UZB TA 8004 Appendix 3 Waste Characterization Study (WACS) · 2017. 1. 17. · Use of mixed waste...

UZB‐ TA 8004

Appendix 3 Waste Characterization Study (WACS) Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 i

TableofContentsSUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.0 BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

2.0 METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 2.1 PLANNING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 2.2 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 2.3 WASTE COLLECTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 2.4 WEIGHING OF WASTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 2.5 WASTE SORTING --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 2.6 DATA PROCESSING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

3.0 LIMITATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.1 WASTE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 4.2 WASTE GENERATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------------------------ 10

List of Tables Table 1: Typical Components of Municipal Solid Waste of Tashkent ..................................... 4

Table 2: Survey Features of WACS ........................................................................................ 5

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

................................................................................................................................................ 6

Table 4: Processed WACS Data of Commercial Waste ......................................................... 8

Table 5: Summarized Population and Waste Generation Projections for Tashkent City ........ 9

List of Figures Figure 1: Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of High Rise units ...................................... 7 Figure 2: : Pie Diagram of the Waste Composition of Low Rise units .................................... 8

Figure 3: 25-Year Waste Generation Projection of Tashkent City ........................................ 10

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1 Summary of July 2012 WACS 11

Annex 2 Questionnaire for Households Tashkent Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey (WACS) 12

Annex 3 WACS Collection Form – High Rise Residences 13

Annex 4 WACS Collection Form – Low-Rise Residences 14

Annex 5 WACS Sorting Form 15

Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Program TA 8004 1

SUMMARYANDKEYFINDINGSA Waste Characterization Survey (WACS) was undertaken at selected High and Low Rise residential areas in Mirzo Ulugbek district, Tashkent City from October to November 2012 as part of the Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project under ADB TA 8004-UZB.

The WACS’s aim is to gather specific information on the waste composition and generation of the residential sector of Tashkent City, which could be used as inputs in developing plans for waste collection, recycling and disposal.

The waste composition results show that vegetable and organic matter make up the bulk of the waste generated at the residential areas. This component accounts for 67% and 62% of the High and Low Rise household waste respectively, and can possibly be used to generate compost or soil conditioners. Programs for the establishment of composting plants should take into consideration that such facilities would require source-segregated biodegradable materials for sustainable operations. Use of mixed waste inputs into composting plants would greatly affect processing operations and significantly lower the quality of output.

Potential recyclable materials from residential waste include PET and plastic bottles (2.5 to 3.9%), other plastic materials (2.5 to 3.4%), plastic bags and sheets (4.7 to 5.4%), metals (1.7 to 1.8%), carton/paper (5.3 to 7.9%) and glass (5.3 to 7.5%. Collectively, these materials make up 25 to 28 % of the household waste. Based on observed sorting practices, only about half of these materials (12 to 13%) can actually be recovered for recycling.

Commercial waste contains slightly higher percentages of glass, metal and PET/plastic bottles.

As observed and based on the survey of participating households, recovery of recyclable materials at source by households is not generally practiced. Recovery of recyclable materials is done by the informal sector at the collection points, collection trucks and at the Akhangaran disposal site. Sorting at the collection points focuses on the retrieval of clean PET and cartons/paper. Additional sorting of waste is undertaken at the Akhangaran disposal site where an undetermined quantity of PET, plastic sheets, other plastics, paper and carton and glass bottles is recovered and eventually sold to dealers of recyclable materials.

The survey shows that per capita waste generation of High Rise residential units is 0.55 kg while that of the Low Rise units is 0.56 kg. The slight difference in per capita generation is attributed to the observed higher affluence in the private residences in the low rise housing sector within the latter compared to those residing in high rise apartments. The weighted per capita waste generation for the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District and indicatively for Tashkent residences is 0.56 kg.

Using the official projected Tashkent City population of 2.32 million, (which may be underestimated), the estimated residential waste generation in 2012 is 1,288 tons per day. Commercial waste is estimated at 386 tons per day which was arrived at by applying the 30% Maxsustrans estimate for this sector. These translate to an indicative waste generation of 1,674 tons per day for Tashkent City. By 2020, it is projected that waste generation would reach 1,929 tpd and attain 2,615 tpd by 2037.

The derived waste generation projections need to be validated through the conduct of waste characterization of both the residential and commercial sectors for all the four seasons. The results should also be correlated with the monthly waste collection records of Maxsustrans for the past five years.


1.0 BACKGROUNDThis report presents and evaluates the results of the Waste Characterization Survey (WACS) undertaken at selected High Rise and Low Rise residential units at the Mirzo Ulugbek District of Tashkent City, Uzbekistan. The survey was conducted during the period from October 25 to November 1, 2012 as part of the Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project under ADB TA 8004-UZB.

Solid waste management in the City of Tashkent corresponds to a collection and disposal system managed by a company known as Maxsustrans. Based on data provided by this organization, about 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste are collected and disposed per day. Around 70% or 1,400 tons corresponds to waste generated by the residential sector with the balance accounted for by the commercial and budget sectors. The residential sector is made up of those residents occupying the High Rise, multi-unit buildings (apartments) and those which live in single detached, privately owned households referred to as Low Rise units. Based on the 2011 collection records of Maxsustrans, High Rise and Low Rise waste respectively correspond to 42% and 58% of the residential waste. Maxsustrans refers to the combination of waste from market stalls, supermarkets, restaurants, eateries and hotels, other self-financing companies, schools, hospitals, colleges, polyclinics, universities and other learning institutions as commercial waste.

Prior to this survey, the only recorded indication of the amount and composition of waste in Tashkent City are those found in the waste collection and disposal records of Maxsustrans and the results of the WACs undertaken in July 2012 which focused in determining the composition of the commercial and household waste of the Mirabad District and the high rise residential communities of the Mirzo Ulugbek and Uchtepa Districts (Annex 1). It was also reported that the assumed per capita waste generation is 0.870 kg.

The current WACS aimed to gather more specific information on the waste composition and generation of the residential sector of Tashkent City which could be used as inputs in developing plans for waste collection, recycling and disposal. With due consideration of the available time and resources, the survey focused on the Mirzo Ulugbek District which is deemed to be representative of the residential sector of Tashkent City.

2.0 METHODOLOGYThe survey was undertaken in accordance with the following sequence:

2.1 PlanningThe district of Mirzo Ulugbek was selected to represent the residential sector of Tashkent City. Within the district, the cluster of nine High Rise residences along Fayzulla Khodjayeva Street was chosen. Residents of this chosen cluster bring their household waste to Collection Point No. 19.

The strip of Low Rise residential units along Kibray and Khirmontepa streets was selected as representative of this sector. Waste from this residential area is collected every Thursday and Monday by the trucks of Maxsustrans.

A total of 100 units (households) was targeted for each of the selected High Rise and Low Rise residences, making a total of 200.

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


High Rise residences: October 26 to November 2

Low Rise residences1: October 25 to November 1

2.2 HouseholdSurveyA survey of each of the selected residential units was made prior to the collection of waste. The main purpose of the survey was to determine the number of persons residing in each unit and to ascertain if recovery and storage of recyclables are done at the household level. The designated waste collector issued the survey form (Annex 2) and directly solicited the required information from the household.

2.3 WasteCollectionFor each of the selected High Rise residences, a labeled plastic waste bag was issued every morning for eight consecutive days with instructions that the household’s daily waste generated would be collected the following day. The designated collector collected the waste-filled bag from the selected units and issued a new bag for the waste for the following day. For tracking and systematic recording, a form for recording collected waste bags and corresponding weights is used (Annex 3)

For the Low Rise residences, two batches of generated waste from each selected household were collected. Batch 1 represents the waste generated from October 25 to October 28. Three large bags were issued to accommodate the waste for the 4-day period. Batch 2 corresponds to the waste generated from October 29 to October 31. Batch 1 and Batch 2 were collected and subjected to sorting on October 29 and November 1, respectively.

During the collection of waste from the Low Rise residences, it was noted that at least one of the issued plastic bags was used by the residents for the placement of tree leaves and other trimmings, household waste and mixture of household waste and leaves. All such bags were also collected and weighed and the results recorded in a separate form for Low Rise residences (Annex 4).

2.4 WeighingofWasteThe collected waste bag from each High Rise residential unit was weighed and the result duly recorded.

In the case of the Low Rise residences, the waste bags from each household were weighed and summed and likewise recorded. The bags filled with tree leaves and trimmings and those where trimmings and household waste were mixed were also weighed and recorded.

The household waste from each bag was placed in a 100 liter plastic drum of known weight. The completely filled drum was then weighed to get the weight of the waste. This process was made for all the collected waste bags from both High and Low Rise residences. All measurements were recorded into the waste sorting form (Annex 5).

The above-mentioned steps were repeated for seven days for waste collected from High Rise residences and once on November 1 for waste collected from Low Rise residences.

2.5 WasteSortingAfter weighing and volume measurements, the collected waste was placed on a plastic mat for segregation into the various components indicated in Table 1.

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


Table 1: Typical Components of Municipal Solid Waste of Tashkent

Component Description Glass Bottles of wine, soft drinks, vodka, beer, other drinks

Metal Tinned food containers, drink cans, other metals

Carton and paper Cartons of milk and drinks, paper sheets, cigarette packs, shoe boxes, occasional large boxes, wrappers

PET Bottles of mineral water, soft drinks and drinks, bottle caps

Plastic bags and sheets Plastic bags, sheets

Other plastics Plastic cups, containers, occasional clothes hangers, detergent containers, toys, occasional styrofoam

Vegetables and other organic matter Vegetables, fruits, vegetable and fruit peelings, food waste, occasional bones, egg shells

Wood Pieces of wood from house appliance, frames

Textile Old clothes, socks, rags

Leather/rubber Shoes, bags, belts

Hazardous waste Light bulbs, lighter, syringes, aerosol cans, batteries

Residual materials Sanitary napkins, ceramics, small sachets

Where present, construction waste which includes concrete debris, window glass, paint containers, formworks, electrical wires, plugs and sockets was segregated and weighed.

The segregated components were then placed in plastic bags and weighed separately. The process was repeated for seven days for waste obtained from High Rise residences and undertaken on October 29 and November 1 for waste from Low Rise Residences.

The weights of the corresponding waste components were then recorded using the waste sorting form (Annex 5).

2.6 DataProcessingThe obtained weight recorded for each day in the case of the High Rise residences was divided by the number of household occupants to determine the per capita generation.

In the case of the Low Rise residences, the weights of the waste bags under Batch 1 were measured, summed and divided by 4 to arrive at the daily waste generation per household. The weight of Batch 2 waste per household was divided by three to get the daily waste generation. The daily waste generation per household was then divided by the number of occupants to get the per capita waste generation.

The values of the per capita waste generation obtained per household for both High Rise and Low Rise residences were then averaged to get the per capita generation of the residential areas of Mirzo Ulugbek district, and generally for the City of Tashkent.

Waste density is obtained by dividing the sum of the weights of the sorted waste by the total volume. The results obtained for each of the 8-day period are averaged to get the density of


waste from the High Rise residences. The densities of Batch 1 and Batch 2 wastes are averaged to get the average density of waste from the Low Rise residences,

The weights of the various components from residential units were tabulated, averaged and represented in the form of pie charts.

Table 2 shows the number of households which were surveyed and sampled during the WACS.

Table 2: Survey Features of WACS

Survey Features High Rise Residences

Low Rise Residences

Surveyed Households

100 100

Sampled Households per day

51 89

Average Waste collected per day

95 186

Average number of household occupants

3 3.5

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

The same assessment was applied for the waste generation rates computed in the households belonging to the Low Rise residences.

3.0 LIMITATIONSThe survey was undertaken in autumn in only one of the eleven districts which make up the Tashkent City and covered only the residential sector. Operationally, WACs should be conducted in at least three districts four times within the year to account for seasonal and spatial variation in waste generation and composition. This four-season survey should also cover the establishments which generate commercial waste as defined by Maxsustrans.

Notwithstanding these conditions, the results obtained provide an indication of the properties of the waste generated and generation rate by the residential sector of Tashkent City. The results of this survey were correlated with the WACS that was conducted in July 2012, the visual observations of solid waste management practices in the city and the collection and disposal data provided by Maxsustrans.


4.0 RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS

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

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

№

Properties High Rise Low Rise

Weighted Average 8-day

Average 7- day Average

Avg. Density (kg/m3) 130 142.5 137.25

Components Percentage % %

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

10 Hazardous 1.27% 0.31% 0.71%

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

The typical 11 components of municipal solid waste are generated at both the High and Low residential areas. Construction waste is present in the Low Rise residences but was not encountered in the High Rise residences, at least during this survey. It is inferred that the limited space in High Rise units precluded construction activities in them thus reducing the likelihood of generating this type of waste in these households.

Vegetables and organic matter make up the bulk of the waste generated at the residential areas. This component accounts for 66.7% and 62.1% of the High and Low Rise household waste respectively. If segregated at source, this type of waste could be used to generate compost.


Potentially recyclable materials include PET and plastic bottles (3.9 to 2.5%), other plastic materials (2.5% to 3.4%), plastic bags and sheets (5.8 to 4.7%), metals (1.7 to 1.8%), carton/paper (5.3 to 7.9%) and glass (5.3 to 7.5%). Collectively, these materials make up 25 to 28 % of the household waste. Based on the observed sorting practices, only about half of these materials (12 to 13%) can actually be recovered for recycling.

As observed and based on the household survey, PET and plastic bottles are targeted by waste pickers at both the guarded and unguarded collection points. It is estimated that about 50% of the PET and plastic bottles is recovered at the collection points. The remaining 50% reaches the Akhangaran disposal site where recovery of about 20 to 30% is attained by the waste pickers.

The quality of carton and paper material recovered at the collection points and at the Akhangaran dumpsite is poor. Based on visual observations, it is estimated that only 10 to 20 % of this component is actually recyclable.

Metal content in the waste is low. This is attributed to the preference of the residents for fresh meat and fruits over canned goods. The preferred use of glass bottles for beer and PET for soft drinks and juices likewise contributed to the low metal output from the household waste. It is estimated that 70 to 80% of metals are recovered from the waste stream.

Plastic bags and sheets make are also of low quality and have poor potential for reuse or recycling. A conservative estimate of 10% of these materials can likely be recycled. About 30 to 50% of the other plastics can be recycled.

About 80% of the glass can potentially be recovered for recycling.

Figures 1 and 2 visually represent the composition of the waste generated at the selected High Rise and Low Rise residences.

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


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

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

Table 4: Processed WACS Data of Commercial Waste

№ Components %

1 Glass 10.57

2 Metals 2.83

3 Paper, cardboard 4.10

4 Plastic bottles/PET 3.19

5 Other plastics 4.44

6 Vegetable/Organic 27.88

7 Wood 9.25

8 Textiles 5.21

9 Leather/Rubber 2.46

10 Hazardous Waste 1.07

11 Residuals/Other 29.01

Total 100.00


4.2 WasteGenerationPer capita waste generation of High Rise residential units is estimated to be 0.55 kg (Annex 6) while that of the Low Rise units is 0.56 kg (Annex 7). The slight difference in per capita generation is attributed to the observed higher affluence in the private residences within the Low Rise Areas as compared to those residing in the High Rise units. The weighted per capita waste generation for the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District and indicatively for Tashkent residences is 0.556 kg, or about 0.56 kg per capita per day.

Using the projected Tashkent City population of 2.32 million, the estimated residential waste generation in 2012 is 1,288 tons per day. Commercial waste is estimated at 386 tons per day which was arrived at by applying the 30% Maxsustrans estimate for this sector. These translate to an indicative current waste generation 1,674 tons per day of Tashkent City (Table 5). By 2020, it is estimated that waste generation would reach 1,929 tpd and attain 2,615 tpd by 2037. The graphical 25-year waste generation projection of Tashkent City is presented in Figure 4.

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

Year 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2037

Projected Tashkent City Population2 2.32 2.39 2.51 2.64 2.77 2.92 2.97

Per capita waste generation (kg) 0.56 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.71

Total Residential Waste Generated per day (tons)3 1,288 1,368 1,511 1,669 1,843 2,036 2,119

Commercial Waste Generation per day (tons) 386 398 418 439 462 485 495

Total Waste Generation per day (tons) 1,674 1,765 1,929 2,108 2,305 2,522 2,614

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


Figure 3: 25-Year Waste Generation Projection of Tashkent City

‐

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000To

ns

Year

Total Waste Generation perdayCommercial Waste Per day

Total Residential WasteGenerated per day

5.0 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the WACS provide the per capita generation of the residential sector of Mirzo Ulugbek District for the autumn season. Together with the established 30% commercial waste collection of Maxsustrans, it can be used to prepare indicative waste generation projections for the City of Tashkent.

The derived waste generation projections need to be validated through the conduct of waste characterization of both the residential and commercial sectors for all four seasons during the year. The results should be correlated with the monthly waste collection records of Maxsustrans for the past five years.

The amount of potentially recyclable materials comprises about 26% of the generated waste. However, realistically, only about 10% to 12% can actually be recovered for recycling or reuse. Data on the actual amount of recyclable materials recovered from both residential and commercial waste is not available.

As observed, and based on the survey of participating households, recovery of recyclable materials at source by households is not generally practiced. Recovery of recyclable materials is done by the informal sector at the collection points, collection trucks and at the Akhangaran disposal site. Sorting at the collection points mostly focuses on the retrieval of clean PET and cartons/paper. Additional sorting of waste is undertaken at the Akhangaran disposal site where an undetermined quantity of PET, plastic sheets, other plastics, paper and carton and glass bottles is recovered and eventually sold to dealers of recyclable materials.

The bulk of the residential waste is made up of biodegradable materials which could potentially be used for generating compost or soil conditioners. Programs for the establishment of composting plants should take into consideration that such facilities would require source-segregated biodegradable materials for sustainable operations. Use of mixed waste inputs into composting plants would greatly affect processing operations and significantly lower the quality of the output.


ANNEX 1: Summary of July 2012 WACS

№ Components Commercial at Mirabad

Low Rise Units at Mirabad

High Rise Units at Uchtepa

High Rise Units at Mirzo

Ulugbek

%

1 Glass 10.57 11.10 3.02 4.57

2 Metals 2.83 2.94 0.64 3.42

3 Paper, cardboard 4.10 2.75 1.50 5.35

4 Plastic bottles/PET 3.19 1.42 2.53 3.60

5 Other plastics 4.44 5.79 0.48 2.64

6 Vegetable/Organic 7.88 32.37 61.42 57.81

7 Wood 9.25 5.38 1.03 1.95

8 Textiles 5.21 4.43 0.90 1.63

9 Leather/Rubber 2.46 2.89 0.70 0.85

10 Hazardous Waste 1.07 1.59 - 0.22

11 Residuals/Other 29.01 29.34 27.77 17.96


ANNEX 2: Questionnaire for Households Tashkent Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey (WACS)

High Rise Low Rise

Name of Head of Family

Number or Persons in Household

Adult Children less than 10

years old

Household Address

Unit No.

Building No.

Street Name

Waste Collection Method

Collection Method Tick Relevant Box

Directly by MT Truck

Guarded Collection point

Unguarded CP

Private Waste Picker

Materials Recycled from Waste

Material

Glass

Metals

PET/Plastic bottles

Paper/Cardboard

Food/Organic Materials

Wood

Leather/Rubber

Other (Please Specify)


ANNEX 3: WACS Collection Form – High Rise Residences

Collection Date

Street Name District Name

No. Building No. Unit No. Bag No. Bag Weight (kg) Remarks


ANNEX 4: WACS Collection Form – Low-Rise Residences

Collection Date

Street Name District Name

House No.

No. of Collected

Bags HH4 (wt) HH (wt) HH (wt)

TR5 (wt) TR (wt) TR (wt)

HHTR6 (wt)

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


ANNEX 5: WACS Sorting Form Waste Volume and Weight

Drum Volume (liters) 100 Weight of Waste (kg)

Weight of Drum (kg) 2.3

Weight of Drum 1 + Waste










Waste Composition

№ Components Weight in kilograms

1 Glass

2 Metals

3 Paper, cardboard, carton

4 Plastic bottles/PET

5 Plastic bags, sheets

6 Other plastics

7 Vegetable/Organic/Food

8 Wood

9 Textiles/Clothes

10 Leather/Rubber

11 Hazardous Waste

12 Residuals/Other

13 Construction Waste

UZB‐ TA 8004

Appendix 4 Collection Point Survey (COPS) Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

2

Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004

Collection Points Survey

A complete survey of all Maxsustrans waste collection points in Tashkent City (650 guarded and 350 unguarded) was carried out as part of the SWM study in July 2012. All 1,100 collection points were surveyed to record their location (geo-reference), condition, type of community served, volume of waste, number of bins and each photographed as a record of each one.

This information is capable of being recorded in a cross-referenced database to allow easy access to any particular collection point and used for determining the most cost-effective waste collection routing and schedule.

An example of the record for two collection points (guarded and unguarded) is included in Annex 4 to show the information that is available.

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

3


WASTE COLLECTION POINT SURVEY Tashkent Municipal Solid Waste Management System

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

Okilova

60

“Khamza” Transfer Station

“Yakkasaray” Transfer Station

*

“Yunusabad” Transfer Station

Akhangaran

Landfill

Other

Supervisor Name, Phone

Abdulkhayeva Rayhongul Makhmadovna – Usarova Gulnara

GPS Longitude Latitude

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

Type Guarded * Unguarded

Waste Collected Household Commercial Mixed *

Collection Schedule

Daily Once a Day *

Twice a Week Weekly

Other

Number of Bins

0,75 m3 1,1 m3 Othernew used bad new used bad new used bad

6

2

Recycling/ segregation

Yes *

No

Adjacent Recycling Business

Yes

No *

Water Power

Yes *

No

Sewage connection

Yes *

No

Photographs Taken

Yes *

No

4


Other Comments

Yuldoshev Khondamir, Phone +99890 934 93 39

5


WASTE COLLECTION POINT SURVEY Tashkent Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Rayon: Yakkasaray

Point Number Address Serving following station

Glinka

45

“Khamza” Transfer Station

“Yakkasaray” Transfer Station

*

“Yunusabad” Transfer Station

Akhangaran

Landfill

Other

Supervisor Name, Phone

GPS Longitude Latitude

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

Type Guarded Unguarded *

Waste Collected Household Commercial Mixed *

Collection Schedule

Daily

Once a Day *

Twice a Week Weekly

Other

Number of Bins

0,75 m3 1,1 m3 Other

new used bad new used bad new used bad

3

Recycling/ segregation

Yes

No *

6


Adjacent Recycling Business

Yes

No *

Water Power

Yes

No *

Sewage connection

Yes

No *

Photographs Taken

Yes

*

No

Other Comments

Yuldoshev Khondamir, Phone +99890 934 93 39

7


UZB-8004

Appendix 5 Waste Collection Assessment Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

Solid Was

1.0 SW 1.1 O

Solid wasorganizatimonitoredorganizatiMaxsustra

ste Manage

WM Syste

rganization

ste manageon is the Ci

d by the Con within th

ans and the

ement Inves

em Summa

nal Set Up

ement operty owned de

City’s “TAShe City’s adm

administrati

Figure 1

Figure 1

stment Proje

ary: Tashk

of SWM in

rations are epartment fo

S Public Utministration.ive rayons (d

.1: Organiza

1.2: Adminis

ect – TA 80

kent

Tashkent

organized or waste matilities Ope Figures 3.districts) tha

ational Char

strative Dist

004

and execanagement. ration TUE1 and 3.2 p

at it serves.

rt of MAXSU

tricts (Rayo

uted by MMaxustrans

ED” is a represent the o

USTRANS

ns) of Tash

MAXSUSTRAs’s operationelatively indorganization

kent

1

ANS. This n, although dependent

nal chart of

Solid Was

Based onthe strongdeterminaother hanand econo 1.2 D

According2,000 toncollection per persoservice 2Chirchik, recorded b

TashkenTransfeLandfill

City

Landfill

After the compositiobeen stardirection o

ste Manage

the informagest influenation of the fd, it seemsomic matters

omestic W

g to Maxsusts per day (efficiency on. Further, .3 to 3.0 ma small towbetween 20

nt City r Stations

Figure 1.4:

y of Chirchikl

review on aon of solid wrted within tof the waste

ement Inves

Figure 2

ation gatherce of munifees every p that Maxsus.

Waste Gen

trans, the d(TPD). This of 100%, basconsidering

million inhabwn located 07 to 2011 f

Unit tons tons

Waste Amo

k Unit tons

Figure 1.5

available recwaste. A dehe ADB Pro manageme

stment Proje

.3: Adminis

red in severcipality on person has tustrans is n

neration an

aily averagefigure was

sed on ‘city nthe collecti

bitants of Tnortheast ofor the city o

2007 424,400

596,100

ount of Tash[Sour

2007 31,766.6

5: Waste Am(Sour

cords, it waetailed Wastoject and went.

ect – TA 80

trative Rayo

ral official mthe waste mto pay for thot hardly co

nd Compo

e tonnage cbased on t

norms’, whicon efficienc

Tashkent whof Tashkent.of Tashkent

2008 414,800

581,400

hkent City Rrce: Maxsus

2008 32,268.7

mount of Chirce: Maxsus

as observedte Character

will deliver ba

004

on Populatio

meetings withmanagemenhe public waontrolled or

osition

ollected for the data coch are calcu

cy, it is projehich include. The figureand Church

2009 421,200

591,300

Recorded bystrans]

2009 34,527.6

irchik City fostrans)

that there rization Survasic data fo

on and Dens

h concernednt sector is aste manageregulated in

the city of Tollected fromulated as 1.0ected that thes 11 rayones below prik, respectiv

2010 418,600

586,900

y Weighbridg

2010 34,379.2

or 2007-11

is no reliabvey and Assor the devel

sities

d regulatory the final re

ement servicn regards to

Tashkent is m weighbridg0kg/d waste he companyns (city distresent the tovely.

2011 409,800 2578,000 2

ges 2007-11

2011 34,907.8 16

ble data regsessment haopment of t

2

agencies, eview and ce. On the o technical

pegged at ges with a generated

y is able to tricts) and otal waste

Total 2,088,8002,933,700

Total 67,849.9

arding the as already the further

3 Solid Waste Management Investment Project – TA 8004

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

Maxsustrans ATE Number of Collection

Points (CP)

1 Mirabad-Maxsustrans 44

2 M.Ulugbek-Maxsustrans 63

3 Hamza-Maxsustrans 66

4 Shayhantaur-Maxsustrans 59

5 Yakkasaray-Maxsustrans 33

6 Chilanzar-Maxsustrans 118

7 Bektemir-Maxsustrans 20

8 Sergeli-Maxsustrans 64

9 Olmazor-Maxsustrans 45

10 Uchtepa-Maxsustrans 60

11 Unusabad-Municipality 104

Total 676

Figure 1.6: Overview of Existing Waste Collection Points in Tashkent

Figure 1.7: Collection Point (CP) at Unusabad District


According to Maxsustrans, the total households being served by the company is 420,000 households which accounts for 168,000 houses and 252,000 apartments. The household tariff (as of July 2010) is valued at 1,100 suom/person/month (equivalent to US$ 0.59/person/month) for every person, including children. It was also observed that apparently population records are maintained at the community level to accurately assess consumer populations. On the other end, household wastes generated from rayons near the landfill and detached family housing areas are collected on a regular door-to-door basis. Unlike the previously mentioned CPs, residents would place their wastes in garbage bags for collection directly on the road for collection. The following image shows the typical scenario for a door-to-door collection.

Housing Area served with door to door service Commercial Waste Collection Maxsustrans has a total of 30,000 commercial contracts for the collection of commercial wastes These include approximately 28,000 smaller establishments (with single 750 liter sized containers) and 2,000 larger establishments with larger containers. The commercial tariffs are negotiated independently with each waste generator. Municipality Waste Collection Services / Green Wastes The Municipality of Tashkent collects green waste from public areas and wastes collected from road cleaning using its own equipment and delivers it directly to landfill.


Municipality Waste collection truck for green waste

Initial Assessment on the Existing SWM for Tashkent The municipality through its designated service provider has successfully implemented a workable waste management system for the City of Tashkent. The system is working well and as very visible within the city limits, it works very efficiently. The unique system of collection points is, based on informal waste segregation activities, a very valuable and efficient recycling unit for the city. On the other hand, the door-to-door service seems to lag behind in terms of efficiency and transportation against time compared to the CP system. Often the waste bags were found ripped by scavengers and waste is scattered on the road. Despite of some problems concerning the waste collection especially with the unguarded CPs and door-to-door collection, the general appearance of the city is very clean.


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

Waste truck with capacity of approx. 10 m³

Waste trucks with capacity of approx 6 m³


Waste delivering area at Transfer Station Yakkasaray

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

Push press system at Transfer Station Yakkasaray


The transfer stations operate 24-hours daily with two shifts per day from 7 am to 8 pm (daytime shift) and from 8 pm to 5am (night time shift). Up to two hours are allocated daily for facility inspections and cleaning prior to the resumption of daily operations. Each transfer station has a designed average operational capacity 550 to 600 TPD with a maximum capacity 700 TPD.

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

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

Press Containers at Transfer Station Yakkasaray There are two (2) weighbridges installed in each transfer station; only one appears to be operational.

Weighbridges at Transfer Station Yakkasaray


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

Weight recording equipment at Transfer Station Yunusabad

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

Transfer Truck leaving Akhanagaran Landfill

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


Waste truck with capacity of 20 m³

Initial assessment of the Existing Waste Transport System

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

Solid Was

1.5 So

The entireAkhangardistance a

The dumpshows the

ste Manage

olid Waste

e waste coran, locatedand location

p has been e map of Ak

ement Inves

e Disposa

ollected in Td 35 km sn of the dum

Map

in operatiokhangaran L

stment Proje

al

Tashkent (asoutheast ompsite from

p with locatio

n since 196Landfill.

ect – TA 80

and Churchof Tashken the city.

on of Akhan

66 and cove

004

ik) is dumpnt. The ma

ngaran dum

ers an area

ped into an ap below p

psite

of 59 hecta

existing dupresents th

ares. Picture

11

umpsite in e relative

e 15

Solid Was

There is although weighbrid

The dumoperated mechanic Based onleachate Maxsustraobserved15m to 25 Parts of th Accordingfor drinkin

ste Manage

adequate ait was no

dge, an offic

p operates and manag

c and 19 sec

n technicalcollection oans, soil us at the olde5m.

he dump we

g to Maxsusng water), s

Entrance o

ement Inves

Fig

access to tted that th

ce / adminis

daily with tged by 65 scurity perso

interviewsor no instalsed as sub-er part of th

ere burning

strans, theresecond in de

of Landfill

stment Proje

gure 1.8: Ma

he site whehere is no stration build

two shifts (taff / person

onnel acting

s and meeled monitor-base is sa

he landfill. T

.

e are two (2epth of 200

ect – TA 80

ap of Akhan

erein accesfence aro

ding and so

timings simns includingg as security

etings, the ring systemand, while thTypical wast

2) water aqum (drinking

A

Aredum

004

ngaran Land

ss is “contround the fa

ocial facilitie

milar to the g one (1) diy.

landfill hasms at all. Ac

he sand is te pile thick

uifers: first ig water qua

Area of LFG Capture

ea of currentmping

dfill

olled’ via aacility. Theres for worke

transfer starector, one

s no base ccording to also used

kness is rep

n depth of lity).

e Area

t waste

a security gre is an o

ers.

ations). The(1) enginee

sealing syinformationas cover m

ported to be

120 m (not

12

atehouse; operational

e facility is er, one (1)

ystem, no n given by material as e between

usable


Waste dumped by truck at Landfill

Poor compaction of waste by bulldozer

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


Broken equipment at workshop

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

Single Flare for treatment of Landfill Gas (System Hofstaetter)

Initial Assessment of the Existing Akhangaran Landfill

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


1.6 Existing Recycling Systems

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

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

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

Typical private “Recycling Shop” directly beside CP

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


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

Fraction Average Price

Sum/kg

PET 500 Other Plastics (bags, sheets) 300

Paper/Cardboard 200

Metal 100

Textiles 50

Glass 10 to 100* * price per bottle, depending on size

Figure 2.9: Current prices for recyclables

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

Private Facility for PET Separation


Sorted PET Materials

Private PET sorting line under construction

Initial Assessment of Recycling in Tashkent

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


Logistik

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

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

Fahrzeugbestand

Type of Truck Total

Daewoo 10M3 48

Daewoo 20M3/ 45

HD-260 ARM ROLL Container truck 17

HD-260 Press Pack 19

HD-120 (old) 78

HD-120 side lift new 49

HD-120 back lift new 50

8 HD-310 ARM ROLL TRUCK 27

Total 333

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Es ergibt sich insgesamt folgende Mengenverteilung.

Transfer‐Station Hamza Yakkasaray Yunusabad direct gesamt

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

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

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

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

Umschlagstation Yakasaray

Collection trucks capacity total Shayhantahur Yakkasaray Chilanzar Uchtepa Sergeli

Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton

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

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

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 cbm container

10 9,2 6 60 55,2 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 20cbm

10 9,2 12 120 110,4 4 40 36,8 0 0 0 3 30 27,6 3 30 27,6 2 20 18,4

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


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

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

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

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder container 27 27

Collektion‐points

Collektion‐points 297 59 33 92 65 48

Modul‐Type 94 35 20 6 22 11

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data

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

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

average 2012(Mg) 11.281 764 1.797 3.199 3.359 2.163

Utilization of trucks

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

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

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

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


Umschlagstation Khamza

Collection trucks capacity total Mirabad M. Ulugbek Hamza Bektemir

Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton Num Vol ton

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

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

Hyundai 260 Arm Roll cont 20 cbm container

10 9,2 6 60 55,2 2 20 18,4 2 20 18,4 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2

Hyundai 260 Presspack back 20cbm

10 9,2 4 40 36,8 1 10 9,2 1 10 9,2 2 20 18,4 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder container

27 27

Collektion‐points ��

Collektion‐points 252 48 65 80 59

Modul‐Type 200 81 40 44 35

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data ��

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

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

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

Utilization of trucks ��

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

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

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

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


Umschlagstation Yunusabad

Collection trucks capacity total Olmazor Yunusabad

Vol ton num Vol ton num Vol ton num Vol ton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyundai 310 Transfer 27m3 cylinder container

Collektion‐points 164 59 105

Modul‐Type 29 18 11

Container 1,1 cbm

Container 0,75 cbm

weighing data

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

Waste quantity of February 2012 (Mg) 6248 2978 3270

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

Utilization of trucks

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

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

average 2012 20,7 21,8 19,7

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


Maßnahmen:

Sammelfahrzeuge

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

Es sollten keine Fahrzeuge mit einer Ladekapazität


Abfallsammelbehälter

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

Betriebshof Collection Points Container 750 Ltr Container 1.100 Ltr

Modul MSR Modul MSR Gewerbe Modul MSR Gewerbe

Mirabad 81 48 325 48 187 0 229 275

M. Ulugbek 40 65 161 64 113 0 310 372

Hamza 44 80 177 79 128 0 381 458

Shayhantaur 35 59 141 58 100 0 281 338

Yakkasaray 20 33 81 33 57 0 158 190

Chilanzar 6 92 25 91 58 0 438 526

Bektemir 35 59 141 58 100 0 281 338

Sergeli 11 48 45 48 47 0 229 275

Olmazar 18 59 73 58 66 0 281 338

Uchtepa 22 65 89 64 77 0 310 372

Yunusabad 11 105 45 103 74 0 500 600

Chirchik 34 55 137 54 96 0 262 315

Total 357 768 1440 253 1103 0 3660 4397

Aus den Inventur‐ und Tourenplandaten errechnet:

pro Modul 4,01 0,75 cbm

pro MSR 0,98 0,75 cbm

pro MSR 4,76 1,1 cbm

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

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

• entweder die Gesamtanzahl der 0,75 cbm ‐ Behälter vor allem die Behälteranzahl an den Modul‐

Sammelpunken reduzieren. Die Ladezeiten an den Standorten würden sinken. Ersatz durch 1200

1,1 cbm‐Behälter

• oder bei gleicher Anzahl würde das Behältervolumen um 30 % erweitert, die Abfuhrrhythmen

könnten verlängert werden

Insgesamt sollten ca 7.000 Behälter erneuert werden.


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


IT‐System

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

Das System sollte mindestens folgende Komponenten beinhalten:

• Fuhrparkmanagement

• Sammelplatzverwaltung kommunal

• Sammelplatzverwaltung gewerblich

• Behälterverwaltung

• Tourenplanung

• Mengenverwaltung

• Gebührenerhebung optional

• Faktura optional

• Schittstellen zur Buchhaltung optional


Abfallumschlag und Abfalltransport zur Deponie AKHANGARAN

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

Kostenschätzung Generalinstamdsetzung einer Station

Bezeichnung Mengenansatz Einzelpreis Gesamtpreis

Bauwerk

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

- Wandverkleidung Umschlaghalle instandsetzen 200 m² 100 $ 20.000 $

- Dach Umschlaghalle 100 m² 100 $ 10.000 $

- Warte, Tore 1 psch 10.160 $ 10.160 $

52.860 $

Maschinen und Anlagen

Starkstromanlagen (NSHVT) 1 psch 7.000 $ 7.000 $

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

- Stopfpressen, generalüberholen 1 psch 290.000 $ 290.000 $

322.000 $

Befestigte Flächen

- Asphaltflächen instandsetzen 300 m² 115 $ 34.500 $

- Betonflächen instandsetzen 1500 m² 127 $ 190.500 $

225.000 $

599.860 $

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


1. 3 Stationen mit Solofahrzeug

2. 3 Stationen mit Gespann

3. 2 Staionmen mit Solofahrzeug

4. 2 Sationen mit Gespann

TransportKosten 3 Stationen

Transportkosten 3 Stationen

Anzahl Jahreskosten Anzahl Jahreskosten

Kapitalfestkosten

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

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

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

Σ - Kapitalfestkosten 1.096.648 $/a 1.220.742 $/a

Personalkosten

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

Σ - Personalkosten 238.000 $/a 161.000 $/a

Variable und Fixkosten

Wartung/Reparatur


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TransportKosten 2 Stationen

Transportkosten 2 Stationen

Anzahl Jahreskosten Anzahl Jahreskosten

Kapitalfestkosten


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


Σ - Kapitalfestkosten 1.090.876 $/a 1.113.963 $/a

Personalkosten

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

Σ - Personalkosten 231.000 $/a 147.000 $/a


Wartung/Reparatur


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Vergleich der Transportvarianten

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Solo 3Stationen

Gespann 3Stationen

Solo 2Stationen

Gespann 2Stationen

Khamza

Yakkasaray

Yunusabad


Empfehlung:

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

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

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

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

Kostenschätzung Generalinstandsetzung einer Station

Bezeichnung Mengenansatz Einzelpreis Gesamtpreis

Bauwerk

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

- Wandverkleidung Umschlaghalle instandsetzen 200 m² 100 $ 20.000 $

- Dach Umschlaghalle 100 m² 100 $ 10.000 $

- Warte, Tore 1 psch 10.160 $ 10.160 $

52.860 $

Maschinen und Anlagen

Elektroanlage 1 psch 7.000 $ 7.000 $

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

Abfallpressen generalüberholen 1 psch 500.000 $ 500.000 $

diverses 1 psch 25.000 $ 25.000 $

557.000 $

Befestigte Flächen

- Asphaltflächen instandsetzen 300 m² 115 $ 34.500 $

- Betonflächen instandsetzen 1500 m² 127 $ 190.500 $

225.000 $

834.860 $

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

Kalkulation Umschlagkosten Umschlagstation


Durchsatzmenge: 158.000 Mg/a

Berechnung der Umschlagkosten einer Station beim Betrieb von drei Stationen

Betriebskosten Ansatz Umschlagkosten

absolut spezifisch

Kapitalfestkosten

Investition Annuitätsfaktor

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

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

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

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

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

Personalkosten

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Reparatur/Wartung Investition Ansatz 0,00 $/Mg

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

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

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

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

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

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


Durchsatzmenge: 237.000 Mg/a

Berechnung der Umschlagkosten einer Station beim Betrieb von zwei Stationen

Betriebskosten Ansatz Umschlagkosten

absolut spezifisch

Kapitalfestkosten

Investition Annuitätsfaktor

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

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

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

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

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

Personalkosten

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Reparatur/Wartung Investition Ansatz 0,00 $/Mg

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2 Stationen 3 Stationen

Invest 11.700.000 $ 14.550.000 $

Jahreskosten absolut 3.231.654 $/a 3.687.759 $/a

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


Ausblick Bahntransport

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

Transferstation Yakassaray

Transferstation Yunusabad

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


Variante 1: vier Ganzzüge

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

Variante 2: zwei Ganzzüge

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

UZB‐ TA 8004

Appendix 6 Site Selection for Sanitary Landfill Uzbekistan Solid Waste Management Investment Project

November 2012


SITE SELECTION FOR APPROPRIATE SANITARY LANDFILL SITE

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

An initial geographically research shows clearly that an area, which would be suitable as host for a sanitary landfill and would not be considered as agricultural area, is not available within the Tashkent metropolitan region. The area of the Ta

UZB TA 8004 Appendix 3 Waste Characterization Study (WACS) · 2017. 1. 17. · Use of mixed waste...

Documents

Transcript of UZB TA 8004 Appendix 3 Waste Characterization Study (WACS) · 2017. 1. 17. · Use of mixed waste...