Typical private “Recycling Shop” directly beside CP

The recyclable market exists for the following identified fractions: PET, other plastics (bags, sheets), paper/cardboard, metal, textiles and glass. Many of these recycling companies have a “supervisor” who conducts a quick reconnaissance for the location of recyclables. Quantities of recyclables are pre-determined prior to dispatching a collection vehicle. In 2011 it si reported that there were approximately 100 informal groups engaged in the PET recycling market although this reportedly reduced dramatically to 40 due to market issues (reported higher taxes for imports in China).

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 15

The table below presents an overview about current market prices for different recyclable fractions:

Average Price Fraction Sum/kg PET 500 Other Plastics (bags, sheets) 300 Paper/Cardboard 200 Metal 100 Textiles 50 Glass 10 to 100* * price per bottle, depending on size

Figure 2.9: Current prices for recyclables

The first facilities for the preparation of PET have started operation in Tashkent. Initial operations included manual sorting of PET materials. Unlike other recyclables, the owners have already improved the operations by using an automatic sorting line due to meet the growing demand of sorted PET. Such facilities are deemed to be operational by July 2012.

Private Facility for PET Separation

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 16

Sorted PET Materials

Private PET sorting line under construction

Initial Assessment of Recycling in Tashkent

Contrary to previous estimates, it is noteworthy that Tashkent has an existing market for recyclables materials. Although it seems that this market is not regulated or controlled by the public authorities, the system seems to work already relatively efficiently. In turn, recycling companies have implemented some level of self-regulation or rules among active recyclers in regards to activities. Although there is no public involvement in this regard, the market is expanding quickly and there is a potential in this kind of business in the future.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 17

Logistik

Taschkent als wirtschaftliches und politisches Zentrum der Republik Usbekistan bildet neben den Städten Samarkand und Buchara einen Schwerpunkt in der Abfallentsorgung des Landes. Für die Entsorgung der Siedlungsabfälle und Gewerbeabfälle ist ausschließlich der kommunale Entsorgungsbetrieb “Maxustrans” der Stadt Taschkent verantwortlich.

Ausgangslage: In den Jahren 1998 bis 2006 wurden insgesamt 318 Fahrzeuge mit unterschiedlichen Kapazitäten angeschafft. Dieser Fuhrpark ist zu 60 % verschlissen und kann nur mit einem erhöhten Wartungs‐und Reparaturaufwand einstzbereit gehalten werden.

Fahrzeugbestand

Type of Truck Total

Daewoo 10M3 48

Daewoo 20M3/ 45

HD-260 ARM ROLL Container truck 17

HD-260 Press Pack 19

HD-120 (old) 78

HD-120 side lift new 49

HD-120 back lift new 50

8 HD-310 ARM ROLL TRUCK 27

Total 333

Für die praktische Durchführung der Entsorgung ist die Stadt in 11 Regionen gegliedert. Diese Gliederung orientiert sich an den Stadtbezirken. In jeder Entsorgungsregion befindet sich jeweils ein Betriebshof. Der Abfall wird in den Wohngebieten an zentralen Plätzen in 0,75 cbm und 1 cbm Behältern gesammelt. Ein Teil der Plätze ist mit sogenannten Operatern besetzt, die auf den Plätzen für Ordnung und Sauberkeit sorgen sowie eine gewisse Selektion des Abfalls vornehmen. In einigen Hochhäusern wird der Abfall lose in den Räumen unter den Müllschluckerschächten gesammelt und manuell auf LKW vom Typ SIL verladen. Für diese Art der Entsorgung werden 5 LKW Typ SIL 130 eingesetzt.

Der eingesammelte Abfall wird an drei Abfallumschlagstationen angeliefert und mittels Abfallpressen in 27 cbm Container verpresst und mit LKW zur Deponie transportiert. Ein Teil der eingesammelten Abfälle wird direkt mit Sammelfahrzeugen zur Deponie transportiert. Dies betrifft den Abfall, der mit Fahrzeugen mit einer Kapazität von 20 cbm eingesammelt wird.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 18

Der Abfall besteht zu ca. 70% aus Hausmüll und zu ca. 30% aus Gewerbeabfall.

Die Abfallumschlagstationen wurden in den Jahren 2003, 2004 und 2005 von der der Fa. Max Aicher errichtet. Die Stationen sind jeweils mit zwei Abfallpressen ausgerüstet. Der Behälterbestand von 92 Stück Transportcontainer stammt ebenfalls von der F. Max Aicher.

Zur gegenwärtigen Ausstattung und Auslastung der Resourcen geben nachfolgende Tabellen Auskunft.

Die Darstellung ist entsprechend der territorialen Gliederung der Entsorgungsregionen gewählt. Der jeweiligen Umschlagstation sind die zuliefernden Betriebshöfe zugeordnet.

Zur Darstellung der durchschittlichen Jahresmenge wurde auf die Wiegedaten der Monate August und Februar des Jahres 2012 repräsentativ für die jeweilige Jahreszeit Sommer bzw. Winter zurückgegriffen.

Die Auswertung der Wiegedaten ergibt, dass die Abfallmengen im Winter durchschnittlich 25‐30% unter den Mengen im Sommer liegen.

Zu den in den Umschlagstationen umgeschlagen Abfall kommen täglich ca. 320 Mg Abfall, die durch die Sammelfahrzeuge bzw. Containerfahrzeuge direkt zur Deponie transportiert werden.

Es ergibt sich insgesamt folgende Mengenverteilung.

Transfer‐ Hamza Yakkasaray Yunusabad direct gesamt Station

Per Day 537 Mg 564 Mg 312 Mg 320 Mg 1733 Mg

Per Month 10.731 Mg 11.281 Mg 6.248 Mg 6.400 Mg 34.660 Mg

Per year 128.772 Mg 135.375 Mg 74.976 Mg 76.800 Mg 415.923 Mg

Die nachfolgenden Übersichten geben Auskunft über die Verteilung der Sammel‐Logistik und die Aufgliederung der Abfallmengen auf die drei Umschlagstationen und die den Stationen zugeordneten Betriebshöfe. Die Sammlung erfolg an 306 Tagen im Jahr.

Umschlagstation Yakasaray

capacity total Shayhantahur Yakkasaray Chilanzar Uchtepa Sergeli Collection trucks Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton

Daewoo 10 cbm 10 4,6 23 230 105,8 5 50 23 3 30 13,8 5 50 23 8 80 36,8 2 20 9,2

Daewoo 20 cbm 20 9,2 16 320 147,2 2 40 18,4 2 40 18,4 4 80 36,8 3 60 27,6 5 100 46

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 cbm 10 9,2 6 60 55,2 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2 container

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 10 9,2 12 120 110,4 4 40 36,8 0 0 0 3 30 27,6 3 30 27,6 2 20 18,4 20cbm

Hyundai 120 (oöd) 10 4,6 30 300 138 8 80 36,8 6 60 27,6 4 40 18,4 6 60 27,6 6 60 27,6

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 19

Hyundai 120 side 8 4 23 184 92 4 32 16 2 16 8 6 48 24 6 48 24 5 40 20 lift

Hyundai 120 back 10 4,6 21 210 96,6 8 80 36,8 2 20 9,2 5 50 23 5 50 23 1 10 4,6 lift

total collection 131 1424 745,2 32 332 177 16 176 86,2 28 308 162 33 348 185 22 260 135 trucks

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder container 27 27

Collektion‐points

Collektion‐points 297 59 33 92 65 48

Modul‐Type 94 35 20 6 22 11

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data

Waste quantity month of August 2012 (Mg) 13.431 745 2.110 3.654 4.317 2.606

Waste quantity of February 2012 (Mg) 9.131 782 1.483 2.745 2.401 1.720

average 2012(Mg) 11.281 764 1.797 3.199 3.359 2.163

Utilization of trucks

August 2012 18 4,2 24,5 22,6 23,3 19,3

Februar 2012 12,3 4,4 17,2 16,9 13,0 12,7

average 2012 15,1 4,3 20,8 19,7 18,2 16,0

Die zur Station Yakkasary liefernden Betriebshöfe haben eine Sammelkapazität von 745 Mg Abfall bei einmaliger Sammeltour pro Tag. Es ergibt sich eine durchschnittliche tägliche Auslastung der Fahrzeuge in den Sommermonaten von 70% im Jahresdurchschnitt von 60 %

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 20

Umschlagstation Khamza

capacity total Mirabad M. Ulugbek Hamza Bektemir Collection trucks Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton

Daewoo 10 cbm 10 4,6 12 120 55,2 2 20 9,2 6 60 27,6 4 40 18,4 0 0 0

Daewoo 20 cbm 20 9,2 13 260 119,6 2 40 18,4 5 100 46 5 100 46 1 20 9,2

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 cbm 10 9,2 6 60 55,2 2 20 18,4 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 container

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 10 9,2 4 40 36,8 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 2 20 18,4 0 0 0 20cbm

Hyundai 120 (oöd) 10 4,6 25 250 115 7 70 32,2 5 50 23 8 80 36,8 5 50 23

Hyundai 120 side lift 8 4 16 128 64 3 24 12 9 72 36 4 32 16 0 0 0

Hyundai 120 back lift 10 4,6 16 160 73,6 6 60 27,6 5 50 23 3 30 13,8 2 20 9,2

total collection trucks 92 1018 519,4 23 244 127 33 362 183,2 27 312 158,6 9 100 50,6

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder 27 27 container

Collektion‐points

Collektion‐points 252 48 65 80 59

Modul‐Type 200 81 40 44 35

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data

Waste quantity month 12.627 3007 5.143 4.124 353 of August 2012 (Mg)

Waste quantity of 8.835 2104 3.602 2.886 243 February 2012 (Mg)

average 2012(Mg) 10.731 2555,5 4372,5 3505 298

Utilization of trucks

41122,0 24,3 23,7 28,1 26,0 7,0

40940,0 17,0 16,6 19,7 18,2 4,8

average 2012 20,7 20,1 23,9 22,1 5,9

Die zur Station Khamza liefernden Betriebshöfe haben eine Sammelkapazität von 515 Mg Abfall pro einmaliger Sammeltour. Es ergibt sich eine durchschnittliche tägliche Auslastung der Fahrzeuge in den Sommermonaten von 95 % im Jahresdurchschnitt von 81 %.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 21

Umschlagstation Yunusabad

capacity total Olmazor Yunusabad Collection trucks Vol ton num Vol ton num Vol ton num Vol ton

Daewoo 10 cbm 10 4,6 10 100 46 4 40 18,4 6 60 27,6

Daewoo 20 cbm 20 9,2 10 200 92 3 60 27,6 7 140 64,4

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 cbm container 10 9,2 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 20cbm 10 9,2 3 30 27,6 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2

Hyundai 120 (oöd) 10 4,6 15 150 69 7 70 32,2 8 80 36,8

Hyundai 120 side lift 8 4 10 80 40 5 40 20 5 40 20

Hyundai 120 back lift 10 4,6 13 130 59,8 8 80 36,8 5 50 23

Gesamt 63 710 352,8 30 320 162,6 33 390 190,2

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder container

Collektion‐points 164 59 105

Modul‐Type 29 18 11

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data

Waste quantity month of August 2012 (Mg) 8358 4125 4233

Waste quantity of February 2012 (Mg) 6248 2978 3270

average 2012(Mg) 7303 3551,5 3751,5

Utilization of trucks

41122,0 23,7 25,4 22,3

40940,0 17,7 18,3 17,2

average 2012 20,7 21,8 19,7

Die zur Station Yunusabad liefernden Betriebshöfe haben eine Sammelkapazität von 350 Mg Abfall pro einmaliger Sammeltour. Es ergibt sich eine durchschnittliche tägliche Auslastung der Fahrzeuge in den Sommemonaten von 93 %, im Jahresdurchschnitt von 81 %.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 22

Maßnahmen:

Sammelfahrzeuge

Die Flotte von “Maxsustrans” sollte modernisiert werden. Die Fahrzeuge des Herstellers Hyundai sind über 10 Jahre alt und die Fahrzeuge vom Ty Daewoo sind über 13 Jahre alt. Die Fahrzeuge sind zu einem großen Teil technisch verschlissen und werden mit großem Aufwand in der „Maxustrans Tamir Hizmat" instand gehalten und repariert. Der Ersatz der Fahrzeuge bietet die Möglichkeit die Fuhrparkzusammensetzung zu optimieren.

Es sollten keine Fahrzeuge mit einer Ladekapazität < 10 cbm eingesetzt werden. Die Fahrzeuge mit einem Ladevolumen von 8 cbm sollten durch Fahrzeuge mit einem Ladevolumen von 10 cbm ersetzt werden. Die Fahrzeuge mit einem Ladevolumen von 10 cbm sollten durch Fahrzeuge mit einem Ladevolumen von 15 cm ersetzt werden. Punktuell wird es nötig sein, das aufgestellte Behältervolumen zu vergrößern. Der gesamte Abfall sollte grundsätzlich über die Umschlagstationen zur Deponie verbracht werden.

Die Sammelflotte sollte wie folgt ersetzt werden:

capacity Collection trucks Stock replacement Vol ton

Daewoo 10 cbm 10 4,6 48

Collectiion Truck 15 cbm neu 15 6,9 32

Daewoo 20 cbm 20 9,2 45

Collection truck back loader 20 9,2 45

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 20 9,2 cbm container 14

Truck arm Roll cont 20 cbm 20 9,2 14

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 20 9,2 20cbm 19

Collectiion Truck Presspack back 20 9,2 20cbm 19

Hyundai 120 (old) 8 4 78

collection 10 cbm 10 4,6 68

Hyundai 120 side lift 8 4 49

Hyundai 120 back lift 10 4,6 50

total 303 178

Der Ersatz der Transportfahrzeuge ist abhängig von der gewählten Transportvariante.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 23

Abfallsammelbehälter

Der Behälterbestand in der Stadt Taschkent setzt sich wie folgt zusammen:

Betriebshof Collection Points Container 750 Ltr Container 1.100 Ltr

Modul MSR Modul MSR Gewerbe Modul MSR Gewerbe

Mirabad 81 48 325 48 187 0 229 275

M. Ulugbek 40 65 161 64 113 0 310 372

Hamza 44 80 177 79 128 0 381 458

Shayhantaur 35 59 141 58 100 0 281 338

Yakkasaray 20 33 81 33 57 0 158 190

Chilanzar 6 92 25 91 58 0 438 526

Bektemir 35 59 141 58 100 0 281 338

Sergeli 11 48 45 48 47 0 229 275

Olmazar 18 59 73 58 66 0 281 338

Uchtepa 22 65 89 64 77 0 310 372

Yunusabad 11 105 45 103 74 0 500 600

Chirchik 34 55 137 54 96 0 262 315

Total 357 768 1440 253 1103 0 3660 4397

Aus den Inventur‐ und pro Modul 4,01 0,75 cbm Tourenplandaten errechnet: pro MSR 0,98 0,75 cbm

pro MSR 4,76 1,1 cbm

Die Inventurdaten konnten nur stichpunktartig ausgewertet werden. Eine genaue Auswertung erfordert die Verdichtung der Erfassungstabellen in einer Datenbank.

Der Behälterbestand ist in einem sehr schlechten Zustand und sollte zu 70 % erneuert werden. Im Zuge der Erneuerung sollten Standardbehälter MGB 1,1 cbm eingesetzt werden. Der Einsatz von 1.1 cbm Behältern würde

• entweder die Gesamtanzahl der 0,75 cbm ‐ Behälter vor allem die Behälteranzahl an den Modul‐ Sammelpunken reduzieren. Die Ladezeiten an den Standorten würden sinken. Ersatz durch 1200 1,1 cbm‐Behälter • oder bei gleicher Anzahl würde das Behältervolumen um 30 % erweitert, die Abfuhrrhythmen könnten verlängert werden Insgesamt sollten ca 7.000 Behälter erneuert werden.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 24

Eine Instandsetzung von ca. 20 % der Betonumhausungen an den Modulstandplätzen ist erforderlich. Der Einsatz von Betonfertigteilen erscheint hier weiter angebracht.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 25

IT‐System

Eine genaue und detaillierte Übersicht über alle Ressourcen ist unverzichtbar für eine optimale Planung und Steuerung der Prozesse. Eine Tourenplanung bildet den zentralen Vorgang bei der Abwicklung der logistischen Prozesse. Fest integriert in die Kernprozesse des Unternehmens kann der Ressourceneinsatz und die Abarbeitung der jeweiligen Leistungen geplant und gesteuert werden. Mit einer Standortübergreifenden Datenhaltung ist es möglich, jederzeit Auskunft über den Zustand des Gesamtsystem zu erlangen. Saisonale Anpassungen an den jeweiligen Bedarf sind problemlos möglich.

Das System sollte mindestens folgende Komponenten beinhalten:

• Fuhrparkmanagement • Sammelplatzverwaltung kommunal • Sammelplatzverwaltung gewerblich • Behälterverwaltung • Tourenplanung • Mengenverwaltung • Gebührenerhebung optional • Faktura optional • Schittstellen zur Buchhaltung optional

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 26

Abfallumschlag und Abfalltransport zur Deponie AKHANGARAN

Die Umschlagstationen liegen jeweils in der Nähe der Entsorgungsregionen der Betriebshöfe. Der Zustand der Staionen ist unterschiedlich. Sie sollten einer Grundinstandsetzung unterzogen werden. Der Stock der Presscontainer muß komplett erneuert werden.

Kostenschätzung Generalinstamdsetzung einer Station

Bezeichnung Mengenansatz Einzelpreis Gesamtpreis

Bauwerk

- Tragkonstruktion Umschlaghalle überprüfen, instandsetzen 1 psch 12.700 $ 12.700 $

- Wandverkleidung Umschlaghalle instandsetzen 200 m² 100 $ 20.000 $

- Dach Umschlaghalle 100 m² 100 $ 10.000 $

- Warte, Tore 1 psch 10.160 $ 10.160 $

52.860 $

Maschinen und Anlagen

Starkstromanlagen (NSHVT) 1 psch 7.000 $ 7.000 $

- Waage inkl. Hard- und Software 1 psch 25.000 $ 25.000 $

- Stopfpressen, generalüberholen 1 psch 290.000 $ 290.000 $

322.000 $

Befestigte Flächen

- Asphaltflächen instandsetzen 300 m² 115 $ 34.500 $

- Betonflächen instandsetzen 1500 m² 127 $ 190.500 $

225.000 $

599.860 $

Es sind für die Durchführung des Abfallumschlag und des Abtransport auf der Straße mit LKW vier unterschiedliche Varianten möglich.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 27

1. 3 Stationen mit Solofahrzeug 2. 3 Stationen mit Gespann 3. 2 Staionmen mit Solofahrzeug 4. 2 Sationen mit Gespann TransportKosten 3 Stationen

Transportkosten 3 Stationen

Anzahl Jahreskosten Anzahl Jahreskosten

Kapitalfestkosten

4-Achsiges Fahrgestell Hundai 310 22,0 952.352 $/a 15,0 649.331 $/a

Anhänger für Wechselcontainer 0,0 0 $/a 18,0 363.625 $/a

27 cbm Röhrencontainer 50,0 144.296 $/a 72,0 207.786 $/a

Σ - Kapitalfestkosten 1.096.648 $/a 1.220.742 $/a

Personalkosten

Fahrer 34,0 238.000 $/a 23,0 161.000 $/a

Σ - Personalkosten 238.000 $/a 161.000 $/a

Variable und Fixkosten

Wartung/Reparatur

4-Achsiges Fahrgestell Hundai 310 21,1 379.800 $/a 15,0 270.000 $/a

Anhänger für 20'-Container 0 $/a 18,0 63.000 $/a

27 cbm Röhrencontainer 50,0 25.000 $/a 72,0 36.000 $/a

W+P gesamt 404.800 $/a 369.000 $/a

Dieselkraft- u. Schmierstoffe 2.384.903 km/a 1.658.135 $/a 1.202.478 km/a 836.039 $/a

Versicherungen 22,0 0 $/a 15,0 0 $/a

Steuern 22,0 0 $/a 15,0 0 $/a

Σ - Variable und Fixkosten 2.062.935 $/a 1.205.039 $/a

Σ - Transportkosten, absolut 3.397.583 $/a 2.586.781 $/a

Σ - Durchschnitt Transportkosten, 7,16 $/Mg 5,45 $/Mg spezifisch

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 28

TransportKosten 2 Stationen

Transportkosten 2 Stationen

Anzahl Jahreskosten Anzahl Jahreskosten

Kapitalfestkosten

4-Achsiges Fahrgestell Hundai 310 22,0 952.352 $/a 14,0 606.042 $/a

Anhänger für Wechselcontainer 0,0 0 $/a 16,0 323.222 $/a

27 cbm Röhrencontainer 48,0 138.524 $/a 64,0 184.699 $/a

Σ - Kapitalfestkosten 1.090.876 $/a 1.113.963 $/a

Personalkosten

Fahrer 33,0 231.000 $/a 21,0 147.000 $/a

Σ - Personalkosten 231.000 $/a 147.000 $/a

Variable und Fixkosten

Wartung/Reparatur

4-Achsiges Fahrgestell Hundai 310 21,6 388.800 $/a 14,0 252.000 $/a

Anhänger für Wechselcontainer 0 $/a 16,0 56.000 $/a

27 cbm Röhrencontainer 48,0 24.000 $/a 64,0 32.000 $/a

W+P gesamt 412.800 $/a 340.000 $/a

Dieselkraft- u. Schmierstoffe 2.686.435 km/a 1.867.779 $/a 1.353.744 km/a 941.208 $/a

Versicherungen 22,0 0 $/a 14,0 0 $/a

Steuern 22,0 0 $/a 14,0 0 $/a

Σ - Variable und Fixkosten 2.280.579 $/a 1.281.208 $/a

Σ - Transportkosten, absolut 3.602.455 $/a 2.542.171 $/a

Σ - Durchschnitt Transportkosten, 7,60 $/Mg 5,36 $/Mg spezifisch

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 29

Vergleich der Transportvarianten

12.00

10.00

8.00 Khamza

6.00 Yakkasaray

4.00 Yunusabad

2.00

0.00 Solo 3 Gespann 3 Solo 2 Gespann 2 Stationen Stationen Stationen Stationen

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 30

Empfehlung:

Die Umschlagstation Khamza sollte soweit in Stand gestzte werden, dass ein Betrieb bis zum Systemwechsel auf Eisenbahntransport gewährleistet ist.

Für das Handling an den Umschlagstaionen sollten eigene Fahrzeuge mit eigenem Personal den Staionen zugeordnet werden. Die Handhabung in den letzten Jahren mit wechselndem Personal hat in erheblichem Maße den jetzigen Zustand der Pressbehälter beeinflußt. Für das Handling an den Stationen sind ein gewisses fahrerisches Können sowie Erfahrung efrorderlich.

Die Stationen Yunusabad und Yakasaray sollten eine Generalüberholung erfahren. Bei der Grundinstandsetzung sollten die Belange eines zukünftigen Bahntrasport berücksichtigt werden.

Für eine Instandsetzung bzw. Überholung einer Station für eine Übergangszeit ist mit folgenden Kosten zu rechnen:

Kostenschätzung Generalinstandsetzung einer Station

Bezeichnung Mengenansatz Einzelpreis Gesamtpreis

Bauwerk

- Tragkonstruktion Umschlaghalle überprüfen, instandsetzen 1 psch 12.700 $ 12.700 $

- Wandverkleidung Umschlaghalle instandsetzen 200 m² 100 $ 20.000 $

- Dach Umschlaghalle 100 m² 100 $ 10.000 $

- Warte, Tore 1 psch 10.160 $ 10.160 $

52.860 $

Maschinen und Anlagen

Elektroanlage 1 psch 7.000 $ 7.000 $

Waagen inkl. Hard- und Software 1 psch 25.000 $ 25.000 $

Abfallpressen generalüberholen 1 psch 500.000 $ 500.000 $

diverses 1 psch 25.000 $ 25.000 $

557.000 $

Befestigte Flächen

- Asphaltflächen instandsetzen 300 m² 115 $ 34.500 $

- Betonflächen instandsetzen 1500 m² 127 $ 190.500 $

225.000 $

834.860 $

Für die Durchführung des Abfallumschlag in den Umschlagstationen ergeben sich folgende Kalkulationen auf Basis von wiederbeschaffungswerten.

Kalkulation Umschlagkosten Umschlagstation

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 31

Durchsatzmenge: 158.000 Mg/a

Berechnung der Umschlagkosten einer Station beim Betrieb von drei Stationen

Umschlagkosten Betriebskosten Ansatz absolut spezifisch

Kapitalfestkosten

Investition Annuitätsfaktor

2.500.000,00 Bauwerk 0,0782 195.567 $/a 1,24 $/Mg $

1.500.000,00 Stationäre Maschinentechnik 0,1359 203.802 $/a 1,29 $/Mg $

Mobile Maschinentechnik 350.000,00 $ 0,2886 101.007 $/a 0,64 $/Mg

Baunebenkosten/ 500.000,00 $ 0,0782 39.113 $/a 0,25 $/Mg Unvorhergesehenes

4.850.000,00 Summe Kapitalfestkosten 539.489 $/a 3,41 $/Mg $

Personalkosten

Schichtleiter 2,0 AK/a 10.000 $/a 20.000 $/a 0,13 $/Mg

Anlagenfahrer 4,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 28.000 $/a 0,18 $/Mg

Kraftfahrer 3,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 21.000 $/a 0,13 $/Mg

Waagepersonal 3,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 21.000 $/a 0,13 $/Mg

sonstiges Personal 2,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 14.000 $/a 0,09 $/Mg

Summe Personalkosten 9,0 AK/a 104.000 $/a 0,66 $/Mg

Variable und Fixkosten

Elektroenergieverbrauch 10,00 kWh/Mg 0,13 $/kWh 205.400 $/a 1,30 $/Mg

Wasser-/Abwasser 0,002 m³/Mg 5,00 $/m³ 1.580 $/a 0,01 $/Mg

Kraft-/Schmierstoffe 0,60 l/Mg 1,83 $/l 173.484 $/a 1,10 $/Mg

Büromaterial, Arbeitsbekleidung, 600,00 $/AK 9,0 AK/a 5.400 $/a 0,03 $/Mg Verbrauchsmaterialien

Anlagenreinigung 0,05 $/Mg 7.900 $/a 0,05 $/Mg

Reparatur/Wartung Investition Ansatz 0,00 $/Mg

2.500.000,00 Bauwerk 1% 25.000 $/a 0,16 $/Mg $

1.500.000,00 Stationäre Maschinentechnik 5% 75.000 $/a 0,47 $/Mg $

Mobile Maschinentechnik 350.000,00 $ 12% 42.000 $/a 0,27 $/Mg

Verwaltungspauschale 50.000,00 $ 1 psch 50.000 $/a 0,32 $/Mg

Summe Variable und Fixkosten 585.764 $/a 3,71 $/Mg

Summe Umschlagkosten 1.229.253 $/a 7,78 $/Mg

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 32

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 33

Durchsatzmenge: 237.000 Mg/a

Berechnung der Umschlagkosten einer Station beim Betrieb von zwei Stationen

Umschlagkosten Betriebskosten Ansatz absolut spezifisch

Kapitalfestkosten

Investition Annuitätsfaktor

3.000.000,00 Bauwerk 0,0782 234.680 $/a 0,99 $/Mg $

1.750.000,00 Stationäre Maschinentechnik 0,1359 237.769 $/a 1,00 $/Mg $

Mobile Maschinentechnik 500.000,00 $ 0,2886 144.296 $/a 0,61 $/Mg

Baunebenkosten/ 600.000,00 $ 0,0782 46.936 $/a 0,20 $/Mg Unvorhergesehenes

5.850.000,00 Summe Kapitalfestkosten 663.681 $/a 2,80 $/Mg $

Personalkosten

Schichtleiter 2,0 AK/a 10.000 $/a 20.000 $/a 0,08 $/Mg

Anlagenfahrer 6,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 42.000 $/a 0,18 $/Mg

Kraftfahrer 3,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 21.000 $/a 0,09 $/Mg

Waagepersonal 3,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 21.000 $/a 0,09 $/Mg

sonstiges Personal 2,0 AK/a 7.000 $/a 14.000 $/a 0,06 $/Mg

Summe Personalkosten 11,0 AK/a 118.000 $/a 0,50 $/Mg

Variable und Fixkosten

Elektroenergieverbrauch 10,00 kWh/Mg 0,13 $/kWh 308.100 $/a 1,30 $/Mg

Wasser-/Abwasser 0,002 m³/Mg 5,00 $/m³ 2.370 $/a 0,01 $/Mg

Kraft-/Schmierstoffe 0,60 l/Mg 1,83 $/l 260.226 $/a 1,10 $/Mg

Büromaterial, Arbeitsbekleidung, 600,00 $/AK 11,0 AK/a 6.600 $/a 0,03 $/Mg Verbrauchsmaterialien

Anlagenreinigung 0,05 $/Mg 11.850 $/a 0,05 $/Mg

Reparatur/Wartung Investition Ansatz 0,00 $/Mg

3.000.000,00 Bauwerk 1% 30.000 $/a 0,13 $/Mg $

1.750.000,00 Stationäre Maschinentechnik 6% 105.000 $/a 0,44 $/Mg $

Mobile Maschinentechnik 500.000,00 $ 12% 60.000 $/a 0,25 $/Mg

Verwaltungspauschale 50.000,00 $ 1 psch 50.000 $/a 0,21 $/Mg

Summe Variable und Fixkosten 834.146 $/a 3,52 $/Mg

Summe Umschlagkosten 1.615.827 $/a 6,82 $/Mg

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 34

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 35

Aus dem Vergleich der beiden Varianten ergibt sich ein Vorteil beim Betrieb von zwei Stationen.

2 Stationen 3 Stationen

Invest 11.700.000 $14.550.000 $

Jahreskosten absolut 3.231.654 $/a 3.687.759 $/a

Kosten spezifisch 6,82 $/Mg 7,78 $/Mg

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 36

Ausblick Bahntransport

Die Staionen Yunusabad und Yakasaray liegen stratigich günstig. Sie bieten die Möglichkeit den zukünftigen Abfalltransport zu einer zentralen Deponie mit der Eisenbahn durchzuführen. In umittelbarer Nachbarschaft befinden sich jeweils Bahnanlagen. An die Staion Yakasaray grenzt unmittelbar ein brachliegendes Grundstück. Diese Grundstück wäre geignet, eine entsprechende Ladestrasse für den Containerumschlag zu errichten.

Transferstation Yakassaray

Transferstation Yunusabad

Zu transportieren ist eine Gesamtmenge von durchschnittlich 1500 Mg Abfall an 6 Tagen in der Woche. In Spitzen können bis zu 1800 Mg anfallen. Der Abfall wir in den Stationen Yakassarai und Yunusaabad angeliefert und in 27 cbm bzw 20 cbm Container verpresst.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 37

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 38

Variante 1: vier Ganzzüge

Pro Umschlagstation sind jeweils zwei Ganzzüge im Betrieb. Die Beladung der Züge erfolgt direkt von der Pressstation auf die Bahnwagen. Ein leerer Container wird vom Waggon entnommen und an die Presse verbracht. Der volle Container wird direkt von der Presse auf die Waggons geladen. Es Erfolgt keine Zwischelagerung der Behälter. Für Havariefälle ist ein gewisser Zwischlagerbereich vorzuhalten. Der Transport durch die Eisenbahngesellschaft erfolgt in den Nachtstunden zu Zeiten der Betriebsruhe an den Umschlagstationen. Der Containerwechsel am Deponiebahnhof bzw. Ladegleis der Deponie erfolt in gleicher Weise am Tage. Auch hier ist ein gewisser Zwischenlagerbereich für Havariefälle vorzuhalten.

Variante 2: zwei Ganzzüge

Der Containerwechsel erfolgt in eine Bereitstellungsfläche. Von dieser Bereitstellungsfläche erfolgt die Be‐ und Entladung der Eisenbahnwagen entsprechend der Bereitstellung des Zuges durch die Eisenbahngesellschaft.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 39

UZB‐ TA 8004 Appendix 6 Site Selection for Sanitary Landfill

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012

SITE SELECTION FOR APPROPRIATE SANITARY LANDFILL SITE

The Tashkent SWM system utilizes currently the controlled dumpsite at Akhangaran (about 60 hectares) for its final disposal of Waste residuals. The capacity of this dumpsite is nearly exhausted; an additional 30 hectare area adjacent to the existing dump is acquired to insure disposal capacity for the coming years. Due to the amount of waste for disposal, the actual imposed government restrictions on the side and the size of the area; it would last for about 5 to 7 year only. The current practice and the technical outline for the extension is not in compliance with international accepted standards.

Therefore, it is mandatory for the actual discussed PPTA project to recommend a landfill site which would be able to accommodate waste residuals from Tashkent as also from Tashkent Oblast, which would have a capacity for at least 30 to 50 years and would fulfill all requirements as imposed as international accepted minimum standards for the selection of appropriate Landfill sites.

The site selection process would indicate the practice of new facility location for the specific purpose of its function under consideration of several specifically requirements on the environmental and technical circumstances as described optimal for the purpose. Such location might be limited through site independent circumstances (eg. Access, distance, regulatory boundaries etc.). Therefore, it would be allowed that minimum standards, if not matched by any possible locations, could be achieved by technical measures (e.g. geological conditions on soil could be generated through constructed barriers).

The site selection process for a sanitary landfill should include the following points for consideration:

 Area capacity and availability  Hauling distance and time  Proximity to sensitive groundwater resources  Proximity to perennial surface water  Proximity to sensitive land user  Occurrence of flooding  Local ecological conditions  Current and future land use  Seismic conditions  Geological conditions  Soil / land conditions  Topography  Proximity to airports

The main factor for the selection of a new landfill site for the Tashkent and Tashkent Oblast SWM system is under technical considerations is a realistic travel distance and proper access through common transport systems, based on existing logistics, not requiring a complete new transport approach.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

Also, it is to consider that the government values agricultural utilized property (locally called ‘irrigated property’) very highly and conversion of agricultural property should be completely avoided or at least absolute limited if not avoidable.

Due to the development of Tashkent City as also the Tashkent Oblast, it is estimated that within the coming 35 years a disposal capacity of about 55 million tons of waste residuals is needed. Therefore, a state of the art waste management facility would need about 200 to 250 hectares property.

An initial geographically research shows clearly that an area, which would be suitable as host for a sanitary landfill and would not be considered as agricultural area, is not available within the Tashkent metropolitan region. The area of the Tashkent metropolitan region is limited in the north and north‐east through mountains and in the north and north‐west through its border with Kazakhstan. Therefore in the main focus for a site selection would be the Tashkent –Samarkand corridor with its south to south west direction. This corridor is less than 100 km wide and about 300 km long. This corridor is marked by the flow of three rivers, the Chirchik River, the Pskem River and the Angren River in its northern part and through the Syrdarya River in its more southern part.

This corridor is mainly a flat area and partially slightly hilly and finally bordered in the south through the foothills of the Tajikistan Mountains.

The flat and hilly part of the corridor is outside the Tashkent area completely occupied by agricultural utilization and rural communities.

Idle land from relevant size is only found on four locations in the area, described with size and distance to Tashkent city, namely at:

# Name Size in hectares Distance to Tashkent in km 1 Sidarya 2,400 130 2 Yangiyer 1,300 140 3 Hovos 1,000 150 4 Ulyanovo 2,400 180 Table XXX: Sites of the initial site selection

Three additional sites were located in the area of Gallaorol. These sites are in about 250 km distance to Tashkent and with its partial agricultural use are initially eliminated for the site selection process.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

Map XXX: Initial site selection; idle properties

The four described areas within the Hovos region seem to be floodplains which might be occasionally flooded. These areas show the lowest elevations in its region and, due to the lack of any drainage in the area, might get flooded during rainfall. Due to the in general minor precipitation in the area, this flooding could be easily controlled and for the establishment of a sanitary landfill, mitigated by technical measures.

Map xxx: showing the Sirdarya site with theoretically needed area (red square)

Access to the 4 described sites would be possible through road and also through the existing railway system. The sites are all direct accessing or are within less than 3 km distance to the national Highways M34 and A376 which run parallel to the main railway track between Tashkent and Hovos and Hovos to Samarkand.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 4

Road access for waste transport from Tashkent city is only of theoretical nature. The vehicles would have to pass more than half of the trip through urban areas and the trip, based on distance and time, seems under economic and environmental consideration unrealistic.

Railway transport on the other hand would need a complete change of the logistic system of Tashkent City and its Oblast and might right now be a too adventurous challenge for the government.

In case there can’t be found any suitable area within closer distance to Tashkent city, these sites have to be evaluated further. Initially, it seems that all 4 sites showing very similar physical conditions, also the environmental conditions seem to be very similar. Therefore for initial concept evaluation, we would propose the Hovos site as most promising due to its close distance to the existing railway infrastructure in Hovos (main railway intersection for north‐south and west‐east lines and major cargo handling yard).

However, the existing waste collection and transport logistic is based on truck collection, serving waste transfer stations which therefore utilize again trucks to serve the landfill. Based on the possible size of the transport units, the existing road network, the available financial capacity and economical optimized considerations, it is advisable that a 50 km radius to the Tashkent city center would be the benchmark for the initial site survey. This, because the geographical, geological and ecological features of the area up to the earlier described idle areas is not changing significantly. Therefore the area within the 50 km radius should be given priority. Only if there would no site be possible, the radius for selection should be extended.

Describing search limits, following areas would initially be eliminated within the site selection process:

 Urban areas  Rural settlements  Water bodies, narrow floodplains and irrigation canals  Mountainous areas  Areas within 500m distance to any kind of (inhabited) structure

Using above geographical elimination criteria, a ‘white area’ map was developed. Therefore all described restrictions where introduced into a geographical map and remaining areas which fulfill the minimum size criteria were marked ‘white’.

Following the total map is shown. Tashkent in its city boundaries in dark blue, urban areas are shown in red, rural settlements in pink, mountainous areas in green water bodies in blue and small settlements or single structures are marked with a red 500m radius mark.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 5

Map xxx: Tashkent City 50 km radius site selection area

The above shown map shows in total 21 sites (marked A to Q) which would fit the before described geographical requirements.

Closer evaluation shows that the identified areas could further be summarized to 7 regions which with absolute similar conditions. Therefore the next selection step would compare in the next step these regions before the evaluation of single sites.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 6

Region 1: shows only one site at the foothills of the Altai Mountains, about 30 km north of Tashkent. The site is a hilly plateau, beginning about 3 km west of Chirchik and reaching to the Kazakhstan border. The slightly hilly to hilly area is partial idle or under agricultural utilization. The area seems to be divided by an irrigation canal.

The most suitable south‐east area of the site is closes to the city of Chirchik.

The site could be accessed by regional and local roads, which would pass mostly the urban communities in the outskirt of Tashkent city.

Map xxx: site selection site A at Bagish

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 7

Region 2: shows a group of 5 single sites (B,C,D,E and F) which spread about 15 km from north to south and 7 km from west to east. The area can be described as flat to slightly hilly and can be found about 24 km south‐east of Tashkent. The area is divided by the Chirchik River. The more north‐western part with the areas B and C are flat, surrounded by rural communities, whereas the more hilly areas D and E are also direct adjacent to rural communities, the also slightly hilly area F shows the farthest distance to any community.

Site E is also the host of the existing Akhangaran landfill for Tashkent.

Access to the sites would be given through national highway P2 for the sites B, C, F and E. Site D is connected through a regional road to the P2.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 2 around Utasarey

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 8

Region 3: shows the single site G east of Yangiyo’l, about 26 km south of Tashkent. The area is to describe as flat area of agricultural use. The area is surrounded by the Tashkent urban outskirts in the direction of the main development area of Tashkent direct on the east of the National Highway M34 between Urtaaul and Yangiyo’l. the area is adjacent west to the Chirchik River bed.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 3 around Yangiyo’l

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 9

Region 4:

Shows the single area H. it is a slightly hilly area, divided by an irrigation canal. The area is remote to Tashkent, direct on the Kazakhstan border, accessible via mostly local roads and National Highway M39 in about 44 km distance to Tashkent city center.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 4 around Bozsu

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 10

Region 5: shows a group of 3 single sites (I,J and N) which are situated on both sites of the National Highway M34 in the area between Yangiyo’l and Almazar. The area of site I is slightly hilly to flat whereas the sites J and N a flat areas. The sites are separated from the access to the National Highway M354 through rural settlements which reaching in general from Tashkent all along the Highway. Site J is enclosed through the eastern border the floodplains of the Pskem River and on its western side through the Chirchik River.

Access to the sites would be given through National Highway M34 and local connection roads. Sites I and N could also be accessed through National Highway M39.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 5 north of Almazar

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 11

Region 6: shows a group of 5 single sites (K, K1, L, L1 and O) which are situated within a flat area between the flood plains of Chirchik River and Angren River. Actually this sites could be evaluated as one site with some small rural settlements in between.

The sites are about 45 to 60 km away from Tashkent city and accessible via the National Highway M34 and further via local roads for about 15 km.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 6 around Komarovka

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 12

Region 7:

Shows a group of 5 single sites (M, P, P1, P2 and Q) which are all located on the slightly hilly eastern side of the floodplains of the Angren River, stretching about xx km from the north to the south. Whereas 4 sites are direct beside the plains of the river is the site Q further down (about 9 km) in the south‐east of the other sites.

Access to the sites would be via National Highway A273 and further local roads.

Map xxx: Site selection, Region 7 around Aktepa

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 13

Initial site selection evaluation

As already described earlier, besides environmental basics for the selection of an appropriate landfill site, there are several physical requirements through the SWM system of the city itself as also through governmental regulations, which are essential for the availability of a possible all requirements fulfilling site.

To narrow the initial site selections following described additional requirements are imposed to the selection process.

1. Conversion of agricultural / irrigated property

The conversion of agricultural areas are generally undesirable and only permitted when absolute necessary. Further, if at all, inferior areas have to be prioritized; high valued*, profitable areas are unlikely to get permitted for conversion into landfill area. Also is it unlikely that any chosen site in the direct urban development line of Tashkent city and the Oblast would be approved. Any conversion of agricultural area needs special permission of the ‘Cabinet of Ministries’. *) large fields with irrigation systems are considered highly valuable whereas fragmented fields in hilly areas are mostly considered inferior

2. Hauling distance restrictions

To optimize the logistic system of Tashkent city it is envisioned that the use of Transfer Stations would be minimized. Therefor it is of important that, if all other requirements are fulfilled, the chosen site should be within direct hauling distance to the main waste source (Tashkent City) also should the site be most accessible from all areas within the Tashkent Oblast. The typical maximal hauling distance for modern waste collection trucks (> 20 m3 loading capacity) should be based on European standards not excide 35 km; this provided that the access roads are in good conditions and possible traffic congestion is normal.

3. Distance to sensitive groundwater resources

This requirement should also include the possible distance to sensitive surface water resources. Water, especially irrigation water is from absolute value for the agricultural development of the area. This under the knowledge that the annual groundwater regeneration rate is due to the limited precipitation considerable low. Irrigation canals and installed irrigation wells have priority status in the area and have to be protected. Therefore, the minimum distance to such facilities should be at least 500m.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 14

For the second step of the selection process, following above shown additional requirements, the selection process would distinguish three possible evaluation outputs. These are:

 Pass  Utilization with minor restriction (technical measures for compensation necessary)  Utilization with serious restriction (technical measures for compensation necessary)  Ineligible

Therefore, sites which are showing one ineligible criteria will be eliminated in the selection process.

Sites with several minor and / or serious restrictions will also be eliminated in the site selection process.

Out of the site evaluation (see annex xx) following results are observed:

Minor Major Site Name Ineligible Pass restrictions restrictions Sidarya X 1 Yangiyer X 1 Hovos X 1 Ulyanovo X 1 Gallaorol 1 X Gallaorol 2 X Gallaorol 3 X A 1 X B 1 1 X C 1 2 NO D 1 X E X F X G 2 1 NO H 1 2 NO I 2 1 NO J 2 1 NO K 3 1 NO K 1 2 2 NO L 2 2 NO L 1 3 2 NO M 1 3 NO N 2 2 NO O 2 2 NO P 2 3 NO P 1 2 2 NO

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 15

P 2 1 3 NO Q X

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 16

Therefore the sites A, B, D and E will be further evaluated for the final selection.

These four sites will undergo a detailed evaluation on environmental crucial parameters which are:

 Seismic conditions  Geological conditions  Proximity to sensitive groundwater resources / Hydro geology  Proximity to sensitive land user Further to the physical parameters, social parameters have to be established for the final site selection.

These are basically:

 Resettlement issues  Social acceptability

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)

It is assumed that the seismic conditions in the area of the four selected sites are equal, no specific fault‐ lines or other seismic relevant obstacles are known to the author.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 17

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 (silty clay) 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 (clay) with small gravel inclusions.

Picture XX: 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 the Pictures XX – XX: location plan for the geological survey as shown in Picture XX

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 18

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 registered.[source] [ earlier investigation suggest that the dumpsite might be the origin of this contamination. However, the actual geological conditions on site, the general meteorological circumstances and the utilization of the area as intensive irrigated agricultural land suggests that the major source of contamination within the first groundwater aquifer is most likely related to the intensive use of fertilizer within 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 irrigation.

Proximity to sensitive land user

Area A:

There are no sensitive land users known to the author for the described area; especially because the area plain described area itself is much larger as the actual needed plot. There should be enough distance to any possible sensitive area possible. However, the area itself is lying on a ‘high’ plateau, approximately 100m above the city of Cherchik, which is about 2,000m away from the site border. The installation of a typical landfill in this area could be visible from every corner of the city. Not being a technical issue, this could be a crucial discussion point under esthetical consideration.

Area B:

There are no known sensitive land users within the described area. The area is direct surrounded by agricultural plots and in further distance by rural settlements. However, these settlements are technically in a sufficient distance to the site (> 500m).

Area D:

There are no known sensitive land users within the described area. The area is direct surrounded by agricultural plots and in further distance in the North‐West and in the North‐East by rural

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 19

settlements. However, these settlements are technically in a sufficient distance to the site (> 500m). the south boundary of the site is described by a mainly dry riverbed.

Area E:

There are no known sensitive land users within the described area. The area is direct surrounded by agricultural plots. Even rural settlements are in more than 2,000m distance to the site. The here described site is the host of the actual operated Tashkent dumpsite.

Resettlement / Social Acceptability

All here described sites are utilized for agricultural activities. Therefore the government is leasing the properties to so called farmer enterprises. An area of about 100 hectares would usually host about 4 to 6 farmers. These farmers often hire informal day laborer or employ workers for the tilling of the land.

Based on on‐site questioning, none of the farmers or laborers is living on or in the area of their leased plots.

Social acceptability of the site utilization as waste management facility is determined by the subjective opinion of ‘neighbors’ of the planned facilities or riparian of access roads etc. Based on the good access to the sites B, D and E, by national highways as also the relative big distance from settlements to the facilities, serious resistance to such project is not expected. However, the sites B and D are surrounded by settlements and resistances from these areas based on emotional reasons are possible.

Only site E has no relevant neighborhood and due to the existing dumpsite, not only the facility itself, even the access areas are well established and since a long time under operation. No negative approach from the public or from government is known.

This might most possible be different in the case of site A. Despite the technical sufficient distance to any settlement, the visibility of the site due to its already earlier described topographical exposure to the city of Chirchik, massive resistance from the cities inhabitants as also from the city government itself might be possible.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 20

Conclusion / Recommendation

Based on the above stated site selection criteria, the inquiry confirms the much earlier conducted site selection by the city of Tashkent, as they chose the right location for its waste management facilities.

Considering all criteria, the site E at Akhangaran rayon seems the most suitable site for a new to develop waste management facility for Tashkent city and Tashkent province.

The basic criteria would lead eventually to 4 possible sites. These sites are actually located at only 2 different areas. The site A East of Chirchik city and the sites B, D and E about 35km East of Tashkent.

The technical absolute possible site A at Chirchik would most possible create public resistance because of its topographical exposure. In comparison to the sites B, D and E, site A offers no technical advantage and was therefore eliminated for the further final selection.

Technically, the sites B, D and E show no difference. In regards to public opinion, the site E might be the most suitable site because of its distance to any rural settlement. In addition the site E is right now the host of the actual dumpsite for the city of Tashkent. The actual operations on the site also result in no change of environmental relevant issues as e.g. dust, noise and traffic movements. Contrary it is expected that the technical improvement of the facilities would improve the environment around the site.

Therefore, as already described above, we clearly recommend considering the utilization of site E for any further facility development for the Waste Management Systems of Tashkent and Tashkent province.

As initially stated, the shown side selection is based on a road transport system which could utilize road only.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 21

APPENDIX 7– INTERIM PROJECT DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

UZBEKISTAN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT - COST ESTIMATES DETAILED COST ESTIMATES FOR: PHASE 1 PROJECT - 30 HA EXPANSION OF AKHANGARAN LANDFILL AND REHABILITATION OF TASHKENT CITY SWM 22-Nov-12 US$'000 (Constant 2012 prices)

Item Unit Unit Cost 2012 Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

1. LAND ACQUISITION & RESETTLEMENT a. Akhangaran Landfill Land Acquisition & Resettlement Land acquisition (Government) ha 10.0 30 - - - - 30 300 - - - - 300.0 Permitting (Government) ls 120.0 0.7 0.3 1 84 - - 36 - 120.0 Resettlement and Compensation (Govt.) set 100.0 1 - - - 1 100 - - - - 100.0 TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION & RESETTLEMENT 484 - - 36 - 520.0 2. AKHANGARAN LANDFILL a. Site Development & Security Total Transformer station set 250.0 1 1 250 - - - - 250.0 Lighting set 10.0 1 1 10 - - - - 10.0 Security fencing m 0.045 2,000 2,000 90 - - - - 90.0 Pavement m2 0.1 6,000 6,000 378 - - - - 378.0 sub-total 728 - - - - 728 b. Buildings & Infrastructure Total Administration building set 20.0 1 1 20 - - - - 20.0 Workshop " 100.0 1 1 100 - - - - 100.0 Entrance control and gate " 5.0 1 1 5 - - - - 5.0 Weighbridge " 48.0 2 2 96 - - - - 96.0 Fuel station - sub-total 221 - - - - 221 c. Landfill Installation Site survey set 30.0 1 1 30 - - - - 30.0 Design & supervision set 600.0 1 1 600 - - - - 600.0 Excavation & berns ha 115.0 14 14 1,610 - - - - 1,609.7 Clay liner ha 76.8 14 14 1,075 - - - - 1,074.9 Gravel pack " 54.3 14 14 760 - - - - 759.7 HDPE Membrane installation " 165.0 14 14 2,310 - - - - 2,310.0 Geotextile installation " 160.0 14 14 2,240 - - - - 2,240.0 sub-total 8,624 - - - - 8,624 d. Leachate Collection System Shafts no. 47.5 10 - - - - 10 475 - - - - 475.0 HDPE Piping 300mm m 0.17 700 - - - - 700 121 - - - - 121.1 Drain pipes 300mm m 0.23 2,000 - - - - 2,000 468 - - - - 468.0 Penetration piece no. 6.88 10 - - - - 10 69 - - - - 68.8 sub-total 1,133 - - - - 1,133 e. Leachate Treatment Plant Bio-chemical plant set 2,600.0 1 1 2,600 - - - - 2,600.0

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 1

Item Unit Unit Cost 2012 Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total f. Landfill Gas Collection Planning and Design set 150.0 1 1 150 - - - - 150.0 Civil works set 40.0 1 1 40 - - - - 40.0 Gas wells (incld drilling & piping) no. 6.0 40 40 240 - - - - 240.0 Horizontal collector pipes HDPE 225mm m 0.2 700 700 126 - - - - 126.0 Flexible HDPE connectors 110mm DA no. 0.3 40 40 12 - - - - 12.0 Temporary well connection HDPE 110mm m 0.1 4,500 4,500 495 - - - - 495.0 sub-total 1,063 - - - - 1,063 g. Gas utilisation plant Dewatering station HDPE 2000 DA set 70.0 2 140 - - - - 140.0 Temporary gas collection station " 6.0 6 36 - - - - 36.0 Gas flare " 500.0 1 500 - - - - 500.0 Safety & analysis equipment " 10.0 1 10 - - - - 10.0 sub-total 686 - - - - 686 h. Landfill Surface Sealing Design & Supervision set 500.0 1 1 - - - - 500 500.0 Earthmoving ha 57.0 14 14 - - - - 798 798.5 Gravel drainage layer " 27.8 14 14 - - - - 389 388.8 HDPE Membrane installation " 172.5 14 14 - - - - 2,415 2,415.0 Geotextile installation " 100.0 14 14 - - - - 1,400 1,400.0 sub-total - - - - 5,502 5,502 TOTAL LANDFILL SITE CIVIL WORKS 15,055 - - - 5,502 20,557.3

3 TASHKENT WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM a. Tashkent Transfer Station Rehabilitation Yakkasaray Transfer Station ls 850.0 1 - - - - 1 850 - - - - 850.0 Khamza Transfer Station (closure) " 50.0 1 - - - - 1 50 - - - - 50.0 Yunus-Abad Transfer Station " 850.0 1 - - - - 1 850 - - - - 850.0 sub-total 1,750 - - - - 1,750.0 b. District Garage Stations Rehabilitation Rehabilitation no. 50.0 6 - - - - 6 300 - - - - 300.0 Construction of building " 100.0 5 - - - - 5 500 - - - - 500.0 Associated works set 100.0 1 - - - - 1 100 - - - - 100.0 sub-total 900 - - - - 900.0 c. Collection Points Development Rehabilitation of CPs no. 3.0 675 - - - - 675 2,025 - - - - 2,025.0 Construction of new secure CPs " 7.5 375 - - - - 375 2,813 - - - - 2,812.5 7500 sub-total 1,050 4,838 - - - - 4,837.5 Sub-Total Tashkent Base Costs 7,488 - - - - 7,487.5 Planning and Design % 7% 524 - - - - 524.1 Project Management & Supervision % 5% 374 - - - - 374.4 TOTAL TASHKENT CIVIL WORKS 8,386 - - - - 8,386.0

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

Item Unit Unit Cost 2012 Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 4. VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT a. Waste Collection Trucks 10m3 2 axel RHS loading no. 55.0 76 - - - - 76 4,180 - - - - 4,180.0 15m3 3 axel RHS loading " 80.0 66 - - - - 66 5,280 - - - - 5,280.0 15m3 3 axel Back-loading " 80.0 32 - - - - 32 2,560 - - - - 2,560.0 20m3 3 axel Back-loading " 90.0 49 - - - - 49 4,410 - - - - 4,410.0 20m3 3 axel Press-pack " 90.0 22 - - - - 22 1,980 - - - - 1,980.0 20 m3 3 axel arm roll container " 90.0 20 - - - - 20 1,800 - - - - 1,800.0 Transfer Trucks 27m3 4-axel " 150.0 17 - - - - 17 2,550 - - - - 2,550.0 Trailers 2 axel 27 m3 container capacity " 60.0 17 - - - - 17 1,020 - - - - 1,020.0 sub-total 299 23,780 - - - - 23,780.0 b. Landfill Machinery Bulldozer no. 330.0 2 - - - - 2 660 - - - - 660.0 Waste Compactor " 380.0 2 - - - - 2 760 - - - - 760.0 Excavator " 120.0 1 - - - - 1 120 - - - - 120.0 Wheel loader " 120.0 2 - - - - 2 240 - - - - 240.0 Dump truck " 95.0 3 3 285 - - - - 285.0 sub-total 2,065 - - - - 2,065.0 c. Transfer Containers Containers 27 m3 Cylindrical no. 10.0 100 - - - - 100 1,000 - - - - 1,000.0 d. Waste Collection Bins Type 1 750 lt no. 0.3 5,000 - - - - 5,000 1,250 - - - - 1,250.0 Type 2 1100 lt no. 0.8 8,500 8,500 6,375 - - - - 6,375.0 Household 0.5m3 "wheelie bins" no. 0.03 200,000 - - - - 200,000 5,000 - - - - 5,000.0 sub-total 12,625 - - - - 12,625.0 TOTAL VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT 39,470 - - - - 39,470.0 5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT & CAPACITY BUILDING a. Project Management Unit 1,650.0 PMU personnel & support ls 1,500 0.4 0.6 0.1 - - 1.1 600 900 150 - - 1,650.0 sub-total 600 900 150 - - 1,650.0 b. Capacity Support Programmes National SWM Strategy Formulation ls 700 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 210 280 210 - - 700.0 Legal Framework & Regulatory Support Pr ls 300 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 90 120 90 - - 300.0 Waste Minimisation & Recycling Strategy ls 400 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 120 160 120 - - 400.0 Media & Public Relations Program ls 300 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 90 120 90 - - 300.0 sub-total 510 680 510 - - 1,700.0 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1,110 1,580 660 - - 3,350.0 TOTAL BASE COSTS 64,505 1,580 660 36 5,502 72,283.3 Contingency 10% 6,451 158 66 4 550 7,228.3 GRAND TOTAL COSTS 70,956 1,738 726 40 6,052 79,511.6 Notes: 1. Maxsustrans has suggested that all their trucks have the option of also using methane, which would require methane gas stations to be installed in each garage. This option has to be evaluated. 2. New Guarded Collection Points are approximately 12x12 m, have a 2x3 m operator's accommodation and toilet, surrounded by a 1.5m wall, with secure gate and connected to water, telephone, and electricity. 3. Government are already committed to leasing 121 waste collection and transfer trucks in 2012 and 2013 with a combined value of $9.4 million.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

UZB-8004 Appendix 8 Institutional and Regulatory Assessment

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

Institutional and Regulatory Assessment

Institutional and Regulatory Framework

During the inception phase, initial meetings were held with key Government agencies involved in the sector in order to initially assess the overall institutional structure of the sector. Most of the initial meetings focused on providing a summary presentation of the Project in order for stakeholder personnel to fully understand the Project’s objectives and outputs; and in turn, to learn basic information regarding the overall mandate, structure and operations of each entity and to discuss sector issues and objectives in general terms. It is emphasized that practically all meetings required Russian-English translation, which obviously limits the amount of information exchange during these initial meetings. This summary is also based solely on information obtained from these meetings and the initial analysis, which necessarily is to be verified and modified as necessary during subsequent Project phases.

The institutional and regulatory framework for the SWM sector is defined in the Law on Waste, which is the key legislative document guiding and regulating SWM sector development. As shown, reporting directly to the Cabinet of Ministers, four primary national agencies are involved with sector planning, development, coordination and regulation; while sector implementation is a municipal government function. These agencies are summarized as follows.

Cabinet of Ministers

The Cabinet of Ministers is ultimately responsible for the approval of the State’s SWM programs, including the development of SWM norms and standards. It establishes procedures for SWM registration and control, waste certification, and the trans-boundary movements of wastes. The Cabinet is also responsible for land allocations for waste management facilities, and for setting compensation levels.

State Committee for Nature Protection

The committee is a supervisory body for the protection of air, land, water, waste and biodiversity. It coordinates the activities of agencies, collaborates with international organizations, and exercises State control over compliance with SWM legislation. It gives environmental permits and monitors compliance. The committee is also mandated to maintain an inventory of national SWM disposal sites, which currently includes a total of 178 registered sites. Currently, the committee has a total staff of approximately 1,950 personnel including 25 personnel in the Tashkent national administration office. Of these personnel, it is reported however that only 16 personnel are involved in the SWM sector throughout the entire nation; three in the central Tashkent office and one compliance officer in each of the 13 provincial offices of the committee.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 1

The committee has had a long-term involvement in the regulation of SWM. Since the Soviet withdrawal, it has continued to enforce environmental regulations and compliance, largely utilizing the previous ‘Soviet norm’ system, a system that continues today. During the period 1995-2002, the committee was tasked to assist in the formulation of the Law on Waste that was adopted in 2002. During this period several of the staff traveled extensively in order to gain the knowledge necessary to formulate the law. During 2005, the committee also worked closely with the United Nations to prepare a policy paper on SWM, however since this time, it is reported that there have not been any further regulatory developments in the sector.

Ministry of Health

The Ministry of Health ensures compliance with health standards by supervising waste handling rules, sanitary norms and other measures in order to protect the population against waste impacts. It also provides specialist support in the assessment of risks from hazardous materials, and reports on sanitary evaluations of waste management facilities.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 `2

Institutional Organization

Cabinet of Ministers

Approves state SWM programs, ensures implementation Establishes state SWM registration and control procedures Establishes the order of State Cadastre of landfills and Establishes procedures to develop and approve SWM standards Establishes waste import, export and transit procedures Establishes waste certification procedures Approves the list of hazardous waste and waste transboundary movements Decides land allocations for hazardous waste disposal Establishes procedures for handling non-deposit containers and packaging Sets compensation payment size for waste disposal Exercise other powers in accordance with the law.

State Committee for Uzkommunkhizmat Ministry of Health Sanoatkontekhnazorat Nature Protection National Agency

Exercises state control over compliance with Supervises compliance with sanitary norms and Develops MSW treatment programs and State control and supervision of the accounting, SWM legislation requirements waste handling rules submits them to the Cabinet of Ministers storage and disposal of waste mining and Coordinates the activities of authorized state Identifies measures to protect the population Monitors the status of MSW collection, processing industries bodies in SWM against harmful waste effects transportation, processing and recycling State control of radioactive waste management Sets standards for waste generation and waste Reports the conclusion of state sanitary Exercise other powers in accordance with the Other powers in accordance with the law. disposal facilities evaluations of waste management facilities law Maintains the state inventory of waste disposal Certifies and establishes sanitary requirements sites for recycled materials Exercises other powers in accordance with the Provides support in assessing risks from law. hazardous waste Exercises other powers in accordance with the law

Provincial Authorities

Implement national SWM programs, according to local programs Create conditions for business development in SWM Resolve waste treatment and disposal facility placement issues SWM legislation monitoring and control Promote the establishment of MSW collection and recycling enterprises Exercise other powers in accordance with the law

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 `3

Uzkommunkhizmat (UCSA)

UCSA is the Government’s national municipal infrastructure development agency. It has two broad but very different mandates; (i) it formulates State policy for the national urban sector, facilitates reforms, collates national data on residential urban services, and advises Government on investment programs and decrees; and (ii) it acts as a State service provider by managing six inter-regional and regional trunk water mains, for which it apparently earns income from bulk water sales. In addition, UCSA is the designated implementing agency for 63 ongoing international donor investment projects throughout Uzbekistan, which have a reported value of US$ 1.845 billion. International donor investment partners include ADB, World Bank, China EXIM, Korea EXIM, the Kuwait Fund and JICA. UCSA also includes one training center, and has close affiliations (and apparent part-ownership) in two design institutes and one engineering company. Currently, UCSA is responsible for technical and regulatory aspects of SWM nationwide. It is also highly active in the water sector, where it is for example, implementing a major ADB-funded nationwide investment program. In addition to this, its mandate also includes the district heating sector.

The predecessor of UCSA was the Ministry of Utilities, which apparently undertook many municipal development functions during the Soviet times. At that time, the ministry had extensive operational departments with highly skilled staffing compliments; it even had its own truck fleets that undertook solid waste collection activities. These departments reported directly to their respective provincial administrations and to the minister. The ministry was dissolved after independence, being replaced by UCSA.

Within UCSA is the Training and Methodological Center (training center), which is part of the State management system and responsible for research, training and regulatory functions for the utility sectors. It is responsible for designing the legislative base, implementing policy, ensuring that reform programs are fulfilled, and performs training and secondment functions. It has a staff of 23 personnel, including ten working exclusively in the water supply sector. Although the training center has a director who specializes in SWM, it apparently does not possess in-house skills in SWM, relying instead on ad-hoc consulting assignments with individual specialists. One of the key functions of the training center is to formulate utility regulations; it spearheaded the formulation of the Law on Waste in 2002, and subsequently developed 13 additional SWM regulations. In recent times however, regulations have not been formulated due to budget constraints. Training center personnel are aware of the opportunities, needs and constraints facing the SWM sector; recognizing the need for sector reforms, uniform technical policies, and formulation of a sector-wide national SWM strategy and investment program1.

Discussions have also been held with one of the two design institutes associated with UCSA. This design institute is a semi-autonomous entity, which is apparently 51 percent Government owned and 49 percent privately held, although the Government appoints the managing director of the institute directly2. It reportedly has an executive board of five members, of which the managing director is a member. The institute is reported to be completely self-funded, being supported through professional fees earned from consulting assignments. According to the managing director, approximately 70 percent of its income is obtained from competitively procured Government and private sector projects, and 30 percent through sole-source Government contracts. It has 40 employees.

1 The training center also has concepts of how to develop a national strategy, including for example, its opinion that the strategy should cover four distinct zones based on geographic, climatic and other parameters. 2 The State Property Committee assigns the State Architecture and Construction Committee to appoint the managing director. Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 1

The institute develops standard engineering and technical designs only; it is not involved in system planning or implementation. Its history goes back nearly 60 years; during Soviet times was a major professional organization with up to 550 staff and involved in most utility sectors. Although its mandate includes the SWM sector and it originally designed Tashkent’s Akhungaran disposal facility, it has not been active in the sector for over 20 years. This is due apparently to the lack of SWM projects in the utilities sector, resulting in the institute’s SWM specialists leaving. It is however highly active in the water supply sector, and notably in social and environmental safeguards analysis.

Sanoatkontekhnazorat

Sanoatkontekhnazorat is responsible for the State control and supervision of mining and processing waste. It is also the authority responsible for the proper management of radioactive waste materials.

Provincial Authorities

According to the Law on Waste, Uzbekistan’s provincial authorities are directly mandated to implement SWM programs, resolve issues relating to waste treatment and disposal facility siting, promote MSW collection and recycling enterprises, and create conditions to encourage business development in SWM. Interestingly, provincial authorities are also mandated to exercise legislation monitoring and control over SWM operations, although at this stage it is not clear what these functions consist of, or how far they relate to self-monitoring concepts.

The provision and management of municipal SWM is therefore performed at the city or municipal level. Indeed, cities and municipalities are directly responsible for overall ‘municipal beautification’, which also includes park maintenance, landscaping and drainage. Each city characteristically operates its own SWM system, often through a SWM service company, which it controls. Outside of Tashkent, the provision of SWM services is reported to be extremely basic; generally characterized by an under-funded SWM services company struggling to provide an adequate level of waste collection, and with all collected waste being dumped in un-engineered dumpsites and dumping grounds. In rural areas, SWM reportedly decline to informal-based operations, where communities fund waste collection on an ad-hock basis. It is also reported that MSW is not collected at all in many areas, and that the total national average of waste collection is only about 50 percent.

Tashkent City Government

The city’s SWM system is coordinated and monitored by the city through its utilities coordination agency, which coordinates about twenty of the city’s joint stock companies and other entities. One of these entities is Maxsustrans, which is the city’s waste management company responsible for the entire collection, transfer, treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) within the city. The managing director of Maxsustrans is apparently appointed by the coordinating agency. Funding for the coordinating agency is provided exclusively by the entities that they coordinate through fees paid to them; funding is apparently not provided by the city directly.

Although Maxsustrans is reported as wholly owned by the city, its day-to-day operations appear largely autonomous from provincial or national oversight. It has a staff of approximately 1,900 personnel, divided into six divisions. Maxsustrans operates the city’s entire SWM assets and infrastructure, including collection and transfer vehicle fleets, transfer stations, the Akhangaran disposal facility and one vehicle maintenance yard. Operating round the clock, its operations cover the districts of the city and also the city of Chirchik to the north of the city, collecting MSW from all households, and from institutional, commercial and other establishments.. In addition to this, it is reported that Maxsustrans also services other areas outside of the city.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

Maxsustrans Organization Chart

The current domestic tariff for SWM in Tashkent is reported to be UZS 1,100 per person per month, regardless of age. This tariff has risen relatively sharply over the past three years, up from UZS 800 in 2009. Household tariffs are collected directly by Maxsustrans from each consumer utilizing a cash payment system and also through direct commercial bank payments. It also has approximately 30,000 individual commercial contracts with commercial, institutional and other waste generators, of which about 2,000 are reported to be relatively large generators. In addition to this, Maxsustrans apparently receives revenues for SWM services provided to consumers outside of Tashkent’s eleven districts noted above. It is reported that all income received by Maxsustrans is utilized exclusively to fund its operations, and that it does not receive Government subsidies. Maxsustrans reports an estimated overall tariff collection efficiency of 90 percent.

In 2000, Tashkent was the recipient of a major US$ 56 million SWM sector investment project, funded by the Government, World Bank and IBRD. This investment project included a range of physical investments, notably collection vehicles and infrastructure, waste transfer stations, transfer vehicles, and waste disposal facility improvements. An institutional support program was also provided as part of the project, which included project management support, strategy development, the strengthening of tariff and financial management systems, system operations training, and public participation and education assistance.

Other Agencies

The Ministry of Finance is actively involved in the management and coordination of sector investment programs, sector financing, and in tariff development and implementation. The Ministry of Economy develops programs for the utilities sector, including SWM, through its department of housing and utilities. It also promotes clean development mechanism (CDM) initiatives, which is directly relevant to proposed SWM investments. The SWM sector activities of these and other agencies will be assessed to a greater extent in future Project phases.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

Initial Assessment are as follows;

1. Although the Law on Waste provides a solid legislative foundation for the sector3 the reported large number of ancillary regulations (up to 50) indicate that simplification, rationalization and modification of these regulations should be beneficial, particularly in light of the planned strategic improvements to the sector. There is an apparent lack of stakeholder knowledge of even the existence of certain regulations pertaining to the sector, let alone an understanding of and compliance with the requirements.

2. From meetings, the total number of professional personnel employed exclusively in the SWM sector at the national level within the two primary agencies of UCSA and the Committee on Nature Protection is less than ten personnel. Furthermore, the Committee on Nature Protection apparently employs only one SWM district officer in each province; a total of 13 personnel. In addition, the Ministry of Economy reports that only three professional staff are employed in its housing and utilities agency to work part time in SWM, and as another example, UCSA’s affiliated design institute ceased activity in the SWM sector some twenty years ago. Even the Law on Waste was formulated by only very few Uzbek specialists following short sabbaticals overseas in order to gain enough basic knowledge by which to formulate it. While the achievements of these few professionals are to be commended, it also reinforces the urgent need to substantially and expeditiously build sector capacity at the national level. If Uzbekistan is to make significant physical investments in its SWM sector, these must be matched with investments in its SWM institutional and regulatory framework and institutions.

3. Discussions project an overall opinion in the sector that a stronger national implementing institution is required than exists today, whether that be UCSA or another entity; indeed, regret has been expressed by several that the previous Ministry of Utilities was abandoned. It is imperative that the sector has such a single agency.

4. It is also apparent that the Committee on Nature Protection needs significant strengthening if it is to adequately regulate sector operations.

Further institutional assessment is planned for the interim phase of the Project in order to assess in greater detail the involved institutions, their inter-relationships and the overall institutional framework, following which institutional strengthening and rationalization options can be identified and reviewed, leading to recommendations for institutional improvements. It is proposed to convene and maintain a working group in order to complete the assessment, to include representatives from each institution. In addition, the entire compliments of some 50 or so regulations relating to SWM are currently being reviewed, in order to develop recommendations for regulatory reform in conjunction with the above.

3 Through the definition of the ownership of waste, agency obligations and other directives, Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 4

UZB‐ TA 8004 Appendix 09 Legal and Institutional Environmental Framework

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012 THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

This section outlines the environmental legislation framework in Uzbekistan including international conventions and treaties ratified by the Republic. The legislative framework presented in this section also focuses on the prevailing environmental laws relevant to project and aims to ensure it is compliant with the environmental policies and regulations and the requirements imposed by the concerned regulatory agency.

National Environmental Regulatory and Legal Framework

Environmental protection and environmental safety in Uzbekistan is considered to be a salient component in maintaining national and vital interest of the state. In turn, it enacted several legislations relating to the protection and use of natural resources and environmental protection which consists of laws, Presidential decrees, Government resolutions, ministerial regulatory acts, and local authority acts. The main principles of environmental legislation in Uzbekistan have been stipulated within the Republic's Constitution stated within the following articles:

 Article 55 stipulates that the land and its subsoil, water, flora and fauna and other natural resources are national assets that should be rationally used and protected by state;  Articles 47 and 48 define the citizens' liabilities to comply with the Constitution and laws;  Article 50 makes citizens responsible for careful nature treatment;  Article 51 obliges citizens to pay legally established taxes and describes the powers of state authorities, including those arising from the regulation of ecological relations (i.e., Article 100).

These policies are backed up with mitigation and environmental management measures based on the following principles:

 Integration of the economic and environmental policy to support conservation and restoration of the environment as pre-requisite to alleviate the society’s standard of living;  Change from protection of individual elements of nature to the overall and integrated conservation of eco-systems; and  Responsibility of all members of the society for environment protection, biodiversity conservation, environmental improvement and securing healthy environmental conditions for the population.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 2

The key national environmental law is the Law on Nature Protection (Law No. 754 – XII of 1992). This directive is complemented by laws that directly regulate issues associated with environment protection and sustainable use of natural resources and laws that specify environmental standards.

Environmental Protection Law (Law No. 754-XII of 1992). The Uzbekistan Environmental Protection Law, adopted on December 9, 1992 (as amended on May 1995; April 1997; December 1998; and August 2000) provides the framework for environmental impact assessment (EIA) and state ecological review, its requirements and processes. Article 4 establishes the mandatory nature of a review committee or the “state ecological expertise” (SEE) as a means to achieving environmental protection within various types of public- and private-sector economic activities. It functions is to identify and prevent irreversible environmental impacts. Likewise, whenever deemed necessary, to intervene to ensure the restoration and protection of natural resources. Article 8 stipulates that national legislations, regulations, and resolutions issued by the Cabinet of Ministers, the State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP), and local state authorities will govern the management and use of natural resources. Article 11 establishes the Goskompriroda or SCNP as a duly authorized state body acting as subordinate to the parliament responsible for environmental management and protection. The table below outlines some key articles from the law and the related requirements pertaining to the project.

Article # Particulars #14: Environmental Norms Stipulates the environmental norms and standards. This provides the general requirements, rules, and procedures in environment and Standards management as well as a framework establishing norms and standards for environmental monitoring. # 19: Water and water The articles states that surface, groundwater and marine water resources of the Republic can be utilized as long as sufficient water bodies volumes allow such use; water quality is maintained according to the stipulated standard, aquatic flora and fauna should be conserved, water pollution (or any exceedances to the water quality standard) is prohibited, the preservation of the ecological balance as well as the protection of the natural landscape elements. #20: Air Exceedances emissions affecting air quality promoting air pollution and air degradation shall be avoided. Emissions should conform to established standards. Wastes generators have responsibility for the safe disposal of their respective waste, disposed in a manner where opportunities for re-use or recycling and are maximized. It also states the responsibilities of the #22: Waste Disposal local authorities in waste disposal. These articles also states the following key elements:

 That organizations, establishments, and individuals should #41: Environmental seek to implement low-waste (or “zero-waste”) approaches, Requirements to reduce the generation of production and consumption wastes, provide for their proper disposal and utilization; developments encourage procedures of waste separation, storage, disposal and possibly recycling.  It is prohibited to store and dispose hazardous wastes on areas classified as settlements lands, protected areas, #45: Protection against recreational areas, historical / cultural sites, areas within water bodies and water protection zones and/or in areas contamination associated where there is a risk to the health and safety of its citizens.  Permission for the disposal of waste underground shall be with wastes considered as justified after conducting ample ground / soil investigation. Provision for the health and safety of citizens and the protection of the environment is mandatory.  The treatment of wastes and disposal or storage of wastes in landfills is only authorized by the state bodies for nature protection (e.g. SCNR).

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 3

Article # Particulars Economic instruments include:  Establishment of resource user charges, pollution charges and other environmental fees;  Tax and financial incentives for introduction of low-waste and resource-recovery technologies; #33 Economic Instruments  Taxes levied on environmentally hazardous technologies and to promote the protection operations;  Permissions to discharge and emit pollutants or to perform of the environment other environmentally hazardous activities;  Allocation of responsibilities for the recovery of disturbed environs;  Compensative payments for the damage to the environment;  Deprivation of bonuses and awards for officers;  Incentive prices and mark-ups for environmentally friendly products;  Economic sanctions against natural resources users for wasting natural resources and confronting with the established norms;  Performance incentives to groups and/or individual workers for promoting environmental protection and for the manufacture of environmentally-friendly products;  Other economic incentives as identified by the national legislation and by local authorities.  Resources user charges and pollution charges include environmental taxes and other compulsory fees associated with the use of natural resources as well as compensative pollution charges associated with emissions, discharges and waste disposal, and conservation and renewal fees imposed on users of natural resources;  Environmental tax rates and other payments associated with the use of natural resources are set in compliance with the #34: Environmental legislation and depend on occurrence, quality, renewal capacity, accessibility, complexity, productivity, location, Charges possibility of processing of natural resources and wastes reuse and recycling opportunities and other factors;  Rates of pollution charges associated with emissions, discharges and waste disposal are subject for approval by the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan as advised by the Goskompriroda;  Rates of conservation and renewal fees are subject for approval by the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan;  Resources user charges constitute part of the primary cost of the product (works or services);  Compensative pollution charges and charges associated with exceeded norms and non-sustainable use of natural resources are collected by levy on the user profit;  Collected resources user charges, conservation and renewal fees are transferred to the national budget;  Collected compensative pollution charges associated with emissions, discharges and waste disposal are transferred to the relevant nature conservation funds;  Paid resources user charges and compensative pollution charges does not exempt from the responsibility to undertake environmental activities and to repair the environmental damage. #38 Emergency Response Where accidents occur, an organization should immediately initiate emergency response pursuant to the emergency response action plan and Environmental with notification to respective governmental bodies, environmental Hazards authorities and emergency response organizations to mitigate environmental impacts associated with the accident.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 4

Chapter VI, Articles 24-27 is directed to the SEE, which is a mandatory technical review that must be completed prior to making an economic decision. It states that the implementation of projects without a positive finding, or conclusion, from the SEE shall be prohibited. Chapter X, Articles 41-46, establishes the environmental requirements for various types of economic and commercial activities. Assessment and decisions on development and implementation of large scale projects that may have significant negative environmental impacts rest only with the Cabinet of Ministers, based on the recommendations and conclusion of the SEE.

As a supplement to the Law No. 754-XII of 1992, the following legal and regulatory laws, national decrees and resolutions are used to manage specific environmental issues;

National Laws

 Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State Sanitary Supervision No.657-XII of 03.07.1992 (as amended on 03.09.2010)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Water and Water Management No.837-XII of 06.05.1993 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Local Government Authorities No.913-XII of 02.09.1993 (as amended on 31.12.2008)  Criminal Code, Section 4. Environmental Crimes, approved on 22.09.1994 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Code on Administrative Liability, approved on 22.09.1994 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Subsoil No.2018-XII of 23.09.1994 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Atmospheric Air Protection No.353-I of 27.12.1996 (as amended on 10.10.2006)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Protection and Use of Flora No.543-I of 26.12.1997 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Protection and Use of Fauna No.545-I of 26.12.1997 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Land Code, approved on 30.04.1998 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State Land Cadastre No.666-I of 28.08.1998 (as amended on 03.12.2004)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Forestry No.770-I of 14.04.1999 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Protection of the Population and Areas against Natural and Man-Made Emergencies, No.824-I of 20.08.1999 (as amended on 17.09.2010)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Wastes No.362-II of 05.04.2002 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Environmental Expertise No.73-II of 25.05.2000 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Radiation Safety No.120-II of 31.08.2000 (as amended on 18.12.2007)  Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on State Cadastres No.171-II of 15.12.2000 (as amended on 04.01.2011)

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 5

 Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Protected Natural Areas No.710-II of 03.12.2004

National Decrees and Regulations

 Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on the Red Book of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.109 of 09.03.1992  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Restricted Water Use in Uzbekistan No.385 of 03.08.1993 (as amended on 02.04.2010)  Decree of the Supreme Council of Uzbekistan on Reinforcement of the Protection of Valuable and Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna and Harmonization of their Use No.937- XII of 03.09.1993  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Establishing Quotes for the Calculation of Penalties for Damage Caused to Flora of Uzbekistan No.293 of 27.07.1995 (as amended on 01.04.2005)  Decree of Oliy Majlis of Uzbekistan on Approval of the Regulations on State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.232-I of 26.04.1996 (as amended on 04.01.2011)  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Approval of Regulatory Documents in Conformity with the Law of Uzbekistan on Subsoil No.19 of 13.01.1997 (as amended on 17.12.2010)  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of the Republic of Uzbekistan 139 of 01.04.1998 (as amended on 19.09.2000  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on the National Environmental Action Program of Uzbekistan for the period 1999-2005 No.469 20.10.1999 (as amended on 14.04.2004)  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Approval of the Regulations on the State Environmental Expertise in the Republic of Uzbekistan No.491 of 31.12.2001 (as amended on 05.06.2009)  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “Regulations on National Environmental Monitoring in Uzbekistan to Coordinate Monitoring Activities of Ministries and Agencies” No.111 of 03.04.2002  Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on Improving the System of Pollution and Waste Disposal Charges in Uzbekistan No.199 of 01.05.2003 (as amended on 02.04.2010)  Decree of the President of Uzbekistan on Measures to Improve the Procedure for Issuing Licenses for the Use of Subsurface Resources No.PP-649 of 07.06.2007 (as amended on 23.12.2010)  Annex No.2 to Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “Regulations on State Control and Supervision of Subsoil Management, Conservation, Exploration and Sustainable Use of Mineral Resources” No.19 of 13.01.1997 (as amended on 19.07.2007)  Annex No.2 to Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “Regulations on the Procedure for Issuing Mining Allotment Permits to Develop Deposits of Mineral Resources” No.20 of 13.01.1997 (as amended on 10.07.2004)

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 6

 Annex No.3 to Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “Regulations on the Procedure for Issuing Mining Allotment Permits to Develop Deposits of Mineral Resources” No.20 of 13.01.1997 (as amended on 10.07.2004)  Annex No.1 to Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “The National Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emissions (main provisions)” No.309 of 09.10.2000  Annex No.2 to Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan “Measures to Implement the National Strategy for Reducing of Greenhouse Gases Emissions” No.389 of 09.10.2000  Regulation on Measures for Ground Water Management, Enhancement of Ground Water Protection against Pollution and Depletion, enacted by Decree of the Cabinet of Ministries of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.179 of 08.04.1992  Regulation on Water Protection Zones for Water Reservoirs and Other Waterbodies, Rivers, Main and Irrigation Canals as well as for Drinking Water and Household Water Supply Sources, and Sources of Sanatoria and Health Improving Facilities in Uzbekistan, enacted by Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan No.174 of 07.04.1992 (as amended on 24.09.2003)  Instructions on Inventory of Pollution Sources and Rating Pollutant Emissions for Ventures in Uzbekistan, enacted by Order of the Chairman of the State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.105 of 15.12.2005. Registered in the Ministry of Justice of Uzbekistan No.1533 of 15.12.2005

Solid Waste Management Legislation

In 2002, The Government of Uzbekistan enacted a Solid Waste Law. The main objectives of the law are to prevent the adverse effect of waste on the life and health of the population and the environment, and to promote waste reduction and waste recycling activities. The Law establishes legal, institutional, and economic fundamentals for waste management; specifies the directions of state regulation of the sector; and establishes powers of the central and local government authorities (summarized in Table 1). The Law also regulates waste standardization, storage, and disposal; environmental certification and state registration; hazardous waste transportation; and the maintenance of the state cadastre of waste disposal and utilization sites. The Law institutes the system of compensatory payments for waste disposal, and specifies measures to promote waste reduction and recycling activities. In addition to the Law on Environmental Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan initially adopted in 1992 and the Solid Waste Law, other laws and resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers relating to solid waste management include the following:

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 7

National Laws:

 Law on Environmental Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan (1992)  Law on State Sanitary Supervision of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2000)  Law on Radiation Safety of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2000)  Land Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (1998)

Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan

 #247 Improving “Regulations for Imports and Exports of Ozone-Destructive Substances and of Products Containing these Substances” issued on November 11, 2005  #151 “Regulations for Imports and Exports of Environmentally Hazardous Products and Waste” issued on April 19, 2000;  #405 “Streamlining the Operations of Companies for Utilization and Disposal of Lamps and Devices Containing Mercury” issued on October 23, 2000;  #199 “Improvement of the System of Fees for Pollution of the Environment and Waste disposal in the Territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan” issued on May 1, 2003;  #111 “Approval of the Statute for Licensing Operations in Turnover of the Source of Ionizing Radiation”;  #112 “Approval of the Statute for Licensing Operations in Mining of Precious and Rare Earth Metals, and Precious Stones”  #250 “Approval of the Statute for Licensing Operations in Turnover of the Source of Ionizing Radiation”  #15 “Improvement of Payment Systems for Special Utilization of the Environment”

Other Regulatory Acts

 Statute for Procedures of Establishment and Waste Cadastres of the Republic of Uzbekistan;  RD 118.0027719.1-91-91 – Procedures to Issue Permits for Waste Storage (Land Disposal);  RD 118.0027714.25-93 Procedures for Undertaking State Environmental Oversight of the Facilities for Disposal of Solid Household Waste of Residential Areas of the Republic of Uzbekistan;  RD 118.0027714.31-94 Procedures for Undertaking State Environmental Oversight (Inspections) of the Facilities for Disposal of Toxic Industrial Waste of Businesses in the Republic of Uzbekistan;  SanPiN # 0068-96 of the Republic of Uzbekistan – Sanitary Rules for Collection, Storage, Transportation, Treatment, and Disposal of Solid Household Waste in the urban areas of the Republic of Uzbekistan;  SanPiN # 0056-96 Establishment and Maintenance of Healthcare Institutions of the Republic of Uzbekistan;  Temporary Classificator # 4286-87 of Toxic Industrial Waste and Technical Recommendations for Identification of Toxicity Category of Industrial Waste of the Ministry of Health of the U.S.S.R. and State Committee for Science and Technologies of the U.S.S.R.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 8

 RD 118.0027714.60-97 Environmental Protection. Treatment of Industrial and Consumption Waste. Terms and Definitions.  RD 118.0027714.61-97 Environmental Protection. Treatment of Industrial and Consumption Waste. Introduction and procedures for stocktaking of industrial and Consumption Waste of Businesses.  RD 118.0027714.62-97 Environmental Protection. Treatment of Industrial and Consumption Waste. Technical Guidelines for Determination of Maximum Amount of Industrial and Consumption Waste Disposal.  KMK 2.01.12-96 Landfills for Treatment and Land Disposal of Toxic Industrial Waste. General design regulations.  SanPiN # 0026-2002 Stocktaking, Classification, Storage, and Treatment of Industrial Waste.  SanPiN # 0149-04 Sanitary Rules and Norms of Waste Collection, Storage, and Removal by Healthcare Institutions;  SanPiN # 0157-04 Sanitary Requirements to Storage and Treatment of Solid Household Waste in Special Landfills in Uzbekistan.

In regards to the technical guidelines for planning and activities pertaining to waste collection, transport and storage, the UzkommunXizmat Agency has developed and approved the following:

 Regulations for Utility Services in Disposal of Solid and Liquid Household Waste 1998  Timelines for Motorized cleanup and Sanitation of Residential Areas in the Republic of Uzbekistan – 1998  Service Regulations for Workers involved in Sanitation Works in Households – 2001  Service Regulations for Workers involved in Sanitation Works on Roads and relevant Infrastructure  Regulations for Household Waste Transportation – 2003  Qualification Requirements for Managers, Specialist, and staff of Sanitation companies – 2003  Procedures for 2-stage removal of Solid Household Waste -2004  Guidelines for Design and Maintenance of Solid Household Waste Landfills  Technical Recommendations for Development of Sanitation Schemes for Urban and Residential Areas of the Republic of Uzbekistan  Technical Recommendations to determine the Norms for Accumulation of Solid Household Wastes  Recommendations for separate collection of Solid Household Wastes  Regulations for Development of Urban Sanitation Schemes  Regulations for Technical Maintenance of Facilities, Machinery and Mechanisms of Sanitation Companies

Source: National Waste management Strategy and Action Plan of the Republic of Uzbekistan. UNDP/NZAID Project. Tashkent 2007

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 9

State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda)

The State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP or ‘Goskompriroda’) is the lead environmental agency in Uzbekistan. The committee reports directly to the Parliament and is responsible at national, regional (oblast) and local (district) levels for the development and enforcement of the national environmental and conservation policy. This committee also oversees the environmental compliance and management in various sectors, and secures a healthy environment conditions across the country. Its mandate is set within the Regulation on the State Committee for Nature Protection of the Republic of Uzbekistan enacted in 1996. SCNP is organized structurally with a central office in Tashkent with regional branches and agencies providing scientific and technical support.

In support to SNCP, other ministries and agencies in Uzbekistan have similar responsibilities related to environment protection and control. Such functions include facilitation in setting up and maintaining a solid environmental control, development and implementation of environmental programs, strategies, and action plans to address environmental conservation and sustainability issues. These agencies include:

‐ Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR); ‐ State Committee for Land Resources, Surveys, Cartography and the State Cadastre (or Goskomgeodezkadastr); ‐ State Committee for Geology and Mineral Resources (or Goskomgeologia) ‐ Centre of Hydro-meteorological Service (or Uzhydromet) ‐ Ministry of Health (or MH-GOU); ‐ State Inspectorate for Exploration Supervision, Operations Safety Supervision of Industry, Mining and Utilities Sector (or Sanoatgeokontekhnazorat) and ‐ Ministry of Internal Affairs (or MVD).

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 10

Likewise, there are a number of institutions equally engaged in environmental protection and management (including solid waste management). These institutions and their key responsibilities relevant to the project are summarized in the table below.

Roles of Different Institutions Responsible for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Tashkent

Institution Roles and Responsibilities

State Committee . Oversight of businesses generating industrial and agricultural waste, companies – waste for Nature management operators, facilities for waste management Protection . maintains the State Cadastre of landfills and waste processing facilities . Conduct of environmental examination and assessment for research and development (Goskompriroda) as well as project design and cost estimates in the area of waste management . Regulating authority for implementation of all activities according to environmental laws and regulations . develops and approves waste generation norms and waste disposal standards . develops and approves waste disposal quotas. Ministry of Health . State Sanitary oversight of compliance with the Laws on State Sanitary oversight, on Radiation Safety and on Public Health . Establish sanitary norms and rules for waste management; issues state sanitary and hygienic examination report on waste facilities . Monitoring and implementation of the rules and regulations pertaining to all solid waste handling activities . Oversight of the separate collection of waste in all hospitals, polyclinics, clinics and doctor’s offices UzKommunxizmat . Technical regulation of household waste generated nationwide Agency . Develops government waste management programs and submits them for approval of the Cabinet of Ministers . Monitors the state of collection, transportation, recycling, and treatment of household solid waste

Municipality of . Monitoring all activities of the municipal solid waste management system of Tashkent to Tashkent ensure its stable and smooth operation. Local Government . Participation in nationwide waste management programs; Bodies . Approval of local waste management programs; . Promoting business initiatives in waste management; . Making decisions for location of waste management facilities in appropriate areas; . Supervision of compliance with household waste management legislation. Mahallas . Participation in addressing the issues of location of waste management facilities in appropriate areas; . Facilitate sanitary clean-up of residential areas and timely payment of fees for collection of household waste; . Perform public oversight of sanitary and environmental state of waste management facilities. IB Maxsustrans . Coordinate all the activities of solid waste management system in Tashkent . Landfilling Operations at the Akhangaran landfill site . Development of the solid waste framework of the waste management plan . Preparation of an annual waste report . Generate data and statistics related to solid waste management . Consulting services for the erection of waste treatment plants and new technologies for recycling . Transfer and transport all kinds of municipal solid wastes to Akhangaran landfill . Lease vehicles and contract out waste collection to private operator . Supervise, control, and monitor private companies engaged in transfer and transport activities IB Maxsustrans . Collection of wastes within the districts District Garages . Conclude contracts with private collectors . Conclude contracts with private companies for material recycling within their jurisdiction . Monitor, control, coordinate and supervise all the activities of their districts.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 11

Law on Ecological Expertise. The Law on Ecological Expertise was adopted on May 25, 2000 to integrate various EIA and SEE components embodied in the aforementioned laws. Article 1 defines EE as a process necessary to obtain compliance of a proposed activity with environmental norms and standards and to determine whether or not project implementation can be permitted. Compulsory technical reviews are conducted at various stages prior the implementation of a specific project or activity. It determines potential levels of environmental risks and impacts that the proposed activity of project may have on the environment and public health. Furthermore, it assesses the proposed environmental protection and mitigation measures. Article 5 requires that the following standards are to be the basis of an EE: (a) lawfulness; (b) objectivity; (c) justification; (d) mandatory consideration of environmental security requirements; (e) presumption of environmental risks that originates from all economic and other activities; (f) comprehensiveness (completeness) of assessment of the impact of economic activities on the environment and public health; and (g) autonomy.

Article 11 specifies that the following are subject to SEE: (a) drafts of state programs and concepts and regional and spatial development schemes for various sectors of the economy; (b) construction site selection; (c) pre-design and design documentation; (d) drafts of normative, technical, and methodological documentation to regulate economic and other activities; e) documentation related to new technologies, equipment, and materials; (f) existing facilities with negative environmental and health impacts; environmental programs and ecological disaster zones; and (g) all types of urban development, design, and planning documentation, etc.

Article 15 enumerates the documents of a proposed or an operating project (activity) which must be submitted to SEE for review. For proposed projects, EIA documentation shall include a draft EIA declaration, a declaration on environmental impacts / consequences, and, when required by the legislation, an EIA statement; and for operating projects, draft environmental norms and an EIA statement and/or an environmental audit. A proponent shall submit to the SCNP: (a) a draft EIA declaration prior to initiation of the SEE, (b) an EIA declaration prior to the approval of a project’s technical and economic justification, and (c) a declaration on environmental consequences prior to an authorization of start operating the project.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 12

National Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process

The Regulation on State Environmental Expertise (SEE), approved by Decree No.491 of the Cabinet of Ministers on 31 December 2001 and amended in 2005 and 2009, defines the need to conduct an EIA in Uzbekistan. SEE is a review process conducted by the Goskompriroda for SEE (‘Glavgosecoexpertiza’). Depending on the project category, EIA reports are submitted at either the national or regional level.

The Regulation on SEE stipulates stages of technical review within the SEE context, ranging from Category 1 (High Risk) to Category 4 (Local Impact). Based on the criteria and the type of activity, the project can be categorized to fall under Category 1 projects or High Risk projects.

In line with Section 10 of the SEE regulation, the promoter must conduct the EIA assessment process (locally known as ‘OVOS’) in a phased approach, providing relevant documents and information for review by the Glavgosecoexpertiza at different stages of the Project. Section 11 of the Regulation on SEE outlines the information that should be within the documentation at each of these stages. The three stages and the respective report/s are enumerated below:

‐ The ‘Concept on Environmental Impact’ (Stage I – ‘PZVOS’), to be conducted at the inception or pre-design stage of the proposed project prior to funds being allocated. The report is required to provide details on proposed project / technologies, project components baseline / site conditions, alternatives, anticipated impacts, proposed mitigation measures and other information for making a decision on the project’s feasibility.

‐ The ‘Statement on Environmental Impact’ (Stage II – ‘ZVOS’), to be prepared taking into consideration the findings and conclusions identified by the SEE. Additional investigations or analyses, supplementary field surveys and/or development of additional mitigating measures may be required. This is submitted to the SEE prior to any approval of feasibility of a project and before any construction activities can commence. This statement is also to determine the environmental viability based on the results from field investigations and the feedback from public hearings.

‐ The ‘Statement on Environmental Consequences’ (Stage III – ‘ZEP’) is the final stage of the EIA process. This is done prior to commissioning and project operation. This report provides any alterations done to the project design which may have been required by the SEE and considering the issues discussed during public hearings. A positive SEE endorsement will serve as basis for the project’s operation.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 13

EA Clearance and Compliance

SEE approval (i.e. Glavgosecoexpertiza positive recommendation) is a pre- requisite document for project financing. On the other hand, construction and operation of the proposed project can only be initiated upon receiving clearance on the EA/SEE from the SCNP.

Since the Project is categorized as High Risk, it is envisaged that SEE procedures for this particular project shall be undertaken at the national level. This process of environmental impact review evaluates:

‐ the compliance of planned project design and component with the environmental requirements and imposed standards in establishing and operating an sanitary landfill; ‐ the risk level associated with the project and assess any potential impact/s on the environment and public health; and ‐ relevance and feasibility of proposed mitigation measures.

Public Participation. Article 4 of the Environmental Protection Law establishes transparency and public participation in regards to environmental information as a principle of national development. Article 12 asserts the right of citizens to (a) live in an environment that is favorable and healthy for current and future generations; (b) demand and receive environmental information; (c) safeguard nature and rationally use its natural resources; and (d) unite in public organizations (NGOs). Article 27 stipulates that independent expert groups, on the initiative of public associations (nongovernmental organizations), can conduct a public EE and finance it pro bono. In cases involving expansion of an existing site, public hearings (if any) are held during the first or second phase of the EIA process.

Article 6 of the Law on EE also stipulates that SEE proponents may inform the public of the initiation of a project’s SEE. Whenever a notification has been issued, project proponents are required by law to publish its results within a month.

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 14

Uzbekistan National EIA (‘OVOS’) Process

Project Phase Concept Statement on Environmental Impact “PZVOS”

Statement on Environmental Impact Project Planning “ZVOS”

Glavgosecoexpertiza (SEE) Review

YES Under Denied Consideration

PZVOS / ZVOS approved, pertinent permission / permit issued and construction activities can commence Construction Phase

Statement on Environmental Consequence “ZEP”

Operational Stage APPROVAL NO

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004 15