Ministry of Environment and Water Management Romania - Regional Waste Management Plan - Region 2

Regional Waste Management Plan Region 2 South East
21 December 2006 1

Document Control Sheet

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT
ROMANIA

REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

REGION 2 SOUTH EAST

December 2006

21 December 2006 2

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 5
2 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION .............................................................................................. 12
2.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Short description of the region- relief, geology, hydrology................................................................. 12
2.1.1.1 Relief ..........................................................................................................................................................13
2.1.1.2 Geology Hydrology .................................................................................................................................14
2.1.1.3 Hydrographic network................................................................................................................................15
2.1.1.4 Climate .......................................................................................................................................................15
2.1.2 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2.1 Natural non - regenerative resources of raw materials................................................................................16
2.1.2.2 Natural regenerative resources....................................................................................................................17
2.1.2.3 Protected areas............................................................................................................................................18
2.1.3 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.3.1 Public roads network ..................................................................................................................................21
2.1.3.2 Railway network.........................................................................................................................................23
2.1.3.3 Airway transport .........................................................................................................................................23
2.1.3.4 Maritime transport ......................................................................................................................................23
2.1.3.5 Human settlements .....................................................................................................................................24
2.1.4 Utilities................................................................................................................................................ 27
2.1.4.1 Water and sewerage network......................................................................................................................27
2.1.4.2 Heating system...........................................................................................................................................28
2.1.5 General socio-economical development.............................................................................................. 29
2.1.5.1 Socio-economical state of the region..........................................................................................................29
2.1.5.2 GDP............................................................................................................................................................30
2.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................................. 30
2.2.1 Data concerning the quantity of generated waste ............................................................................... 31
2.2.2 Collection and transport of municipal waste ...................................................................................... 39
2.2.2.1 Existing sanitation services.........................................................................................................................39
2.2.2.2 Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................41
2.2.2.3 Transfer stations .........................................................................................................................................43
2.2.3 Treatment of waste in view of capitalization and disposal .................................................................. 43
2.2.3.1 Sorting stations ...........................................................................................................................................43
2.2.3.2 Composting ................................................................................................................................................43
2.2.3.3 Mechanical-biological treatment ................................................................................................................43
2.2.3.4 Processing in view of revaluation...............................................................................................................43
2.2.3.5 Heat treatment ............................................................................................................................................43
2.2.4 Waste disposal..................................................................................................................................... 44
3 REGIONAL OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS.............................................................................................. 48
3.1 PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................................... 48
3.2 REGIONAL OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS ...................................................................................................... 49
4 PROGNOSIS OF WASTE GENERATION AND SEPARATE COLLECTION DATA.......................... 60
4.1. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE WASTE GENERATION..................................................................................... 60
4.2. WASTE GENERATION AND SEPARATE COLLECTION FORECASTS................................................................. 61
4.3. FORECAST OF OTHER WASTE FRACTIONS .................................................................................................. 62
4.3.1 Packaging waste generation forecast.................................................................................................. 62
4.3.2 Forecast of Biodegradable waste generation........................................................................................... 64
4.4 BREAKDOWN OF TARGETS INTO ABSOLUTE FIGURES................................................................................. 65
4.4.1 Municipal waste collection.................................................................................................................. 65
4.4.2 Packaging waste collection ................................................................................................................. 67
4.4.3 Reduction of the quantities of biodegradable waste disposed............................................................. 67
5 SPECIFIC WASTE STREAMS..................................................................................................................... 70
5.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE AS PART OF MUNICIPAL WASTE................................................................................. 70
5.1.1 Abstract of relevant legislation ........................................................................................................... 70
5.1.2 Hazardous waste types ........................................................................................................................ 71
5.1.3 Separate collection scheme for hazardous waste ................................................................................ 72
5.1.3.1 Different options for separate collection organised by the Municipality/County Council ..........................72
5.1.3.2 Privately organised Take back systems...................................................................................................74
5.1.4 Reduction of hazardous substances..................................................................................................... 74
5.1.5 Estimation of the generated hazardous waste included in household waste ....................................... 75
21 December 2006 3
5.2 WASTE FROM ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT............................................................................. 76
5.2.1 Legislation........................................................................................................................................... 76
5.2.2 Estimation of electric and electronic equipment in Region 2.............................................................. 76
5.2.3 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 77
5.2.4 Installation of collection points ........................................................................................................... 78
5.3 END OF LIFE VEHICLES.............................................................................................................................. 82
5.3.1 Legislation........................................................................................................................................... 82
5.3.2 Targets for recovery and recycling ..................................................................................................... 82
5.3.3 Treatment of end of life vehicles.......................................................................................................... 83
5.4 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE (C/D WASTE)........................................................................... 86
5.4.1 Legislation and targets........................................................................................................................ 86
5.4.2 Specific construction and demolition waste generation ...................................................................... 86
5.4.3 Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 89
5.5 SLUDGE FROM MUNICIPAL WATER TREATMENT ........................................................................................ 90
5.5.1 Legislation and targets........................................................................................................................ 90
5.5.2 Current status...................................................................................................................................... 90
5.5.3 Options for agricultural re-use and thermal sludge recovery............................................................. 90
5.5.4 Future status........................................................................................................................................ 91
6 ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. 93
6.1 SELECTION AND PRESENTATION OF TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 94
6.2 OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................ 98
6.2.1 Collection and sorting of waste........................................................................................................... 98
6.2.1.1 Collection ...................................................................................................................................................98
6.2.1.2 Transfer stations .........................................................................................................................................98
6.2.1.3 Collection stations ......................................................................................................................................99
6.2.1.4 Collection vehicles .....................................................................................................................................99
6.2.1.5 Collection containers ................................................................................................................................100
6.2.2 Separate collection and recovery of packaging waste....................................................................... 101
6.2.3 Sorting stations Sorting of separate fractions in automatic and manual facilities......................... 103
6.3 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF BIODEGRADABLE WASTE........................................................................ 104
- GENERAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 107
6.4 MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES (MBT).................................................................... 110
6.5 INCINERATION ........................................................................................................................................ 113
6.6 DISPOSAL: SANITARY LANDFILLS ........................................................................................................... 117
6.7 INTRODUCTION OF THREE WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION......................................................... 119
6.7.1 The 1
st
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, garden and parks, food waste composting and
disposal 2010................................................................................................................................................ 120
6.7.2 The 2
nd
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, green and food waste composting, MBT,
landfilling disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 121
6.7.3 3
rd
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, garden, parks, food waste composting, incineration,
residues landfilling .......................................................................................................................................... 122
7 CALCULATION OF NEEDED CAPACITY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT...................................... 124
7.1 PROJECTS CONCERNING WASTE MANAGEMENT....................................................................................... 124
7.2 COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT................................................................................................................ 127
7.3 TRANSFER STATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 133
7.4 TREATMENT AND RECOVERY.................................................................................................................. 135
7.4.1. Target 2010 ....................................................................................................................................... 135
7.4.1.1. Biodegradable waste.................................................................................................................................135
7.4.1.2. Packaging waste .......................................................................................................................................135
7.4.2. Target 2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 136
7.4.2.1. Biodegradable waste.................................................................................................................................136
7.4.2.2. Packaging waste .......................................................................................................................................136
7.5. COMPOSTING AND SORTING STATIONS.................................................................................................... 136
7.6. DISPOSAL................................................................................................................................................ 137
7.6.1. The capacity of new landfills............................................................................................................. 137
8 COST ASSESSMENT FOR REGION 2 ..................................................................................................... 139
8.1 COSTING ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................................................... 139
8.2 COSTS OF PROPOSED REGIONAL INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................... 140
8.3 AFFORDABILITY IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS................................................................. 142
21 December 2006 4
8.3.1 Macro Affordability........................................................................................................................... 143
8.3.2 Existing Tariff Levels......................................................................................................................... 148
8.3.3 Tariff Impacts of Proposed Investments ............................................................................................ 149
8.4 ANNEXES OF THE CHAPTER 8.................................................................................................................. 152
9 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES............................................................................................................ 167
10 MONITORING.............................................................................................................................................. 181

21 December 2006 5

1. Introduction

The completion of the Integrated Regional Waste Management Plan for Region 2 marks a major
milestone in the Regions Waste Management efforts. In effect, for the first time, an Integrated
Regional Waste Management Plan, completed under the Strategic Environmental
Assessment procedure, is fully compliant with the approved Romanian National Waste
Strategy and the Romanian National Waste Management Plan. (Note: The Romanian National
Waste Plan and Strategy were approved by Decision 1470 on September 9, 2004 and
published in the Official Journal of Romania on 18 October 2004.) The Plan is further adjusted
to take into account the regions specificities in regards to its rural/urban population, level of
economic development, geography/climate and roadways.

This Plan includes the period from 2004 through 2013, the ten year planning horizon currently
used in Romania. Further, the Plan is to be revised in 2009, to permit its evolution and to
incorporate changes in Romanian Law and economic context.

Incorporation of Public Consultation Comments
The compilation of the Regions Integrated Waste Management Plans also includes a marked
increase in public participation in its elaboration. Here, comments from concerned groups were
presented at or within 45 days of Plans Public Consultation held on October 9
th
in Galati.
Participants to Plans Public Consultation included: concerned citizens, non-government
organisations, private and public sector operators, government enforcement and regulatory
officials, regional, county and municipal administrations, private business owners, European
Union Consultants. All received comments were considered and responded to, with, where
relevant, incorporated into this Plan.

Benefits to Citizens and the Region
The Regional Waste Management Plan will provide major benefits to the Region. The Plan will:

- comply with National Municipal Waste disposal requirements,
- help qualify the Region for financial support from Romania and the EU,
- optimize waste related investments and operational cost on a regional and county level,
- provide for a set of coherent and comprehensive short, medium and long term
implementation actions,
- create and foster a cleaner and more agreeable environment, without polluting the air,
land and waterways,
- avoids and eliminates common nuisances caused by improperly treated and disposed of
waste, included the permanent condemnation of land from poorly treated waste,
- protect public health and reduce environmental stresses placed on the regions fawn and
flora,
- encourage waste reduction, clean production, recycling and recovery, thereby using less
natural resources with less waste landfilled,
- encourage the active participation of private sector and
- inform the regions inhabitants and include public participation in its implementation and
progress towards meeting regional goals for recycling and recovery and reduction of
landfill biodegradable waste.
21 December 2006 6
Compliance with Romanian, EU Directives and Acquis
The Regional Waste Management Plan complies with the requirements for Regional Waste
Management Plans in Romania and in the European Union. The Plan closely follows the
requirements of Romanias recent acquired EU environmental Acquis that encompasses a
series of Directives that serve as the basis for waste management throughout the European
Union. The most important of these are:

- Waste Framework Directive (1975), comprehensive law which regulates and defines
most issues concerning municipal and hazardous waste and the need for waste
management plans,
- The Landfill Directive, which specifies the design and good operating practices for
landfills as well as reductions in biologic landfill waste,
- The Packaging Directive with cover the many aspects of packaging material recycling
and recovery,
- The End of Life Vehicle and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directives which
specify special collection and recovery targets for both,
- Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives
which define for new facilities and plans environmental protection measures and
procedures to follow. In addition, the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Directive for dangerous facilities and landfills) further defines precautionary and
information measures and integrated permitting for these, and finally,
- Air, Water and Incinerations Directives, which specify maximum emission norms and
references measuring methods and procedures

All of these and related Directives have now become part of Romanian Law ( GEO nr 78/2000
on waste regime, approved with changes and modifications by Law 426/2001, modified by
Emergency ordinance 61/2006). Further details on Romanian Legislation Acts can be found in
the Plans Legislative Review and its technical annexes.

Compliance with Romanias National Waste Strategy
The Regions Waste Management Plan complies with Romanian and EU environmental laws
and targets, goals and nation waste strategy. This strategy includes:
- Waste management is integrated into social-economic life,
- Protection of primary resources: Recycling and recovery of waste are maximized, waste
production minimised - Hierarchy of waste management is respected (prevention,
minimisation, reuse and recycling, energy recovery, treatment and sound disposal),
- Environmental Protection: Waste is treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner,
- Polluter pays: waste generators pay for waste collection and disposal,
- Proximity principle: waste is treated near its source as economically sensible, similarly,
waste management is done on the local level,
- Public participation: Public Consultation is held on the Plan and for the construction of all
major facilities. Further, printed and other information materials are provided to the
Public,
- Encouragement of Private Sector enterprises, and
- Monitoring and Reporting: Compliance with the Plans targets and information on waste
are regularly measured and reported to the Public.

Developed under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Procedure
The development of the Regional Waste Management Plan was completed in compliance with
Romanias Strategic Environment Assessment Law. These steps included:
- An assessment of the regions current waste management and baseline environment
report,
- A study of technical and cost alternatives for collection, treatment and disposal
infrastructure,
- Independent environmental appraisal concluded with an Environmental Report,
21 December 2006 7
- Public Consultation, and
- Monitoring measures and indicators of the Plans implementation

An Integrated Regional Approach and Implementation Measures
A major objective of the Regions Waste Management Plan is to implement actions, procedures
and cost effective investments, and encourage public participation that, in their aggregate, lead
to environmentally sound, sustainable and economically acceptable integrated treatment of
waste. These include:

- Regional Waste Management Plan: This sector describes the working details of the
Regional Waste Management Plan. Included are details regarding collection (areas
covered, frequency), treatment, disposal, recycling, separate collection, etc. County and
Municipal level plans provide further detail on the local level.
- Implementation Measures
o Economic and investment Plans: The Regional Waste Management Plan
provides cost effective and financial sustainable investments for Regional
Municipal Waste Plan implementation. The Plan includes investment schedules
as well as projected operating costs and revenues. Further, provisions are made
for expected Romanian and EU grant funding, thus lowering local investment
requirements. Considerations of the Regions ability to pay are considered and
incorporated.
Feasibility Studies will be required for all major investments, including
Environmental Impact Assessments, site selection, cost-benefits analysis, public
consultation, etc.
o Legal and Financial Instruments: The Romanian Legislature determines most
legal and financial instruments. It is expected that future financial instruments,
such as consignment on some packaging materials or recycle taxes on Electrical
and Electronic Goods may be applied. Further, the current Environment Fund
provides incentives for waste recycling, reduction, reuse or recovery.
o Specific Actions for Separately Collected Waste Fractions: Specific Action
Programmes are designed for Separately Collected Waste Fractions that have
been or are separate from Municipal Waste. These include End of Life Vehicles,
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Household hazardous waste,
packaging materials, green waste, household sewer sludge, etc.
- Control and reporting over the Regional Waste Management Plan operations: Specific
targets and control mechanisms are set for the RWMP operations. Results are reported
to the Public.
- Public awareness building and informing the Public: Public awareness is raised through
many actions. Amongst these are:
o Public Consultation,
o Annual reporting on waste / and approach to waste targets,
o Pamphlets, leaflets, stickers, signs, web site, related materials on:
Waste collection schedules, location of waste containers, disposal sites
for Separately Collected Waste Fractions, etc.
Information on home composting and useful advice on waste reduction,
recycling, reuse,
Contact information for regional/ county waste treatment,
Tariffs, fines and penalties

Waste included / excluded from the Regional Waste Management Plan
The Regional Waste Plan includes the following waste:

Municipal Waste (households, assimilated waste from businesses, government services), as
well as some special waste flows:
- hazardous municipal waste
- end of life vehicles
21 December 2006 8
- construction and demolition waste
- sludge from waste water treatment plants
- waste from electric and electronic equipment

Types of waste making the subject of the RWMP were established by MEWM and NEPA.

The table below presents types of waste and their codes, according to the European waste list
and the Governmental Decision 856/2002, regarding waste management registration for the
approval of the list of waste, hazardous waste included.

Waste type Code
(European waste list; GD
856/2002)
Municipal hazardous and non hazardous wastes
(household waste and similar commercial,
industrial and institutional wastes) including
separately collected fractions:
separately collected fractions (except 15 01)
garden and park wastes
Other municipal wastes (mixed municipal
waste, waste from markets, street-cleaning
residues, bulky waste, etc.)
20

20 01
20 02

20 03
Packaging (including separately collected municipal
packaging waste)
15 01
Construction and demolition waste 17 01; 17 02; 17 04
Sludge from Waste Water Treatment Plants 19 08 05
End-of-life vehicles 16 01 06
Waste from electric and electronic equipment.

20 01 35*
20 01 36

Excluded from the Plan are:

- Hazardous Industrial and Medical Waste,
- Waste from thermal processes,
- Radioactive waste,
- Mining waste,
- Animal and animal by-product waste,
- Air and water emissions, and
- Waste explosives

Waste Management Plan Structure and Contents
The Regional Waste Management Plan for Region 2 South East is composed of sections that
describe the regions current waste situation, objectives, treatment alternatives, and least cost
methods: Briefly, it contains:

- Current Situation: Provides information on the Regions current waste situation.

- Regional Waste Management Objectives and targets: Sets targets to comply with
National and EU objectives.

21 December 2006 9
- Prognosis of waste production, collection, treatment, disposal, recycle and minimisation:
Forecasts waste generation, collection, recycle, and disposal, assuming investments
and implementation actions are undertaken.

- Assessment of potential technical alternatives: Explores the various technical
alternatives to be considered for waste collection, recycle, treatment and disposal.

- Comparative analysis: Helps choose least cost options of waste management scenarios.

- Affordability assessment: Calculates operating, financial and investment costs, including
considerations for Romanian and EU grant assistance as well as the application of the
polluter pays principle.

- Waste Plan and Implementation measures: Implementation measures include a list of
actions, schedules and plans that will allow for the implementation of the Regional
Waste Plan. Includes for Municipal Waste:

o Operating Plans (schedule, locations, procedures, etc.)
o Reduction in organic waste and packaging from MSW,
o Investment (equipment, facilities),
o Manpower and training plans,
o Public awareness building and continued public participation measures,
o Financial measures, incentives and instruments, legal measures,

- Waste Plans for other Separately Collected Waste Fractions
o Household hazardous waste
o End of Life Vehicles
o Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, other Bulky waste
o Wastewater treatment plant mud
o Construction and Demolition Waste

- System monitoring: System monitoring includes:
o Measurable performance targets and indicators, and
o Annual report on these and waste statistics to the Public

Summary of Operating Targets
Operating targets have been set and included in the Regional Waste Management Plan. These
targets include:

- targets for increasing waste collection to un-serviced rural areas,
- old landfills closed and re-cultivated,
- new landfills built and operated,
- biodegradable waste diverted from landfill,
- recycling targets for packaging waste, waste electrical and electrical equipment end of
life vehicles.

Current Waste Objective Targets, %

Description
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
1
201
3
201
5
201
6
NWP% of Regional Population
waste collected (rural & urban)
60 89 100
Indicative % of waste to non-
complying landfills (weight)
50 75
Indicative % of household waste
deposited in sanitary landfills
50 75 100
21 December 2006 10
(weight)
Reduction of biological waste by
weight vs. 1995 (can be
postponed 4 years for 2006 and
2009)
75 50 35
Indicative % Home Garden waste
collected
15 40 75 90
Packaging Waste
Recovered/Incinerated with energy
recovery
50 60
Packaging Waste Recycling total
by weight
25 55
Of which glass, paper/cardboard,
metal
15
Of which paper/cardboard 60
Of which metal 50
Of which plastics 15 22.5
Of which glass 60
Of which wood 15
Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment kg/inhabitant
2 3 4
End of Life Vehicles made prior to
1980 Reuse and Recovery by
weight
(reuse and recycling)

75
(70)

End of Life vehicles, reuse and
recovery, made after 1980 (reuse
and recycling)

85
(80)

95
(85)
-
NB Indicative targets are not national objectives. These are given to inform the public of
probable regional outcomes to application of the Plans Implementation Actions.

What will change?

As Plan implementation begins, citizens and businesses will see important changes in the
Regions waste management practices.
Counties and Municipalities will define specifics to implementation plans encompassing the
below:
- Closure of existing non-compliant landfills and connection of inhabitants to existing
sanitary landfills. In general, one or two transfer stations per county will be needed
- expansion of waste collection to rural regions,
- operating the equipments in strict environmental protection conditions
- significant increased separation of waste fractions in homes, business and institutions
that avoid mixing waste and promote recycling and recovery (1),
- locating and construction of new collection and sorting centres for separately collected
waste factions,
- recourse to cost effective solutions:
o i.e. encouragement of home biological composting in rural areas, simple local
composting of garden and biological waste for cities
- continuous and planned renewal of collection vehicles, containers, treatment and
disposal facilities,
- long term planning for more advanced facilities (incinerators, bio mechanical treatment,
advanced composting),
- increased public and private sector participation,
- new financial instruments and tariffs promoting waste reduction and recycling,
- regular and improved reporting and knowledge on waste quantities,
- increased participation of public and private sector and
21 December 2006 11
- monitoring and reporting to the Public of Plan implementation and results.

(1) Recycling and Recovery Operations for Separately collected waste factions. Supporting
activities include:

- Recycle bins or communal collectors and locations for : paper/cardboard, PET and
plastics, metals, aluminium cans, textiles, glass,
- Collection areas for household hazardous waste, batteries/accumulators, bulky home
waste, end of life vehicles, waste electrical and electronic equipment (white and
brown goods), used tyres,
- County or Municipal sorting centres will later dispatch materials to recycling
companies,
- Separate collection of biodegradable home and garden waste (green waste), usually
to be composted at the landfill site, (Also home composting for these in rural areas
encouraged),
- Construction waste (bricks, cement, plaster, roofing tiles, wood) these will not be
permitted within the sanitary landfill, separate disposal sites will be created with their
recycling encouraged,
- Composting of household sewer waste, and
- Information and education materials for households and business on proper disposal
for waste and how to avoid needlessly mixing household waste fractions

21 December 2006 12

2 Assessment of current situation

2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Short description of the region- relief, geology, hydrology

The South-East Region (2) comprises 6 counties (Brila, Buzu, Constana, Galai, Tulcea and
Vrancea), 34 towns and including 11 municipalities, 339 communes with 1455 villages. The total
area is 35762.09 km
2
, which represents 15% from the total surface of the country Romania.
The South-East Region has common boundaries with: Bulgaria in the South; the South Region
Muntenia (Region 3) in the South and South-West; the Center Region (Region 7) to the West;
the North Region (Region 1) to the North; the Republic Moldova and Ukraine to the North-East
and also has a natural boundary with the Black Sea to the East on a length of 245 km.
More than 2/3 of the total surface of the region are represented by plains and low hills. The part
in the North-West also comprises a portion of the (Courbura) Carpathians (a highly seismic
area).
The confluence of the Danube with its two big affluents, the rivers Siret and Prut and the
connection of several old and important commercial roads takes place within this region. The
Danube river continues until it divides into three branches: Chilia, Sfntul Gheorghe and Sulina,
forming the greatest delta in Europe.
The South-East Region (2) comprises the historical region, Dobrogea, which separates two
different worlds, the Euro-Asean Steppes and the Mediterranean Europe. This area was roamed
by the migratory tribes coming from the East, towards the warmer zone of the Balkans and Asia
Minor, in search for conquests. So, Dobrogea was roamed by the Gothic shepherds and
farmers, Scythian riders, Hellenian traders, soldiers of the Roman legions and sailors from
everywhere.
The climate is temperate-continental, with frosty winters to the West and more moderate to the
South of the region. The area of the Plain of the Danube has canicular days and mild winters. In
the Eastern part of the country, influenced by the Black Sea, which delays the cooling and the
warming of the air.
To asses the existing situation and identify the optimal solutions concerning waste management
for Region 2 SE, there have to be taken into consideration all specific aspects of the region from
a geographic and economic point of view. The relief shows wide and vast plains but also
mountains up to 1700 meters, along the Black Sea we find the Littoral/Coast which requires
special attention for its protection and even more the very sensitive area of the precious Danube
Delta. The region also encompasses to a large extend agricultural activities, including wine
yards but also tourism and at the other extreme end heavy industrial and petro-chemical and
shipment activities.

21 December 2006 13

Table 2-1 Surface of Region 2 SE.

Region 2 SE

Km
2
%
Brila Buzu Constana Galai Tulcea Vrancea
TOTAL
SURFACE
35762.09 100 4765.70 6103 7071.29 4466.32 8498.75 4857.03
Farmland 23289.70 65.12 3812.72 4028 5681.32 3586.57 3625.15 2555.94
Forests and other
lands with forest
vegetation
5635.72 15.76 227.48 1648 356.84 438.23 1034.11 1931.06
Waters and ponds 4669.93 13.06 377.35 122 458.17 130.19 3443.30 138.92
Other surfaces 2166.74 6.06 348.15 305 574.96 311.33 396.19 231.11
Source: County/Regional Departments for Statistics 2003

The total area of the Region represents about 14,6 % of the total area of the country, which is
slightly above the regional average. The land-use is dominated by farming and agriculture,
which uses about 65 % of the area. The biggest counties (area-size) are Tulcea and Constanta.

2.1.1.1 Relief

The relief of the region is extremely diverse, from the Continental Platform of the Black Sea to
the Carpathians Curve. In the North-East of the region there are the Carpathians Curve, with a
general aspect of average and small altitude mountains, made of large peaks, rounded or
narrow and fragmented ones, separated by transversal, deep valleys and large slopes or
depressions with extended alluvial plains. The Vrancea Mountains are ripple mountains, made
of peaks, resulted from the fragmentation of the erosion platform of 1700 m (Goru-1785 m,
Lcui1777 m, Giurgiu1720 m, Pietrosu1672 m, Zboina Frumoas -1657 m). The Buzu
Mountains consist of two prominent massifs, Penteleu and Siriu, with altitudes of over 1600 m,
separated by large valleys and the depressions ntorsura Buzului and Comandu.
At the exterior of the Carpathians, there is the Sub-Carpathians Curve. They are in the form of
two ranges of depressions enclosing two ranges of hills. At the lap of the mountains there is a
first range of sub-mountain depressions (Vrancei, Loptari, Chiojd etc.), enclosed by a range of
hills (Riui, Bisoca, Dlma etc.), with up to 900 m of altitude. A second range of depressions
follows (Dumitreti, Policiori) closed by a second range of hills (Mgura, Odobeti, Deleanu,
Bljeni), which also can exceed 900 m of altitude. In the area Policiori-Berca-Arbnai, appear
the muddy volcanoes, an interesting, pseudo volcanic phenomenon, related to the gas
emissions alongside a local fault. At Andreiau de Jos, another special phenomenon appears,
related to the gas emissions, the live fire. The Sub-Carpathians Curve is still in a continuous
rising movement, relatively slow, but more accentuated in the sector between uia and
Clnu. These "neotectonic movements", associated to the clayey rocks, create a greater
dynamic of landslides. The neotectonic rising movement is increased by a movement of the
Sub-Carpathians Curve towards the exterior (to the Lower Siret Plain), due to the pressure
exercised by the Carpathians Curve. This structure, in two parallel strips, curved under the
shape of concentric arches, generates two distinct zones from the geomorphological point of
view: Internal Sub-Carpathians (in the interior) and the External Sub-Carpathians (to the
exterior). A special characteristic is represented by the contact with the mountain region
between the rivers Prahova and Buzu where, due to the penetration from the Carpathians
towards the Sub-Carpathians of the Paleogen spur of flysch Ivneu, a transition zone is
created, of the mountain and sub-mountain characteristics, named as such: the Carpathian-
21 December 2006 14
Sub-Carpathian zone of interference. These facts are important and shall be taken into
consideration when preparing maps of suitable and unsuitable areas for landfills and during
detailed site selections.
The central part of the region is occupied by the Romanian Plain, which comprises a higher
zone, with altitudes between 50-100 m (Rmnicului Plain, Brganului Plain), having the aspect
of a smooth surface, slightly waved, due to the existence of alluvial zones, and a lower zone of
subsidence, with altitudes descending to 5 -10m (Buzu Plain, Lower Siret Plain). Alongside the
most important rivers (Siret, Ialomia, Clmui) appear sand dunes (e.g. Hanu Conachi). In the
Brganului zone, the plain is covered by thick layers of loess, in which cavities were formed,
some of which being filled with small lakes.

To the North-East of the region, the Romanian Plain gets into contact with the Southern part of
the Moldavian Plateau. Here, the altitudes can exceed 200 m, the general inclination being
towards the North-South direction.
The Eastern limit of the Romanian Plain is represented by the Danube Flood Plain, the area of
marshes (Balta Brilei), a zone with altitudes of maximum 10m, and in its greates parts being
drained (Insula Mare a Brilei) artificially.
To the East of the Danube Flood Plain, lays the Dobrudja Plateau, divided into two great
divisions:
The Massif of Northern Dobrudja and the Massif of Southern Dobrogea.
The Massif of Northern Dobrogea is made of several sub-divisions:
- The Mcinului Mountains, a Hercinic massif, with mountain aspects, made of hard rocks
(granite), with altitudes exceeding 400 m (Greci Peak - 467 m).
- The Tulcea Hills, with more reduced altitudes (around 100-200 m)
- The Nalbant Depression
- The Babadag Plateau, occupies the central network of the Massif of Northern Dobrogea, its
altitude reaching up to 400 m.
- The Casimcea Plateau, towards the contact with Plateau of Southern Dobrogea; here green
schists can be found
- The Plateau of Southern Dobrogea has reduced altitudes of 100-200 m, being covered with a
layer of loess. To the North, lays the Medgidiei (Dorobanului) Plateau, separated from the
Oltinei Plateau and the Negru Vod Plateau by the former Carasu Valley (at present the
Danube-Black Sea Canal). The Seaside Zone has a low shore to the North, where appear
lagoons maritime and coasts, and a high shore, with cliffs, to the South.
At the Danubes Mouth to the Black Sea the Danube Delta was formed, on a surface of
approximate 580.000 ha.

2.1.1.2 Geology Hydrology

Underground water resources

The ground water is stored to the horizons by gravel and sands, by the infiltration of
precipitation waters, the thawing of snow as well as the waters of the hydrographic network.

In the whole region of South Moldova, one can notice a concordance between the distribution of
underground waters and the main morphological units. In the zone of the mountain lap plains,
the underground waters are gathered in villa-fronchien deposits from 20-60 m to the West, till 3-
5 m at the contact with the divagation plain. Underground waters in the divagation plains appear
at reduced depths of 0-5 m, and their mineralization increases towards the Plain of the Lower
Siret.

The lithologic, tectonic and structural variety, specific to the three big relief units, directly
influences the distribution and character of underground waters.
21 December 2006 15
Mineral sulphurous, ferruginous, chlorosodic waters, sometimes rich in iodine, are to be found at
Siriu, Nehoiu, Monteoru, Fiici, Balta Alb, Strjeni, Nifon, Loptari.
Mineral and thermal waters: There are four geothermal wells with geothermal waters, two of
them at nsurei, one at Mihai Bravu and another one at Victoria.

The water has a temperature at the well shaft of 90-95
o
C and a powerful clorurated-sodic-
sulfurous-potasic-magnesium-calcium character. In present they are not used. In the past there
has been used one in Insuratei to prepare the heating agent for households.

2.1.1.3 Hydrographic network
The hydrographic network of the Region 2 South-East is mainly formed by the Danube with its
two big affluents, the rivers Siret and Prut and from the affluents of these rivers. The most
important are: Brlad, Ramnicu.Srat, Buzu, Elan, Horincea, Chineja. The Danube divides into
three branches starting at Tulcea: Chilia, Sfntul Gheorghe and Sulina, forming the greatest
Delta in Europe.

From the seashore hydrographic basin, the natural lakes having the largest surface are: Taaul,
Siutghiol, Techirgiol, Periteasca, Babadag, and from the Danube hydrographic basin: Razelm,
Sinoe, Golovia, Oltina. From the antropic lakes, in Tulcea County the largest lake of this type is
lake Horia, from the locality with the same name, and in Buzau County- lake Siriu.

The flowing waters from the South-East Region belong to the type of accentuated continental
regime, with predominant flow in spring and summer, with high waters in spring and high
floods during summer and autumn.

2.1.1.4 Climate

The climate of the Region 2 South-East belongs to the moderate, temperate, continental,
transition climate, with a series of local peculiarities, given by certain factors (the relief, the
Black Sea, the Danube).

The annual average temperatures vary, especially due to the relief. Thus, if in the Danube
Flood Plain, the South of Dobrogea, the Cliff Zone and the Danube Delta the multi-annual
average exceeds 11
o
C (11,2
o
C Mangalia and Murfatlar), in the Romanian Plain it presents
values between 10-11
o
C, it decreases in the Sub-Carpathian zone to values between 6 and 10
o
C (7,5
o
C Bisoca Station). In the mountain zone the average temperature reaches values
between 0 and 6
o
C (2,2
o
C Penteleu Station), while on the highest peaks, even below 0o

C.

The average temperature of the month of January generally has negative values, between 0
and -6
o
C, except for a small portion in the zone of Mangalia, where the average temperature of
the month of January is positive (between 0 and 1
o
C).

The average temperature of the month of July generally has values between 20 and 23
o
C, in
the plain zone, decreasing in the hilly zones to values between 16 and 20
o
C, and between 8
and 16
o
C in the mountain zone. The absolute maximum coincides with the absolute maximum
at country level, i.e. 44,5
o
C, registered on 10.08.1951, at Ion Sion, in Brila County.

The predominant winds come from the Eastern and Northern directions, mainly the icy North
wind during winter. There are also winds with local character, for instance the marine seashore
breezes and mountain breezes, in the zone of the Curve Carpathians. Also in the zone of the
Carpathians and Sub-Carpathians Curve, appear winds bearing a foehn character.

The quantity of precipitations is influenced firstly by the altitude, but also by the continental
climatic influences from the East. Thus, in the Southern zone of Dobrogea, on the seashore and
in the Danube Delta the quantity of precipitations is below 400 mm/year (Sulina 358 mm/year
the least average value in Romania). In the Romanian Plain and in a major part of Dobrogea
21 December 2006 16
Plateau the values are between 400 and 500 mm/year, increasing towards the Sub-Carpathian
zones up to 700-800 mm/year and over 1000 mm/year in the mountain zone.

2.1.2 Natural Resources
2.1.2.1 Natural non - regenerative resources of raw materials

The natural not-regenerative resources of raw materials represent sources for energy made
especially from fossil fuels, whose typical representatives are mainly hydrocarbons.
Oil, associated gas and free gas fields are situated in two distinct geological units i.e.:
- in the South-East zone of the Moesic Platform; oil- and gas-fields
- in the Northern zone of the Northern Dobrogea Promontory.
Within the south-eastern part of the Moesic Platform there are shown and exploited a series of
oil and gas fields on the structural alignment oriented south-west north-east Urziceni-Grbova-
Brgneasa - Padina Jugureanu Oprieneti Plopu - Bordei Verde Licoteanca
Stncua - Berteti.

Having as a study object the hydrocarbons fields from the Promontory Bordei Verde - nsurei
the oil fields from Oprieneti, Plopu, Bordei Verde Est, Bordei Verde Vest, Filiu, Licoteanca,
Berteti, Stncua, Frumuia, Independena - Schela, Matca, Grivia Nord have been revealed.

In the Western area of the Bordei Verde-nsurei lift, in an area conventionally restricted,
between this lift and Dambovita River, there are found oil and associated gas fields along Moara
Vlsiei-Urziceni-Jugureanu. Out of this, the oil fields from Jugureanu and Padina are being
exploited.

The free gas fields from the South-Eastern part of Moesic Platform have been evidentiated and
are exploited in Oprieneti, Bordei Verde, Licoteanca, Berteti, Stncua, Jugureanu, Padina,
Graditea, Balta Alb, Buciumeni, Cudalbi, Frumuia, Grivia Nord, Independena.

The presence in the Sub-Carpathians of limestone has permitted their exploitation. There are a
lot of quarries, many of them of interest. The biggest ones are in Ciuta, Vipereti Zebil, Bididia,
Niculiel and Trei Fntni. Limeston is used both for roads, but mostly to obtain the clank.

Around Patargele locality are being extracted quartz sands and diatomite. From Criveni, where
it exists a quartz sand quarry, this is transported to Patarlagele, and from here to Buzau,
Scaieni, Azuga, where is used to make glass. Diatomite is exploited in the quarry from
Burdusoaia Hill, the left part of Buzau, where it meets Sibiciu Valey. This place represents the
sector accessible to exploitation, where diatomite is found on a big surface, in the Oligocene
deposits. In the county there are other places with diatomite, but the reduced dimension of the
levels and the week quality of the diatomite, do not allow, for the moment, its exploitation.

In the Region 2 South-East exists and are under exploitation fields of alluvial clay with sandy
intercalations and granules of CaCO
3
at Baldovineti, dusty-sandy clay at Brila, with balance
reserves of about 1200 thousands tons and marl clay with a high degree of refractoriness at
Furei balance reserves of about 8200 thousands tons, Simileasca and Berca (Stuc). The
loessoid deposits forms the raw material for inferior ceramic, such clays being used also for
brick making.

In the bank of Buzau, Ramnicu rivers and other rivers there are important reserves of sands and
gravel, in many of the places existing gravel pits of great productivity.

For construction of houses, or for the arrangement of forest roads are used the grit stone
placks from Tarcau or Kliwa.

21 December 2006 17
Geological investigations and drilling works carried out to find new oil reserves have found salt
fields, at different levels in the ground, at Mnzleti, Bisoca, Bratileti, Goideti, that can be
exploited in the future.

Besides these, in the underground of the county are found gyps and amber. The amber, due to
its variety of shape and to the big dimensions of extracted parts, has been extracted since the
past century, without constituting a permanent activity. It was found in Mljet Sibiciu Coli
Bozioru Plotina Terca perimeter, in Oligocene deposits. The dimensions of the elements
vary from a few grams to a few klograms. The largest pieces were found in Sibic river bank,
near Colti.

As ornamental rocks, granite is exploited at Macin, gassy limestone at Baschioi, magnesian
limestone at Mahmudia, Carjelani and Codru Babadag.

Other natural resource is considered to be the complex of sulphide minerals, that are valorised
at Mina Altan Tepe (Stejaru commune) and Somovo; barites from Somova area.

At Isaccea, volcanic rocks, of porphyritic nature, represent underground resources from which
results, by processing, sands and gravels. At the South of Revrsarea locality there is a new
quarry front opened, to exploit category C greenstone, in volcanic field from Dealul Asan.

An important category of surface waters is the salted therapeuticall lakes, with vegetable slime.
These are: Srat Lake I and II, Cineni Bi, Movila Miresii, Batogu.

The mud reserve has been estimated only for Lacul Srat I Brila, the only therapeutic lake
whose resources are valorised at present. The total existing volume or estimated is of 138404,5
cubic m
3
the approved volume for exploitation is 535,62 m
3
.

2.1.2.2 Natural regenerative resources

Most important for the existence of humanity are some regenerative natural resources being a
real and vital base for the economic and social development of human society

Water constitutes one of the most important natural resources. As it is well known that the
surface water, which has the greatest stability in the natural environment of the Earth, is an ideal
solvent and is considered the place of the life birth, the place of life conservation.

Soil
In the Southern part of Covurluiului Plain, carbonated chernozem,formed in the driest part of the
steppe, can be found on xerophile loans with graminaceae. This sub-type is better known
under the name of light maroon chernozem or carbonated chocolate-like chernozem. In the
Covurlui Plateau, as in the Covurluiului Plain, on the loessoid deposits appears the
leachate chernozem.

Another sub-type of chernozem is the phreatic-humid one or the meadow chernozem, which
is formed on lower relief. The hidric regime of these soils is favourable to the cultivation of
vine because it has a system of deep radicular roots, by the help of which the plants can
use the water from the aquifer layer. Forest grey soils and the brown-grey ones meet in
the Eastern part of the sandy zone Hanu Conachi - Tecuci and, in the communes
Blbneti and Nrteti, to the North of the county, where the humidity is higher.

A great share in the soil cover is represented by the alluvial soils including alluvial deposits,
locally glazed and saline, which are found in the large flood plains of Buzu, Siret and the
Danube. A great part of them had been marshes or lakes before.

21 December 2006 18
In the frame of site selections, the geological and geotechnical conditions of the soil and sub soil
have to be investigated more in detail on the very specific location before any detailed design or
construction may start. Such investigations shall as well comprise groundwater situation, its
depth, quantity, quality and exact flow direction.

2.1.2.3 Protected areas

The natural values are part of complex systems, and the human action effects, that influence
the proper functioning of these systems are also affecting the protected areas. The persons
involved in environmental activities have tried to protect as many lands, but the need for
farmland diminishes the possibilities.

The protected area is part of the areas with very rich natural resources/values, but that have a
smaller surface. The scope of this area is to protect the ecological systems existing on its
surface, but is enough only one valuable thing from an historical or cultural point of view and its
realization is justified. Protected area can have a local or national importance.

Because of the environment conditions and of the physical-geographical positioning, Romania
has a diverse natural capital that includes mountains, fields, major hydrographic networks,
humid areas and one of Europes largest Delta systems (Danube Delta).

The historical analysis of nature protection measures has the following stages:

1928-1944
1928 The first congress of naturalitilor from Romania adopted a decision concerning the
elaboration of the nature protection law in Romania.
1930 - Law number 213 for the protection of natural monuments in Romania
36 territories are protected as natural reservations, national parks, natural monuments, with
a total surface of 15.000 ha

1944-1989
In 1972 the number of protected areas reaches 190 objectives, with a surface of almost
100.000 ha, the protected area representing only 0.0042 of the country surface.
1973 is adopted Law number 9 (Environment Law) with provisions concerning the protection
of reservations and natural monuments without regulating their administration.
1979, Retezatul and Pietrosul Rodnei have been acknowledged as Reservation of the
Biosphere under the UNESCO programme - Man and Biosphere (MAB).

1990 present
After 1997 has been set, the Department for Biodiversity Preservation that plans and
controls all activities concerning nature conservation in protected areas.
1991 Danube Delta is a Ramsar site and site of the Worlds Natural Patrimony for 50% of its
surface. In 1992 is acknowledged as Biosphere Reservation.
1996 with the financial assistance of the World Bank the programme National Strategy and
Action Plan to preserve biodiversity and sustainable use of its components in Romania has
been realised, due to Romanias accession to the Biological Diversity Convention (Rio)
1995 was adopted the Environment Law number 137 that comprises regulations concerning
nature and protected area preservation and recognises all protected areas previously
declared by any law, order, decision.

The national network of protected area represents, according to Emergency Ordinance
236/2000 concerning the regime of natural protected areas, the conservation of natural habitats,
wild flora and fauna approved by Law 426/2001, Article 4 letter l and Article 16, paragraph (1),
the ensemble of natural protected areas from Romanias territory.

21 December 2006 19
In May 2000 has been elaborated the Strategy for Eenvironment Protection for short and
medium term (2000-2004) that represents the prior decisions and the responsibilities of
institutions and structures involved in this sector of activity.
According to the legislative harmonisation calendar assumed through PNAR 2000, and also
according to the priorities and necessities identified after, have been elaborated normative acts
that contribute to the acceleration of the harmonizing process of national legislation with the
requirements imposed by the environment acquis.

On the territory of Region 2 South-East existed, at the beginning of 2004, 113 protected areas,
out of which a biosphere reservation (Danube Delta), a national park (Macinului Mountains) and
a natural park (Balta Mica a Brailei), 19 of these being a national parks.

The total surface of these areas was of about 630 760,5 ha (50760,5 ha without the Danube
Delta).

new reservation and National Parks have been declared or the surface of existing ones has
been extended through GD 2151/2004.

In 2004, by decisions of Local Councils Dudesti and Rosiori (Braila county) has been instituted a
provisory protection regime, until the declaration of Natural Reservation for Tataru Lake, with a
surface of 137 ha.

Therefore, in Region 2 South-East there are 3 Natural Parks, the total surface of the natural
protected areas being of approximately 693 845,8 ha (112 845,5 ha without the Danube Delta).
If we dont take into consideration the Danube Delta, we see that the surface of natural
protected areas has grown with about 122% to 50 760,5 ha from 112 845,8 ha. At county level,
the situation is as follows:

Table 2-2: Surface of protected areas in Region 2 SE

Total surface of
county
(km
2
)
Total surface of
protected areas
(ha)
Percentage
(%)
Region 35762,09 112393 3,14 100
Brila 4765,7 20265 4,25 18
Buzu 6103 2922 0,48 3
Constana 7071,29 17083 2,42 15
Galai 4466,32 9300 2,08 8
Tulcea 8498,75 20801 2,45 19
Vrancea 4857,03 42022 8,65 37

Forests

The increase of the forest areas versus the degraded lands, unsuitable for agricultural
purposes, the creation of protective forest belt in the area of agricultural lands, maintenance and
rational exploitation of forests, constitute permanent objectives of the Environmental Protection
Strategy.

The hills are partially covered by leaf-bearing forests, combining the rustle of the Oak,
hornbeam and common Ash with the fragrance of the Lime tree. The vast lime forest surfaces -
unique in Romania - constitute an important melliferous basis.
21 December 2006 20

Other forests:
- Acacia, Abele, Oak tree, Ash tree,;
- Willow forests and other soft essences (Arin, Abele) represents the native element of the forest
fund, but in decline, located in the marsh area, on the interior sand banks and on the banks;
- Mixed forests make the connection between the Arin forests, united around the mash and
hollow grounds, being composed of white and Black Abele, Elm tree, Mulberry tree, American
Maple, Pennsylvania Ash tree;
- Forest under plantation regime on the area where deforestation occurred, of the native
Willow forests, on sands banks. There have been introduced, based on economic criteria fast
growing Abele species Euro-American Abele, Italian Abele.

Flora

1)The steppe vegetation is represented by graminaceae and dycotyledonous plants. Dryness
resistant bushes such as represent the graminacea: hair grass, couch grass, small
lucerneand so on. Besides these associations of steppe vegetation, there are also spread
vegetal associations derived or secondary, represented by Andropogan Ischaemun, which is
resistant to grazing and is easy to grow on degraded lands.

On the small heights, that separate the hills, on the more steep parts, where vertical and
linear erosion led to the disappearance of loess deposits and to the appearance of basic rocks
or alluvial deposits, because of decomposition, the basic rock separates into small fragments
and after washing, fine particles are washed away.

On the disaggregated soil on the heights grassy steppe vegetation can be found with a
reduced quantity of humus accumulated. In these parts, where the fine surface material
prevails, there are favourable conditions for fruit trees and the culture of wine. Where
coarse material is predominant, there are conditions for protected plants and for grazing.

2) Lawn:
- flood plain lawn - located in the hollow grounds, on the interior banks or in mixed forests;
- steppe lawn on higher hollow plains, is covering bigger areas.

3) Reed plot it has the smaller development, being a part of the lawn structure, or isolated on
limited areas, in plain area with sand banks.

4) Aquatic ecosystems
In the Danube flood-plain lasting high floods, covering a period of several months, as well as
those lasting for a shorter period of time, negatively influence all the functional structure of these
ecosystems; anyhow, their phytocenoses are much more complex and better represented than
those of the terrestrial ecosystems.

Fauna

Fauna belongs to the biotope of the steppe and sylvo-steppe as well as the biotope of flood-
plains and marshes. The spontaneous fauna is represented, both by sedentary animals, and by
migratory ones. The fauna elements populating, the sylvo-steppe zone are adapted to agro-
biogenesis and one can mention the field mouse, the hamster, the steppe polecat, and as
concerns birds, ducks, geese, starlings, crows, bustards. The fauna populating the flood plains
and the marshes comprises: the fox, the otter, and from among birds, the duck, the goose, the
sea gull, the moor hen.

Fish: Carp, Pike, Zander, Mackerel, Sturgeons (Beluga, common Sturgeon, Sevruga, Sterlet),
Plaice, Pream, Blicca Bjorkna, Leiciscus Idus, silver crucian, roach, Scardinius Erytrophtalmus,
Perch, Ruff, Acerina Schraetser, Lepomis Eupomotis Gibbosus, Rapacious Carp, Bleak, broad
21 December 2006 21
Snout, Silver Carp, small Chub, Pungitius Platigaster, Amphibia: the small frog (Rana
Esculenta), the lake frog (Rana Ridibunda), the tree frog (Hyla Arborea).

Birds are represented by: the pelican, the swan, the wild duck and goose, the egret, the
cormorant, the sea gull. They are concentrated especially in the mixed forest zone, in marshes
and in moor zones.

Among the animals presenting synergetic interest we mention: the wild Boar, the Enot dog,
Ondathra Zibethica , the otter, the wild cat , the hare , the fox , the weasel, the polecat, the
badger.

Specific fauna can be found in the Danube Delta. Special research programmes and protection
measures are carried out to safeguard these species.

2.1.3 Infrastructure
2.1.3.1 Public roads network

The importance of Romania as transit country will increase with its accession in 2007. Two
major European transport corridors No. 4 and No. 9 cross this Region. Besides these, the
region has direct access to other important transport axis that connect it to the neighbouring
countries, as well as to the rest of the continent. The most important roads for this region are
A2, E85, E584 and E87, most of them being in good condition or rehabilitated. The same things
are valid for transport infrastructure.

At the end of 2003, the total length of the road network was of 10.565 km, the railway network
was of 1.329 km, out of which 573 km are electrified.

Without any doubt, the existing infrastructure has to be modernised and continuously developed
in order to achieve the high European standards.

The implementation of important infrastructure projects, consisting in the construction of at least
on bridge over the Danube, will be the main objective of Regional Operational Plans co-financed
by many convergent funds after Romanias accession to the EU.
21 December 2006 22

Table 2-3:Public roads situation, 2003
Region 2 South East 2003
Length of public roads (km) 2808
modernised
with easy road layers (garment)
1844
3996
Out of total public roads 10565
National roads 1718
modernised
1637
74
Communal and county roads 8847
modernised
207
3922
Density of public roads per 100 km
2
29,5
Source: Statistical County Department 2003

The major roads in the region between the county-capital and Bucharest are in good condition
mainly the important South-North connection (E85) and also after completion the express way
Bucharest-Constanta (A2). All the major roads usually carry heavy traffic with both trucks and
passenger cars.

This region also includes the international corridors 4(IV) and 9(IX), which will add additional traffic
in future but in present also, for industrial and commercial activities.

Table 2-4: Distances between the county capitals in Region 2 South East (km)
Brila Buzu Constana Galai Tulcea Focani
Brila - 108 178 32 92 92
Buzu 108 - 230 136 200 74
Constana 178 230 - 191 124 271
Galai 32 136 191 -- 124 115
Tulcea 92 200 124 124 - 185
Focani 92 74 271 115 185 -

21 December 2006 23

2.1.3.2 Railway network

Table: 2-5 Railway situation in Region 2 South-East in 2003
Region 2 South East 2003
Railway network length (km)
electrified:
1329
573
Out of total railways:
lines with normal gauge
with one way
with two ways
lines with big gauge

1329
788
525
16
Density of railway lines per 1000 km
2
37,2
Source: Statistical County Department 2003

The connection between North and South and between Constanta and Galati are the most
important railway routes in region. These lines are all electrified.

2.1.3.3 Airway transport

Within the region, in Constana County, two airports are operating the International Airport Mihail
Koglniceanu and a utilitarian airport from Tuzla. In 1996, the new air station of the Airport Mihail
Koglniceanu was commissioned.

The location of airports and auxiliary roads are relevant in the context of site selections location,
especially for landfill-sites. These locations, including their surrounding shall be addeded in the
RWMP as negative areas.

2.1.3.4 Maritime transport

The Danube is navigable for maritime vessels of up to 7 m draught between Sulina and Brila,
in the rest, it is navigable for vessels with draught of 2 to 2,5 m .

The construction of the Danube-Black Sea Channel and the commissioning of the Danube-
Main-Rhine Channel allowed for the creation of a river way of great European importance,
connecting The North Sea with The Black Sea.

Maritime navigation mostly takes place with vessels of big tonnage. Approximately 60% of
Romanias imports and exports are unrolled through Constanta Harbour. The internal navigable
network and the Black Sea consist of 35 ports, out of which 3 are maritime, 6 river-maritime
ports and 26 river ports. Constanta Harbour represents a milestone for the entire traffic on the
Black Sea and a key point for the Black Sea- North Sea relation. By using the Constanta
Harbour, the route between the Suez Channel, the Eastern part of the Mediterranean and
Central Europe is shortened by 400 km.

The Black Gate- Midia Navodari Channel, a ramification of the main channel has an internal
economic significance because it connects the main channel to the Midia maritime Harbour and
Luminita quarry. The river ports along the channel are Medgidia port capable of supporting an
annual traffic of 1.2 million tonnes and Basarabi port for an annual traffic of 700.000 tonnes.

At the same time, the usage of RO-RO and ferryboat existing systems in Constanta harbour
ensures the connection between the European continent and the Middle East. These routes are
used especially for energy resources and transport of goods.
Both the river ports as well as the maritime ones have, at present, free areas near the customs.
21 December 2006 24

2.1.3.5 Human settlements

The total population of Region 2 South-East is of 2,85 millions inhabitants or about 13,1 % of the
total population of the country which is slightly above regional average, but the density per km
2

is significantly lower than the country average.
The largest county is Tulcea, in terms of surface, Constanta county has the biggest number of
inhabitants and Galati county has the biggest density.

Table 2-6: Administrative organization of territory in 2003
Administrative unit Total area
Km
2

Number of
population

Density of
population
inh. /km
Number
of
villages
and
cities
Number
of cities
Nr. Of
commun
es
Romania 238391 21733556 91,2 265 93 2686
Region 2 South
East
35762 2846811 79.6 33 11 336
Brila County 4766 371749 78.3 4 1 39
Buzu County 6103 496214 81.3 4 1 81
Constana County 7071 713563 101.1 11 5 55
Galai County 4466 621161 138.7 4 2 49
8499 256492 30.2 5 2 43 Tulcea County
Out of which
Biosfera Delta
Dunarii
Reservation
4409 14966 4.65 1 7
Vrancea County 4857 387632 79.8 5 1 59
Source: County Statistical Department

Table 2-7: Human settlements
Total region
Type of settlement
No. of
settlements
No. of inhabitants
Rural area

- < 500 inhabitants 0 0
- 500-1500 inhabitants 27
30068
- 1500-5000 inhabitants 235
744856
- > 5000 inhabitants 74 509600
Total rural area 336 1.284.524 (45,1%)
Urban area

- < 20000 inhabitants 22 205669
- 20000-100000 inhabitants 6 293565
- 100000-300000 inhabitants 4 753088
- > 300000 inhabitants 1 309965
Total urban area 33 1.562.287 (54,9%)
TOTAL REGION 369 2.846.811
21 December 2006 25
Source: County Statistical Department

The population in Region 2 South East is grouped in 33 cities, out of which 11 are municipalities
and 339 communes that include 1455 villages. Out of the total of 2.846.811 inhabitants
registered in 2003, 1.562.287 inhabitants (54,9) live in urban area and 1.284.524 (45,1%)
inhabitants live in rural area.

The percentage of rural and urban inhabitants in the total population of the region, 2003

45%
55%
Populatia in mediu urban
Populatia in mediu rural

In the following two tables is presented the number of settlements and of inhabitants for each
type of settlement and for each county, that present distinct administrative structures of
population distribution.

Table 2-8:Number of human settlements, July 2003
Source: Statistical Yearbook 2003/4
Type of settlement Number of settlements(rural/town/municipality)
Region 2 Brila Buzu Constan
a
Galai Tulcea RBDD Vrancea
RURAL
<500 inh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 1.500 inh 27 2 12 5 0 2 6 0
1.500 5.000 inh 235 34 52 38 39 27 1 44
> 5.000 inh 74 3 17 12 20 7 0 15
Total rural 336 39 81 55 59 36 7 59
URBAN
< 20.000 inh 22 3 2 7 2 3 1 4
20.000100.000 inh 6 0 1 3 1 1 0 0
100.000300.000
inh
4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
> 300.000 inh 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total urban 33 4 4 11 4 4 1 5
TOTAL 369 43 85 66 63 40 8 64
21 December 2006 26

Table 2-9: Number of inhabitants per type of settlement, July 2003
Number of inhabitants(rural/towns/municipality) Type of
settlement
Region 2 Brila Buzu Constan
a
Galai Tulcea RBDD Vrancea
RURAL
<500 inh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 1.500 inh. 30068 2761 13132 5612 0 1804 6759 0
1.500 5.000 inh. 744856 111078 177809 113767 117133 80693 3606 140770
> 5.000 inh. 509600 16765 112792 89503 150679 41118 0 98743
Total rural 1284524 130604 303733 208882 267812 123615 10365 239513
URBAN
< 20.000 inh. 205669 23079 19426 74946 11316 26036 4601 46265
20.000100.000
inh.
293565 0 38828 119770 43092 91875 0 0
100.000300.000
inh
753088 218066 134227 0 298941 0 0 101854
> 300.000 inh 309965 0 0 309965 0 0 0 0
Total urban 1562287 241145 192481 504681 353349 117911 4601 148119
TOTAL 2846811 371749 496214 713563 621161 241526 14966 387632
Source: Statistical Yearbook 2003/4

The following table 2.10 shows the balance between rural and urban population per county in
absolute number and percentage. Compared with the entire country, Region 2 is more urban
than the average. The most urban county is Constanta where 70% of the population is living in
agglomerations bigger than 20.000 inhabitants, while the most rural counties are Buzau and
Vrancea

Table 2.10 Population balance in urban and rural areas in 2003
RURAL URBAN
Inhabitants % Inhabitants %
Romania 11599199 52.86 10343357 47.14
Region 2 SE 1284524 45.12 1562287 54.88
Brila 130604 35.13 241145 64.87
Buzu 303733 61.21 192481 38.79
Constana 208882 29.27 504681 70.73
Galai 267812 43.11 353349 56.89
Tulcea 123615 51.18 117911 48.82
RBDD 10365 69.26 4601 30.74
Vrancea 239513 61.79 148119 38.21
21 December 2006 27

Table 2-11 Population evolution
Year
Number of
inhabitants
of the South-East
Region 2

Density of the
population
(inhab/km
2
)
Number of tourists
in the
administrative
territory
1999 2.943.177 82,29 1.007.453
2000 2.934.319 82,05 980.776
2001 2.932.124 81,98 994.292
2002 2.867.936 80,19 984.217
2003 2.846.811 79,60 1.018.617
Source: County Statistical Departments 2003

From this table it can be seen that the population and its density/km
2
are continuously
decreasing, while the number of tourists will grow in the future.

Population evolution in 1999-2003 for Region 2 SE

2.1.4 Utilities

2.1.4.1 Water and sewerage network

Water distribution network

The total length of the distribution network for drinkable water is 7067 km.

The total number of localities having drinkable water supply installations at the end of 2003 was
582, put of which 33 municipalities and towns.

The volume of the drinkable water distributed to the consumers in Region 2 South-East in 2003
was of 170.396 thousand m
3
out of which 117.612 m
3
for household purposes.

Region 2
2780000
2800000
2820000
2840000
2860000
2880000
2900000
2920000
2940000
2960000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
I
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
s
i
21 December 2006 28
Sewerage system

In Region 2 South-East the number of localities (municipalities and towns) in which public
sewerage systems exist is 89, including 33 municipalities and towns.
The total length of the public sewerage system is 2416 km.

The following table shows the number of existing municipal wastewater treatment plants. No
exact operational details about their technologies or their capacities are known.

Table 2-12 Waste water treatment plants in Region 2 South East
Region 2 S-E Brila Buzu Constana Galai Tulcea Vrancea
Number 20 3 2 9 2 2 2

In what concerns the industrial treatment stations, their capacities, the quantity and type of
produced sludge is not known. These data have to be recorded separately, once these stations
are properly exploited and new stations are built.

From the above table it can be seen that the littoral county of Constanta disposes of 9 treatment
plants and most probably is still not yet covered adequately. Despite this fact also the other
counties discharging into the Danube river should increase their treatment capacities(mainly
Tulcea, Galati and Braila at the entrance to Danube Delta, but also the other more remote
counties of Buzau and Vrancea.

In the near future many existing sewerage systems and waste water treatment plants will be
rehabilitated and expanded (if necessary) and new systems and plants will be built and set into
operation. This will consequently increase the volume of sludge to deal with. Options are
utilisation in the agricultural sector(depending on content of heavy metals), co-incineration in
power- or cement plants, co-disposal with domestic-/municipal waste or disposal on separate
and special sludge disposal sites. All these applications and technologies require special
knowledge and their potential impacts on the environment have to be watched and monitored
very carefully.

2.1.4.2 Heating system

Table 2-13 Heating systems
Coal
Wood and
wood waste
Natural Gas /
Heat supply on
natural gas
Light liquid
fuel
Nr.
South-East
REGION 2
Total
househol
ds
from
which
heated
with:
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 TOTAL 938.386

5.309

0,6

409.830

43,7

522.240

55,6

1007
0.1
Source: County Statistical Departments 2003

In the context of waste management a significant importance is the one had by the households
that have central heating or that use wood. This applies especially to rural and to semi-urban
areas. This being the case, it is estimated that in rural area the generated quantity of wood will
not be significant.
21 December 2006 29

2.1.5 General socio-economical development
2.1.5.1 Socio-economical state of the region

Table 2-14 Industrial and commercial activities in the Region
Branch CAEN Code
Number of
economic
agents
(nr.)

Share of
economic
agents (%)

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishery(total) 01/02/05 3.182 4,67
Industry (total) from which : 14-37 8.787 12,89
extractive activities 14 85 0,12
Processing Industry (total) 15-37 8.702 (12,77)
Electrical and thermal energy, gas and water 40/41 103 0,15
Building 45 3.118 4,57
Commerce and Services 50-55 41.184 60,43
Transport and Warehousing 60-63 4.003 5,87
Others 64-99 7.786 11,42
Total 68.163 100
Source: Offices of the Register of Commerce 2003

Additional to the type and number of the various industrial and commercial activities also the
number of employees is of a certain interest. The quantity of residues (mainly industrial) could
be very well be estimated in relation to specific generation rates/employee, but such indicators
are strongly depending on type and standard of production.

Tourism
The Region 2 South-East is in the context of tourism one of the most important in Romania,
both for domestic and international clientele. This region becomes an important sector of the
countrys economy because of the low unemployment rates and of the low profits.

Although the number of nights spent in the region by the tourists has slightly decreased in the
last years, it is expected that after the accession to the EU and improvements of both,
infrastructure and services, the number of tourists will increase.

Tourism is mainly concentrated on the coast of the Black Sea, Constanta County and Danube
Delta. Of less importance is the tourism to the mountain areas from Vrancea and Buzau
counties and also to the cultural and historical heritage.

The concentration of touring activities in Constanta county and its development since 1995 can
be seen in the following graph:

21 December 2006 30
Evolutia numarului de innoptari in
judetele Regiunii Sud-Est (mii)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
S
u
d
-
E
s
t
B
r
a
i
l
a
B
u
z
a
u
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
a
G
a
l
a
t
i
T
u
l
c
e
a
V
r
a
n
c
e
a
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003

It has to be mentioned that all these touring zones require special attention and protection for
their maintenance and sustainability. Especially the Danube-Delta has to be protected in order
not to be overloaded with touring activities. Also, along the coast, the development of the
sanitation infrastructures has to keep pace with the development of tourism.

2.1.5.2 GDP

The unemployment rate has decreased from the average level of 13% to 8.2% in 2003. Any
impact of this criteria on the rate and/or infrastructure of waste generation may be deducted
from the GDPs evolution in the country/region. GDP reflects the general economic
development.

Table 2-15 GDP for Region 2 South East
SEC Methodology 1995
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
GDP South East 66.167,2 92.868,2 131.652,3 171.122,8 -
Source: Romanias Statistical Yearbook

2.2 Waste management

The data presented in this chapter refer to the household waste and assailable waste from
commerce, bulky waste, waste from gardens, parks, markets and street waste.

The base data concerning the generation of municipal waste are provided by the sanitation
operators based on the questionnaires received by the LEPAs and then centralised in a regional
data base by the REPA for Region 2 South East. These data reported by the sanitation
operators are based mostly on estimation, not on precise figures, that would have resulted after
weighing.

Most figures are estimated and calculated by the sanitation companies based on the type of
trucks used for collection and the number of trips made. The volumes were then converted into
weight by applying an estimated specific density. The specific weights used are not exactly
known and additionally are different depending on the compaction rates achieved inside the
truck body.

21 December 2006 31
In future the number of landfills will be lowered and all will then be equipped with weighbridges,
which means that the figures will become more accurate in combination with a proper and
consequent reporting system.

2.2.1 Data concerning the quantity of generated waste

Since 1999, the estimated waste generation in the region is slightly above 1 mil tonnes (1,165
mil tonnes in 2003). The major portion (57%) of the municipal waste is domestic waste (57%)
collected from household (1.1) quantity that has been relatively constant in the last years, but it
is estimated to grow because of the extension of the sanitation services coverage area.

Similar to domestic waste collected from industries, commerce and institutions (1.2) has a
portion of 16% or about 190 000 tonnes/year.

The other waste categories collected are of minor percentages:
Separate collected municipal waste (1.3) 2,6%
Park and garden waste (1.5) 2,3%
Market waste (1.6) 2,1%
Street waste (1.7) 4,3%

Systematic separate collection of recyclable materials (paper, carton, packaging materials) is
just about to start and is operated only in a few pilot projects spread over the region. The main
amounts shown in this category are amounts brought to authorised economic agents for
collection of recyclable waste. These sources can as well be from industries and commerce, as
it was shown in a more detailed data analysis. The major amounts in Constanta are metals not
generated in the domestic sector.

Separate collection from households requires the cooperation of the population. As this
awareness increases, it will be important to monitor this evolution. The collection of bulky waste
(1.4, all kinds of big parts, furniture, mattresses etc.) is not implemented in any of the counties.

The category of waste generated but not collected represents about 15% of the total quantity of
municipal generated waste and it was calculated using a generation index of 0.9 kg/inh. x year for
urban areas and of 0.4 kg/inh. x year for rural areas.

Table 2-16: Evolution of the quantities of wastes generated in the Region 2 South-East

Waste type Waste cod County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TONNS
1 Municipal
wastes and
similar to
commerce,
industry,
institutions,
out of which:
20 05 01
Region
101432
0
1178586 1171008
113590
5
116491
6
Brila 81342 72970 71974 56163 77690

Buzu 202135 230572 246259 222032
18372
4

Constanta 264637 277868 286830 326624
34532
1

Galai 270552 384206 369490 333142
34753
6
21 December 2006 32

TONNS

Tulcea 79514 83308 86466 90230
10407
9
RBDD 2016 2182 2101 2528 1891

Vrancea 114124 127480 107888 105186
10467
5
1.1 Mixed
domestic
waste
20 03 01
Region 606626 680528 682682 653381
66805
9
Brila 57215 45857 50692 34590 52849
Buzu 74121 84763 72589 53327 40244

Constanta 186646 195978 201065 233876
24013
6

Galai 178741 231162 250069 220688
21356
0
Tulcea 46324 47404 49269 52297 63322
RBDD 891 1006 1023 1174 780
Vrancea 62688 74358 57975 57429 57168
1.2 Similar mixed
waste from
commerce,
industry,
institutions
20 03 01
Region 175807 200434 191894 179112
19046
1
Brila 3999 8426 2838 4847 5274
Buzu 24553 19482 28670 21318 20744
Constanta 44466 46689 53638 51183 62123
Galai 69511 89896 70988 67243 65396
Tulcea 10495 12547 12745 13561 16142
RBDD 323 307 354 407 320
Vrancea 22460 23087 22661 20553 20462
1.3 Municipal
and similar
waste
collected
separately
20 03 01
Region 2700 3450 3852 8300 31128
Brila 1441 1971 1851 2048 2440
Buzu 0 86 133 146 367
Constanta 872 915 1266 5264 5264
Galai 0 0 0 0 21927
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 187
RBDD 0 4 5 5 18
Vrancea 387 474 597 837 925
1.4 Bulky waste 20 03 07 Region 0 0 0 0 0
Brila 0 0 0 0 0
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 0 0 0 0 0
Galai 0 0 0 0 0
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 0
RBDD 0 0 0 0 0
Vrancea 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Park and
garden waste
20 02
Region 9057 17588 14306 16260 26482
21 December 2006 33

TONNS
Brila 2354 1323 1303 937 1348
Buzu 0 2040 4958 7085 2002
Constanta 2733 2870 1803 1312 16075
Galai 1115 6540 1360 1450 1395
Tulcea 1650 1693 2011 2292 2488
RBDD 0 8 9 8 12
Vrancea 1205 3114 2862 3176 3162
1.6 Market waste 20 03 02 Region e14112 15274 15268 14150 20549
Brila 4945 4632 4560 3881 4716
Buzu 0 566 57 21 72
Constanta 1388 1457 1411 1199 6388
Galai 3791 5244 5880 5340 5576
Tulcea 950 1000 1300 1600 1692
RBDD 0 0 0 1 8
Vrancea 3038 2375 2060 2108 2097
1.7 Street waste 20 03 03 Region 58445 77457 81875 83886 50468
Brila 4238 3971 3910 2810 4043
Buzu 10231 7746 24127 24902 5132
Constanta 18936 19883 17012 21863 5685
Galai 17394 37198 26958 23754 25027
Tulcea 2500 3450 3950 4550 4642
RBDD 0 50 50 50 58
Vrancea 5146 5159 5868 5957 5881
1.8 Generated
but
uncollected
waste
20 01 15 01
Region 147573 183855 181131 180816
17776
9
Brila 7150 6790 6820 7050 7020

Buzu 93230 115889 115725 115233
11516
3
Constanta 9596 10076 10635 11927 9650
Galai 0 14166 14235 14667 14655
Tulcea 17595 17214 17191 15930 15606
RBDD 802 807 660 883 695
Vrancea 19200 18913 15865 15126 14980
Source: Sanitation Agents
21 December 2006 34

Evolution of Waste Quantities 1999 to 2003
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1 2 3 4 5
years
t
/
y
e
a
r
1. Total domestic waste
1.1 Municipal Waste coll.
1.2 Sim. Waste from ICI
1.8 Non-collected

The separate collected materials from domestic waste are additionally detailed in the following
table and comprise recyclable materials, like paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, metals,
wood, biodegradable materials and others, both at regional and county levels. Separate
collection of these materials requires well-adopted and organised collection systems,
accompanied by awareness and sensitizing programs to achieve the collaboration of the
population.

Table 2-17: Components of the municipal and similar waste collected separately
Types of waste EWC County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
1.3 Municipal and
similar waste
collected separately
20 03 01 Region
2700 3450 3852 8300 31128
1.3.1 Paper and
cardboard
20 03 01 Region
1033 2253 2274 4685 7624
Brila 840 1970 1850 1758 1964
Buzu 0 77 123 135 292
Constanta 162 170 227 2642 3820
Galai 0 0 0 0 1318
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 18
RBDD 0 1 1 2 4
Vrancea 31 35 73 148 208
1.3.2 Glass 20 01 02 15 01
07
Region
3 0 2 4 86
Brila 2 0 0 0 0
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 0 0 0 0 0
Galai 0 0 0 0 82
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 0
RBDD 0 0 0 0 1
Vrancea 1 0 2 4 3
1.3.3 Plastic 20 01 39 15 01
02
Region
221 148 241 1863 1492
Brila 90 0 0 3 7
Buzu 0 9 10 11 75
Constanta 125 131 221 1832 1350
21 December 2006 35
Types of waste EWC County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Galai 0 0 0 0 34
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 5
RBDD 0 1 1 2 3
Vrancea 6 7 9 15 18
1.3.4 Metals 20 01 40 15 01
04
Region
839 966 1241 1341 21310
Brila 0 0 0 0 0
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 580 609 809 779 72
Galai 0 0 0 0 20493
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 164
RBDD 0 1 1 0 0
Vrancea 259 356 431 562 581
1.3.5 Wood 20 01 38 15 01
03
Region
18 11 32 52 74
Brila 1 1 1 1 2
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 5 5 9 11 22
Galai 0 0 0 0 0
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 0
RBDD 0 0 1 0 1
Vrancea 12 5 21 40 49
1.3.6 Biodegradable 20 01 08 Region 74 68 56 62 63
Brila 0 0 0 0 0
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 0 0 0 0 0
Galai 0 0 0 0 0
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 0
RBDD 0 1 1 1 7
Vrancea 74 67 55 61 56
1.3.7 Others Region 512 4 6 293 479
Brila 508 0 0 286 467
Buzu 0 0 0 0 0
Constanta 0 0 0 0 0
Galai 0 0 0 0 0
Tulcea 0 0 0 0 0
RBDD 0 0 0 0 2
Vrancea 4 4 6 7 10

21 December 2006 36
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Municipal and similar to municipal waste collected
separately

Index concerning the quantity of generated waste

Table 2-18: Index concerning the quantity of generated waste

Total(1)
Municipal and similar
waste (kg/inh. *year)
Total mixed
household waste
(1.1)
Total similar
waste (1.2)
Others
1999 349,4 209,0 60,6 79,8
2000 407,5 235,3 69,3 102,9
2001 406,4 237,0 66,6 102,9
2002 395,6 227,6 62,4 105,6
2003 409,2 234,7 67 107,5

Considering the present level of waste collection in the region/country, these indicators are quite
high in various aspects. The indicator for domestic waste is in the range of central European
countries with higher economic standards and the indicator for the region therefore should be
lower. This difference could be based on the fact that the figures for collected waste are
estimated as well as the connected population and both estimates are too high. As connected
population in this context the whole population of an area is considered and not only that portion
for which the sanitation companies have specific service contracts.

The quantities for street waste category (1.7) may comprise a huge portion of domestic waste,
which should be collected under that category (1.1). The huge number of dust bins in the urban
areas encourages people to use them and their locations for the provision of domestic waste for
collection. Street waste should only comprise the waste quantities from mechanical or manual
street sweeping and the regular small quantities from the dust bins.

Table 2-19: Waste generation 2003
Types of
waste
Waste
code
Region BRAIL
A
BUZA
U
CONST. GALAT
I
TULCE
A
RBDD VRANC
EA
21 December 2006 37
Tonnes
1 Househ.
waste and
commercial
waste similar
to househ.
waste
20 05
01
977872 11264
9
138976 281339 243075 81887 7263 112684
1.1 Mixed
household
waste
20 03
01
456518 76155 41650 162171 107899 36062 1183 31398
1.2 Commercial,
industrial and
institutional
waste similar
to household
waste
20 03
01
190461 5274 20744 62123 65396 16142 320 20462
1.3 Separate
collected
waste
20 03
01
8128 1440 367 2264 2927 187 18 925
1.4 Bulky waste 20 03
07
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Park and
garden waste
20 02 23450 1348 2002 8000 8000 2488 12 1600
1.6 Market waste 20 03
02
19761 2000 2000 6388 5576 1692 8 2097
1.7 Street waste 20 03
03
32370 4043 4000 5685 6000 4642 4000 4000
1.8 Generated but
uncollected
waste
20 01
15 01
247185 22390 68212 34708 47277 20674 1722 52201

In this table the quantities collected in 2003 are summarized per region also for easier
comparison.

These estimated quantities concerning municipal waste generation in 2003 will be the base for
the prognosis of the future waste quantities for the period between 2004 to 2013. To generate
more accurate results this base-line has to be reliable, realistic and logic as much as possible.

The quantities for mixed collected household waste from the population are overestimated, and
therefore have been lowered considering the coverage area of sanitation services and a
generation index of 0.9 kg/inh*day in urban area and 0.4 kg/inh*day in rural area.

Concerning the other waste categories 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 a comparison has been made between
the counties and the figures have been adjusted accordingly. E.g. for park and garden waste
Constanta declared 16000 t while Galati has only 1400 t and for street waste the figures are vis
versa(Galati 25000 t and Constanta only 5600t).

The quantities for 1.8, generated but not collected waste has been estimated based on the
population not served by sanitation services and on national indicators of 0.9 kg/inh*year for
urban and with 0.4 Kg/inh*year for rural areas. These generation indicators have been
recommended by NEPA and MEWM.

If these indicators are applied on urban and rural population not serviced by waste collection
services the quantities uncollected are 67 505 t for urban areas and 179 680 for rural areas.

21 December 2006 38
In total a quantity of 247185 t of waste remains uncollected. The major portions of this are
generated in the rural areas of Buzau, Galati and Vrancea.

Average composition of waste

Data concerning household waste composition are estimated based on the information received
from sanitation operators. Waste structure at regional level has been calculated considering the
average waste composition from the counties that form it.

Table 2- Average composition of the household waste collected from the population,
2003
Urban Area Rural Area
Weighted
mean on the
county
Composition
of waste
Quantity
(kg/inh. * year)
Total (%)
Quantity
(kg/inh. * year)
Total (%)
Percentage
(%)

Paper and
cardboard
30 9 101.92 4 7.36
Glass 9 35 20.81 1 3.43
Metals 9 3 20.55 1 3,2
Plastics 30 9 8 6 7
Wood 9 3 01.1 0 2.28
Composite 9 3 0 0 0.55
Textile 9 3 3 2 2.33
Biodegradable 166 50 93 65 63.45
Minerals 26 8 4 3 4.65
Other 31 9 24 18 5.75
TOTAL 328 100% 146 100% 100%
Source: Sanitation operators, landfill operators

The weighted mean per region was calculated as follows:

((urban average percentage x population in the urban area) + (rural average percentage
population in the rural area) )/total population of the region

21 December 2006 39
2%
1%
2%
7%
3%
3%
7%
5%
5%
65%
Paper and
cardboard
Glass
Metal
Plastic
Wood
Composite
Textile
Biodegradable
Minerals
Others

In Region 2, there are no recent analysis for waste composition that could be used to verify the
data. In future such analysis shall be carried out on a more frequent and regular basis.

2.2.2 Collection and transport of municipal waste

2.2.2.1 Existing sanitation services

The activities of collection and transport of municipal waste from the region are organised
differently depending on: the size of the locality, the number of serviced people, endowment,
type of property. In the following table is comprised the number of sanitation agents by type of
property.

Table 2-21 Sanitation operators - general information 2003
County
Number of
sanitation
agents
Number of serviced
inhabitants
(nr. inhab)
Percentage of the
total of inhabitants
(%)
BRILA 3 233.556 62,82
BUZU 4 128.730 25,96
CONSTANA 11 504.573 70,68
GALAI 5 328.460 52,87
TULCEA 6 110.064 46,04
RBDD 1 3600 25,04
VRANCEA 10 97.891 25,29
TOTAL REGIUNE 40 1.406.874 49.5%
Source: Sanitation Agents, local administration

In the following table is presented the number of inhabitants in rural and urban area that are
serviced by sanitation operators.
21 December 2006 40

Table 2-22: Serviced population in rural and urban area, 2003
URBAN RURAL TOTAL REGION

TOTAL
Serviced
population
Serviced
populatio
n %
TOTAL
inhabitant
s
Serviced
populatio
n
Serviced
populatio
n %
TOTAL
inhabita
nts
Serviced
population
Service
d
populati
on %
Region 1.581.446 1.375.967 87.0 1.261.624 30.907 2.4
2.843.0
70
1.406.874 49.5
Braila 242.570 230.441 95.0 129.179 3.115 2.4 371.749 233.556 62.8
Buzau 205.285 125.237 61.0 290.593 3.493 1.2 495.878 128.730 26.0
Consta
nta
507.731 484.950 95.5 206.094 19.623 9.5 713.825 504.573 70.7
Galati 353.349 328.460 93.0 267.812 0 0.0 621.161 328.460 52.9
Tulcea 119.643 109.547 91.6 119.403 517 0.4 239.046 110.064 46.0
RBDD 4.418 3.600 81.5 9.955 0 0.0 14.373 3.600 25.0
Vrance
a
148.450 93.732 63.1 238.588 4.159 1.7 387.038 97.891 25.3

Fig. 2.6 Percentage of serviced and not-serviced population

Procentul populatiei deservita de servicii de
salubritate
49.5
50.5
Populatia deservita cu servicii de salubrizare
Populatia care nu beneficiaza de servicii de salubritate

21 December 2006 41

Table 2-22 Evolution of waste collection
Indicators 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Quantity of collected household and
similar wastes / Total quantity of
generated household and similar
wastes (%)
91,2 86,2 84,3 83,6 82,3
Quantity of municipal and similar
wastes separately collected / Total
quantity of collected household and
similar wastes (%)
0,4 0,5 0,5 1,3 1,6
Number of inhabitants serviced by the
sanitation department/ Total number of
inhabitants (%)
45 46 47 47 48
Quantity of collected wastes
Kg/inhab.year
209 235 236 228 235

2.2.2.2 Equipment

Table 2-23: Equipment for waste collection (bins and containers)

Container type
Region/
County
Bins
(0,1-0,2 m
3
)
plastic;
metal
Container
(4-5 m
3
)
Eurocontainer
(1,1 m
3
)

Others
Total
Volume
[m
3
]
Region 2
15.569 8.688 2.328 2.467 44.837
Brila 1.199 1.939 170 1 9.057
Buzu 469 341 1.078 - 2.748
Constana 9.399 5.563 43 1.422 28.055
Galai 801 167 452 7 1.351
Tulcea 3.549 129 485 - 1917
RBDD 100 5 106
Vrancea 152 549 - 1.032 3.520

The collection frequency is assumed to 3 days. Therefore the bin and container volume has to
be prepared to cover the waste volume to be generated within this period. It is estimated that
every 3 days the generated quantity will be between 22402 t or 11201 t . Assuming a specific
gravity of 0,25 t/m the weekly produced waste volume is 89608 m and per 3 days 44804 m.
The available collection bin volume covers the waste generation within 3 days.

For the next review of this RWMP also the frequency for clearing of each of these container
types will be elaborated in order to calculate the specific container capacity (per day or week)
which is made available to the population. According to Romanian legislation waste containers
have to be collected in summer every day and during winter period every second or third day.
21 December 2006 42

Table 2-24: Collection vehicles
Vehicle type

Compactio
n vehicle
Transport for
container
Tractor with
trailer
Lorry Others
Average
capacity
(m)
7-40 (14m) 4-16 ( 7 m ) 2-7 (4m) 7-12 (7m) 7 (5m)
Region 2

108 34 67 31 22
Brila 25 2 15 9 -
Buzu 11 6 7 5 -
Constana 21 2 9 7 8
Galai 31 12 14 - 13
Tulcea 8 1 8 2
RBDD 2 1
Vrancea

12

11

12

8

Daily volume

84m/day/
vehicle

21 m/day

12 m/day/
vehicle

21 m/
day/vehicle

15m/
day/
vehicle
3 days
volume/
vehicle

252 m/3
days/
vehicle
63m/3 days

36 m/ 3 days

63 m /3 days/
vehicle
45 m/3
days/
vehicle
Total volume
/ 3 days

27216 m

2142m 2412m

1953m 990m
Total collection vehicle capacity : 34.713 m / 3 day

A vehicle capacity of 34713 m is available per week which is around 25% less than needed.

For further assessment of the existing truck/vehicle fleet the age and technical condition of this
equipment would be of interest. However the contractors have to comply with Romanian
regulations, get the required permits and present their fleet for technical inspections

21 December 2006 43

2.2.2.3 Transfer stations

At present, in Region 2 there are no transfer stations.

2.2.3 Treatment of waste in view of capitalization and disposal

2.2.3.1 Sorting stations

At present, in Region 2 there is a sorting station in Constanta County. Since 2005 SC M.M.
RECYCLING SRL is operating, in Constanta municipality, an installation for sorting the solid
urban waste, with a sorting capacity of 9 t/hour and a PET recovery installation with a capacity
of 450 t/hour. Through sorting, paper, plastic, iron and aluminium waste are recovered.

2.2.3.2 Composting

At present, for Region 2 there are no composting stations.

2.2.3.3 Mechanical-biological treatment

At present, in Region 2 there are no mechanical-biological treatment stations.

2.2.3.4 Processing in view of revaluation

In the Region 2 South-East the processing of the paper, metal, plastic waste for recovery is
mainly carried out through authorised collection units. These collection points receive separated
materials from un-authorised collectors, from other private persons or direct suppliers from
commercial activities. Sanitation companies handle the quantities originating from selective
collection.

The recovery of waste is generally carried out for plastic , metals, paper and cardboard,
rubbers, accumulators etc.

The economic agents who collect and deal with recyclable materials are equipped with baling
presses, balances, installations for the processing of plastic mass waste, electronic
weighbridges, cranes, cutting kits, electric grinders.

In Annex 2 are presented identification data for economic agents that are involved in collection
and/or recovery activities, their endowments and the capacity they dispose off.

The final recovery takes place in the factories where new paper/cardboard, glass, metals are
produced. Within the Region 2 the following factories can be found:
Metal Steel in Galati
Paper-/Carton factory Braila

2.2.3.5 Heat treatment

in Constanta County there is a cement factory, Lafarge Medgidia, that is part of the Lafarge
Group. This cement factory performs co-incineration activities using residues with a big caloric
values like used oil waste, tyres or plastic.
21 December 2006 44

2.2.4 Waste disposal

The local strategy of waste management in the Region 2 South-East was developed in
conformity with the European legislation and according to the provisions of the Government
Emergency Ordinance 78/2000 regarding the regime of waste, approved by the Law 426/2001
and modified by GEO 61/2006.
According to Governmental Decision 349/2005 concerning the landfilling of waste, which
reiterates the Directive 1999/31/EC, the waste landfills are classified into:

class a landfills, properly regulated for hazardous wastes;
class b landfills, properly regulated for non-hazardous wastes, inclusively
municipal ones;
class c landfills, properly regulated for inert wastes.

As concerns the implementation of Directive nr. 99/31/EC regarding the landfilling of waste the
following stages have been achieved:

the Governmental Decision 349/2005 and the Minister Orders 857/2004 and 1247/2005
have been popularized through awareness campaigns;
taking knowledge of the responsibilities for the planning and authorization of the public
administration institutions;
identification, inventory and classification of the existing municipal waste landfills;
planning of the closure and conditioning of the existing municipal waste landfills and of the
building of new ones;

In Region 2 South-East landfilling represents the main option for the disposal of municipal
wastes. In each urban locality, there is at least one landfill for wastes.

In 2003 in the Region 2 South-East there were 28 noncompliant municipal landfills.

Noncompliant rural landfills

Besides the landfills presented above, in Region 2, exist about 1049 noncompliant landfills, that
do not respect the standards and European regulations. These are mostly wild landfills,
operated by the community, situated especially in rural areas. The closure date for all these
noncompliant landfills is 2009, according to GD 349/2005, art. 3, paragraph 7. Before closure,
an environmental audit is necessary to describe the procedures of reducing the impact on
environment. For both activities funding is required.

County Number Type Closure date
Braila 121 b 2009
Buzau 369 b 2009
Constanta 53 b 2009
Galati 196 b 2009
Tulcea 185 b 2009
Vrancea 170 b 2009
Total Region 2 1094

21 December 2006 45

Compliant municipal waste landfills

The number of compliant municipal landfills that have to be built is 10, out of which 5 have
already been constructed (3 in Constanta, 1 in Buzau and 1 in Braila).

Brila

Controlled household and similar industrial waste landfill TRACON, installed in the locality
Muchea, County of Brila and started to operate without sorting in 2002. The landfill has 4
cells:
-1 3,1 Ha for 314.000 m
-2 2.8 Ha for 392.000 m
-3 2,8 Ha for 392.000 m
-4 3,2 Ha for 450.800 m

Buzu

Controlled household landfill for the municipality of Buzu, placed outside the communities
Glbinai and Vadu Paii, from Buzu county. It has a manual sorting station in the entrance
area of the lanfdfill .

Constana

In the Constana county there are 3 sanitary landfills (those placed in the localities Ovidiu and
Costineti and Albesti ). The quantity of landfilled wastes is here of approximate 346.000 t/year.

The sanitary landfill for household and industrial waste Ovidiu is administrated by SC
TRACON SRL, serving 400.000 inhabitants (Constana, Ovidiu, Lumina, Nvodari). From the
eight projected cells, two are closed, the third is in exploitation, and the fourth is under
construction.

The Costineti sanitary landfill for household and industrial waste is administrated by SC
IRIDEX GROUP IMPORT EXPORT SRL, serving 53.000 inhabitants of the localities: Costineti,
Amzacea, Agigea, Cumpna, Eforie, Techirghiol, Tuzla, Topraisar, to which we can add
seasonally 70.000 100.000 tourists/year. The landfill was put into operation in 2004, the
surface of the first cell being of 2 ha.

The sanitary landfill for waste - Mangalia (Albeti), placed at a distance of about 500 m from
the lake Mangalia is administrated by SC ECO GOLD INVEST SA. The old area of the landfill,
representing approximately 60% of the whole establishment, will be closed and reconstructed,
only the new ecological cell remaining in operation. The new landfill started in 2006 with a
total capacity of 665.000 t

Galati
The new landfill Tirighina is an extension of the old one and will be developed adjacent to the
existing uncontrolled landfill. The landfill site will be prepared for 4 cells with an total area of 18
Ha. The first cell has a capacity of 920.000 m and its lifetime is expected to be 4,5-6 years.

Tulcea
In Tulcea county is foreseen the construction of a new municipal waste landfill.

Vrancea
In Vrancea county is foreseen the construction of a new municipal waste landfill at Haret.

21 December 2006 46

Table 2-25 Evolution of disposed waste quantities
Quantity of landfilled wastes
Locality
Year
1999
(t/a)
Year
2000
(t/a)
Year
2001
(t/a)
Year
2002
(t/a)
Year
2003
(t/a)
Available
capacity in
2004,
m
BRAILA
Landfill Ianca 7 5 6 7 7 35
Landfill Faurei 2 3 3 3 4 100
Landfill
Muchea/Tracon
80734 72962 71964 55867 77204 460000
BUZAU
Mixed Landfill .
Nehoiu/Buzu
974 1047 1080 942 1269 11000
Mixed Landfill
Buzu/Buzu
97898 101285 112452 85035 45579 0
Compliant Landfill
Galbina
* * * * 10162 270000
Mixed municipal
Landfill Rm. Srat
10033 12265 16869 20676 10184 450500
CONSTANTA
Compliant Landfill
Ovidiu
123591 123645 160028 172117 182880 3900000
Landfill Negru Vod 5800 5900 6000 6100 6300 240000
Landfill Eforie Sud 8246 13340 9184 9301 11123 20000
Landfill Albeti 62301 66601 94842 84700 67571 1200000
Landfill Medgidia 36661 38806 41501 47433 43076 60000
Landfill Hrova 9100 9200 8000 8900 9000 80000
Landfill Cernavod 6900 7664 8767 9616 9245 275000
Landfill Techirghiol 7500 7800 8650 7305 7300 20390
Landfill Basarabi 6100 6500 8100 8100 9600 60000
GALATI
Landfill Tirighina 146220 147869 184682 199304 205059 665000
Landfill
Umbrreti/Moscu
160 210 280 370 490 7700
Landfill
Bzanu/Bereti-Est 880 880 990 990 1980 100
Landfill Rate/Tecuci 15690 16730 18360 43780 27700 82300
TULCEA
Landfill Vrrie 513 593 1245 1612 2104 140000
Landfill Babadag 2693 2864 2861 3169 3290 37000
Landfill Isaccea 2050 2100 2170 2370 2500 5000
Landfill Aghighiol 47569 51074 53945 58325 71801 300000
Landfill Mcin 9690 10240 10410 10545 10805 15000
Landfill Sulina 1372 1701 1638 1971 1474 9769
VRANCEA
Landfill Golesti-Focsani 67300 59680 57385 55043 54827 150000
Mixed Landfill Haret-
Marasesti
6483 5477 4530 5754 5062 40000
Landfill Odobesti 5800 3116 4344 5613 4497 25000
Landfill Panciu 6637 4586 3984 3111 4051 57000
21 December 2006 47
Quantity of landfilled wastes
Landfill Adjud 11977 8957 9264 9890 9890 135000
Source: Landfill operators
21 December 2006 48

3 Regional objectives and targets
3.1 Principles
The principles defined in the National Waste Management Strategy that underline the
management activities are listed below:

The principle of the protection of primary resources it is formulated in the
wider context of sustainable development with an emphasis on the use of
secondary raw materials
The principle of preliminary measures means to apply the current state of
technological development
The prevention principle sets up a hierarchy of waste management activities
starting with avoiding of waste generation, minimising of disposal quantities, and
treatment for recovery and treatment and disposal in environmentally sound
conditions.
The polluter pays principle, correlated with the principle of producer
responsibility and user responsibility requires an adequate legislative and
economic framework according to which waste management cost should be
covered by the waste generators.
The substitution principle emphasis the need to replace dangerous raw
materials by non- dangerous ones thus avoiding hazardous waste arising
The proximity principle states that the waste should be treated or disposed of
as close as possible to the site where it was generated
The subsidiary principle states that responsibilities should be assigned to the
lowest administrative level above the source of generation but based on uniform
regional and national criteria.
The integration principle states that the waste management is an integral part
of the social economic activities generating the waste.

These principles are an integral part of the regional objectives and targets.
The following Table provides Region 2s Strategic Objectives and Targets. The Objectives
conform to those of the approved Romanian Nation Waste Management Plan, which is in
compliance with the Romanian Waste and Environment legislation transposing EU requirements
in consideration of national conditions and possibilities.
Additionally the regions specific conditions concerning topography(sea-level to mountain
regions), distribution of urban and rural areas, existing and future industrial- and port-activities,
many small and big protected areas(Danube Delta), steppe and coastal areas and existing and
developing tourism shall be considered and reflected in the objectives for Region South-East.
When introducing collection in rural area there has to be kept in mind the local characteristics,
the existing road infrastructure, the placement of the settlements from each other and from the
transfer stations and the existing or designed regional landfills. The maximum distance from an
economic point of view on which transport of waste between a transfer station and a regional
landfill can be done is recommended to be no more than 50-60 km back and forward.
A selective collection door to door type would give positive results in neighbourhood with
houses and gardens rather than in those with apartment buildings. In apartment buildings blocks
could be set points for voluntary collection where the population could deposit, selectively
recyclable waste.

21 December 2006 49
3.2 Regional objectives and targets

Table 3-1 Waste management objectives and targets in Region 2 South East

Item Main objectives Sub-objectives Targets/Deadli
nes
Responsibility
1.1.1. To develop a guideline for the local development of waste
management organization in regard to the proximity and
subsidiary principle.
1.1.2 To encourage the local authorities from Region 2 develop
a strategy for a joint waste management organization in terms of
collection, disposal and separate collection in cooperation with
the private sector.
( Public Private Partnership)
1.1 Develop
specific
regional/local
regulations in
compliance with
the national waste
management
policy and
legislation in order
to implement an
economically and
ecologically
efficient integrated
system.
1.1.3 To make aware that a qualified waste management is of
biggest importance for public health ( soil, water and ground-
water protection )
Permanent Ministry of
Environment
NEPA
REPA
LEPA
County Council
Local Council
1.2.1 To increase the importance of the legislations enforcement
and control in the environmental authorities in charge with the
waste management.
1.2.2. To strengthen the co-operation between the institutions
like REPA, National Environmental guard and County Council
Permanent Environmental Guard,
REPA, LEPA, County/
local Councils
1.2 Increase the
effective
enforcement of the
waste
management
legislation.

1.2.3 To increase the efficiency of the regional/county/local
institutional structure by a clear definition of the responsibilities
Permanent REPA, LEPA,
County/ local Councils
1. Regional
policy
development
1.3 Rising the
efficiency of the
1.3.1 To inform all stakeholders intensively about the
environmental legislation
Permanent REPA/LEPA, RDA,
Environmental Guard
21 December 2006 50
nes
Responsibility
implementation of
legislation in
waste
management field
1.3.2 To raise the importance of monitoring and control activities
done by the competent authorities like REPA, NEG in
accordance to their responsibilities.
2.1.1 To develop the regional institutions and provide an efficient
institutional structure regarding to the waste management
aspects
Permanent MEWM, NEPA,
MAI,
2.
Institutional
and
organisation
al
aspects
2.1 Develop the
regional and local
institutions and
their
organizational
structure in order
to comply with the
National
requirements
2.1.2 To strengthen the administrative capacity of
government institutions at regional levels with competences and
responsibilities for implementing the legislation and control of
waste management activities
Permanent MEWM, NEPA,
MAI,
3.1.1 To assure sufficient and well-trained staff and adequate
equipment at all levels in the public sector regional/county/
local
3. Human
resources
3.1 Assure the
necessary human
resources in terms
of number and
professional
qualification
3.1.2. Design a training program for Regional and Local
Institutions for
-administrational affairs
- juridical affairs
- technical control of facilities
- data recording
- tendering of services
Permanent REPA, RDA,
Environmental Guard,
County/ local
Councils,
private sector,
professional
associations
4.1.1 To develop an affordable waste management system
consisting of collection, transport, recovery, recycling, treatment
and disposal.
Permanent County/ local
Councils, private
sector, professional
associations
4. Financing
of the waste
management
sector
4.1 Establish and
use the
economical and
financial systems
and mechanisms
for waste
management,
observing the
general principles,
4.1.2 To optimize the acquisition and the application of all
available national and international funds (environmental fund,
private funds, structural funds, and others) for investment and to
prepare a priority list for investments adapted to the needs of
Region 2
Permanent ARPM/APM, ADR,
County/ local
Councils, private
operators in the field
of waste management
21 December 2006 51
nes
Responsibility
4.1.3 To improve the municipal waste management and to
develop economical and financial mechanisms in order to
organize an integrated waste management based on affordable
fees which have to cover the cost of a qualified collection,
treatment and a controlled disposal
Permanent County/ local
Councils, private
associations
mainly the
polluter pays
principle and
subsidiary
principle.
4.1.4 To promote the use of all economical and financial
mechanisms for special waste flow management which means
the separate collection of batteries and accumulators, hazardous
waste from households, packaging, electric and electronic
equipment and end of life vehicles.
Permanent ARPM/APM,
Professional
associations, entities
with responsibility to
develop the strategy
of producers/
importers
5.1.1 To increase the communication between all the
stakeholders
Permanent
5.1.2 To organize and supervise public education and
awareness programs at all levels.
Special guidelines for teachers and information for children
Permanent
ADR /ARPM/APM
County/ local
Councils, private
associations,
universities
5.1.3 To use all available communication channels (mass-media,
web sites, seminars, events) for the public information and
awareness addressed to specific groups of the population and to
support private units which finance awareness campaigns for
the public
5. Awareness
of the
stakeholders
5.1 Promote
information,
awareness and
motivating
activities for all
stakeholders
5.1.4. To promote the waste management audits as a part of the
planning, supervision and control process. For big communities
and enterprises it is recommended to integrate the waste
management audit in planning and control procedures
Permanent ADR /ARPM/APM,
NEG, County/ Local
Councils, private
associations,
universities

21 December 2006 52
nes
Responsibility
6.Collection
and reporting
of data and
information
regarding
waste
management
6.1 Obtain
complete and
correct data and
information,
adapted to the
national and
European
reporting
requirements.
6.1.1. Improve the regional/county/local system of collecting,
processing, and analyzing data and information regarding waste
management by using an integrated and double controlled
system connected with the National Environment Guard.
Permanent REPA/LEPA,
economical agents
and institutions , Local
Councils under
NEPAs coordination
7. Prevention
of the waste
generation
7.1 Minimize the
waste production
7.1.1 To promote, encourage the manufactures to implement the
prevention principles
Permanent REPA/LEPA,
County/Local
Councils professional
associations,
universities, NGOs
7.1.2 To encourage the consumers to apply to the prevention
principle
Permanent REPA/LEPA, County/
Local Councils, ,
professional
associations,
universities, NGOs
8.1.1 To support the development of secondary raw material
market and to promote the production and utilization of products
manufactured from recycled materials
Permanent Professional
associations,
universities, research
sector, private
companies,
REPA/LEPA, County
Councils
8.1 Utilize
efficiently all
technical and
economical
facilities for waste
recovery.
8.1.2 To achieve reduction of the total waste quantity disposed
by an optimal selection of waste collection and treatment
facilities.
2013 REPA/LEPA, County/
local Councils,
Sanitation Companies
8.Efficient
waste
management
systems
8.2 Support the
development of
8.2.1. Increase the degree of material recovery (recycling);
recycling of household waste, others than packaging.
Permanent

REPA/LEPA, County/
Local Councils,
21 December 2006 53
nes
Responsibility
the material and
energetic waste
recovery activities.
8.2.2 Promote the energy recovery through co-incineration
(Lafarge, Constanta County) and incineration in case the
material recovery is not feasible from a technical-economical
point of view.
2013
9.1.1 To extend the collection systems of municipal waste in
urban areas in the Region
Coverage area:
100%
Deadline: 2013
Local Councils,
9.1.2 To extend the collection systems of municipal waste in
rural areas
Coverage area:
80%
Deadline: 2009
Local Councils,
9.1 Assure that
the capacity of
waste collection
and transport
systems is
adapted to the
number and the
waste generation
of the inhabitants.
9.1.3 To optimize collection and transport Permanent Local Councils,
9.2.1 To organize separate collection of the hazardous and non-
hazardous municipal waste
Starting with
2007
Local Council
Operators

9.Waste
collection
and
transport
9.2.2. Implementing the selective collection systems for
recovered materials so that to ensure the reaching of legislative
objectives concerning packaging and biodegradable waste.
Starting with
2007
Local Council
Operators

9.2 Assure the
best options for
waste collection
and transport in
respect to
recycling activities
and final disposal
9.2.3. Construction of transfer stations based on feasibility
studies and correlated to the closing years of the existing
landfills.
2007-2013 Local Councils,
10. Waste
treatment
10.1 Promote the
waste treatment
10.1.1 To improve the waste treatment for:
- recovery;
- waste handling;
- elimination of hazardous components;
- minimizing of finally disposed waste
Permanent Economical agents,
Professional
Associations, REPA/
LEPA, County/Local
Councils
21 December 2006 54
nes
Responsibility
11.1.1. To reduce the quantity of biodegradable waste related to
the reference year 1995
Reduction by
75% till 2010

Reduction by
50% till 2013

Reduction by
35% till 2016
County/ local
Councils, Landfill
operators
11. Biode-
gradable
waste
11.1 Reduce the
biodegradable
waste, green
waste from
markets, gardens
and parks by
separate collection
11.1.2. To promote investments into plants for composting and
treatment in order to reduce the biodegradable waste, including
advanced technologies if it will be economically feasible
Starting with
2011
County/ Local
Councils, professional
associations,
operators

12.1.1. To support information campaigns which will inform about
the advantages of prevention packaging waste generation
Permanent Private companies,
Ecorom-Ambalaje,
ARAM
12.1.2 To create the preconditions for a material recycling in
terms of a well organized separate collection.
12.1 Reduce
packaging waste
generation
12.1.3 To optimise the amount of package per packed product
Permanent Private companies,
Ecorom-Ambalaje,
REPA/LEPA, ARAM,
Environmental Guard
12.2.1 Total recovery: 34%
Total recycling: 28% with:
- 15% glass
- 15% paper &cardboard
- 15% metals
2007 Ecorom-Ambalaje,
Private companies,
Local Councils
12.Packaging
waste
12.2 Recover and
recycle packaging
waste
- 15% glass
- 50% metal
2008
Ecorom-Ambalaje,
Private companies,
Local Councils
21 December 2006 55
nes
Responsibility
-15% glass
- 50% metal
2009
Ecorom-Ambalaje,
Ecologic 3R Braila,
Private companies,
Local Councils
- 15%glass
- 60% paper and cardboard
- 50% metal
2010 Private companies,
Local Councils,
Cement Facotory
Constanta
- 15% glass
- 50% metal
-15% plastic
-15% wood
Ecologic 3R Braila,
Private companies,
Local Councils
- 15% glass
- 50% metal
-15% plastic
-15% wood
Ecologic 3R Braila,
Private companies,
Local Councils

- 60% glass
- 50% metal
- 22,5% plastic
-15% wood
Ecologic 3R Braila,
Private companies,
Local Councils
21 December 2006 56
nes
Responsibility
12.3 Create and
optimize the
energetic recovery
schemes for
packaging waste
which cannot be
recycled
12.3.1 Recovery or incineration in incineration installations with a
minimum 60% energy recovery from the weigh of packaging
waste
2013
13.1.1 To treat the contaminated waste from construction and
demolition in view of recovery (material or energetic) or/and final
safe disposal
2008 Industry, REPA,
LEPA
13.1.2 To treat the contaminated waste from roads, buildings
and excavation for recovery or /and safe final disposal.
Starting with
2008
MCTT, REPA, LEPA
13.1.3 To re-use and recycle the construction and demolition
waste, if it is not contaminated.
Starting with
2008
MCTT, Industry,
REPA, LEPA, Local
Councils
13.1.4. To design new capacity for treatment and recovery Starting with
2008
MCTT, Industry,
REPA, LEPA, Local
Councils
13.
Construction
and
demolition
waste
14.1 Implement
separate collection
of bulky waste
13.1.5 To develop landfill technology for construction and
demolition waste which can not be recovered
Permanent
14.1.1 To install special collection points for bulky waste Starting with
2007
Sanitation
Companies,
REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
14.Bulky
waste
14.1 Implement
separate collection
of bulky waste
14.1.2 To establish the organization of door to door collection Starting with
2007
Sanitation
Companies,
REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
21 December 2006 57
nes
Responsibility
14.1.3 To recover separate collected bulky waste Starting with
2007
Sanitation
Companies,
REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
15.1.1 To promote the use of uncontaminated sludge as
fertilizer in agriculture
Starting with
2007
15.1.2 To dehydrate and pre-treat in view of co-incineration in
cement kilns or incineration plants.
Starting with
2007
County Authorities for
Agriculture and
WWTP, REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
15.1.2 To dehydrate and pre-treat in view of co-incineration in
cement kilns or incineration plants.
Starting with
2007
WWTP operators,
REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
15. Sludge
from
wastewater
treatment
plants
15.1.Establish an
environmental
sound
management of
sludge from urban
WWTP's
15.1.3 To promote the utilization of uncontaminated sludge for
rehabilitation of dump sites to be mitigated and as cover
material for sanitary landfills
Permanent County Authorities for
Agriculture and
WWTP, REPA/LEPA,
Local Councils
16.1.1 To design a system which allows the last owner of a car
to leave it free of charge or for a reasonable fee at the collection
point with the exception foreseen by the GD 2406/2005
Starting with
2007
Environmental Fund
Association of car
producers/
importers
16.1.2. Establish at least one collection point for end of life
vehicles for each of the 6 counties of Region 2 SE.
Establish a collection point for end of life vehicles, in every town
with more than 100.000 inhabitants.
October 2006 Importers /
producers
, County/ local
Councils
16.1.3 To extend the re-use and recycling of the
materials from the end of life cars and the energy recovery of
that material that cannot be recycled.
Starting with
2007
Importers /
producers
, County/ local
Councils
16. End of life
vehicles
16.1. Develop an
efficient system for
collection,
recovery, recycling
of end of life
vehicles in
accordance with
the legislation
16.1.4 To recover 75% by weight of cars produced before 1980 Starting with
2007
Importers /
producers
21 December 2006 58
nes
Responsibility
16.1.5 To recover 85% by weight of cars produced after 1979 Starting with
2007
16.1.6 To re-use and recycle of 70% by weight of cars
produced before 1980
Starting with
2007
16.1.7 To reuse and recycle of at least 80% by weight of cars
manufactured after 1.01. 1980
Starting with
2007
16.1.8 To re-use and recover of at least 95% by weight of
vehicles for all end of life vehicles;
Starting with
2015
16.1.9 To re-use and recycling of at least 85% by weight for all
end of life vehicles
Starting with
2015
,juridical entity/entities
17.1.1. Establishment of the selective collection of WEEE, as
follows:
-1 collection point in each county
-1 collection point in each town with over 100.000 inhabitants
-1 collection point in each town with over 20.000 inhabitants

31.12. 2005
31.12. 2005
31.12. 2006
Local Councils,
Economic Agents
17. Electric
and
electronic
equipment
17.1. Organize
separate collection
of Electric and
electronic
residues(WEEE)
17.2.2 To organize selective collection of WEEE and its
components ;
collection of at least
2 kg/inhabitant year
3 kg/inhabitant x year
4 kg/inhabitant x year

31.12.2006
31.12.2007
31.12.2008
Local Councils,
Sanitation
Companies, Importers
/
producers
, juridical
entity/entities le
18.1.1 To inform and encourage the households to separate the
hazardous components from the household waste
Until 2007 County/ local
Councils, Sanitation
Companies,
Municipality
18.1Implement
collection and
transport services
for hazardous
waste 18.1.2 To install collection points for the selective collection of
hazardous waste out of household waste in co-operation with the
commercial sector
Until 2017 County/ local
Councils, Sanitation
Companies
18.
Hazardous
waste as part
of municipal
waste
18.2. Dispose the
hazardous waste
18.2.1 To develop a safe logistic system for hazardous waste Until 2007 Companies,
21 December 2006 59
nes
Responsibility
18.2.2 To assure that new installations and facilities will fulfil the
European Standards.
Starting with
2007

Companies,
Professional
Associations
in an ecological
sound manner.
18.2.3. Treatment of dangerous waste for recycling and reuse in
technological process
Permanent NEPA/REPA/LEPA
19.1.1. Support the mitigation of closed landfills and wild dump
sites
Starting with
2007
NEPA/REPA/LEPA,
Sanitation
Companies, County/
local Councils
19. Waste
disposal
19.1. Establish an
environmental
sound disposal of
waste taking care
of human health
and environmental
protection.
19.1.2. Step by step closure of the existing non-controlled dump
sites
Until 2009 REPA/LEPA, County/
Local Councils

21 December 2006 60
4 Prognosis of waste generation and separate collection
data

4.1. Factors influencing the waste generation

Waste generation is influenced by several factors. The most important include:
Population evolution,
Development of Regional Income,
Area with scheduled, regular, waste collection,
Consumer behaviour, (rate of unemployment, educational level, personnel
preferences)
Rate of recovered fraction out of the separate collected waste

Regional income is of significant importance to waste generation. In general, higher levels of
income and urbanisation generate higher amounts of waste per capita (rural areas typically
generate 0.3 - 0.4 kg/inh./day whereas urban dwellers generate 0.9 kg/inh/day). Similarly,
consumer behaviour also influences waste generation patterns (consumption of prepared foods
generates more packaging waste) etc. Finally, the introduction of new packaging materials,
especially plastics, has significant impacts. For instance, PET bottles in recent years have largely
replaced consignment based glass packaging bottles and PE plastic bags have replace paper bags
or reusable shopping carts for grocery purchases. Both of these have influenced the quantities and
composition of waste generation.

The Study Population forecast by areas of origin in 2004-2005, elaborated by the National
Institute of Statistic in 2006, presents the number and structure of population evolution according to
residential areas and regions, using four scenarios: a constant, a medium, an optimistic, and a
pessimistic version.

One of the basic factors for stabilizing and defining the projection scenarios has been the recent
evolution of demographic phenomena in the urban and rural areas, for each region.
For the calculation of the municipal waste generation the medium option has been taken into
account, as scenario for population prognosis. The population data for 2003 are different from the
one presented in Chapter 2 as this were provided by National Statistic Institute.

Table 4.1: Forecasted Region 2 population trend
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
201
2
20
13
Total
Pop. 2842 2825 2809 2792 2776 2760 2744 2728 2712
269
6
26
80
% urban 55,6 55,6 55,7 55,7 55,7 55,7 55,7 55,8 55,8
55,
8
55,
8
% rural 44.4 44,4 44,3 44,3 44,3 44,3 44,3 44,2 44,2
44,
2
44,
2
Urban
pop
1581 1572 1564 1555 1547 1538 1530 1521 1513 150
4
14
96
Rural
pop
1261 1253 1245 1237 1230 1222 1214 1206 1199 119
1
11
84
21 December 2006 61
Source: Romanian National Institute of Statistics

In regards to economic growth, the Region is expected to continue to see continued economic
growth. On this basis, Region 2 can reasonably expect an average 5 to 6 percent annual growth
rate during the planning period.

Table 4.2: Forecast of Gross Regional Product

Year GDP growth rate % /
year
2003 11.3
2004 9.1
2005 2.6
2006 6,1
2007 5.8
2008 6,0
2009 5,9
2010 5,6
2011 5,5
2012 5,4
2013 5,3
Source: Source: Romanian National Institute of Statistics

From trends elsewhere, it can be expected that consumer waste generation from the above effects
will lead to increases in waste generation per inhabitant. Further, impacts of new packaging
regulations (such as a deposit system on bottles, cans) and the introduction of separate collecting
may decrease mixed MSW generation as quantities of separately collected packaging materials
increase. The probable net impacts of these considerations have be instrumental in NEPAs
conclusion that waste generation per inhabitant will slightly increase during the planning period,
with waste packaging material and related waste sharply rising.

4.2. Waste generation and separate collection forecasts

The amount of municipal waste generated was calculated for rural and urban areas on the basis of
population forecast, generation index and the degree of coverage with sanitation services. For the
generation index it was considered an annual increase of 0,8 %, starting from 2003 with a
generation index in urban areas of 0,9 kg/inhabitant x day, and in rural areas of 0,4 kg/inhabitant x
day.

Table 4-3 Household waste generation index forecast
Annual
increas
e index
Kg/inh./da
y
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
21 December 2006 62
0.80% Urban 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97
0.80% Rural 0.4 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43

Application of the above NEPA growth rate index generates the following MSW growth for the Plan
Period.

Table 4.4 Region 2, municipal waste generation forecast (thousand tonnes/ yr)

No. Waste stream
Annual
increase
index
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
urban 0.80% 452 461 470 479 493 508 523 533 542 552 562
1
Mixed
domestic
waste rural
0.80% 6 9 13 19 76 134 154 162 167 174 179
urban 0.80% 68 63 58 53 43 32 22 16 11 6 0
2
Mixed
domestic
waste
uncollec
ted
rural 0.80% 179 176 174 170 114 57 39 33 29 24 20
3
Similar waste from
commerce, industry,
institutions
0.80% 190 192 193 195 196 198 199 201 203 204 206
4
Park and garden
waste
0.80% 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25
5 Market waste 0.80% 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21
6 Street waste 0.80% 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
T O T A L 0.45% 968 976 984 992 1000 1007 1016 1024 1032 1040 1048

For calculating the forecasted municipal waste for Region 2 it was used the amount of waste
generated for 2003 estimated by using the generation index of 0.9 kg/inh/day in urban areas and
0.4 kg/inh/day multiplied with the existing population in the respective area.

Separately collected waste was included in the Similar to household waste stream.

4.3. Forecast of other waste fractions

4.3.1 Packaging waste generation forecast
Quantities of the waste packaging materials in MSW are calculated following the Packaging and
Packaging Waste Implementation Plan Directive 94/62/EC, as amended, 2004/12/EC procedure.
Under this procedure, waste packaging generation calculations are based on survey of
manufactures on domestic consumption of packaging materials in 2002. From the survey, it was
concluded that 1150 thousand tonnes of packaging waste were generated in 2002. The allocation
of packaging material consumption for each region was later determined as pro rata of a regions
vs. national consumption for food and drinks, non food and services. Relevant tables used in
packaging waste allocation and growth forecast follow:
21 December 2006 63

Table 4-5: Growth indicators of the packaging waste in Region

Region

Inhabitants (2004) Consumer spending
Consumption spent on food, non
food goods and services
Region
allocation
Index
2002
package
waste
Pk index
Nr. Lei/year*inh. % Lei/year*inh Lei/year t/year kg/year*inh
2 2.848.219 2751383 56,2 1.546.277 4,4E+12 0,1265 145.413 51,05
Romania 21.667.882 3,48E+13 1,0000 1.149.679 54,31
= 1.150 k tonnes Generated in Romania in 2002

In regards to forecasted packaging waste growth rates, NEPA guideline are:

10%/year between 2003 and 2006,
7%/year between 2007 and 2009, and
5%/year between 2010 and 2013

Results of forecasted packaging waste material generation per region are given in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Packaging waste generation growth forecast, tonnes/region
10 % growth per year 7 % growth per year 5% growth per year
Reg. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2 145.413 159.954 175.949 193.544 212.899 227.802 243.748 260.810 273851 287543 301920 317016
Rom 1.149.679 1.264.647 1.391.112 1.530.223 1.683.246 1.801.073 1.927.148 2.062.048 2.165.151 2.273.408 2.387.079
2.506.4
33

Base on the above table, packaging waste are expected to approximately double during the
planning period. From NEPA guidelines, packaging waste generation by source is given as:

30% industry, and
70% households, commerce and institutions.

In regards to detailed packaging waste categories, NEPA currently has assigned equal growth rates
to paper and cardboard, glass, plastic, metal and wood packaging. Their composition is assumed
for 2006 on as:

26,5% for paper and cardboard,
30% for plastics,
20% for glass,
11,75% for metal and
11,75% for wood.

Table 4:7 Packaging Waste Generation Forecast, Region 4 (thousand tonnes per year, kt/a)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Region 2 SE 160 176 194 213 228 244 261 274 288 302 317
Paper and cardboard 42 47 51 56 60 65 69 73 76 80 84
Plastic 48 53 58 64 68 73 78 82 86 91 95
Glass 32 35 39 43 46 49 52 55 58 60 63
Metal 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 32 34 35 37
21 December 2006 64
Wood 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 32 34 35 37

4.3.2 Forecast of Biodegradable waste generation

Municipal Biodegradable waste in MSW arises from several sources. These are:
- biological waste in household and similar waste,
- separately collected fractions of :paper and cardboard, wood, some textiles), and
- from other waste streams: municipal markets, street cleaning and that generated from
public parks and gardens.

The forecast of the biodegradable municipal waste does not include biodegradable waste part of
the sludge from wastewater treatment plants.

Because from the data received from the sanitation operators regarding the generated waste in
2003 it was seen that waste generation index was much higher than the ones recommended by
MEWM and NEPA being 0.9 kg/inh/day in urban areas and 0.4kg/inh/day in rural areas. In order to
avoid an overestimated forecast of generated waste amounts for the elaboration of the plan it was
considered as starting point for calculating the forecast, the waste amounts for 2003 calculated by
using the above mentioned generation index to the urban respective rural population. The annual
increase used is the one recommended by NEPA and MEWM of 0.8% per year for the entire
forecasted period, until 2013.

The forecast determined on the bases of the waste amounts calculated by using the generation
indices agreed will have as result avoidance of planning bigger than needed capacities for waste
treatment as well as other equipments.

Results are presented in Table 4.8.
Some percentages of biodegradable waste are:
- 80% waste from parks and gardens
- 85% waste from markets,
- 15% street waste.

Table 4.8 Percent biodegradable waste in different waste streams & Biodegradable
Municipal Waste, Generation Forecast expressed in thousand of tonnes per year.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Household
waste

Urban,
50% 260 262 264 266 268 270 272 275 277 279 281

1.1
Rural,
65% 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

1.2
+
1.3
Similar
waste
(mixed or
separately
collected)),
45% 86 86 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 92 93

1.5
Garden and
parks waste, 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20
21 December 2006 65
80%

1.6
Market
waste, 85% 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18

1.7
Street waste,
15% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total

4.4 Breakdown of targets into absolute figures
This section establishes quantified targets Region objectives earlier expressed in percentages. A
summary of the Targets regarding MSW, packaging waste and biodegradable waste, presented in
Chapter 3 are summarized in Table 4.10. Objectives to be broken into quantified numbers follow.

Table 4.9: Current Waste Objective Targets (%)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Description
100
% urban population waste collected 80
% rural population waste collected 75 50
Reduction of biological waste by weight
vs. 1995 (postponed 4 years for 2006 and
2009)

50 60
Packaging Waste Recovered/Incinerated
with energy recovery
25 55
Packaging Waste Recycling total by
weight
15
Of which glass, paper/cardboard, metal 60
Of which paper/cardboard 50
Of which metal 15 22.5
Of which plastics 60
Of which glass 15
Source: Romanian National Waste Management Plan.

4.4.1 Municipal waste collection

In 2003, the Region collects only 65% of its waste, serving only 50% of its population. This situation
is expected to improve significantly in order to achieve the objectives in 2009, according to the
provisions of Art. 3, par. (7) of GD 349/2005 on waste landfill.

It is requested that the landfills and dumping sites from rural areas to be rehabilitated until 16
th
of
July 2009 by closing the site and rehabilitate the area and giving it back to the economical use. This
means, implicitly that in rural area, by that date a collection service should be in place in order to
collect the waste and transport it to the closest compliant landfill or to a transfer station. For the
Region, the targets for coverage with sanitation services collection targets are:
- 80 % of rural waste by 2009, and
- 100% of urban waste by 2013.

21 December 2006 66
Base on the above, Table 4.10 Waste Collection, Rural and Urban, provides relevant figures for
waste generation and collection during the planning period for both urban and rural inhabitants.
The forecast is based on mixed household waste generation of 0.9 kg/inh/day for urban and 0,4
kg/inh/day for rural area. The forecast is further tempered by the gradual decrease of the population
and migration from rural to urban regions. As earlier indicated, waste generation is increased by
0,8% per year.

The below table gives Quantified targets for collected and landfill waste for rural and urban
inhabitants during the Planning Period.

Table 4.10 Quantified Mixed Household Waste Collection Targets, Rural and Urban

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Urban 519 524 528 532 536 540 545 549 554 558 562
Rural 184 186 187 189 190 192 193 195 196 198 199
Generated
waste 703 709 715 720 726 732 738 744 750 756 762

% of population covered by sanitation services
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012
Urban area % 87 88 89 90 92 94 96 97 98 99 100
Rural area% 3 5 7 10 40 70 80 83 85 88 90
% regional level 50% 51% 52% 54% 69% 79% 89% 92% 94% 97% 100%

Number of population covered by sanitation services (1000)
Urban covered 1385 1392 1392 1400 1423 1446 1468 1475 1483 1489 1496
Rural covered 38 63 87 124 492 855 971 1001 1019 1048 1065
Total region 1413 1446 1479 1523 1915 2301 2440 2477 2502 2538 2562

Household Mixed Waste Collected kt / yr
Urban covered 452 461 470 479 493 508 523 533 542 552 562
Rural covered 6 9 13 19 76 134 154 162 167 174 179
Total region 457 470 483 498 569 642 677 694 709 726 742
% collected
tonnes 65%
66
%
68
%
69
%
78
%
88
%
92
%
93
%
95
%
96
%
97
%

Household Mixed Waste Un-Collected kt / yr
Urban un-covered 68 63 58 53 43 32 22 16 11 6 0
Rural un-covered 179 176 174 170 114 57 39 33 29 24 20
Regional non covered 246 239 232 223 157 90 60 50 41 29 20
% tonnes uncollected 35%
33,7
%
32,5
%
30,9
%
21,6
%
12,3
%
8,2
%
6,7
%
5,4
%
3,9
%
2,6
%

21 December 2006 67

4.4.2 Packaging waste collection

From 2003 and 2013, separate collection, recovery and recycling of separately generated fractions
is expected to increase with 30 thousand tonnes per year (includes unreported quantities of
packaging waste) to 190 thousand tonnes in 2013. Additional quantities of non-packaging waste
are also expected to be recovered as separate collection becomes generalized throughout the
Region.

Table 4.11 Regional Recycling Targets of Packaging Waste, %
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Paper and
Cardboard 49.8 52.0 53.3 53.8 55.7 60.1 66.8 71.5 75.9 75.9 84.0
Plastic 3.8 6.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 11.3 12.3 13.8 15.5 15.5 23.3
Glass 12.8 15.9 18.6 20.6 21.5 32.0 38.0 44.0 48.4 48.4 60.2
Metals 32.0 33.2 35.7 37.8 39.2 50.0 56.9 64.4 72.2 72.2 87.0
Wood 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.1 4.7 7.4 8.5 12.2 15.5 15.5 19.1
Total
recycling 21.0 23.0 24.7 26.1 27.6 33.0 37.5 41.9 45.9 45.9 50
Total
recovery 21.0 25.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 40.0 45.0 48.0 50.0 53.0 60
Source: National Packaging Implementation Plan

Table 4.12 Quantified Regional Recycling Targets for Packaging Waste, kts/a
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Paper and
Cardboard 21.1 24.2 27.3 30.4 33.6 38.8 46.2 51.9 57.8 60.7 70.6
Plastic 1.8 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.8 8.3 9.6 11.3 13.4 14.0 22.2
Glass 4.1 5.6 7.2 8.8 9.8 15.6 19.8 24.1 27.8 29.2 38.2
Metals 6.0 6.9 8.1 9.5 10.5 14.3 17.4 20.7 24.4 25.6 32.4
Wood 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.3 2.1 2.6 3.9 5.2 5.5 7.1
Total
recycling 33.6 40.5 47.8 55.6 62.9 80.4 97.8
114.
7
132.
0
138.
6
158.
5
Total
recovery 33.6 44.0 58.1 68.1 77.5 97.5
117.
4
131.
4
143.
8
160.
0
190.
2

4.4.3 Reduction of the quantities of biodegradable waste disposed
The target for the reduction of biodegradable waste content in landfills is calculated pro rata of the
Regions to Romanias population in 1995 (12.90%). This fraction is than multiplied with the
reported National Biodegradable Waste Generated quantities of 1995. For the Region 2, this
establishes the Regions base line 1995 biodegradable waste benchmark at 623 thousand tonnes.

Starting from the data from Table 4.8 Biodegradable Municipal Waste, BMW, Generation Forecast
and considering the maximum admissible biodegradable waste quantity in landfills, results the
diversion targets:
21 December 2006 68

Table 4.13 Biodegradable diversion targets
Region 2: Reduction of the
quantities of biodegradable
waste disposed kt/a

1.
Biodegra
dable
Waste for
Romania
in 1995
2. Region 3. R 2
1995
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
0
201
1
2012 201
3
4800 12,98% 623 505 509 513 517 521 525 530 534 538 542 547
Paper/wood
urban
% recycling
of generated
0% 0% 0% 25% 30% 51% 55% 58% 62% 66% 70%
Paper/wood
rural
% recycled of
generated
0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 8% 10% 15%
Paper
similar to
municipal
% recycled of
generated
30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 80%
Paper/wood
urban
12,00% kts 0 0 0 18 22 39 43 46 50 55 59
Paper/wood
rural
4,00% kts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Paper
similar to
municipal
30% kts 7 9 10 12 14 17 19 20 22 24 25
Reduction of
disposed waste
amount by recycling
or recovery
7,7 9,2 10,7 30,3 36,4 56,5 62,8 68,0 74,1 80,4 85,6
Urban green waste % recycled of
generated
0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 18%
Green and food rural
waste (especially
household)
% recycled of
generated
20% 20% 21% 22% 23% 24% 24% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Green waste similar % recycled of
generated
5% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Compost from gardens
and parks waste
% recycled of
generated
5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 30% 50% 63% 70% 75% 75%
Compost from market
and food waste
% recycled of
generated
5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 30% 40% 62% 70% 75% 75%
Compost from street
waste
% recycled of
generated
5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 30% 40% 62% 70% 75% 75%
Urban green waste 30% kts 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,2 14,8 22,9 23,5 25,6 26,0 26,5 30,4
Green and food rural
waste (especially
household)
30% kts 0,3 0,6 0,8 1,2 5,2 9,7 11,1 12,1 12,5 13,1 13,5
Green and food waste
similar
15% kts 1,2 1,5 1,8 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,3 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8
21 December 2006 69
Green waste from
gardens and parks
85% kts 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 2,0 6,1 10,3 13,0 14,6 15,8 15,9
Green waste from
markets or food
80% kts 0,8 1,0 1,1 1,3 1,6 4,9 6,6 10,3 11,8 12,7 12,8
Street green waste 10% kts 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 1,0 1,3 2,1 2,4 2,6 2,6
Compost or feeding the
animals
3,5 4,4 5,4 13,7 26,2 46,8 55,2 65,8 70,0 73,3 77,9
5. Biodegradable
waste diverted
11 14 16 44 63 103 118 134 144 154 154
6.Biodegradable waste
remaining
494 495 497 473 459 422 412 400 394 389 383
7.Allowded for landfill 467 467 467 312
8. Quantity of biodegradable
municipal waste which needs
to be diverted/treated (
tonnes): Incinerator or MBT
plant
-67 -73 -79 72
21 December 2006 70

5 Specific waste streams

5.1 Hazardous waste as part of municipal waste
5.1.1 Abstract of relevant legislation

Table 5.1 Relevant legislation

EU law Romanian law
Directive no 2006/12/CE regarding
waste Directive no. 91/689/EEC on
hazardous waste
GEO no. 78/2000 on the regime of waste (Official Journal
No. 283 of 22.06.2000), approved by Law 426/2001
completed and amended by GO no. 61/2006 (Official
Journal No. 790 of 19.08.2006)
Directive no. 91 /689/EEC on
hazardous waste
EO no. 78/2000 on the regime of waste (Official Journal No.
283 of 22. 06.2000),
Law no. 426/2001 for approving the GEO no. 78/2000 on
the regime of waste, completed and amended (Official
Journal Part I No.411 of 25. 07. 2001) and
GO no. 61/2006, which completes and amends GO no.
78/2000 on the regime of waste (Official Journal No. 790 of
19. 08. 2006)
Directive no. 75/439/EEC on the
disposal of waste oils, as
amended by
Directive no. 87/101/EEC and
Directive no. 91 /692/EEC
GD no.662/2001 on the management of used oil (Official
Journal Part I no. 446 of 8.08. 2001), completed and
amended by GD no. 441/2002 (Official Journal no. 325 of
16.05. 2002) and by the GD no. 1159/2003 amending GD
no. 662/2001 on the management of used oil (Official
Journal no. 715 of 14.10. 2003).
Directive no. 91/157/EEC
on batteries and accumulators
containing certain dangerous
substances and Directive no.
93/86/EC on the labelling of
batteries
GD no. 1057/2001 on the regime of batteries and
accumulators
containing dangerous substances (Official Journal no. 700
of 5.11. 2001)
Directive no. 96/59/EC on the
disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls and
polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB
and PCT)
GD no.173/2000 on the special management and control of
polychlorinated biphenyls and other similar compounds
(Official Journal no 131 of 28.03.2000) amended by GD 291
/2005
Decision no. 2000/532/EC, as
amended by Decision no.
2001/119 establishing a waste
list*
GD no .856/2002 on keeping waste management records
and approving a list of waste types, including hazardous
waste (Official Journal No.659, of 5.09.2002)
Directive no. 78/176EEC on waste
from TiO
2
industry
Directive no. 82/883/EEC and
Directive no. 92/112/CEE
Common Ministerial Ordinance from MEWM and MEC no.
751/870/2004 on waste management from the TiO
2
industry
(Official Journal no. 10 from 5.01.2005)
21 December 2006 71
EU law Romanian law
Directive no. 87/217/CEE
regarding the prevention and
reduction of pollution with
asbestos
GD 124/2003 regarding prevention, reduction and control of
pollution with asbestos amended by GD 734/2006
Ministerial Ordinance from MEWM 1018/2005 concerning
the organisation inside the Directive on waste and
hazardous waste the Secretary of nominated compounds
Ministerial Ordinance from MEWM 257/2006 completing
and amending the Annex of MEWM Order no. 1018/2005

5.1.2 Hazardous waste types

At present, hazardous waste as part of household waste and waste, which is similar to household
waste, is not collected separately. This waste can affect the biological process in landfills, the
leachate treatment and finally it might pollute the groundwater.

In Region 2 South East , in 2003, about 7 256 t/year of hazardous waste has been estimated that
had been generated by private households and small enterprises. There are a large number of
different hazardous materials used in households or small enterprises that is finally disposed of
together with the municipal waste. The most frequent materials are listed below:

Table 5.2 Hazardous municipal waste, in accordance with GD 856/2002
EU Reference Category
20 01 13 Solvents
20 01 14 Acids
20 01 15 Alkalis
20 01 17 Photo chemicals
20 01 19 Pesticides
20 01 21 Fluorescent tubes and other mercury containing waste
20 01 23 Discarded equipment containing chlorofluorocarbons
20 01 26 Oil and fat other than those mentioned in 20 01 25
20 01 27 Paint, inks, adhesives and resins containing dangerous substances
20 01 29 Detergents containing dangerous substances
20 01 31 Cytotoxic and cytostatic medicines
20 01 33 Batteries and accumulators included in 16 06 01, 16 06 02 or 16 06
03 and unsorted batteries and accumulators containing these
batteries
20 01 35 Discarded electrical and electronic equipment other than those
mentioned in 20 01 21 and 20 01 23 containing hazardous
components
20 01 37 Wood containing dangerous substances

It is assumed that these hazardous materials can be found in each Region. The ongoing activity of
renovating flats and houses requires many of those chemicals.
21 December 2006 72

Two activities have to be initiated in parallel to reduce the quantity of disposed hazardous waste:
Separate collection of hazardous waste from households and
Reduction of hazardous components in technical products using legislation i.e. the reduction
of mercury in batteries, or the replacement of chlorinated solvents in varnishes and paints with non
hazardous chemicals.

The precondition for each system is the existence of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities or the waste will be exported to be treated in safe facilities. Interim storage of hazardous
waste collected from households should be minimised and should only serve as a preparation for
waste transport.

5.1.3 Separate collection scheme for hazardous waste

5.1.3.1 Different options for separate collection organised by the Municipality/County
Council
The responsibility regarding the collection of waste can be distributed to private sanitation agents.
There are several options to collect hazardous waste from households. This can be organised by
mobile collection with special vehicles, which will have an established time schedule or by fixed
collection points or by take back systems organised by dealers and producers. The precondition for
all systems is the existence of treatment and disposal facilities.

Table 5-3 Main options for collection of hazardous waste produced in households
OPTION COMMENT APPRAISAL
1)Collection by
mobile units
This system is very common because it is
well accepted by the inhabitants. About every 3
month, a specialized hazardous waste collection
vehicle comes to a specific collection point or
place where for about 2 to 3 hours will collect the
hazardous waste delivered by inhabitants living
nearby.

Usually, about 4,000 to 5,000 people are
connected to a collection point. The collection
vehicle can serve about 700,000 people with a
collection frequency of 3 months. The collection
of the hazardous waste is free of charge for the
customers, if the delivered amount does not
exceed 20 kg/delivery. The cost of this system is
included in the fee for the ordinary waste
collection.

The system requires a highly skilled crew
in order to ensure an adequate collection of the
different types of hazardous waste.

That system is expected to collect around
35-40% of hazardous waste from households
1)Collection of
hazardous waste
from households
by mobile units
21 December 2006 73
2) Collection
directly from the
households
The hazardous waste is collected from
the households directly, after arranging a date by
phone.
In regards to the small quantities of
hazardous waste delivered by a single
household, this option is extremely expensive.
Because this option is not practiced, no
data regarding the collection rate is available
Due to its high
costs, this option
is not
recommended
3) Collection
points for
hazardous waste
Official collection points for recycling
materials could be extended to the collection of
hazardous waste from households and the
commercial sector. An advantage of the system
is that the collection points continuously are
opened.
Compared to the small quantities of
hazardous waste from households, which usually
are delivered to these collection points, the cost
of personnel is high. Qualified staff is needed for
classifying and pre-sorting the hazardous waste.
Therefore, the number of collection points, which
are prepared to receive hazardous waste from
households should be limited and carefully
positioned taking into account the specific
structure of the settlements.
One or two
locations are
recommended for
the municipalities,
capital of state, in
combination with
the recycling and
collection points
of the county and
in cooperation
with the landfills.
All kind of
hazardous waste
can be collected

4) Collection
containers for
specific hazardous
waste categories
The installation of collection containers
for specific hazardous waste types at non-
guarded locations is riskful. Due to the
experience gained up to now, uncontrolled
collection containers for used oil, expired drugs,
batteries and car batteries did not work well in
Central Europe. Vandalism and misuse were the
main reasons for that.
Therefore, the collection containers need
a protection. This can be achieved by placing
them at shops selling those products, specialized
companies (see option 5) or at collection points
(see option 3).
This is only a
solution in
combination with
option 3 or 5.
5) Collection by
shops or
specialized
companies
This system works quite well for the
collection of used car batteries and used oil in
cooperation with the workshops, which are
responsible for collecting those items.
After testing of many different options in
different countries, the collection of batteries and
used oil by authorized workshops and the
collection of electric and electronic devices by
specialized shops are approved.
This is a
recommended
solution for
collection of
expired medicals,
used oil, car
batteries,
batteries

All organic components have to be incinerated at high temperatures. Mineral components have to
be demobilised which means to embed them in a cement mixture. They will be dumped as concrete
blocks.
21 December 2006 74

5.1.3.2 Privately organised Take back systems
5.1.3.2.1 Batteries
The main components of batteries are alkali-manganese and zinc-carbon. These batteries contain
a high quantity of mercury, which cause high costs by recycling in non-ferrous metal melting plants.

Therefore, in 1998, EU has prepared a guideline, which requires a drastic reduction of the mercury
content with more than 100 ppm (parts per million) to almost zero in order to facilitate the recycling
process.

Recommended is a Take Back collection of batteries organised by the commercial sector. Activities
for the reduction of the mercury content should be supported.

5.1.3.2.2 Used car batteries
Used car batteries can be recycled without major complexity.
Approved collection systems are based on deposits. The price of a new battery includes a rate for
collection and recycling and it can be collected free of charge at the end of its lifetime. The acid will
be neutralized, the lead is melted and reused and the plastic case can be recycled as well.

5.1.3.2.3 Used oil
Used oil is collected through workshops and petrol stations. For 2003, the official number of
vehicles, in Region 2 under category M1 is 800-900 000. Assuming that a car generates about 5 l
/year of used oil by annual change of oil, a quantity of 3825 t/year of used oils (specific gravity: 0,9 )
can be expected.

5.1.3.2.4 Expired medicaments
Expired medicaments are as hazardous as new medicals. They should not reach children or people
who might misuse them. Therefore, expired medicaments should be collected by drugstores and
pharmacies, being common practice in Europe.

There is no recycling for medicaments. They are usually added to waste which is incinerated or
they are disposed in separate protected areas of landfills. Often medicaments are added to the
municipal waste on landfills, where they cannot harm anybody.

5.1.4 Reduction of hazardous substances
On national level efforts shall be taken to reduce the content of hazardous components. It is a
national task to organise a continuous co-operation between the research sector, the industry and
the importers.

Examples for the restriction of hazardous components are:
The reduction of lead in fuel in the last decade,
The reduction of mercury in zinc-carbon and alkali-manganese batteries,
21 December 2006 75
The reduction of cadmium and other heavy metals in plastics,
The reduction of heavy metals in printer and copier toners,

5.1.5 Estimation of the generated hazardous waste included in household
waste
The estimation of the specific generation of hazardous household waste is taken as a benchmark
from Germany and Ireland with 3 kg/person and year. It is assumed that the production rate in
urban areas should be 3 kg/person and year and for rural region it should be lower, even a
reasonable amount of crop protection chemicals can be expected.

Table 5.4 Hazardous household waste generation in Region 2
Number of
population
Specific waste
generation
kg/inh./year
Total waste
production
t/year
Urban 1.562.287 3 4687
Rural 1.284.524 2 2.569
Region 2 South
East
2.846.811 7.256

The collection efficiency is quite low for hazardous components. It needs continuous awareness
campaigns to sensitize the public about the risks. At the beginning, the collection efficiency of
separate collection of hazardous waste is quite low and it will increase only by continuous
education.

Assuming a collection efficiency of 50%, which is very optimistic, 3.628 t/year are collected.
Assuming that 50% of this amount is organic and another 50% inorganic components an
incineration capacity of 1800 t/year is required. 1.800 t/year have to treated and disposed.

A quantity of used oil of about 756 t/year can be expected.

Region 2 requires an adequate distillation capacity or an increased incineration capacity of at least
2000 t/year, in order to cover the incineration needs for inorganic components from hazardous
waste from household waste, quantity including the above mentioned used oils. Because this waste
have an attractive caloric value, may be incinerated in cement and iron plants. The plant is
equipped with a flue gas cleaning unit which fulfils the requirements of EU directive on waste
incineration.

The number of car batteries is calculated with the same number of vehicles, which should need a
replacement of the battery every 5 years. This requires an annual collection and recycling capacity
of around 170 000 batteries or 1700 t of lead, 170 t of acid and around 160 t of plastic.

In Constanta County are under development 2 projects for new incineration capacities of hazardous
waste.
- Within the Project Waste Management in Constanta Port under development by CNAPMC, an
incinerator of 300 kg/hour, 8 hours/ days for hazardous hospital waste and contaminated waste
from ships.

- Project Ecologic incineration systems foreseen with cooling down installation and exhausted gas
treatment belonging to SC ECO FIRE SISTEMS SRL and it will be accomplished with financial
21 December 2006 76
suport from Environmental Fund. The installation will be located on SC ROMPETROL RAFINARE
SA platform, and there will be incinerated hazardous waste, including hospital ones, with a final
capacity of 10 000tons/year (starting with a capacity of 6 000 tons/year).

5.2 Waste from electric and electronic equipment
5.2.1 Legislation

Table 5-6 Legislation
EU legislation Romanian legislation
Directive no. 2002/96/EC
on waste electric and electronic
equipment (WEEE)
Government Decision no. 448/2005 regarding
waste from electric and electronic equipment
(Official Journal no. 491 of 10.06.2005)

5.2.2 Estimation of electric and electronic equipment in Region 2
In 2005, the number of inhabitants of Region 2 is 2 846 811, 10% of Romanian population.

The number of electric and electronic equipment is taken from the statistical yearbook from 2005.

Table 5-6 Number of equipment in Region 2
Categories Number of equipment/1000 inhabitants Total number
280 797107
150 427021
220 626298
150 427021
100 284681
60 170808
All types of radio and
music players
Television
Refrigerators
Washing machines
Vacuum cleaner
Sewing machines
Mobile phones
200 569362

Table 5-7 Lifetime of electric and electronic equipment
No. Categories
Average life time
Year
Average weight
- Kg/item-
1 Refrigerator, deep freezer 15 62
2 Washing machine 10 75
3 Electric range 10 50
4 Vacuum cleaner 8 15
5 Television set 6 25
6 Computer, monitor, keyboard 5 20

21 December 2006 77

Table 5-8 Total weight of produced and imported electric and electronic equipment
Categories Produced or
imported
Quantity
(tone)
Average weight
No. t Kg/item,
kg/inh.
Radios and stereo sets 879.879 10.558,6 1,2 kg/item
Television set 674.982 23.624,0 35 Kg/item
Refrigerator 516.516 32.024,0 62 Kg
Washing machine 365.442 18.272,0 50 Kg
Vacuum Cleaner 241.857 2419,0 10 kg
Sewing machine 184.107 9205,0 50 Kg
Mobile Phone 474.012 47,0 0,1 Kg
Dish washer 1.365 49,14 36 kg
Oven 32.397 1749,0 54 Kg
Micro wave 33.745 455,0 13,5
Space heater 283.148 1699,0 6 Kg
Air condition set 47.325 1514,0 32 Kg
Fax 17.257 86,0 5 Kg
Video Camera 42.063 35,7 0,850 Kg
Fluorescence lamp 2.666.692 182,0 0,08 Kg
Refrigerator for shops 2.201 286,0 130 kg
Small refrigerator 1.100 77,0 70 kg
Boiler 19315 1545,0 80 Kg
Computer, monitor, Keyboard 18.996 266,0 14 kg

With this figures a calculation of annually generated electric and electronic waste
can be done.

5.2.3 Implementation Plan
Taking over the collected WEEE at the municipal points and also their recovery have to be ensured
by the producers, according to the HG 448/2005 art.5, paragraph 2. Recovery rate of the collected
WEEE will be according to the HG 448/2005, art.5, paragraph 12, of:
50% of the target foreseen in the Directive 2002/96/CE art.7, paragraph 2, for
collected WEEE in 2006;
collected WEEE in 2006;
collected WEEE in 2008.
Producers can reach their obligations individually or transferring their responsibilities toward
collective organizations, authorized according to the OM 1225/2005.

In the implementation Plan of the EU Directive 2002/96 it is agreed to assume an annual collection
of WEEE of 2 kg/inhabitant and year after 31.12.2006, 3 kg/inhabitant and year after 31.12.2007
and 4 kg /Inhabitant and year after 31.12.2008.
21 December 2006 78

Table 5.-10 Annually generated WEEE which can be collected
31.12.2006 31.12.2007 31.12.2008 Deadlines for targets
2 kg/inhabitant
and year
3 Kg/inhabitant
and year
4 Kg/inhabitant
and year
Reference year 2006 2007 2008
Number of Population
Region 2
2.792.000 2.776.000 2.760.000
Annual WEEE Collection
(t/year)
5584,0 8301,0 11040,0

This will require a disassembling capacity of 11 000 t/year.

The cost for disassembling varies between 175 and 350 /t depending on the category of WEEE
which is dismantled and the actual market conditions for secondary raw materials.

5.2.4 Installation of collection points
At present, the first activities in implementing collection points are initiated by private sanitation
agents.

The first experience with the installed collection points demonstrates that it will take a long time
before the public is aware of and bring their devices to the designated places. In some cases,
parallel collection of used devices is offered as a service from the electric and electronic shops.
They are mostly co-operating with bigger private organisations, which collect the equipment, treat
them afterwards, and sell the different components to manufacturers.

Table 5-11: Collection points- towns with over 100.000 inhabitants

County
Location of collection
point for town with
more than 100.000
inhabitants
Fitting out of collection
point
Regulation
papers (type,
no., currency)
Operational
(Yes/No)
Braila, os. Rm. Sarat
nr.113
100 mp - No
Brila
Braila , os.
Baldovinesti nr.12
100 mp - No
Buzu
Mun. Buzu, os.
Buzu-Vadu Pasii nr. 1
(Drumul Comunal DC
15), jud. Buzau/ Incinta
garajului SC RER
ECOLOGIC SERVICE
SA Buzu
Concrete platform, covered,
surrounded,with asurface of
150 mp.
- No
21 December 2006 79
Constana
SC GREMLIN SRL
Municipiul Constana
str. Caraiman nr. 3
Concrete platform , covered,
surrounded,with asurface of
de 220 mp, equipped with
metalic containers for
separate collection of WEEE
Environmental
Permit
180/13.04.200
5 revised in
24.07.2006
valid until
13.04.2010
Yes
TANGO SCRAPS
RECYCLING
COMPANY Puncte de
lucru: Galai, str.
Basarabiei nr. 9
450 mp, weighing machine ,
concrete platform
Environmental
Permit
774/10.07.200
3 valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
Galai, str. Traian nr.
305
30 mp. weighing machine, ,
concrete platform, separate
waste collection , on
categories
EP
775/10.07.200
3 valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
Galati, str. T.
Vladimirescu, nr. 302
categories
EP
779/10.07.200
3 valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
Galai, str. Razboieni,
nr. 201
categories
EP229/07.03.2
003 valid until
06.03.2008
Yes
Galai, Dumbrava Roie,
nr. 8
categories
EP
777/07.03.200
3 valid until
06.03.2008
Yes
Galai, str. Frunzei, nr.
47
130 mp, electric weigher
equipment , concrete
platform, separate waste
collection , on categories ,
cantainer for hazardous waste
collection, werehouse for
temporary waste deposit
EP
190/08.11.200
5
Yes
Galai, str. Tecuci, nr.
252
120 mp, electric weigher ,
categories
EP
1245/21.11.20
03 valid until
17.11.2007
Yes
Galai, str. Carpai, nr.
52
deposit house, fence for
separate collection, concrete
platform, container
EP
228/07.03.200
3 valid until
06.03.2008
Yes
Galai
Galai, str. Tauni, nr. 26
60 mp, weigher , concrete
collection , on categories
EP
780/10.07.200
3 valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
21 December 2006 80
Galai, str. Milcov, nr. 9
categories
EP
782/10.07.200
3 valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
Galai, str. Cobuc, nr.
422
categories
EP
417/21.04.200
4
valid until
20.04.2006

Yes
Galai, os. Smardan,
nr. 1
10.363 mp, 4 deposit house,
concrete platform , electric
weigher 1 t, 3 t and 60 t, mill
for grinding plastic wastes,
baling press for PETs waste,
truck with covering carcase fot
waste transport, utility vehicle
for hazardous waste transport,
container for dismantled
waste components
EP
191/08.11.200
5
valid until 2
ani
Yes
SC REMAT SA
Str. Vezuviului, nr. 52-
54 Galai
categories
EP
209/06.12.200
5,
valid until
05.12.2007
Yes
SC REMAT SA
Piaa 11 Iunie-Str. Rizer
Galai
categories
EP
47/23.09.2005
valid until
22.09.2007
Yes
Galai
SC REMAT SA
Str. Drumul de centur
Galai
categories
EP
782/08.08.200
5
valid until
07.08.2007
Yes
Tulcea Nu este cazul
Vrancea
Focsani, str. Anghel
Saligny nr. 11
Surrounded surface of 1030
mp
- No
TOTAL
REGION
20

Table 5.-12: Collection points- towns with over 20.000 inhabitants
County Location of
collection point for
town with more
than 20.000
inhabitants
point
Regulation
papers (type,
no., currency)
Operational
(Yes/No)
Brila It is not the case
Buzu Rm. Srat
cartier Extindere
Surface of 100 mp. - No
21 December 2006 81
Slam Rmnic
Medgidia, SC
GREMLIN SRL str.
Independenei
nr.73
Surface of 400 mp -
Nvodari, SC
T.S.P. Ecoterm SA
- Asbestos station
Concrete surface 50mp -
Constana
Mangalia, Parc
Industrial, DJ391
Concrete surface 360mp -
Galai SC REMAT SA
Tecuci, str. Mure,
nr.8
13233 mp, electric
weigher, concrete
collection, on categories
Environmental
Permit
210/06.12.2005
valid until
05.12.2007
Yes
Tulcea Loc. Tulcea
Str. Orizontului,
Nr. 200-207
Concrete platform 200
mp
container of 10 mc
- Yes
Vrancea It is not the case
TOTAL
REGION
6

Table 5-13: County collection points
LEPA
Location of
collection point for
each county
point
Regulation
papers (type,
no., currency)
Operational
(Yes/No)
Furei str. Pcii nr.
42
20 mp - No
Brila
Ianca, str. Nicolae
Oncescu
200 mp - No
Buzu
Rm. Srat, str.
Armoniei nr. 58 bis,
Incinta
Administraiei
Domeniului Public
Rm. Srat
Concrete warehouse,
covered, with surface of 80
mp
- No
Constana -
TANGO SCRAPS
RECYCLING
COMPANY
Com. Smrdan, nr.1
40 mp, weighing
equipment, concrete
platform, containers for
separate waste collection
Environmental
Permit 776/
10.07.2003
valid until
09.07.2008
Yes
TANGO SCRAPS
RECYCLING
COMPANY
com. Tuluceti, nr.
733
75 mp, weighing
equipment, concrete
EM
521/16.05.2003
valid in 2008
Yes
Galai
SC REMAT SA 50 mp, weighing EM
Yes
21 December 2006 82
Com. Piscu equipment, concrete
235/22.12.2005
SC REMAT SA
Bereti str.
Stadionului, nr.39
50 mp, weighing
equipment, concrete
EM 3/09.01.2006
valid until
08.01.2008
Yes
SC REMAT SA
Tg. Bujor
str. Recoltei, nr.3
7816 mp, weighing
equipment, concrete
Environmental
Permit 236/
22.12.2005
valid until
21.12.2007
Yes
Tulcea
Loc. Tulcea
Str. Orizontului, Nr.
200
Concrete platform 200 mp
container of 10 mc
-
Yes

In order to meet the target until 31.12.2007, the installation of a dismantling capacity of at least 11
000 t/year is required. The layout of such a capacity should be based on real figures of collected
items, which can be achieved at least 1-2 years after starting the collection service.

5.3 End of life vehicles
5.3.1 Legislation
The national legislation is based on EU Directive 2000/53.

Table 5-14 Legislation
EU Legislation Romanian Legislation
Directive no. 2000/53/EC
on end-of life vehicles (ELV)
GD no. 2406/2004 regarding the management of
end of life vehicles (Official Journal no 32 of
11.01.2005.).

5.3.2 Targets for recovery and recycling

Table 5.14 Targets for collection and treatment of end of live vehicles

16.1.2. Check of how many collection points in Ilfov county and in
Bucharest are required. (At present 3 collection points for Bucharest and 1
for Ilfov are foreseen)
Starting in 2006
16.1.3. Extend the re-use and recycling of the materials from the end of
life cars and the energy recovery of that material that cannot be recycled.
Starting in
2007
16.1.4. Recovery of at least 75% of car weight produced before 1980 Starting in
2007.
16.1.5. Recovery of at least 85% of car weight produced after 1979 Beginning at
2007.
16.1.6.Re-use and recycling of at least 70% of car weight produced Beginning with 2007.
21 December 2006 83
before 1980
16.1.7. Re-use and recycling of at least 80% of car weight produced after
1.01. 1980
Beginning at 2007
16.1.8. Re-use and recovery of at least 95% of end of life vehicles; Beginning at
2015
16.1.9. Re-use and recycling of at least 85% of end of life vehicles Beginning at
2015

Within the next years around 300.000 private and commercial cars have to be collected,
dismantled, partly re-used, and finally compressed and hackled by shredding. The required annual
capacity should not be below 70.000 vehicles per year.

The end of life vehicles number, in Region2, was estimated in 2002 at about 30 000.
There is a network of businesses (over100) relatively equally spread over Romanias territory ,
which have done and still do collecting, dismantling and recovery operations of the end of life
vehicles in order to commercialize them.

There is a shredder belonging to the company S.C. Remayer S.A., installed in Bucharest with a
capacity of 8000 tones/months. But, this one doesnt function at its full capacity because of the
reduced number of the vehicle which are put out of use and given for treatment.

Because of the transport costs, in the rest of the country, end of life vehicles are treated by main
components dismantling and then packaging them for purpose of exportation of the non-ferrous
material.

At the moment, end of life vehicles elimination is a profitable economical activity because only
metal components are capitalized (approximately 70% of vehicle weight), the rest going for
landfilling.

5.3.3 Treatment of end of life vehicles

Table 5-16: No of ELV collected, treated and disposed

Year 2003 Year 2004 Year 2005
County
ELV
collec
ted
ELV
treate
d
ELV
stock
ELV
collecte
d
ELV
treate
d
ELV
stock
ELV
collecte
d
ELV
treate
d
ELV
stock
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Braila - - - - - - 163 31 132
Buzau 45 45 0 70 70 0 273 261 12
Constanta - - - - - - 601 437 164
Tulcea 17 17 0 23 23 0 85 59 26
Vrancea - - - - - - 228 140 88
Total/
Region 2
62 62 0 93 93 0 1350 928 422
Source NEPA database

Economic operators authorized to collect and treat ELV, existing in the region are:
21 December 2006 84

Table 5-17: Economic operators authorized to collect and treat ELV

No
.
County
Economic Agent /
Identification data
Address/Operation point
Cod
CAEN
1 BRILA
SC MIORIA SRL, CUI
2267862

1. Calea Clrailor, Nr. 40, Tel
0744639037
Cloca Corneliu
2. os. Vizirului Km 10
3710,
3720,
5157
2 BUZU
SC AUTOMAX
EXPRESS SRL, CUI
12094823

Sos. Buzu - Ploieti, DN 2 km.
107, jud. Buzu Tel:
0238/711222; Fax: 0238/719760
E-mail: automaxe@buzau.ro
Nedelcu Aurelia
5030,
5157

3 BUZU
SC AUTOGLOBUS SRL,
CUI 6328490

Sat Ziliteanca, Com. Pota
Clnu, Jud Buzu,
Tel 0238/521773,
Tel mobil 0744519552,
email: autoglobus@yahoo.com
EmiliaToma
5020,515
7

4 CONSTANA
SC REMAT
CONSTANTA SA, CUI
1872253
Str Interioara Nr. 2
Tel 0241/623220
Fax 0241/518329,
Manea Daniela
3710,372
0, 5157,
9002

5 CONSTANA
SC VMB LUX SONOR
SRL, CUI 639675

Constana, Str Interioara Nr. 3
Tel 0241/620941
Fax 0241/632302,
Margin Mirela
3710,
3720,
5157

6 CONSTANA
SC RECSAL SRL,
CUI R 1904533
Ovidiu, intrare incint Siutghiol,
tel/fax 0241/253111,
Negurita Octavian
3710,
3720,
5157
7 GALAI
SC REMAT SA,
CUI 1630420

1. Galai, str Vezuviului, nr. 52-
64,
2. Calea Prutului Nr 53
Tel 0236/460750,
Fax 0236/460504,
Axente Marin
3. Tecuci, Str Mure, nr. 8
3710,
3720,
5157

8 GALAI
SC ATLAS SA Galai,
CUI 1633833

Galati, Sos. Smardan Nr 2,
Tel 0236/448114,
Fax 0236/448113
Butucaru Constantin
3710,
3720,
5157,
6024

9 GALAI
SC IRICAD SRL, CUI
4650855
Galai, Comuna Vntori,
Drumul de Centura 16,
Tel 0236/415039,
Fax 0236/319380
Irimia Mihai
3710,
3720,

21 December 2006 85
No
.
County
Economic Agent /
Identification data
Address/Operation point
Cod
CAEN
10 TULCEA
SC REMAT TULCEA
SA,
CUI R 2373472
Tulcea, str. Mahmudiei nr. 14,
tel/fax 0240517888
Dir. AndreiGheorghe
Tulcea, Str. Forestierului nr. 2
5157
11 VRANCEA
SC. GETEOR INVEST
COM SRL,
CUI R 9536194
1. Str. Inului nr. 11
2. Calea Munteniei 29
tel. 0788464822
Frangulea Gheorghe
3710,
3720,
5157
12 VRANCEA
SC AUTOMOND SRL,
R 13130258

1. PL Calea Munteniei;
Tel/Fax 0237/224221,
0722403489
Sacalus Zinel
2. S. S. Focsani, Str S Barnutiu
nr 4/7
3710,
3720,
5157
13 VRANCEA
SC PAN JUNIOR 2001
SRL, CUI R 139728922

Sat Garoafa, com. Bizighesti - E
85,
Tel 0237/263889,
0744/264851,
Apostu Marius
3710,
3720,
5157
14 VRANCEA
SC. REMAT VRANCEA
SA., R 1444869,
J 39/263/1991
Focani, Str. Milcov nr. 38
tel. 0237/222515,
fax 0237/227126
Cristian Draghici
3710,
3720,
5157

21 December 2006 86

5.4 Construction and demolition waste (C/D waste)

5.4.1 Legislation and targets
In present, the applied legislation for construction and demolition waste, is the one referring to
waste, in general, including hazardous ones, when it is the case, up until now there is no specific
legislation concerning this type of waste. For the moment, inside of the Transport, Accommodations
and Tourism Ministry, is under development a PHARE project elaborating a Guide on BAT for
constructions, which will contain a construction and demolition waste management part.

Table 5.18 Targets
13.1.1. Treatment of contaminated waste from construction and demolition
in view of recovery (material or energetic) or/and final safe disposal
Starting in 2007
13.1.2. Treatment of contaminated waste from roads, buildings and
excavation for recovery or /and safe final disposal.
Continuous
procedure
13.1.3. Re-use and recycle of construction and demolition waste, if it is not
contaminated.
Continuous
procedure
13.1.4. Re-use and recycle of waste from soil excavation, if it is not
contaminated
Continuous
procedure
13.1.5. Implement the technology for recycling and material recovery for
50% of the waste from road construction
Continuous
procedure
13.1.6. Develop landfill technology for construction and demolition waste
which cannot be recovered
Continuous
procedure

5.4.2 Specific construction and demolition waste generation

At present, landfill capacity for construction and demolition waste is not available in Region 2.

There are certain landfills for industrial waste.
The waste is mostly disposed illegally.

Reliable statistics concerning the annual generation of construction and demolition waste is
missing. That is the reason why the estimated specific waste generation is extremely small. It is
replaced by a figure, which is 20% of this waste category, produced in Central Europe. Waste
generated in rural areas is estimated to be 10% of the amount of waste generated in urban area.

The total waste generated in Region 2 is estimated to be 415 000 t/year (~200 000m) in the urban
area and 34 000 t/year (~17 000m) in the rural area.

Table 5.19 Specific generation of construction and demolition waste
Generation of construction and demolition waste
Construction and demolition waste
( REPA estimation)

(Kg/inh.year)
Construction and demolition waste
( consultants estimation)

(Kg/inh.year)

urban area rural area
21 December 2006 87
Total
2002

26
266 27
2003

26
266 27
2004

26
266 27

The landfill capacity which is needed for the next 20 years should be around 4 million m without
recycling activities. This can be decreased if the waste from road construction is totally recycled
which is nearly 30% of the total generation. Excavation material can be recycled if it is non polluted
top soil. The mixture of soil, clay and gravel cannot be used in road construction, because of the
organic part. It has to be disposed. This makes another 30%. The rest is construction and
demolition waste from buildings construction.

An efficient recycling requires a sorting at the source. In advanced waste management systems this
will be regulated by the disposal fee, which is up to 10 times higher for mixed waste than for sorted
waste.

Some figures shall illustrate the cost of waste collection and disposal related to the total contract
volume of a new building and modification and renovation of a building:
21 December 2006 88

Table 5.18 Waste collection and disposal cost
Amount of
waste/m of
building
volume
% Cost of waste
collection and
disposal related
to contract value
m/m of
volume
%
New building 0,01-0,05 0,5-0,8
-Structural work 25-33
-Finishing work 67-75
Renovation and
modification
0,1-0,5 1,2-1,9

From a medium sized building of 1000m volume an amount of waste of 10-50m can be expected
or a collection and disposal cost of 3000-4000 ( 200m area, 2000/m construction cost).

The composition of demolition and construction waste depends on the type of construction works,
whether is construction of a new building or renovation / modification works. Modification and
renovation generate more undefined waste than the erection of a new building.

Table 5.19 Construction waste composition
Structural work
10.700m
volume
Modification
1.700m
volume
% %
Mineral waste 81,4 40,3
Wood 12,4 13,6
Metals 0,4 4
Paper and cardboard 0,7 4,3
Plastics 0,4 5,2
Glass 1,3
Others 4,5 31,3

The system needs to be divided into a private and a commercial sector. A landfill or a collection
point/recycling yard can accept small amounts (200-300 litter/delivery) of waste delivered by private
persons which will be separated at the collection point/recycling yard.

During the introduction of the collection system, the delivery of small amounts of waste should be
free of charge. Later, after the system is accepted, a reasonable fee could be charged.

Bigger waste amounts have to be transported directly to the landfill and the fee will be charged
according to the calculated cost for treatment and disposal.

The introduction of a collection system for construction and demolition waste has to be prepared by
organisation public information sessions, clear orders and fees and control accompanied by
imposing clear bans and fines.

As a first step, the county councils should prepare an additional paragraph in their contracts
concerning road repairs, road construction, and construction of new buildings as well as renovation
21 December 2006 89
and modification works which will regulate the handling of waste. In the break down of costs in the
quotation of the bidders, there should be a position, which should indicate the calculation of waste
collection and disposal.

For Region 2 a certain amount of sorted demolition and construction waste or excavation material
can be used as cover material for the layers and internal road construction of the landfills.
5.4.3 Collection
Much of construction and demolition waste is recyclable and can be converted into road ballast or
re-used for concrete manufacture, if the proper facilities are available. EU has reported a large
decrease of the quantity of landfilled construction and demolition waste when landfill fees are higher
than fees charged by recycling companies. This has been particularly effective in Germany. It is
suggested that a similar strategy could be employed here too, given that construction and
demolition waste could potentially fill up to 1-1,5 Ha/year of landfill space, assuming a density of 2,
if not recycled. This amount can be significantly reduced through the use of a simple crushing and
sorting facility that could easily recovery 60 to 70 % of the construction and demolition waste. Such
facilities are expected to cost from 3-4 million for the necessary support structures and a 500 -
1000 t/day crusher/shredder (reported as about 5 to 7 Euros per tonne). It is suggested to set the
recycling costs slightly lower than landfill disposal costs as an incentive to increase recycling.

Figure 5.5 Constructions and Demolition Waste Crusher (Source Nordberg)

21 December 2006 90

5.5 Sludge from municipal water treatment

5.5.1 Legislation and targets

Table 5.22 Legislation

EU Legislation Romanian Legislation
Directive no. 86/278/EEC on
environment protection and in
particular of the soil, when
sewage sludge from the waste
water treatment plants is used
in agriculture
Common Ministerial Order of the Ministry of Environment and
Water Management and Ministry of the Agriculture, Forests
and Rural Development no. 344/708/ 2004 on approving the
technical norms for environment protection and in particular of
the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (Official
Journal no.959 of 19.10.2004).

Table 5.23 Targets

Targets
15.1.1.Prevention of illegal disposal Starting in 2007
15.1.2. Prevention of sludge discharge into the surface water Starting in 2007
15.1.3. Promote as much as possible, the use of uncontaminated sludge as
fertilizer in agriculture
Starting in 2007
15.1.4. Dehydration and pre-treatment in view of co-incineration in cement
kilns or incineration plants.
Starting in 2007

5.5.2 Current status
At present, there area biological wastewater treatment plant but they are not used.

In 2003, in this region it was generated a quantity of 18.091 t sludge which corresponds to a
generation indicator of 6,3 kg/inhabitant x an.

5.5.3 Options for agricultural re-use and thermal sludge recovery
The precondition to utilise sludge as fertilizer in agriculture is that its components do not affect the
soil in a negative way.

Within 3 years, the amount of sludge, which is taken to the farmland, should not be more than 5 t of
dry substance per ha. The analysis of the soil should not exceed the thresholds foreseen in the
Common Ministerial Order of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management and Ministry of
the Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development no. 344/708/ 2004.

This means continuous control of sludge and soil.
21 December 2006 91

Sludge from wastewater treatment has a water content of 97%. By centrifugation or filter, pressing
the water content can be reduced to 70-80%. The dewatering process is the precondition for an
economic transport and a potential disposal.

Agricultural reuse requires a dryness level higher than 90% to ensure that sludge is non-
fermentable and can be stored in silos while awaiting its reuse.

All types of thermal utilization like co-incineration in cement plants, stoke firing or fluidized bed
incineration require a sufficient calorific value. This means the installation of a drying process
separately or in combination with an incinerator.

Co-incineration in cement plants also requires a sufficient calorific value. The ash generated from
the dry sludge can act as filler.

Co-incineration in incineration plants requires a stoker firing system. Old types of lignite fired
systems or waste incineration plants are equipped with grates, which allow a high percentage of
sludge to be added to the lignite.

If the sludge is added to the milled coal of modern coal injection plants, it has to be dried before it is
added to the coal. The disadvantage for this incineration process is the higher dust production,
which requires shorter cleaning intervals of the boiler.

Fluidized bed incineration demands both pre-treatment and drying because the sludge particles
have to be distributed consistently in the incineration chamber. The results of fluidised bed
incineration are different. Only few solid fuel types allow a stabile configuration of the fluidized bed.

Like in all incineration processes, the calorific value of the fuel has to have a minimum level of
6000Kj/kg.

The incineration capacity of a fluidized bed combustor varies between 2 and 8 t /hour of TS (Total
solids). Its main components are:
mechanical sludge dewatering,
thermal sewage sludge drying,
fluidized bed combustor,
heat recovery steam generator,
electrostatic precipitator
dry flue gas scrubber
and generator driven backpressure turbine, with heat extraction to a group heating system

The facility should be designed in such a way that during normal operation, sewage sludge
combustion proceeds autonomously without supplementary firing.

5.5.4 Future status
Assuming that in the future around 1.5 Million inhabitants are connected to the waste water
treatment system, a remarkable amount of sludge will be generated.

70 g of Dry Substance (TS) will be generated by biological wastewater treatment per inhabitant
per day. 140 t of Dry Substance will be generated per day or 51.000 t/year.
21 December 2006 92

Fig. 5.5 Options for utilisation of sludge

21 December 2006 93

6 Assessment of technical alternatives

This chapter assesses, for Region 2, the technical alternatives for waste collection, recycling,
treatment and disposal. As its basis, this chapter considers the Regional Waste Plan Objectives as
specified in Chapter 3 and the quantified waste prognosis as given in Chapter 4. In regards to
waste generation forecast to 2013 and treatment needs, special attention is given here to the
achievement of the targets for biodegradable waste diversion from landfills and packaging
recycling. Similar forecasted quantities and treatment needs for specific waste streams are given in
Chapter 5.

Based on the technical alternatives explored here, it is expected that each County or Municipality
will choose and develop, amongst the technical alternatives here discussed, local or county level
implementation plans to meet the Regions quantified targets. In this respect, it is expected that
each County/municipality will base its choice on:
- the ability-to-pay of the County or Municipalities,
- cost-effectiveness (least cost solution), and
- socio-economic impacts.

To meet these requirements, counties and the communes/cities of the region will need to alter
significantly their current waste practices, which only partly or locally fulfil regional objectives. Of
these objectives, the most important regarding the new operating practice, operating cost and
investments are:
1. collection of nearly 100% of waste (80% of rural waste by 2009 and 90% of urban waste by
2013) and its subsequent disposal in sanitary county landfills,
2. extensive sorting for recycling of packaging materials, 55% by 2013,
3. 50% diversion of biological waste from landfills by 2013 based on 1995 amounts, and
4. specific objectives for some separately collected waste fractions (detailed in Chapter 5-
Specific Waste Streams)

To reach the above-mentioned Objectives, each county and city/commune will select technical
alternatives for future targeted investments, later defined in Chapter 7 for:
- collection vehicles and containers,
- transfer or collection stations or areas,
- sorting equipment and sorting centres,
- treatment centres (compost stations, incinerators, bio-mechanical schemes), and
county sanitary landfills
21 December 2006 94

6.1 Selection and presentation of technical alternatives

- General Trends in waste management technology

The general trend and developments in waste management technology concentrate on prevention,
recycle, reuse or recovery actions on waste, which:
- limit the waste amounts disposed of in landfills,
- extend the lifetime of landfills thereby reducing the rate of land condemnation to waste
storage,
- limit the production of greenhouse emission gases such as methane, and
- maximize the use of natural resources

Recently, due to a general increase in living standards and new or more widespread use of
packaging technology, packaging and organic waste amounts have grown considerably and are
rapidly filling existing landfills and wasting natural resources. To reverse this trend, specific targets
have been formulated to promote packaging material recycling and reduce quantities of
biodegradable waste entering landfills.

It has also been recognised that disposed waste should be free from hazardous pollutants and
contain a minimum of biodegradable substances: this leads to fewer air and water emission, i.e.
simpler leachate treatment, lower emissions of green house gases, especially methane (Note:
methane has 23 times the greenhouse emissions effect of CO2).

To decrease landfill emissions, it has been recognised that extensive pre-treatment of waste to
reduce its biodegradable and hazardous contents is needed and that Best Available Technology
(BAT) in landfill construction and operation must be applied (this report uses the term Sanitary
Landfill to designate EU and Romanian Landfill Directive compliant landfills using BAT). To reduce
the quantity of waste entering landfills and emissions from landfills, extensive sorting of packaging
and other recyclable waste fractions is practiced, whereas diversion activities of biodegradable
waste reaching landfills include development of composting of green and some food waste,
incineration and/or bio mechanical treatment, at least to meet biodegradable waste reduction
targets of 50% in 2013 vs. 1995 for the rest. For what is disposed of in landfills, BAT practice is
applied. This includes geo-membranes making the landfill watertight, treatment of leachate from
collected waters, high compaction of waste deposited in thin layers and daily covering. Waste
methane is collected and flared in smaller landfills or recovered as fuel for on-site specialised
electric generators. In both cases it is converted to less damaging CO
2
.

A starting point for the achievement of Waste Management targets is the implementation of a waste
collection scheme that economically and efficiently separately collects recyclable waste fractions.
This scheme maximises the recovery of plastics, metals, paper and cardboard, etc. while
minimising the quantities of mixed waste, which are difficult to treat. However, this leads to a
multiplication of waste collection containers that may create problems in regards to urban
landscapes and the placement of containers. Here, urban planners and architects must include and
foresee additional space needed for the new containers. One possible solution may be to
supplement current door-to-door or block-to-block collection with specialized collective containers
placed in strategic drop-off locations. Admittedly more cumbersome, inhabitants will have to be
convinced to support the selective collection of waste fractions, especially in big cities, where, due
21 December 2006 95
to its high population and development density, it may not be easy to find locations for drop-off
collection points.

In some countries, a deposit or consignment system has been developed for glass and PET bottles,
aluminium cans, etc. Such a system provides a greater incentive for homeowners to deposit
packaging materials in designated areas for recycling by manufacturers. Such a system, however,
shifts the responsibility for collection from sanitary service operators to trading or commercial firms
who collect the waste for recycling. Various schemes are under consideration in Romania. It is
possible that a green dot system, common in France, Germany and most of Europe, will be
adopted by Romania and operated/organised in the future by ECO Rom Ambalaje SA or any other
firm. If adopted, consumers will be encouraged to return packaging materials to designated
locations, collection points or shops.

- Common EU least cost waste management technical alternatives
EU member states (if not all developed countries) face similar waste management objectives as
Romania. A few have more demanding standards, such as Germany, who have targeted landfill
biodegradable waste reduction to 5% of former levels. Consequently, Waste Management Plans
have chosen approximately the same technical solutions to meet their waste reduction targets.

These are generally:

- selective sorting of specific waste fractions (dry bin/wet bin system, green point),
- use of transfer stations if significant quantities of waste need to be transported long distances,
- sorting stations to recover separate waste fractions (packaging waste, paper),
- composting of most green fractions and some food fractions,
- treatment of mixed waste (through incineration or bio-mechanical schemes), especially for the
most advanced bio reduction targets,
- use of sanitary landfills for disposal of the remaining waste,
- specific plans, usually collection points and requirements for manufacturers to take back
specific waste streams for: end-of-life vehicles, waste-electronic-and-electrical-goods, and,
- other plans for waste fractions that require special treatment. These include household
hazardous waste, sewer sludge, construction and demolition waste.

Of the above, reduction of the biological content of the remaining mixed MSW has proven to be
amongst the more problematic. These require important investments in specialized treatment
facilities (incinerators/BMT) that have important operating cost and are advanced technically. A
detailed discussion on the above subjects follows.

- Municipal/Commune and County Waste Management Planning
The process of devising an optimal Waste Management Implementation Plan on the Regional Level
is the result of decisions and choices made in regard to waste collection, treatment and disposal
for which most decisions are made by local Communes/Municipalities and Sanitary Service
Operators in coordination with their County Council and REPA. It is expected that Municipalities will
formulate their waste Implementation Plans on:
- Regional and National targets,
- their geographical and socio-economic contexts, and
- their desired service level.

- Decision Areas in Waste Management
To achieve the quantified waste management targets, respect their ability to pay and reach a
desired service level, Municipalities/Communes and Counties will have to consider numerous
21 December 2006 96
options in the formulation of the Waste Management Implementation Plans. The most relevant
include:

- frequency of waste collection services (including crew size and routing),
- the use of a communal vs. kerbside bins, (size and ownership of these),
- Use of green dot or related consignment systems,
- size, technical characteristics, and number of waste collection vehicles,
- the approach and the degree that waste generators are to participate in the separation or
mixing of waste fractions,
- the location and design of collection points, transfer stations, sorting stations, compost
stations, advanced treatment (incinerators/BMT) and recycling facilities, disposal sites,
- degree of treatment and treatment objectives,
- tariff and fee structure,
- financing and grant funding possibilities / local contributions towards major facilities,
- degree of involvement of Private Sector Operators (recourse to concessions, Build Operate
and Transfer (BOT) agreements, management contracts, service contracts) , and
- system monitoring functions, public participation and information dissemination.

The above considerations may be broadly illustrated in the following decision making process. The
process highlights decisions needed for each of the major waste management steps.
21 December 2006 97

Figure 6.1: Decision Points in MSW Management
WASTE GENERATION
COLLECTION
TREATMENT
DISPOSAL
COLLECTION bins, containers, areas and collection
frequency for RURAL mixed MSW and Separate
Fractions
COLLECTION bins, containers, areas and collection
frequency for URBAN MSW and Separate Fractions
Base Case: RECUPERATION / RECYCLING /
COMPOSTING OF SEPARATELY COLLECTED
FRACTIONS
LANDFILL OF REMAINDING mixed MSW
Alt 1 and 2 : INCINERATION /. BIO MECANICAL
TREATMENT of remianing MIXED MSW
WASTE TREATMENT STEP DECISION AREA FOR COST AND SERVICE
OPTIMISATION
21 December 2006 98

6.2 Overview of technical alternatives
6.2.1 Collection and sorting of waste
6.2.1.1 Collection
Collection and disposal of mixed MSW into sanitary landfills is fundamental to Waste Management.
The Region already collects waste from 50 % of its population, Most likely, urban municipalities will
continue to collect waste from kerbside containers into large compacting collection vehicles for
disposal at the county sanitary landfills. This system will be extended to the remaining rural areas,
which don not have yet regular waste collection services.

In regards to rural areas, door-to-door collection would not be suitable, given the road conditions
and average revenue of rural inhabitants. For these, it is suggested that communal containers to be
placed, one 1.1m container per 100 inhabitants or 10m for 1000 inhabitants to collect waste once
a week by normal compaction vehicles or skip hoists which are more adapted to poor road
conditions. Such a system would be inexpensive to operate and provide collection services to the
greatest number of inhabitants for the least cost. Under this system, isolated homes would have to
bring their sorted waste to the nearest communal drop-off collectors.

6.2.1.2 Transfer stations
Transfer station is a phrase to designate places where waste is collected and transferred into other
vehicles, saving overall transport cost, or reducing the need to build multiple, but smaller, albeit,
costly landfills. Generally, transfer stations are built for distances over 60 km and where annual
volumes exceed 10 000 tonnes per year. For smaller volumes, direct trucking is still often less
expensive, although a cost study should be performed. (Small sanitary landfills have significantly
higher investment and operating cost on per tonne basis).

It should be remembered that transfer stations add 4/5 /t additional cost to the collected waste. To
be economically justified, the transfer station should generate greater transport savings than its
operational cost. Further, Transfer Stations may cost of the order of 500.000 to 2 million Euros to
build.
Usually transfer stations require:
- Electricity and other utilities, fire protection,
- Guards to check waste, weighbridge,
- Waste compacting equipment or containers,
- Provisions for wastewater, and
- Easy to use and operate unloading and loading areas.

21 December 2006 99

Figure 6.2: Medium sized Transfer Station

In addition, transfer stations may serve as collection or drop-off points for special waste fractions:
PET bottles, glass, paper, metals, green waste, bulky waste, WEEE, household hazardous waste,
etc.

6.2.1.3 Collection stations
In some cases, collection points of several large bins could be considered as a simple transfer
station, requiring only a cement base and either 1,1 m3 or 5-10 m
3
containers for transfer into a
compacting vehicle or directly into an open 45 m open roll-off container once or every two weeks.
Several bins may be located together, to facilitate collection of separate waste fractions.

This solution could be the most economic alternative to smaller or isolated settlements and to avoid
the cost of fully developed transfer stations. For collection stations, each commune must determine
the number of and location of each station. Special care should be taken in the selection of their
location. Close-by residents may object to their presence due to odours, vehicle traffic and noise.

Figure 6.3: Roll off waste collection container

6.2.1.4 Collection vehicles
Waste collection in Region 2 is mostly public owned. Collection vehicles largely consist of vehicles
with a compaction container and high-level lifters with a capacity of 4-10 t.

It is important that sanitary service operators include funds for the regular purchase of and
renewal of fleet vehicles in their tariffs. Typically, each vehicle costs of the order of 120 000 Euros
and can be operated for 15 to 20 years, depending on maintenance. Each truck may be operated 8
or 16 hours a day, depending on a communitys/companys operating strategy. Still it is not
recommend maintaining a too old fleet of collection vehicles. These vehicles are inefficient, are
often under repair and have higher operating cost. Many are unsafe.
21 December 2006 100

Figure 6.4: Typical EU Waste Compacting Vehicle

As most of the Region has normal roads, recourse to the usual common waste compacting vehicles
is sufficient. For the rural areas, special care should be taken to choose vehicles whose weight
does not exceed road or bridge load limits (more axels per truck or smaller trucks may be used)
and for gravel rural roads, high axel clearance vehicles or skippers would be recommended.

Based on these considerations, each private enterprise, Commune and County should determine
the optimal fleet composition and technical characteristics to provide the optimum waste collection
service level for its areas.
6.2.1.5 Collection containers
The region already uses the most common waste collection containers. These include 120 and 240
litre plastic wheelie bins or carts for most homes and small business. These bins are usually owned
either by the homeowner or by small business. In some case, incentives are provided to
homeowners for the purchase of their first bins.

Larger business, shopping areas and markets may use larger size 1, 1 litre Euro bins (either metal
or plastic, although the metal bins are rather more robust). Finally, institutes, super markets and
industry often use 5-10 m
3
metal containers which it may rent from a waste removal operator and
pay and additional sum for each emptying (usually on a contractual basis with sanitary service
operators). Very big super markets or commercial centres may also be equipped with compaction
containers, which are collected by hook lifts.

In the cities of Region 2, most large apartment blocks are equipped with waste chutes. Each floor
has an intake or chute door by which waste is disposed. Subsequently, waste is collected in
containers located in the blocks basement. Each container could be 1, 1; 5 or 10 m in size. The
waste is collected periodically.

Based on its predominate urban or rural situation, waste collection frequency, collection type -
Kerbside or Communal Collectors, each municipality will need to determine the number, type,
location and ownership of waste collection containers in co-operation with its private sanitation
operator.

6.2.2 Separate collection and recovery of packaging waste
Packaging materials represents an important percent (around 20%) from the total household and
similar waste from trade and industry. Much of packaging/packing waste is recoverable when an
efficient sorting system is established and organised. The real challenge is to collect and recovery
packaging waste economically - given the regions ability to pay and that most collection and sorting
schemes do not cover their direct operating cost. A second consideration is the technology to use,
given that many possible solutions (degree of automation, percent collected, home sorting vs.
centralized sorting, etc.) exist.

- Collection strategy for MSW and separate fractions
There are several collection and sorting schemes common to reach recovery targets for packaging
waste. From one extreme is the provision of collection containers for most fractions at each
household, business, institution or factory, to the other where waste is left mixed and brought to a
sorting station, for later manual or automatic sorting.

- Home Sorting by fraction
The first method, providing sorting bins for each waste fraction has the advantage of lowering the
later sorting cost in a specialized facility, although the system requires many bins or tubs, and more
and specialized collection vehicles. As such, collection is relatively costly. However, sorting is later
facilitated, although it is generally not possible to take the collected fractions and resell these
without additional sorting or separation. Typical collected separate fractions include:

1. Paper, (can be further sorted by paper or cardboard, types of paper),
2. Glass, (later sorting by colour),
3. Plastic bottles (which need later sorting by type of plastic, caps removed),
4. Metals (also needing later sorting between tin cans, aluminium cans, spray cans, aluminium
foil, etc.,
5. Green waste (which can also be similarly sorted, perhaps in yellow plastic bags for garden
waste and also food waste, if wrapped in paper).

Problems with the above is that it is onerous and tedious for households to sort all waste, and
sorting to the final possible degree would require many collection containers and extreme vigilance
on the part of waste producers. Adherence to extreme home sorting is generally low, with the
additional problem in big cities where few homes would have space for all the needed separate
containers. To reduce cost, some communes resort collective containers for separately collected
fractions, but adherence to this system is admittedly
difficult without financial incentives.

- Wet bin / Dry bin recycle system
In view of the above constraints, a hybrid system,
sometimes called the wet bin / dry bin system, has
been often successfully employed and is become in
many areas the system of choice.

Figure 6.6 Communal separate sorting
containers in Switzerland.

The system comprises of essentially two bins, plus often a
smaller bin for glass, and possible yellow bags for garden
and food waste (further wrapped in paper). Under this
scheme, the wet bin is the waste container that most
household already used for mixed unsorted waste, and a
dry bin, for recyclable largely packaging materials. A small
bin or a communal glass collector is generally used for
glass collection. The question of collected garden waste
and food waste are important if bio waste reduction targets
are met.

The system comprises of:
- In the wet bin: mixed MSW
- In the dry bin or tub: paper, cardboard, metals,
plastics, (some systems also allow small WEEE),
tetra pack, cans, bags, batteries,
- A small glass bin or communal container for glass,
- Although, not strictly for packaging waste, special
yellow bags (sometimes brown bins in Romania)
for seasonal green waste (may include food waste
wrapped in paper) destined for composting, (this
last component may not be practical for Regions 2
apartment blocks),

Fig 6.8 Collective and Household Dry Bins or Carts for
recycling dry waste in France. (Eco-Emballages)

The advantage of the system is that fewer bins and truck rounds are needed to collect the waste
fractions. It is also easy to use. The collected fractions are then sent to a manual sorting centre,
where trained employees are taught to sort waste into the most economic collection containers:
i.e.., bottles are separated into PET, PP, PE, PVC, PS plastics, paper from cardboard. Given the
relatively low labour rates in Romania, a manual sorting system should prove the most economical.
The system can be upgraded with time, as better sorting strategies and equipment arrive. Further,
studies have shown that up to 70% of households may adhere to this system, given its simplicity vs.
more extensive home sorting schemes.

A possible objection to the sorting scheme is that in many communes and landfills, informal
gatherers, may collect the separated fractions for resale, before the collection vehicles arrive. As

Fig 6.7 Pamphlet advising
residents to place dry waste
unwrapped in yellow covered
recycle carts or bins (City of Lyon:
Clockwise from top left: Plastic
bottles, tin cans, aerosols, paper,
paperboard containers, tetrapack)
major stakeholders, it is suggested that at least those of legal age to work, be offered employment
in the sorting collection centres. In the meantime, the sorting centre will have less work.

6.2.3 Sorting stations Sorting of separate fractions in automatic and
manual facilities
The other extreme, is through a mixed waste sorting facility. This system does not require
cooperation from households, nor separate collection or collection bins. However, in practice, the
system has many disadvantages:

- Recyclable waste is mixed with putrid waste, degrading
many recyclable fractions,
- it is much harder to separate all fractions later,
- the facility can emanate unpleasant odours,
- automatic sorting system do not always perform well and
require significant capital investment,
- manual sorting of mixed MSW is unhealthy, unpleasant
and dangerous.

Consequently, many sorting centres now concentrate on dry
recycle waste collection and sorting as discussed earlier.

- Applicability
Sorting of separated MSW fractions is near universally applied
throughout the EU. The process is done prior to land filling, incineration or MBT plants. The
procedure has proven to be the best method to meeting packaging waste targets, given that sorting
of mixed packaging waste has proven difficult and disappointing.

- Sorting trends
The trend in sorting technology is to maximize the pre-treatment of previously separated materials
from MSW by screening processes in order to increase the collection capacities of hand sorting.
The process can reach 220kg / hour for paper and cardboard and to 145 kg / hour for light fractions
such as for PET bottles and other plastic products. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are generally
removed through magnetic separators.

- Investment and operating cost
In regards to investment, manual sorting centres need only simple equipment (conveyor belts, feed
chutes), a heated hangar and bins to store the sorted fractions for sale, bail presses and weight
scales, as a first step. A reasonable sized facility, perhaps adjacent to the existing landfill could be
initially built in the 500 000 to 2 million Euro range. Ideally, green waste would find its way in the
equally simply next door compost station. The manual sorting centre, based on Romanian labour
cost, should come closer to breaking even than their EU 15 counterparts should as revenues from
recovered fractions offset collection and sorting cost as well as landfill tipping fees. As many EU 15
countries have reported sorting and collection cost in the order of 80 to 120 Euros per tonne, it is
recommended that a financial feasibility be completed prior to arriving at conclusions to a sorting
centres break-even point.

Fig 6.9 Sorting facility
showing pre-sorted dry waste
for recycling
Results from previous ISPA projects indicate that hand sorting is more economical in Romania than
automatic sorting, under current labour rates. (Many WE separation plants include hand sorting at
least for parts of the separation process).

It has also been found that sorting is best located adjacent to landfill or treatment sites where
existing infrastructure help reduce operating and transport cost. Such installations report significant
economies, reducing operating cost to 50-60 /t input, for plants with an operating capacity of 4-
6000 t/year (excluding transport cost). This is 50-60% of that cost which has to be calculated for a
stand alone sorting plant.

As a comparison the average sorting cost of French sorting plants with a capacity of 15.000 t/year
are presented for different combinations of sorted fractions. As more components of packaging and
paper are sorted as lower the sorting cost are related to the incoming material.

Fig. 6.10: Overview of sorting cost (NB although cost increase as the fractions are better sorted,
revenues increase as materials are better sorted)

6.3 Treatment and disposal of biodegradable waste

To reach short-term diversion targets (25% in 2010) for biodegradable waste with minimal
investment, it is necessary to focus on amounts of biodegradable waste that can be easily collected
and otherwise treated. These generally include paper, cardboard and wood for recycle, packaging
materials for the same, green waste and food waste for composting. For composting, green waste
from parks, yards and gardens, and markets must be separately collected. It is also possible to
compost waste mud from homes (septic tanks) and municipal treatment plants (if complying with
OM 3442004). Food waste (excluding flesh and bones) from homes may also be composted along
with green waste or used as animal feed. This is especially true of restaurant and institutions where
generated food wastes are in large enough quantities to justify daily recovery and their use as pig
feed.

Hollow
Contain
er
Fraction

Flat
Fraction

Gross
Cost
Hollow
Objects:
Glass
Plastic
Metals

Flat
objects
Paper
board
news
Print
Maga
zines
Paper
Board
Plastics
Metal
News
Print
Maga
Zinc
Glass
Paper
Board
Plastic
Metals
News
Print
Maga
zines
Paperboard
Plastic,
metals
114-139
/t Input
113-162
/t Input
171-216
/t Input
183-229
/t Input
Plastic
Metals

Newsprint
Magazines
Paper
board
200-211
/t input
Generally, green waste is collected either in specialized bins (brown in Romania) or in hefty bags
that generally can be purchased at supermarkets. Bags are generally popular with homeowners,
given that most green waste is produced in late spring and in the autumn l.

Given that home sorting and mechanical sorting techniques remove as much paper, cardboard,
wood, and green waste as possible, three types of biodegradable waste reduction techniques will
be explored, in turn. These include:

1. Composting
2. Bio-Mechanical Treatment
3. Incineration

- Composting mixed MSW
The importance of separating Green Waste (waste from parks and gardens) and Bio Waste
(Organic waste from households) from mixed MSW for composting in recent study. In the study,
Prof. Jager concluded that only pre-sorted green and bio waste were suitable for compost
production whereas compost from mixed MSW contained contaminants above permissible limits.
This finding significantly reduces the amount of compost that can be produced to relatively clean
green and biological waste streams. Consequently, composting for mixed MSW, without further
treatment, is not a viable option in the EU. In table, 6-2 are given the allowable limits of heavy
metals in compost. These limits are compared to the heavy metals typically present in compost
produced from bio waste, green wastes and mixed household waste.

In addition, standards on compost quality further make its production from mixed MSW unlikely.
These include particle size limits of less than < 2mm for plastic, glass and metal and that these also
should not exceed 0,5% per weight of dry compost. The same limits also significantly reduce the
possibility to use biologically treated mixed MSW as compost from MBT plants.

Table 6.2 Comparison of compost quality produced from mixed MSW and separate fractions
Contaminant Units Bio Waste Green Waste
Mixed
Household
waste
Threshold
Limit
Pb mg/kg 74,3 42,2 513 150
Cd mg/kg 0,6 0,5 5,5 2
Cr mg/kg 57,7 33 71 100
Cu mg/kg 45,1 29,1 274 100
Ni mg/kg 40,2 12,3 45 50
Hg mg/kg 0,3 0,5 2,4 1,5
Zn mg/kg 290,8 93,4 1510 400

Compost quality also depends on the quality of the input materials, local conditions and the
requested quality of compost. When properly operated and carefully collected, refusal rates from
composting stations vary from 3% to 5%.

- Intensive Composting Technology
There are several composting processes, which differ, for example, in composting time, compost
quality and space requirements. In general there are:

Open air systems:
- static pile composting with natural or forced aeration
Closed systems:
- Static and dynamic systems

Table 6.3 Composting processes
Static processes: Dynamic processes:
static windrow composting fermentation drum
forced aeration digester towers
natural aeration with multiple decks
composting in boxes/cells single level

- Open air composting
Composting of park and garden waste, which is free from pollutants, can be done in open area
without intake of air into the composting process. In order to secure, a sufficient aeration the height
of the compost pile should not more than 1, 5 m and adjusted for the density of the material. The
compost pile will take on the characteristic trapezoid form. Assuming a density of 0, 5 t/m, and
approximately 1800 t can be composted per hectare of land every six months.

In general, with collection rate of 20% of green household waste, 1 ha would be needed for
composting per 100.000 inhabitants. The plants should be situated sufficient distance from nearby
settlements to avoid odour nuisances to citizens.

The fermentation composting process can be accelerated by
additional air intake. Open systems require air suction from the
bottom of the compost pile. The air should be treated afterwards in
a compost filter to avoid odour problems. Under forced ventilation,
composting time can be reduced by factor 2-2, 5 when composting
homogenised materials. Generally, the compost is covered and
placed on a cement slab.

- Closed systems
Closed composting systems are used to further accelerate composting and meet climatic
conditions, to avoid odour and to achieve a controlled composting rates. The advanced composting
processes use pre-shredding, screening and homogenizing of incoming material to improve
compost composition. A typical composting scheme is shown below.

Fig 6.11 Windrow (row)
Composting

Figure 6.12 Composting of green waste/market waste

- General process description
The incoming green waste is prepared for composting by:
- screening
- removal of ferrous metal by magnetic separators
- removal of none biodegradable components by hand-picking
- preliminary shredding (garden wastes, tree bark etc.), and,
- mixing, possibly by adding water or different additives.

The composting can be divided into three phases:
I Start-up phase: Within a period of 24 hours, the decomposition of organic substances caused
by mesosphelic micro organisms raises the internal temperature to 45C.
II Composting phase: Thermophilic organisms increase the internal temperature to 75C. This
temperature will remain at this level for several weeks. During this phase, pathogenic
microorganisms are killed.
III Maturing phase: Once most of the degradation processes are completed, the compost returns
to ambient temperature.

During composting, carbon to nitrogen (C: N) ratio drops from 30:1 at the beginning of the process
to 15:1. Consequently, the compost has higher nitrogen content. Further, stabilized and
mechanically dewatered sewage sludge may be mixed to the composting materials.

- Current Status
Collection of green waste for composting is common in Europe and the US. Collection is now
mandatory throughout the UK for green waste.

- Design capacity:
Composting process plants vary from 3,000 t/a and
100,000 t/a, depending on the amount of available
green waste and its economic collection area.
Generally, simple plants are used where land is
inexpensive, whereas accelerated composting plants
are located where land is dear.

- Limits of application:
The process is designed to receive organic material
out of separate collection from parks, gardens, yards
and markets. Market waste is generally sorted prior to
composting. As earlier stated mixed MSW and
WWTP, mud is seldom composted due to
contamination problems. Food waste can be
composted, but strict adherence to guidelines must
be followed or the quality of the compost will be of low
quality or unusable (See German pamphlet)

- Odour Emissions
Compost plants with a capacity of more than 10,000
t/a (25 t/d) should be of the closed type to avoid
protests from neighbours complaining about odours.
In Europe, most compost plants near large cities are of closed type. Further, leachate needs to be
treated prior to discharge.

- Residues
The output of the composting process is a dry material, which can be screened. Around 3 to 10% of
the material will be eliminated for disposal.

- Advantage of applying compost
Compost can be used as basis for the mixture with different types of fertilizer where it improves soil
structure by increasing its water absorbing capacity and soil properties in general.
Fig 6.13: German pamphlet advising
households of what food waste they can or
cannot compost.

Table 6.4 Comparison of composting processes
Open air composting Closed composting
Description Windrow composting under
open-air conditions.
Composting time: 4-6 months
depending on climate
conditions, pile structure and
the frequency turning.
Closed plants eliminate,
especially during the intensive
composting phase (first 4
weeks), odours by air collection
and treatment.
The maturing phase normally
takes place in the open-air area.
The Composting process needs
about 2-3 months with forced
aeration and continuous turning
of the piles.
Existing capacities of
plants
Up to t 400 t/day Up to 400 t/day
Products About 400 to 450 kg compost
per tonne of organic waste
About 400 to 450 kg compost
per tonne of organic waste
Emissions Uncontrolled odour emissions,
mainly when domestic waste
or sewage sludge is
composted. Green waste
composting emissions are
minor.
Odour emissions are bio-filtered
Site requirements Installation with sufficient
distance from residential
areas, except for green waste.
Can be installed close to
residential areas.

- Production cost
Plant capacities vary greatly form small facilities of 500 t/a to 70.000 t/year input. Due to the
technological and economies of scale, cost per ton input vary from 15 and 75 /t or 30-150 /t of
compost produced. It should be noted that this is significantly above landfilling cost in Romania.
Consequently, less expensive open air composting in regions where land is inexpensive would be
recommended.

Table 6.5: Compost production cost (closed composting), EU 15 average
Capacity/yea
r
Investment Capital cost

Fixed cost Variable
cost
Cost /t
input /t
Cost/t
compost /t
20.000 11.000.000 1.210.000 390.000 310.000 95 190
40.000 14.000.000 1.345.000 611.000 513.000 62 124
60.000 18.000.000 1.960.000 810.000 720.000 56 112


6.4 Mechanical biological treatment facilities (MBT)

Mechanical Biological Treatment, MBT, is a generic name for a range of processes to treat MSW
biologically. Normally such plants are composed of a mechanical sorting stage, anaerobic treatment
of organic fractions, followed by landfilling or further treatment of the residues.

There are currently reported 80 MBT plants in operation in Europe ranging from 20 thousand to 480
thousand tonnes per year (Madrid, Spain). The vast majority of the large plants are concentrated in
Spain, with a few in Germany/Austria/France and Italy. Currently the plants process approximately
13 Million tonnes per year (estimated for 2006) in the EU (Jupiter Research, 2005). The study also
estimates that overall MBT cost are slightly higher than incineration, but that legislation and taxes
significantly distort economics. (Because of the large amount of waste that still needs to be
landfilled or incinerated, that plants economics are poor where landfilling and incineration cost are
elevated).

Fig 6.14: Luebeck, Germany 150 000 T/yr MBT Plant (Haase Eng. Gruppe).
Plant has begun operations in 2006.

MBT was initially promoted as a bio friendly alternative to incineration for biodegradable waste
reduction, but has yet to reach the mainstream waste treatment method in Western Europe vs.
direct MSW incineration (with the possible exception of Spain which has not yet completed its
biodegradable diversion implementation plans). Its original objective was to convert efficiently MSW
into compost and CO
2
, but this objective has not been reached, due to the presents of plastics and
other contaminants. Consequently, several processes have been developed to convert the resulting
residual into, for instance, fuel pellets, in an additional process step (Residual Derived Fuels). Later,
the pellets are fed as a substitute fuel in coal fired power plants. (Sceptics maintain that it is
cheaper and more efficient to directly incinerate MSW in EU Incineration Directive (2000) compliant
facilities. To this, industry pundits reply that new catalyst and enzymes may evolve to more
efficiently convert organic waste into waste derived fuels.)

Overall, the German Federal Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that in regards to the
current state-of-the-art of bio-mechanical waste treatment processes: These:

- reduce required landfill volume and amount of biodegradable waste landfilled (by about
50%),
- needs to be coupled with a modern incinerator for about 35/40% of the left over waste and
best practice landfill technology (Thin layer filing, a high compaction rate and daily covering
by soils, waste intake on dry days only to avoid that biological decomposition and off gases),
- produces minor savings from a simplified landfill leachate treatment and gas collection, but
these do not compensate the plants investment and operating cost, and
- incineration is further needed for treatment of oversized waste collected during the
screening process

Recent trends in MBT have been attempts to convert the biological products into liquid fuels such
as ethanol. However, the bulk of the organic fractions are cellulose for which economic conversion
versus sugar cane produce ethanol have not been found.

- MBT Process Description
Incoming waste is generally separated into 3 fractions (see fig 6.4):

1. fraction: >80mm ~30% of input
2. fraction <80mm >40mm ~50% of input
3. fraction <40mm ~20% of input

The 1
st
fraction is incinerated,
The 2
nd
fraction are submitted to anaerobic fermentation and further mechanical treatment, with
residues mostly landfilled,
The 3
rd
fraction can be optionally anaerobic fermentation to produce bio gas, internally consumed,
with the remainder send for further mechanical treatment and land filling, with some exhausted as
CO
2
.

Figure 6.15: MBT plant schematic, ISKA, Germany.
Otherwise said, approximately 35 % of the incoming waste is incinerated, 21 % is emitted as CO
2
, 3
% converted to biogas, itself converted to CO
2
, 1 % is recovered as metal and 40 % is landfilled.
The landfilled fraction contains approximately 50% of the wastes original biodegradable fraction.


Fig. 6.16: Material Flow Diagram of some MBT

Table 6.6 Theoretical Investment and operation cost
Capacity Investment cost Operation Cost Fixed Cost Process
Treatment cost
t/year Million Million /year % /t
100.000 22 4,3 80 45,-
150.000 30 6,3 79 43,-
200.000 38 8,0 78 40,-

In addition to direct treatment and operating cost of residual components have to be transported to
an incineration plant (100 Euros per tonne) and to a landfill 40 /t (80 Euro per tonne with tax).
Overall this leads to final treatment cost of 105-110 /t per tonne of mixed MSW input. On a
biodegradable reduction basis, this figure should be double as only 50% of the initial biodegradable
waste fraction is reduced.

Table 6.7: Comparison of landfill technology for MBT treated waste
MAXIMUM MBT Residues
Potential gas production 53 m/t of disposed waste <5m/t of disposed waste
Organic component of
leachate
11,3gTOC/m. year 2, 8 g TOC/m. year
Subsidence of landfill body max 5% max 4%

The landfill gas production will be significantly reduced by disposing of pre-treated organic material
and the organic component of leachate is lowered by factor 4.

Table 6.8: Comparison of process residues
MBT Incineration
Residues per t input ~ 0,4 t 0,3 t
Slag, flue gas cleaning residues
Density 1,1-1,6 t/m 2,0 t/m
Residues m /t input 0,25 m 0,16 m
Recovery none Slag 80% (road construction)
Required Landfill volume
per t input
0,25 m 0,03-0,05 m

6.5 Incineration

- MSW Incineration Industry
There are currently 467 incinerators processing 50 million tonnes (2003) per year of MSW in the
EU15 countries (out of 200 million). The largest incinerator complex incinerates 1 million tonnes per
year of MSW. Incinerators, once out of favour, have returned due to compliance with the EC
Incineration Directive 2000 which entered into force in December 2005 throughout the EU, and the
general banning or sever reducing of permissible levels of biodegradable waste allowed in landfills.
Both of these Directives have been favourable to the incineration industry. Today, MSW
incinerators are reportedly operating at capacity with increased numbers of MSW incinerators under
construction and expansion throughout the EU (source CEWEP, 2005). A recent example is the
City of Stuttgart, Germany, which has just increased its MSW incinerators capacity to 450 000
t/year. Below is given an artist drawing of the ISSEANE 600 t/year Waste-to-Energy MSW plant
under construction in Issy-les-Moulineaux, directly adjacent to Paris. The plant is to begin
operations in 2007.

Fig 6.17 ISSEANE Waste to Energy MSW moving grate Waste to Energy incinerator under
construction in an office park area adjacent to Paris. The 600 000 tonnes/yr facility will also
provide urban heating for 90 000 homes and electricity for 50 000 homes. The plant is
expected to begin operations in 2007. Source SYMCOM, Paris Region.

Other features of the ISSEANE plant include:
- the absence of a visible emission stack. This is possible through the heating of plants exhaust
moisture prior to discharge, avoiding condensation,
- Odour control: Odours to neighbours are reduced through an air suction system that maintains
negative pressure within the plant and which channels waste odours for elimination in the
combustion furnace,
- Incorporation of an integrated sorting station that maximizes recycle of paper, metals, plastics, etc.
and reduces collection cost.

- Advantages of Waste-to-Energy MSW Incinerators
Application of the more severe emission limits given under the Incineration Directive allows for the
locating of incinerators directly within cities (the German EPA reports that dioxin emissions from
MSW incinerators have decreased by a factor of 1000 from 1990 to 2005). Locating the incinerator
directly in cities offer two principle advantages:
1. much of the wastes calorific value can be used to generate electric power and urban
heating, offsetting approximately 30% of the incinerators operating cost,
2. location in or near cities also reduces collection cost of MSW as waste collection vehicles
travel shorter distances to the treatment centre vs. landfills or MBT facilities.

Other incineration advantages over BMT include:
- their ability to divert 100% of MSW biodegradable contents vs. only 50% for BMT, and
- to produce smaller amounts of residues vs. BMT for disposal (generally fly ash, 5% of the
incoming waste). Slag, 25% of input, is generally used as roadbed ballast. In contrast,
unless equipped with a waste derived fuel plant, landfills up to 40% of incoming waste.

Incinerators, however, may require slightly higher initial investments than MBT plants, especially
when equipped for energy recovery.

- growth trends for Waste-to-Energy MSW Incinerators
Although incineration is generally considered costlier than landfilling, landfilling spacing in crowded
Western Europe is limited, with most countries severely limiting landfilling through the imposition of
landfill taxes (up to 40 Euro per tonne) in addition to landfill treatment charges, reducing much of
the difference. The landfill tax is justified on the basis that incineration maximises the reduction of
waste volumes and converts much of the waste to energy. Further, as much of the waste is
cellulose, MSW is considered a bio-renewable fuel that does not contribute to green house gas
emissions (the remaining plastic materials are not renewable, but up until now, there is no other
known way to easily eliminate the remaining dirty, mixed, plastic presents in MSW). Incineration
also avoids the creation of methane gas from landfilled MSW, a major landfill safety and
environmental problem. A further advantage of Waste-to-Energy MSW incinerators (especially in
regards to BMT) is the direct combustion of waste, without a significant need for waste pre-
treatment (BMT plants must convert its output to waste derived fuels, an additional processing
step).

- Sustainability
Energy from MSW plants is considered sustainable as much of the caloric value is from plant
cellulose which does not contribute to greenhouse gases. During some periods, waste to energy
may be more profitable than the recycle value of some waste fractions, usually paper, sometimes
plastics. At present, however, EU Commission is of mixed opinion as to whether or not to allow
recovery over recycle when warranted by market or economic conditions. This is especially true of
contaminated waste fractions whose market value is low and whose recycle cost is high.

- MSW Incinerator Design
The design of an EU compliant MSW Incinerator must comply with the EU Waste Incineration
Directive and IPPC BREF (Best Practice) Directives. Further, a MSW incinerator requires well-
organized logistics. An incinerators bunker capacity should hold one week of waste to allow for
process conditions and better feed consistency. The bunker also provides a buffer time for when
the incinerator is stopped for maintenance, fly ash and slag removal. Sufficient fuel for start-up and
stabilization of the incinerator are also needed.

As MSW is increasingly sorted, the remaining waste has a higher caloric value due to the
increasing presence of waste plastics (plastic have a higher caloric value than does mixed,
unsorted, MSW). Newer MSW incinerators are designed to accept higher caloric loads of waste
plastics than older plants.

-MSW Operation
In a MSW Incinerator, incoming waste is weighed and tipped into a waste bunker. This bunker serves
for waste storage and homogenisation. Up to 10% sewage treatment sludge may also be added.
Bulky waste is dumped in a separate bunker and, after shredding, it is added to the main bunker.

The incinerators feed hoppers are fed by an overhead grab crane. The crane takes waste from the
bunker and transfers it to the furnaces feed hoper. Waste is then fed into the incinerator on a moving
grate with controlled air intake. In the incinerator, the combustion temperature is controlled to 850C
to ensure complete combustion. Back-up burners are included to automatically stabilize temperatures
or during start-up.

Waste incineration along the moving grate can be divided into four steps:
1. Drying of waste through the utilization of radiating heat from the combustion zone. Volatile
compounds are evaporated at this stage while the remaining waste continues to increase in
temperatures,
2. A homogeneous start of ignition by heat from combustion radiation,
3. The combustion process is then supported by stoking of waste by the continuous motion of
the grate and sufficient air intake for waste oxidation and grate cooling, and
4. Burning of the remaining combustibles and production of slag with a maximum of 3%
organic residues

In the process, air intake for combustion and grate cooling is controlled to reach the minimum
combustion temperature and to minimize the creation and transport of fly ash. Bottom slag is
discharged and cooled via a water basin into a slag bunker.

Combustion gases are further heated in a post combustion chamber to 1200
0
C to destroy all
remaining organic components. Energy is recovered in a boiler which feeds super heated steam to a
downstream turbine for electricity production, usually coupled to district heating system. Flue gas is
then treated to meet EU emission standards though wet scrubbing with caustic soda solution and a
limewater suspension. The water of the cleaning process is then reused for flue gas cooling through
evaporation (quenching).

- treatment charges and investment cost
Treatment charges for MSW incineration vary widely. Treatment charges depend on market rates,
plant capacity, age and energy recovery. For EU compliant incinerators, and capacities of 100.000
through 300.000 tonnes per year, treatment charges in the 90-140/t range are common.

Investment cost for new 200.000 t/year plants with energy recovery are of the order of 120 million
. Annual capital financial cost and fixed operation cost represent more than 80% of total
incinerator cost.


Fig. 6.18: View of a stoker incineration plant

Fig. 6.19: Flow scheme of an incinerator

6.6 Disposal: Sanitary landfills

The construction, location and technical requirements for the construction of Sanitary Landfills are
technical described by the Sanitary Landfill Directive. In essence, a sanitary landfill is a location that
provides proper environmental and health safeguards for the disposal of MSW. A sanitary Landfill is
typically equipped with:
- a buffer zone,
- a good and easy access road for trucks,
- a guard house for record keeping and control,
- a weight bridge,
- a small laboratory for checking waste,
- geo textile membrane liners to keep the waste water tight and support mechanical loads,
- a monitoring system,
- a leachate (waste waster from the landfill) collection and treatment station,
- special cells in which waste are disposed of in (daily), and
- venting of generated methane gas (sometimes collected to produce electricity)

Special operations of a sanitary landfill include:
- waste recording,
- strict control over allowed and disallowed waste,
- daily covering of waste,
- compaction of surface covers,
- provision to cover and close, and
- ground water control
- regular monitoring during and after closure.

Energy Recovery
- A decision or not to recover methane gas for space and water heating and electrical
production

One of the advantages of the sanitary landfills is the limited environmental impact (no odours, no
animals, and no fires), significantly reduced health risks and better control over waste than
uncontrolled landfills.

Landfill operation, investments and financial costs

Landfills consume precious land and are in this sense non-sustainable. Further, sanitary landfills
are costlier to build and operate than uncontrolled landfills. From an analysis of landfill cost, it is
reported that in Germany, it cost 40 Euros per tonne to landfill waste (not including taxes) and for
both Craiova and Arad in Romania, 15 Euros per tonne. These costs do not include collection cost,
so that a landfills distance from generators could cost from approximate 8 Euros per tonne to 30
Euros per tonne, depending on distance. Finally, some of the larger landfills also recover methane
gas for electric generation. Investment, operating cost and revenues are not here included,
although these can be assumed to financially break-even or create a small profit, depending on
local conditions.

The Regions three sanitary landfills reportedly charge their customers tipping fees of less than 10
/t of delivered waste. There is an obvious a gap between the minimum cost of 12 /t presented in
the table below and the actual tariffs.

Table 6.9: Cost of Landfills
Item Cost Comments
Financial Cost 2 / 7 Euro / tonne Depends on interest rates and grant
funding.
Construction
Cost
5 / 10 Euro / tonne
- 42% civil works
- 24% Barrier system,
gas and water
collection
- 8% specific site
requirements
- 8% leachate
treatment
- 7% Infrastructure
- 11% Machinery
Cost can vary, depending on size, location
and the level of sophistication. As an
approximation, it can be assumed that
approximately 1 tonne of MSW per m
3
of
Landfill. COST IS given without energy
recovery. Other factors include access
roads, plains or mountains, other onsite
facilities for composting, sorting,
construction / demolition waste.
Operating Cost 2 / 5 Euro / tonne Depends on labour rates. Romania, at
present, would be on the lower side.
Source: Consultants analysis of recent landfill construction cost in Serbia and Romania (ISPA
projects)

As a further note, vigorous pre-sorting of waste is necessary to meet the Packing Waste Recovery
Objectives and the reduction of Biological Waste allowed for land filling intermediate targets.
Finally, landfills which are not equipped with gas collection and thermal recovery generate
significant amounts of methane gas (approximately 50% of the landfilled bio-mass), that, if
uncollected significantly contribution to global warming gases, given that methane has 23 times the
warming power as CO2.

In view of above cost and MSW targets and objectives, a least cost strategy would be for Romania
to separately collect or sort (or a combination of the two) most green and some biological waste,
package materials, WEEE, end-of-Life vehicles, bulky waste, paper and cardboard, glass, metals,
construction waste, and household hazardous waste and not allow these into landfills. Such
policies would extend landfill life; help meet intermediate targets of package material reuse, and
recycle and biodegradable waste reduction targets for landfills. Assuming that selective collection of
waste fractions is implemented, a reduction of 33 to 50% of landfilling quantities and needed
capacity would be achieved yielding a significant savings in landfill investment for added future
capacity.

Other cost efficient solutions, currently implemented in Region 2 SW include:
- consider transfer stations for locations greater than 50 km with high volumes (note: direct
trucking for larger distances may still be more attractive for smaller volumes),
- give preference to flat plain locations with easy highway or road access over hillside or
isolated sites. These locations are costly to build and operate, i.e. the access road may cost
more than the landfill, future transport cost will be higher).

Although the Landfill must still comply with Romanian regulations, it is often cheaper to technically
provide for a weakness (by building a higher berm or importing clay), than to choose a far away,
isolated, but technically ideal site.

Still many costly errors are committed in the location of landfills. It is suggested that:

- the EIA/Feasibility Study gives careful consideration to the economic (least cost) sitting of a
landfill (not just geology/hydrology),
- not to base decisions purely on possible EU funding - EU funding will only partly cover the
investment cost of a landfills first cells, a small part of the landfills total cost. Later, the County or
Commune may be left with an expensive to operate and expand landfill that may be beyond its
means, and
- remember that it is no coincidence that most PPPs ( private sector operated) landfills in
Romania are near a Countys major city, located on a flat plain, with easy road access. Costly
political solutions should be avoided.

6.7 Introduction of three waste management configuration

The number of different possible operating schemes and treatment options for MSW is limited by
current technical and economic consideration as well as targets earlier defined in Section 3. The
targets are related to the separate collection of packaging waste and the diversion of biodegradable
waste. The valid treatment options are limited to composting, selective collection, in the first faze,
followed by MBT and incineration for targets reduction of biodegradable waste through landfilling
disposal.

The 3 different operating schemes are related to the years 2007, 2010 and 2013.

Waste Management Options: Material Flows

1
st
Case : 2010 More collected waste using composting and selective collection;
2
nd
Case: 2013a Waste collection, composting, selective collection, MBT, and
3
rd
Case: 2013b Waste collection, composting, selective collection, incineration treatment

Summary:

The 1
st
Case

presents waste flows, for which composting and separate collection of waste fractions
is realised. Until 2010 the objectives for biodegradable waste must be fulfilled by implementing the
compulsory strategy of waste reducing with 25%.

The 2
nd
and 3
rd
Case take into consideration the treatment necessities, in order to reach the targets
defined for 2013 concerning the quantities of biodegradable and packaging waste disposed on
landfills. There are used 2 treatment alternatives, MBT and incineration. In this case there is a
discussion on which is the best practice of the 2 methods.


6.7.1 The 1
st
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, garden and parks,
food waste composting and disposal 2010

The present Case will be analysed for year 2010, when the region will progressively implement the
following:
1. The quantity of biodegradable waste reduction with 25%
2. Selective collection of packaging waste, construction of sorting stations inside of the
landfills enclosure or locations like REMAT, and
3. Selective collection of green waste, construction of composting stations,
4. Construction of sanitary landfills and closure of noncompliant ones.

Collection of 80% of rural waste until 2009, and 100% of urban waste until 2013

Fig. 6.21: Region 2 - 1
st
Case: 2010 Waste treatment flow through composting, selective
collection, sorting

The above mentioned, indicates the quantities of recycling waste separately collected, sorted and
composted for mixed MSW. The process is recuperating 269 kt of separated fractions (including 68
kt of packaging waste) and 155 kt biodegradable waste transformed in compost. During this
process, 155 kt biodegradable waste has been transformed in order to reach the targets in 2010
for disposed biodegradable waste and packaging waste recovery. It is estimated, that targets to be
Region 2 - 1
st
Case: Municipal Solid Waste Generation 2010:
Total MSW Generated: 1024kt

Separate Collection Mixed Collection
Green waste
from garden, parks
and markets
Packaging Waste
Separate
Collection

Screening
Homogenizing
Sorting
Bailing
Composted
biodegradable waste
155kt
Wholesaler: 114kt
Other fractions
68kt
Landfill
708 kts, (467 kt
biodegradable)
-25% vs. 1995 (base: 623kt)
Residues
reached in 2010 on collected waste from urban and rural areas are to be reached and the
remaining waste will be diverted through sanitary landfilling.

Although it had been applied only the sorting and composting process, the Regions counties
should invest considerable sum in equipment, as it is detailed in Chapter 7.

6.7.2 The 2
nd
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, green and food
waste composting, MBT, landfilling disposal

The 2
nd
Case, defines the quantities that are to be treated, in order to reach the 2013 targets,
concerning collected waste (~ 98% from the total waste quantity), reduction of biodegradable waste
(50% vs. 1995) and recycling of packaging waste (recovery of 60%, recycling of 55%). Taking into
consideration that packaging waste and other recycled and composted fractions are not helping to
reach the targets, on the reduction of biodegradable waste quantity, further treatment it is
necessary for packaging and similar to household waste, before final disposal. In this case are
defined the necessary capacities for bio-mechanical treatment.

Residues

Fig. 6.21: the 2nd Case: 2013 Separate and mixed waste collection, green and food waste
composting, MBT

Region 2 2
nd
Case: Municipal Solid Waste Generation 2013:
Total MSW Generated: 1048kt

Green Waste
from packs, garden,
markets, street and
household
Packaging Waste
Separate
Collection

MBT (- 149 kt from
biodegradable waste)
Screening
Homogenizing

Sorting
Bailing

Biodegradable in
compost 163 kt

Wholesalers :190
kt packaging,
Other fractions
98kt
Landfill
448kt (312 kt biodegradable)
- 50% vs. 1995 ( base: 623kt)
The above mention analysis indicates that there is necessary a simple bio-mechanical treatment
installations, with a total treatment capacity of 370 kt/year (149 kt/0.4) for municipal waste, as a
supplement for the actual composting, transfer, sorting stations, in order to reach a reduction of the
disposed biodegradable waste quantity of 50%. For Region 2 it is necessary a capacity of bio-
mechanical treatment described in Chapter 7 and 8.

6.7.3 3
rd
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, garden, parks, food
waste composting, incineration, residues landfilling

This last case presents for Region 2 SE the necessary capacity, of energetic waste recovery
installation for 2013. This installation will be used after the existing composting and sorting
alternatives have been exhausted.

Fig. 6.22: 3
rd
Case: Separate and mixed waste collection, garden, parks, food waste
composting, incineration, residues landfilling

Results from the above analysis indicates that a treatment and thermal recovery installation will be
needed, with a capacity of 225 kt/year for municipal waste, in order to reach the targets for
biodegradable waste.
Green Waste
from parks, garden,
market, household,
street waste

Packaging Waste
Separate
Collection

Treatment of 225 kt in an
incinerator
~45kt road ballast
~125kt biodegradable waste
Screening
Homogenizing

Sorting
Bailing

Biodegradable in
compost 163 kt

Wholesalers :190
kt packaging,
Other fractions
198kt

Landfill
462kt (312 kt biodegradable)
- 50% vs. 1995 (base: 623kt
Region 2 3
rd
Case: MSW Generation, 2013:
Generated MSW: 1071 kt

It must be mentioned that in these installations are to be treated only a quarter of the municipal
waste from Region 2, as biodegradable waste, with higher efficiency then bio-mechanical
treatment. In addition this installation can generate electric and thermal energy, used for population
heating, decreasing the treatment cost up to 30%.

This new efficiency may lead eventually to one or two new installations, in Constanta or Galati/
Braila, which already have an extended urban heating system, and which are producing the great
majority of waste in Region 2.

In addition, there is a proposal for plastic and packaging waste co-incineration in a cement plant
from this region. This option is considered like a possibility for energetic recovery of plastic and
packaging waste. A feasibility study should be accomplished in order to determine the optimal
solution.


7 Calculation of needed capacity for waste management

7.1 Projects concerning waste management

During the period of RWMP elaboration there have been identified the existing projects, at regional
level concerning waste management, which were identified in the following table:

7-1: List of proposed projects for Region 2
Beneficiary Name of the project Financing
Braila county
Ianca Local Council Composting station for
biodegradable waste, located in
Ianca
Financing scheme Phare CES
2004 Investment scheme for
small waste management
projects
Buzau county
SC RER SERVICII
ECOLOGICE SRL
Construction of a second cell for
household waste in Glbina
Environmental Fund
Constanta county
Limanu Local Council Selective collection system and
transfer station of household waste
in Limanu, Vama Veche, 2 Mai,
Hagieni touristic area
projects
Medgidia Local Council Rehabilitation of the municipal
collection and transport waste
system
projects
SC ECO FIRE SISTEMS
SRL Constana
Ecological incineration systems,
foreseen with cooling installation
and gas treatment. The installation
will be located on SC ROMPETROL
RAFINARE SA platform and
hazardous and hospital waste will
be incinerated, with a final capacity
of 10000 tone/year (in a first stage
the capacity will be of 6000
tone/year)
Environmental Fund
Galati county
Galati County Council Integrate Waste Management
System for Galai (ISPA no.
2003/RO/16/P/PE/027)

ISPA* Programme
Tg. Bujor Local Council Waste composting station in
Tg.Bujor
projects
Tecuci Local Council Household waste recovery,
composting platform, sorting and
transfer station
projects
Ivesti Local Council Improvement of collection and
transport waste system in commune
Ivesti

projects
Mstcani Local Council Ecologic platform for waste
collection and slurry and recycling
material
GD 7/2006
Sapard
Tulcea county
Tulcea Local Council Selective collection of packaging
waste
Eco Rom Ambalaje SA
SC Eco Rec SA Ilfov
county,Popeti Leordeni,
work pointTulcea
Regional landfill for municipal waste
of which industrial non-hazardous
waste and similar to household
waste
Entirely private capital
Vrancea county
Panciu Local Council Collection, selection and transfer
station
projects
Odobesti Local Council Waste management in Odobesti city Financing scheme Phare CES
projects
Vrancea County Council Technical Assistance for Projects
Proposals in Waste Management
System, Romania - Integrate Waste
Management System for Vrancea
county
ISPA**

* The project goal is to develop the environmental infrastructure, with the aim to improve, protect,
and mantein the environmental quality in Galati county and comprise the following main
components:
Technical Assistance for Management, Procurement, Publicitate, Supervision, Master
Plan and feasibility studies:
o Investigate the area and examination of Tighina landfill
o Preparation of the tender dossiers for works and equipment procurement
o Supervision of the operation work
o Institutional streingthening
o Public awareness campaigns
o Implementing the Public Private Partnership (PPP). As a result of the analysis on
the viable options for establishing a PPP, including the legal aspects, the
municipality decided to sign to different concession contracts, one for waste
collection and transport of waste and the second one for operating the landfill.
The collection and transport operator will be responsible for operating and
managing the waste collection system and the streets cleaning for the entire
municipality as well as for operating the sorting and composting stations and to
equip two compliant depositing points and implementing a selective collection
system.

Closure of the existing deposit and construction of a new complaint landfill. The new
landfill will be constructed in Tiighina. This new component will secure the area for
placement of a collection bridge for cell 1-4 (~18 ha). The operational programme was
estimated at 20 for all 4 phases.

Construction of a sorting and composting station and Green Points. The sorting and
composting station will be constructed on a 3 ha surface, the covered area beeing of 1.8
ha, Within the same component will be developed two compliant points for depositing
hazardous domestic waste and of the dry recyclable waste.

Acquisition of equipment for sorting and collection points will be implemented a selective
collection system for dry recyclable waste and of organic waste for the entire city. 1613
containers and 20 collection vehicles will be purchased in order to improve the transport
infrastructure, which serves the entire population of Galati city.

** This project is under development of the Master Plan, the measures foreseen in this Master
Plan are the following:

Reduction of waste quantities through: awareness and information campaigns, end of pipe
waste reduction: institutional, commercial, industrial, providing for containers and waste
collection in rural areas, apply the pollutant pays principle
Streets sanitation and waste collection
o Kerbside collection in urban areas
o Manual/mechanical sanitation in urban areas
o Acquisition of mini vehicles and tractors and trailers
o Manual sanitation in rural area
Reuse/ recycling
o Selective collection of the mixed dry waste in urban areas
o Construction of recycling centres;
o Construction of sorting equipment ;
o Recycling by inhabitants in rural areas..
Biological treatment
o Organic waste composting;
o Bio- mechanical pre-treatment
o Independent composting in rural areas
Transport and landfilling system
o Construction of a ecological landfill in Haret (Mreti).
o Construction of a transfer station
o Direct transport of waste towards management centre..
o Rehabilitate the existing landfills to a level that minimises the environmental impact.
Public awareness
o Mass-media information campaigns
o Local educational actions
o Institutional strengthening development
Institutional strengthening development
o Organising Municipal Associations for regional waste management services
o Investment Fund Management at county level Services development through a
mechanism that is according to the enforced legislation
o Collection and transport

7.2 Collection and Transport

At present ~40.000 m of bin and container volume is available in Region 2 SE which is sufficient to
collect the waste once a week from the inhabitants who are connected to the collection service,

This number has to increase by connecting the rural inhabitants to the waste collection service. The
optimal distribution, type and number of containers and bins have to be planned in detail.

The most efficient and affordable system is to install one piece of 1,1 m container for 100
inhabitants which would require around 12.854 additional 1.1m containers for a number of rural
population of 1.284.5240. If the collection frequency is twice a week, the necessary number of
containers descries at 6.427. Because many settlements have a number of inhabitants which is
below 100 the type of additional bin and container volume is calculated with 3 container types 120 l
, 240 l and 1,1 m

The table below demonstrates the increasing volume of totally collected waste, which is assumed to
increase by 0, 8% /year. The calculation of the required additional collection container volume is
based on a collection frequency of twice a week.

Between 2007 and 2013 an additional container volume of 1324 m is required related to a 3 days
waste generation. The table shows a mix of different container types. Related to a 1.1m container
sizes around 1200 additional containers have to be installed. This figure does not include the
connection of the rural population to the collection service, which would require an additional
number of containers of around 7.096 m.

The lay out of the capacity of the vehicle fleet is consequently adapted to a collection frequency of 3
days.

The vehicle fleet needs additional 117 new compaction vehicles beside the replacement of old
ones. 1 vehicle can collect 250 m of mixed waste, every 3 days if the specific gravity of waste will
be 0,25 kg/litre, the compaction rate is assumed to be 0,5 and the vehicle absolves 3 collection trips
per day.

Table 7.1 Required bin and container volume
Region 2
Theoretical collection bin and container volume needed in the
future

2005 2007 2010 2013
Separate collected waste t/year t/year t/year t/year
Waste to be separately collected due to the
Targets
55000 83200 143400 191300
Separate collected waste 2003,2004, 2005 around
Additional tonnage required related to 2005 28200 88400 136300
Additional tonnage required between 2005,
2007,
60200 47900
2010 and 2013

Additional volume required m m m
Portion of component specific gravity
t/m
Paper and cardboard 0,22 0,64 9694 20694 16466
Glass 0,204 0,33 17433 37215 29611
Plastic 0,48 0,15 90240 288768 153280
Metal (Aluminium
cans)
0,089 0,1 25098 22337 42631
Wood 0 0,4 0 0 0
Total volume 142464 369014 241988
Additional Volume per
week
2740 7096 4654
Additional Volume per
3 days
1370 3548 2327

Mixed collected household
waste
713000 717000 724000 731000
Additional tonnage required 4000 7000 7000
Specific gravity 0,25
Additional volume
required
16000 28000 28000
Additional Volume per 3 days 154 269 269
Additional Volume per week 308 538 538
Rural area connection 3548 3548

Following the targets, the separate collection of packaging waste will grow between 2007 and 2013
by factor 3 or 4.

At present, the separate collection is assumed to be around 55.000t/year. This amount has to be
doubled until 2010 with 143.000 t/year and has to reach191.000 t in 2013 in order to match the
target.

The separate collection of the different packaging components can be done by door to door
collection or bring in collection via collection points or recycling yards.

An optimised system has to be adapted to the type of settlement and the willingness of the
inhabitants to engage them in the separation of packaging waste.

Different collection container can be applied to the different packaging components.

The general disadvantage of a bring in system is that it is totally depending on the engagement of
the citizens which can be quite different in regard to their social level. The collection containers of a
brig in system are placed in the public area and therefore they are always endangered by
vandalism. Because of missing discipline recognised in many countries the containers very often
are filled up with other waste types. This will require an additional sorting capacity.

The extension of the collection system in the rural area is estimated to be extremely costly,
because of the small population density, which reflex in great distances between localities,
combined with poor road conditions and a small quantity of waste at every collection point.

Therefore, the prognosis of container volume and collection vehicle capacity represents an
estimation, which has to be adapted to the reality if the collection system is more defined. The
calculated figures indicate a potential maximum investment into collection container and vehicles

As more, the collection system is able to separate the waste at the source, as less sorting
capacities are needed.

Table 7-2 Existing and additionally needed collection container volume
Existing Volume Required Volume Total
2005 2007 2010 2013 number
Mixed collection Additional required bin and container volume of
additional
No. Volume No. Volume No. Volume No. Volume container/
m/week m/week m/week m/week bins
12.020 0,12 m Standard bins 1.442 0
0,24 m Standard bins 0

1843 1,1 m Standard
container
2.027 140 154 254 269 245 269 629
10066 4.5 m Container with
a volume of
10m
3

45297
2467 1 m Other container 2467
24 m press container 0
26.396 Total volume
m
51.234 140 154 245 269 245 269 692
Sanitary services in rural area 3225 3548 3225 3548 7.096
154 3817 3817 7.788

Separate collection

1)door to door
collection

0,12 m Standard bins
0,24 m Standard bins
1,1 m Standard
container

2)bring in system 2) bring in system 0
-collection
points

2,5 m Standard
container
55000 548 1370 1419 3548 931 2327 7245
for all waste
types

-recycling
yard
0
10 m Container with
a volume of
10m
3

30 m Container with
a volume of
more then
15m
3

Total volume (
m)
66.267 1524 7365 6144
( additional)

Table 7-3 Prognosis of required collection vehicle capacity
Existing facilities Additional facilities
2005 2007 2010 2013
Type of Vehicle Number Capacity Total Number Capacity Total Number Capacity Total Number Capacity
of volume of
additional
volume of
additional
volume of
additional

vehicles per 3
days
vehicles per 3
days
vehicles per 3
days
vehicles
No m m/week No. m m/week No. m m/week No. m
Mixed collection
Compaction
vehicles
108 14 27.216 1 14 154 16 14 4086 16 14
2 axle , 19 t, 12-
14m
5 14 1370 28 14 7096 9 14
Tractors with
trailer
67 4 2.412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Skip hoist 34 7 2.412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hook lift 22 5 990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tipper 31 7 1953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
volume/week
34.713 1524 11183
6 44 25
Separate
collection
Compaction
vehicles
11 14 2740 28 14 3528 18 14
2 axle, 19 t, 12-14
m

Collection
capacity

of compaction
vehicle
252 m/3
days

Number of total additional vehicle

133


Both tables (7-2 and 7-3 ) present the figures for separate and mixed collection systems based
on standardized components, 1,1 m container and 14 m collection vehicles.

As all calculations are based on a 3 days collection frequency, the volume for the waste
generation of 3 days has to be calculated.

At present, a 3 days volume of 34.713 m of collection vehicle capacity is available. This
calculation is based on a vehicle capacity of 28 m, a compaction rate of 50%, specific gravity
of 0,25 kg/litre, 3 collection trips a day, pay load 7 t and 6 working days a week.

To cover the collection of the additional waste until 2013, 33 collection vehicles are needed
beside the replacement of old trucks for the collection of mixed waste.

For the separate collection of packaging components in total 100 additional vehicles are
needed till 2013. This capacity will cover the production of waste of around 2.317.307m/3
days. This figure is an estimation working with an average of the different specific gravities of
the packaging components.

The total required investments into the waste collection and transport are:

Table 7-4 Number of needed additional container and vehicles until 2013
Item Specific Volume Number
Bins and container
Mixed collection 1.1m
3
8462
1,1 m/2.5 m 5.082/2.033
Collection vehicles 14 m , 19 t 82

7.3 Transfer Stations

There are foreseen to be constructed 48 transfer stations in Region 2 SE.

- Braila 4 transfer stations
- Buzau - 8 transfer stations
- Constanta 12 transfer stations
- Galati - 8 transfer stations
- Tulcea there is predicted to be accomplished 8 transfer stations, without existing
funds, out of which 2 are foreseen for ARBDD
- Vrancea 8 transfer stations are planed to be realised, one of big capacity serving
140.000 inhabitants, and 7 of smaller capacity each serving 40.000 inhabitants. These
stations are proposed through an Assistance Project, under development and by the time
this plan Plan was finalised they have not proposed anything.

The transfer stations are needed because of poor road conditions, on which 14 m
3
vehicle may
not be used and mainly for substituting the closure of noncompliant landfills. Therefore it is
necessary to correlate the closure of noncompliant landfills, with the rehabilitation of the
transfer station in rural areas. There are necessary vehicles with a smaller capacity, adequate
to road conditions. It is not feasible the waste transport on higher distances then 35 km with
vehicles, thereby when the distance to landfill is higher, is suggested to be realised transfer
stations.

The decision of a transfer station location must fulfil the following criteria:
- vehicle type
- road condition/highway condition from the area connected to the transfer station
- waste quantity produced in the area connected to transfer station
- distance to landfill.

In order, to establish the number of transfer station, needed in Region 2, and also their location
and capacity, feasibility studies are requested

7.4 Treatment and recovery

The targets for 2010 and 2013 require a reduction of biodegradable waste of 156.000 and
312.000 t/year and a separate collection of packaging waste of 63.000 t/year, 114.000 t/year
and190.000 t/year for 2007, 2010 and 2013.

In 2010, if separate collection for biodegradable waste is organised, wherefore composting and
animals nutrition, there will not be necessary any other sorting station, the needed capacity for
2010, in order to reach the targets is of 156.000 t/year.

In 2013, even for a potential separate collection of 164.000 t of biodegradable waste, there is
still remaining a quantity of 72.000 t, for which a bio-mechanical installation is needed of
180.000 t.

In order to reach the targets for separately collected packaging waste , another additional
40.000 t will be necessary, beside the separately collected waste quantity and the ones treated
in the existing bio-mechanical installations. This can be achieved through a intensified selective
collection, or through an additional sorting capacity of 200.000t, considering that 20% of the
sorted waste will be packaging waste.

7.4.1. Target 2010
7.4.1.1. Biodegradable waste

In 2010 the disposed waste quantity must be decreased with 156.000t. This target may be
achieved if a certain quantity of paper/ cardboard is separately collected or recycled. This waste
flow is estimated at 80.000t.

The second waste flow, is considered to be the garden and parks waste flow, which will be
separately collected and composted.

There is needed a total composting capacity, for both flows, of 156.000t.

7.4.1.2. Packaging waste

The target 2010 for packaging waste requires that ~114.000 t/year of packaging waste have to
be recycled. Based on figures coming from the association of packaging producers and
importers as well information about metal and PET and plastic recycling it can be assumed
that the separate collection is at present on a level of around 50-60.000t/year. This separate
collection is mostly done by the informal sector and organised by a high number of small and
medium sized licensed recycling companies.

In 2010 a difference of 55.000t/year must be recuperated through selective collection of
packaging waste, coming from household.

Thus, it must be introduced a supplementary sorting capacity of 275.000t for packaging waste,
in order to generate the difference of 55.000t of packaging material which are missing in order
to achieved the 2010 targets, being known that only 20% from the sorted waste will be
packaging waste.

7.4.2. Target 2013
7.4.2.1. Biodegradable waste

The target for 2013 is with 312.000 t of biodegradable waste is very ambiguous. This amount is
2 times higher compared to the amount in 2010.

Following the same practice, it must be realised separate collection of a quantity of paper and
wood, as well garden and packs of approximate 164.000t.

In order to reach the target, the quantity of disposed waste must be reduced with an other
72.000t, which will require a bio-mechanical treatment capacity of approximate 180.000 t,
which means a significant investment of 50 million and operation costs between 30 and 50
/t.

7.4.2.2. Packaging waste

To meet the target for packaging waste in 2013, of 190.000t an intensified separate collection
is needed. Assuming that 60. 000 t of waste will come from a possible bio-mechanical
treatment and 90.000t will come from selective collection, an other additional 40.000t will be
needed. This can be achieved through an intensified selective collection or through a
supplementary sorting capacity of 200.000t, being known that only 20% from the sorted waste
will be packaging waste.

7.5. Composting and sorting stations

There are foreseen to be constructed 41 composting stations in Region 2 SE.
Brila county: 5 composting stations, one station being already approved for funding (
Ianca) and an Integrated Waste Treatment Station in Vdeni
Buzu county: 8 composting stations
Constana county: 12 composting stations and 12 sorting stations. In Costinesti is under
operation a transfer station with a capacity of 9t/hour.
Galai county: 8 composting stations ( 2 approved projects, excepting ISPA); a sorting
and composting station are included under ISPA Project
Tulcea county: 6 composting stations with 6 sorting stations
Vrancea county: 2 composting stations

7.6. Disposal

7.6.1. The capacity of new landfills

In the commitments assumed by Romania, within the negotiation process for EU accession, 11
compliant landfills for municipal waste are foreseen in Region 2 ,as follows: 2 landfills for Braila
county, 2 landfills in Buzau, 3 landfills in Constanta, 2 landfills in Galati county, 1 landfill in
Tulcea county, 1 landfill in Vrancea county.

At regional level, in 4 counties there are planed or under construction new complaint landfills,
sponsored through private funs or through projects which are benefiting of European finance.

Braila county started in 2002 with Muchea landfill, from which a first cell had been finalized
with a surface of 0.7 ha. Here are disposed annually 70.000t of waste.

In 2010, it is foreseen the construction of a new complaint landfill for municipal waste, in Ianca
locality with a capacity of 255.000t.

In Buzau county, in 2003 it had been finalised the first cell, of the complaint landfill Galbinas,
with a surface of 0.7 ha. This landfill has a capacity of 434.000 m
3
and receives annually
70.000 m
3
of waste. A second cell of the deposit will be realised with funds from the
Environmental Fund.

In 2010 is planed the construction of a second regional landfill, but whiteout financing sources
being identified.

In Constanta county, there are 3 complaint landfills for municipal waste.

1. the landfill from Ovidiu, which receives annually 130.000t of municipal waste (8 cells, 2
closed, 3 in design phase and 3 under construction)
2. the landfill from Constanta which serves to 53.000 inhabitants and 70-100.000 tourists/
year
3. the landfill from Mangalia/Albesti which is going to be operational in 2007, with a
capacity of 665.000t (from a total of 1.4 million t)

Galati county will extend the Tighina landfill with a cell, reaching a total of 4 cells, with a
capacity of 4.2 ha each and a volume of 920.000. Also for Galati county, is foreseen the
construction of a second complaint landfill in Tecuci.

In Tulcea county is foreseen the construction of one landfill.

In Vrancea county is foreseen the construction, in 2010, of a new complaint landfill with a
capacity of 140.000t, in Haret locality.

At regional level, there are 28 non complaint urban landfills, that will cease their activity
according to GD 349/2005, out of which 17 will cease their activity in 2006-1013. In Constanta
county there are 3 landfills which are to cease their activity in 2006.


Table 7.5 Landfills that are to be closed according to the negotiated timetable
County Landfill Name
Occupied Surface
(ha)
Estimated closure
year
Braila Ianca Landfill 0,4 2009
Buzau Nehoiu Mixed Landfill 0,1 2009
Buzau
Buzau Minicipal Mixed
Landfill
10 2010
Constanta Cernavoda Landfill 1,7 2012
Constanta Techirghiol Landfill 3 2012
Constanta Harsova Landfil 3 2010
Constanta Negru Voda Landfill 3,5 2006
Constanta Eforie Sud Landfill 4 2006
Constanta Albesti Landfill 4,5 2006
Constanta Medgidia Landfill 5,8 2006
Galati Umbraresti Landfill 0,087 2009
Galati Bazanu Beresti est Landfill 0,4 2009
Tulcea 1 Isaccea Landfill 0,12 2009
Tulcea Babadagi Landfill 0,5 2009
Tulcea Vararie Landfill 1,2 2007
Vrancea Odobesti Landfill 1,4 2009
Vrancea Golesti Landfill 3,5 2009


8 Cost Assessment for Region 2
8.1 Costing Assumptions
Investment costs associated with proposed improvements in waste management services have
been derived from a number of sources. Prices are to the greatest extent possible based on
recent project experience within Romania, combined with waste management expert
experience with costing facilities and equipment in connection with international projects.
It must be stressed that there exists a great amount of uncertainty regarding the precise level
of investment costs associated with proposed investments. At the current, regional Master
Planning, level of analysis, information is not yet available concerning the specific placement of
facility sites (landfills, transfer stations, sorting, composting etc). Therefore it is not possible to
make cost adjustments depending on site conditions (specific site conditions can have a
significant impact on investment costs for especially landfill investments). Operating costs,
especially transport costs, are also greatly influenced by site locations.
A greater level of certainty with regard to costing will be achieved in subsequent planning
phases in connection with feasibility studies and accompanying conceptual design and detailed
design on the basis of specific sites and identification of specific facility characteristics.
At the current stage in the planning process, investment costs are based on overall average
costs for various facility or equipment types.
A number of sources providing recent waste sector data in Romania have been consulted
including:
ISPA Financing Memorandums Agreed between the EC and Romania in connection
with waste management investment programmes in Arges, Bacau, Galati, Dambovita,
Piatra Neamt, Teleorman and Ramnicu Valcea;
Waste Management Masterplans elaborated in 2005-2006 for Bistrita Nasaud, Giurgiu,
Harghita-Covasna, Maramures and Vrancea
1
provides unit costs for both investments
and O&M across a range of activity areas;
FINAL REPORT, Technical Assistance for the Elaboration of the Environmental Cost
Assessment and Investment Plan, Phare Project RO 0107.15.03, drafted by
Consortium: Eptisa Internacional, Regional Environmental Centre, 29 September 2005.
Provides unit costs for both investments and O&M across a range of activity areas.
Additionally, a number of sources providing standard unit costs in connection with international
waste management investment programmes have been consulted, including:
Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU, Eunomia research and consulting
on behalf of Ecotec. This report provides price comparisons within waste management
for EU15 countries in 2001 for all phases of the waste management cycle;

1
These plans were drafted within Technical Assistance for project preparation in the waste sector,
Romania Europeaid/119085/D/SV/ROMANIA by the Royal Haskoning/ERM and I Group consortium.
Recycling/sorting and transfer station costs estimates were found in D. Hogg and J
Hummel (2002) The Legislative Driven Economic Framework Promoting Recycling in
the UK;
BMT costs estimates were found in VITO (2001) Vergelijkning van Verwerkingsscenario
Voor Rest fractie van HHA en Nietspecifiiek Categorie II Bedrijfsafval, Eindrapport.
The above-mentioned Waste Management Master Plans elaborated in 2005-2006 for Bistrita
Nasaud, Giurgiu, Harghita-Covasna, Maramures and Vrancea proved a valuable source in
estimating investment costs. This source offers the advantage of providing very recent, locally
applicable unit costs for investments and operating costs. The Master Plans were only just
approved in Summer of 2006 and unit cost estimates appear to be accurate enough for
regional planning purposes. The Master Plans cost estimates are based on a range of unit
costs for a range of waste management activities - typically costs per person served or costs
per ton.
In addition to the above sources, in many cases cost estimates are based on the internal
estimates provided by project Waste Management Experts, based on their extensive
international project experience
The entire range of Investment and Operating & Maintenance unit cost assumptions utilised
can be seen in Annex 8-1.

8.2 Costs of Proposed Regional Investments

Proposed waste management investments are detailed in Chapter 7. Investment Units within
each major category of service (collection, transport, treatment etc) are summarised and
presented in Annex 8-2.
Taking as a reference point the proposed investment programme for the region, and the
aforementioned unit cost guidelines, the following investment costs have been estimated. The
total programme represents investments of EURO 79.7 million distributed between 2007 and
2013. Beyond 2013, annual replacements for containers of approximately Euro 400 thousand
will be necessary. This figure does not include already financed ISPA investments in Galati.
Table 8-1. Investment Cost Summary for Region 2 (2007-2013)
Comment Units
Unit price
Euro
TOTAL
Euro 000
Collection & Transport
Activities

Collection Points 31 10000 310

Containers/bins 11374 7985
metal euro container 1
m3 7080 400 2832
metal euro container 2.5
m3 4294 1200 5153

Collection Equipment 132 21780
Collection Vehicles 132 165000 21780

Waste Management
Activities

Transfer Stations
30,000 t
capacity 22 2200

Sorting/Treatment
Investment 43 2643

Sorting Plant (s)
65000 t
capacity 19 20,48 1331
Composting Area
39,000 t
capacity 24 33,63 1312

Landfill Investment 12 40395
landfill 1 4.1 m t capacity 9,3 38595
Dozer 4 150000 600
Compactor 4 150000 600
Excavator 4 150000 600

Landfill Closure 29,4 hectares 150000 4410

TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 79723
Note: The total does not include approved ISPA investments. This is presented separately
below.
Apart from investments estimated above, there is an approved ISPA project
2
in Region 2
(2003/RO/16/P/PE/027) - Integrated Solid Waste Management System in GALATI and
Surroundings, with a value of 23 million out of which the ISPA Grant is 17.25 million. An
indicative cost breakdown is provided in table below.

Table 8-2. Indicative cost breakdown for Galati ISPA Project
I TEM:

TOTAL
COSTS
I NELI GI BLE
COSTS
TOTAL
ELI GI BLE
COSTS

Planning/Design fees 624.260 0 624.260
Land purchase 375.000 375.000 0
Site preparation 1.074.954 0 1.074.954
Main works 7.457.142 0 7.457.142
Plant and machinery 8.713.218 0 8.713.218
Technical assistance 1.687.870 0 1.687.870
Supervision and
implementation
1.687.870 0 1.687.870
Contingencies (ca. 10%) 1.754.686 0 1.754.686
Tax/public levies 374.000 374.000 0
TOTALS
23.749.000 749.000 23.000.000
Source of the data: ISPA Measure No.: 2003/RO/16/P/PE/027., FINANCING
MEMORANDUM agreed between the European Commission and the Republic of Romania
Concerning the grant of assistance from the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-

2
ISPA Projects Approved by the Management Committee in June 2006
Accession to the following measure Integrated Solid Waste Management System in GALATI
and Surroundings in Romania.

8.3 Affordability Implications of Proposed Investments
Waste Management system improvements will have tariff implications for end-users. The
precise impacts upon user tariffs throughout the region must be determined through feasibility
studies for specific projects and investment programmes (with due consideration for
characteristics of specific sites of treatment/landfill facilities and transfer stations where
applicable).
Specific future user tariffs to be applied throughout the region are a function of a number of
factors, including but not limited to the following:
existing cost structures of service providers;
level of existing tariffs applied throughout the region and adequacy of existing tariffs to
fully cover costs (both O&M and investments);
waste characteristics within specific service areas and distribution of waste
generated/collected between households and non-households;
depreciation costs of all existing assets and proposed investments;
annual asset replacement needs (i.e. useful remaining lives of existing assets);
financing structure for new assets and level of existing debt service costs within the
systems;
user payment performance (bad debt levels, and timeliness of user payments);
detailed investment plans (accurate costing of all investment components, based on
specific sites of facilities and fully cost considering foreign/local split, contingencies,
inflation etc);
detailed operating costs taking as a point of reference the existing cost structure and
adjusting for impacts from proposed investments and operational/procedural changes;
It can be expected that a degree of variation in tariffs will be seen throughout the region as
service providers face varying cost structures (particularly with regard to local collection
activities for which costs will vary depending on collection methods used, density of population,
frequency of collection, transport distances to landfill etc).
It is outside the scope of the current regional plan to assess the specific tariff consequences of
needed waste management investments throughout the region. The scope of the current
analysis is upon identification of over-arching system needs; detailed assessments of financial
feasibility/sustainability and tariff consequences must be a addressed in subsequent feasibility
study analyses involving detailed technical assessments of systems and facility sites and
detailed financial assessments of waste management companies.
Within the context of the current Regional Plan it is only possible to comment generally upon
tariff implications for the system as a whole.
8.3.1 Macro Affordability
Of principal concern is that waste management systems are able to provide services that are
affordable to, especially, household consumers. While, for the reasons stated above, it is not
possible at this stage of the analysis to determine specifically the tariff implications for
households throughout the regional service area, it is possible to make a general assessment
of overall, macro, affordability levels before and after implementation of proposed system
investments.
The aim of affordability analysis, at this stage of regional master planning, is to determine the
approximate overall threshold tariff that can be supported by the population.

Affordability is taken to mean the capacity of the users of waste management services to pay
for those services without jeopardizing their ability to meet other basic needs. It is important to
identify users ability to pay in assessing the economic affordability of waste services (the
customers solvency). A solvency indicator is used to gauge whether or not household income
is sufficient to cover the increased costs of waste services without seriously prejudicing its
ability to pay for other basic needs. A household is considered unable to pay service charges
when this would require a reduction in expenditures on other such essential goods and
services.

According to waste management industry standards, the acceptable affordability threshold for
waste management services is approximately 1.5% of average household income levels i.e.
monthly waste management costs for an average household should not exceed 1.5% of
household monthly income levels (where costs should cover the entire cycle of waste services
collection, transport, sorting, treatment and disposal). We note, however, that although such
a criterion is useful for developing an overall waste management strategy, the formulation of
tariff policy must recognize that the incomes of many households are below the average. On
account of the financial hardship being suffered already by such households, it is imperative to
ensure that policy measures are in place to protect such users from having to pay charges that
are high relative to their incomes.

The macro-affordability assessment is made upon the basis of average household income
levels within the region. Official statistics are available regarding household income levels for
Romania as a whole and for major regions, as determined through household surveys. Latest
available data is for the year 2004. Considered are incomes from various sources including
both cash income and income from in-kind sources (trade of goods services and value of home
grown vegetables, home produced goods etc).

A specification of income in Region 2 is presented in the following table.

Table 8-3. Income level for Region 2 (2004)

Households of:
Region 2

Total
households
Employees Farmers Unemployed Pensioners
ROL, monthly per person
Total
income
3293985 3997144 2506825 2112122 3171159
Percentage
Money
income, of
which:
75,3 85,4 48,7 73,6 70,0
Gross
salaries and
other salary
rights
41,3 73,9 6,3 27,6 16,9
Income from
agriculture
4,7 0,7 25,9 4,6 4,0
Income from
non-
agricultural
independent
activities
3,6 1,1 1,7 3,3 1,3
Income from
social
provisions
20,2 5,8 11,2 21,0 43,0
Income from
ownership
0,4 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,4
Equivalent
value of
income in
kind
obtained by
employees
and
receivers of
social
provisions
2,8 3,7 1,1 2,4 2,5
Equivalent
value of
consumption
of
agricultural
products
from own
resources
21,9 10,9 50,2 24,0 27,5
Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 2005; Income Specification, 2004

For the purpose of the current analysis it is assumed that future income levels will increase by
the growth rate of GDP in each region. Forecast GDP growth rates for the 2006-2009 period
have been elaborated for Romania as a whole and for all major regions by the Romanian
Commission for Prognoses and are presented in the table below. Reflected in the table is a
simplifying assumption that the annual growth rate beyond 2009 will trap down to 5%, and
remain at 5% in 2011 and beyond per year in all regions.

Table 8-4. GDP Developments, annual % change

Actual Actual Actual
National Commission for
Prognoses and Forecast
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Romania 5,2 8,4 4,1 6,0 6,2 6,3
1. NORD - EST 6,7 5,7 2,2 5,8 6,1 6,5
2. SUD - EST 5,0 10,3 2,6 5,9 5,9 6,2
3. SUD 6,5 10,6 3,7 6,0 6,0 6,1
4. SUD - VEST 11,3 9,1 2,6 6,1 5,8 6,0
5. VEST 9,6 8,5 5,6 5,8 5,7 5,9
6. NORD - VEST 8,0 6,3 2,6 5,4 5,9 6,2
7. CENTRU 4,7 8,4 3,8 5,7 5,9 6,0
8. BUCURESTI -1,9 8,7 7,3 6,6 7,1 6,8
Source of the data: National Commission for Prognoses and Forecast and consultant estimate

Taking as a point of reference 2004 income levels, and adjusting for regional GDP forecasts,
the acceptable threshold monthly waste management costs can be calculated for each region.

Table 8-5. Affordability threshold for waste management, in Romania, EURO per
month/per person
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Romania 1,47 1,53 1,62 1,72 1,83 1,94 2,05 2,15 2,26 2,37
1. NORD - EST 1,35 1,38 1,46 1,55 1,65 1,75 1,85 1,94 2,04 2,14
2. SUD - EST 1,32 1,35 1,43 1,51 1,61 1,70 1,80 1,89 1,98 2,08
3. SUD 1,34 1,39 1,47 1,56 1,66 1,76 1,85 1,95 2,04 2,14
4. SUD - VEST 1,38 1,42 1,50 1,59 1,69 1,79 1,89 1,98 2,08 2,18
5. VEST 1,57 1,66 1,75 1,85 1,96 2,08 2,19 2,30 2,42 2,54
6. NORD - VEST 1,55 1,59 1,68 1,78 1,89 2,00 2,11 2,22 2,33 2,44
7. CENTRU 1,53 1,58 1,67 1,77 1,88 1,99 2,10 2,21 2,32 2,43
8. BUCURESTI 1,91 2,05 2,19 2,34 2,50 2,65 2,80 2,94 3,08 3,24
Source of the data: Romanian Yearbook of Statistics and consultant estimate

For Region 2, affordable monthly costs increase from 1.32 Euro to 2.08 Euro between years
2004 and 2013. Affordability thresholds are highest in Region 8 (Bucharest) where maximum
acceptable monthly charges exceed national averages by roughly 30%.

Ideally, distinctions could be made between income and affordability levels in urban and rural
areas. Unfortunately, regional level income data is not available which distinguishes between
households in urban and rural areas. However, the Rural Development Study of Romania
(2003) suggests that income levels in rural households are approximately 85% that of urban
households, as can be seen in the table below.

Table 8-6. Sources of income in Romania (2002)
Sources of income Urban Rural
Salary and Self employed income (Euro/month)
143 122
Salary and Self employed income (%) 61% 28%
Food Self-consumption, Sale of agro-foods &
livestock 11% 45%
Social protection aids 19% 20%
Other income 9% 7%
TOTAL 100% 100%
Source: The Rural Development Study for Romania - 2003

The most important source of income for households in the urban area is salary and incomes
from self-employed activities, followed by social protection aids. Self-produced food and other
agricultural products have a lower impact on the total income of urban households (11% of total
income).

In rural areas, the most important source of income is from agricultural activities undertaken by
the household (in both monetary terms and in kind); these activities account for 45% of total
income. Other main sources are salary and self employed income (28%) and social protection
aids (20%).

The results of the Rural Development Study can be used to roughly approximate rural
household affordability thresholds. In Region 2, rural households account for approximately
44.5% of the population
3
. It can be roughly approximated that affordability threshold for persons
residing in rural households range from EURO 1.20 in 2004 to EURO 1.90 in 2013 per month.

Table 8-7. Rural/urban split in Region 2 (on July 1, 2004)
Region As percentage of total

Inhabitants
/ km
2

Urban Rural
2. South - East 55,5 44,5 79,9
Brila
65,3 34,7 77,8
Buzu
41,4 58,6 81,2
Constana
71,1 28,9 101,1
Galai
56,9 43,1 139,1
Tulcea
49,0 51,0 29,8
Vrancea
37,8 62,2 81,2
Source: Data from Romanian Yearbook of Statistics., 2006

3
In 2004

8.3.2 Existing Tariff Levels

It is outside the scope of the current planning process to perform a systematic inventory of tariff
levels for all service providers in the region. However, presented in the table below are
example household tariff levels for waste management services applied by a range of service
providers in Region 2.

Tariffs applied to households in 2006 range from between 2.0 to 5.4 RON per person/month
(approximately Euro 0.6 1.5). This level represents a range of between 43%- 100% of the
estimated 2006 affordable threshold tariff of Euro 1.4 per person/month for households with
average incomes. The average weighted tariff in the region is estimated at RON 3,42 per
month (~Euro 1.0), which represents approximately 71% of the 2006 affordable tariff threshold.

In other words, there is affordable scope in 2006 alone for tariff increases of approximately 0.4
EURO per person per month for households with average income, and scope is expected to
increase annually with increased income levels.

Table 8-8. Tariff levels for waste management in Region 2 (2006)
Quantity collected
(30.06.2006)
Collection tariff
(including VAT)
out of which
Population Companie
s and
public
institutions
Tariff
for
landfil
ling
includ
ing
VAT
total
population Compa
nies
and
public
institutio
ns
Name of
the
Operator
RON/inha
b./month
RON/mc/m
onths
RON/
mc
mc mc mc
Brila 5,40 40,49 33,81 7545 5.690 1.855
Buzu 4,28 46,54 40,04 58615 49.882 8.733
Constana 3,00 69,00 38,64 74634 61.809 12.825
Galai 2,25 29,78 4,66 34.014 19.064 14.950
Focani 2,99 27,47 9,95 69849 42.754 27.095
Tulcea 4,00 39,00 10,00 47034 47.034
Tecuci 1,98 28,7026 6,0095 10.896 10896
Average
tariff
Reg. 2
3,42

Source: Data from ANRSC, 2006


8.3.3 Tariff Impacts of Proposed Investments

Simple cash flow projections have been elaborated considering the incremental investment
costs and operating & maintenance cost impacts of the proposed investments in waste
management services in the region. Considered only are the costs associated with the
preferred technical alternative as defined in Chapter 7.
It must be stressed that considered only are incremental costs of proposed investments over a
2006-2025 planning period, i.e. the additional investment and operating cost impacts
(increase/decrease) of the proposed regional waste management improvements. The existing
costs associated with operating waste management services within the region are held outside
of the analysis and are assumed to be held constant. It is assumed that existing tariffs are
sufficient to cover annual replacement costs of baseline (pre 2007) assets (containers, vehicles
etc).
The cash flow projections are presented in Annex 8-2.
The analysis can be characterised as follows:
elaborated on a cash basis, i.e. it is assumed that all investments and operating costs
are to be financed by cash as they arise. Accounting depreciation will not be
considered. Any asset replacements needed during the planning period will be
considered on a cash basis;
elaborated in real terms, fixed 2006 prices adjusting only for real price increases over
the planning period;
consider incremental investment costs over the planning period (as locations and
specific characteristics of facilities are not yet known, these costs are based on
average, standard unit costs);
consider O&M costs for various categories of activities: collection,
sorting/recycling/transfer, transport and disposal. (costs for individual components
based to the greatest extent possible on standard unit costs). Only incremental costs
are considered;
do not consider investment costs for previously approved ISPA projects for which
investment financing has been committed. O&M costs of ISPA projects are however
considered.
consider waste projections over the planning period.
The result of the analysis is a calculation of the overall NPV associated with the incremental
costs of implementing waste management service improvements (considering both invest and
O&M costs over the planning period).

Also calculated is the NPV/per ton waste over the planning period as well as NPV per
person/month.
It is important to stress that this figure is not the same as an actual tariff to be applied to
consumers the actual tariff to be applied will be a function of many factors including upon
local conditions, financing method for investments, user payment performance etc.
The NPV of Investment per person/month represents the overall average cost per
person/month of the investments over the planning period. Assuming an investment
programme fully cash financed through user tariffs, the average impact of the investment
programme would be 0.48 Euro per person per month.
It is however very likely that investment will be supported by EU and national grant supports.
Assuming 70% grant supports towards investments (and O&M fully financed through tariffs),
the average impact of the investment programme would be 0.36 Euro per person per month.
Table 8-9. Average impact of the investment programme in Region 2
Discount rate 5%

NPV of Investment Actions (EURO 000) (investment and
O&M cost) 188.020

NPV of Waste Flows (1000 t generated) 12.950
NPV of Waste Flows (1000 t collected) 12.676

Impact without EU support
NPV Invest/t waste generated (Euro) 14.5
NPV Invest/t waste collected (Euro) 14.8
Incremental NPV Invest Per Person Per Month (Euro) 0,48
Incremental costs as percentage of Affordability Threshold 21%
Needed Avg. Tariff as % of Afford Threshold during Planning
Period 63%
Impact with EU support
*)

investment grant support 70%
Incremental NPV Invest Per Person with grant support
(EURO) 0,36
Incremental costs as percentage of Affordability Threshold 16%
Needed Avg. Tariff as % of Afford Threshold during Planning
Period 58%
*)
EU support could be from EU Cohesion Fund; at present there is no commitment but this
could change in the future.
The overall tariff consequences of the proposed investments are, on average, within
acceptable affordable limits within the region during a 2007-2025 planning period. On average,
needed tariffs during the planning period are 63% of the affordability threshold when not
considering grant supports for investments and 58% of the affordability threshold if grant
supports are considered.
Affordability Threshold
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
E
u
r
o

P
e
r

P
e
r
s
o
n
/
M
o
n
t
h
Affordability Threshold, 1.5% of Average Income (Euro person/month)
Average Existing Household Tariffs
Necessary Tariffs without grant Support
Necessary Tariffs with grant Support

Figure 8-1. Affordability Threshold for Region 2

It should be stressed that the calculations above simply represent the per capita costs of the
proposed investments and do not consider the actual share of expenses to be allocated to
households or the consequences of cross-subsidies between consumer groups.

8.4 Annexes of the Chapter 8

Annex 8-1. Unit Cost Database

Investment No. Description Unit
Min Averag
e
Max
Influence Factors
1. INVESTMENTS FOR
COLLECTION AND
TRANSPORT

1.1. Investment for
collection in urban
areas

1.1.1. Investment for collection
points (construction of
fenced area for storing
waste containers)
euro/perso
n
5.20 6.35 7.50 Population scattering
level, number of
person addressed by
a collection point,
number of inhabitants
living in block of flats,
collection frequency
1.1.2. Investment for
containers (supply of
different types of
containers; size is
dependable of number of
inhabitants using one
container, selection at
source strategy, etc)
euro/perso
n
0.70 1.35 2.00 Collection strategy,
equipment (supply of
different types of
collection vehicles)
euro/perso
n
collection frequency,
households
scattering level, total
street lengths to be
covered, distance to
destination point
(WMC or TS)
1.1.4. Investments for brink
centers (construction of
fenced areas, covered
with asphalt or cement;
medium size
euro/perso
n
selection-at-source
level, urban areas
scattering level
1.2. Investment for
collection in rural
areas

Min Averag
e
Max
Influence Factors
points (construction of
fenced area for storing
waste containers)
euro/perso
n
4.00 4.50 5.00 Population scattering
level, number of
person addressed by
a collection point,
number of inhabitants
living in blocks of
flats, collection
frequency
containers (supply of
different types of
containers; size is
dependable of number of
inhabitants using one
container, selection at
source strategy, etc)
euro/perso
n
different types of
collection vehicles)
euro/perso
n
collection frequency,
households
scattering level, total
street lenghts to be
covered, distance to
destination point
(WMC or TS)
1.3. Investment for transfer
1.3.1. Investment for transfer
stations (constructions of
fenced areas, with a
ramp inside; collection
vehicles will use the
ramp to unload the
waste into larger
containers situated near
the ramp)
euro/perso
n
0.80 1.60 2.40 Transfer frequency,
distance to main
road, site
characteristics,
distance to electricity
supply
1.3.2. Investment for transport
vehicles (supply of large
capacity transport
equipment)
euro/perso
n
5.00 10.00 15.00 Transfer frequency,
distance from
transfer stations to
final WMC, road
condition
2. INVESTMENTS FOR
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
CENTER

2.1. Preparation of
technological platform

Min Averag
e
Max
Influence Factors
2.1.1. Investment for access
road construction of an
access road to the
facility, dimensioned for
the large capacity and
collection vehicles to
WMC)
euro/m
2
40.00 50.00 60.00 Existing access,
terrain topology
2.1.2. Investment for water
supply (connection to an
existing water network)
euro/m 35.00 37.50 40.00 Distance to nearest
available water
source, terrain
topology
2.1.3. Investment for own
water supply
(construction of own
catchments and water
supply system)
euro/unit 25,000 32,500 40,000 Availability of
underground water
sources, depth
2.1.4. Investment for sewer
connection (connection
to an existing sewerage
system)
sewer
connection/natural
receiving body,
terrain topology
2.1.5. Investment for electrical
power supply connection
to medium voltage
power lines)
medium level
electricity line,
topology
transformation point
(construction of a
transformer for lowering
the voltage)
euro/WMC 25,000 27,500 30,000 Installed power for
WMC
2.2. MBT Investment
2.2.1. Investment for sorting
plant (construction of a
facility comprising
magnetic bailer,
conveyor belt, automatic
sorting of various
recyclables, etc)
euro/t 30,000.
00
55,000.
00
80,000.00 Site availability,
proposed technology,
collection strategy
composting area
(construction of an
aerobic/anaerobic
composting facility and
endowment with various
mechanical equipment:
shredder, conveyor belt,
etc)
euro/t 15,000.
00
16,500.
00
18,000.00 Site availability,
proposed technology,
climacteric
conditions, collection
strategy
Min Averag
e
Max
Influence Factors
2.2.3. Investment for MBT
various equipment: front
loader, turning machine,
etc)
euro/plant 1,000,0
00
1,150,0
00
1,300,000 Received quantities
2.3. Landfill Investment
2.3.1. Investment for site
organization (organize
the necessary
earthworks for the next
landfill: shaping,
completion of natural
clay barrier, protection
dams, etc)
euro/m
3
1.50 5.75 10.0 Topographical and
geotechnical
conditions, existence
and quality of natural
clay barrier, distance
from available clay pit
2.3.2. Investment for insulation
(organize the insulation
layers according to the
technical norms:
drainage layer,
geomembrane, etc.)
euro/m
2
40.0 45.0 50.0 Topology, insulation
type
2.3.3. Investment for landfill
various equipment: front
loader, compactor, etc,
for an incoming waste
stream of maximum 350
t/day)
euro/landfil
l
1,000,0
00
1,150,0
00
1,300,000 Received quantities
2.3.4. Investment for leachate
treatment (construction
of a waste water
treatment unit for the
leachate arriving from
the landfill)
euro/m
2
100.0 150.0 200.0 Discharge conditions,
technological option
monitoring equipment
(construction of well for
monitoring the quality of
underground waters up
and down stream of the
landfill)
euro/landfil
l
10,000 12,500 15,000 Topography of the
landfill and
surrounding area,
geotechnical
conditions,
requirements of EPA
2.4. Annex facilities for waste
management center

2.4.1. Investment for weighing
bridge (construction of
an entry point to
measure the received
waste quantities)
euro/Wast
e
Manageme
nt
Componen
t
40000 45020 90000 Selected
technological option,
capacity
Min Averag
e
Max
Influence Factors
administrative building
(construction of a
building to be used by
administrative and
management personnel;
this will also comprise a
laboratory)
euro/WMC 75,000 162,50
0
250,000 Topographical and
geotechnical
conditions, laboratory
endowment
2.4.3. Investment for washing
station (organize an area
for cleaning the vehicles
arriving to the facility)
euro/WMC 25,000. 27,500.
0
30,000.00 Topographical and
geotechnical
conditions,
equipment type
maintenance workshop
(this building will also be
used as parking area for
the working equipment)
euro/WMC 70,000. 85,000 100,000 Topographical and
geotechnical
conditions,
equipment type
3. CLOSURE OF
EXISTING LANDFILLS
AND DUMPSITES

3.1. Closure of existing
authorized and non-
compliant landfills
euro/m
2
50.00 60.0 70.0 Topographical and
geotechnical
conditions, specific
environmental issues
3.2. Cleaning of illegal
dumping sites
euro/m
3
1.00 3.00 5.00 Deposited quantities,
scattering level of the
deposited waste,
access to the area
Source of the Data: FINAL REPORT, Technical Assistance for the Elaboration of the
Environmental Cost Assessment and Investment Plan, Phare Project RO 0107.15.03, drafted
by Consortium: Eptisa Internacional, Regional Environmental Center, 29 September 2005.
Annex 8-2. Regional Infrastructure for waste management in Region 2
Infrastructure elements
Unit
measure
Existing
in 2006
Under
construction
in 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
no. 1 1 1 3
Landfills to be closed Area (ha) 6,5 13 9,9 29,4
no. 1 1
New landfill 1
Capacity
1000 t 130 130 130 230 950 1170 820 720 4150
New landfill 2
Capacity
1000 t
New landfill 3
Capacity
1000 t
New landfill 4
Capacity
1000 t
Street sweeping
vehicles no.
120 l no. 15669
240 l wheel plastic
bins
no.

1,1 mc metal
eurocontainers
no.
23338 140 3470 3470 7080
2,5mc metal
eurocontainers
no.
8688 548 1419 2327 4294
Other types of
containers for waste
collection
no.
2454
Collection vehicle 1 no. 108 17 72 43 132
Unit
measure
Existing
in 2006
Under
construction
in 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Collection vehicle 2 no. 34
Collection points no. 10 10 11 31
no. 2 5 5 2 5 3 22
Transfer stations t/year 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 30000
no. 3 3 3 5 4 1 19 Manual transfer
stations t/year 5000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 65000
no. 1 3 4 5 6 4 1 24 Simple composting
stations t/year 9000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 39000
no. Advanced
composting stations t/year
no.
Incineration t/an
no. Bio-Mechanical
treatment
installations t/year
Nr. abnonati la
serviciul de
salubritate
no.

No. Population
connected to
sanitation services
no.

Total Population no.
Unit
measure
Existing
in 2006
Under
construction
in 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
no.
Dozer 1 1 1 1 4
Compactor 1 1 1 1 4
Excavator 1 1 1 1 4
Source: Data from EPA, ISPA Financing Memorandum and consultant estimate
*part of ISPA investment programme
Detailed calculation of the Investment Costs could be found in the Excel file attached to the Regional Waste management
Plan.

Annex 8-3. Unit costs in Urban and Rural areas, for waste management (/ton)
Waste Management Unit Unit cost (/ton)
Dense Urban Urban Rural
Investment O&M Investment O&M Investment O&M
Landfill 9.30 3.00 9.30 3.00 9.30 3.00
Composting facility 33.63 28.11 33.63 28.11 33.63 28.11
Incinerator 60.00 50.00 60.00 50.00 60.00 50.00
Sorting facility 20.48 30.72 20.48 30.72 20.48 30.72
Simple sorting unit for Construction &
Demolition (C&D) waste
3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
Bio-mechanical treatment unit with
Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)
22.31 32.02 22.31 32.02 22.31 32.02
Transfer station 0 0 0.16 2.53 0.16 2.53
Bulk haulage from transfer
Dry recyclables

2.63

4.21

2.63

4.08

2.87

4.42
Biodegradable 1.05 1.68 1.05 1.63 1.15 1.77
Residual 1.31 2.10 1.31 2.04 1.44 2.21
Glass 0.58 0.93 0.58 0.91 0.64 0.98
C&D waste 0.55 0.89 0.55 0.86 0.61 0.93
Waste Management Unit Unit cost (/ton)
Dense Urban Urban Rural
Investment O&M Investment O&M Investment O&M
Collection of glass from bring sites 4.10 4.21 4.10 4.21 4.10 4.21
Collection of dry recyclables from bring
sites
8.90 25.30 8.90 25.30 8.90 25.30
Collection of biodegradable waste from
households
0.74 3.00 0.74 3.00 0.74 3.00
Collection of dry recyclables from
households
9.00 30.00 9.00 30.00 9.00 30.00


Annex 8-4. UNIT COSTS FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE (/HA)

Closure in compliance
with landfill Directive
Investmen
t (/ha)
Spread cost
over (years)
O&M for
closed sites
(/year/ha)
Maintain O&M
for (years)
Dense Urban landfill 200,000 2 4500 20
Town landfill 150,000 2 2500 20

Closure not in compliance with
landfill Directive
Investme
nt (/ha)
Spread
cost over
(years)
O&M
(/year/ha
)
Maintain
O&M for
(years)
Dense Urban landfill closed prior to
2007
150,000 2 500 20
Town landfill closed after 2007 150,000 2 500 20
Rural landfill 13,488 1 0 0


Annex 8-5. UNIT COST CALCULATION FOR COMPOSTING FACILITY (/t)
INVESTMENT Investment
()
Payback
Period
(years)
Rate (%) Annualised
cost
(/year)
Unit
costs
(/t)
Land 414,000 7 29,000 0.73
Site development 320,000 25 7 27,500 0.69
Process buildings 6,153,000 25 7 528,000 13.20
Technical installations and
machinery
3,911,000 15 7 429,400 10.74
Mobile machinery 205,000 8 7 34,200 0.65
Electro technical
installations
1,237,000 15 7 135,900 3.39
Fees 1,065,000 20 7 100,500 2.51
Pre-financing 643,000 20 7 60,700 1.52
Total Investment 13,947,000 1,345,100 33.63
OPERATION,
independent of input
Percentage
(%)
Annualised
costs
(/year)
Unit
costs
(/t)
Process buildings 6,473,000 1 64,700 1.62
machinery
3,911,000 4 154,900 3.91
Mobile machinery 205,000 8 16,400 0.41
Electro technical
installations
1,237,000 2.5 30,900 0.77
Taxes and insurances 12,240,000 1 122,400 3.06
Management 188,000 10 18,800 0.47
Auxiliary materials 268,000 5 13,400 0.34
number /person
Labour 5.25 35,800 187,900 4.70
Total 611,000 15.28
OPERATION, input
dependent

Electricity 1,650
MWh/year
81.8/MWh 135,000 3.37
Fuel 25 m
3
/year 485.7/m
3
12,100 0.30
Treatment of residuals 100 Kg/t
input
4,000 t/year 91.5/t 366,100 9.15
Total 513,200 12.83
Total O&M 28.11


Annex 8-6. UNIT COST CALCULATION FOR GRATE INCINERATOR (/t)
INVESTMENT Investment
()
Payback
Period
(year)
Rate
(%)
Annualised
cost (/year)
Unit
costs
(/t)
Costs of land 368,000 7 25,700 0.13
Development of site 341,000 25 7 29,200 0.15
Construction costs 21,629,000 25 7 1,856,000 9.28
machinery
69,740,000 15 7 7,657,100 38.29
Electro technical installations 13,280,000 15 7 1,458,000 7.29
Fees 5,559,000 17 7 300,000 1.50
Pre-financing 7,279,000 17 7 676,000 3.38
Total Investment 12,000,000 60,00
OPERATION, independent of
input
Percentage
(%)
Annualised
costs (/year)
Unit
costs
(/t)
Construction 21,970,000 1 219,700 1.10
machinery
69,740,000 4 2,789,600 13.95
Electro technical installations 13,280,000 2,5 332,000 1.66
Taxes and insurances 105,357,000 1 1,053,600 5.27
Management 2,863,000 10 286,300 1.43
Auxiliary materials 3,341,000 5 167,100 0.83
number /person
Labour 80 21800 1,744,000 8,72
Total 6,592,000 32.96
OPERATION, input dependent
Process Water 51,200
m
3
/year
0.15/m
3
7,900 0.04
Gas 1,381,440 0.20 282,500 1.41
CaO 1000
ton/year
79.2/t 79,200 0.40
Ammonia 400 97.1 38,900 0.19
Treatment of slag 334 Kg/t
input
66,800
t/year
28.1/t 1,878,500 9.39
Treatment of ashes 8 Kg/t input 1,600 t/year 255.6/t 409,000 2.05
Treatment of Filters dust and
others
22 Kg/t
input
4,400 t/year 255.6/t 1,124,800 5.62
Total 3,820,800 19.10
Total O&M 52.06


Annex 8-7. UNIT COST FOR INVESTMENT IN TRANSFER STATIONS (/TON)

Investment for transfer station in Teleorman county 650,000
Town population generating waste 140,023 0.43 60,209.89 tones
Rural population generating waste 295,932 0.23 68,064.36 tones
Total waste quantity to be transferred in one year 128,274.3 tones
Lifetime of transfer station 30 years
Total waste quantity to be transferred in 30 years 3,848,228 tones
Unit CAPEX cost for transfer stations 0.168909 /tonne

Annex 8-8. UNIT COSTS FOR BULK HAULAGE FROM TRANSFER STATIONS (/TON)

municipal Urban rural
investment O&M investment O&M investment O&Ms
Dry recyclables 2.63 4.21 2.63 4.08 2.87 4.42
Biodegradable 1.05 1.68 1.05 1.63 1.15 1.77
Residual 1.31 2.10 1.31 2.04 1.44 2.21
Glass 0.58 0.93 0.58 0.91 0.64 0.98
C & D waste 0.55 0.89 0.55 0.86 0.61 0.93

Annex 8-9. ASSUMPTIONS TO CALCULATE UNIT COSTS FOR BULK HAULAGE FROM
TRANSFER STATIONS (/TON)

Investment
cost ()
Replacement
period
(years)
Source
information
30 m
3
haulage
vehicle
120,000
7 Bacau ISPA
300 days/year; 16 hours a day (2
shifts)
30 m
3
bins 7,500 5 Bacau ISPA 365 days a year
Loading
system 50,000 7 Bacau ISPA
365 days/year; up to 8 hours/day
operating

density
collected density for transfer
Dry recyclable 0.15 0.2
the metals can be reduced in
volume a great deal, but this is a
minor part of the load
Biodegradable 0.25 0.5 compaction effective
Residual 0.2 0.4 compaction effective
Glass 0.9 0.9
no change, glass broken when
loading into original containers


9 Implementation measures

The measures are connected with the specific objectives and targets.

Main objectives Specific Objectives Target/Deadline Measure Responsible
1. Regional policy development

1.1 Develop specific regional
/local regulations in compliance
with the national waste
management policy and
legislation in order to implement
an economically and
ecologically efficient integrated
system

1.2 Increase the effective
enforcement of the waste
management legislation

1.1.1 To develop a guideline for the
local development of waste
management organization in regard to
the proximity and subsidiary principle
1.1.2 To encourage the local
authorities to develop a strategy for a
joint waste management organization
in terms of collection, disposal and
separate collection in co-operation with
the private sector. ( Public Private
Partnership )
1.1.3 To make aware that a qualified
waste management is of biggest
importance for public health ( soil,
surface water and ground water
protection )
1.2.1 To increase the importance of the
legislations enforcement and control
the environmental authorities in charge
with the waste management.
1.2.2 To strengthen the co-operation
between the institutions like REPA,
National Environmental Guard and
County Council
1.2.3 To increase the efficiency of the
regional/county/local institutional

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

County Council will take
decisions in order to
implement the objectives
and targets described in
RWMP
Installation of a working
group to elaborate
guidelines for
implementation of the
Regional Waste
Management Plan
Planning and conduction of
awareness campaigns by
Local councils

Preparation of a program
for inspection

Definition of responsibilities
in accordance to the
legislation

See 1.2.2

MEWM
NEPA
REPA
LEPA
County Council
Local Council

Environmental
Guard
REPA, LEPA
County/Local
councils

MEWM
REPA, LEPA
County/Local
Councils

Main objectives Specific Objectives Target/Deadline Measure Responsible

1.3 Rising the efficiency of the
implementation of legislation in
the waste management field
structure by clear definition of
responsibilities.
1.3.1 To inform all stake holders
intensively about the environmental
legislation
1.3.2 To rise the importance of
monitoring and control activities done
by the competent authorities like
REPA, NEG in accordance to their
responsibilities.

Permanent

Preparation of periodical
workshops

Preparation of monitoring
plans

MEWM
Related Ministries
NEPA;
REPA,LEPA
Environmental
Guard
County Council
2. Institutional and
organisational aspects
2.1Develop the regional and
local institutions and their
organizational structure in order
to comply with the national
requirements

2.1.1 to develop the regional
institutions and to provide an efficient
institutional structure in regard to the
waste management aspects.

2.1.2 to strengthen the administrative
capacity of government institutions at
regional level with competences and
responsibilities for the implementation
of the legislation and the control of
waste management activities.
Permanent

Definition of tasks and
implementation of an
efficient and qualified
organisation

Organisation of training at
all
levels

MWEM, NEPA
3. Human resources
3.1 Assure the necessary
human resources in terms of
number and professional
qualification

3.1.1 To assure sufficient and well
trained staff and adequate equipment
at all levels in the public sector
regional/county/local
3.1.2 To design a training program for
regional and local institutions for :
- administrational affairs
- juridical affairs
- technical control and inspection of
facilities
- data recording

Starting in 2007

See 2.1.2

Planning of training courses
:
Administration
Juridical affairs
Technical control and
inspection
Data recording

MMGA, NEPA,
REPA, LEPA
County/Local
councils

- tendering of services Reporting
Tendering of services
4. Financing of the waste
management sector
4.1 Establish and use the
economical and financial
systems and mechanisms for
waste management observing
the general principles, mainly
the polluter pays principle and
the subsidiary principle

4.1.1 To develop an affordable waste
management system consisting of
collection, transport, recovery,
recycling, treatment and disposal.
4.1.2 To optimize the acquisition and
the application of all available national
and international funds (
environmental, private, structural and
other funds) for investment
Prepare a priority list for investments
adapted to the needs of the Region 2
4.1.3 To improve the municipal waste
management and develop economical
and financial mechanisms in order to
organise an integrated waste
management system based on
affordable fees which have to cover the
cost of a qualified collection, treatment
and a controlled disposal.
4.1.4 To encourage the use of all
economical and financial mechanisms
for special waste stream management
which means the separate collection of
batteries and accumulators, hazardous
waste from households, packaging,
electric and electronic devices and end
of life vehicles.
4.1.5 To initiate the installation of a
planning group, consisting of REPA
and Local Councils of the Region in
order to implement suitable mixed and
selective collection systems according

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Deadline .
2007

Installation of a working
group consisting of County
Council and the private
sector
Organisation of workshops
concerning the utilization of
funds in general and funds
after accession procedure.
Allocation of financing for
- project preparation
- feasibility studies
- co-financing

Preparation of an
investment plan for the
implementation of the
separate collection of
packaging, biodegradable
waste and specific waste
streams like hazardous
waste from households,
WEEE, end of life vehicles
Calculation of investment
and operation cost

Installation of a planning
group

County/Local
Councils
Private sector
Professional
associations
ANRSC

MWEM
NEPA, REPA,
LEPA
County/Local
Council

County/Local
Councils
Private sector
Professional
associations
ANRSC

MEWM
County/Local
Councils
Professional
associations
Entities with
responsibility to
develop the
strategy for
manufacturers
and importers

County and Local
Councils
to the type of settlement.

REPA, LEPA
Private sector

5. Awareness of the stake
holders
5.1 Promote information,
awareness and motivating
activities for all stake holders

5.1.1 To increase the communication
between all stakeholders

5.1.2 To organize and supervise public
education and awareness programmes
at all levels especially guideline for
teachers and information for children.

5.1.3 To utilize all available
communication channels ( mass
media, web sites, seminars, events )
for public information and awareness
addressed to specific groups of the
population and to support private units
which finance awareness campaigns
for the public

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Periodical organisation of
meetings of Local/County
Councils, Regional
Development Agency,
REPA, LEPA,
Environmental Guard
Initiation of information
campaigns at all levels of
population

Initiation of information
campaigns at all levels of
population

REPA, LEPA
Environmental
Guard
County/Local
Councils
Private sector

Professional
associations
Ministry of
Education
Environmental
Fund

Environmental
Fund
County/local
Councils
Private sector
Professional
associations
Ministry of
Education
6. Collection and reporting of
data and information regarding
waste management

6.1 Obtain complete and correct
data and information adapted to
the National and European
reporting requirements.

6.1.1 To introduce at
regional/county/local level the
recording and reporting system of data
regarding waste provided by NEPA

Permanent

Introduction of the recording
and reporting system
provided by NEPA.
Definition of a professional
structure in REPA, LEPA to

REPA, LEPA
Economic agents
Institutions
Local Councils
under NEPA co-
organise collection,
analyzing and validation of
data
ordination
7. Prevention of waste
generation

7.1 Minimize the waste
generation

7.1.1 To promote and encourage the
manufacturers to implement the
prevention principles.

7.1.2 To encourage the consumers to
apply the prevention principle

Permanent

Preparation of guidelines
for the Industry

Preparation of awareness
campaigns

MEWM, NEPA
Ministry of
Industry

NEPA, REPA,
LEPA
Local Councils
Professional
associations
Ministry of
Education
EcoRom
Ambalaje
8. Efficient waste management
systems

8.1 Use efficiently all technical
and economical facilities for
waste recovery

8.2 Support the development of
material recovery and recovery
by utilizing the thermal energy

8.1.1 To support the development of
the secondary raw material market and
promote the production and utilization
of products manufactured from
recycled materials.

8.1.2 To achieve a reduction of the
total waste quantity to be disposed by
optimized waste collection and
treatment facilities.

8.2.1 To promote material recovery of
7% by weight from domestic waste

Energetic recovery 10% by weight of

Permanent

2013

2010

2020

Preparation of information
for the commercial and
industrial sector about
secondary raw materials.

Periodical data collection
about
Collected and disposed
waste.

Conduction of a study about
the actual situation and
future possibilities of
material recovery in Region

Professional
associations
Private sector
Industry

Sanitation Agents
Landfill operators

REPA, LEPA
County/Local
Councils
Professional
domestic waste 2 associations
9. Waste collection and
transport

9.1 Assure that the capacity of
waste collection and transport
systems is adapted to the
number and waste generation
of the inhabitants.

9.2 Assure the best options for
waste collection and transport in
respect to recycling and final
disposal

9.1.1 To extend the collection systems
of municipal waste in urban areas for
the whole region

9.1.2 To extend the waste collection
systems to rural areas

9.1.3 To optimize the collection and
transport

9.2.1 To organize separate collection
of the hazardous and non hazardous
municipal waste

9.2.2 To implement and extend the
separate waste collection at the source
in all areas

Collection 100%
Deadline :
2013

Collection 80%
Deadline: 2013

Permanent

Permanent till
2017

Local planning of waste
collection

collection

collection

collection

collection

Local Council
Operators
Coordinated by
REPA
10. Waste treatment

10.1 Promote the waste
treatment

10.1.1 to improve the waste sorting for
:
-recovery
-elimination of hazardous components
-minimizing of finally disposed waste

Permanent

Adaptation of sorting
capacity to the targets and
allocation of funds

Environmental
Fund
Operators
Professional
associations
County/Local
Councils
11. Biodegradable waste

11.1 Reduction of
biodegradable waste, green
waste from markets, gardens
and parks by separate
collection

11.1.1 to reduce the quantity of
biodegradable waste by composting
related to the reference year 1995

11.1.2 to promote investments into
sorting and composting plants in order

Reduce to 75%
till 2010
Reduce to 50%
till 2013
Reduce to 65%
till 2016

Adaptation of sorting and
composting capacities
intensifying of separate
collection and allocation of
funds

Environmental
Fund
Operators
Professional
associations
County/Local
to reduce the biodegradable waste
including advanced technologies if it
will be economically feasible.
Councils
12.Packaging waste

12.1 Reduce packaging waste
generation

12.2 Recover and recycling of
packaging waste related to the
quantity introduced into the
market

12.1.1 To support information
campaigns which will inform about the
advantages of the reduction of
packaging waste

12.1.2 To create the preconditions for
a material recycling in terms of a well
organized separate collection

- 15% glass
- 50% metal

- 15% glass
- 50% metal

Total recycling:38% with:
- 15% glass
- 50% metal

- 15% glass
- 50% metal

Permanent

Deadline :
2007

Deadline:
2008

Deadline:
2009

Deadline:
2010

Preparation of information
campaigns promoted and
organized by EcoRom and
County/Local Councils

Improvement of data base
of packaging waste and
intensifying of data
validation

Planning and installation of
efficient collection facilities
and sufficient sorting
capacity

capacities

capacities

an efficient collection
facilities and sufficient
sorting capacities

County/Local
Councils
Professional
associations
Operators
Economic agents
EcoRom
Embalaje
ARAM

County/Local
Councils
Professional
associations
Operators
Economic agents
EcoRom
Embalaje
ARAM
Coordinated by
NEPA, REPA

County/Local
Councils
Administration of
Environmental
Fund

12.3 Create and optimize the
energetic recovery schemes for
packaging waste which can not
be recycled

12.4 Create and optimize the
waste material recovery
schemes

- 15% glass
- 50% metal
- 15% plastic
- 15% wood

- 15% glass
- 50% metal
- 15% plastic
- 15% wood

- 60% glass
- 50% metal
- 22,5% plastic
- 15% wood

12.3.1 To organize the energetic
recovery for about 10% of the
packaging waste

12.4.1 to organize collection systems
and material recovery for 50% of the
packaging waste

Deadline:
2011

Deadline:
2012

Deadline:
2013

Deadline:
2022

Deadline:
2013

capacities

capacities

capacities

Feasibility Study

capacities
NEPA, REPA

County/Local
Councils
Professional
associations
Operators
Economic agents
EcoRom
Embalaje
ARAM
Coordinated by
NEPA, REPA
13. Construction and demolition
waste

13.1 Separate the construction
and demolition waste into
fractions
13.1.1 To treat the contaminated waste
from construction and demolition in
view of recovery ( material and
energetic recovery) or/and final
disposal in a controlled landfill

13.1.2 to establish a clear inventory of
the construction and demolition waste
quantities
and define the technology and the
organisation of recovery

13.1.3 to re-use and recycle the
construction and demolition waste, if it
is not contaminated

13.1.4 to re-use and recycle the waste
from soil excavation if it is not
contaminated

13.1.5 to implement the technology for
recycling and material recovery for
50% of the road construction waste

13.1.6 to develop the landfill
technology for construction and
demolition waste which can not be
recovered
Starting in 2008

Starting in 2008

Starting in 2008

Starting in 2008

Starting in 2008

Starting in 2008
Permanent

Organisation of the area
control to avoid illegal
disposal
Establishment of a Local
plan for control and
disposal
Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Feasibility study

Industry
Local Council
Construction
sector
Operators

Landfill operators
Institutions
Coordinated by
NEPA, REPA
14.Bulky waste

14.1 Implement separate
collection of bulky waste

14.1.1 To install special collection
points for bulky waste

14.1.2 To establish the organisation of
door to door collection

14.1.3 To recover separately collected
bulky waste

Starting in 2007

Starting in
2007

Starting in 2007

Detailed planning

Local Councils
Sanitation agents
15. Sludge from urban waste
water treatment
( WWTP)
15.1Environmental sound
management of sludge from
WWTP

15.1.1 To promote the utilization of
uncontaminated sludge as fertilizer in
agriculture

15.1.2 To dehydrate and pre-treat
sludge in view of co-incineration in
cement kilns or incineration plants

15.1.3 To promote the utilization of
dewatered sludge for the rehabilitation
of dump sites to be mitigated and as
cover material for landfills

Preparation of a regional
strategy for management of
sludge from wastewater
treatment plants
Preparation of a regional
strategy for management of
sludge from wastewater
treatment plants, in line with
the National and European
legislation
Promote the utilization of
uncontaminated sludge for
the rehabilitation of
damaged soils and covering
the existing landfills (
according with the MO
344/2005 requirements)

LEPA, County
Authorities for
Agriculture
WWTP

WWTPs, LEPA,
Environmental
Guard, Local
Councils, Cement
Industry

Local councils
LEPA
Civil engineering
sector

16. End of life vehicles

16.1 Develop an efficient
system for collection, recovery,
recycling of end of life vehicles
according to the legislation

16.1.1 To design a system which
allows the last owner of a car to leave
it free of charge or for a reasonable fee
at the collection point.

16.1.2 To check how many collection
points Region are required

16.1.3 To extend the re-use and
recycling of the materials from the end
of life cars and the energy recovery of
those materials that cannot be recycled

Permanent

Starting in
October2006

Beginning in
2007

Detailed planning of needed
dismantling, compaction
and shredder capacities
according to the legislation

Environmental
Fund
Association of
Manufacturers
and
Importers
County/Local
Councils
(Commercial
branches defined
in GD 2406/2004)
Juridical
responsible
entities

16.1.4 To recover 75% by weight if the
car was produced before 1980

16.1.5 To recover of at least 85% by
weight if the car was produced after
1979

16.1.6 To re-use and recycle of 70%
by weight if the car was produced
before 1980

16.1.7 to re-use and recycle 80% by
weight if the car was manufactured
after 1.01.1980

16.1.8 To re-use and recover 95% by
weight of all end of life vehicles

16.1.9 To re-use and recycle 85%by
weight of all end of life cars
Beginning in
2007

Beginning in
2007

Beginning in
2007

Beginning in
2007

Beginning in
2015

Beginning in
2015

17. Electric and electronic
equipment

17.1 Electric and electronic
equipment (EEE)

17.1.1 To re-design the EEE for better
repairing, improved re-use,
disassembling and recycling

17.1.2 To reduce the EEE hazardous
components, encourage the research
for replacing the hazardous material by
other materials with low impact on the
environment and human health

17.1.3 Prepare the restriction of Pb,
Cd, Hg, Cr(6), PCB. Elaborate
restrictions for the above mentioned
compound in line with the legal
requirements ( GD no. 992/2005

Permanent

31.12.2005

Permanent

Detailed planning according
to the specific legislation

Research
institutes
Ministry of
Economy
Professional
associations


17.2 Electric and electronic
equipment waste (WEEE)
modified by GD no. 816/2006)

17.2.1 To establish selective collection
of WEEE as following
- 1 collection point for every city with
more than 100.000 inhabitants
- at least one collection point for each
county of the region
- 1 collection point for every city with
more than 20.000 inhabitants

17.2.2 To organize selective collection
of WEEE and its components;
collection of at least
2 kg /inh.x year
3 kg/inh. x year
4 kg/inh. x year

31.12.2005

31.12.2005

31.12.2006

Deadline
31.12.2006
31.12.2007
31.12.2008

Manufacturers/
Importers

Manufacturers/Im
porters
County/Local
Council

18. Hazardous waste as part of
municipal waste

18.1 Implement collection and
transport services for hazardous
waste

18.2 Dispose the hazardous
waste in a ecological sound
manner

18.1.1 To inform and encourage the
households to separate the hazardous
components from household waste.

18.1.2 To install collection points for
the selective collection of hazardous
waste out of household waste in co-
operation with sanitation agents.

18.2.1 To develop a safe logistic and
treatment system for hazardous waste
in view of recycling and process
technology

18.2.2 To assure that new installations
and facilities will fulfil European
Standards

Until 2017

Until 2017

Starting in 2007

Starting in 2007

Detailed local planning

County Council
Municipality
Sanitation agents


18.2.3 To facilitate the export of
hazardous waste in order to dispose to
a safe treatment facility.

Permanent
Cease waste disposal in
non complaint landfills in
urban areas
2006 4 landfills in Constanta
County
2007 4 landfills in Tulcea County
2009 1 landfill in Braila County
1 landfill in Buzau County
2 landfills in Galati County
2 landfills in Tulcea County
2 landfills in Vrancea
County
2010 1 landfill in Constanta
County
1 landfill in Buzau County
2012 2 landfills in Constanta
County
Landfill operators
2 years from the
ceasing of
activity
Closure of non complaint
landfills in maximum 2
years from the ceasing of
disposal, in line with the
legal requirements
Local Councils
Minimum 30
years from the
closure of the
landfill
Post-closure monitoring of
landfills
Local Councils
19.1 Closure in stage of non complaint
landfills in line with the negotiate
timetable.

Until 16.07.2009 Closure and rehabilitation of
the dump sites in rural area.
Local Councils
19.Waste disposal

19.2 Ensure new necessary capacities
for disposal in line with the European
Standards
Starting with
2007
Develop a transitional
system until the
implementation of an
integrated waste
management system,
assuring waste transport
County Councils
Local Council
and disposal in authorized
landfills there where the
disposal will be ceased.
Construction of regional
complaint landfills:

2010 1 regional landfill in Braila
County
County Council
Braila
2010 1 regional landfill in Buzau
County
County Council
Braila
2009 1 regional landfill in Galati
County
County Council
Galati
2010 1 regional landfill in Tulcea
County
County Council
Tulcea
2010 1 regional landfill in
Vrancea County
County Council
Vrancea

19.3 Ensure new necessary capacities
for transfer stations in line with the
European Standards
Starting with
2007
4 transfer stations in Braila
County
8 transfer stations in Buzau
County
12 transfer stations in
Constanta County
8 transfer stations in Tulcea
County
8 transfer stations in
Vrancea County
County Councils


10 Monitoring

The RWMP monitoring implementation means :
Definition of monitoring criteria, indicators and control frequency
Comparing objectives and targets devised in the RWMP with actually achieved results
Identifying delays or stumbling blocks within the implementation
Drafting advice on verification for RWMP
Publishing results
Suitable monitoring procedures with the required feedback to regions and to national level will
influence future planning and efficient fulfilments of targets.
Bad monitoring procedures will undoubtedly lead to misdirected investments and an increase of
costs for waste management on all levels

The choice of suitable monitoring procedures has to be done carefully
Both the value and the trend shall be specified for each indicator. The trend represents the variation
of the indicator as compared to the previous year and can be presented using Chernoffs symbols
as follows :

- Positive variation in relation to the intensions
- Negative variation in relation to the intensions
- No variation

The monitoring of implementation shall be performed on an annual basis by the responsible
authorities.
Indicators to be monitored are shown in the table below.

Table 10-1 Monitoring scheme

Main Objectives Targets Measurable indicators Measures Preconditions Trend
1. Regional policy
development

Permanent Existing legislation and
secondary legislation on
county level
County Council will take decisions in
order to implement the objectives and
targets described in RWMP
The legislation is
in compliance with
the EU legislation

2. Institutional and
organisational
aspects
Permanent Organisation scheme with
number, position and
qualification of staff
List of defined fields of
activities
Definition of tasks. Planning and
implementation of an efficient and
qualified organisation
Definition of clear
responsibilities

3. Human resources

Permanent Number, duration and
subjects of training
courses submitted.
Technical equipment of the
waste department
Organisation of training at all
levels

Detailed planning
of organisation
and training

4. Financing of the
waste management
sector

Permanent Annual protocol of waste
fees which are charged to
the inhabitants, the
commercial and
institutional sector.
List of budgets allocated to
public investments into the
waste management sector
List of budgets allocated to
private investments into
the waste management
sector
Installation of a working group
consisting of County Council and the
private sector.
Organisation of workshops concerning
the utilization of funds in general and
funds beyond accession procedure.
Allocation of financing for
- project preparation
- feasibility studies
- co-financing
Preparation of an investment plan for
the implementation of the separate
collection of packaging, biodegradable
waste and specific waste streams like
hazardous waste from households,
WEEE, end of life vehicles.
Calculation of investment and
Regional co-
operation

operation cost
5. Awareness of the
stake holders

Permanent

Number of annual
meetings and workshops
Number of elaborated
Guidelines
Number, type, target
groups of information
campaigns
Periodical organisation of meetings of
Local/County Councils, Regional
Development Agency, REPA, LEPA,
Environmental Guard
Initiation of information campaigns at
all levels of population

Detailed planning
and elaboration of
workshops,
guidelines and
information
campaigns

Guideline of NEPA
Existing structure of REPA,
LEPA
Annual records and reports
Introduction of the recording and
reporting system provided by NEPA.
Definition of a professional structure in
REPA, LEPA to organise collection,
analyzing and validation of data
Good coordination
and cooperation
between involved
actors
The availability of
a Quality
Management
system

6. Collection and
reporting of data and
information
regarding waste
management
Permanent

Reporting forms in line with
the UEs requirements
related to certain
Directives including the
Directive on reporting
Preparation of reporting forms for
each of the Directives on waste
WEEE, Packaging waste processing
and recording in a regional database

7. Prevention of
waste generation
Permanent Waste generation statistics Preparation of guidelines for the
Industry
Preparation of awareness campaigns
Good coordination
and cooperation
between involved
actors

8. Efficient waste
management
systems
8.1 Waste recovery
8.2 Material
Recovery
Permanent

Deadline
2010

Waste statistics
Record of material flow out
of separate collection and
sorting
Preparation of information for the
commercial and industrial sector
about secondary raw materials.
Periodical data collection about
Collected and disposed waste.
Conduction of a study about the
Weight control will
be installed at all
points where
material will be
sorted and at all
points where
material will be


Thermal recovery

Deadline
2020
Waste statistics
Record of waste flow to
cement plants
actual situation and future possibilities
of material recovery in Region 8

delivered to.
9. Waste collection
and transport

9.1 Connection rate
100% in urban area

Connection rate in
rural area 80%

9.2 optimized
collection system
Including separate
collection and
hazardous waste
from households

Deadline
2012

Deadline
2009
Permanent
till 2017

Records of Counties
(LEPA)
Records of Sanitation
agents

Records of LEPA
agents

agents
Controlled by LEPA, REPA

Local planning of waste collection



Rural population is
willing to accept
fees for waste
collection

Separate
collection is
accepted and will
supported by the
majority of
population

Collection
schemes for
hazardous waste
achieve a
reasonable
collection rate

10. Waste
Treatment
Sorting for
- Recovery
- Elimination of
Hazardous
waste
- Minimizing of
disposed waste
Permanent

Report on
- waste sorting capacities
- materials sent for
recovery
- collected hazardous
waste
Waste collection statistics

Adaptation of sorting capacity to the
targets and allocation of funds

Investments can
be financed.
The system will be
affordable for the
population served
11. Biodegradable
waste

Reduction versus
generation in 1995

25%

50%

65%

Deadline
2010
Deadline
2013
Deadline
2016

Records of operators
Validation by LEPA, REPA

Adaptation of sorting and composting
capacities intensifying of separate
collection and allocation of funds

All facilities are
equipped with
weigh bridges
The system will be
affordable

The municipality
support the
separate collection
of green waste
Funds are
allocated

12.Packaging waste

Reduction of
packaging waste

Recovery and
recycling

Total recovery 34%
Total recycling 28%

Total recovery 40%
Total recycling 33%

Total recovery 45%
Total recycling 38%

Total recovery 48%
Total recycling 42%

Permanent

Deadline
2007

Deadline
2008

Deadline
2009

Deadline
2010

Records of operators,
validated by LEPA,REPA

Records of operators,



Preparation of information campaigns
promoted and organized by EcoRom
and County/Local Councils
Improvement of data base of
packaging waste and intensifying of
data validation
Planning and installation of efficient
collection facilities and
sufficient sorting capacity
collection facilities and
sufficient sorting capacities

Detailed planning
for the conduction
of information
campaigns
Weighing
equipment is
installed at all
facilities

Operators have
clear advices for
data recording
LEPA and REPA
are equipped with


Total recovery 53%
Total recycling 46%

Total recovery 57%
Total recycling 50%

Total recovery 60%
Total recycling 55%

Energetic recovery
10% of packaging
waste
Material recovery
50% of packaging
waste

Deadline
2011

Deadline
2012

Deadline
2013

Deadline
2022

Deadline
2013





collection facilities and sufficient
sorting capacities
Planning and installation of an
efficient collection facilities and
sufficient sorting capacities
sorting capacities
sorting capacities
sorting capacities
Feasibility Study
sorting
a proofed data
recording system
Sufficient staff
which is trained is
available
Sufficient funds
are available to
install all facilities
Population is
willing to support
separate collection
13. Construction and
demolition waste
Establishment of an
Inventory
Collection
Separation into
fractions
-For recovery and
land filling
-For re-use and
recycling
50% recovery of
road construction
waste
Starting in
2008
Result of Study

Data records of collection
treatment and landfill
operators
Validated by LEPA, REPA
Organisation of the area control to
avoid illegal disposal
Establishment of a Local plan for
control and disposal
Feasibility study
Feasibility study
Feasibility study
Preparation of the
introduction by the
organisation of
public information,
clear orders and
fees and control
accompanied by
imposing
announced bans
and fines.
Funds are
allocated for
landfill area,
sorting and
crushing

Development of
Landfill technology

14.Bulky waste
Separate collection
by
-Collection points
-Door to door
Collection

Recovery
Starting in
2007
Detailed planning The public is
informed and
prepared to accept
the collection
scheme
Funds are
allocated for the
technical
equipment.
Collection points
are
Identified
The cost have to
be covered by the
household
collection fee

15. Sludge from
urban waste water
treatment
( WWTP)
Agricultural
utilization
Incineration in
cement kilns
Utilization as cover
material and for
mitigation

No target

No target

No target

Records of WWTP
validated by LEPA, REPA

Feasibility study conducted by
WWTPs in co-operation with
agricultural authorities and the cement
industry

A mechanical
biological WWTPs
is installed for the
Region

16. End of life
vehicles

Detailed planning of needed
dismantling, compaction and shredder
capacities according to the legislation
Detailed planning
of needed
dismantling,


Development of fee
system

Selection of number
and location of
collection points

Stepwise increasing
of recycling and
recovery
Final re-use and
recycling capacity
85%

Permanent

Starting in
October
2006

Beginning in
2007

Beginning
2015

Records which
demonstrate the rate of
acceptance

Records of collection
points and dismantling
units validated by LEPA,
REPA

Establishing of a cost covering fee
compaction and
shredder
capacities
according to the
legislation

The fee for an end
of life vehicle is
accepted by the
car owners
17. Electric and
electronic equipment
Redesign
Reduction of
hazardous
components
Restriction of Pb,
Cd, Hg, Cr(6), PCB

Collection points

Selective collection
2kg/inh. x year

Permanent
Permanent

Deadline
31.12. 2005

Deadline
31.12.2006

Deadline
31.12.2006
Product description of the
industry
Product description of the
Industry

Control results of Institutes


Detailed planning of dismantling and
separation capacities
Industry will accept
the redesign
Legislation is
enforced to restrict
hazardous
components in
domestic
production lines
and for imported
products
The acceptance of
WEEE is free of
charge for the next
5 years
The financing is

3kg/inh. x year
4kg/inh. x year
31.12.2007
31.12.2008

validated by LEPA, REPA
established as part
of
Household
collection fee
18. Hazardous
waste as part of
municipal waste
Implementation of
collection and
transport services
Safe disposal

Until 2017

Starting in
2007


Detailed local planning

The public is
aware of the
hazardous waste
problematic and
accept the
collection scheme
The financing is
established as part
of household
waste collection
fee

19.Waste disposal

Waste disposal
according to legal
requirements in
waste management
field
Mitigation of closed
landfills

Closure of all non
controlled dump

Permanent

Beginning
31.12.2006

Deadline
July 2009

Operation records
concerning the amount of
- collected and treated
leachate
- composition
of groundwater
- quality control of the
barrier system

Building up complaint landfills
correlated with the closure date of not
complaint landfills

Detailed planning of organized
services for an efficient waste
collection and transport system in

All investments
and running cost
have to be
covered by the fee
for disposal
An improved
landfill operation
with thin layers
and reasonable
compaction rates.

sites accordance to the regional plan

Ministry of Environment and Water Management Romania - Regional Waste Management Plan - Region 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Environment and Water Management Romania - Regional Waste Management Plan - Region 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Waste Management Plan Region 2 South East

You might also like