Association „КЕ&B - UV&P”
VAT.Nr.: BG176245551
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME
ENVIRONMENT 2007-2013
61 Preki pat str., Sofia 1618
Bulgaria Tel./fax:(+359 2) 857 5197
E-mail: Biowaste.BG12@gmail.com
EUROPEAN UNION
EUROPEAN REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FUND
WE INVEST IN YOUR
FUTURE
Project No TA-2011-KPOS-PP-78 „Technical assistance on waste management”
“Development of legal framework on bio-waste management and establishment of
Quality Assurance System for Compost and National Organization of Quality
Assurance for the Compost”
Development of Legal Framework on Bio-Waste Management and
Establishment of Quality Assurance System for Compost and
National Organisation of Quality Assurance for the Compost
STAGE I
Analysis of the EU Acquis and Bulgarian Legislation
on the Biowaste Management and the Residual
Fraction of Household Waste
Part IV
Model and Phased Action Plan for Biowaste
Management in Bulgaria
Supplement C
Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of introducing
a Source Segregated Biowaste Collection
and Treatment System in Bulgaria
Final Report – 3 September 2012
120910_model-chapter-6_CBA_FR_v1.0_EN.doc
The document was developed with the financial support of the European Regional
Development Fund under EU Operational Programme "Environment 2007 - 2013
Main Authors:
Dominic Hogg, Ann Ballinger, Adrian Gibbs,
eunomia - research & consulting
in cooperation with:
Florian Amlinger,
Compost – Consulting & Development
Enzo Favoino
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
2
Methodology.................................................................................................................. 3
2.1
Cost Benefit Analysis .............................................................................................. 3
2.2
Scenarios to be modelled........................................................................................ 4
2.2.1
3
Cost Benefit Model ........................................................................................................ 9
3.1
Waste Flow Assumptions ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.1
Organic Waste Arisings and Potential Capture of Biowaste ................................ 9
3.1.2
Residual Waste Treatment ................................................................................ 10
3.2
Financial Impacts of Waste Treatment .................................................................. 10
3.3
Collection Modelling .............................................................................................. 13
3.4
Modelling of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 15
3.4.1
Monetisation of Pollutants ................................................................................. 15
3.4.2
Waste Collection ............................................................................................... 16
3.4.3
Source Segregated Biowaste ............................................................................ 16
3.4.4
Treatment of Residual Waste ............................................................................ 17
4
5
Organic Collection Options to be modelled ......................................................... 6
Results ........................................................................................................................ 19
4.1
Options Totals ....................................................................................................... 19
4.2
Financial Costs ..................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1
Financial Cost of Treatment .............................................................................. 20
4.2.2
Financial Cost of Collection ............................................................................... 22
4.3
Environmental Costs ............................................................................................. 23
4.4
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 25
4.5
Contribution to Statutory Targets ........................................................................... 25
Conclusions................................................................................................................. 26
1
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Modelling Scenarios .............................................................................................. 5
Table 2-2: Food Waste Collection Systems to be modelled for Bulgaria ................................. 7
Table 2-3: Garden Waste Collection Systems to be modelled for Bulgaria ............................. 8
Table 3-1: Demographic Data................................................................................................. 9
Table 3-2: Assumptions Regarding Separate Capture of Organic Waste
(Scenario 3 only) .................................................................................................................. 11
Table 3-3: Residual Waste Treatment Assumptions by Scenario ......................................... 11
Table 3-4: Container Costs for Communal Bring-Style Collections ....................................... 14
Table 3-5: Container Costs for Kerbside Collections ............................................................ 14
Table 3-6: Vehicle Costs ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 3-7: Overhead costs that are added to the total container and vehicle
(including staff) costs ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 3-8: Proportion of Households with Kerbside Collection System ................................. 15
Table 3-9: External Cost Assumptions for Air Pollutants ....................................................... 16
Table 4-1: Total Annualised Option Costs ............................................................................ 19
Table 4-2: Financial Cost of Waste Treatment per Tonne (by Treatment Method) ................ 20
Table 4-3: Financial Cost of Each Option – Cost Type and Treatment Type......................... 21
Table 4-4: Collection Cost per Household and per Tonne .................................................... 22
Table 4-5: Breakdown of Cost Increase by Settlement Type – Scenario 3A ......................... 22
Table 4-6: Breakdown of Cost Increase by Settlement Type – Scenario 3B ......................... 22
Table 4-7: Environmental Costs of Landfill (per tonne of waste) ........................................... 23
Table 4-8: Environmental Costs of Incineration (per tonne of waste) .................................... 23
Table 4-9: Environmental Costs of MBT with Bio-stabilised Output (per tonne of
waste) .................................................................................................................................. 23
Table 4-10: Environmental Costs of MBT with Cement Kiln (per tonne of waste) ................. 24
Table 4-11: Environmental Costs of Biowaste Treatment ..................................................... 24
Table 4-12: Annualised Option Costs – Excluding AD Capital Cost ...................................... 25
Table 4-13: Contributions to Statutory Targets by each Scenario ......................................... 25
2
1 Introduction
The analysis presented in this report considers the financial costs and environmental benefits
associated with the roll out of a source segregated system for the collection and treatment of
biowaste in Bulgaria.
Current collection arrangements in Bulgaria result in the collection of residual waste and
recyclables through a mixture of kerbside and bring-based collection systems.1 At present,
there is no source segregated collection of biowaste. The analysis considers the roll-out of a
door-to-door (kerbside) collection for the collection of food and garden waste across much of
Bulgaria.
The analysis presents the financial costs of introducing the new collection system and its
associated waste treatment systems, including the development of appropriate treatment
facilities for treating the separately collected biowaste. Environmental impacts for the waste
collection and treatment systems are also considered alongside the financial costs through
the monetization of emissions to air such that both impacts can be considered together.
Results are compared against those associated with the current collection arrangements as
well as those for alternative approaches where changes are made only in the residual waste
treatment system to meet Landfill Directive Targets. In all cases, the results take into account
both treatment and collection impacts.
This document summarises the methodology used in the analysis and associated modelling,
and presents the results of the analysis.
2
Methodology
2.1
Cost Benefit Analysis
The methodology used within the assessment of the waste collection and treatment options
combines the external cost associated with the environmental impact of each system,
together with the financial cost of operating that service. In economics, an external cost –
also known as an externality – arises when the social or economic activities of one group of
persons has an impact on another group and when that impact is not fully accounted for or
compensated for (in financial terms), by the first group.
Particularly in the case of waste treatment facilities, the experience of the project team
indicates that it is the climate change and local health impacts of these plant that cause most
concern for local residents and the wider community. Eunomia’s preferred approach is
therefore to apply monetary values or external costs to both the climate change and air
quality impacts.
To this end, impacts of the major air pollutants have therefore been attributed an external
monetary value which measures the extent of the damage to health associated with the
1
In the bring-based systems, residual waste is collected through communal bins
3
quantity of pollutant being released into the air. Impacts associated with the emission of
greenhouse gases were calculated on the basis of the cost of mitigating the effects of climate
change. Air quality impacts are calculated based on the external costs of key air pollutants
known to have a local or regional impact.2 In both cases impacts are estimated on the basis
of an external cost in € per tonne of pollutant, with a higher figure thus representing greater
damages.
With regard to the financial costs, the impact of landfill tax is excluded from the final totals
that combine the financial and environmental costs. The tax is intended to offset some or all
of the environmental impact associated with the pollution from landfilling waste. These
pollution impacts are separately accounted for in the consideration of environmental
damages; the tax is excluded from the financial costs to avoid double-counting this part of the
impact.
2.2
Scenarios to be modelled
The analysis considers the financial and environmental impacts associated with three
scenarios:

Those associated with a continuation of the current collection arrangements. This
scenario is not compliant with the requirements of the Landfill Directive;

The meeting of the Landfill Directive targets through changes in the residual waste
treatment system. Two alternatives are considered:

o
The treatment of residual waste through the development of additional
incineration facilities;3
o
The further development of relatively low-cost Mechanical Biological
Treatment (MBT) facilities the aim of which is to create a stabilised output to
landfill;
The roll-out of a source segregated collection and treatment system for biowaste across
Bulgaria. This scenario will assist in meeting Landfill Directive biological municipal waste
(BMW) diversion targets as well as the recycling targets enshrined in the revised Waste
Framework Directive.
Details of the scenarios to be modelled are summarised in Table 2-1. Two scenarios are
considered in respect of the introduction of organic waste collection:

Scenario 3a considers the case where garden waste captures are modelled based on
current garden waste quantities arising in the municipal waste composition. Under this
scenario, no additional garden waste is assumed to be added to the collection system
2
These external costs include those associated with days lost to ill-health, and costs resulting from hospital
admissions, etc.
3
It is noted that at present there is no incineration capacity in Bulgaria
4
once the biowaste collection system has been introduced. Where parks maintenance
waste is sent for treatment under this scenario, it is assumed that the waste originator is
responsible for taking the waste directly to the treatment facility. Under Scenario 3a, the
parks maintenance waste has been excluded for both collection and treatment on the
grounds that this waste is also not included in the business-as-usual system;

Scenario 3b considers the case where the introduction of the biowaste collection system
results in an additional quantity of garden waste being added to the collection system
through the addition of parks maintenance waste and other municipal arisings. In other
countries, the introduction of a source segregated collection system has resulted in
additional quantities of green waste being added to the system following its introduction.
The additional household arisings are assumed to occur as householders place into the
garden waste system material that was previously combusted, home composted or
placed into the residual system, although this is felt to be less likely to occur where a
bring-based system is introduced for garden waste collection from households.
The collected biowaste is assumed to be treated in a mixture of Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
and open air windrow facilities. In Scenario 3a, there is insufficient garden waste for much of
the food waste to be treated using open air windrow facilities; as such, the scenario
considers that all food waste is treated through AD, with garden waste being treated through
open air windrow facilities. In Scenario 3b, where more garden waste is collected through the
municipal system, all biowaste is assumed to be treated through open air windrow facilities.
Sensitivity analysis considers the results assuming the capital cost of AD is met through
funding from the Structural Funds Programme, which results in a reduction in the capital cost
of developing this type of facility.
Table 2-1: Modelling Scenarios
Scenario
Rationale and Details
Approach
to waste
collection
Treatment methods
for residual and
organics
1
Business As
Usual
No change to biowaste collection
system; recycling rate does not
change from current levels.
Continued landfilling and MBT of
residual waste. This scenario is not
compliant with the Waste Framework
Directive Landfill Directive targets.
No roll out
of kerbside
collection
services
Mostly landfill; some
MBT (bio-stabilised
output to landfill /
4
fuel to cement kiln)
2a
Additional
MBT
(stabilisation)
No roll out
of kerbside
collection
services
Additional MBT
stabilisation facilities.
2b
Additional
Additional residual facilities used to
achieve biowaste diversion targets in
landfill directive rather than roll out of
biowaste collection. No change to
collection systems; source separated
4
See Table 3-3 for details
5
Additional
3a
3b
Incineration
recycling rate does not change. Likely
to be difficulty to comply with the
Waste Framework Directive 50%
recycling target using these options.
Biowaste
Collection –
no additional
garden
waste
Biowaste collection introduced.
Separately collected biowaste
contributes to meeting Waste
Framework Directive 50% recycling
target. Scenario is also to be
compliant with the Landfill Directive
tonnage targets.
Biowaste
Collection –
additional
garden
waste added
to the
system
incineration facilities.
Roll out of
kerbside
collection
service for
organics
Scenario 3a - AD for
food waste; green
waste in open air
windrows
Scenario 3b – all
biowaste treated in
open air windrows
For both 3a and 3b,
residual waste
treatment as in
Scenario 1.
2.2.1 Organic Collection Options to be modelled
The organic waste collection systems modelled under Scenario 3 are described in Table 2-2
and Table 2-3, which separately describes the systems used to collect food waste and
garden waste for each type of settlement.
It is assumed that the organic waste collection system will vary depending on the population
characteristics of the area. Door-to-door collection systems for food waste are assumed to be
provided in the semi-urban areas and in the more urbanised rural areas. In urban areas, the
system assumes the provision of larger communal bins serving groups of households and
flats. In all cases, householders are provided with a vented caddy for the collection of food
waste.
The organic waste collection system is assumed to cover households and small commercial
waste producers such as small retail establishments. Large commercial waste producers are
considered to be out of scope of the analysis – it is assumed that this waste is not currently
included in the municipal waste arisings statistics.
It is further assumed that a system for the source segregated collection of garden waste is
rolled out alongside the dedicated food waste collection system. A door-to-door collection
system will be made available to householders in the semi-urban and more urbanised rural
areas. In addition, it is assumed that householders will be able to present garden waste for
collection at the Recycling Centres which will be established for the collection of dry recyclate
across Bulgaria.
6
Table 2-2: Food Waste Collection Systems to be modelled for Bulgaria
System
element
Urban
Settlement size > 25,000
Semi Urban
Settlement size 3,000 – 25,000
Rural
Settlement size <3,000
System
description
Separate collection of food
waste from communal bins
Separate collection of food
waste mostly door-to-door
collection
In many areas no separate collection. Further
encourage home composting (by the provision of
home composting bins) although accepting that
many households already do so.
Containers
Vented caddies for each
household. Communal/bulk
bins (110/120-240 litres)
serving groups of
households/high rise flats
Vented caddies for each
household. 30 litre buckets on
kerbside for door-to-door
collection
40% served by separate (door-to-door) collection
covering the more urbanised rural areas.
Vehicles
Dedicated food waste collection
vehicle for door-to-door service
Dedicated food waste collection
vehicle for door-to-door service
For areas served by separate collection a
dedicated food waste collection vehicle
Dedicated
collection
rounds for
large
producers
Outside project scope
Outside project scope
Outside project scope
7
Vented caddies for each household, plus 30 litre
buckets on kerbside
Table 2-3: Garden Waste Collection Systems to be modelled for Bulgaria
System
element
System
description
Urban
Settlement size > 25,000
Semi Urban
Settlement size 3,000 – 25,000
No kerbside collection service
for private gardens.
Bring-based system for garden
waste for household, municipal
and commercial garden waste
established at Recycling
Centres. For Scenario 3b,
public park maintenance is
included in collection totals
along with additional waste not
currently accounted for in the
composition data.
1) Bring system for bulky
garden waste for
household, municipal and
commercial garden waste
(the latter is charged);
2) On demand kerbside
collection service for non
bulky garden waste. A set
number of sacks supplied
to householders; service is
effectively charged for
through additional cost
charged to the householder.
For Scenario 3b, public park
maintenance to be included in
collection totals (as with urban).
Containers
7.5 to 30 m³ containers at
recycling centres
Vehicles
Rear loading vehicle for
collection from recycling
centres.
1) Disposable (paper) sacks
or reusable sacks utilising
voucher system or 240 litre
bins for typical non bulky
garden waste (grass and
hedge clippings etc.)
2) 7.5 to 30 m³ containers at
recycling centres
Standard compacting collection
vehicle for kerbside collection. Rear
loading vehicle for collection from
recycling centres
8
Rural
Settlement size <3,000
1) Bring system for garden waste for
household, municipal and commercial
garden waste (the latter is charged);
2) Encourage home composting, as
above
3) More urbanised rural areas pay per
use on demand collection system as
per the semi-urban system
(participation anticipated to be low due
to low income of the householders).
For Scenario 3b, public park maintenance to
be included in collection totals.
7.5 to 30 m³ containers at recycling centres
Existing trucks/trailer, lorries as available for
transporting garden waste on demand
Cost Benefit Model
3
This section summarises the approach used in developing the cost benefit model, as follows:

Waste flow assumptions for the source segregated organic and residual waste streams
are summarised in Section 3.1;

An overview of the approach taken in respect of the modelling of the financial costs of
waste treatment (for both residual and organic wastes) is provided in Section 3.2;

The approach to collection modelling is summarised in Section 3.3;

The modelling of the environmental impacts of waste collection and waste treatment is
considered in Section 3.4.
A more detailed explanation of the methodological approach used is presented in a separate
Appendix.
3.1
Waste Flow Assumptions
3.1.1
Organic Waste Arisings and Potential Capture of Biowaste
As was indicated in Section 2.2.1, it is assumed that the organic waste collection system will
vary depending on the population characteristics of the area. The demographic data used in
this respect is presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Demographic Data
Total
Urban
Semi-Urban
Rural
> 25,000
inhabitants
3,000 – 25,000
inhabitants
< 3,000
inhabitants
Percent of population
100%
55%
18%
27%
Population numbers
7,365,586
4,054,561
1,325,303
1,986,222
2.0
2.23
2.00
1.58
Inhabitants per household
Source: MOEW
Table 3-2 presents the assumptions used within the modelling in respect of the capture of
organic waste from kerbside collection systems. The following key assumptions were used in
the development of the assumptions presented in Table 3-2:

Waste composition data was taken from a 2006 report produced by TBU for the MOEW.5
Data from the MOEW was also used to calculate the arisings per inhabitant for each of
the settlement types, based on waste arisings data from each of the municipalities;
5
TBU / SGS (2006) Quantity and Quality Assessment of Household Waste in Bulgaria 2006 with particular
emphasis on the biodegradable fraction; report for the Bulgarian Ministry for Environment and Waters, November
2006
9

Although biowaste collection systems will also be introduced in the most densely
populated rural areas, it is assumed that a significant proportion of biowaste in rural areas
will be home composted. This is reflected in the difference in the composition and
arisings data for the rural areas in comparison to the urban;

A higher food waste capture is assumed where a kerbside collection system has been put
in place. Captures are lower where organic waste is collected through a communal bringstyle system.
It should be noted that the total residual waste arisings figures include some commercial
waste along with the household waste. There is, however, insufficient data with which to
determine the actual amount of household waste produced per inhabitant.
3.1.2
Residual Waste Treatment
At present much of the residual waste generated in Bulgaria is landfilled. However, several
regions including Sofia are aiming to develop some MBT capacity. The exact nature of the
planned MBT plant has not yet been completely determined but in the case of Sofia, likely
options appear to be bio-stabilisation or the production of RDF to be sent to a dedicated
incineration facility. Scenario 1 therefore includes the development of the planned MBT plant
at Sofia which is intended to treat circa 300,000 tonnes of residual waste, as well as the
impact of planned MBT capacity for Plodiv and Varna (with anticipated capacities of 125,000
and 140,000 tonnes per annum respectively). These assumptions have been retained in
Scenarios 2 and 3.
Scenario 2 also assumes that in addition to this planned MBT capacity, additional residual
waste treatment capacity is built in order to ensure Bulgaria meets its landfill directive targets.
Scenario 2A assumes the construction of additional incineration plant, whilst Scenario 2B
assumes the development of MBT facilities that aim to stabilise the residual waste prior to its
being landfilled (the latter being in addition to the proposed MBT capacity at Sofia, Plodiv and
Varna). Assumptions regarding the treatment of residual waste for each scenario are
presented in Table 3-3.
3.2
Financial Impacts of Waste Treatment
The financial costs associated with both residual and organic waste treatment are calculated
under a ‘private metric’, intended to represent the market conditions facing the developers
and operators of facilities. The approach uses retail prices - includes taxes and subsidies and applies a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for capital expense where this is to
be financed over a number of years.
10
Table 3-2: Assumptions Regarding Separate Capture of Organic Waste
(Scenario 3 only)
Unit
Urban
MSW total arisings (including
recycling)
kg / inhabitant /
year
Food waste in composition
%
Food waste potential
Semiurban
Rural
Weighed
1
mean
505
392
295
410
31.8%
35.8%
24.5%
kg / inhabitant /
year
145
138
72
Participation of households
%
%
50%
60%
75%
Potential collection from
participating households
kg / inhabitant /
year
73
83
54
Assumed capture of food
waste from participating
households
%
80%
80%
80%
Overall realistic collection of
food waste
kg / inhabitant /
year
58
66
43
Capture of food waste
%
40%
48%
24%
Garden waste in composition
%
2.5%
2.8%
6.5%
Garden waste in composition
kg / inhabitant /
year
12
11
19
14
Total garden waste captured
3
– Scenario 3a
kg / inhabitant /
year
6
5
10
7
Total garden waste captured
– Scenario 3b
kg / inhabitant /
year
60
90
70
68
Total biowaste captured
(food + garden) – 3a
kg / inhabitant /
year
64
71
53
62
Total biowaste captured
(food + garden) – 3b
kg / inhabitant /
year
118
156
113
124
133
2
2
2
74
55
Notes:
1. The weighted mean is calculated based on the demographic data presented in Table 3-1.
2. Only applies to 40% of households, who are offered the service.
3. Assumes a 50% capture rate
Table 3-3: Residual Waste Treatment Assumptions by Scenario
Scenario 1
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 3A / 3B
LANDFILL
INCINERATION
80%
30%
30%
80%
0%
50%
0%
0%
MBT with
stabilised
output to landfill
15%
15%
65%
15%
MBT with
output to
cement kiln
5%
5%
5%
5%
The modelling considers capital and operating expenditure separately:

Capital expenditure (capex) is associated with the purchase of equipment and
11
construction of facilities. This can be annualised (at a particular interest or discount rate)
across the lifetime of the facility;

Ongoing operating expenditure (opex) costs are assumed to include:
o
Staffing;
o
Plant maintenance costs;
o
Costs associated with the aftercare of landfill, including restoration;
o
Revenues such as those associated with the sale of electricity and subsidies
for energy generation from waste;
o
The costs of dealing with residues / reject streams, including landfill tax
(currently set at €18 per tonne).
The approach to establishing representative capital and operating costs for new-build
facilities in Bulgaria is to firstly obtain representative costs from elsewhere in Europe. For
each process technology, it is assumed that general technology costs, such as the cost of
purchasing large capital items, will be the same as elsewhere in Europe. However, for the
element of both capital and operating costs that relates to labour, we adjust these typical
figures to account for the lower than average costs of labour in Bulgaria. This gives a
Bulgarian capex and a Bulgarian ‘pure opex’ (i.e. the costs of treating material, excluding
maintenance, revenues and disposal) per tonne.
Net operating and maintenance costs are then calculated, taking into account:

The feed in tariffs amended in July 2012 that are of relevance to electricity generated
from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion – the tariff gives a subsidy of €115.62 per MWh,
included within which is the wholesale electricity price;

The projected wholesale electricity price which is assumed to be €40 per MWh – this is
applied to electricity generated by large scale waste incineration which falls outside the
scope of the feed in tariff;

Other revenues including those from the sale of products such as compost;

Disposal costs for reject / residue streams (including landfill tax).
The capital expenditure
for the cost of capital
required). These rates
relevant if capital is to
Programme.
is annualised through the application of an appropriate discount rate
(a variable rate is applied depending on the quantum of capital
(and the associated calculated total annualised costs) are less
be provided - either all or in part - through the Structural Funds
12
3.3
Collection Modelling
The model considers the collection of both residual and organic waste through door-to-door
(kerbside) and communal (bring-style) collection systems. The original model structure and
some assumptions are based on a collection model developed in Spain by Ecoembes, and
then adapted and updated by Eunomia to model changes to materials collected in a bringstyle system.6
The basic idea of the collection model is as follows:

The number of containers provided for the bring-style collections is calculated based on
an assumed number of litres of containers provided per person. For kerbside food and
garden waste collections, each household is assumed to receive a container;
The cost of the containers is assumed to be annualised over the typical lifetime of the
container, plus an additional replacement rate and maintenance costs. Cost calculations in
in the model of the communal bring-style system also include an amount for washing the
containers on a regular basis. Container costs are shown in Table 3-4 and

Table 3-5 for bring and kerbside collection systems respectively;

In the bring system, it is assumed that the average residual waste container is 75% full
when it is emptied, allowing for the calculation of the number of collections per week;

For the kerbside collection system, a collection frequency is specified (e.g. one collection
per week for semi-urban areas);

The number of vehicles needed to provide the collection service is then calculated from
the total number of collections per week, with additional assumptions being made on the
number of containers that can be emptied per hour in the urban, semi-urban and rural
environments, and also the amount of time available in the day to do the collections;

The cost of the vehicle is calculated based on an annualised capital cost, maintenance
cost, tax and insurance costs, fuel costs, and labour costs per vehicle. Vehicle costs are
shown in Table 3-6;

The total cost of the collections including containers, vehicles and the staff costs for the
operation of the collection system are then calculated. Industrial profit, general expenses
and administrative costs are added to the vehicle and container costs to obtain the overall
cost of collection (these additional assumptions are shown in Table 3-7);

Current collection arrangements result in the collection of residual waste using both
kerbside and bring-based collection systems. Assumptions used to model these
arrangements are presented in Table 3-8. For Scenario 3A and 3B, kerbside food waste
collection systems are assumed to be introduced wherever there is currently a kerbside
residual waste treatment system in place.
It is important to note that the assumptions presented in Table 3-6 have been developed
assuming that new vehicles are purchased. It is noted, however, that existing collection
6
Ecoembes (2007) Estudio para la Determinacion de la Formula de Pago de Aplicacion a la Recogida Selectiva de
Envases Ligeros, September 2007; Eunomia Research & Consulting (2012) Examining the Cost of Introducing a
Deposit Refund System in Spain, Report for Retorna, 1 January 2012
13
systems in Bulgaria largely operate with second hand vehicles in order to keep costs down.
Collection costs for the source segregated organic system have been calculated assuming
the purchase of new vehicles is required. However, it may be possible to reduce these costs
through the purchase of vehicles that have previously been in service elsewhere in Europe.
Table 3-4: Container Costs for Communal Bring-Style Collections
Container
1100 L Bin
Urban
240 L Bin
Semi
Rural
Urban
Semi
Capital Cost
€285
€37
Delivery Cost
€15
€1.50
Maintenance Cost
7%
2%
Replacement Rate
4%
3%
Number of Washes
Rural
8
6.5
4
Cost Per Wash
€1.83
€2.06
€2.29
€0.92
€1.03
€1.14
Total Annual Cost for
Communal Bins (incl.
washing)
€94.96
€93.69
€86.94
€17.94
€19.31
€20.69
Total Annual Cost for
Kerbside Bins (excl.
washing)
12
€6.95
n/a
Table 3-5: Container Costs for Kerbside Collections
Container
Kerbside Caddy
Kitchen Caddy
Garden Waste
Sack
Notes:
Capital Cost
Delivery Cost
€3.75
€1.38
€2.00
€0.20
€0.10
€0.50
Replacement Rate
Annual
Cost
Container*
€0.69
€0.26
€1.46
5%
5%
25%
per
* Capital cost is annualised over 8 years for caddies and 3 years for sacks, plus the
annual replacement rate.
Table 3-6: Vehicle Costs
Vehicle
Annualised
1
Capital
Insurance
and Tax
Maintenance
2
Fuel
3
Staff
4
Total
Annual
Cost
€45,009
Standard
€20,273
€2,706
€6,552 €15,621 €14,621
RCV
Separate
€3,868
€2,706
€1,250
€5,519
€9,747
Food Waste
Notes:
1. Capital costs of €131,032 and €25,000 are annualised over 8 years at 5% interest.
2. Maintenance is assumed to be 5% of the vehicle capital cost.
3. Fuel is assumed to cost €1.36 per litre.
4. Staff are assumed to cost €4,874 per person.
14
€12,984
Table 3-7: Overhead costs that are added to the total container and vehicle (including staff)
costs
Urban
Semi-Urban and Rural
Industrial Profit
10%
General Expenses
12.2%
Administrative Costs
6.5%
8%
Table 3-8: Proportion of Households with Kerbside Collection System
Settlement type
Urban
Semi-urban
Rural
% currently receiving
a kerbside collection
40%
70%
90%
for residual waste
Notes:
In Scenario 3A and 3B, a kerbside organic collection system is assumed to be introduced wherever an
existing kerbside residual waste is in place
3.4
Modelling of Environmental Impacts
3.4.1 Monetisation of Pollutants
The methodology for assessing the environmental impacts accounts for the following sources
of emissions to air:
 Impacts associated with the treatment of source-separated organic wastes using open
air windrow and AD facilities. Impacts include a consideration of the benefits of
compost use as well as those from the generation of energy from biogas combustion;
 Impacts associated with the treatment and disposal of residual waste. This includes a
consideration of avoided emissions resulting from the generation of energy by residual
waste treatment facilities;
 Impacts associated with the fuel used in the collection of residual and organic waste.
Air pollution impacts were monetised using damage costs taken from the Clean Air for
Europe (CAFE) programme and the Benefits Table (BeTa) database from the European
Commission DG Research MethodEx project.7 These datasets cover a range of pollutants
and present country specific damage costs for impacts affecting air quality. Unit damage
costs have been determined from the CAFÉ data, which is from 2000. To model in 2011,
prices the costs have been converted into real 2011 figures using the Harmonised Index of
Consumer Prices (HICP).8 The data is presented in Table 3-9.
7
M. Holland and P. Watkiss (2002) Benefits Table Database: Estimates of the Marginal External Costs of Air
Pollution in Europe, Database Prepared for European Commission DG Environment, database available at
www.methodex.org/BeTa-Methodex%20v2.xls; AEAT Environment (2005) Damages per tonne Emission of
PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from Each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and Surrounding Seas,
Report to DG Environment of the European Commission, March 2005. The figures used reflect the Mean Values
of Life Years approach to valuation, including health sensitivity. For climate change impacts the BeTa MethodEx
central figure (€19/tonne in 2000 prices, €24/tonne in 2011 prices), was used.
8
Eurostat (2011) HICP - all items - annual average inflation rate – (tsieb060) available from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/inflation_dashboard/ Damage costs were uplifted by 26.4% to give 2011
prices.
15
Table 3-9: External Cost Assumptions for Air Pollutants
Impact type
External cost € per tonne
(2011 prices)
Pollutant
1
Climate change
CO2 equivalent emissions
Air Quality
NH3
VOCs
PM2.5
SOx
NOx
Cd
Cr
Ni
Dioxin
24 €
4,298 €
430 €
10,491 €
3,413 €
1,643 €
16,432 €
12,640 €
1,517 €
46,768,000,000 €
Notes:
1. The external cost for climate change emissions is also applied to the biogenic CO 2 emissions
(such as is produced when organic material is combusted) in addition to those climate change
impacts traditionally accounted for within life-cycle assessments. The latter category of
impacts include methane emissions from landfill, emissions from the combustion of synthetic
materials (e.g. plastics) in incinerators, the avoided electricity generation through energy
generated from waste, and the avoided manufacture of fertilizer through the use of compost.
3.4.2 Waste Collection
Emissions associated with residual waste collection are modelled assuming the vehicles
meet the Euro 3 standard, whilst the new vehicles purchased for the source separated
organic system were assumed to meet the Euro 5 standard. Vehicle emissions were
modelled using data provided by the UK’s National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
database.
3.4.3 Source Segregated Biowaste
3.4.3.1 Open Air Windrow Composting
Environmental impacts associated with the treatment of source-separated organic material in
open air windrow facilities have been modelled using Eunomia’s in-house model which was
originally developed for WRAP in 2006 and later revised as part of work undertaken on
behalf of the European Commission in 2009.9 For the current study, emissions data for CH4,
N2O and NH3 have been updated to reflect emissions measurements from open air windrows
treating biowaste as presented in analysis by Amlinger et al.10
In addition to the climate change and air quality impacts associated with direct emission to air
from the facility, the environmental impacts consider the beneficial use of compost and
digestate, including:
9
Eunomia / Arcadis (2009) Assessment of the Options to Improve the Management of Bio-waste in the European
Union, Final Report to European Commission DG Environment, November 2009
10
Amlinger F, Peyr S and Cuhls C (2008) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Compsting and Mechanical Biological
Treatment, Waste Management & Research, 26, pp47-60
16

The avoided manufacture of synthetic fertilizers resulting from a reduced requirement for
these to be applied to soil through the use of compost;

The avoided use of pesticides;

Avoided N2O emissions, resulting from the nitrogenous compounds contained within
compost being in the chemically more stable organic form than those contained in the
synthetic fertilizer.
3.4.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
As is the case with the model of the composting facilities, the model used in the current
analysis to consider the environmental impacts of the AD facility is based on earlier work
undertaken on behalf of WRAP, and further updated in more recent work undertaken on
behalf of the European Commission in 2009. Data on AD plant operation has been obtained
from facilities operating across Europe.11
AD facilities are assumed to treat only food waste, which is readily degradable in an
anaerobic process. As such, relatively little solid material remains. The model assumes the
production of a liquid based raw digestate which is used directly without any post-digestion
treatment.12 Environmental benefits associated with the use of the digestate are therefore
reduced in comparison to the use of compost, as the nitrogenous compounds contained
within the digestate are assumed to behave in a similar manner to a liquid fertiliser.
It is assumed that the biogas produced by the facility is subsequently combusted in a gas
engine and that only electricity is utilised through export to the electricity grid, although some
heat generated by the gas engine is assumed to be used within the digestion process itself.13
3.4.4 Treatment of Residual Waste
3.4.4.1 Landfill
The part of the model used to determine the impacts associated with the landfilling of
material has been developed by Eunomia over many years using data from a wide range of
sources, including both peer reviewed literature sources as well as data from regulators and
site operators where appropriate. The approach taken in the development of the key
11
Biocycle (2010) Demonstration Project – Biocycle South Shropshire Ltd Biowaste Digester, Final Report for
Defra; Davidsson A, Gruvberger C, Christensen T, Hansen T and la Cour Jansen J (2007) Methane Yield in
Source-sorted Organic Fraction of Municipal Waste Management, Waste Management, 27, pp.406-14; Cecchi F,
Traverso P,Pavan P, Bolzonella D and Innocenti L (2003) Characteristics of the OFMSW and Behaviour of the
Anaerobic Digestion Process, in Mata-Alvarez J (ed) (2003) Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal
Solid Wastes, London: IWA Publishing, pp.141-179
12
This assumption has been used as there would be too much digestate produced for all of it to be treated
through a subsequent post-digestion stabilisation process where the liquid output was mixed with the compost
produced from the open air composting process. In addition, data on the impacts of post-digestion treatment on
the digestate produced from digestion processes treating solely food waste is relatively limited, and the
calculation of environmental impacts for this type of system is therefore subject to considerable uncertainty.
13
The model assumes a net electricity generation figure of 350 kWh per tonne of food waste, based on a volatile
solids degradation rate of 80%, as is supported by the literature previously cited on AD plant operation
17
assumptions has been described in analysis undertaken on behalf of Defra.14
The model has been adapted to reflect the likely performance of Bulgarian landfills. In
particular, a gas capture rate of 20% is assumed over the lifetime of the landfill (assumed to
be 150 years) in line with analysis presented by the European Environment Agency which
applied the same rate to all European countries.15 It is further assumed that more of the gas
escapes during the initial years after the material is landfilled, as the landfill cells will not be
permanently covered at this stage, and that less escapes once the permanent cover has
been applied (thereby further increasing the impact associated with landfilling the more
readily degradable materials such as food waste).
3.4.4.2 Incineration
Incineration facilities are assumed to generate only electricity, with a gross electrical
generation efficiency of 23%.16 This is assumed to avoid the requirement for an equivalent
electrical generation from power stations, based on the mix of fuels currently exporting
electricity to the Bulgarian grid.17 Both the climate change and air quality impacts associated
with this avoided generation are considered, with the emissions from power generation being
based on emissions data from the ecoinvent database.18
In the case of the direct air quality impacts, it is assumed that the incinerators meet the
requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) with respect to the pollution
abatement equipment installed. Where damage costs have been used to assess the air
quality impacts, much of the impact is associated with emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
All UK facilities abate this type of impact through the use of Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction techniques, which allow the facility to meet the requirements of the WID, but not to
significantly exceed them.
3.4.4.3 MBT with Stabilised Output to Landfill
The aim of this type of MBT system is to produce a stabilised output such that landfill gas
production is greatly reduced when the output is landfilled. This is achieved through the use
of a controlled aerobic degradation process which is assumed to take place in an enclosed
composting system. Ferrous and non ferrous metals are also recovered and recycled through
front end mechanical sorting systems, as well as dense plastics (in the case of the latter, it is
assumed that only the bottle fraction is targeted). The model assumes 60% of the ferrous
14
Eunomia and Oonk H (2011) Inventory Improvement Project – UK Landfill Methane Emissions Model: Final
Report to Defra and DECC
15
The assumption was developed from the IPCC documentation. See: Skovgaard M, Hedal N, Villanueva A,
Andersen F and Larsen H (2008) Municipal Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases, ETC/RWM Working Paper
2008/1, January 2008; IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Metz B, Davidson O R, Bosch PR,
Dave R, and Meyer L A (eds)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.,
pp 600
16
Based on data obtained from the annual reports of typical UK incineration facilities, available from:
http://www.ukwin.org.uk
17
Eclareon / Oko Institut (2011) Integration of Electricity from Renewables to the Electricity Grid and to the
Electricity Market – RES-INTEGRATION: National Report – Bulgaria, Report for DG Energy, December 2011
18
Available from http://ecoinvent.ch
18
metal and 45% of the non ferrous metal is recovered, along with 30% of the dense plastic
fraction.
Landfill gas generation rates are assumed to be lower for stabilised biowaste than is the case
for untreated wastes, as it is assumed that the most readily degradable fraction has already
undergone appreciable degradation in the controlled aerobic degradation phase at the MBT
facility prior to the stabilised output being landfilled.
3.4.4.4 MBT with Output to Cement Kiln
This type of MBT system aims to recover recyclate as with the stabilised output system. In
addition, the system also produces a solid recovered fuel (SRF) which is produced following
a biodrying process. At present, Bulgaria does not have any incineration facilities; as such,
the SRF currently produced is largely used in a cement kiln, where it is assumed to displace
an equivalent amount of energy from coal. The use of the fuel in cement kilns results in a
greater environmental benefit than is typically the case where the fuel is used in an
incinerator, as coal is a relatively more polluting fuel.
4
Results
4.1
Options Totals
Table 4-1 presents total annualised option costs for the collection and treatment of organic
and residual waste, with the financial and environmental costs being separately identified.
The totals do not include any financial cost or environmental impact associated with the
collection of dry recyclables. The costs have been adjusted such that landfill tax has been
removed from the total financial cost, as the tax is intended to offset some or all of the
environmental impact associated with the pollution from landfilling waste. This is accounted
for within the analysis under the environmental cost of each option.
Table 4-1: Total Annualised Option Costs
TOTALS
Annualised financial costs, €
thousand
Collection
Treatment
Environmental costs, €
thousand
Collection
Treatment
Scenario 1
€ 231,599
€ 69,671
€ 119,707
€ 71
€ 42,150
Scenario 2A
€ 333,520
€ 69,671
€ 219,815
€ 71
€ 43,962
Scenario 2B
€ 269,464
€ 69,671
€ 163,273
€ 71
€ 36,448
Scenario 3A
€ 246,728
Scenario 3B
€ 249,243
€ 90,582
€ 92,901
€ 119,331
€ 119,114
€ 106
€ 112
€ 36,709
€ 37,117
The results confirm that Scenario 2A is the most expensive of the four options considered
within the analysis. Scenario 2B performs relatively better in the analysis than Scenario 2A
but has a higher overall cost than Scenarios 1 or 3. Table 4-1 also confirms collection costs
are relatively low where no separate collection for organic waste is in place, but that these
increase when the separate collection is introduced. However, financial treatment costs
decline for Scenario 3A and Scenario 3B in comparison to Scenario 1, whereas Scenarios 2A
and 2B result in an increase in treatment costs relative to Scenario 1.
19
Although it is the cheapest scenario in terms of the overall annualised option costs, Scenario
1 is not compliant with the Landfill Directive and does not contribute to recycling targets
stipulated in the revised Waste Framework Directive. Scenario 1 also has the highest overall
environmental costs. The two scenarios where organic waste is treated separately have
lower environmental costs, with Scenario 3A being the best performer in this respect.
For all scenarios, much of the environmental impact is associated with the treatment
element, with transport impacts making only a minor contribution. Environmental impacts of
collection are increased where the separate collection system is introduced by virtue of the
requirement for additional vehicles.
4.2
Financial Costs
4.2.1 Financial Cost of Treatment
Table 4-2 presents the financial cost of the different waste treatment types per tonne of waste
treated. The table confirms that the capital cost for AD is much higher than that of open air
windrow. Operating costs, however, are lower, in part because of the impact of the subsidy
applied to renewable energy generation currently set at €115 per MWh for electricity
generated from 100% biomass through AD facilities. This subsidy is not available for
electricity generation from large incineration facilities.
Table 4-2: Financial Cost of Waste Treatment per Tonne (by Treatment Method)
Technology
Landfill
Incineration
with electricity
only
MBT
stabilisation
MBT - cement
kiln
Anaerobic
digestion
Open air
windrow
composting
€ 119.95
€ 7.45
Net
Operation,
Maintenance,
Revenues
and Disposal
Costs (O&M)
Per Tonne
€ 36.48
10%
Total
Annualised
Cost Per
Tonne
(Annualised
Capex + Net
O&M Costs)
€ 52.25
€ 646.34
€ 7.45
€ 20.00
12%
€ 106.53
€ 170.40
€ 7.45
€ 50.83
12%
€ 73.64
€ 185.22
€ 7.45
€ 46.37
12%
€ 71.16
€ 313.62
€ 6.82
-€ 0.36
12%
€ 41.63
€ 89.58
€ 5.83
€ 11.13
10%
€ 22.91
Bulgarian
Capex Per
Tonne
Bulgarian
‘Pure Opex’
Per Tonne
Cost of
Capital (%)
Table 4-3 shows the annual financial impacts for waste treatment under each scenario
broken down by the type of waste treatment. This details the annual costs for each of the
residual waste treatments and combines the cost of the organic waste treatments. The totals
presented here include landfill tax, which is excluded from the total option cost presented in
Table 4-1.
As was previously indicated in Error! Reference source not found. which presented a
breakdown of the capital and operating costs, the capital cost element contributes
20
significantly to the total cost of Scenario 2A, where a significant proportion of the residual
waste is incinerated. The increased capital cost associated with AD in comparison to open air
windrow result in Scenario 3A (mixed AD and open air windrow) having a higher overall cost
than Scenario 3B (open air windrow only), despite less waste being treated in Scenario 3A
than in Scenario 3B.
Table 4-3: Financial Cost of Each Option – Cost Type and Treatment Type
Annualised financial cost per year, € thousands
Landfill
Totals
Capex
Net
Opex
Incineration
MBT
stabilisation
MBT
cement
kiln
Organic
Total
financial
cost of
option
Scenario
1
€ 80,948
€0
€ 10,511
€ 28,248
€ 119,707
Scenario
2A
€ 30,356
€ 150,701
€ 10,511
€ 28,248
€ 219,815
Scenario
2B
€ 30,356
€0
€ 10,511
€ 122,406
€ 163,273
Scenario
3A
€ 64,497
€0
€ 8,375
€ 22,507
€ 23,952
€ 119,331
Scenario
3B
€ 64,497
€0
€ 8,375
€ 22,507
€ 23,735
€ 119,114
Scenario
1
€ 37,270
€0
€ 3,663
€ 10,109
€ 51,041
Scenario
2A
€ 13,976
€ 127,812
€ 3,663
€ 10,109
€ 155,560
Scenario
2B
€ 13,976
€0
€ 3,663
€ 43,804
€ 61,443
Scenario
3A
€ 29,695
€0
€ 2,918
€ 8,054
€ 24,420
€ 65,087
Scenario
3B
€ 29,695
€0
€ 2,918
€ 8,054
€ 12,699
€ 53,367
Scenario
1
€ 86,218
€0
€ 6,849
€ 22,526
€ 115,592
Scenario
2A
€ 32,332
€ 29,536
€ 6,849
€ 22,526
€ 91,242
Scenario
2B
€ 32,332
€0
€ 6,849
€ 97,611
€ 136,792
Scenario
3A
€ 68,696
€0
€ 5,457
€ 17,948
€ 72
€ 92,172
Scenario
3B
€ 68,696
€0
€ 5,457
€ 17,948
€ 12,006
€ 104,106
Notes:
Total costs combine the Capex with the Net Opex, and also include landfill tax.
21
4.2.2 Financial Cost of Collection
Table 4-4 shows the overall annual cost of the two different collection systems, along with the
net increase in collection cost resulting from the change from the current arrangements to a
source segregated biowaste system. The table also presents the costs on a per-household
and a per-tonne basis. Results are separately presented for both Scenario 3A and 3B.
These results show that the cost per tonne decreases for Scenario 3B in comparison to the
current collection arrangements, as more waste is treated by the system than is the case in
the current system. The cost per household, however, increases for the organic waste
collection systems in comparison to the current system by €5.72 and €6.35 per household for
Scenario 3A and Scenario 3B respectively.
Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 present the increase in cost against each of the settlement types
included within the analysis. This confirms that the urban areas account for a significant
proportion of the cost increase for both Scenarios, reflecting the significant contribution to
population made by this settlement type. In the urban areas, most of the cost increase
relates to the food waste collection. In rural areas, however, garden waste makes a more
significant contribution to the cost increase.
Table 4-4: Collection Cost per Household and per Tonne
Current collection
arrangements
Source segregated
biowaste collection
NET COST
INCREASE
(from current to
source segregated)
Total (annual)
option cost, €
thousand
€69,671
Cost per
household (€)
Cost per tonne
(€)
€19.04
€23.58
Scenario 3A
€90,582
€32.62
€22.46
Scenario 3B
€92,901
€25.39
€23.04
Scenario 3A
€20,911
€5.72
€6.58
Scenario 3B
€23,229
€6.35
- €0.05
Table 4-5: Breakdown of Cost Increase by Settlement Type – Scenario 3A
Urban
Semi-Urban
Rural
Total
€ 13,031
€ 3,919
€ 3,960
€ 20,911
€0
€0
€0
€0
Cost to Food
€ 11,416
€ 2,388
€ 2,576
€ 16,381
Cost to Green
€ 1,615
€ 1,531
€ 1,384
€ 4,530
Total
Cost to Residual
Table 4-6: Breakdown of Cost Increase by Settlement Type – Scenario 3B
Urban
Semi-Urban
Rural
Total
€ 13,818
€ 4,681
€ 4,731
€ 23,229
€0
€0
€0
€0
Cost to Food
€ 11,416
€ 2,733
€ 2,576
€ 16,726
Cost to Green
€ 2,402
€ 1,948
€ 2,154
€ 6,504
Total
Cost to Residual
22
4.3
Environmental Costs
Table 4-7 presents the environmental costs per tonne of material for landfill, separately
identifying the impact associated with the climate change and air quality impacts. Data are
presented separately for incineration and the MBT treatments in Table 4-7, Table 4-8, Table
4-9 and Table 4-10 respectively. Note that the tables present the environmental costs
inclusive of the biogenic CO2 emissions, which are typically excluded in environmental
analyses that follow the life cycle approach to emissions accounting.
Table 4-7: Environmental Costs of Landfill (per tonne of waste)
Climate change
Food waste
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Textile
Garden waste
Misc. combustibles
Glass
Metals
Other inert material
Air quality
€ 20.26
€ 34.16
€ 34.16
€ 0.04
€ 18.80
€ 19.38
€ 23.49
€ 0.04
€ 0.04
€ 0.04
Total
€ 3.48
€ 2.53
€ 3.15
€ 0.11
€ 5.66
€ 3.67
€ 4.99
€ 0.11
€ 0.11
€ 0.11
€ 23.74
€ 36.69
€ 37.30
€ 0.15
€ 24.46
€ 23.05
€ 28.48
€ 0.15
€ 0.15
€ 0.15
Table 4-8: Environmental Costs of Incineration (per tonne of waste)
Climate change
Food waste
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Textile
Garden waste
Misc. combustibles
Glass
Metals
Other inert material
Air quality
€ 9.76
€ 22.86
€ 20.13
€ 34.45
€ 19.26
€ 12.33
€ 26.45
€ 0.07
-€ 8.62
€ 0.07
Total
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 3.95
€ 13.71
€ 26.81
€ 24.08
€ 38.40
€ 23.20
€ 16.28
€ 30.39
€ 4.01
-€ 4.67
€ 4.01
Table 4-9: Environmental Costs of MBT with Bio-stabilised Output (per tonne of waste)
Climate change
Food waste
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Textile
Garden waste
Misc. combustibles
Glass
Metals
Other inert material
Air quality
€ 10.70
€ 21.42
€ 20.17
€ 1.37
€ 12.89
€ 11.96
€ 14.99
€ 1.64
€ 0.57
€ 1.64
23
Total
€ 1.53
€ 2.23
€ 1.93
€ 0.93
€ 5.24
€ 2.05
€ 4.19
€ 1.05
€ 0.31
€ 1.05
€ 12.24
€ 23.65
€ 22.10
€ 2.30
€ 18.13
€ 14.01
€ 19.18
€ 2.69
€ 0.88
€ 2.69
Table 4-10: Environmental Costs of MBT with Cement Kiln (per tonne of waste)
Climate change
Air quality
€ 6.47
€ 13.09
€ 7.91
-€ 19.64
€ 7.53
€ 1.18
-€ 6.46
-€ 1.02
-€ 42.35
-€ 1.02
Food waste
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Textile
Garden waste
Misc. combustibles
Glass
Metals
Other inert material
Total
€ 1.35
€ 1.87
€ 1.77
€ 1.37
€ 2.46
€ 1.27
€ 1.95
€ 1.64
€ 0.57
€ 1.64
€ 7.82
€ 14.96
€ 9.68
-€ 18.28
€ 9.99
€ 2.45
-€ 4.51
€ 0.62
-€ 41.78
€ 0.62
Scenario 3A considers the impact of using AD facilities to treat the food waste element of the
separately collected biowaste, with garden waste assumed to be treated at open air
windrows. In Scenario 3B, where more garden waste is assumed to be collected, the organic
waste is assumed to be treated using open air windrows.
Table 4-11 presents environmental impacts for the treatment of organic waste through AD
and open air windrow facilities, and confirms that the environmental costs of treating the
material separately are reduced in comparison to those of the residual waste treatment
methods. Although the composting process does not result in a benefit associated with
energy generation, impacts associated with the beneficial use of compost contribute to the
overall relatively good performance of the open air windrow composting system in respect of
the environmental impacts.
The results in Table 4-11 also confirm there is an improvement in the environmental cost of
treating the waste where AD is used to treat the food waste element. It is important to note
that the benefit associated with the use of the latter technology assumes that only the
electricity generated from the combustion of biogas in a gas engine is utilised. However,
combustion in a gas engine would also result in the production of a significant quantity of
heat. Where demand exists, this heat could also be utilised, resulting in additional
environmental benefits not included within the current analysis.
Table 4-11: Environmental Costs of Biowaste Treatment
Environmental costs per tonne of waste treated
Climate change
Open Air Windrow:
biowaste
Open Air Windrow:
garden waste
AD (electricity only):
food waste
Air quality
Beneficial use
of compost
(non climate
change)
Total
€ 9.83
€ 1.36
- € 3.67
€ 7.52
€ 11.51
€ 1.17
- € 3.65
€ 9.04
€ 5.76
- € 0.07
24
€ 5.76
4.4
Sensitivity Analysis
The capital cost of building an AD plant is typically higher than that of the open air windrow
facilities, and makes a significant contribution to the overall financial cost of using this type of
technology. However, the capital cost elements are eligible for funding from the Structural
Funds Programme, which would greatly reduce the cost of developing such facilities. As
such, Table 4-12 presents the results excluding the capital cost of developing the AD plant for
Scenario 3A, assuming that these costs are met by funding from the Structural Funds
Programme.
Table 4-12: Annualised Option Costs – Excluding AD Capital Cost
TOTALS
Annualised financial costs, €
thousand
Collection
Treatment
Environmental costs, €
thousand
Collection
Treatment
Scenario 1
€ 231,599
€ 69,671
€ 119,707
€ 71
€ 42,150
Scenario 2A
€ 333,520
€ 69,671
€ 219,815
€ 71
€ 43,962
Scenario 2B
€ 269,464
€ 69,671
€ 163,273
€ 71
€ 36,448
Scenario 3A
€ 223,608
€ 90,582
€ 96,211
€ 106
€ 36,709
These results show that if all of the capital cost were to be met through the Structural Funds
Programme, the overall cost for Scenario 3A is lower than that of a continuation of the
current collection and treatment arrangements.
4.5
Contribution to Statutory Targets
Table 4-13 shows the contributions made by each of the Scenarios towards meeting the
Waste Framework Directive and Landfill Directive targets, the latter being expressed in
additional tonnes of BMW diverted from landfill over that which would have been diverted
under Scenario 1. This confirms that although Scenario 2A would result in a higher landfill
diversion rate than Scenario 3, only the latter would make a contribution towards meeting
both targets.
Table 4-13: Contributions to Statutory Targets by each Scenario
Contribution towards meeting
1
50% recycling target
0
0
20%
30%
Additional biowaste diversion
from landfill, tonnes BMW
758,889
2
478,100
3
599,456
3
599,456
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 3A
Scenario 3B
Notes:
1. The analysis here focuses only on the contribution towards recycling targets made by the
introduction of the biowaste collection system (improvements in the collection of dry
recyclables through the roll out of additional recycling centres across Bulgaria are not
considered).
2. 70% BMW is assumed to be diverted from landfill through the use of MBT.
3. Excludes the impact of any additional garden waste added to the system as a consequence of
the introduction of the collection system (this waste is assumed not to be landfilled at present).
25
5 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis:

The introduction of a source segregated system for the collection and treatment of
biowaste would result in additional collection costs of €5.72 per household in comparison
to a continuation of the current arrangements (assuming no additional garden waste is
added to the collection and treatment system). However, the source separated treatment
system would result in a reduction in waste treatment costs irrespective of whether the
separately collected food waste is treated at either open air windrows or AD facilities;

In contrast, the use of incineration to meet Landfill Directive targets would result in an
overall increase in treatment costs of (although there would be no increase in the
collection cost);

The use of MBT to meet the Landfill Directive targets would result in lower treatment
costs than incineration. However, this option is also more costly than the introduction of
the source segregated biowaste system, and is expected to lead to a lower level of
landfill diversion than the incineration or separate biowaste options;

Although the continuation of the current collection and treatment arrangements for waste
would result in lower financial costs in comparison to a separate biowaste collection
system where the waste was composted, the current system is not compliant with the
Landfill Directive. In addition, the separately collected biowaste would also contribute
towards meeting the 50% recycling target stipulated in the revised Waste Framework
Directive;

It is important to note with reference to the costs per household or per inhabitant that the
arisings data includes some commercial waste as well as household waste. There is
insufficient data with which to determine the actual amount of household waste produced
per-inhabitant or per-household;

The separate biowaste collection and treatment system also has the lowest
environmental cost of the options considered within the analysis, with environmental
burdens being approximately half of those associated with the current collection and
treatment arrangements. Most of the benefit is associated with the diversion of biowaste
from landfill, as collection-related impacts make only a minor contribution to the overall
environmental cost;

If AD is used to treat the food waste collected through the source segregated biowaste
system, and assuming Bulgaria was able to secure funding from the Structural Funds
Programme to meet the capital costs of facility development, the overall financial and
environmental cost of introducing the source segregated system is anticipated to less
than that of the current collection and treatment arrangements;

Costs are calculated assuming the purchase of new vehicles for the organic waste
collection system. It may be possible to further reduce costs through the use of vehicles
that have previously been in service elsewhere in Europe. In addition to a reduction in
financial costs, this would result in a slight increase in the environmental costs associated
with Scenarios 3A and 3B, as the emissions abatement is higher on the newer vehicles
than on the older.
26