feasibility study and detailed design for solid waste ... · 7.8 municipal organic waste...

Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip

Feasibility Study

UNDP - PAPP DHV ENFRA TECC January 2012 Final

© DHV B.V. No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of DHV B.V.; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. The quality management system of DHV B.V. has been approved against ISO 9001.

Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip

Feasibility Study file : BA4772-100-100 registration number : version : 03 classification : Public

UNDP - PAPP DHV ENFRA TECC January 2012 Final

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC

UNDP - PAPP/Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management 31 January 2012, version 03 - 1 - Public

CONTENTS PAGE ABBREVIATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 PREFACE 1

2 INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 Project Objectives 1 2.2 Previous Studies and (Pre) Feasibility reports 1 2.3 Relevant regulations and guidelines 1 2.4 Feasibility Study Report Structure 1

3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SWM IN GAZA 1 3.1 Waste Management in the Gaza Strip 1 3.2 Impacts on Public Health and the Environment 1

4 SURVEYS AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 1 4.1 Waste Sampling and Analysis 1 4.2 Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey 1 4.3 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations 1 4.3.1 Introduction 1 4.3.2 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations – Rafah Landfill 1 4.3.3 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations Johr al Deek Landfill 1 4.3.4 Soil Strata Drilling 2 1 4.4 Field Survey of Random Dumpsites in Gaza 1 4.5 Landfills and Transfer Stations Site Assessment 1 4.5.1 Introduction 1 4.5.2 Long List of Selected Sites (5) 1 4.5.3 Selection process 1

5 CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTIONS OF THE SWM SECTOR IN GAZA 1 5.1 Population Figures and Projections 1 5.2 Waste Composition and Generation 1 5.2.1 Waste Composition 1 5.3 Per Capita Household Waste Generation 1 5.4 Total Non-hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal in Gaza 1 5.5 Waste Management Service Providers 1 5.5.1 General 1 5.5.2 North Gaza Joint Service Council 1 5.5.3 Gaza Municipality 1 5.5.4 Deir al Balah Joint Service Council 1 5.5.5 Khan Yunis Municipality 1 5.5.6 Rafah Municipality 1 5.5.7 UNWRA 1 5.6 Financial Status of SWM in Gaza 1 5.7 Conclusions: Key Issues and Challenges facing SWM in gaza 1

6 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 1

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


6.1 Introduction 1 6.2 Municipal and Industrial Hazardous Waste 1 6.3 Health Care Waste 1

7 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND COMPOSTING 1 7.1 Introduction 1 7.2 Construction and demolition waste 1 7.3 Plastics 1 7.4 Paper 1 7.5 Glass 1 7.6 Metals 1 7.7 Agricultural Waste 1 7.8 Municipal Organic Waste (composting) 1 7.8.1 Current organic waste recovery and composting in Gaza 1 7.8.2 Quantities and types of organic waste 1 7.8.3 Compost market potential in Gaza 1 7.8.4 Proposed composting strategy for Gaza 1

8 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO’S FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 8.1 Alternative Scenario’s 1 8.1.1 Primary Collection and Transportation 1 8.1.2 Scenario 1 – Two Long Term Sanitary Landfills (2040) 1 8.1.3 Scenario 2 – One Long Term (2040) and One Interim (2020) Landfill 1 8.1.4 Scenario 3 – One Long Term Sanitary Landfill (2040) 1 8.2 Expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX) for the three Alternative Scenarios 1 8.3 Landfill Operational Expenditures 1

9 COMPARISON OF MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS 1 9.1 Logistic and Technical Considerations 1 9.2 Financial Considerations 1 9.3 Environmental and Social Considerations 1 9.4 Organizational Considerations 1 9.4.1 General 1 9.4.2 SWM Investment Management 1 9.5 International and Political Considerations 1

10 FINAL SYNTHESIS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 10.1 Sensitivity Analysis on Petrol Costs, Wages and Land Prices 1 10.2 Sensitivity Analysis in case of Abandoning the Composting Strategy 1 10.3 Final Synthesis 1

11 PREFERRED MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 1 11.1 Framework for Preferred Strategy 1 11.2 Logistic and Technical Arrangements 1 11.2.1 Primary Collection, Transfer and Transportation 1 11.2.2 Bulk Transport and Waste Disposal 1 11.2.3 Technical Criteria for Landfilling 1 11.2.4 Landfill Systems Description 1 11.2.5 Landfill Infrastructures 1 11.2.6 Roads 1

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


11.2.7 Waste Filling and Monitoring 1 11.3 Decommissioning of Landfills 1 11.4 Closure of Existing Unprotected Dump Sites 1 11.5 Preferred Institutional Arrangements 1 11.6 Solid Waste Program Management Unit 1

12 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY 1 12.1 Capital and Operational Expenditures 1 12.2 Revenues and Affordability of Preferred Strategy 1 12.3 CAPEX Waste Collection and Transportation 1 12.4 CAPEX Cleaning Dump Sites and Primary Transfer Stations 1 12.5 Short Term Landfill Investment Costs 1 12.5.1 Johr al Deek Landfill (2013 – 2017) 1 12.5.2 Deir al Balah (closure) 1 12.5.3 Rafah Landfill (2013 – 2017) 1 12.6 Long Term Investments Sanitary Landfills 1 12.6.1 Johr al Deek Landfill (2018 – 2033) 1 12.6.2 Rafah Landfill (2018 – 2043) 1 12.7 CAPEX and OPEX Composting Strategy 1

13 COLOPHON 1 Figure 1 Rafah Solid Waste Dump Site ........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 Leachate at Deir al Balah Landfill ................................................................................................... 1 Figure 3 Waste Sampling and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 4 Land ownership around Rafah Landfill ........................................................................................... 1 Figure 6 locations of random dumpsites ....................................................................................................... 1 Figure 7 Locations of Five Alternative Sites.................................................................................................. 1 Figure 8 Geographic Distribution of Solid Waste Service Providers ............................................................. 1 Figure 9 Organization Chart – North Gaza Joint Service Council................................................................. 1 Figure 10 Waste Truck entering Deir al Balah Landfill.................................................................................. 1 Figure 11 Waste Bin in Deir al Balah............................................................................................................ 1 Figure 12 Organization Chart – Rafah Health Department. .......................................................................... 1 Figure 13 Scheme of an Autoclave............................................................................................................... 1 Figure 14 Waste Flows Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................... 1 Figure 15 Disposal Rafah landfill – Scenario 1 ............................................................................................. 1 Figure 16 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenarios 1................................................................................. 1 Figure 17 Waste Flows Scenarios 2 (and 3)................................................................................................. 1 Figure 18 Disposal Rafah landfill – Scenario 2 ............................................................................................. 1 Figure 19 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenario 2................................................................................... 1 Figure 20 Waste flows Scenarios 2 (and 3) .................................................................................................. 1 Figure 21 Disposal Rafah landfill – Scenario 3 ............................................................................................. 1 Figure 22 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenario 3................................................................................... 1 Figure 23 Waste Flows Preferred Scenario .................................................................................................. 1 Figure 24 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill until 2032 ....................................................................................... 1 Figure 25 Disposal Rafah landfill until 2040 (expansion cell 5 until 2042) .................................................... 1 Figure 26 Lay out Sanitary Landfill Office Building ....................................................................................... 1 ANNEXES See Separate Annex Report

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


ABBREVIATIONS AFD Agence Française de Développement BD Basic Design BOQ Bill of Quantities CBO Community Based Organization EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EU European Union EQA Environmental Quality Authority ESIA Environmental & Social Impact Assessment FD Final Design FIDIC Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils FS Feasibility Study GoJ Government of Japan HSM Health and Safety Manual ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management IDB Islamic Development Bank JSC Joint Service Council LA Local Authority MDLF Municipal Development and Lending Fund MoD Ministry of Defense (Israeli) MoF Ministry of Finance MoH Ministry of Health MoP Ministry of Planning MoLG Ministry of Local Government MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management NGO Non Governmental Organization NSR Noise Sensitive Receivers PA Palestinian Authority PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics PD Preliminary Design PEnA Palestinian Environmental Authority PHG Palestinian Hydrology Group PIU Project Implementation Unit PM Program Manager PTL Project Team Leader PMT Project Management Team RCV Refuse Compaction Vehicle SW Solid Waste S/W N/E South/West, North/East SWEMP Solid Waste Environmental Management Project GSWMP Gaza Solid Waste Management Plan ToR Terms of Reference UNDP - PAPP UNDP – Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency WB World Bank

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Waste management services in the Gaza Strip are currently under great stress, as most other public services, due to the permanent closure of the Gaza Strip and the very bad economic circumstances in which the people in Gaza live. This Final Feasibility Study is one of the deliverables of the project Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Short-Term and Long-Term Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip, which was assigned by UNDP-PAPP to DHV and Partners in May 2011. The project consists of two components: (A) To undertake short term studies and provide design services to accommodate the development of

most cost-effective final designs for environmentally safe waste disposal on the three existing dump sites and recycling during the coming years. This component is financed by the Government of Japan , and

(B) To undertake long term studies and provide design services, including feasibility studies and design

of one new central sanitary landfill and related waste facilities, including necessary transfer stations and long haul transport. This component is financed by the Islamic Development Bank.

This report presents analysis, alternative solutions and recommendations of the consultant with regard to overcoming the severe solid waste management related problems in Gaza. The planning horizon of this feasibility study is until the year 2040. To get an appropriate understanding of the solid waste situation, the Consultant made a thorough analysis of the solid waste service providers, the status of waste management equipments, facilities and disposal sites, and the quality and quantity of waste streams in Gaza based of field surveys, interviews, workshops and available literature. A waste sampling and analysis survey was performed on 116 individually composed waste samples throughout Gaza. The Consultant performed a Gaza-wide Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey, including 22 focus group discussions with representatives of the different communities in Gaza. Furthermore Topographic surveys and geotechnical investigations were done at and around the Johr al Deek landfill and Rafah landfill. Also, the Consultant did a field survey with regard to the currently existing random dump sites in the Gaza Strip. In 2011, the population of the Gaza Strip was about 1.59 Million. Based on population projections made by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, it may be expected that this population will grow to 3.2 Million in the year 2040. An assessment of the per capita waste generation shows that the total amounts of household waste generated by this population will likely rise from 1506 ton / day in 2011 to 3383 ton / day in 2040. Additionally, 147 ton / day of commercial waste, 157 ton / day of market waste and 1200 ton / day of agricultural waste will be generated in 2040. This poses a huge challenge to the waste sector in Gaza, no only taking into account the limited financial resources and underdeveloped levels of waste management services, but also the limited land availability in the Gaza Strip. One of the key questions in this feasibility study is where and how to treat these huge quantities of waste, meanwhile making use of the reuse and recycling potentials in Gaza and creating environmentally safe and healthy conditions throughout the waste management cycle against acceptable costs. Whereas many countries have opted to more advanced technologies to treat the waste, such as digestion or incineration, the economic circumstances in Gaza seem not to allow these type of technologies for the years to come, making sanitary landfilling the preferred treatment technology in this feasibility study. The Consultant has analysed five alternative locations in Gaza for building long term sanitary landfills, and concluded that Johr al Deek, near Gaza City, and Rafah, near the city of Rafah, as the most appropriate locations for establishing long term sanitary landfills.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Notwithstanding the extensive need for sanitary landfilling in Gaza, the Consultant developed a parallel composting strategy, which will allow that up to 18% of the municipal solid waste will be composted and applied by the agricultural sector in Gaza. Currently less than 1% of the waste is composted. Implementing this strategy requires efforts in different domains, including the need to collect separated organic waste fractions at the source so that the produced compost will meet the quality standards required for agricultural applications. Additionally it will be required to develop an integrated agricultural waste management system within Gaza.

According to the report “Development of a National Master Plan for Hazardous Waste Management for the Palestinian National Authority” (PNA, 2010), Gaza produces approximately 803 ton / year of hazardous waste and 4 ton / day of infectious health care waste. Most of this waste is mixed with the main household waste streams with all associated environmental and public health risks specifically for waste collectors, waste scavengers and landfill operators, but also for the general public. Analysis of the Consultant show that lack of financial resources and lack of enforcement of the key driving forces why these waste streams have not yet been handled adequately before, despite various attempts in the past. It will be urgently required to develop effective hazardous and health care waste management systems in Gaza, based on pragmatic regulations, realistic costs and an effective enforcement system. The Consultant proposes to use autoclaves as core technology for the treatment of infectious waste. Solid waste management in Gaza is currently performed by the following five waste services providers: North Gaza Joint Service Council, covering the municipalities of Jabalia, Beit Lahia, Beit Hanun and Umm al Nasser. The JSC is responsible for collection and transportation of waste to the central landfill at Johr al Deek. Most of the waste is collected with the use of donkey carts, but also tractors, tipper cranes and waste trucks are used. Bad conditions of the collection fleet and limited financial resources are major constraints to these operations, and sometimes waste is piled up at temporary and unprotected storage sites in the north of Gaza for long periods of time, for instance at the Beit Lahia. The salaries of the collection staff is paid directly by the municipalities, while remaining operation and maintenance costs are paid by the JSC themselves. Only 30% of the operational costs of 750,000 NIS per month is financed through collection of waste bills from household (9 NIS per household per month) and commercial facilities. The remainder is paid on ad hoc basis by a varying group of international financiers. Gaza Municipality organises its own waste collection and transportation, and operates the Johr al Deek landfill. The landfill is operated basically as an unprotected dump site, and needs urgently to be upgraded into a landfill under sanitary conditions. Primary collection is performed by about 260 donkey carts, supported by a collection fleet consisting of tipper cranes, compactor trucks and tractors. About half of the households are served on a daily basis, the other half uses street containers which are emptied by the Municipality about twice per week. Sometimes, waste is piled up in and around these containers, causing direct public health threats. Local people tend to burn the waste in the containers if not emptied in time, to make space for more waste. All operational costs are covered by the Municipality itself. About 50% of the operational costs of 1.7 Million NIS per month is financed through collection of waste bills from household (12 NIS per household per month) and commercial facilities. The remainder is again paid on ad hoc basis by a varying group of international financiers. Deir al Balah Joint Service Council covers 13 municipalities in the middle region of Gaza, including Khan Yunis. It collects waste from approximately 2900 containers located along the streets of these municipalities. In addition, the municipalities themselves organize door-to door collection using mainly donkey carts, particularly since many inhabitants complain that the waste containers are not appropriate.

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Again, waste is piled up in and around these containers, causing direct public health threats, and sometimes the waste in the containers is burned if not emptied in time to make space for more waste. Different programs have been implemented to improve the container collection system, such as an UNWRA project to repair and replace 100 containers. The Joint Service Council furthermore operates the Deir al Balah landfill, which is the only landfill constructed in Gaza with sanitary protection facilities, including bottom lining and leachate treatment. The landfill is located close to the border with Israel. This has triggered Israeli border solders to obstruct operations of the landfill through shooting bullets at operating staff, or kidnapping them on a regular basis. This is the major reason to decide to abandon this landfill, and to shift landfilling in Gaza to either Johr al Deek or to Rafah. The annual budget of the Joint Service Council is about 3.6 Million NIS per year (2010), of which 2.6 Million NIS is financed through contributions from the municipalities. Khan Yunis spends around 330,000 NIS per month contribution to the JSC and additional waste collection services, of which 38% is recovered from household waste fees (10 NIS per household per month). The remainder is again paid on ad hoc basis by a varying group of international financiers. Rafah Municipality manages waste collection, transport and disposal by it self. Most waste is collected on a door-by-door basis using mainly donkey carts and some using street containers. The municipality furthermore operates tractors, small trucks and compactor trucks to collect and transport the waste to Rafah landfill, which is also operated by Rafah. The landfill is operated basically as an unprotected dump site, and needs urgently to be upgraded into a landfill under sanitary conditions. Part of the waste is transported directly to Rafah, while part is first brought to the Tel al Sultan storage area, south of Rafah, and next transported in bulk to Rafah. At Tel al Sultan, the municipality has also set up a pilot composing plant to treat municipal waste. Rafah charges 10 NIS per household per month for waste collection. About 36% of the bills are actually collected. Approximately 35% of the operational costs for solid waste management in Rafah (about 400,000 NIS per month) are recovered as such; the remainder is again paid on ad hoc basis by a varying group of international financiers. UNWRA manages waste collection and transportation from the 8 refugee camps in Gaza, with a total population of about 0,5 Million. Waste services are provided by UNWRA with donkey carts, tractors, crane trucks, mainly using a total of about 800 waste containers distributed over the camps. The waste services in the refugee camps are free of charge for the population. UNWRA transports its waste to either Johr al Deek, Deir al Balah or to Rafah, paying a disposal fee of around 10 NIS per ton of waste. UNWRA receives its operating budget from the international community. In 2009 UNWRA received approximately 1.2 Billion USD for all its core programs. It has spent approximately 1.7 Million USD on waste management services. Separate from the five official waste service providers, numerous people are involved in waste recycling. Specifically plastics and construction/building debris are collected and reused in Gaza intensively. The waste is collected either on a door-to-door basis by individuals with their donkey carts, or from spots where debris can be found. The plastic waste is reused in numerous plastic recycling factories, producing plastic bags or simple consumer goods; debris is currently intensively recycled in Gaza at and around new building projects. Waste picking from open dump sites and the three landfills is performed by mainly young people looking for valuables including metals scraps and old textile. This situation poses serious health threats, since, as explained earlier, the waste is often mixed with hazardous or infectious waste streams. Finally, in different places in Gaza one can notice big piles of metal scrap ready to be exported once the borders with Israel or Egypt would open. The Consultant analysed three different alternative scenarios for final disposal of waste in Gaza until the year 2040. For all scenario’s it is assumed that the currently applied temporary storage sites throughout

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Gaza will either be closed or cleared, or will be transformed into small transfer stations. The remaining transfer stations shall enable donkey carts and small vehicles to discharge their waste at relative short distances. From here larger vehicles will either transfer the waste to Johr al Deek landfill or to Rafah landfill. The next scheme provides the overview.

Location

Current situation New situation

North Gaza Bei Lahia Temporary Storage Site Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer

Station to serve North Gaza

Um al Nasser Temporary Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned

Beit Hanoon Temporary Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned

Gaza City

Yarmuk Transfer Station

Transfer Station, including temporary storage

Site will be cleaned and will remain in operation as transfer station

Al Maslakhi Temporary Storage Site Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer Station to serve Gaza Governorate

Al Karama Temporary Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned

Deir al Balah

Deir al Balah None yet New transfer station will be established for Deir al Balah

Khan Yunis

Al Namsawi Temporary Waste Storage Site

Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer Station to serve Khan Yunis

Rafah

Tel al Sultan Temporary Waste Storage Site

(1) Dump site will be covered and closed. (2) Composting plant will be expanded. (3) Transfer station will be constructed.

Under the first scenario it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served until the year 2040 by two sanitary landfills: one located at Johr al Deek to serve the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza; and the other located at Rafah to serve the governorates of Deir al Balah, Khan Yunis and Rafah. Within this scenario, waste collection services will be provided by the current waste service providers, making use of an improved waste collection fleet. It is foreseen that in the short term donkey carts remain to be used for preliminary collection of waste from the individual households in the various service areas. In the longer term the donkey carts will be replaced by small tractors. Additionally, new waste collection vehicles and sufficient staff will be required for adequate collection of waste from the numerous street containers, and for transporting bulk transport of the waste to the two sanitary landfills. One of the clear constraints of scenario 1 is the available space for extension of Johr al Deek landfill until 2040 is located not more than 300 m from the Israeli border, while ideally this would be 500 m. This might pose risks in terms in accessibility and safety. Under scenario 2 it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served until the year 2020 (in stead of 2040) by Johr al Deek for the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza. From 2020 onwards, all waste from Gaza Strip will be disposed of at Rafah landfill. Obviously this will require less disposal space at Johr al Deek and more space at Rafah compared to scenario 1. Starting from 2021, a bulk transfer station will be positioned at the entrance of Johr al Deek, to facilitate bulk transport from the northern governorates to Rafah. Also, some space will be reserved at Johr al Deek for temporary storage of waste in case Israel would invade Gaza and block temporarily transport routes from

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


north to south. From 2021 onwards, a Gaza-wide Joint Service Council will take over responsibility for operating the one central landfill at Rafah as well as for operating bulk transfer at Johr al Deek and bulk transport between the two. The waste flows under scenario 2 are schematized in the figure below. Under scenario 3 it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served only for the short term, until 2015 (in stead of 2040 or 2020) by Johr al Deek for the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza. From 2016 onwards, all waste from Gaza Strip will be disposed of at Rafah landfill. This will require again less disposal space at Johr al Deek and more space at Rafah compared to scenarios 1 and 2. Starting from 2016, a bulk transfer station will be positioned at the entrance of Johr al Deek, to facilitate bulk transport from the northern governorates to Rafah. Also, some space will be reserved at Johr al Deek for temporary storage of waste in case Israel would invade Gaza and block temporarily transport routes from north to south. From 2016 onwards, a Gaza-wide Joint Service Council will take over responsibility for operating the one central landfill at Rafah as well as for operating bulk transfer at Johr al Deek and bulk transport between the two. The three scenarios have been analysis in terms of technical, economic, environmental, organizational and political criteria. The results are presented below.

Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Technical and Logistic Criteria Primary collection and transport

Same as 2 and 3 Same as 1 and 3 Same as 1 and 2

Bulk transfer and Transport

Not required Required from 2021 Required from 2016

Additional Road Capacities and safety


Rerouting access road to Rafah

Not required Not required Required

Landfill operations Double operations until 2040

Single large scale Operation form 2021

Single large scale operation from 2016

Operational risks due to proximity to Israel

Risks remain until 2040

Risks remain until 2020 Risks remain until 2015

Energy generation trough landfill gas

Easier to connect to Gaza electricity net

Bulk power generation on site is easier


Economic Criteria Total SWM cost until 2040 $1.041.995.736 $1.077.803.470 $1.079.441.409

IRR (20.5 NIS per HH pm) 8.1% 2.5% 2.1% NPV (6% discount rate) 6.3 MUSD -8.0 MUSD -8.5 MUSD Environmental and Social Criteria Environment Impacts No bulk transport

impacts Impacts due to bulk transport from 2021

Impacts due to bulk transport from 2016

Social Impacts Nuisance of Large landfill in dense area (Johr al Deek)

Accident risks due to bulk transport from 2021


Organizational Criteria

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Waste Management Bulk waste management divided over two landfills

Bulk waste management done at one landfill from 2021


Political Criteria Distance to Israel (300 / 500 m)

Israeli Border Threats until 2040



Temporary Storage to overcome Israeli blockage of Gaza

Not required Required from 2021 onwards

Required from 2016 onwards

The Consultant concludes that scenario 1 would be the preferred alternative if agreement with Israel can be reached on extension of the landfill at Johr al Deek at 300 m from the border. If not, than scenario 2 seems to be the second best alternative. Based on the above evaluations and final synthesis for municipal solid waste management two major meetings were organized. First, a meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee for the project, including representatives with the five waste management service providers in Gaza, was organized on the 22nd of November 2011 in Gaza City. Secondly, a Video Conference meeting was organized with representatives of UNDP PAPP, the Word Bank, ADF, EU, IDB and the Consultant on the 1st of December from UNDP’s headquarters in Gaza and Jerusalem. These meetings resulted in the following conclusions for the Preferred Municipal Waste Scenario for Gaza until 2040.

1. Is was agreed that the Short Term upgrade of the landfills would be effective from 2013 onwards, followed by a 5 year operation period for construction and completion of the long term sanitary landfills.

2. It was also agreed that scenario (1): two landfills up to 2040; would be the preferred scenario, with the exception that the Johr la Deek landfill shall be located not closer than 500 m from the border with Israel. Thus puts certain constraints on the available land for this landfill, also taking into account the minimum distance of 200 m from adjacent houses. This implies that the Johr al Deek landfill will remain in operation until 2032, and might be closed in that year.

3. All stakeholders agreed that both landfills shall be realized at a depth of 20 m below surface. The soil profiles obtained from drillings at both landfills show that the soil conditions, including existing clay layers and depth to groundwater, permit environmentally safe landfilling under these conditions. This will require that leachate will be pumped up 20 m to the leachate pond, from which the water is spread over the waste bodies. Both landfills will be filled until 30 m above surface, as such realizing a total height of 50 m for the waste bodies. Although this will increase the overall investment cost, this will have a clear advantage in terms of visual aspects of the landfill, and will enable more realistic closure and landscaping plans.

4. After 2032, there will be two options: (1) all municipal waste, expect the waste streams that will be recycled or composted, will be disposed of at one central landfill located in Rafah; (2) if agreement can be reached with the Israeli’s to expand the landfill towards the 300 m border line, Johr al Deek landfill will remain in operation after 2032.

5. Option 1 implies that from 2033 onwards a bulk transfer station shall be established at Johr al Deek. The Waste Reception Area at Johr al Deek will then be transformed into a Bulk Transfer

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Station. Meanwhile bulk waste vehicles will transport all waste from Johr al Deek to the Rafah central landfill.

6. Starting from the operation of the long term sanitary landfills at Johr la Deek and Rafah, two Joint Service Councils will be established in the Gaza Strip: (1) one for Northern Gaza (including Gaza City and the existing JSC for Northern Gaza), responsible for waste collection, transportation and operation of the Johr al Deek Sanitary Landfill; (2) the second one for Southern Gaza (including Deir al Balah JSC and Rafah City), responsible for waste collection, transportation and operation of the Rafah Landfill. This situation will remain in place at least until the year 2032. UNWRA, which is responsible for collection of waste from the refugee camps can decide either to outsource their waste collection services to these two JSC’s, or to continue waste collection by them selves

7. The two Joint Service Councils will co-operate closely with each other, and with all municipalities and related public authorities, to set up an effective and integrated solid waste management system for Gaza, as elaborated in this Feasibility Study. Important aspects will be the improvement of waste collection services, elimination of the identified environmental and public health threats currently at stake, waste fee collection and enforcement of all financial and technical solid waste regulations. It is foreseen that both Joint Service Councils will be supervised by a Regulatory Body to be established, representing the major public authorities in Gaza.

8. Management of all Solid Waste investments under this program will be performed by a separate Solid Waste Program Management Unit (SWM-PMU), to be managed either by UNDP – PAPP or MDLF.

9. Further preparatory steps are to be prepared by the SWM-PMU to implement the other recommendations in the Feasibility Study including: (1) Resource Recovery and Composting; (2) Hazardous Waste Management; (3) Healthcare Waste Management; (4) Agricultural Waste Management

The preferred scenario has been further elaborated in this feasibility study. This following investment costs have been calculated. The total costs and revenues of the Preferred Solid Waste Strategy for the Gaza Strip are presented in the table at the end of this Executive Summary. The total costs mentioned here include all CAPEX and OPEX for the Gaza Strip: Waste collection; Transfer of waste; Transport to the two disposal landfills and Composting. The total revenues mentioned in this table are based on waste collection fees of 4.1 NIS per person per month, or 24.6 NIS per household per month; and on the revenues from selling compost (100 USD per ton of produced compost). Assuming that these revenues will indeed be fully effectuated, the Internal rate Return of the Waste Strategy as a whole would 17.8%. Suppose as worst case scenario that the actual cost recovery from collecting waste fees and selling compost would lack far behind the required level of revenues (in 2010 a total of only 13.2 Million NIS was collected from waste fees), and that only 50% of the produced compost can be actually sold.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


SWM Package

Investment Investment Period

1 Upgrading Waste Collection Fleet 16.6 MUSD 2013 – 2038

2 Cleaning Random Dump Sites 1.5 MUSD 2013

3 Upgrade and Construction of Transfer Stations 2.3 MUSD 2014 - 2015

4 Johr al Deek – Short Term Investments 6.8 MUSD 2013

5 Deir al Balah – Short Term Closure 1.6 MUSD 2013

6 Rafah Landfill – Short Term Investments 3.6 MUSD 2013

7 Johr al Deek – Long Term Investments 26.0 MUSD 2017 – 2033

9 Rafah Landfill – Long Term Investments 43.9 MUSD 2017 – 2043

10 Composting Strategy 38.8 MUSD 2013 – 2038

11 Solid Waste Institutional Development Project 0.4 MUSD 2012

12 GSW PMU 7,3 MUSD 2012 - 2043

TOTAL SWM Gaza (2012 – 2040) 148.8 MUSD

This means that the remainder of OPEX and CAPEX would have to be provided by international donors. In that case an additional 18 MUSD donor contribution would be required in 2015, growing to 41 MUSD in 2040 to cover the gap in OPEX and CAPEX requirements. Clearly this would go far beyond the financial ambitions of the international donor community, leading to the conclusion that improving waste collection services and related enforcement of waste fee collection are of the utmost importance. When looking at the cost and revenues for Johr al Deek landfill only (at the Gate), and assuming a flat entrance fee of 8 USD per ton (or 32 NIS per ton), the landfill can be operated with an internal Rate of Return of 15.4%. This includes all related OPEX and CAPEX cost for the landfill. When looking at the cost and revenues for Rafah landfill only (at the Gate)., and assuming again a flat entrance fee of 8 USD per ton (or 32 NIS per ton), the landfill can be operated with an internal Rate of Return of 15.7%. Again, this includes all related OPEX and CAPEX cost for the landfill. When looking at a business case wherein all six proposed transfer stations are operated, including bulk transport from here to the two landfills, and including the operations of the landfills themselves (long term only), and including all OPEX and CAPEX for these components, than a unified tariff for these services of 25 USD per ton (or 100 NIS per ton) would lead to an Internal rate of Return of 19.6%. In order to manage the above investments in the Gaza solid waste sector it is advised to establish a Gaza Solid Waste Program Management Unit (GSW-PMU), preferably under the auspices of one of the existing investment management and lending execution agencies in Gaza, such as UNDP-PAPP or the Municipal Lending and Development Fund. An initial assessment of the Consultant based on certain criteria shows that both UNDP-PAPP and MDLF could qualify for running this PMU, be it that UNPD-PAPP has substantial more experience with the solid waste section in Gaza and would therefore have the preference. The feasibility study has a final time frame until 2040, and foresees that major solid waste investments are required up until that year. Nevertheless it may be expected that during the next 30 years alternative waste treatment technologies requiring less space will also become feasible for the Gaza Strip, including digestion and incineration. However, much will depend on the economic developments within Gaza in the next 30 years, as well as further improvement of waste management services and related enforcement of operational and financial regulations.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 1

- P

ublic

Co

sts,

Rev

enu

es a

nd

IRR

of

the

SW

M S

trat

egy

for

the

Gaz

a S

trip

To

tal C

AP

EX

+ O

PE

XR

ev -

Co

sts

Yea

rP

op

ula

tio

nD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

Ho

use

ho

ldC

om

po

stD

isco

un

tR

ate

IRR

NP

V20

131.

773.

436

533.

181

$34.

969.

159

$21.

813.

262,

80-$

13.1

55.8

95,7

40,

00%

17,6

%$7

1.45

3.42

320

141.

832.

035

551.

380

$18.

224.

950

$22.

534.

030,

50$5

47.0

59$4

.856

.139

,54

2,00

%17

,6%

$49.

418.

330

2015

1.89

1.98

256

4.27

1$1

9.44

3.40

6$2

3.27

1.37

8,60

$1.0

94.1

18$4

.922

.090

,27

4,00

%17

,6%

$34.

387.

526

2016

1.95

3.13

456

5.26

4$2

8.16

6.64

1$2

4.02

3.54

8,20

$1.6

41.1

76-$

2.50

1.91

6,44

6,00

%17

,6%

$23.

898.

006

2017

2.01

4.50

558

4.84

9$3

4.12

4.55

5$2

4.77

8.40

7,98

$2.1

88.2

35-$

7.15

7.91

1,62

8,00

%17

,6%

$16.

415.

861

2018

2.07

5.99

160

4.59

8$2

8.51

4.91

4$2

5.53

4.68

6,13

$2.7

35.2

94-$

244.

933,

8110

,00%

17,6

%$1

0.96

6.96

220

192.

137.

485

624.

483

$22.

354.

343

$26.

291.

065,

94$3

.282

.353

$7.2

19.0

76,1

312

,00%

17,6

%$6

.920

.613

2020

2.19

8.87

763

7.68

8$2

3.41

4.24

8$2

7.04

6.18

9,01

$3.8

29.4

12$7

.461

.352

,58

2021

2.26

0.05

463

3.70

0$2

9.13

5.15

9$2

7.79

8.65

8,90

$4.3

76.4

71$3

.039

.970

,24

2022

2.32

0.89

865

7.27

9$3

4.81

0.45

6$2

8.54

7.04

4,96

$4.9

23.5

29-$

1.33

9.88

1,87

2023

2.38

1.29

268

1.27

3$2

8.92

6.43

3$2

9.28

9.88

6,48

$5.4

70.5

88$5

.834

.041

,41

2024

2.44

1.11

470

5.66

6$2

8.10

0.04

3$3

0.02

5.69

7,06

$6.0

17.6

47$7

.943

.300

,78

2025

2.50

0.24

172

2.32

1$2

9.30

1.02

0$3

0.75

2.96

9,30

$6.5

64.7

06$8

.016

.654

,83

2026

2.55

8.55

171

3.59

2$4

3.07

4.78

5$3

1.47

0.17

9,62

$7.1

11.7

65-$

4.49

2.84

0,73

2027

2.61

5.91

873

7.64

5$4

3.00

7.93

9$3

2.17

5.79

3,30

$7.6

58.8

24-$

3.17

3.32

1,95

2028

2.67

2.21

776

1.99

6$3

4.97

8.56

0$3

2.86

8.26

9,80

$8.2

05.8

82$6

.095

.592

,00

2029

2.72

7.32

378

6.62

1$3

4.20

3.37

9$3

3.54

6.06

8,11

$8.7

52.9

41$8

.095

.630

,45

2030

2.78

1.11

081

1.49

6$3

5.46

4.08

0$3

4.20

7.65

2,27

$9.3

00.0

00$8

.043

.572

,23

2031

2.83

3.45

583

4.32

7$3

6.65

6.23

1$3

4.85

1.49

7,09

$9.8

47.0

59$8

.042

.324

,73

2032

2.88

4.23

584

4.21

4$5

4.03

6.31

0$3

5.47

6.09

3,80

$10.

394.

118

-$8.

166.

098,

6520

332.

933.

330

858.

521

$45.

546.

937

$36.

079.

955,

82$1

0.94

1.17

6$1

.474

.195

,68

2034

2.98

0.62

087

2.29

8$4

1.52

4.62

4$3

6.66

1.62

4,62

$11.

488.

235

$6.6

25.2

36,2

920

353.

025.

990

874.

969

$42.

394.

413

$37.

219.

675,

43$1

2.03

5.29

4$6

.860

.556

,17

2036

3.06

9.32

788

7.43

5$4

3.25

9.06

6$3

7.75

2.72

2,99

$12.

582.

353

$7.0

76.0

10,1

420

373.

110.

523

899.

280

$56.

501.

902

$38.

259.

427,

22$1

3.12

9.41

2-$

5.11

3.06

3,20

2038

3.14

9.47

189

9.50

4$5

3.23

2.90

8$3

8.73

8.49

8,78

$13.

676.

471

-$81

7.93

9,10

2039

3.18

6.07

490

9.89

1$4

5.70

1.29

0$3

9.18

8.70

4,46

$14.

223.

529

$7.7

10.9

43,6

320

403.

220.

234

919.

579

$47.

308.

334

$39.

608.

872,

45$1

6.00

0.00

0$8

.300

.538

,60

TO

TA

L20

.677

.318

$1.0

16.3

76.0

86$8

79.8

11.8

62$2

08.0

17.6

47$7

1.45

3.42

3

IRR

an

d N

PV

Inp

ut

Dat

aT

ota

l Rev

enu

es

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


1 PREFACE

DHV B.V. from The Netherlands and its partners ENFRA Consultants and TECC from Gaza have been contracted by the UNDP Program for Assistance to the Palestinian People (UNDP-PAPP) to provide Consultancy Services for Undertaking a Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Short-Term and Long-Term Solid Waste Management in the Gaza Strip. In Gaza the environmental and health risks associated with the existing solid waste management practices and uncontrolled unsanitary dump sites are unacceptably high. UNDP-PAPP recognizes that improvement of solid waste management in the Gaza Strip is a priority intervention. UNDP-PAPP has entered into a co-operation agreement with the Government of Japan for the financing of short term emergency measures to improve the sanitary conditions of three currently used central dump sites, and to test the options for improved resource recovery and composting or organic waste. In addition, the World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) and the French Development Agency (AFD) have expressed their interest to the UNDP-PAPP and the Palestinian Authority to address long-term comprehensive solid waste management issues in the Gaza Strip, including the realization of centralized sanitary landfill facilities in Gaza for an operational period of about 30 years. The current project consists of two components: (A) To undertake short term studies and provide design services to accommodate the development of

most cost-effective final designs for environmentally safe waste disposal on the three existing dump sites and recycling during the coming years. This component is financed by the Government of Japan , and

(B) To undertake long term studies and provide design services, including feasibility studies and design of one new central sanitary landfill and related waste facilities, including necessary transfer stations and long haul transport. This component is financed by the Islamic Development Bank.

This Feasibility Report deals with identifying and comparing alternatives and recommended investments both for: (A) short term sanitary upgrade of the three existing central dump sites and (B) long term establishment of a new sanitary landfill and related infrastructure. This study also addresses the organizational and institutional aspects of the proposed investments, in particular to manage the investment donors’ funds and to manage the operation and maintenance of the newly proposed facilities on the short and long term. In the preceding site selection process for project component B, about 5 alternative sanitary landfill site locations were identified and assed, which resulted in a short list of two landfill locations. This Feasibility Report concentrates, next to general technical and logistic considerations, on the operational and financial feasibility of two proposed landfill locations. Ultimately, based on recommendations of this feasibility report, the landfill location has been selected and approved by the responsible authorities, after which the site specific EIA/SIA can be conducted. Important aspects of the feasibility study are the conceptual designs, and consequently, the related cost estimates for the selected 2 sites. Therefore the technical specifications and justifications, drawings and cross sections, main systems and infrastructure are foreseen to become part of the final version of this Feasibility Report.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Objectives

UNDP-PAPP has contracted the Joint Venture DHV B.V. (Netherlands), ENFRA Consultants (Gaza) and TECC (Gaza) on the 16th of May 2011 to undertake the project: “Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management”. The current document presents the final Feasibility Study under this project. This Final Feasibility Study is based on comments provided on the Draft Feasibility Study (issued in September 2011) during Pre-Appraisal Meetings with main stakeholders and international financiers on Monday September 26th at the UNDP Office in Gaza and on Wednesday September 28th at the World Bank office in Jerusalem, and on comments provided on the 22nd of November 2011 on the Draft Final Feasibility Study. The current project is consistent with the National Strategy for Solid Waste Management in the Palestinian Territory 2010 – 2014, issued by the Palestinian National Authority in May 2010. This strategy recommends that one or more central landfills is to be developed for Gaza, depending on future studies. It furthermore sets the following objectives to be achieved in the Gaza Strip: 1. Development of an effective legal and organizational framework for SWM 2. Development of strong and capable institutions responsible for SWM 3. Provision of effective and environmentally safe SWM management services 4. Provision of financially viable SWM management services 5. Effective management of medical, hazardous and special wastes 6. Increasing private sector participation 7. Increasing the awareness of the served communities 8. Effective information and monitoring systems

This project distinguishes short term studies and design services for rehabilitation of three dump sites, and long term studies and design services, including the design of one new central sanitary landfill and related waste facilities. A. Short Term Objectives The short term study and design aims at undertaking a feasibility study and design for upgrading the three official dumping sites that are used at Rafah, Deir Al-Balah and Johr Aldeek; to undertaking a feasibility study for a new composting and recycling facility in the Gaza Strip; undertaking an environmental and social impact Assessment (ESIA) for the upgrade of the three existing central dump sites and the foreseen composting facility in the Gaza Strip, and closure plans for the three (upgraded) dump sites after completion of the operations. The final designs for the upgrade of the three dump sites will include design drawings, construction details, cross-sections, final quantities, cost estimate, technical specifications, tender documents, and design reports, operating manuals, health and safety plans, environmental and social impact assessments and cost recovery for recycling activities. B. Long Term Objectives The long term study and design aims at undertaking a feasibility study for improved solid waste management in Gaza, including environmental protection, priority investments and institutional needs, also

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


including site selection for a central sanitary landfill and related transfer stations; and to prepare final designs and bidding documents for a new and central sanitary landfill and three related transfer stations. The long term study component also includes preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Plan for the sanitary landfill and transfer stations, which will be based on the results of a separate Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, tendered by MDLF / AFD in May 2011. The current Feasibility Study includes both components A and B under the project.

2.2 Previous Studies and (Pre) Feasibility reports In the past already various SWM studies and (pre-) feasibility studies were conducted for the Gaza Strip.. These reports for were reviewed and assessed and some of the data and considerations were used in this Feasibility Report.

Annex 1 provides an overview of all relevant reports and documents on SWM that has been used for the current Feasibility Study.

2.3 Relevant regulations and guidelines

The following laws and regulations were considered: • National Palestinian Strategy for Solid Waste Management 2010 - 2014 • Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities, IFC, December 2007 • World Bank Guidelines on Solid Waste Management, 2008 • EU Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste • IFC eight performance standards, including EHS Guidelines

2.4 Feasibility Study Report Structure

This Feasibility Study presents analysis and recommendations of the consultant with regard to overcoming the short term solid waste management problems in Gaza, to addressing the challenge of waste recycling and composting, and with regard to long term solid waste management problems in Gaza up to the year 2040. The draft feasibility study has been presented to all stakeholders and involved international donors for their review and comments during two separate Pre-Appraisal Meetings in September 2011. Based on those comments this final Feasibility Study has been issued, which forms the basis for the final designs of the proposed short term and long term SWM measures.

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The current report has been structured as follows:

Chapter 1: Preface Chapter 2: Introduction Chapter 3: General Description of SWM in Gaza Chapter 4: Surveys and Field Investigations Chapter 5: Characteristics and Projections of the SWM Sector in Gaza Chapter 6: Hazardous Waste Management Chapter 7: Resource Recovery and Composting Chapter 8: Alternative Scenarios for Municipal Waste Management in Gaza Chapter 9: Comparison of Municipal Waste Management Scenarios Chapter 10: Final Synthesis on Municipal Waste Management Chapter 11: Preferred Municipal Waste Management Strategy Chapter 12: Financial Aspects of the Preferred Strategy

3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SWM IN GAZA

3.1 Waste Management in the Gaza Strip

Waste management services in Gaza are currently under great stress, as most other public services, due to the closure and economic restrictions currently imposed on Gaza. Nevertheless, with support from UNDP and other international donors, most of the municipal waste in Gaza is still being collected. With this support solid waste collectors are assigned on a temporary basis, using mainly donkey carts and push carts to collect the waste. For instance, the Municipal Council of Gaza City operates around 150 donkey carts for collection and transfer of municipal waste. An open dump site area in the city is used as transfer station, from which about 20 vehicles transport the waste to the Johr aldeek central dump site. The Rafah municipality operates similar means to collect and transport waste to the central dumpsite of Rafah. The permanent closure of Gaza leads to additional constraints, such as recent the blockage of 22 new waste transportation trucks for Gaza, which have been stuck in Ramallah, the blockage of export out of Gaza of recycled waste materials, such as metal scraps, and limited access to the current central dump sites due to their proximity to the border with Israel. The currently applied central dump sites are Jahr El Deek landfill (3 million tons of waste so far), located southeast of Gaza municipality, the Deir El Balah dump site (1.6 million tons of waste), located east of Deir Al Balah municipality and the Rafah landfill (300.000 tons of waste) located east of Rafah municipality. These sites are currently exceeding their maximum capacity, while the Johr El Deek and Deir El Balah dumpsites face difficulties with the Israeli border military due to their location within the buffer zone next to Israel. The John El Deek dumpsite and the Rafah Dumpsite have not been equipped with soil protection measures, while the Deir El Balah dumpsite has been constructed in a sanitary fashion with finance from Germany. This poses a direct threat to the soil quality, especially for the Gaza City central dump site, since northern Gaza is the only area where fresh water has still an acceptable quality. Due to the limited access to the three overloaded central dump sites a substantial part of the waste is dumped temporary at transfer sites throughout Gaza without further control or protection, or at new locations, such as Sheikh Ajleen near Gaza City.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Primary collection of waste is done through containers located along the streets, most of which have been constructed locally in Gaza. If collection is coming late, it is noticed that people tend to burn the waste in the containers to make room for more space. One of the related problems is that most of the vehicles and equipments used for primary and secondary collection have reached the end of their life cycle. This leads to high maintenance costs, and reliance on donkey carts for primary waste collection. The municipalities have the responsibility over setting waste collection tariffs and collecting the waste collection fees from households and companies. In the northern municipalities waste fees are combined with water supply fees. Totally about 40% of the estimated operational costs are actually recovered through fee collection. The remaining financing for waste collection and transportation is provided by donors, such as the provision of temporary workers for waste collection in various municipalities by the MDLF through the EMSRP II and MDP projects, financed by different donors (10 M€), and by the Japan Fund for job creation programme (4 MUSD), implemented by the UNDP through the Household Solid Waste Collection Programme. The total funding provided by foreign donors in support of the Palestinian SWM sector (West Bank and Gaza) was about 72 Million Euro since 1994. Most funding was spent on capacity development, waste collection, transport and disposal infrastructure projects. Some examples are:

1. West Bank and Gaza Solid Waste and Environmental Management Project (SWEMP) Solid Waste Management Studies, 1998 – 2002, financed by the World Bank, including development of landfills for Jenin and Hebron / Bethlehem;

2. Solid Waste Management Program 2005 – 2012 (GtZ), focused on strengthening municipal administrations

3. JICA initiated the Project for Capacity Development on Solid Waste Management in Jericho and Jordan River Rift Valley in 2005 to enhance the capabilities of waste management administrators

4. METAP initiated the Regional Solid Waste Management Project in Mashreq and Maghred Countries, including Palestine, to develop waste management strategies for each country

5. The Netherlands Government financed in 1998 the Gaza Municipality Solid Waste Disposal Project, executed by Agro Vision, which included the improvement of waste collection and street cleansing practices.

Most municipalities apply open dump areas within the city limits for transfer purposes, such as the Yarmouk Transfer Station in Gaza City. Often, waste remains here for many days, attracting flies and posing direct environmental and public health threats. Numerous waste scavengers work here under very bad health conditions to separate valuables, such as plastic, paper and scrap metals to be sold to recycling companies, like plastic factories. From here the remaining waste is transported through larger capacity skip trucks to three central dumpsites: near Rafah in the south, at Deir Al-Balah in the middle, and at Johr Aldeek in the north-east of Gaza. One of the positive side effects of the bad economic circumstances in Gaza is that most of the valuable are recovered from the waste streams prior to arrival at the central dump sites. Specifically plastic is reused to a high extend in Gaza for the production of plastic bags and pipes within one of the four Plastic Factories that have recently been established in Gaza. Metal scrap is also separated to a large extend, and is piled up on different locations ready for being exported once the borders with Israel will be opened again. Composting initiatives have been taken near Rafah, where a small pilot project has been established by the Palestinian Friends Society (NGO) and another small pilot project at Beit Lahia in the north of the Gaza Strip, financed by the Italian Government, supported by CRIC (Italian NGO) and managed by the UNDP. At the Deir El Balah central dump site a German financed project was developed to separate the organic

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


fraction from the already dumped waste for the production of soil conditioners, but this activity has already been abandoned. Other previous initiatives include the EU supported development of a dedicated storage cell for medical and industrial wastes at the Gaza Central Dump Site (no longer in use), and the establishment of a infectious waste incinerator at the central Gaza hospital, which is currently burning only 5% of generated medical wastes. New plans have been developed to expand the Rafah pilot composting plant to process also organic fraction from household waste in the Rafah Governorate under ownership of Rafah Municipality, and about 1 M€ has been already reserved by the Government of Japan through the UNDP for its realization. The project includes manual sorting of waste, and composting of the organic fraction. Other plans have been developed to expand the Beit Lahia pilot into a 3.5 ha recycling and composting plant, to be operated by PADICO, a private Palestinian company. But so far less than 1% of the total solid waste flow is actually being composted. Solid waste in Gaza is managed by: the Northern Gaza Joint Service Council covering four municipalities in the North of Gaza organises all waste collection and transportation to the central dump site; Deir Al Balah Joint Service Council covering 13 municipalities in the Middle of Gaza. The Middle Gaza Joint Service Council has been established in 1995 as a non-profit organization to serve the municipalities of Khan Younis and Deir El Balah and surrounding municipalities and villages. The Solid Waste Management Council serves this area using waste carts and roadside skips to collect the waste, and transport it to the Deir Al Balah landfill, built in 1997 with the support of the German Government. This landfill is currently the only sanitary landfill in Gaza.The municipalities collect the waste themselves, while the JSC organises transportation to the central dump site; Gaza City Municipality manages the waste by itself; Rafah Municipality manages the waste also by itself. UNWRA manages waste collection and transportation from the eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip with a total population of about 0.5 million inhabitants. Waste collection in the refugee camps is free of charge, while UNRWA itself pays for the operational costs and pays the Gaza municipality, the JSC of the North, the central or the southern areas for the disposal of its waste on one of the thee central dump sites. Special waste includes demolition waste, tires, slaughterhouse waste and car scrap metals. In the Gaza Strip a total of 1.5 – 2 M tons of special waste is generated per year. Currently there are no standards or practices for management of these waste streams, and most of it is eventually mixed with other waste streams in the various dump sites. An exception is the recent initiative developed by UNDP on developing demolition waste crushing and reuse facilities in Gaza, specifically to process the debris caused by the Israeli hostilities in Gaza during 2008.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 1 Rafah Solid Waste Dump Site

3.2 Impacts on Public Health and the Environment

The current situation with regard to handling of waste in the Gaza Strip poses serious threats to the environment and public health. One of the major threats relates to mixture of hazardous and untreated health care waste with the main stream domestic solid waste. Both waste collectors as well as the general public are directly exposed to these threats, specifically near public containers along the streets where the waste is mixed and near dump sites. A particular vulnerable group is the waste pickers (often children), who collect valuables from either waste containers along the streets, from open transfer sites in the cities, or from the three central dump sites. Another risk in terms of public health is related to the habit of burning waste in containers whenever they are overloaded, causing smoke emission and smell nuisance. Also, the open dump sites and scattered of waste around the containers contain high fractions of organic matter. This attracts harmful insects and causes related contagious impacts.

Environmental risks are directly connected to the large and smaller waste dumps in Gaza, which do not have particular soil or other environmental protection facilities. Leachate is directly infiltrating into the subsurface, causing pollution of soil and threats for groundwater pollution. Sometimes leachate is concentrated around the dumpsites, causing direct human exposure risks (see picture). Taking the already harrowing groundwater situation in Gaza into account, these additional groundwater threats are particularly poignant.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 2 Leachate at Deir al Balah Landfill

4 SURVEYS AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

4.1 Waste Sampling and Analysis

The Consultant performed an extensive waste sampling and analyses program in order to obtain a reliable picture of the solid waste composition in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile it is to be noted that the survey can only provided a temporary image of the waste composition, which in practice varies both in space and in time. Previous studies have revealed that waste composition and per capita waste generation to a large extend depend on the economic and physical circumstances of the people generating the waste. This is not different in Gaza. For the purpose of this study, three waste sampling teams were trained in performing the sorting and analysis, based on the following definitions: The sampling was performed according to the international ASTM D 5231-92 sampling methodology (2003). This methodology prescribes that the desired precision of the results depends on the number and volumes of the individual waste samples. Individual samples of around 100 kg have been composed from collected source material of around 450 kg each. The source materials were transported with front loaders from the source areas to the sampling analysis areas at Johr al Deek, at Deir al Balah and at Rafah landfills. The sampling areas were located on a flat space, separated from the main waste disposal activities. The areas were covered with clean durable tarp prior to offloading the source materials. A weigh scale was set on a flat and solid underground and was next calibrated with a reference weight.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 1 Waste Categorization

Waste Component

Description

Paper Newspapers, office paper, computer paper, magazines, glossy paper and corrugates

Plastic All types of plastic

Yard waste (non wood) All organic waste coming from yards except wood

Organic Food waste All organic food waste, except bones

Wood Wood waste

Textiles Textile waste

Diapers Baby diapers

Other organic waste Yard waste, agriculture waste, wood, textiles, rubber, leather and other organic burnable waste

Ferrous Iron, steel, tin, cans, and bi-metal materials

Aluminum Pieces cans and foils

Glass All types of glass

Sand / fine materials Inorganic materials with grain size less than 1 cm

Other inorganics Rocks, ceramics, plaster, bones, etc.

Figure 3 Waste Sampling and Analysis

Each waste load of at least 450 kg was offloaded along a long stretch upon the sampling area. Next the waste was mixed, coned and separated in four equal parts. One quarter of around 100 kg was next selected for further analysis. Next, the waste was segregated manually and the different waste components were put in plastic bags. Next, the individual bags were weighed and recorded.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Totally 116 samples were composed as such, of which 40 were originating from various locations in Northern Gaza (Beit Hanoon, Um Alnasser, Jabalia and Jabalia Camps) and Gaza Governorate (such as Al Shati' camp, Sheja'ia, Rimal, Tel Hawa, Sheikh Redwan); 40 samples were originated from the Middle Governorate (Khan Yunis, Khan Yunis Camp, Bani Suhaila, Warara; Abasan; Kheza’a) and 36 samples from the south of Gaza (Rafah; Rafah camp; Shoka; Nasser and Kukhary). The average composition figures of the municipal waste stream are presented in the next table. Annex 2 provides additional information on the individual samples.

Table 2 Sampling results (wet weight %)

Waste Component North Gaza Middle Gaza South Gaza Average 1Paper 7.73 7.96 6.24 7.31

2 Plastic 18.29 13.03 10.52 13.95

3 Yard waste (non wood) 7,96 10.68 4.17 7.60

4 Organic Food waste 26.56 31.19 37.78 31.84

5 Wood 0.56 1.12 0.63 0.77

6 Textiles 3.98 3.26 3.92 3.72

7 Diapers 8.53 9.67 11.49 9.90

8 Other Organics 2.42 1.73 4.05 2.73

9 Ferrous 2.47 2.10 2.25 2.27

10 Aluminum 0.06 0.05 0.28 0.13

11 Glass 1.93 2.04 1.90 1.96

12 Sand / fine materials 14.41 13.87 12.05 13.44

13 Other inorganics 5.11 3.28 4.72 4.37

Total 100 100 100 100 Total Organic (3-8) 50.01 57.65 62.0 56.6

Total Organic (percentage of total waste, excluding sand / fine materials)

58.4 70.5 70.5 65.4

Specifically in Northern Gaza the plastic component is relatively high: over 18%. This suggests that relative a lot of plastic packaging materials are generated here, compared to the other two regions. Still, the average plastic generation is close to 14%. This supports the notion that much of the inflow of consumer goods are extensively packed in plastic paper when arriving in Gaza through the tunnels at Rafah. The high birth rate in Gaza is directly reflected by the high percentage of diapers in the waste, specifically in South Gaza. On average, the generation of diapers is 9.9% of the total waste flow generated in Gaza. Including these diapers, the total organic waste faction is 50% in North Gaza, 58% in Middle Gaza and 62% in South Gaza. Sand and fine materials make up a substantial portion of the waste volumes: 14.4% for North Gaza; 13.9% for Middle Gaza and 12% for South Gaza. It is believed that this largely relates to street sweeping, as well as to grabbing waste from the sandy ground littered around waste bins.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


If the sand fraction would be taken out of the total quantities, than the organic fraction would be respectively 58% for North Gaza, and 70.5% for Middle and South Gaza, on average 65.4 % of the total waste flow. The results obtained under this study are reasonable in line with previous studies performed on the waste composition in Gaza. A comparison is provided in the next table. Table 3 Comparison between different studies in Gaza (weigh%, excluding sand)

Component MoP, 2010 EQA, 2007 UNDP / DHV, 2011 Paper 10.0 8.0 8.4

Plastic 12.0 8.0 16.1

Organic Waste 65.0 70.0 65.4*

Metals 5.0 3.0 2.8

Glass 3.0 6.0 2.3

Other inorganic 5.0 5.0 5.0

Total 100 100 100

* including diapers (11.4%)

4.2 Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey

Within the framework of this feasibility study, a demand assessment and willingness to pay survey was implemented focused on provided solid waste management services in Gaza. The main findings of the Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey are provided in the next table. Annex 3 provides the full DAWPS report.

Table 4 Major Findings of Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey

Study objectives Findings Recommendations 1. Major shortcomings current solid waste management services provided to customers

1. Customers quite satisfied with waste collection in their households although they lack storage capacities for organic waste. 2. Customers quite satisfied with daily house to house collection in residential areas. 3. Customers unsatisfied with self-delivery of solid waste in street containers. 4. Emptying of street containers unreliable, too long intervals, litter and waste piles around containers, insects and rodents, visual and air pollution around street containers

1. Improve reliability and service quality of primary collection systems 2. Increase collection frequencies to prevent overfull street containers in peripheral residential areas of cities, villages and refugee camps 3. Enhance responsibilities of community-based organizations to improve visual and hygienic appearance of neighborhoods, especial around communal waste collection points 4. Direct consultations between customers and solid waste managers in neighborhoods with latent conflict of interests

2. Service options and preferences of beneficiaries

1. 67.3% of respondents prefer model based on separated waste collection services. 2. Affordability is an important

1. Conduct a detailed mapping of the SWM services in Gaza, and the real involved costs for waste separation. 2. Make technical and financial

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Study objectives Findings Recommendations

criterion for customers in peripheral areas but not for those in the commercial areas and refugee camps. 3. There is limited awareness of the real costs involved in SWM services both with customers and service providers. 4. 77% of respondents consider that community-based organizations have to pay a role in the introduction of separated waste streams.

appraisals for adjusting the diversity of current collection systems to handling separated organic and non-organic waste streams. 3. Make a socio-economic analysis of at source separation initiatives for package materials by private sector organizations on a voluntary and obligatory basis

3. Potentials for developing separated waste streams

1. 23% of respondent practice already at source separation of (organic) waste 2. 83% of the respondents consider separation organic and non-organic waste a reasonable target. 3. 23% of the respondents want to go a step further and have private sector initiatives to separate glass, plastic, metal and cardboard at the source. 4. Respondents want daily collection of organic waste because they do not want to store it in their dwellings.

1. Socially accepted and affordable primary collection systems for separated waste streams are essential for sustaining at source waste separation initiatives. 2. Complement composting capacity development with piloting of innovative primary collection systems in neighborhoods that can supply organic waste needed for compost production. 3. Establish multi-stakeholders platforms of public, private and voluntary organizations at local level that jointly plan, develop and supervise improved primary collection systems.

4. Ability and willingness to pay

*72% of respondents’ support that beneficiaries should recover the SWM costs. *Both socio-economic and technical explanations are given for the poor fee collection. *Social policy through public services. *Too long free-riders mentality tolerated. Current SW tariffs are 10 – 13 NIS per hh per month. *The Consultant estimates that optimal circumstances a maximum fee of 20 NIS per hh per month is feasible

1. Integrated approach needed for improving technical, institutional (social and legal) and financial aspects of SWM. 2. Trust building initiatives are needed for enhancing communal ownership of solid waste management services at local level. 3. Enforcement of bill paying, to break through the free-riders mentality

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The method of focus group discussion was chosen in order to cover adequately the diversity of the population. Use was made of a short questionnaire and a stratified purposive sampling framework among 22 focus groups, proportionally divided over the Gaza Strip and covering four customer areas: urban commercial, urban residential, rural and refugee camps (see next table). Table 5 Division of Focus Groups

Governorates Urban residential

Urban commercial

Rural Camps Total

Northern Gaza and Gaza City 5 2 1 2 10

Deir Al-Balah and Khan Yunis 2 2 1 3 8

Rafah Governorate 1 1 1 1 4

TOTAL 13 5 3 6 22 The participants of the focus group discussions considered electricity and water supply services more essential their socio-economic activities than solid waste management services. However, they expressed that solid waste collection services have an important impact on public health and the quality of live in their neighborhoods. An overview of the main complaints with regard to public services is presented in the next table. Table 6 Main Public Service Complaints Governorate Urban Commercial Urban Residential Rural Area Refugee Camps Northern Gaza

*Poor SWM

*Transfer station

*Drinking water quality

*Access drinking

water

*Poor SWM

*Litter

*Electricity supply

*Poor SWM &

litter

*Access drinking

water

*Electricity supply

*Poor SWM & litter

*Access drinking water

Gaza City *Access and quality

drinking water

*Electricity supply

*Poor SWM and litter

*Access drinking

water

*Electricity supply


*Transfer station

*Lack public

transport

*Hinder dump site

*Access and quality

drinking water


Deir El Balah *Access drinking

water

*Storm water

*Electricity supply

*Litter


Khan Younis *Poor SWM

*Litter

*Poor SWM

*Drinking water

*Litter

*Waste Water

*Poor SWM

*Hinder dumpsite

*Waste water

*Poor SWM

*Electricity supply

Rafah *Electricity supply


*Access Drinking

water

*Drinking water

quality

*Litter

*Electricity supply

*Access drinking

water

*Poor SWM

*Litter

*Electricity supply

*Litter

*Drinking water access

and quality

In all customer areas the respondents complained about the quality of the solid waste services. Participants from the urban commercial areas gave solid waste management services a high priority while

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


those in the rural areas gave it a relative low priority. The opinions of participants of the focus group discussion in the urban residential areas and the refugee camps were less outspoken than in the urban commercial areas but more critical than in the rural areas. An overview of the seriousness of SWM related problems is presented in the next table. Table 7 Seriousness of the Problems Related to SWM Services

Problems in neighborhood Very serious problem

Somewhat serious problem

Not serious problem

1. Solid waste collection 2. Littering and waste piles 3. Nuisance transfer station 4. Nuisance waste dump site

66 64 23 28

44 40 20 14

7 (1) 13 74 75

Primary solid waste collection is the responsibility of the local authorities in urban and rural areas and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the refugee camps. The Deir al Balah and Khan Yunis Governorates wanted the customers to dispose their waste directly into small street containers, which were widely distributed in the streets of the governorates by the Joint Service Councils. However, the system of enhance own responsibility of customers was hard to maintain and customers pressured the Khan Yunis municipality to return to house-to-house collection with daily collection frequencies. In the other governorates house-to-house collection is practiced with different collection frequencies for the commercial, central residential, remote residential neighborhood in the urban areas, the refugees’ camps and the rural areas. Initially smaller waste trucks were used for the primary collection but with the problems to replace the motorized equipment, the local authorities shifted to animal and hand cards for primary collection. Still, customers prefer the motorized equipment for primary collection since animal and hand cards are considered inappropriate technologies for the 21st Century. An overview of the primary collection systems of the participating respondents is presented in the next table. Table 8 Primary Collection Systems in Governorates

Put into the street H2H

Container in building

Container in street

Open waste pile in street

Dump site

1. Gaza North 2. Gaza City 3. Deir Al Balah 4. Khan Yunis 5. Rafah Total

17 10 12 6 4

49 (44.5%)

3 1 1 2

7 (6.4%)

4 7 7

11 12

41 (37.3%)

3 4

3 1

11(10%)

1 1

2(1.8) N=110 More important and convenient for them is the daily house-to-house collection of the solid waste. They demanded daily collection since they do not want to store the solid waste, and in particular the organic, in their dwellings. Therefore reducing the frequency of solid waste collection to three or two times per week, in order to improve the service and reduce the costs, was not preferred by most urban residents, where daily collection is the norm. An overview of the currently applied waste collection frequencies is provided in the next table.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 9 Frequency of SW Collection in the Neighborhoods per Governorate

Frequency Solid Waste Collection Governorate Several times

per day Daily 3 X per week 1 or 2 X

per week

Total

1. Northern Gaza 2. Gaza City 3. Deir Al Balah 4. Khan Yunis 5. Rafah

Total

5 10 2 0 7

23

20 13 14 17 8

72

3 4 5 2 0

14

0 0 0 5 2

17

28 27 21 24 17

117 Waste transportation largely escapes from the eyes of the neighborhood groups and only the neighborhoods near transfer stations considered that these stations cause health and safety risks to their neighborhoods. The respondents observed that the around large containers waste is scattered and that occasionally the containers are put on fire to make space for more waste. In all areas the participants of the focus group discussions were positive about at separation of solid waste at the source. Many of the participants have participated in consultation of the local authorities on public service issues and therefore are acquainted with the waste separation issues. They consider waste separation desirable in future and want to resolve the storage issue in their dwellings, especially for organic waste. Meanwhile, less frequent collection intervals to restrict the transport costs they considered unrealistic especially for organic waste. They encouraged a formalization of private sector collection initiatives like the market mechanisms for metal and debris from which the customers can also benefit. An overview of the frequencies of private waste collectors along Gaza is provided in the next table. Table 10 Private Collectors of Recyclables from Neighborhoods per Governorate

Opinions Northern Gaza

Gaza City

Deir El Balah

Khan Yunis

Rafah Total

1. Daily enter the neighborhood 2. Weekly enter the neighborhood 3. Monthly enter the neighborhood 4. Not noticed in the neighborhood Total

5 6 2

14 34

13 5 3 7

28

16 4 0 1

21

2 10 3 9

24

1 7 4 5

17

37 32 12 36

117

Generally the participants of the focus group discussions expressed a willingness to pay for proper solid waste collection services. In areas where the primary collection services were considered sub-standards, the participants had the opinion that the fees collection would improve if the local authorities improved the quality of the collection services. However it is difficult to judge whether this are social desirable answer since there is a widespread free-riders mentality among the wealthier customers. They feel that they should not pay their water and solid waste collection bills if local authorities accept that poor households do not have to pay for these public services. An overview of the actual charged solid waste service fees is presented in the next table

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 11 SWM services Fees Charged to the Respondents per Neighborhood

Service fees charged to respondents

Urban residential

Urban commercial

Rural Refugee Camps

Total %

1. No service fees 2. Up to ILS 50 per year 3. Between ILS 50-100 per year 4. Between ILS 101 – 200 per year 5. Between ILS 201 – 300 per year 6. Above ILS 301 per year Total

1 3 4 26 33

2 2 4 17 1 25

1 7 14 22

6 14 11 1 1 33

7 6 29 68 1 2 113

6.2 5.3

25.760.20.9 1.8 100

In the refugee camps there is a widespread victim ideology and the dominant opinion of participants was that UNRWA should pay for all public services, because the international community is responsible for their exclusion from their original home areas and loosing their livelihood resources during the Middle East conflicts in the second half of the 20th century. Several groups suggested adjusting the fees more to the waste volumes collected from specific neighborhoods and at source waste separation. Volume based fees are considered fairer since neighborhoods with limited waste generation, which are the poorer neighborhoods, are considered to subsidize the services in neighborhoods where larger amounts of waste are produced. Another idea is that the local authorities should pass part of their earnings from recycling of waste to the customers through lower service fees. Overall, the level of involvement of communities in SWM services is presented in the next table. Table 12 Involvement of Community Organizations in SWM Services Involvement of community organizations

Urban residential

Urban Commercial

Rural communities

Refugee Camps

Total

1. Organize at source separation 2. Organize street sweeping 3. Supervise waste collection station 4. Communicate complains 5. (1 and 4) 6. (2 and 4) 7. (1, 3 and 4) Total

5 5

11 8 2 2

33

4 2 2 6 7 4 1

26

10 7 4 1

22

5

2 6

12 3 5

33

14 7 4

33 34 15 8

115

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4.3 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations

4.3.1 Introduction

Topographical surveys and geotechnical investigations were performed at Johr al Deek and Rafah by a local surveying company. The work included geotechnical analysis performed at a geotechnical laboratory. The survey works have been done in close communication with staff of the UNDP in Gaza, which took up the responsibility to coordinate with the Israeli side.

4.3.2 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations – Rafah Landfill

The Consultant performed a 10 m grid topographic survey at the Rafah landfill side and to the proposed southward extension with a total surface area of 20 dunum. The results are presented on the conceptual design drawings annexed to this Feasibility Study.

Next, the Association of Engineers Material Testing Laboratory (MTL) conducted geotechnical investigations on the Rafah site according to the request the Consultant. The scope of the work was decided by the consultant of the project to conduct two exploration bore holes up to groundwater table (48 m depth) and to give information about soil profile within the site.

The site is located in the southern regions of Gaza Strip and in the north eastern area of Rafah Municipality territories. The site is currently used as a landfill site with an estimated area of 27 dunums. Rafah Municipality proposes to expand this landfill on the short term with an extra area of 20 dunum west to the existing landfill. The boreholes were conducted in the proposed area for expansion under the supervision of the consultant. The site is bounded by Khan Yunis WWTP from the east, and around 800 meters from the Israeli border. It is surrounded by agricultural areas from all other sides. The site is characterized by a wide landscape that gives an opportunity for an extensive expansion in the future.

The locations of the exploration bore holes were selected by the consultant at the field according to site plan. Fish tail with rope drilling machine was used to drill the bore hole to a depth of 48 m below the ground surface. The drilling and the sampling have been made under the supervision of a MTL geotechnical engineer and in the presence of the UNDP representative and the consultant. Samples were taken at selected depths to represent the soil strata underneath the surface. Laboratory tests were executed for selected undisturbed soil samples on grain size distribution, moisture content and Atterberg limits.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 4 Land ownership around Rafah Landfill Borehole No. one with coordinate X= 85,8 m ,Y= 75,9 m and Z = 52.3 m Borehole No, Two with coordinate X= 85,9 m ,Y =76.0 m and Z = 52.9 m

Soil Strata Drilling 1 The first soil layer in drilling 1 consists of Clayey Silts (ML) from 0 – 10 m. The average water content is 10% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.5. The below soil layer consists of fine sands (SP) down to a depth of 11 m. The average water content is 5% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.2. The third soil layer consists of Clayey Silts (ML) and has a depth from 11 m down to 13 m .The average water content is 13% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.2. The fourth soil layer consists of Silty Sands (SM) from 13m down to 18 m deep. The average water content is 7% and the average Plasticity Index is 2.7. The soil type in the

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


fifth layer is Silt-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC) from 18 up to 21 m. The average water content is 5.3% and the average Plasticity Index is 5.5. The sixth soil layer is Gravelly Sands (SP) from a depth of 21 down to 26 m .The average water content is 5.3% and the average Plasticity Index is 5.5. The seventh layer is Silty Sands (SM) from 26 m down to 29 m. The average water content is 10% and the average Plasticity Index is 3. The eighth soil layer is Silty Sands (SM) from 29 down to 38 m. The average water content is 10%. The last soil layer is Silty-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC) from a depth of 38m down to 51 m. The following table summarizes the above soil characteristics:

Table 13 Soil characteristics for bore hole No.1 (East of Rafah)

Layer Number

Soil Type Depth (m) Water

Content W%

Plasticity Index (PI)

1 Clayey Silts (ML) 0 – 10 10% 3.5

2 Fine Sands (SP) 10 – 11 5% 3.2

3 Clayey Silts (ML) 11 – 13 13% 3.2

4 Silty Sands (SM) 13 – 18 7% 2.7

5 Silt-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC) 18 – 21 5.3% 5.5

6 Poorly graded Sand (SP) 21 – 26 5.3% 5.5

7 Silty Sands (SM) 26 – 29 10% 3

8 Silty Sands (SM) 29 – 38 10% -

9 Silty-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC) 38 – 51 - -

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Soil Strata Drilling 1

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Soil Strata Drilling 2

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The test results indicate that the first layer is Clayey Silts (ML) with a depth varying from 0 – 3 m. The average water content is 11.6% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.9. The second soil layer is Silty Sands (SM) from 3m down to 7 m deep. The average water content is 6% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.9. The third soil layer encountered is a fine Sands (SP) from 7 m down to 14 m .The average water content is 13% and the soil was found to be non-plastic (NP). The fourth soil layer is Clayey Silts (ML) from 14 m down to 19 m. The average water content is 11% and the average Plasticity Index is 5.9. The fifth soil layer is fine Sands (SP) from 19 m down to to 21 m. The average water content is 3% and the average Plasticity Index is 7.1. The sixth soil layer is a Silty-Clay-Sands Mixture (SM-SC) from 21 m down to 25 m. The average water content is 5% and the average Plasticity Index is 6.7. The seventh soil layer is Clayey Silts (ML) from 25 m down to 29 m deep. The average water content is 12.5% and the average Plasticity Index is 3.5. The eighth soil layer is Silty Sands (SM) from 29 m down to to 36 m. The ninth soil layer is Clayey Silts (ML) 36 m down to 40 m. The tenth soil layer is a Silty-Clay-Sands Mixture (SM-SC) from 40 m down to 42 m. The soil at this depth is saturated with groundwater. The eleventh soil layer is Clayey Gravel (GC) from 42 m down to 44 m, also saturated with groundwater. The twelfth soil layer is Silty Gravels (GM) from 44 m down to 47 m, again saturated. The thirteenth soil layer is a Sandy-Clay Mixture (SC) from 47 m down to 49 m. The fourteenth soil layer is Silty Sands (SM) from depth 49m down to 51 m.

The following table summarizes the above mentioned soil characteristics:

Table 14 Soil characteristics for bore hole No. 2 (east of Rafah)

Layer Number

Soil Type Depth (m) Water Content W% Plasticity Index (PI)

1 Clayey Silts (ML) 0 – 3 11.6% 3.9

2 Fine Sands (SP) 3 – 7 6% 3.9

3 Fine Sands (SP) 7 – 14 13% NP

4 Clayey Silts (ML) 14 – 19 11% 5.9

5 Fine Sands (SP) 19 – 21 3% 7.1

6 Silty-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC)

21 – 25 5% 6.7

7 Clayey Silts (ML) 25 – 29 12.5% 3.5

8 Silty Sands (SM) 29 – 36 - -

9 Clayey Silts (ML) 36 – 40 - -

10 Silty-Clay-Sands Mixtures (SM-SC)

40 – 42 - -

11 Clayey Gravel (GC) 42 – 44 - -

12 Silty Gravels (GM) 44 – 47 - -

13 Sandy-Clay Mixtures

(SC) 47 – 49 - -

14 Silty Sands (SM) 49 – 51 - -

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4.3.3 Topographic and Geotechnical Investigations Johr al Deek Landfill

The Johr Al Deek landfill is located in the middle of Gaza Strip, in the south east of Gaza Municipality territories with an area of 200 dunum. The landfill is located eight kilometers from the eastern border (Green line). It is surrounded by agricultural lands which can be used for limited expansion of the landfill. Figure (1) shows the Landfill site plan. Concrete plans for expansion are under preparation by the Gaza Municipality for an additional 20 dunum towards the south side of the existing landfill. The Consultant performed a 10 m grid topographic survey at the Johr al Deek landfill side and to the proposed southward extension with a total surface area of 20 dunum. The results are presented on the conceptual design drawings annexed to this Feasibility Study.

Furthermore, two boreholes were conducted in the proposed extension area under the supervision of the consultant. A fish tail with rope drilling machine was used to drill the bore hole to a depth of 48 m below surface. The drilling and sampling was supervised by a MTL geotechnical engineer in the presence of a UNDP representative and the consultant. Samples were taken at selected depths to represent the soil strata underneath the surface. Laboratory tests were executed for selected undisturbed soil samples on grain size distribution, moisture content and Atterberg limits.

Boreholes Johr al Deek X Y Z Western Borehole (#1) 97735.60 96447.50 60.99 Eastern Borehole (#2) 98002.00 96271.00 51.55

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Soil Strata Drilling 1 The soil of the first Layer in drilling 1 consists of Clayey Silts (CL-ML) with a depth from 0 – 2 m.The average water content is 14.5% and the average Plasticity Index is 4.2. The second soil layer is a Sand-Silt-Clay-Mixture (SM-SC) from 2 m down to 7 m. The average water content is 10.2% and the average Plasticity Index is 5.1 . The third soil layer consists of Gravely Sands (GP) from 7 m down to 32 m.The average water content is 2.7% and the average Plasticity Index is 5.4. The fourth soil layer is a Sand-Silt Mixture (SM) from 32 m down to 39 m. The soil in the fifth layer is Gravely Sands (SP) from 39 m down to 43 m. The six soil layer is a Sand-Silt Mixture (SM) from 43 m down to 44 m. The seventh soil layer consists of Gravely Sands (GP) from 44 m down to 45 m. The eight soil layer is a Sand-Silt Mixture with Gravel (SM) 45 m down to 47 m. The lowest soil layer encounter is Gravely Sands (GP) from 47 m down to 48 m. No saturated groundwater was noticed to a depth of 48 m below surface. The following table summarizes the above mentioned soil characteristics:

Figure 5 Boreholes Locations

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 15 Soil characteristics for bore hole No. 1 (Johr al Deek)

Layer No. Soil Type Depth (m) Water

Content W%

Plasticity Index (PI)

1 Clayey Silts (CL-ML) 0 – 2 14.5% 4.2

2 Sand-Silt-Clay-Mixture (SM-SC)

2 – 7 10.2% 5.15

3 Gravelly Sands (GP) 7 – 32 13% 5.4

4 Sand-Silt –Mixture (SM)

32 – 39 - -

5 Gravelly Sands (SP) 39-43 - -

6 Sand-Silt –Mixture (SM)

43 – 44 - -

7 Gravelly Sands (GP) 44 – 45 - -

8 Sand-Silt –Mixture with Gravel (SM)

45 – 47 - -

9 Gravelly Sands (GP) 47 – 48 - -

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4.3.4 Soil Strata Drilling 2

The soil in the first Layer is Silty Sands (SM) from 0 – 6 m deep. The average water content is 8.5%. The second soil layer is Fine Sand Mix with Rubbish (SP) from 6 m down to 10 m. The average water content is 6.6%. The third soil layer is Gravely Sand (GP) from 10 m down to 14 m. The average water content is 7.3%. The soil type in the fourth soil layer is Clayey Silts (CL-ML) from 14 m down to 15 m. The average water content is 22.9% and the average Plasticity Index is 4.4. The fifth soil layer is Clayey Sand (SC) from 15 m down to 18 m. The average water content is 8.1% and the average Plasticity Index is 7.2. The six soil layer is Gravely Sand (GP) from 18 m down to 22 m .The average water content is 7.8% and the average Plasticity Index is 5. The seven soil layer is a Sand-Clay-Silt-Mixture (SM-SC) from 22 m down to 31 m. The average water content is 9.4%. The eight soil layer is Gravely Sand (GP) from 31 m down to 38 m. The soil type in the nine layer is poorly graded Gravels (GP) from 38 m down to 43 m.. The tenth soil layer is Silty Sands (SC) from 43 m down to 50 m. No saturated groundwater was noticed to a depth of 50 m below surface. The following table summarizes the above mentioned soil characteristics:

Table 16 Soil characteristics for bore hole No. 2 (Johr al Deek)

Layer Number

Soil Type Depth

(m) Water Content

W% Plasticity Index

(PI)

1 Silty Sands (SM) 0 – 6 8.5% NP

2 Fine Sands Mix with Rubbish

(SP)

6 – 7 6.6% NP

3 Fine Sands (SP) 7 – 10 3.8% NP

4 Gravely Sand (GP) 10 – 14 7.3% NP

5 Clayey Silts (CL-ML) 14 – 15 23% NP

6 Clayey Sand (SC) 15 – 18 8.1% 7.2

7 Gravely Sand (GP) 18 – 22 7.8% 5

8 Sand-Clay-Silt-Mixture (SM-SC) 22 – 31 9.4% -

9 Gravely Sand (GP) 31 – 38 - -

10 Gravels sand (GP) 38 – 43 - -

12 Silty Sand (SC) 43 – 50 - -

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4.4 Field Survey of Random Dumpsites in Gaza An extensive field survey was performed on the random dump sites throughout the Gaza Strip. The following dumps have been identified: Khanyounis:

• 50 dunum with 20,000 ton of waste Gaza :

• Karamah st. (4km along the street with 70,000 ton of waste) • Yarmuk: (5 dunum with 40,000 ton of waste) • Street #10: (100m along the street with 20,000 ton of waste)

North:

• Um Nasser: (8 dunums with 50,000 ton of waste) • Beit Lahia: (10 dunums with 50,000 ton of waste) • Beit Hanoun (50 dunum). This is an old dumpsite, located very close to the border with Israel.

These dump sites were originated as temporary storage sites prior to final disposal at one of the three central dump sites. Due to different causes, preliminary lack of transport or financial resources, waste have been piled up here for longer periods and as such have developed into more permanent dump sites. Consequently, these dumps now need to be addressed in a more structural manner. The locations of the random dump sites are presented in the next figure. The most pragmatic solution for cleaning these dump sites is picking up the waste in a one time action and disposing the waste at the central landfills (for instance at Deir al Balah landfill, before its closure), rather than leaving the waste where it is and covering it with clay. This action would require removal of totally about 300,000 ton of waste with an estimated volume of 300,000 m3.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 6 locations of random dumpsites

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4.5 Landfills and Transfer Stations Site Assessment

4.5.1 Introduction

Within the framework of this Feasibility Study five potential landfill locations have been visited and inspected in July and August 2011. These sites were assessed based on physical/technical, environmental, social and other excluding or ranking criteria. All potential landfill site locations were

assessed in detail by international and local experts. The selection and ranking of the most suitable location(s) was executed in four stages, starting with applying a set of exclusion and reducing criteria.

This resulted in the reduction of the 5 potential sites to 2 sites remaining: o one location north east of the existing dump site in Rafah (no. 5) and o one location south west of the existing dump site in Gaza (no. 3)

The reasons for excluding the other (3) sites were mainly that they were located too close to housing areas or to an environmental sensitive area. The remaining 2 sites were consequently ranked according to 5 categories; (a) environmental criteria, (b) planning criteria, (c) nature and landscape criteria, (d) political / legal criteria and (e) financial / economic criteria.

4.5.2 Long List of Selected Sites (5)

This site selection assesses the various by the municipalities proposed and otherwise identified landfill site locations, based on technical, environmental, social and other excluding or ranking criteria. The selection and ranking process was executed by international and local experts and was conducted in July / August 2011. The search for possible landfill site locations was defined by the following base data: o The geological and hydro-geological situation of the Gaza Strip can be divided into a western and

eastern area. o The western part of Gaza shows mainly sandy ground materials with a low distance to the ground

water level. o In contrast to the western area, the eastern part of Gaza shows mainly silty and clayey ground

materials (which can be regarded as a geological barrier) and a ground water distance of about 40 m. o This geological change can be represented (as far as possible) on the existing earth’s surface with the

main road between Gaza North and the airport at Rafah. The above mentioned geological situation leads to the result that suitable landfill site locations have to be identified east of the main road.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 7 Locations of Five Alternative Sites

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Regarding the built-up areas and the possible extensions of these areas (cities and villages) it must be noticed that the middle area of Gaza (Deir al-Balah Governorate) is nearly developed till to the border. Summarized it can be stated that possible landfill sites have to be searched in the eastern part of the Gaza and Northern Governorate (northern part of Gaza Strip) as well as of Rafah and Khan Younis Governorate (southern part of Gaza Strip). In these two areas all in all 5 possible site locations were identified for a landfill. These locations are described more in detail hereafter

The following proposed sites were assessed in detail:

Table 17 Long List of Sites for a Sanitary Landfill

no. Name Area of X-coord Y-coord Z-coord (m.a.s.l.)

1 Gaza / Tuffah Gaza 101861 E 100593 N 55

2 Khanyounis / Qarara Khanyounis 88647 E 85867 N 75

3 Gaza / Johr al Deek Gaza 97950 E 96250 N 52

4 Khanyounis / Abasan Khanyounis 87815 E 69037 N 75

5 Rafah / Rafahh Rafah 86100 E 75925 N 52

Summary of general data: Municipality Gaza

X, Y and Z-coordinate 101861 E, 100593 N, about 50-60 m.a.s.l.

Seize / available area about 1.6 Km2

Distance to nearest residential areas about 150 m

Topography low slope (flat)

Geo-hydrology Two third is Loess soil {Sandy loam (6% clay, silt 34%, sand 58%)} and one third is Dark brown / reddish brown {Sandy clay loam (25% clay, 13% silt, 62% sand)}, distance to ground water more than 50 m

Prevailing land use mainly agriculture land class B, partly woodland

Cultural / archaeological / religious values

without value

Flora and Fauna without value

Average rain fall / year about 425 mm

Rain water run-off, catchment area limited catchment area,

Distance nature reserve / cultural sites Far

Access road situation paved road nearby the site

Availability cover material not available on site (mainly silty material)

Land ownership partly private plots + Waqf

Land acquisition costs about 19000 USD per donum

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The proposed location can be technically described as follows :

• Inclination of slopes: about 1:2 (very steep) • Height of slopes: up to about 50 m • Width of the bottom area: about 20 to 30 m • Inclination of bottom area to existing landfill • Length of valley: about 200 to 300 m

Municipality Khan Yunis


Seize / available area about 5.66 km2


Topography moderate slope

Geo-hydrology Mainly Dark brown {Sandy clay loam (25% clay, 13% silt, 62% sand)} and partly Loessial sandy soil {The top layer is sandy loam (14% clay, 20% silt, 66% sand), The lower profile is loam (21% clay, 30% silt, 49% sand)}, distance to ground water more than 50 m

Prevailing land use mainly agriculture land class B

Cultural / archeological / religious values without value






Availability cover material not available on site

Land ownership private plots

Land acquisition costs about 15,000 USD per donum

The proposed location can be technically described as follows :

• Inclination of slopes: about 1:2 (very steep) Municipality Gaza

X, Y and Z-coordinate 97950 E, 96250 N, about 52 m.a.s.l.

Seize / available area about 10 ha (till to a distance of 300 m to the Israeli border)


Topography moderate slope between 1 to 6 % towards south-east

Geo-hydrology mainly silty materials (sometimes sandy, sometimes clayey), distance to ground water more than 40 m

Prevailing land use mainly unused land, partly woodland

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC









Land ownership partly private plots

Land acquisition costs about 20,000 USD per donum

Technically the proposed land fill site can be further described as follows: Site no. 3 is located about 7 km south of Gaza City and directly beside the existing landfill site. It shows a moderate inclined slope area towards south-east. The site area can be described as follow:

• Inclination of bottom area (towards the deep point: between 1 and 5 % • Height of slopes: up 6 m (on a distance of about 300 m) • Length and width of landfill area: limited (about 400 m x 300 m) • Excavation works can be mainly done in silt (mixed with sand and clay).

The site area shows the following disadvantages:

• Limited area to about 20 ha, in maximum Municipality Khan Yunis


Seize / available area about 5.44 km2


Topography moderate slope

Geo-hydrology Sand loess soil over loess {Sandy loam (17.5% clay, 16.5% silt, 66% sand)}, distance to ground water more than 55 m

Prevailing land use mainly agriculture class B








Land ownership private plots


DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The proposed location can be technically described as follows: • Inclination of slopes: about 1:2 (very steep)

Municipality Rafah

X, Y and Z-coordinate 86100 E, 75925 N, about 52 m.a.s.l.

Seize / available area about 1 to 2 km²

Distance to nearest residential areas more than 300 m

Topography very flat area with a small slope towards the boarder

Geo-hydrology mainly clayey and silty materials, distance to ground water more than 40 m

Prevailing land use mainly unused land




Rain water run-off, catchment area no catchment area,



Availability cover material not available on site (mainly clayey and silty material)

Land ownership partly private plots


The proposed landfill site no. 5 is located about 6 km north-east of Rafah City and directly beside the existing landfill site. It shows a very flat area with nearly no slope. The site area can be technically described as follow:

• Inclination of slopes: about 0 to 1 % • Length of the area: about 1000 m • Width of the area: about 1000 m • To dispose the whole waste volume for the Gaza Strip for a time period of 20 years an area of

about 60 ha (600 donum) is required. This area is available on Rafah site (no limitation) • Excavation works can be mainly done in silt and clay.

4.5.3 Selection process

The applied site selection process is based on a list of criteria which usually play an important role in the selection of a new landfill site. The list of criteria contains not only environmental issues but also issues like social, planning and political/juridical factors which often are not clearly integrated or described in the decision making process. These criteria are divided into 5 (five) categories and a ‘funnelling’ methodology is applied to select and rank the proposed land fill site locations. The approach used in this feasibility report recommends where the ‘best’ location for a new centralized landfill will be. In the detailed assessment and final selection of the recommended landfill site location(s) for the Gaza Strip, a four phases approach have been followed:

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Phase 1: Exclusion phase In this phase, the proposed landfill areas have been excluded from further analysis, based on the fact that these sites don’t meet one or more basic requirements, i.e. exclusion criteria. Phase 2: Reduction phase In this second phase, if necessary, the remaining proposed landfill areas are further reduced, using the reduction criteria. These criteria are less strict and do not result in the immediate exclusion of proposed site location, but are to be considered rather disadvantageous for landfill locations. Phase 3: Arranging phase In this assessment stage, each of the remaining landfill locations will be assessed in detail, by giving scores to the ‘arranging’ categories and related criteria. The various criteria are divided in 5 categories and for each criterion a score will be given to each site by experts. Phase 4: Selection/Ranking phase In this final phase, all ranking scores are accumulated and given a weighing factor. The sum of the total (weighed) ranking scores will identify the most suitable/preferred landfill location(s). Phase 1 and 2, in which the excluding and reducing criteria are applied, functions as a first selection funnel, so that after phase 2 only a limited number of potential landfill sites remains for further detailed comparison and ranking between each other. In the first exclusion phase, all proposed sites were reviewed using the specified exclusion criteria as given in Annex 4 of the Inception Report (see also World Bank Guidelines). This assessment was done, based on the field visits, background information obtained from the local representatives and/or representative of the various Gaza Governorates, the technical evaluation of the various sites characteristics, as well as based on the data derived from GIS maps prepared by ENFRA. The result of the first phase exclusion assessment is given in the table below:

Table 18 Site Selection Excluding Criteria

Excluding criteria No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5

(N = no, Y = yes)

Gaz

a /

Tuf

fah

Kha

nyou

nis/

Qar

ara

Gaz

a / J

ohr

al D

eek

Kha

nyou

nis/

Aba

san

Raf

ah

Restrictions due to land use planning N N N N N

Distance to Residential Area > 200 meter 150 m 50 m 530 m 150 m 750 m

Distance to Border with Israel > 500 meter Y N Partly Y Y

Land area availability (limited to < 200 dunum) N N N N N

Impossibility of land acquisition N N N N N

Within a groundwater recharge area N N N N N

Within 500 m of all kind of water wells N Y N Y N

Presence of significant wetlands of important biodiversity or reproductive value

N N N N N

Presence of environmentally rare or endangered species breeding areas, habitats or protected living

N N N N N

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


areas

Within 500 m of protected forests N N N N N

Presence of major lines (electricity, gas, water etc.) N N N N N

Presence of underlying karstic limestone N N N N N

Presence of fault lines or significant fractured geological structures

N N N N N

Presence of underlying underground mines N N N N N

Protected ecological, historical or scientific area N N N N N

Within a floodplain subject N N N N N

Within the distance of 3 km to an airport N N N N N

Based on this first exclusion criteria assessment, it has been concluded that two sites, i.e Gaza Johr al Deek and Rafah (Rafah) fully comply with the non-exclusion criteria. The main reasons for excluding the other three sites are that they are located too close to residential areas. As for the Gaza Tuffah site, this area is proposed for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant surrounded by agriculture to be fed with treated wastewater. This would make is sensitive to potential environmental impacts from waste disposal. The best site is seen at Rafah site, mainly due to its excellent technical (planning), topographical and environmental conditions, the open space surrounding the site, and the possibility to remain at a distance of 500 m from the border with Israel. An additional advantage is that this site is next to the planned wastewater treatment plant for Rafah, turning the area into in integrated sanitary treatment facility for both solid waste as well as wastewater.

5 CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTIONS OF THE SWM SECTOR IN GAZA

5.1 Population Figures and Projections

The Gaza Strip consists of five governorates, including a total of 33 villages and municipalities. The total surface area of the area is 365 km2. The following table provides an overview of the 2007 census performed by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Table 19 Population Data (PCBS, 2007)

Governorate Number of Average Size Population (2007) Households of Household Urban Rural Camps Total

North Gaza 40.262 6,7 225.502 2.811 41.933 270.246

Gaza City 76.809 6,5 449.221 12.542 34.648 496.411

Middle Area 32.082 6,4 129.050 1.873 74.612 205.535

Khan Yunis 43.203 6,3 218.061 15.213 37.705 270.979

Rafah 26.864 6,5 132.506 6.308 34.558 173.372

Total Gaza Strip 219.220 6,46 1.154.340 38.747 223.456 1.416.543

The spatial distribution of the five governorates is presented in figure 6.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Based on the above figures the PCBS made population projections until the year 2016, based on various geographic and economic indicators. These figures are presented in the table below. The following population growth percentages have been assumed by the PCBS for Gaza at large for the years 2008 until 2016: Gaza Population Growth Projections (PCBS, 2007)

2008 3,23% 2009 3,25% 2010 3,49% 2011 3,50% 2012 3,48% 2013 3,44% 2014 3,41% 2015 3,36%

The regressive growth trend 2011 onwards is conform general estimates for the population growth figures in developing countries, such as by the UN, which predicts that by the end of this century the world population will have been stabilized.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 45

-

Pub

lic

Po

pu

lati

on

Pro

ject

ion

s (P

CB

S 2

007

- 20

16)

No

rth

Gaz

a G

ove

rno

rate

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Urb

an22

5.50

223

0.04

223

8.85

324

8.05

125

8.20

226

8.79

127

9.74

629

1.05

630

2.70

931

4.68

6R

ural

2.81

12.

868

2.97

73.

092

3.21

93.

351

3.48

73.

628

3.77

33.

923

Cam

ps41

.933

42.7

7744

.416

46.1

2648

.014

49.9

8352

.020

54.1

2356

.290

58.5

17T

ota

l27

0.24

627

5.68

728

6.24

629

7.26

930

9.43

532

2.12

533

5.25

334

8.80

736

2.77

237

7.12

6

Gaz

a G

ove

rno

rate

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Urb

an44

9.22

145

6.13

146

9.68

748

3.74

249

9.37

451

5.55

653

2.13

254

9.07

056

6.33

158

3.87

0R

ural

12.5

4212

.735

13.1

1313

.506

13.9

4214

.394

14.8

5715

.330

15.8

1216

.301

Cam

ps34

.648

35.1

8136

.227

37.3

1138

.516

39.7

6441

.043

42.3

4943

.681

45.0

33T

ota

l49

6.41

150

4.04

751

9.02

753

4.55

955

1.83

256

9.71

458

8.03

260

6.74

962

5.82

464

5.20

4

Dei

r al

Bal

ah G

ove

rno

rate

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Urb

an12

9.05

013

1.23

413

5.50

013

9.93

214

4.84

414

9.94

015

5.17

916

0.55

016

6.04

417

1.64

9R

ural

1.87

31.

905

1.96

72.

031

2.10

22.

176

2.25

22.

330

2.41

02.

491

Cam

ps74

.612

75.8

7578

.341

80.9

0383

.743

86.6

9089

.719

92.8

2496

.001

99.2

41T

ota

l20

5.53

520

9.01

421

5.80

822

2.86

623

0.68

923

8.80

624

7.15

025

5.70

426

4.45

527

3.38

1

Kh

an Y

un

is G

ove

rno

rate

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Urb

an21

8.06

122

1.40

522

7.96

523

4.76

524

2.33

025

0.16

025

8.18

126

6.37

527

4.72

428

3.20

7R

ural

15.2

1315

.446

15.9

0416

.378

16.9

0617

.452

18.0

1218

.584

19.1

6619

.758

Cam

ps37

.705

38.2

8339

.417

40.5

9341

.901

43.2

2544

.642

46.0

5947

.503

48.9

69T

ota

l27

0.97

927

5.13

428

3.28

629

1.73

630

1.13

731

0.83

732

0.83

533

1.01

834

1.39

335

1.93

4

Raf

ah G

ove

rno

rate

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Urb

an13

2.50

613

4.85

813

9.44

314

4.21

314

9.49

315

4.97

916

0.62

716

6.42

917

2.37

617

8.45

3R

ural

6.30

86.

420

6.63

86.

865

7.11

77.

378

7.64

77.

923

8.20

68.

495

Cam

ps34

.558

35.1

7236

.367

37.6

1138

.988

40.4

1941

.892

43.4

0544

.956

46.5

41T

ota

l17

3.37

217

6.45

018

2.44

818

8.68

919

5.59

820

2.77

621

0.16

621

7.75

722

5.53

823

3.48

9

Gaz

a S

trip

- T

ota

l1.

416.

543

1.44

0.33

21.

486.

815

1.53

5.11

91.

588.

691

1.64

4.25

81.

701.

436

1.76

0.03

51.

819.

982

1.88

1.13

4

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


For the Gaza Strip two important aspects will likely play an important role in the population growth expectation for the next 30 years:

1. The economic circumstances in Gaza and related income levels are relatively low, for instance compared to the West Bank, and could hardly become worse. If the economy would improve in the coming years, this will probably have a dimming effect on the population growth

2. The surface area in Gaza is very limited, with already an average land availability of 0.26 dunum per person in 2007. If at a certain point in time the peace process with Israel will materialize, and border restriction will loosen, this will most probably result in some increasing emigration patterns, leading to an extra dimming effect of the population growth within Gaza.

3. There have various discussions on possible refugee-returnees in the future if at a certain point in time an overall Peace Agreement with Israel would allow this. Since the Consultant is not able to make reliable estimates or prediction in this respect, the below figures are exclusive of this aspect.

Based on the above, the Consultant assumes that the down going trend will continue until the year 2040 which is used as the final benchmark for this project. The proposed population projection figures are presented in the next table.

Table 20 Projected Population Figures for Gaza Strip Year Population

Growth North Gaza Gaza City Deir Al Beilah Khan Yunis Rafah Total2007 270.336 496.411 205.535 270.979 173.372 1.416.6332008 3,23% 275.687 504.047 209.014 275.134 176.450 1.440.3322009 3,25% 286.246 519.027 215.808 283.286 182.448 1.486.8152010 3,49% 297.269 534.559 222.866 291.736 188.689 1.535.1192011 3,50% 309.435 551.832 230.689 301.137 195.598 1.588.6912012 3,48% 322.125 569.714 238.806 310.837 202.776 1.644.2582013 3,44% 335.253 588.032 247.150 320.835 210.166 1.701.4362014 3,41% 348.807 606.749 255.704 331.018 217.757 1.760.0352015 3,36% 362.772 625.824 264.455 341.393 225.538 1.819.9822016 3,27% 377.126 645.204 273.381 351.934 233.489 1.881.1342017 3,18% 389.458 666.302 282.321 363.442 241.124 1.942.6482018 3,09% 401.843 687.491 291.299 375.000 248.792 2.004.4252019 3,00% 414.260 708.735 300.300 386.588 256.480 2.066.3622020 2,91% 426.688 729.997 309.309 398.185 264.174 2.128.3532021 2,82% 439.105 751.240 318.310 409.773 271.862 2.190.2892022 2,73% 451.488 772.425 327.286 421.328 279.528 2.252.0562023 2,64% 463.814 793.513 336.221 432.831 287.160 2.313.5382024 2,55% 476.058 814.462 345.098 444.258 294.741 2.374.6162025 2,46% 488.198 835.231 353.898 455.586 302.257 2.435.1702026 2,37% 500.208 855.778 362.604 466.794 309.692 2.495.0762027 2,28% 512.063 876.060 371.198 477.857 317.032 2.554.2102028 2,19% 523.738 896.035 379.661 488.752 324.261 2.612.4472029 2,10% 535.208 915.658 387.976 499.456 331.362 2.669.6602030 2,01% 546.448 934.887 396.123 509.945 338.321 2.725.7242031 1,92% 557.431 953.679 404.086 520.195 345.121 2.780.5122032 1,83% 568.134 971.990 411.844 530.183 351.747 2.833.8992033 1,74% 578.531 989.777 419.381 539.886 358.185 2.885.7602034 1,65% 588.598 1.007.000 426.678 549.280 364.417 2.935.9732035 1,56% 598.310 1.023.616 433.719 558.343 370.430 2.984.4182036 1,47% 607.644 1.039.584 440.485 567.053 376.209 3.030.9752037 1,38% 616.576 1.054.867 446.960 575.389 381.739 3.075.5322038 1,29% 625.085 1.069.424 453.128 583.330 387.007 3.117.9752039 1,20% 633.149 1.083.220 458.974 590.855 392.000 3.158.1982040 1,11% 640.747 1.096.219 464.482 597.945 396.704 3.196.098

P O P U L A T I O N

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.2 Waste Composition and Generation

5.2.1 Waste Composition

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) estimated in 2003 that the average municipal waste composition in Gaza would be the following: Component Weight % 1. Organic material 60% - 70% 2. Paper and cardboard 7% - 10% 3. Plastics 5% - 10% 4. Glass 3% - 6% 5. Metals 2% - 3% 6. Others 3% - 7% In the same year detailed estimates were made for the municipal waste composition in Gaza by GtZ-ERM-GKW in the framework of the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program, leading to: Component Weight % 1. Organic material 67% 2. Paper and cardboard 1.5% 3. Plastics 2%% 4. Glass 1.5% 5. Metals 1.5% 6. others 26,5% The difference between the two, specifically in terms of percentages of generated paper, plastic, glass and metal waste streams, can most probably be explained by the activities of the informal sector (waste scavengers) in Gaza which separate these waste streams at the source or at the temporary urban dump sites before the waste is transported to one of the three central dump sites. The relative high organic waste fraction corresponds with the notion that the economic circumstances and average income levels are low, and that the informal sector is rather active in Gaza. This has to do with the high levels of unemployment, average low income levels and highly restricted inflow of raw materials into Gaza. The Consultant believes that some recyclable materials in Gaza, in particular plastics and metals, are removed from the waste streams prior to transportation of the waste to one of the central dump sites. Furthermore it was noticed by GtZ that sand makes up a substantial part of the municipal waste stream, up to 25% of the total waste volume specifically in Gaza. Additional analyses show that this mainly relates to street sweeping, which generated substantial amounts. The Consultant has performed 116 physical sampling analyses of about 100 kg each at different locations in Gaza, and has compared these with the compositions measured directly by Gaza City and the North Gaza and Deir Al Balah Waste Council, and with the measurements presented by Ahmed Fahmi Abdelqader in his thesis under supervision of Dr, Jehad Hamad (Islamitic University of Gaza, 2011).

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The average composition figures of municipal waste streams are presented in the next figure (see also section 3.1.

Table 21 Waste Composition in Gaza (weigh %)

Waste Component North Gaza Middle Gaza South Gaza Average 1Paper 7.73 7.96 6.24 7.31

2 Plastic 18.29 13.03 10.52 13.95

3 Yard waste (non wood) 7,96 10.68 4.17 7.60

4 Organic Food waste 26.56 31.19 37.78 31.84

5 Wood 0.56 1.12 0.63 0.77

6 Textiles 3.98 3.26 3.92 3.72

7 Diapers 8.53 9.67 11.49 9.90

8 Other Organics 2.42 1.73 4.05 2.73

9 Ferrous 2.47 2.10 2.25 2.27

10 Aluminum 0.06 0.05 0.28 0.13

11 Glass 1.93 2.04 1.90 1.96

12 Sand / fine materials 14.41 13.87 12.05 13.44

13 Other inorganics 5.11 3.28 4.72 4.37

Total 100 100 100 100 Total Organic (3-8) 50.01 57.65 62.0 56.6

The average of 13.44% of sand / fine materials is largely related to street sweeping, and picking up littered waste from sandy soil around waste bins. Based on disposal figures at Johr al Deek over 2010, the consultant estimates that approximately half of the street swept waste consists of sand and fine materials, contributing to the . For the remainder of the feasibility study, the following average waste densities are assumed for Gaza:

1. taken from household: 0.35 ton / m3 2. during bulk / container transport: 0.70 ton / m3 3. immediately after disposal: 1.00 ton / m3 4. after settling on landfill: 1.20 ton / m3

5.3 Per Capita Household Waste Generation

The PCBS estimated in 2005 that the total waste municipal generation in the Gaza Strip would be about 1,006 ton/day, or about 0.76 kg per person per day. From one region to the other this figure might vary from about 0.6 kg in rural or relative poor urban areas, to about 1 kg pppd in the more developed urban areas in the Gaza Strip. The Consultant believes that this was indeed a good estimate for the year 2010. it largely corresponds to the fact that the economic and living circumstances have not altered considerable. These figures also correspond to the per capita waste generation figures in the West Bank, where questionnaires performed in 2008 revealed that per capita waste generation varies from 0.68 kg within the Hebron Governorate to 1,00 kg within the Bethlehem Governorate. Based on its own Gaza field assessments, interviews and calibrations, the Consultant assumes the following per capita waste generation figures for the different governorates in Gaza as presented in the

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Year North Gaza

Gaza City

Deir Al Beilah

Khan Yunis

Rafah

2007 1,07 1,05 0,67 0,67 0,702008 1,08 1,06 0,67 0,67 0,702009 1,09 1,07 0,67 0,67 0,702010 1,11 1,08 0,67 0,67 0,702011 1,10 1,07 0,68 0,68 0,712012 1,09 1,06 0,69 0,69 0,722013 1,08 1,05 0,69 0,69 0,722014 1,07 1,05 0,70 0,70 0,732015 1,06 1,05 0,71 0,71 0,742016 1,05 1,05 0,71 0,71 0,752017 1,05 1,05 0,72 0,72 0,752018 1,05 1,05 0,73 0,73 0,762019 1,05 1,05 0,74 0,74 0,772020 1,05 1,05 0,74 0,74 0,782021 1,05 1,05 0,77 0,77 0,802022 1,05 1,05 0,79 0,79 0,822023 1,05 1,05 0,81 0,81 0,852024 1,05 1,05 0,84 0,84 0,872025 1,05 1,05 0,86 0,86 0,902026 1,05 1,05 0,89 0,89 0,932027 1,05 1,05 0,91 0,91 0,962028 1,05 1,05 0,94 0,94 0,982029 1,05 1,05 0,97 0,97 1,012030 1,05 1,05 1,00 1,00 1,042031 1,05 1,05 1,03 1,03 1,052032 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052033 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052034 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052035 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052036 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052037 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052038 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052039 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,052040 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05

next table. These figures include household waste generation as well as street littering. It is assumed that the per capita waste will gradually raise to a maximum of 1,05 kg pppd for all governorates, assuming Gaza will witness improved economic circumstances between now and 2040.

Table 22 Per Capita Waste Generation (HH + littering)

5.4 Total Non-hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal in Gaza

The following generated waste streams have been distinguished: 1. Household waste and street littering 2. Commercial waste (offices and shops) 3. Market waste 4. Agricultural waste

Based on its own Gaza field assessments, interviews and calibrations, the Consultant assumes the total waste generation figures for the different governorates in Gaza as presented in the next table.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The agricultural waste generation is approximately 440,000 ton per year (ref. Ministry of Agriculture, 2011), and is largely restricted to the surface area for agriculture in Gaza. It has therefore been assumed that these figures will not substantially change over time. Currently this waste stream is either composted, put back of the land and mixed with the surface soil layer, or burned. Only a very small fraction is disposed of by the farmers at the landfills. Further information in agricultural waste management is provided in section 6: Resource recovery and Composting. The remainder of the waste streams is currently collected and disposed of at one of the three dump sites, or temporary stored at various storage locations throughout Gaza as described in section 3.5. Section 6 presents an optimized strategy for waste composting in Gaza. The upper limit of which streams can be disposed of in Gaza depend largely on the absorption capacities within Gaza for compost, particularly by the agricultural sector. More information on this local compost market is provided in section 6. This leads to the waste disposal forecasts as presented in the next tables.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 51

-

Pub

lic

Tab

le 2

3 T

ota

l Was

te G

ener

atio

n in

Gaz

a S

trip

T

ota

l Was

te G

ener

atio

n (

ton

s / d

ay)

Yea

rH

ou

seh

ol d

Co

mm

erci

alM

arke

tH

ou

seh

old

Co

mm

erci

alM

arke

tH

ou

seh

old

Co

mm

erci

alM

arke

tH

ou

seh

old

Co

mm

erci

alM

arke

tH

ou

seh

old

Co

mm

erci

alM

arke

tA

gri

cult

ura

ld

aily

year

lyw

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

was

tew

aste

Was

teto

n /

day

Mto

n/y

r20

0728

9,9

9,1

9,1

566,

727

,036

,132

7,5

13,5

17,9

122,

017

,99,

113

06,0

67,5

72,2

1200

,026

45,7

0,96

620

0832

0,2

9,4

9,4

580,

528

,037

,433

2,6

14,0

18,6

124,

218

,69,

413

57,6

70,0

74,8

1200

,027

02,4

0,98

620

0933

5,0

9,7

9,7

602,

529

,038

,734

2,7

14,5

19,3

128,

419

,39,

714

08,6

72,5

77,4

1200

,027

58,5

1,00

720

1035

1,0

10,0

10,0

625,

530

,040

,035

3,1

15,0

20,0

132,

820

,010

,014

62,3

75,0

80,0

1200

,028

17,3

1,02

820

1136

0,8

10,3

10,3

638,

231

,041

,336

8,3

15,5

20,7

139,

020

,710

,315

06,3

77,5

82,7

1200

,028

66,5

1,04

620

1237

1,2

10,7

10,7

651,

332

,042

,738

4,3

16,0

21,4

145,

621

,410

,715

52,4

80,1

85,4

1200

,029

17,9

1,06

520

1338

1,9

11,0

11,0

664,

533

,144

,140

0,8

16,5

22,1

152,

422

,111

,015

99,6

82,7

88,3

1200

,029

70,6

1,08

420

1439

2,8

11,4

11,4

684,

334

,245

,641

8,0

17,1

22,8

159,

422

,811

,416

54,5

85,4

91,1

1200

,030

31,1

1,10

620

1540

3,8

11,8

11,8

704,

435

,347

,043

5,7

17,6

23,5

166,

823

,511

,817

10,7

88,2

94,1

1200

,030

93,0

1,12

920

1641

5,0

12,1

12,1

724,

836

,448

,545

3,9

18,2

24,3

174,

424

,312

,117

68,2

91,0

97,0

1200

,031

56,2

1,15

220

1742

8,1

12,5

12,5

747,

637

,550

,047

2,9

18,8

25,0

181,

725

,012

,518

30,2

93,8

100,

012

00,0

3224

,01,

177

2018

441,

112

,912

,977

0,4

38,6

51,5

492,

219

,325

,718

9,1

25,7

12,9

1892

,896

,510

3,0

1200

,032

92,3

1,20

220

1945

4,2

13,2

13,2

793,

339

,753

,051

1,8

19,9

26,5

196,

626

,513

,219

55,9

99,3

105,

912

00,0

3361

,21,

227

2020

467,

213

,613

,681

6,0

40,8

54,4

531,

820

,427

,220

4,3

27,2

13,6

2019

,410

2,1

108,

912

00,0

3430

,31,

252

2021

480,

214

,014

,083

8,7

41,9

55,9

563,

021

,028

,021

6,3

28,0

14,0

2098

,310

4,8

111,

812

00,0

3514

,91,

283

2022

493,

214

,314

,386

1,3

43,0

57,4

595,

521

,528

,722

8,8

28,7

14,3

2178

,810

7,5

114,

712

00,0

3601

,01,

314

2023

506,

014

,714

,788

3,7

44,1

58,8

629,

322

,029

,424

1,8

29,4

14,7

2260

,811

0,2

117,

612

00,0

3688

,71,

346

2024

518,

715

,115

,190

5,9

45,2

60,2

664,

522

,630

,125

5,3

30,1

15,1

2344

,411

2,9

120,

412

00,0

3777

,81,

379

2025

531,

315

,415

,492

7,9

46,2

61,6

701,

023

,130

,826

9,3

30,8

15,4

2429

,511

5,5

123,

312

00,0

3868

,31,

412

2026

543,

715

,815

,894

9,5

47,3

63,0

738,

923

,631

,528

3,9

31,5

15,8

2515

,911

8,1

126,

012

00,0

3960

,11,

445

2027

555,

916

,116

,197

0,8

48,3

64,4

778,

124

,132

,229

8,9

32,2

16,1

2603

,712

0,7

128,

712

00,0

4053

,11,

479

2028

567,

816

,416

,499

1,7

49,3

65,7

818,

724

,632

,831

4,5

32,8

16,4

2692

,712

3,2

131,

412

00,0

4147

,31,

514

2029

579,

516

,716

,710

12,2

50,2

67,0

860,

625

,133

,533

0,7

33,5

16,7

2783

,012

5,6

134,

012

00,0

4242

,51,

549

2030

591,

017

,117

,110

32,1

51,2

68,2

903,

925

,634

,134

7,3

34,1

17,1

2874

,312

8,0

136,

512

00,0

4338

,71,

584

2031

602,

117

,417

,410

51,5

52,1

69,5

948,

626

,134

,735

5,7

34,7

17,4

2957

,913

0,3

138,

912

00,0

4427

,01,

616

2032

612,

917

,717

,710

70,4

53,0

70,7

985,

126

,535

,336

2,0

35,3

17,7

3030

,413

2,5

141,

312

00,0

4504

,21,

644

2033

623,

317

,917

,910

88,6

53,8

71,8

1001

,926

,935

,936

8,2

35,9

17,9

3082

,013

4,6

143,

612

00,0

4560

,21,

664

2034

633,

318

,218

,211

06,2

54,7

72,9

1018

,027

,336

,437

4,1

36,4

18,2

3131

,713

6,7

145,

812

00,0

4614

,11,

684

2035

643,

018

,518

,511

23,0

55,4

73,9

1033

,527

,737

,037

9,8

37,0

18,5

3179

,313

8,6

147,

912

00,0

4665

,81,

703

2036

652,

218

,718

,711

39,1

56,2

74,9

1048

,328

,137

,538

5,3

37,5

18,7

3224

,914

0,5

149,

812

00,0

4715

,21,

721

2037

661,

019

,019

,011

54,4

56,9

75,9

1062

,428

,437

,939

0,4

37,9

19,0

3268

,114

2,2

151,

712

00,0

4762

,11,

738

2038

669,

219

,219

,211

68,8

57,6

76,7

1075

,728

,838

,439

5,3

38,4

19,2

3309

,114

3,9

153,

512

00,0

4806

,41,

754

2039

677,

019

,419

,411

82,4

58,2

77,6

1088

,229

,138

,839

9,9

38,8

19,4

3347

,514

5,4

155,

112

00,0

4848

,11,

770

2040

684,

319

,619

,611

95,1

58,7

78,3

1099

,929

,439

,240

4,2

39,2

19,6

3383

,414

6,9

156,

712

00,0

4886

,91,

784

TO

TA

L G

AZ

A S

TR

IPG

RA

ND

TO

TA

LN

ort

h G

aza

Gaz

a C

ity

Mid

dle

Reg

ion

(D

aB+K

hY

)R

afah

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 24 Waste Disposal Forecast Gaza North

Year1.2 ton = 1 m3

Household Commercial Market Total Compostedwaste waste waste ton / day ton / day m3 / yr

2007 289,9 9,1 9,1 308,1 1% 305,0 92.7662008 320,2 9,4 9,4 339,0 1% 335,7 102.0962009 335,0 9,7 9,7 354,4 1% 350,9 106.7292010 351,0 10,0 10,0 371,0 1% 367,2 111.7032011 360,8 10,3 10,3 381,4 1% 377,6 114.8552012 371,2 10,7 10,7 392,6 1% 388,7 118.2172013 381,9 11,0 11,0 404,0 1% 399,9 121.6492014 392,8 11,4 11,4 415,6 1% 411,4 125.1432015 403,8 11,8 11,8 427,4 2% 418,8 127.3912016 415,0 12,1 12,1 439,3 5% 417,3 126.9342017 428,1 12,5 12,5 453,1 5% 430,4 130.9162018 441,1 12,9 12,9 466,9 5% 443,5 134.9052019 454,2 13,2 13,2 480,7 5% 456,6 138.8952020 467,2 13,6 13,6 494,5 6% 464,8 141.3732021 480,2 14,0 14,0 508,2 10% 457,4 139.1162022 493,2 14,3 14,3 521,8 10% 469,7 142.8552023 506,0 14,7 14,7 535,4 10% 481,9 146.5652024 518,7 15,1 15,1 548,8 10% 493,9 150.2402025 531,3 15,4 15,4 562,1 11% 500,3 152.1622026 543,7 15,8 15,8 575,2 15% 488,9 148.7052027 555,9 16,1 16,1 588,0 15% 499,8 152.0322028 567,8 16,4 16,4 600,7 15% 510,6 155.2962029 579,5 16,7 16,7 613,0 15% 521,1 158.4912030 591,0 17,1 17,1 625,1 15% 531,3 161.6092031 602,1 17,4 17,4 636,8 15% 541,3 164.6432032 612,9 17,7 17,7 648,2 16% 544,5 165.6142033 623,3 17,9 17,9 659,2 16% 553,7 168.4252034 633,3 18,2 18,2 669,8 16% 562,6 171.1322035 643,0 18,5 18,5 680,0 17% 564,4 171.6602036 652,2 18,7 18,7 689,7 17% 572,4 174.1102037 661,0 19,0 19,0 698,9 17% 580,1 176.4382038 669,2 19,2 19,2 707,6 18% 580,2 176.4872039 677,0 19,4 19,4 715,8 18% 586,9 178.5292040 684,3 19,6 19,6 723,4 18% 593,2 180.435

North Gaza(ton/day)

Waste Disposal

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 25 Waste Disposal Forecasts Gaza Governorate

Year1.2 ton = 1 m3


2007 566,7 27,0 36,1 629,8 1% 623,5 189.6492008 580,5 28,0 37,4 645,9 1% 639,5 194.5102009 602,5 29,0 38,7 670,2 1% 663,5 201.8132010 625,5 30,0 40,0 695,5 1% 688,5 209.4322011 638,2 31,0 41,3 710,6 1% 703,5 213.9712012 651,3 32,0 42,7 726,1 1% 718,8 218.6422013 664,5 33,1 44,1 741,8 1% 734,3 223.3622014 684,3 34,2 45,6 764,0 1% 756,4 230.0672015 704,4 35,3 47,0 786,7 2% 771,0 234.5092016 724,8 36,4 48,5 809,8 5% 769,3 233.9842017 747,6 37,5 50,0 835,1 5% 793,4 241.3152018 770,4 38,6 51,5 860,5 5% 817,5 248.6572019 793,3 39,7 53,0 885,9 5% 841,6 255.9992020 816,0 40,8 54,4 911,3 6% 856,6 260.5562021 838,7 41,9 55,9 936,6 10% 842,9 256.3862022 861,3 43,0 57,4 961,7 10% 865,5 263.2642023 883,7 44,1 58,8 986,6 10% 888,0 270.0902024 905,9 45,2 60,2 1011,3 10% 910,2 276.8502025 927,9 46,2 61,6 1035,7 11% 921,8 280.3792026 949,5 47,3 63,0 1059,8 15% 900,8 273.9982027 970,8 48,3 64,4 1083,4 15% 920,9 280.1152028 991,7 49,3 65,7 1106,7 15% 940,7 286.1182029 1012,2 50,2 67,0 1129,4 15% 960,0 291.9912030 1032,1 51,2 68,2 1151,5 15% 978,8 297.7232031 1051,5 52,1 69,5 1173,1 15% 997,1 303.2982032 1070,4 53,0 70,7 1194,0 16% 1003,0 305.0742033 1088,6 53,8 71,8 1214,2 16% 1020,0 310.2382034 1106,2 54,7 72,9 1233,7 16% 1036,3 315.2112035 1123,0 55,4 73,9 1252,4 17% 1039,5 316.1702036 1139,1 56,2 74,9 1270,2 17% 1054,3 320.6692037 1154,4 56,9 75,9 1287,1 17% 1068,3 324.9432038 1168,8 57,6 76,7 1303,1 18% 1068,6 325.0182039 1182,4 58,2 77,6 1318,1 18% 1080,9 328.7652040 1195,1 58,7 78,3 1332,1 18% 1092,4 332.260

Gaza Municipality(ton/day)

Waste Disposal

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 26 Waste Disposal Forecasts Middle Gaza

Year1.2 ton = 1 m3


2007 327,5 13,5 17,9 358,9 1% 355,3 108.0642008 332,6 14,0 18,6 365,2 1% 361,6 109.9732009 342,7 14,5 19,3 376,5 1% 372,7 113.3632010 353,1 15,0 20,0 388,1 1% 384,2 116.8682011 368,3 15,5 20,7 404,5 1% 400,5 121.8102012 384,3 16,0 21,4 421,6 1% 417,4 126.9662013 400,8 16,5 22,1 439,4 1% 435,0 132.3252014 418,0 17,1 22,8 457,8 1% 453,3 137.8642015 435,7 17,6 23,5 476,8 2% 467,3 142.1352016 453,9 18,2 24,3 496,4 5% 471,6 143.4362017 472,9 18,8 25,0 516,6 5% 490,8 149.2842018 492,2 19,3 25,7 537,2 5% 510,4 155.2372019 511,8 19,9 26,5 558,2 5% 530,3 161.2882020 531,8 20,4 27,2 579,4 6% 544,7 165.6682021 563,0 21,0 28,0 611,9 10% 550,7 167.5082022 595,5 21,5 28,7 645,7 10% 581,1 176.7542023 629,3 22,0 29,4 680,8 10% 612,7 186.3592024 664,5 22,6 30,1 717,2 10% 645,5 196.3262025 701,0 23,1 30,8 754,9 11% 671,9 204.3612026 738,9 23,6 31,5 794,0 15% 674,9 205.2802027 778,1 24,1 32,2 834,4 15% 709,2 215.7292028 818,7 24,6 32,8 876,2 15% 744,7 226.5232029 860,6 25,1 33,5 919,2 15% 781,4 237.6622030 903,9 25,6 34,1 963,6 15% 819,1 249.1422031 948,6 26,1 34,7 1009,4 15% 858,0 260.9612032 985,1 26,5 35,3 1046,9 16% 879,4 267.4872033 1001,9 26,9 35,9 1064,7 16% 894,3 272.0252034 1018,0 27,3 36,4 1081,8 16% 908,7 276.3962035 1033,5 27,7 37,0 1098,2 17% 911,5 277.2492036 1048,3 28,1 37,5 1113,9 17% 924,5 281.2052037 1062,4 28,4 37,9 1128,8 17% 936,9 284.9642038 1075,7 28,8 38,4 1142,8 18% 937,1 285.0412039 1088,2 29,1 38,8 1156,1 18% 948,0 288.3392040 1099,9 29,4 39,2 1168,4 18% 958,1 291.415

(ton/day)Waste Disposal

Khan Yunis and Deir al Balah Governorates

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 27 Waste Disposal Forecasts Rafah Governorate

Year1.2 ton = 1 m3


2007 122,0 17,9 9,1 149,0 1% 147,5 44.8652008 124,2 18,6 9,4 152,2 1% 150,6 45.8192009 128,4 19,3 9,7 157,4 1% 155,8 47.3912010 132,8 20,0 10,0 162,8 1% 161,1 49.0142011 139,0 20,7 10,3 170,0 1% 168,3 51.1952012 145,6 21,4 10,7 177,6 1% 175,8 53.4762013 152,4 22,1 11,0 185,5 1% 183,6 55.8462014 159,4 22,8 11,4 193,6 1% 191,7 58.3052015 166,8 23,5 11,8 202,1 2% 198,0 60.2362016 174,4 24,3 12,1 210,8 5% 200,3 60.9102017 181,7 25,0 12,5 219,2 5% 208,2 63.3342018 189,1 25,7 12,9 227,7 5% 216,3 65.7992019 196,6 26,5 13,2 236,4 5% 224,5 68.3002020 204,3 27,2 13,6 245,1 6% 230,4 70.0912021 216,3 28,0 14,0 258,2 10% 232,4 70.6902022 228,8 28,7 14,3 271,8 10% 244,6 74.4072023 241,8 29,4 14,7 285,9 10% 257,3 78.2602024 255,3 30,1 15,1 300,5 10% 270,4 82.2512025 269,3 30,8 15,4 315,5 11% 280,8 85.4192026 283,9 31,5 15,8 331,1 15% 281,5 85.6102027 298,9 32,2 16,1 347,2 15% 295,1 89.7692028 314,5 32,8 16,4 363,8 15% 309,2 94.0592029 330,7 33,5 16,7 380,9 15% 323,8 98.4772030 347,3 34,1 17,1 398,5 15% 338,7 103.0222031 355,7 34,7 17,4 407,8 15% 346,6 105.4252032 362,0 35,3 17,7 415,0 16% 348,6 106.0402033 368,2 35,9 17,9 422,0 16% 354,5 107.8322034 374,1 36,4 18,2 428,8 16% 360,2 109.5592035 379,8 37,0 18,5 435,3 17% 361,3 109.8902036 385,3 37,5 18,7 441,5 17% 366,4 111.4512037 390,4 37,9 19,0 447,3 17% 371,3 112.9342038 395,3 38,4 19,2 452,9 18% 371,4 112.9582039 399,9 38,8 19,4 458,1 18% 375,6 114.2572040 404,2 39,2 19,6 463,0 18% 379,6 115.469

Rafah Governorate(ton/day)

Waste Disposal

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.5 Waste Management Service Providers

5.5.1 General

This section presents the present situation solid waste service providers in Gaza. It includes the quantities of collected waste and waste composition, the administrative and operational staffing resources, the operational equipment including type, quantities, operational conditions, age and ownership. The section also makes an assessment of their institutional and technical capabilities. A summary table is provided hereafter

Table 28 Key Indicators of Waste Service Providers in Gaza Service HH collection Number of Fees Operational DirectProvider ton / day Workers Portion Freq Portion Freq HH - household Expenses RevenuesNorth Gaza JSC 304 222 50% daily 50% 2-3 / wk 9 NIS / HH 9 MNIS 2.7 MNISGaza City 543 633 50% daily 50% 2-3 / wk 12 NIS / HH 20.4 MNIS 10.4 MNISDeir al Balah JSC 177 55 100% 1-3 / wk 33.5 NIS / ton 7 MNIS 3.4 MNISKhan Yunis 131 70 100% 3-5 / wk 10 NIS / HH 333 KNIS 126 KNISRafah 120 123 70% 3-5 / wk 30% 1-3 / wk 10 NIS / HH 4.8 MNIS 3.0 MNISUNWRA 187 345* 100% 2-3 / wk 6.8 MNIS 0TOTAL 1462 1448 48 MNIS 19.6 MNIS

* including sanitation *MNIS Million NISKNIS Thousand NIS

Door to Door Containers

The next map shows the service areas of the waste management service providers in Gaza.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 8 Geographic Distribution of Solid Waste Service Providers

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.5.2 North Gaza Joint Service Council

The North Gaza Joint Service Council has been established in 2002 to improve the efficiency and the performance of waste management in Gaza Northern Governorate, the three municipalities Jabalia, Beit Lahia and Beit Hanoun and the village Umm El Nasser. The full operations under the JSC started in 2004. The Board of the JSC consists of the mayors of the member municipalities and a representative of the Ministry of Local Government as a supervising member. The JSC is responsible for collection and transfer of solid waste from the member communities; operating a garage for the collection and transportation vehicles; operations of communal containers for municipal solid waste collection in member communities, including emptying them at least every second day and in rural areas at least two times per week. The JSC is also responsible for street sweeping and cleaning of public areas. The organization structure of the North Gaza Joint Service Council is presented in the next figure.

Figure 9 Organization Chart – North Gaza Joint Service Council

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The JSC uses existing drivers, technicians, foremen, cleaning workers and awareness advisors of the Municipalities for the operation of refuse collection vehicles. The staff remains employees of Village Councils and Municipalities, including all legal and financial obligations, while their salaries are deducted from the financial contribution of the respective municipalities to the JSC. The Management and Administration section of the JSC is in charge of the managerial, operational, supervisory and administrative tasks, as well as preparing plans of operation, annual budgets, book keeping, preparation of works contracts and studies or information for the Council if required. The JSC employs about 222 workers (2010), collecting on average a total of 304 tons / day of household waste: Municipality Workers Collected waste

(tons / day Jabalia 90 123 Um al Nasser 2 4 Beit Hanun 25 60 Beit Lahia 45 100 Workers Street Sweeping 60 17 Total 222 304

Furthermore the north Gaza area generates about:

• 10 tons / day of market waste • 10 tons / day of commercial waste (offices etc.) • 15 tons / day of shop waste • 5 tons / day of agricultural waste

In order to collect these quantities, the JSC operates:

• 100 donkey carts • 32 tractors • 1 compactor truck (10 tons) • 12 tipper cranes (8 tons) • 10 wheel loaders (10 tons)

The waste is collected by the donkey carts and tractors largely door-by-door on a daily basis (about 50% of the cases) or using large capacity containers at commercial and market areas about 2-3 times per week. Temporary storage locations (small transfer stations) are used:

• East of Jabalia (5 dunums, about 140 tons / day, 20 km from Johr al Deek) • North of Umm al Nasser (10 dunum, 104 tons / day, 26 km from Johr al Deek) • North of Beit Hanun (3 dunum, 60 tons / day, 28 km from Johr al Deek)

From here the waste is transported by private subcontractors to Johr al Deek landfill against on average 8 NIS per ton. But often the municipalities do not have the money to pay of this, or the subcontractors have no adequate transportation means available to them. As a result waste is piled up at the above transfer sites, which therefore gradually turn into open dump sites themselves.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Cost and Revenues The total operational costs for Solid Waste Management in Northern Gaza are about 9 Million NIS per year (or about 81 NIS per ton). This includes the costs of the Joint Service Council, the direct costs of the municipalities, the costs for subcontracting waste transportation (8 NIS / ton) and the Johr Al Deek disposal cost (7 NIS / ton). The total monthly operational costs are assessed as follows: Joint Service Council: 1. Office staff 16,000 NIS/Month 2. Office / overhead 10,000 NIS/month 3. Donkey carts (100 x 100 NIS / month) 10,000 NIS / month 4. Fuel cost (32 tractors x 10 l/day) 23,000 NIS / month 5. Fuel cost (23 trucks x 30 l/day) 50,000 NIS / month 6. Insurance Costs (cars) 3,000 NIS / month 7. Maintenance (tractors and trucks) 20,000 NIS / month Direct Costs by Municipalities: 8. Salaries workers (222 x 2200 NIS/month) 488,000 NIS / month 9. Transportation (subcontracted, 8 NIS / ton) 73,000 NIS / month 10. Disposal Cost Johr al Deek (7 NIS / ton) 64,000 NIS / month Total: 757,000 NIS / month, About 132,000 NIS is spent directly through the Joint Service Council, while the remaining 625,000 NIS / month are directly spent by the municipalities themselves. Fee collection and Financing The municipalities in Northern Gaza charge the households an amount of 9 NIS per household per month. In some municipalities this fee is connected to the Water Bill. On the other hand, in those areas served by the Coastal Municipal Water Utility for their water supply, the bills are separated: the water bills come from the CMWU and the solid waste bill comes directly from the municipalities. The total collection rate of waste bills nevertheless remains low. Monthly the municipalities issue approximately 500,000 NIS on solid waste bills, which by it self is less than the actual operational costs. The refugee camps are exempted from waste charges: the waste here is collected free of charge by UNWRA. On average 200,000 NIS per month is actually collected by the municipalities. Section 4.2 provides a further analysis of the demand assessment and willingness to pay survey performed under this feasibility study. The remaining monthly operational costs (about 550,000 NIS per month) are provided by different donors, such UNDP, UNWRA, Japan, Italy, either directly to the municipalities, or to the Joint Service Council. All the operational expenses of the JSC are paid directly by donors on a rather ad hoc basis, meaning that the actual donations may vary in terms of sources and amounts per month.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.5.3 Gaza Municipality

Gaza Municipality organizes its own waste collection and transportation to the Johr al Deek Dump Site, making use of the following staff resources (2010):

• 280 regular workers for waste collection • 82 workers for waste collection financed by Japan (JCP) • 29 workers for waste collection financed by Italy (COOPI) • 150 street sweepers financed by JCP • 92 street sweepers financed by UNDP • 633 workers in total

The Gaza Waste Department furthermore employs one head of department, three waste management coordinators, 11 area coordinators, 20 inspectors and 29 observers. The Johr al Deek dump site is managed by Gaza Municipality through one head, two drivers, two weigh scale operators, two inspectors and two guards. Preliminary collection is performed using 261 donkey carts. Furthermore the following vehicles are in use for collection and transportation.

Table 29 Collection Vehicles in Gaza Municipality

Total load Vehicle Type Model

(Ton) Number Vehicle condition

Tipper crane Renault 8 Good

Tipper crane Iveco 8 Bad (need maintenance

Tipper crane Iveco 8 Bad (need maintenance

Tipper crane Renault 8 1 Bad (need maintenance)

Tipper crane Renault 8 Bad (need maintenance

Compactor truck

Renault 9 need

maintenanceGood

Compactor truck

Renault 9 need maintenance

Good

Compactor truck

Renault 9 need maintenance

Good

Compactor truck

Internat. 9 need to be replaced

Bad

10 Compactor truck

Renault 9 need to be replaced

Bad

11 Tipper truck Mercedes 10 2 need to be replaced

Bad

12 Tipper truck Renault 10 need to be replaced

Bad

13 Tipper truck Internat. 10 need to be replaced

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Total load Vehicle Type Model

(Ton) Number Vehicle condition

Bad

14 Tipper truck Iveco 10 Bad (need maintenance

15 Skip Loaders Various <2000 2.5 6Bad (need maintenance)

16 Tractors / Trailers

Various <2000 30 5 Bad (need maintenance

Currently 22 new trucks are waiting on Ramallah since three years to be brought to Gaza municipality. Gaza municipality collects about 738 tons of waste per day, including:

• 543 ton / day of household waste • 90 ton / day from street sweeping • 40 ton / day of market waste • 30 ton / day of commercial waste (offices) • 15 ton / waste of waste from shops • 20 ton / waste of green / agriculture waste

About 50% of the households are served on a daily basis, while the rest is served through street containers. Market places and commercial areas are served through large containers, which are emptied on average about two times per week. Temporary storage locations (transfer stations) are used:

• At the Yarmuk Transfer Station (about 300 tons / day, 8 km from Johr al Deek) • Sheikh Radwan Transfer Station (about 60 tons / day, 10 km from Johr al Deek) • Shejaeea Transfer Station (about 70 tons per day, 5 km from Johr al Deek)

The remaining waste of about 300 ton / day is transported directly to the Johr al Deek landfill, partly using the available compacting trucks. Cost and Revenues The total operational costs for solid waste management in Gaza City are about 1.7 Million NIS per month. This includes: 1. Office Staff 100,000 NIS / month 2. Office rent / overhead 55,000 NIS / month 3. Salaries workers 572,708 NIS / month 4. Fuel Costs 112,500 NIS / month 5. insurance / other costs 50,000 NIS / month 6. Maintenance cost 200,000 NIS / month 7. Transportation Costs 370,000 NIS / month 8 . Disposal Costs 185,000 NIS / month Total: 1,665,208 NIS / month

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Solid waste fees in Gaza City are 12 NIS per household per month, about 120,000 households in total. The bills are combined with the water bills. The refugee camps are exempted from waste charges: the waste here is collected free of charge by UNWRA. Monthly Gaza City issues approximately 1 Million NIS on solid waste bills. Fee collection varies between 20 – 30% of the bills issued, or about 200,000 – 300,000 NIS per month. The Municipality furthermore receives about 100,000 NIS / month from offices and 80,000 NIS / month from disposal fees, mainly from Northern Gaza governorate. The remaining operational costs are provided by external donors, such as the Municipal Development and Lending Fund and the UNDP.

5.5.4 Deir al Balah Joint Service Council

Deir Al Balah Joint Service Council (JSC) covers the following 13 municipalities in the Middle of Gaza: Khan Yunis; Bani Suhaila; Absan Kabeera; Khuza’a; Abdan Ajadeedah; Qarara; Deir Al Balah; Nuseirat; Zwaideh; Wadi Salqa; Bureij; Maghazi and Msaddar. It has been established in 1995 as a non-profit organization to serve the municipalities of Khan Yunis and Deir El Balah and surrounding municipalities and villages. The JSC collects the waste from a total of 2912 containers (owned by the JSC) located along streets and near shops and markets, and transport the waste directly to the Deir al Balah landfill, using a total of 14 container trucks. The JSC employs 55 workers. The number of waste containers operated by the JSC is considered not sufficient for all municipalities. Particularly Khan Yunis complaints that the 946 waste containers located there are not enough to adequately collect all waste. Furthermore, many of the containers are old and in bad condition, also as result of regular burning of waste in the containers. Different maintenance programs were developed in 2010 to repair them, such as an UNWRA action to improve 100 containers. On average the containers are emptied every 2 to 5 days. The municipalities themselves arrange for waste collection, mainly on a door-to-door basis. Part of this waste is dropped in the street containers, part is transported directly by the municipalities to the landfill. In 2010 the JSC disposed of 64,611 tons of waste on the central landfill. The individual municipalities transported directly an additional 28,848 tons to the central landfill, while UNWRA disposed an additional 35,424 tons of waste on the Deir al Balah central landfill. Totally the Deir al Balah landfill received 128,883 tons of waste in the year 2010. The JSC operated 14 trucks to transport 64,611 tons of waste for the landfill (7 tons per trip), divided over totally 9135 trips (3911 work shifts, or 2.4 trips per shift). The total distance travelled by these vehicles was about 240,000 km (average 26.2 km per trip) during a total of 22,417 hours (average 2.42 hours per trip). The following vehicles are used by the JSC for waste transportation:

Model Year Type Number Load (tons)

Volvo FL614 1995 Tipper Crane 4 14



The vehicles generally require a lot of maintenance, partly due to their age and partly due to the bad road conditions. Furthermore spare parts are very scarce, and no replacement vehicles are available.

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 10 Waste Truck entering Deir al Balah Landfill

Specifically in the year 2010 substantial improvement was made with regard to sanitary disposal. For instance, Nusseirat stopped dumping waste in Wadi Gaza, and brought all its 10,000 tons of waste to the landfill. Maghazi stopped dumping waste in low-lying areas within village and brought all its 3300 tons of waste to the landfill as well. Other cities benefitted in 2010 from job creation programs, which increased the total collected waste volumes with 20 – 30%. Since the operation of the Deir al Balah landfill in 1995 a total of around 900,000 tons of waste has been disposed of (about 60,00 tons per year), covering a surface area of about 70 dunum with an average height of about 15 m. The operation of the landfill has not always been without problems: specifically during the winter, the waste contained high water content, due to rainfall in the open containers and on the landfill. This has caused overflow of leachate and flooding of nearby olive trees. Disposal at the Deir al Balah landfill faces other problems as well: mainly with regard to receiving shells and gunfire from Israel. In December 2010 the landfill was hit by a shell from Israel, which caused extensive fire on the landfill. Permission for extinction of the fire was only given after a couple of days. The Israeli army also opened fire on the leachate treatment pond, which caused substantial damage and leakages. Separate from the JSC, the municipalities operate themselves an additional 6 trucks for direct transport of waste to the central dump site, collected through street sweeping and from random dump locations. For instance, Deir Al Balah Municipality operates 12 workers, 3 tractors, 12 donkey carts and 10 hand carts to collect the waste from about 76,000 inhabitants, and brings it to the central dump site.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


In Khan Yunis the waste collection coverage by the JSC is less than 50%. This has also triggered the municipality of Khan Yunis to engage themselves again in the collection of remainder of the generated waste and transporting it directly to the Deir Al Balah landfill. The streets are swept manually by the municipalities, whereas the dirt (mainly sand) is concentrated on heaps along the streets. The household waste is more or less separated from here manually and put in waste containers. The remaining sand is disposed of somewhere separately from the dump site. UNWRA collects the waste from the refugee camps, and uses 6 trucks to transport it to the central landfill. It 2010 UNWRA disposed of 35,424 tons of waste on the Deir al Balah central landfill. It paid the JSC in 2010 an amount of 293,195 NIS for the disposal (522,762 NIS in 2009) In addition, UNWRA provides direct budget support to the JSC: in 2010 that was 343,081 NIS, in 2009 this was 630,392 NIS. For this service the JSC charges the municipalities 33.5 NIS per ton for collection, and 6,24 NIS per ton for disposal (2010). In total 2,637,542 NIS was charged to the municipalities (1,873,918 NIS in 2009) and 593,193 NIS was charged to UNWRA.

Figure 11 Waste Bin in Deir al Balah

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Operational Cost JSC 1. Office Staff 33,388 NIS / month 2. Office overhead etc 10,000 NIS / month 3. Salaries workers 99,000 NIS / month 4. Fuel Costs 20,000 NIS / month 5. insurance / other costs 13,886 NIS / month 6. Maintenance cost 20,000 NIS / month 7 . Disposal Costs 51,158 NIS / month Total operational cost: 247,432 NIS / month 2,969,208 NIS / year (2010) Non-operational Cost JSC (2010) 1. Depreciation 217,801 NIS 2. Amortization 53,096 NIS 3. Other non-operational costs 354,617 NIS Total non-operations cost: 625,514 NIS Total Costs (2010): 3,594,722 NIS Revenues JSC (2010) 1. Contribution from municipalities 2,637,542 NIS 2. Disposal revenues UNWRA 593,194 NIS 3. International Donations 343,081NIS 4. Revenues from Grants 218,012 NIS 5. Miscellaneous Revenues 943 NIS Total Revenues 3,792,772 NIS Net Cash Flow 2010 (revenues – costs): 198,050 NIS

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.5.5 Khan Yunis Municipality

Khan Yunis municipality provides solid waste management services to its inhabitants in addition to the Joint Service Council of the Middle Region (section 4.4.3). It makes use of 70 workers employed by the municipality for waste collection, who are engaged in door-to-door waste collection largely on a daily basis. In addition, 55 workers are employed through external donor employment programs. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the waste generated in Khan Yunis is removed through the street containers operated by the JSC, and the remaining 50% of the waste is collected and transported to Deir al Balah Landfill by the municipality. For this purpose, the municipality of Khan Yunis uses the following collection and transportation means:

Vehicle Year Number Load Donkey carts 57 1 m3

Hand carts 12 1 m3

Tractor with cart tipper 2004 1 3.5 m3

Tractor with cart tipper 2005 1 4 m3

Tractor with cart tipper 1983 1 3.5 m3

Small Tractor 1998 2 1 m3

Nissan truck / tipper 1998 1 4 m3

Renault truck / tipper 2005 1 6 m3

Volvo tipper crane 1994 1 14 tons

Generally the vehicles are in a bad state, requiring substantial maintenance. The total operational costs for these solid waste services for Khan Yunis municipality are the following: 1. Office Staff / overhead 44,148 NIS/ months 1. Salaries workers municipalities 105,000 NIS / month 2. Salaries temporary workers 82,500 NIS / month 3. Fuel cost 3,120 NIS / month 4. Maintenance costs 14,128 NIS / month 5. Transportation costs 52,248 NIS / month 6. Disposal Costs (Deir al Balah) 31,752 NIS / month Total: 332,895 NIS / month Khan Yunis charges the households within its municipality a flat rate of 10 NIS per household per month for waste collection. Totally 28,000 households receive monthly bills. Approximately 45% of the bills is actually paid, which generates revenues of on average 126,000 NIS / month. This percentage is relative high for Gaza, and seems to relate to an efficient enforcement system applied by the municipality: for instance required administrative services are not provided to members of a household unless outstanding bills are paid or settled. The remaining operational costs for waste management are covered by external donors, such as MDLF and UNDP.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


5.5.6 Rafah Municipality

Rafah municipality is responsible for its own solid waste management. The Solid Waste department of the municipality serves the city of Rafah, as well as adjacent villages of Al Naseer, Shoka and Al Fokhary. Waste management services are provided by the municipal’s health department. Its organization structure is presented in the next figure.

Figure 12 Organization Chart – Rafah Health Department.

The following amounts of waste are collected in Rafah (2010):

• Household waste 80 tons / day • Market waste 10 tons / day • Commercial waste 20 tons / day • Green / agriculture waste 10 tons / day • Total: 120 tons / day

The waste is mainly collected on a door-to-door basis, with exception of surrounding villages, where waste is collected using 1 m3 waste containers, located along the streets. The municipality operates a total of 95 containers in the rural areas. Urban commercial areas are served once a day, the urban residential areas about 3 times per week, and the containers in the rural areas are emptied about twice a week. About 50% of the waste is directly transported to the Rafah Landfill. The other 50% is first disposed of at the transfer station south of Rafah (Tel al Sultan, about 10 dunum), before being transported in bulk to Rafah Landfill. The municipality of Rafah applies the following waste collection and transportation means:

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Vehicle Year Number Load

Donkey Carts 57 1m3

Tractors with trailers 1995 – 2000 4 8 m3

Small dump trucks 2000 – 2002 3 5 m3

Big Trucks DAF 1987 – 1994 3 24 m3

Compactor Truck 20001987 2 12 m3

Wheel loaders B1987 – G2001 2 6 m3

Shoka village is served by an additional compactor truck, while Al Naseer village is served by an additional tractor/trailer. The vehicle fleet is generally very old, causing relative high drop out and repair costs. Most of them need to be replaced urgently. Bulk transportation to Rafah Landfill is performed mainly by 9 trucks, making 20 trips directly to Rafah (about 60 minutes per trip). The waste from Tel al Sultan transfer site is transported in bulk to Rafah landfill with the use of 2 trucks / trailers (24 m3). Generally the vehicles are in a bad state, requiring substantial maintenance. The total operational costs for these solid waste services for Rafah municipality are about the following: 1. Office staff / overhead 41,000 NIS / month 2. Salaries workers municipalities 184,500 NIS / month 3. Fuel Cost 6,000 NIS / month 4. Maintenance Costs 15,000 NIS / month 5. Transportation Costs 99,320 NIS / month 6. Disposal Costs (Rafah Landfill) 51,424 NIS / month Total 397,272 NIS / month Rafah charges the households within its municipality a flat rate of 10 NIS per household per month for waste collection. Totally about 38,000 households receive monthly bills. Approximately 36% of the bills is actually paid, which generates revenues of on average 139,000 NIS / month. In addition, Rafah municipality receives about 14,500 NIS/ month from external parties offering their waste at Rafah landfill. The remaining operational costs for waste management are covered by external donors, such as MDLF and UNDP.

5.5.7 UNWRA

UNWRA manages waste collection and transportation from the eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip with a total population of about 0.5 million inhabitants. Waste collection in the refugee camps is free of charge, while UNRWA itself pays for the operational costs and pays the Gaza municipality, the JSC of the North, the central or the southern areas for the disposal of its waste on one of the three central dump sites.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 30 Population Figures in Refugee Camps according to UNWRA (2010)

Camp Registered population*

actual camp population**

Jabalia 111.064 32.805 Beach 85.975 33.639 Bureij 33.439 16.650 Nuseirat 65.432 19.800 Maghazi 25.163 11.540 D/Balah 21.558 8.400

Khan Yunis 72.946 32.984

Rafah 102.570 34.454

Total 518.147 190.272

* Registered population as from end of December 2010

** Actual camp population, growth rate is around 3% however, due to limited space at the camps, some population

moved to outside the camps to private or external shelters, thus accurate figures for population by end of year 2010 is

a rough estimate.

Refuse collection is currently implementing in camps from shelters, roads and markets using labor force and push carts. Within the refugee camps, UNRWA is fully responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste. The services are provided free of charge. Tractors are used to deploy refuse containers into temporary locations and finally off-loaded by solid waste crane trucks. It is estimated at around 160 ton/day of solid waste is removed from the eight refugee camps in year 2009. Total refuse generation and transported from the eight camps is increased from 38,000 ton in 1996 to around 68,334 ton in 2010. The next table provides the details.

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Oval

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 31 UNWRA Waste Removal 2010

Weight of Solid Wastes Removed from Refugee Camps by UNWRA in 2010 metric ton/month

Camp Jabalia Beach Bureij Nuseirat Maghazi D\Balah Kh\Yunis Rafah Total

Jan 1.211 918 443 644 312 189 373 1.052 5.141Feb 1.041 843 408 567 297 162 690 958 4.964Mar 1.268 352 469 663 354 170 752 1.073 5.100Apr 1.229 377 397 601 340 153 833 1.006 4.935May 1.420 1.151 550 716 386 178 1.012 1.016 6.430June 1.505 1.108 562 702 389 174 929 950 6.318July 1.519 1.092 504 699 402 191 915 999 6.321Aug 1.269 982 475 635 352 199 858 1.002 5.771Sep 1.413 1.060 443 687 449 172 1.117 964 6.305Oct 1.491 973 499 739 421 188 715 999 6.026Nov 1.316 925 557 664 393 173 896 953 5.876Dec 757 1.042 451 776 298 151 680 990 5.146Total 2010 15.440 10.822 5.757 8.093 4.394 2.100 9.768 11.961 68.334 This means that the per capita waste generation from the Refugee Camps in 2010 was 0,98 kg pppd. All waste is traditionally transported by crane trucks (13) and skip lift trucks (2) to municipal dumping sites at Johr al Deek, Deir al Balah and Rafah, but since 2010, UNWRA (North) changed bringing its waste from Johr al Deek to Deir al Balah in 2010 in stead (2684 tons in 2010).

Sweeping the asphalted road and paved alleys are also carried by workers and two road sweepers north and middle camps. The UNWRA Fleet for solid waste removal consists of 30 vehicles, operated by 29 drivers in addition to 6 casual drivers. Details are provided in the following table. Table 32 UNWRA collection and transportation means

No. Item Number

1. Crane Truck 13

2. Skip Lift Truck 2

3. Tractor 11

4. Wheel Loader 2

5. Road Sweeper 2

6. Water Tanker 1

Total Vehicles 31

7. Refuse Containers 1 M3 793

8. Refuse Containers 8 M3 14

Total Containers 807

All the collected waste is disposed into Crane truck containers (1 m3 capacity) and into skip-lift containers (8m3 capacity). The refuse is transported by UNRWA's trucks to one of the three central dump sites in Gaza. The cost of using all the dumping sites used by UNRWA is $3.50 per ton for using Rafah dumping

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Rectangle

Nour

Rectangle

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


site and $4.50 for using Gaza dumping site and Solid Waste Management Council landfill at Deir Balah. UNRWA uses municipal Gaza dumping site for solid waste removed from Beach and Jabalia camp, Deir Balah for solid waste removed from middle & Khan Yunis camps and Rafah dumping site for solid waste removed from Rafah camp. The solid wastes generated in the refugee camps have a high organic and moisture content (especially during the wet winter season), and high content of inert materials, mainly sand. Unpaved sandy roads & alleys are the main source of sand. Generally, density of solid waste varies for household bins at 0.30 - 0.35 kg/L, at refuse containers 0.40 to 0.45 Kg/L, and for the truck load at 0.50 to 0.55 kg/L. The UNWRA labor force is not adequate for sanitation routine works. The existing number of workers is 345, with 29 supervisory staff and 29 drivers. It is estimates (based on one sanitation worker per 1,000 people) that 503 workers are required. UNRWA’s biennium regular budget for 2010 and 2011 is US$1.23 billion, although expenditure is likely to be less because of forecast shortfalls in donation income. As a result of the humanitarian crisis in the occupied Palestinian territory caused by the conflict and Israeli closures, UNRWA has launched repeated emergency appeals since 2000 for emergency food, employment and cash assistance. In 2009, UNRWA’s total budget for its core programs, emergency activities and special projects was US$1.2 billion, for which the Agency received US$948 million. The total operational cost for Solid Waste Management is Gaza is estimated to be around US$.1.7 million.

5.6 Financial Status of SWM in Gaza

The following scheme provides an overview of the financial status of SWM in Gaza. The reliability of cost data provided by the different service providers is not very high. This relates to the fact that much of the financial management is done ad hoc, depending on the income levels from waste collection and on the highly variable sources of income from donor organizations, which may vary from month to month. The data provided by the Solid Waste Management Council of Deir al Balah give a strong basis through for the remaining sector, due to the financial statement provided over 2010 by Talal – Abu Ghazaleh. To test the received information, the consultant has analyzed the provided data against locally relevant unit operating costs. The actual operational costs in 2010 for SWM in the Gaza Strip are the following:

Actual Operational Costs (2010): 1. North Gaza JSC 9 Million NIS 2. Gaza City 20.4 Million NIS 3. Deir al Balah JSC 7 Million NIS 4. Khan Yunis 0.3 Million NIS 5. Rafah 4.8 Million NIS 6. UNWRA 6.8 Million NIS Total: 48 Million NIS (14.25 MUSD) The following unit operational costs have assumed to be required, leading to the next model

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Model Operational Costs (2010):

1. Collected Waste ton / day 1.617 2. No of workers (1.5 ton/w/d) 1.078

3. Salaries (2300 NIS / month) 7.439.687 4. Overhead (80% of workers salaries) 5.951.750 5. Donkey carts (3 ton/day) (20 NIS month) 32.346 6. Petrol Tractors (4 NIS / l) 235.352 7. Petrol Trucks (4 NIS /l) 196.127 8. Car Maintenance 1% of cars value per year 132.990 Total USD 13.990.947 Total NIS 55.963.790

This model leads to the conclusion that the actual operating costs are about 8 Million USD less than required. Taking into account furthermore that the current expenditures are fully spent on operational expenses, their current budgets do not allow to invest in replacement of the old collection vehicle fleet or other collection devices. As a consequence, this leads to sub-optimal collection services. Only part of the operational costs is recovered through waste fee collection. The following table provides an overview.

Table 33 Gaza SWM Financial Status

2010 North Gaza JSC Gaza City Middle Region Rafah City UNWRA TOTAL

Collection Cost ILS 6.300.000 ILS 14.050.000 ILS 4.670.000 ILS 3.240.000 ILS 4.352.000 ILS 32.612.000

Transportation Cost ILS 1.800.000 ILS 4.080.000 ILS 1.400.000 ILS 960.000 ILS 1.360.000 ILS 9.600.000

Disposal Cost ILS 900.000 ILS 2.040.000 ILS 700.000 ILS 480.000 ILS 1.088.000 ILS 5.208.000

Landfill Operation Cost ILS 230.000 ILS 230.000 ILS 120.000 ILS 580.000

Total Cost ILS 9.000.000 ILS 20.400.000 ILS 7.000.000 ILS 4.800.000 ILS 6.800.000 ILS 48.000.000

Collection Revenues ILS 2.700.000 ILS 6.840.000 ILS 2.637.542 ILS 1.076.400 ILS 0 ILS 13.253.942

Disposal Revenues ILS 0 ILS 3.164.000 ILS 918.110 ILS 740.000 ILS 0 ILS 4.822.110

External Budget Support ILS 6.300.000 ILS 10.396.000 ILS 3.444.348 ILS 2.983.600 ILS 6.800.000 ILS 29.923.948

70% 51% 49% 62% 100% 62% As the table shows, it is estimated that on average 62% of the operational costs are provided by external sourced, mainly through international donors.

5.7 Conclusions: Key Issues and Challenges facing SWM in gaza

This section presents the key issues currently at stake in the Gaza strip with regard to solid waste management. These key issues have been identified on the basis of the previously described surveys and field investigations and on the characteristics and projections made for the solid waste sector in Gaza.

Clearly, the waste management services in Gaza are currently under great stress due to the closure of the Gaza Strip, and the very bad economic and financial circumstances in which the people of Gaza live. The permanent enclosure of Gaza leads to specific constraints, such as the blockage of new waste

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


transportation trucks for Gaza at the border, the blockage of export out of Gaza of recycled waste materials, such as metal scraps, and limited access to the current central dump sites due to their proximity to the border with Israel. As a consequence, the waste management services have been reduced to the most essential levels, making use of pragmatic solutions for waste collection, transport and disposal on the basis of available equipment, human and financial resources. It is impressive to notice that essentially all waste is still collected and removed from the living areas to one of the three central dump sites currently in use in Gaza, but clearly there are hardly any resources available in Gaza to lift the solid waste management services to higher, more international levels, such as boosting reuse and recycling, applying waste-to-energy practises, improving fee collection efficiencies, or creating more hygienic circumstances around waste collection, recycling and disposal. Major investment and efforts are required in most components of the waste sector to provide more efficient, modern and sanitary waste management conditions. These efforts relate to practically all domains in the waste sector in Gaza, including improvement of waste collection and primary transfer and transportation, boosting organic waste composting and recycling, setting up adequate systems for hazardous waste and health care waste management, and creating sanitary disposal conditions on the short and longer terms. As described before, the waste service providers are faced with very limited financial resources to operate efficiently. Furthermore they depend highly on external donor funds for balancing their expenditures. The staff employed in waste collection is largely employed through temporary employment programs, making sustainable development of staff capacities difficult. As a result of the limited resources, waste collection is not optimal. Specifically in those cases that street bins are applied, people feel that the frequencies of waste collection are not adequate. This leads to low levels of awareness and discipline among the population when it comes to storage and disposal of waste. Often, the waste is dumped next to the street bins, or the waste in the bins is burned to make space. Waste collection in urban areas is often performed with the use of donkey carts, which are considered old fashion by most of the residents. Motorized collection vehicles are generally very old, and show high drop our levels. Often, the service providers do not have enough financial resources to perform adequate repair works. Generally the collected waste is stored for transfer in temporary storage sites. Transport from here to the three dump sites is either done by the service providers them selves, or is outsourced by private contactors. As result of the bad condition of the transportation fleet, often there is no capacity to perform this transportation, and waste is pilled up for longer periods, reaching the point where the amounts become too large for further transportation to the dump sites. In addition, the landfills of Johr al Deek or Deir al Balah are sometimes closed by the Israelis, which also obstruct transportation to the temporary storage sites. The three central landfills are basically open dump sites with now particular environmental or public health protection facilities, with the exception of Deir al Balah, which was constructed as a sanitary landfill. As discussed before huge amounts of waste will be generated during the next years. Taking into account the domestic market for organic compost, it is estimated that a maximum of 18% of the generated municipal waste can be reused as compost. The rest needs to be disposed at sanitary landfills. Alternative solutions such as expensive digestion or incineration might eventually become feasible only if the economic situation

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


would improve drastically during the next 30 years, leading to higher potential revenues from waste management. This situation leads to a negative spiral in terms of interaction between the service providers and the public waste generators: on one hand the public feels that paying for waste collection is not obligatory due to the low service levels; on the other hand the waste providers feel that the general public is very reluctant to co-operate in improving the waste management situation. This can be illustrated by different pilot performed by the service providers focused on waste separation at the source, which have failed consistently. This is despite the fact the many household already separate kitchen waste from non-organic waste within their households, only to dump both streams together again in the street bins. More information is presented in the section on the Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey. As a result of the relative low levels of sanitary waste services, the issue of lack of enforcement of waste regulations, including collecting waste fees, is becoming very important. In order to increase the revenues from waste fees it will be crucial to improve service levels of waste collection and street cleaning, and to invest in better waste collection equipment and staffing. Only then future SWM investments and operational expenditures, including new sanitary landfills, might be recovered. The current situation leads to numerous healths related impacts, specifically due to uncontrolled exposure to waste streams throughout the waste cycle. This includes exposure to waste along the streets, at the temporary storage sites and at the central dump sites, as well as exposure to health care waste, which is mixed largely with the domestic waste streams. The next sections provide further analyses of the hazardous and infectious waste management issues in Gaza, as well as an analysis of waste reuse and recycling, including composting. Further in this feasibility study alternative scenarios are presented and evaluated for managing municipal solid waste.

6 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Introduction

This section provides a description of all aspects related to disposal, reuse and recycling of waste, including quantitative and qualitative issues related to composting of organic waste. It should be noted that full scale planning and managing of Hazardous Waste in Gaza will require a separate project, which goes beyond the scope of this project.

6.2 Municipal and Industrial Hazardous Waste

Status Little detailed information is available about hazardous waste management in Gaza, and it is widely assumed that the total amount of hazardous waste generated in Gaza (separate from Medical Waste) forms a very modest fraction of the total waste flow. On the other hand, most of the solid hazardous waste streams are currently mixed with the non-hazardous municipal waste streams during their collection, and is disposed of on one of the three current central dump sites without specific precaution measures. It is

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


estimated that about 50 tons per day of industrial solid waste is generated in GS, all disposed at existing dumping sites. In 1998 the EU financed the construction of a separate hazardous waste cell on the Gaza central dump site, particularly for storage of hazardous hospital and laboratory waste. However, already in 2005 it was noticed that this unit was practically unused. The reason for this, as noted by the Gaza municipality, is the fact that fees per ton for hazardous waste disposal are about five times as high as the fees for disposal of non-hazardous waste. Since Gaza does not have an appropriate enforcement system on hazardous waste management, hazardous waste generators are mixing it with other waste types and offer the mixed waste to the landfill against the much lower household waste fee. Hospital waste management is further discussed in the section 2.4.2. In 2008 it was estimated that totally 803 tons of hazardous waste was produced in Gaza, generated by different economic sectors (ref “Development of a National Master Plan for Hazardous Waste Management for the Palestinian National Authority” PNA, 2010). From an international perspective this is a very low figure, taking into account a total population of around 1.5 Million, or half a kg generation of hazardous waste per person per year. The low figure largely relates to the difficult economic circumstances in Gaza since the 2007 imposed closure. As a result of the closure the majority of the industrial operations in Gaza were abandoned, including those at the Gaza Industrial Zone, which was developed earlier with support from among others the UNDP. Hereafter a general description is provided of the economic activities in Gaza which are currently relevant for generation of hazardous waste streams. Furniture Sector The Furniture sector in Gaza included an estimated 600 establishments, focused on the production and export of home and office furniture and construction related materials. Currently this sector declined and includes an estimated 30 workshops, employing about 100 workers. Typical hazardous waste generated by this sector include chemical solvents, dye and paint remnants, probably about 10 to 15 tons per year. Garment and Textile Sector The garment and textile sector in Gaza was relatively well developed, making custom-made textile and shoe products of high quality against competitive prices. There were about 550 manufacturers of mainly garments in Gaza and about 20 large textile manufacturers before 2007. Currently some 60 garment workshops and 4 textile manufacturers have remained. Typical hazardous waste generated by this sector includes chemical and organic solvents, dyeing remnants and detergents, probably about 50 tons per year. Heavy metals are typically associated with the textile dying industry, which are discharged as wastewater. Food Processing Sector The food processing industry in Gaza mainly focuses on the production of sweets, dairy products, beverages, paste, grain products and olive oil. About 100 firms were operating in Gaza before 2007, which has no dropped to about 30 locations employing about 300 persons. Typical waste streams generated by this sector are organic waste and packaging waste, cleaning agents and agricultural pesticide residues. Most waste streams are generally non-hazardous. On the other hand, high BOD values of wastewater generated by the food processing industry, specifically for the production of olive oil, poses a serious challenge to the existing wastewater treatment plants in Gaza. Garages and Workshops

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Gaza includes numerous small scale workshops and garages, engaged in repair of cars, trucks, motorbikes and bicycles. Typical hazardous waste generated by this sector includes used oils, car batteries and related acids, tires and electric devices. It is estimated about 600 – 800 tons of used oil is produced in Gaza per year (about 10 liter per car per year), which is either disposal of through the sewer or underground, or even sometimes used as burning fuel. Metal construction and electroplating sector Metal workshops in Gaza produce a variety of housing, building and construction related products mainly from Iron, Aluminum and Copper. Furthermore there are 3 electroplating factories in Gaza, who specialize in coating of metal sheets and other products. Typical hazardous waste streams include metal scraps, chemical solvents, cyanides and heavy metals containing sludge. Building and Demolition Sector The building sector in Gaza largely came to a stop since 2007. The main hazardous waste stream associated with this sector is Asbestos, which is highly carcinogenic if dust particles are inhaled. Traditionally Asbestos has been used for reasons of thermal insulation, fire prevention and noise absorption. It is believed that Asbestos is hardly applied anymore in new building projects in Gaza. On the other hand, remnants of Asbestos are becoming available during demolition or reconstruction projects, whereas no particular precaution measures are taken for the workers involved, or to separate Asbestos from the main stream demolition waste. Household Hazardous waste Typical household hazardous waste streams include used batteries, chemical solvents, old paints, used as well hazardous components of old electrical apparatus, refrigerators and washing machines. Generally these waste streams are collected together with the main household waste, and disposed of on one of the three central dump sites. Agricultural hazardous waste Typical agricultural hazardous waste streams include different types of pesticides and to some extend chemical fertilizers, which are outdated and cannot be used on the land any more. It is believed that this type of waste is becoming available in Gaza in small quantities, nevertheless adequate measures are to be taken to separate this waste from regular agricultural waste streams, in particular if composting of organic agricultural waste will be developed more widely in Gaza. Hazardous Waste Management Recommendations It is urgently required to develop and implement integrated hazardous waste management plans in Gaza, in order to regulate and monitor adequate separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment, recovery, recycling, transfer and disposal of various hazardous waste streams in Gaza. Such a management system shall include adequate regulations and enforcement capabilities, adequate storage, collection, transportation and treatment facilities, and developing of adequate public information systems. Finally, it will require a sustainable hazardous waste financial investment and operational plan, including a system for cost recovery. Separation and Storage of Hazardous Waste Streams It is required to set up a system which enables to separate hazardous wastes from non-hazardous wastes at the source, in order to prevent mixing with contaminating nonhazardous waste. This will avoid public health and environmental threats, and will enable effective treatment of hazardous waste streams. This will

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


require developing guidelines on how to separate and store hazardous waste streams at households and workshops, and well as development of adequate public facilities to receive and store these hazardous waste streams. Some examples are:

• Segregating chemical / acid solvents and paint waste in separate containers • Separating and storage of flammable solvents in fire proof containers • Separate storage and adequate pre-treatment of contaminated industrial wastewater • Separated storage and treatment of used oil, and prevention of unauthorized applications • Separated storage of contaminated sludge • Separating metal-containing solid waste from non-metal containing waste • Development of public facilities to offer old batteries and other municipal hazardous waste

materials, Transportation of hazardous Waste Streams It is required that adequate means will be made available for the safe transport of hazardous waste to the final treatment or disposal facilities. This requires that the transportation system will operate under clear and well-defined regulations, in order to protect the health and safety of drivers, waste handlers, emergency response personnel and the public in general. Treatment of Hazardous Waste Streams Appropriate treatment methodologies are to be applied for different hazardous waste streams. This may include recovery of economic valuable components, as well as chemical, physical or biological treatment, whereas final disposal of hazardous waste on a sanitary landfill is generally viewed as the last resort. Unsanitary disposal of hazardous waste, as well as mixed disposal with non hazardous waste streams shall be prevented in Gaza as soon as possible. Some examples of chemical treatment methodologies are: oxidation (f.i. Cyanides), Reduction (f.i. Chromates), Neutrlization (acids or bases) and Precipitation (f.i. of heavy metals). Physical treatment techniques include incineration (f.i. flammables, halogen hydrocarbons); distillation, emulsion and encapsulation. Biological treatment includes aerobic and anaerobic digestions of organic hazardous wastes. Under the current circumstances in Gaza it is recommended to develop a hazardous waste management system that can be implemented and enforced, based on Disposal of Hazardous Waste Streams As long as alternative hazardous waste treatment systems are not available in Gaza, it will be required that all separated hazardous waste streams are adequately separated and stored under strict sanitary control circumstances, clearly separated from the main stream non hazardous waste streams. This will not only require adequate protection measures against soil, groundwater and air pollution or direct exposure to rain, humans, animals (birds etc) or the environment, but is will require also adequate storage facilities to prevent long term corrosion, chemical reactions, fire or explosions. In general, direct contact with the surroundings is to be avoided permanently by applying adequate storage barrels or other devices. Finally, a hazardous storage facility should enable that the waste is taken out again at a certain point is time when alternative treatment facilities will have been developed, such as a central incineration plant.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


6.3 Health Care Waste

This section presents an initial analysis of the health care waste in Gaza and some initial conclusions and recommendations. It should be noted that full scale planning and management of hazardous hospital waste will require a specific project that should be planned and implemented by the Ministry of Health, which will also require a change in culture within health facilities and specifically in hospitals under the responsibility of the ministry. Status In 2005 an extensive study was performed by HEU, Tebodin and ECO Consult in the framework of the National Plan for Healthcare Waste Management (HCWM) for Gaza and the West Bank under the METAP Regional SWM Project. In the framework of this project questionnaires were held with representatives from Healthcare Facilities, Municipalities, Ministry of Health, EQA, NGOs and laboratories. In addition, five Health Care Facilities in Gaza were visited. Based on this assessment Medical Waste Management project was performed in the Ramallah District from 2005 until 2010, including the provision of an Autoclave Disinfection System for the Ramallah Governmental Hospital. The project (Pal 10-47106) furthermore included:

1. development of a comprehensive legal framework, bylaws and guidelines for medical waste management, including health care facilities and service providers

2. Strengthening institutional capacities regarding regulatory issues within EQA 3. Strengthening capabilities within Ramallah Municipality and the Ramallah Governmental Hospital 4. Supply of Autoclave equipment and related medical waste containers 5. Awareness raising among medical staff en the general public.

The major conclusions for Gaza were the following: Gaza contains the following number of Health Care Facilities (HCF): Gaza City: 14 Khan Younis: 12 Deir Balah: 5 Rafah: 4 Jabalia: 5 Total: 40 Furthermore, Gaza houses 24 hospitals, managed by the Ministry of Health (12 hospitals), NGOs (10 hospitals) and the private sector (2 hospitals). They provide in total 1917 hospital beds, or about 14 hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, a total of 28 medical laboratories operate in Gaza. It is estimated that totally 5 ton of HCW is produced per day in Gaza.

In March 1998, the Ministry of Health established a Steering Committee for the improvement of healthcare waste management in the hospitals and clinics of the Gaza Strip. This Committee later developed initiatives to assess the problem of managing HCW generated from the health care sector in the framework of the Quality Improvement Project, which was funded by the World Bank (2000). The program included training programs for separation, handling and treatment of clinical waste. Training courses were conducted on healthcare waste management for a limited number of doctors, nurses and cleaners from the hospitals of GS and WB. The courses were aimed at the introduction of segregation into different

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


categories and at improvement of waste handling. Guidelines were developed for management of seven categories of HCW according to the WHO classification for HCW:

1. pathological 2. radioactive 3. chemical 4. infectious 5. pharmaceutical 6. sharps 7. pressurized containers.

The Gaza investigations focused on the general operations and organization of the HCF, and on the practices with regard to storage, treatment and disposal of Health Care Waste (HCW). In general it was concluded that, despite the 2000 program, strategies to handle healthcare waste issues were hardly implemented, and that legislation in this area was still very weak. In some cases HCWM was performed by the HCF themselves, and in other cases it is outsources to private companies. None of the medical facilities kept record of the generated amounts of HCW, but it was estimated that totally 3,800 kg of HCW is generated in Gaza per day (800 kg / day from hospitals), of which one third is collected in separate bags. The rest is disposed of together with the non medical solid waste, often in waste containers along the main roads, where people and animals have free access. Meanwhile, the separately collected HCW bags are often piled up under non sanitary conditions, such as in toilets of even kitchens. Only in 10% of the cases the HCW seems to be stored separately and properly. The waste from Health Care Facilities s is collected mainly by private contractors (50%), often using simple shovels and baskets, generally without using appropriate clothes or gloves to protect them against contamination or sharp needles, or without being appropriately vaccinated. The HCW is generally transported by open refuse vans or waste compactor trucks together with the domestic waste to the one central incinerator, or burnt in the open air, or directly disposal of on a central dump site without pre treatment. Liquid hospital waste, including pathogens, blood and liquid hazardous waste is disposal of on the public sewer system (92%) without pre-treatment The only HCW incinerator currently in use in Gaza is the one in the Shifa Hospital, which was donated in 1996 by the Spanish Government to the PNA, together with guidelines on how to separate the right fractions for incineration. This incinerator is able to burn about 500 kg/day. However, the waste is not adequate separated, causing ordinary waste being incinerated here as well. The two other provided incinerators for the Al-Nars Hospital and the Khan Younis hospital are currently out of order. It was therefore concluded that HCW incineration is currently insufficient, also leading to nuisance from the exhaust gases. Finally, the Gaza city central dump site was provided with a separate Health Care Waste Storage Unit by the EU in 1998. However, in 2005 it was noticed that this unit was practically unused. HCW Management Recommendations The Consultant proposes actions to alleviate the Health Care Waste Management problems on the short term in Gaza similar to the implemented Health Care Waste Management project (2005 – 2010) performed for Ramallah: Health Care Waste Collection and Separation It is strongly recommended that all Health Care Centers established HCW collection system at the source, which separates in adequate containers the following health care waste streams:

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• Sharps • Infectious Waste • Human Anatomical Waste • Blood and Body Fluids • Radioactive Waste • Cytotoxic Waste • Highly Infectious Waste • Pharmaceutical Waste

Steam Autoclave It is recommended to introduce Autoclaves as the core treatment technique for disinfection of HCW in Gaza. Autoclaving is an efficient wet thermal disinfection process. Typically, autoclaves are used in hospitals for the sterilization of recyclable items, but these units allow for the treatment of limited quantities of additional infectious waste. Sterilization occurs at temperature and pressure 121 °C and 1.5 bars, respectively, depending on the size of the equipment. Some exceptions require high temperature and pressure, i.e. 134 °C and 2.5 bars, respectively. Autoclaves are not excessively expensive to purchase or to operate, straightforward to operate, and do not take up much space. Next figure provides an sketch of such the autoclave system applied in Ramallah.

Figure 13 Scheme of an Autoclave

It is recommended that three central hospitals in Gaza (for instance Gaza City, Khan Yunis and Rafah) be equipped with autoclaves for the treatment of highly infectious wastes from all Health Care Centers in their direct vicinity, and that the following supporting actions are undertaken:

1. Strengthening institutional capacities regarding regulatory issues within EQA - Gaza

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


2. Strengthening capabilities within the major Municipalities in Gaza, and the major hospitals 3. Supply of Autoclave equipment and related medical waste containers 4. Awareness raising among medical staff en the general public.

The autoclave system is based on the assumption that after disinfection the medical waste streams can be treated as non infectious household waste, and can be disposed of on the sanitary landfills. Encapsulation Furthermore it is recommended to use encapsulation for the safe disposal of sharps. Sharps are collected in puncture-proof and leak-proof containers, such as high-density polyethylene boxes, metallic drums, or barrels. When a container is three-quarters full, an isolating material such as cement mortar or clay is poured in, to fill up the container fully. After this material has dried, the container is sealed and taken to landfill. It is also possible to encapsulate chemical or pharmaceutical residues together with sharps. This does not require significant space for disposal. Incineration Incineration at 800 – 1200 degrees C can be applied on Medical centers as well, but is requires substantial volumes and strict operating and licensing procedures to protect workers’ safety, and to be prepared to respond to any accident. Within the framework of the current Feasibility Study it is recommended not to introduce incineration for HCW in Gaza on the short term, but instead to introduce autoclave equipment as the core of the HCW treatment system, as discussed above. Sanitary landfilling Following above mentioned treatment of HCW streams, the final residues are to be disposed of the new sanitary landfill. Three alternatives are to be considered:

• Disposal on the landfill in shallow hollows excavated in the mature municipal waste, in the layer below the working face, and immediately covered by a 2-m layer of fresh municipal waste; scavenging in this part of the site must be prevented.

• in a 1 to 2 meter deep pit, excavated in mature municipal waste (at least 3 months since being land filled) which is then backfilled with the mature waste that was dug out; again, scavenging in this part of the site must be prevented.

• Construction of a special small burial pit on the landfill for healthcare waste only. The pit can be 2m deep and filled to a depth of 1m. Each load of HCW should be covered with a soil layer 10- 15cm deep. Access to this area should be restricted and closely supervised by the landfill operating staff to prevent scavenging.

Preliminary Cost Estimates A preliminary cost estimate for development of the above short term HCW management actions on HCW in Gaza is provided hereafter. 1. Project Operations: USD 300,000 2. Technical Assistance: USD 150,000 3. Training USD 60,000 4. Procurement of 3 x Autoclave and related equipment: USD 1,500,000 5. Awareness Raising USD 100,000 Total: USD 2,110,000

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


7 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND COMPOSTING

7.1 Introduction

Currently (2011) about 600,000 tons of municipal waste is produced each year. This may increase up to 1.35 million tons in 2040 (see paragraph 4.4). A major part of this municipal waste can be made available for recycling by means of resource recovery or composting. The potential for recycling is strongly influenced by the current social, political and economic situation in Gaza. In this chapter the current recycling activities and the future possibilities are described. The following waste streams are distinguished: • Construction and demolition waste • Plastics • Paper • Glass • Metal • Organic waste (composting) Of each of these waste fractions the current recycling situation and the future potential are described. The following information sources have (in addition to those used in general for this feasibility report) been used: • Rapid Assessment of Recycling sector in Gaza Strip – Challenges and Opportunities, Gaza, January

2009, Wa’el Safi, GTZ • Feasibility Study of Recycling of Construction and Demolition Wastes (CDW), Gaza, July 2004,

Engineering and Management Consulting Center EMCC The following personal contacts (meetings) have been used: • Mr. Wa’el Safi (GIZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) • Mr. Masoud Qeshta (FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) • Mr. Mohammad Mesyad (UNDP, United Nations Development Programme)

• Mr. A/Rahim Abu Al Qumbos and Mr. Khalil Al Kord from Northern Council and Gaza city Council, • Mr. Nizar Alwhidy (Ministry of agriculture, general directorate of planning) • Mr. Mohammed Kullab (Ministry of economics, industrial development department) • Mr. Atef Jaber (Palestinian Environmental Friends Society) • Mr. Federico (CRIC, Centro Regionale d’Intervento per la Cooperazione, Italian NGO)

Visits have been paid to: • Pilot composting plant in Rafah for agricultural waste (Palestinian Environmental Friends Society) • Composting facility under construction in Rafah for household waste (Palestinian Environmental

Friends Society) • Pilot composting initiative in Beit Lahia (CRIC) • Mahani plastic factory • Sroor plastic factory • Samar plastic mill

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


7.2 Construction and demolition waste

The recycling of construction and demolition Wastes has a large potential to conserve natural resources and to reduce energy used in production of building materials. In many countries it is used as a a standard alternative for construction activities. Often governments stimulate construction and demolition waste recycling by prescribing the use of these materials for their own building activities. In Gaza demolition waste recycling was introduced in 2004. After a start up period people soon became used to the reuse of these materials. The total amount of demolition waste is strongly, influenced by economical and political conditions. In 2005 the total quantity of construction and demolition waste in Gaza was estimated on 1.5 to 2 million m3. In 2008 about 500,000 tons of construction and demolition waste was collected by the UNDP from the former Israeli settlements. In 2009 the Israeli attacks on Gaza resulted in strong increase of the demolition waste amounts. If demolition is performed in an orderly manner various parts of the waste can be collected separately. The demolition waste mainly consists of concrete, masonry, stones, shingles, metals, wood, glass and other materials. Separation at source during the demolition of a building will strongly increase the recycling potential. If the demolition waste is the result of an Israeli bombardment the waste will be “polluted” with furniture, carpets and other equipment used by the citizens. This will have a negative influence on the quality and thus on the recycling potential of the waste. Separation by means of hand picking or screening will be required to make recycling possible. Building materials containing asbestos may also influence the quality and the recycling potential. Preferably asbestos should be collected and disposed of separately to prevent pollution of the demolition waste. If it can not be guaranteed that the demolition waste is free of asbestos the material should only be used in situations where is bound in for instance concrete or covered under pavements. The demolition waste can be used for “low quality” purposes as upgrading material for low level areas, filling material for large development activities (an example has been the Fisherman Harbor), as raw material for constructing rural roads or as base material under paved roads. “High quality” purposes include the production of concrete blocks or the reuse as formed building stones. Especially in the large two years demolition waste recycling has become a large business in Gaza. Approximately 1000 people are involved nowadays in collection of debris throughout Gaza along the streets with donkey cards. This is mainly part of the informal sector. However, at the moment also demolition companies or owners of the demolished buildings are responsible for the collection of the demolition waste. Currently almost all of the construction and demolition waste is collected and reused. After collection the material is brought to the numerous crushing facilities in Gaza. These are often located next to building sites and reproduce building stones from the crushed debris. Currently 120 to 150 NIS is being paid per ton of demolition waste. Recently this even was as high as 300 NIS/ton. This is strongly influenced by the political situation. The price is influenced by 3 major aspects: • The availability of raw material • The availability of demolition waste • The amount of building projects At the moment the availability of demolition waste is not as high as it has been in the beginning of 2009 during the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Furthermore various building projects are in progress or planned and it is difficult to get enough raw building material inside Gaza due to the closed borders. All three situations are beneficial for the recycling of demolition waste and for the price paid for the material. High availability

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


of demolition waste will result in lower prices and in a lower recycling percentage or the application of demolition waste in “low quality” purposes. A small amount of building initiatives will result in the same situation. Finally a stable political situation will result in open borders and an inflow of raw building materials. Raw building materials will cost approximately 50 to 60 NIS/ton and are therefore much cheaper then demolition waste. Furthermore many people will prefer the raw material to demolition waste if the price difference is limited. A stable political situation with an open border will therefore result in a difficult market for demolition waste. All of this makes it very difficult to predict the future market and recycling potential for demolition waste. The size of the market is big enough. In an unstable political situation the recycling of demolition waste will therefore probably be able to prosper. In a stable political situation the Palestinian authority and local governments will have to influence the market by for instance prescribing the use of recycled demolition materials for their own building activities. Both the informal sector and organized recycling organizations can than have an important role in the recycling activities.

7.3 Plastics

Plastics are mainly made from fossil fuels. Recovery and recycling of plastics therefore results in less fossil fuel consumption. Plastics are very voluminous. If plastics are landfilled they will fill a lot of landfill capacity of each ton landfilled. Recycling will therefore have a large impact on the landfill space required in Gaza. In general there are 3 methods available in which plastics can be recycled or can have a useful application: • Mechanical recycling: The plastic waste is shredded to flakes, washed, dried and extruded to pellets.

In this form the plastic is sold to plastic industry. • Chemical recycling: The plastic polymers are chemically broken down into their monomer form and re-

polymerized. This procedure is more complex than mechanical recycling but generally results in more high quality products.

• Energy recovery: The plastic can be used as fuel in various types of incinerators with energy recovery. Mainly PETE, PP and HDPE are recycled. All of the plastic recycling in Gaza is done by means of mechanical recycling. Plastic is collected throughout Gaza, often along the streets with donkey carts and using loud speakers to invite people to offer their waste. This collection is mainly done by the informal sector, which shows a high efficiency in recovering recyclable materials from the streets and garbage container. It is estimated based on the waste production figures mentioned in section 4 that approximately 50,000 tons of plastic waste is produced in Gaza each year. The last two years this might even have been higher due to the large quantities of packaging waste entering Gaza through the tunnels at the Egyptian border. The total plastic recycling in 2010 is estimated to be around 10,000 tons per year. That corresponds to 20% of the total generated plastic waste flow. A few years ago (2008/2009) this amount may even have been a little higher. Currently (2011) this amount is lower. Information of the Ministry of Economics indicates that currently only 1,000 tons of plastic waste is collected and recycled (2 % of the total generated plastic waste flow. Information of a plastic mill indicates that 2,000 to 3,000 tons of plastic waste might be recycled. In 2008/2009 approximately 90 % of the plastic produced was made out of recycled plastic. The borders were almost completely closed for raw materials for plastic production and for plastic products. There was no other solution than to resort to recycled plastics. Currently only 20 % of the plastic produced is made out of

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


recycled plastic (information of the Ministry of Economics). Until recent the security situation was a little better and raw material and plastic products could enter Gaza more easily. The collected plastics are grinded to flakes in various grinding facilities (approximately 15). The grinding facilities buy the plastic waste from the collectors for 500 to 1,500 NIS/ton (currently polypropylene for 600 NIS/ton and polyethylene for 1,300 NIS/ton). The grinded plastic is sold at a price of 1,000 to 3,000 NIS/ton depending of the type of plastic (currently polypropylene for 1,300 NIS/ton and polyethylene for 2,500 NIS/ton). The grinded plastic is used by 40 companies which produce recycled plastic products out of them (mainly bags, pipes, plastic furniture, house wares, agricultural hoses, edges used for aluminum etc.). The produced plastics are sold at a price of 6,000 to 7,000 NIS/ton at production costs of 4,000 NIS/ton (3,000 NIS/ton for the grinded plastics and 1,000 NIS/ton for operational costs) resulting in a profit of approximately 40 %. A few years ago there were more than 90 local plastic factories in the Gaza strip which produced injected, blown and extruded products. The products made out of recycled plastic are mainly used by local communities. It is difficult to get more detailed information of these 40 companies. There are almost no standards or requirements set by the government to which these companies have to comply.

The market needs for waste plastic depend strongly on the political situation. Bad security situations and closed border will result in good market for recycled plastic. This result in higher prices paid, more plastic recycled and more people (varying between 200 and 400) working in the production process for recycling plastics. The prices paid for recycled plastics when borders were completely closed were as high as 7,000 NIS/ton (almost the price of raw material, 8,000 NIS/ton). Until recent the border was a little less closed for raw material resulting in a drop of the prices to 3,000 NIS/ton and lower recycling percentages. None the less, there will be a

considerable difference in the prices of imported materials and locally produced ones. There will remain a market for recycled plastics even if the border is open. The market will however be smaller. Improved recycling and separation technologies and expertise is required to improve the quality of the recycled plastics and make recycling of other types of plastic possible. Export of recycled plastics to Egypt or the West Bank (when borders are open) may increase the recycling percentage. Previously grinded plastic flakes have been exported to Egypt through the tunnels, when there was no market in Gaza. Maybe chemical recycling or energy recovery from plastic can be taken into consideration in the future, further limiting fossil fuel consumption. The private sector might be able to play an important role to simplify the export of recycled plastics.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The informal sector will probably continue playing an important role in the plastic recycling. In future this might even lead to a further increase of the recovery percentage of the plastic waste. Source separation or the mechanical separation of the organic fraction of the waste as foreseen for compost production (see paragraph 7.8) will increase the percentage of plastics in the remaining waste, making it easier for people (in a hand picking line at the composting facility or informally in the street, on a transfer station or on the landfill) to remove the plastic from the remaining, now drier, waste.

7.4 Paper

Recovery and recycling of paper and cardboard will result in less wood consumption for paper production. At the moment paper is hardly separated and reused in Gaza. To some extend cardboard is being collected from the waste containers and used by low income households as fuel for cooking and heating. This however is a recovery option which results in bad environmental and health conditions and therefore should not be encouraged officially. In Gaza there are no paper factories which can use recovered paper and cardboard. The last 10 years various initiatives for paper recycling have been started but all had to stop. Most of them stopped as a result of problems with the export of the collected paper and cardboard due to the closed borders. It is estimated based on the waste production figures that approximately 70,000 tons of paper and cardboard waste is produced in Gaza each year. The last two years this might even have been higher due to the large quantities of packaging waste (including cardboard) entering Gaza through the tunnels at the Egyptian border. Part of the paper and cardboard waste may processed in composting facilities (see paragraph 7.8) as part of the organic fraction of the waste, without disturbing the composting process or the compost quality. A composting process may even benefit from this paper or cardboard if a “wet” organic waste stream is processed. The paper/cardboard fraction may improve the aeration of the composting piles. The paper percentage should however be limited. The only good option for larger scale paper recycling seems to be export to paper factories in Egypt or Israel. An open border is a requirement for this option. The private sector might be able to play an important role to simplify the export of collected paper and cardboard and at least open the border for export of these types of materials. To create a high recovery percentage of a good quality paper and cardboard will depend on source separation of paper and cardboard waste. This should mainly be realized for packaging and paper waste from offices and companies using a lot of packaging material. In this manner it can prevented that the paper becomes wet or polluted because of other waste fraction. Furthermore removing this waste fraction from the waste bins results in a large reduction of the volume of the waste to be collected as mixed waste. The informal sector may be able to play an additional role in the paper collection. Especially cardboard can be recovered from waste bins to further increase the recovery percentage.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


7.5 Glass

Glass forms only a small fraction of the total waste stream in Gaza (approximately 5,000 to 10,000 tons/year). In the last 10 years there has been a large shift from using glass bottles to plastic bottles reducing the glass waste amount to what it is now. There is no glass recycling industry and there are no large scale glass factories in Gaza. Gaza is to small a market to realize an own glass factory. Recycling will therefore require export to Egypt or Israel. Furthermore prices for glass are low and to make glass recycling possible, source separation of the glass should be introduced. Mechanical separation or recovery by hand pickers is very difficult for glass. The combination of these factors put glass recycling at the bottom of the list of recycling options.

7.6 Metals

Metals also form a relative small fraction of the total waste stream in Gaza (approximately 15,000 tons/year). Metal valuables are collected throughout Gaza, often along the streets with donkey carts and using loud speakers to invite people to offer their waste. Unlike glass recycling, metal recycling can be performed relatively easy by the informal sector and the high value of the material makes it very interesting for recycling. The metals in the waste are therefore almost completely recovered. The steel, iron, aluminum and copper collected is sold to local companies, which prepare it for further reuse. Previously, when the borders were open, the major part of the metals was exported to Israel. Only a small part of the scrap iron is recycled locally by small scale foundries. Also a small fraction of the collected aluminum and copper is recycled locally. Steel production requires special high temperature furnaces. This can only be done economically on high capacity. Gaza is to small a market to realize an own steel foundry. At this moment the recovered metals are prepared for export to Israel and Egypt. They are baled and stacked on various locations at the boarder, waiting for the borders to open and the export to restart again. Export tot Egypt or Israel seems to be the only good option for metal recycling. An open border is a requirement for this option. The private sector might be able to play an important role to simplify the export of collected metals and at least open the border for export of these types of materials. The private sector will continue to play an important role in the collection of the waste metals in future.

7.7 Agricultural Waste

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, this sector produces about 1200 tons of organic waste per day, or approximately 438,000 ton per year. Part of the waste stream is mixed with the top soil for soil enrichment purposes and part of it is burned on the fields by the farmers. Practically no agricultural waste is disposed of on the three central dump sites in Gaza.

It should be noted that full scale planning and managing of Agricultural Waste in Gaza will require a separate project, which goes beyond the scope of this project. Generally, when not managed properly, agricultural waste from farm operations can pollute the environment resulting in impacts to water quality, air quality and a general loss of aesthetics. The degradation of water quality can impact groundwater both onsite and offsite. This degradation reduces the ability of these resources to support aquatic life and water for human and animal consumption. Nitrates, which are commonly associated with fertilizers and agricultural waste runoff, can seep into groundwater. Well water contaminated with nitrates is hazardous

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


to humans, particularly for infants, as it results in oxygen depletion in the blood. Overall, proper agricultural waste management in Gaza is required to protect the environment and reduce operating costs associated with fertilizer application if managed adequately.

7.8 Municipal Organic Waste (composting)

By far the largest fraction of the municipal waste, which is suitable for recycling, is the organic matter fraction. Depending on the efficiency of plastic recycling (see paragraph 7.3) 50 to 70 % of the municipal waste is formed by organic waste. The total recycling potential of municipal waste is dominated by the potential of recovery of the organic fraction by means of composting. The organic waste fraction is therefore discussed in more detail than the other waste fractions. In the following paragraphs a summary is given of this discussion, distinguishing the following topics: • Current organic waste recovery and composting in Gaza • Quantities and types of organic waste • Compost market potential in Gaza • Proposed composting strategy for Gaza • Investment plan for the proposed composting strategy Additional information an a more elaborate discussion is presented in the following annexes to this feasibility study: • Composting Report • Conceptual design and cost estimates for a “standard” composting plant

7.8.1 Current organic waste recovery and composting in Gaza

In Gaza a few composting initiatives have been identified. Some are currently in operation others are planned for the near future: • Near Rafah in the South of Gaza a small pilot project has been established by the Palestinian

Environmental Friends Society (NGO) making compost out of agricultural waste. • In the Rafah Governate a second composting facility is under construction under ownership of the

Rafah Municipality and will have mixed household waste as input. • At the Deir El Balah central dump site a German financed project was developed to separate the

organic fraction from the already dumped waste for the production of soil conditioners, but this activity has already been abandoned.

• At Deir El Balah also a composting plant initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture is under operation producing compost out of agricultural waste.

• Another small pilot project at Beit Lahia in the north of the Gaza Strip, financed by the Italian Government and supported by CRIC (Italian NGO).

• A private Palestinian company, PADICO, has developed plans to expand and operate the Beit Lahia pilot into a 3.5 ha recycling and composting plant.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Until now less than 1% of the total solid waste flow is actually being composted in Gaza.

7.8.2 Quantities and types of organic waste

With a current total population in Gaza of approximately 1.7 million people a yearly domestic waste amount of 600,000 tons can be calculated. With an organic waste percentage of approximately 60 % this corresponds to 360,000 tons of organic waste in the domestic waste. In 2040 the population figures are estimated to grow to 3.2 million, resulting in 1.3 million tons of waste and thus approximately 800,000 tons of organic waste. A 50 % separation percentage of the organic waste (= 30 % or the total waste) is assumed possible for the long term. Based on the domestic waste amount calculated for 2040 this results in a total required composting capacity of 400,000 tons of organic waste/year and a potential total compost production of 200,000 tons/year in Gaza in the future. Furthermore based on information of the Ministry of Agriculture an additional 440,000 tons of organic agricultural waste is produced in Gaza each year. The major part of this (appr. 90 %) is burned at the farms (and partly transported to landfills without being registered). Approximately 10 % is collected by the Ministry and used as fuel or as fodder for animals. Only a small amount (appr. 2 %) is currently being composted in de pilot composting plants in Rafah and Deir El Balah. This currently results in 5,000 tons of compost produced. If half of this agricultural waste would be kept separate and composted this however would result in an additional 110,000 tons of compost/year. This total production of 310,000 tons of compost/year is almost twice the maximum potential compost market calculated for Gaza in paragraph 7.8.3. It would therefore be required to also look at the potential

of compost markets in the West Bank and Egypt in the future, when the political situation in the region is more stable. This however is not an easy option and is not expected to be realistic within a short period of time. Because penetration of compost markets outside Gaza is not considered realistic on short notice under the current situation for the feasibility study a separation and composting percentage of 18 % for both household and agricultural waste is taken into account. Based on the domestic waste amount calculated for 2040 this results in a total required composting capacity of 240,000 tons/year for the organic fraction of domestic waste and of 80,000 tons/year for agricultural waste. This results in a total required capacity of 320,000 tons/year and a potential total compost production of 160,000 tons/year in Gaza in the future, which could just be absorbed by the compost market potential in Gaza. The organic waste should preferably be source separated to produce good quality compost. Mechanical separation is however easier to introduce. Both options are discussed below. In Gaza also pilot projects have been performed with organic waste recovered from dump sites. This is also discussed below. Source separated waste To be able to produce marketable and environmentally safe compost separate collection of organic waste streams is strongly recommended. One should start with the composting of organic waste streams, which are produced as “clean” waste and which can be kept separate very easy. This may include green waste from parks or organic waste fractions from markets and agriculture. As soon as possible however separate collection of the organic fraction of domestic waste should be introduced. This will require adaptation of the general MSW collection and disposal system. For Gaza it is recommended to try to start up the separate collection of green waste from parks (and from trees in the streets) and biowastes (like fruit and vegetables) from markets as soon as possible. Some

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


types of agricultural waste can also be entered into the process. In this manner the cleanest compost with the widest application markets will be produced. It will probably take some years before such a well operating system is organized. The introduction of separate collection of the organic fraction of domestic waste will take some more time. Separate collection of the organic fraction will proof not to be suitable for each region or situation. In centres of the cities it in general will be difficult for households to keep the organic fraction separate resulting in odour problems and bad separation resulting in bad compost quality. In all other situations separate collection should be considered in future. For each region or situation the suitability of separate collection should be determined. In Gaza a few pilot scale attempts to introduce source separation of the organic waste have been made. As main reasons are mentioned: limited financial resources, insufficient education of the public, lack of incentive for the public and limited patience of the organizers of the pilots. To make separate collection a success three things are required: • Awareness of the public regarding the benefits of separate collection • Education of the public on how separate collection should be done • An incentive to stimulate separate collection by the public Awareness and education can be realized by means of a thorough information campaign. An incentive to stimulate separate collection is more difficult to realize. In many cases waste collection and treatment fees are connected to the level of separate collection of the waste. The better separate collection is performed, the lower the fees are set. In Gaza at the moment however fees are paid by only a limited percentage of the public. To be able to use lower fees for separate collected waste, the recovery percentage of the fees must first be increased as part of an adequate Solid Waste Management system. Additional incentives might be: • combining separate collection with an increased waste collection frequency, resulting in less nuisance

by waste in the houses and streets • creating jobs for the trimming of trees in the streets resulting in an increase of the separate collection

of organic wastes from those trees • creating parks or other ‘green’ areas in regions where separate collection is a success • combining the separate collection of organic waste with lower fees of other public utilities Mechanical separated organic fraction During introduction of the separate collection system composting activities could be started with organic materials of a lower quality reaching markets with lower quality requirements. In this manner composting of the mechanical separated organic fraction of MSW could be started directly in combination with controlled landfilling. This will however also be more costly than total landfilling and the benefits are doubtful. The compost produced from this mixed waste is in most countries not suitable for use in agriculture. It can then only be used as organic materials for public works, as cover material on landfills or for some general remediation activities. In those cases composting of the mechanically separated fraction of mixed MSW should only be considered if the compost produced can replace more expensive or environmental less beneficial materials. Several sources in Gaza claim that composting experiments with organic waste, not separated at source, have resulted in compost which was in compliance with European composting standards. As reason for this the small fraction of hazardous waste as part of the total municipal waste stream has been mentioned. If this is the case composting of the mechanical separated organic fraction in combination with a thorough post treatment of the compost to remove all macro contaminants (plastic, glass, metals etc.) can be taken

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


into consideration. The quality of and the market for this type of compost should however be investigated thoroughly before the composting activities are started. Organic material recovered from already dumped waste In general the organic fraction of already dumped waste should be considered unsuitable for compost production. Because of the (bio)chemical acidic conditions inside the dumped waste body micro pollutants in the various wastes (heavy metals and various organic chemicals) will have been able to mix with organic fraction of the dumped waste. If this organic material is used as basis for the compost production, these pollutants will also be inside the compost produced and will become available when the compost is applied in for instance agriculture. This will have a negative influence on crop quality and may result in risks for the human health. The concentration in the compost will even be higher than in the organic material because of the degradation of part of the organic matter. The quality of the compost made out or the organic fraction of already dump waste will even be far less than the quality made out of the organic fraction of fresh mixed household waste. If compost made out of dumped waste would enter the compost market in Gaza, this could have a negative effect on the future market potential. Bad experiences of a compost market with bad compost quality could have a strong negative effect on the market potential for many years and require a great deal of marketing effort to repair the damage done. This type of compost can therefore normally only be used as temporary cover material on landfills or other applications where very low requirements are set for the quality. In Gaza at the Deir El Balah central dump site a project was developed to separate the organic fraction from the already dumped waste for the production of soil conditioners. The quality of the soil conditioner produces apparently was in compliance with EU compost standards. This is in contradiction with the general experiences in other countries. It is worthwhile to investigate this further, because reuse of part of the dumped waste can have a positive influence on the land availability and on the environmental conditions locally. These activities have only been performed at the Deir El Balah dump site. This dump site has no leachate removal. The leachate is recycled resulting in the built up of contaminants and salinity in the dumped waste. Both are negative for the quality of a soil improver if produced out of this material. The dump sites of Rafah and Gaza City both have leachate removal. This could have a positive influence on the quality of the material inside the dumpsite and thus on the quality of a soil conditioner produced out of this material. Additional screening tests and chemical analysis of the material produced will give more information on the potential of this material as soil improvers. Until the quality of this material and the suitability for application as soil improver has been investigated thoroughly, this material should not be used on the compost market in Gaza.

7.8.3 Compost market potential in Gaza

Compost market potential The potential market for compost application in Gaza is relatively small due to the high population density resulting in a high waste production and therefore high potential compost production per surface area. About 29 % of the Gaza surface area consists of arable land (crops replanted after each harvest) and another 21 % is cultivated for permanent crops. With a total surface area of Gaza of approximately 36,000 ha this results in a total surface area for the potential compost market of 18,000 ha. The ministry of agriculture has indicated that the total surface area, which is really used as agricultural land is appro-ximately 16,000 ha. On average about 10 tons of compost can be applied on each ha of agricultural land per year. This results in a potential maximum compost application of 160,000 tons of compost per year.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


As discussed in paragraph 7.8.2 the total available

compost market in Gaza is filled when a maximum separation and composting percentage of 18 % for both household and agricultural waste is taken into account. To be able to make a higher percentage possible it would be required to also look at the potential of compost markets in the West Bank and Egypt in the future, when the political situation in the region is more stable. This however is not an easy option and is not expected to be realistic within a short period of time.

Current market conditions In general the best market conditions are in the spring or autumn. Currently approximately 5,000 tons of compost is produced in Gaza. The compost is sold to FAO and other international financiers, who further distribute the waste to farmers. Currently the compost is often given to the farmers for free. Attempts to have farmers directly pay for the compost have failed so far, due to questions about the compost quality and the poor economic circumstances under which the farmers operate. In Gaza the compost is sold for 10 NIS/20 kg bag (about 3 USD/20 kg bag). This corresponds to 500 NIS/tons (about 150 USD/tons). In the West Bank about 50 USD/ton is being paid. At this moment it is difficult to get people to pay for the compost partly as a result of the poor economical situation. However, compost in bags is imported from Israel with a current price of 250 USD/ton. The costs for compost production in Gaza are calculated on approximately 68 USD/ton of compost (see paragraph 7.8.4). It

should therefore be possible to create a sustainable compost market if good quality compost can be produced in Gaza and if the farmers can be convinced of the quality of the compost produced. An overview of this comparison between costs and profits is given in the next table.

Table 34 Costs of compost production compared with the price currently paid for compost

Compost Prices USD/ton compost

Price paid in Gaza for locally produced compost 150.-

Price paid in West Bank for locally produced compost 50.-

Price paid for Israeli produced compost 250.-

Costs for compost production 68.-

The low willingness to pay may also be influenced by a low level of acceptance of compost made from “waste” in Gaza. In general farmers are well informed on the benefits of compost application for soil improvement and the positive influence it will have on crop growth. However the compost produced at this moment has a low organic matter (8 to 10 %) and nutrient content. Farmers now rather use chicken and cow manure and artificial fertilizers to increase the fertility of their land. They don’t see the advantages of compost application to the full extent. Some awareness should be created and the level of education should be improved to popularize the use of compost in agriculture and increase the acceptance of compost made from “waste”. This should include information about the use of artificial fertilizer vs. compost, the problems of eutrofication as a result of artificial fertilizer usage, benefits of compost

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


application (improvement of organic matter content, water holding capacity of the soil, soil aeration, microflora). The lack of knowledge might prevent further opening of the compost market. The Ministry of Agriculture has indicated that farmers will accept compost as soil improver and will accept the idea that compost application is better than using artificial fertilizers if they are informed on this topic. This will also require an increase of the quality of the compost. This can party be done by carefully selecting the base material for the compost, increasing the organic matter content. By mixing the compost with manure the organic matter content can be increased further and the compost can be enriched with nitrogen and phosphorus. The marketing potential may be enlarged by this because a farmer then only has to use one soil improver for both organic matter and nutrients. Compost markets are very sensitive for the quality of the compost. Bad experiences with and the presence of macro pollutants like plastics and glass or micro pollutants like heavy metals in the compost could ruin the market for compost for many years require a great deal of marketing effort to repair the damage done. Also compost with a low organic matter content will cause farmers to stop using compost, because they don’t see results of the compost application on their crop growth. The quality of the compost is therefore of the utmost importance to create market potential for compost application. Separation at source of the organic waste is therefore essential for development of the good compost market. Compost production from the mechanical separated organic fraction from household waste should only be taken in to consideration if chemical analyses show proof of a high quality of the material and the resulting compost. Suggestions for Gaza

The production of high quality compost can be increased by expanding the current pilot projects and supporting the larger scale initiatives, which are being started up in Gaza at the moment. An important role can be played by NGO’s and private companies who are interested in the compost market. The Palestinian government and local authorities should seek cooperation with these stakeholders. Currently you already see NGO’s like CRIC, FAO and the Palestinian Friends Society and a private company like Padico showing interest. Compost production should be started with materials, which can be source separated easily, like the organic fraction of market waste, agriculture waste and green waste from parks and trees in the roads. Next to this source separation of the organic fraction of household waste should be introduced in some parts of Gaza. The mechanical separated fraction of household waste should only be used as base material for compost if waste and compost analysis results show that this will also result in high quality compost (based on micro and macro contaminants). Otherwise this compost can jeopardize the compost market. To increase the availability of information regarding compost usage and its benefits and to open the compost markets an information campaign by the Palestinian government is recommended both for the waste producers (citizens, municipalities) as for the compost users (agriculture and other markets). Such an information campaign is important to make the separate collection and composting of the organic frac-tion of municipal waste a success. Without compost market stocks of compost will grow rapidly if compos-ting facilities are realized. This will result in high costs and lack of interest by citizens who see these stocks growing. This could than cause great problems with the separate collection. This means that starting up separate collection should be combined with a marketing and information campaign for compost application. For the information campaign two different groups to be addressed, can be distinguished:

The main barriers for market development for organic “waste”-derived compost in Gaza are the low availability of high quality compost, limited information on compost usage and its benefits and finally lack of incentive to separate waste at source.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• Citizens and organizations producing waste, who should be encouraged to keep the organic

fraction of the waste separate and to separately give this to or bring this to the waste collection

organizations.

• The various composting markets and especially agriculture, which should be encouraged to use the

compost produced from these organic waste fractions For each of these groups an information campaign should focus on different topics, resulting in the need for different promotional documents and or brochures. This information will increase awareness and the level of education, but will not guarantee a well operating source separation of the organic waste. An incentive to stimulate separate collection is required to increase the willingness within the public to actively contribute to separation at source. Examples of such incentives are: • Lower waste collection and treatment fees for areas contributing to source separation (this requires a

well operating Solid Waste Management system with a high percentage of fees actually recovered) • combining separate collection with an increased waste collection frequency, resulting in less nuisance

by waste in the houses and streets • creating jobs for the trimming of trees in the streets resulting in an increase of the separate collection

of organic wastes from those trees • creating parks or other ‘green’ areas in regions where separate collection is a success • combining the separate collection of organic waste with lower fees of other public utilities Developing markets for compost, produced from organic “waste” materials in Gaza will represent a significant challenge for the waste sector. Elaboration of a market development programme should start with engaging stakeholders (local authorities/ potential composters and the waste management sector) to establish a compost production and demand infrastructure for compost. The various governmental organizations can also stimulate biowaste and green waste compost application by e.g. prescribing this for development activities. The Palestinian authority and the municipalities should also try to play a controlling role in prices asked for the compost produced by making centralized agreements with the private sector to on one hand develop a good compost market and on the other hand protect farmers against high prices in these difficult economic conditions. Summary of compost market figures

Technically feasible compost production on the long term 310,000 tons/year

Size of local compost market 160,000 tons/year

Percentage (separation and composting) of total waste required to serve the local compost market 18 %

Current prices paid for compost USD 50,- to 250,-/ton

Costs for compost production USD 68.-/ton

7.8.4 Proposed composting strategy for Gaza

Optimal composting technology An open air (with roof) aerated pile composting system is recommended for the composting of organic waste streams in Gaza. This guarantees the best balance between process conditions/regulation and cost

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


effectiveness. Furthermore separate collection of the organic waste streams to be composted is recom-mended to guarantee the best compost quality and therefore the best marketing potential. Because of the open-air conditions, recommended for the composting facilities, the capacity of the facility should not be chosen to small. Small capacities will cause problems in the process control during very hot periods in the year. The small heaps with organic matter, that is composting, will be influenced too much during these periods. Larger heaps of organic matter will not be influenced so much. By performing the composting activities in a closed building these influences can be limited but the costs will increase enormously. As a result of the discussion presented above it is not recommended to plan a composting facility for the organic fraction of MSW on (small) community level. The composting facilities should be planned on a larger governorate level. For green waste composting (organic waste streams from for instance parks) composting on community level with smaller and much simpler technologies is possible and can be stimulated. In this paragraph however the focus is put on larger regional composting facilities. Total amount of organic material to be composted In paragraph 7.8.2 the total amount of organic material (separated collected organic fraction of domestic waste and agricultural organic waste) that eventually might be available for composting in Gaza is calculated on a total of 620,000 tons/year, resulting in a compost production of 310,000 tons/year. This production exceeds the potential compost market, calculated for Gaza, with a factor 2. It would therefore be required to also look at the potential of compost markets in the West Bank and Egypt if these compost quantities would be produced. However the penetration of these compost markets outside Gaza is not considered realistic on short notice under the current political situation. Therefore a separation and composting percentage of 18 % for both household and agricultural waste is taken into account for the composting Strategy for Gaza. Based on the domestic waste amount calculated for 2040 this results in a total required composting capacity of 240,000 tons/year of the organic fraction of domestic waste and of 80,000 tons/year of agricultural waste. This results in a potential total compost production of 160,000 tons/year in Gaza in the future, which could just be absorbed by the compost market potential in Gaza. The remaining part of the organic fraction of domestic waste will not be collected separately and will still be landfilled until penetration of compost markets outside Gaza seems feasible. The amount of domestic waste going to the landfill will however be reduced with 18 % as a result of the introduction of composting in the waste management system. The major part of agricultural waste is currently burned at the farms (and partly illegally transported to landfills without being registered). Approximately 10 % is collected by the Ministry and used as fuel or as fodder for animals. Only a small part (approximately 2 %) is currently being composted. This part will be increased to 18 % as a result of the introduction of composting in the waste management system. Technically this percentage could be much higher, but the current market potential of compost prevents this. The fraction of the agricultural, which is recycled or used as fuel or fodder, will in this manner be increased from 12 % to 28 %. By further stimulation of the use of agricultural organic waste as fuel and animal fodder or by working this organic waste in the soil (if suitable) on location the percentage burned on location or landfilled illegally can be reduced even further. Required composting capacity Currently there is almost no composting capacity at all. Between 2011 en 2040 the required capacity will gradually increase based on the increase of the waste quantities produced. In the table below the required

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


composting capacity in various years is shown. This capacity is divided over the various Governorates in Gaza based on the manner in which the population is spread over Gaza. The table shows that between 2011 and 2015 the required composting capacity increases gradually from almost nothing to 58,000 tons/year in 2015. In the next 5 years the required capacity increases further up to 128,000 tons/year in 2021 and 217.000 tons/year in 2026. After 2026 the increase slows down to finally a required capacity of 320,000 tons/year in 2040. The short period of time in which the first 58,000 tons/year of capacity should be realized will require a well set up information campaign and an almost immediate start with this information campaign.

Table 35 Increase in the required composting capacity between 2011 and 2040 Year Composting

Rate (%) Required composting capacity (tons/year)

North Gaza

City

Middle region: Deir Al Beilah/

Khan Yunis Rafah Total

2011 < 1 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 2016 5 13,600 20,400 14,600 9,400 58,000 2021 10 29,400 45,100 33,200 20,300 128,000 2026 15 48,000 74,500 60,000 34,500 217,000 2040 18 67,000 107,000 96,000 50,000 320,000

Required number of the composting facilities and spreading of capacity over Gaza In general the most cost effective capacity for a composting facility is between 25,000 and 50,000 tons/year. This however may be influenced by the costs for transportation of the organic waste to the facilities. In Gaza the transportation distances will be very low and the required capacities high. Therefore the transportation costs will have little influence on the optimal capacity. If separate collection can not be introduced, the mixed waste will have to be separated before composting. The composting facilities should then preferably be combined with a landfill or a transfer station to prevent additional transport of the remaining waste to a landfill and thus additional costs. If separate collected organic waste is composted (as advised) it is suggested to divide the future required capacity over 6 composting facilities with a capacity of 50,000 up to 60,000 tons/year each. Smaller facilities will result in a lower economic efficiency and higher total land use. The locations of these facilities can be spread over the surface area of Gaza. In that situation combining the composting facility with a landfill or transfer station will no longer result in lower transport costs. Any suitable location can be taken into account. However using the existing locations for landfills, transfer stations and also the old dumpsites will limit the number of locations causing odor nuisance and thus limit the risk of odor nuisance for the public. By selecting 6 locations spread over Gaza a composting facility will be available within 5 kms. At least 1 composting facility can be installed in each of the 4 regions described. For Gaza City and the middle region 1 additional facility each is required. Of course the facilities can take in some organic waste from the neighboring governorates to guarantee an optimal capacity management.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The composting facility, planned in Rafah, could be combined with the facility for household waste which is currently under construction. In the North the composting facility could be combined with the current pilot composting initiative at Beit Lahia. One of the composting facilities for the Gaza Region could be located at the site of the current Johr El Deek landfill. If it proofs impossible to find 6 suitable locations combination of 2 composting facilities to 1 large one with a capacity of 100,000 to 110,000 tons/year can be taken into consideration. This may result in slightly lower operational costs per ton of organic waste treated but will also cause more odor and other nuisance for the public living in the surrounding area. In the first years the required total capacity will be much lower. It is therefore recommended to start with preparations for 2 composting plants with a capacity of 25,000 to 30.000 tons/year each. These could be located in the North (Johr al Deek) and in Rafah. In the future the capacity of these facilities could be increased to 50,000 or 60,000 tons/year by constructing an additional composting unit. After this start-up period the additional composting facilities can be realized directly with their final capacity. During the start-up period the organic material coming from the various regions may have to be transported over a larger distance than will be the case when the composting infrastructure is complete. However construction of smaller facilities and upgrading them later to their final capacity is more expensive than the direct construction of a facility with its final capacity. Conceptual design and cost estimates The conceptual design and cost estimates have been worked out in the report “Conceptual design and cost estimates for a “standard” composting plant”. For a composting facility with a yearly capacity of 50,000 tons of separately collected domestic waste (depending on the lay-out and dimensions of the site available) a total surface area is required of approximately 16,600 m2 (11,250 m2 construction area (roof 12,650 m2), 3,750 m2 hardened open surface, 1,600 m2 green area). Schematic presentations of the lay-out and a flow scheme of such composting facilities can be found in the report of the conceptual design and cost estimates. The total investments for a composting facility for separately collected organic waste with a capacity of 50,000 tons/year is calculated at USD 6.3 million, excluding the acquisition costs for 16,600 m2 of land required. If the bag opening drum and rotating drum screen (including a belt conveyer), which are recommended but are not strictly required, are replaced by 15 additional hand pickers, the costs will be reduced with 10 % resulting in investment costs of USD 5.7 million. The treatment costs are calculated on USD 34.1 per ton of organic waste (without costs for land acquisition). This results in production costs for the compost of approximately USD 68.- per ton of compost produced.

Summarized the following composting facilities and capacities are proposed: 2016: Construction composting plant at Rafah - Tel al Sultan: 30,000 tons / yr 2016: Construction composting plant at Johr al Deek: 30,000 tons / year 2021: Expansion Rafah – Tel al Sultan with 30,000 tons / year, 2021: Expansion Johr al Deek with 30,000 tons / year 2026: Construction composting plant at Beit Lahia: 50,000 tons / yr 2026: Construction composting plant at Rafah Landfill, 50,000 tons / yr 2032: Construction composting plant at Deir al Balah, 50,000 tons / yr 2032: Expansion composting plant at Beit Lahia or Johr al Deek, 50,000 tons / yr Total composting capacity 2038: 320,000 ton per year

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


If handpicking is considered as alternative for the various pre-treatment equipment, this will result in a decrease of the operational costs with 4.5 % resulting in treatment costs of USD 32.6/ton and compost production costs of USD 65.- per ton.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


8 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO’S FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

8.1 Alternative Scenario’s

After having set out the current situation on solid waste management in Gaza, this section presents three distinctly different scenarios that represent alternative improvements to the existing services for collection, transfer stations and land disposal. Each scenario has been described as a sequence of logical phases spanning a time line up to 2040. The waste Disposal Forecasts for the three scenarios are presented in the next table

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 10

1 -

Pub

lic

Sce

nario

1Jo

hr a

l Dee

kD

aBSo

faS

cena

rio 2

Johr

al D

eek

DaB

Sofa

Scen

ario

3Jo

hr a

l Dee

kD

aBS

ofa

2011

as b

efor

eas

bef

ore

as b

efor

e20

11as

bef

ore

as b

efor

eas

bef

ore

2011

as b

efor

eas

bef

ore

as b

efor

e20

12 -

2015

ST

expa

nsio

ncl

osed

ST

expa

nsio

n20

12 -

2015

ST

expa

nsio

ncl

osed

ST

expa

nsio

n20

12 -

2015

ST

expa

nsio

ncl

osed

ST

expa

nsio

n20

16 -

2040

LT e

xten

sion

clos

edLT

ext

ensi

on20

16 -

2020

LT e

xten

sion

clos

edLT

ext

ensi

on20

16 -

2040

clos

edcl

osed

LT e

xten

sion

2021

- 20

40cl

osed

clos

edLT

ext

ensi

on

Was

te D

ispo

sal

Dis

posa

lD

ispo

sal

Dis

posa

lD

ispo

sal

Dis

posa

lD

ispo

sal

Dis

posa

lD

ispo

sal

Dis

posa

lTo

tal G

aza

Strip

Johr

al D

eek

Dei

r al B

alah

Sofa

Johr

al D

eek

Dei

r al B

alah

Sofa

Johr

al D

eek

Dei

r al B

alah

Sof

am

3 pe

r yr

Year

Nor

thG

aza

Mid

dle

Raf

ah20

0792

.766

189.

649

108.

064

44.8

6543

5.34

428

2.41

510

8.06

444

.865

282.

415

108.

064

44.8

6528

2.41

510

8.06

444

.865

2008

102.

096

194.

510

109.

973

45.8

1945

2.39

729

6.60

610

9.97

345

.819

296.

606

109.

973

45.8

1929

6.60

610

9.97

345

.819

2009

106.

729

201.

813

113.

363

47.3

9146

9.29

630

8.54

211

3.36

347

.391

308.

542

113.

363

47.3

9130

8.54

211

3.36

347

.391

2010

111.

703

209.

432

116.

868

49.0

1448

7.01

632

1.13

511

6.86

849

.014

321.

135

116.

868

49.0

1432

1.13

511

6.86

849

.014

2011

114.

855

213.

971

121.

810

51.1

9550

1.83

032

8.82

612

1.81

051

.195

328.

826

121.

810

51.1

9532

8.82

612

1.81

051

.195

2012

118.

217

218.

642

126.

966

53.4

7651

7.30

033

6.85

818

0.44

133

6.85

818

0.44

133

6.85

818

0.44

120

1312

1.64

922

3.36

213

2.32

555

.846

533.

181

345.

010

188.

171

345.

010

188.

171

345.

010

188.

171

2014

125.

143

230.

067

137.

864

58.3

0555

1.38

035

5.21

119

6.16

935

5.21

119

6.16

935

5.21

119

6.16

920

1512

7.39

123

4.50

914

2.13

560

.236

564.

271

361.

900

202.

370

361.

900

202.

370

361.

900

202.

370

2016

126.

934

233.

984

143.

436

60.9

1056

5.26

436

0.91

820

4.34

636

0.91

820

4.34

656

5.26

420

1713

0.91

624

1.31

514

9.28

463

.334

584.

849

372.

230

212.

619

372.

230

212.

619

584.

849

2018

134.

905

248.

657

155.

237

65.7

9960

4.59

838

3.56

222

1.03

638

3.56

222

1.03

660

4.59

820

1913

8.89

525

5.99

916

1.28

868

.300

624.

483

394.

894

229.

589

394.

894

229.

589

624.

483

2020

141.

373

260.

556

165.

668

70.0

9163

7.68

840

1.92

923

5.75

840

1.92

923

5.75

863

7.68

820

2113

9.11

625

6.38

616

7.50

870

.690

633.

700

395.

502

238.

198

633.

700

633.

700

2022

142.

855

263.

264

176.

754

74.4

0765

7.27

940

6.11

925

1.16

065

7.27

965

7.27

920

2314

6.56

527

0.09

018

6.35

978

.260

681.

273

416.

655

264.

619

681.

273

681.

273

2024

150.

240

276.

850

196.

326

82.2

5170

5.66

642

7.08

927

8.57

670

5.66

670

5.66

620

2515

2.16

228

0.37

920

4.36

185

.419

722.

321

432.

541

289.

780

722.

321

722.

321

2026

148.

705

273.

998

205.

280

85.6

1071

3.59

242

2.70

229

0.88

971

3.59

271

3.59

220

2715

2.03

228

0.11

521

5.72

989

.769

737.

645

432.

147

305.

498

737.

645

737.

645

2028

155.

296

286.

118

226.

523

94.0

5976

1.99

644

1.41

432

0.58

276

1.99

676

1.99

620

2915

8.49

129

1.99

123

7.66

298

.477

786.

621

450.

482

336.

139

786.

621

786.

621

2030

161.

609

297.

723

249.

142

103.

022

811.

496

459.

331

352.

165

811.

496

811.

496

2031

164.

643

303.

298

260.

961

105.

425

834.

327

467.

941

366.

386

834.

327

834.

327

2032

165.

614

305.

074

267.

487

106.

040

844.

214

470.

688

373.

526

844.

214

844.

214

2033

168.

425

310.

238

272.

025

107.

832

858.

521

478.

663

379.

858

858.

521

858.

521

2034

171.

132

315.

211

276.

396

109.

559

872.

298

486.

343

385.

955

872.

298

872.

298

2035

171.

660

316.

170

277.

249

109.

890

874.

969

487.

830

387.

138

874.

969

874.

969

2036

174.

110

320.

669

281.

205

111.

451

887.

435

494.

779

392.

655

887.

435

887.

435

2037

176.

438

324.

943

284.

964

112.

934

899.

280

501.

382

397.

898

899.

280

899.

280

2038

176.

487

325.

018

285.

041

112.

958

899.

504

501.

505

397.

999

899.

504

899.

504

2039

178.

529

328.

765

288.

339

114.

257

909.

891

507.

295

402.

596

909.

891

909.

891

2040

180.

435

332.

260

291.

415

115.

469

919.

579

512.

694

406.

884

919.

579

919.

579

Was

te D

ispo

sal i

n m

3 pe

r yea

r

Was

te D

ispo

sal F

orec

asts

Tab

le 3

6 W

aste

Dis

po

sal F

ore

cast

s fo

r th

e th

ree

scen

ario

s

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


For each of the scenarios, it is assumed that the waste recycling and composting percentages will be realized in accordance with the recommendations presented in previous chapter. First the three alternative scenarios are presented in technical, logistic and organizational terms. Next, the scenarios will be compared based on technical, financial, social, environmental, institutional and political criteria. Finally, the preferred scenario will be recommended on the basis of this multi-criteria assessment.

8.1.1 Primary Collection and Transportation

For all scenario’s it is assumed that the currently applied temporary storage sites throughout Gaza will either be closed or cleared, or will be transformed into small transfer stations. The remaining transfer stations shall enable donkey carts and small vehicles to discharge their waste at relative short distances. From here larger vehicles will either transfer the waste to Johr al Deek landfill or to Rafah landfill. For all scenarios the following approach is foreseen for the temporary waste storage locations:

Table 37 Temporary waste storage and transfer

Location


North Gaza Bei Lahia Temporary Waste

Storage Site Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer Station to serve North Gaza

Um al Nasser Temporary Waste Storage Site

Site will be cleaned and abandoned

Beit Hanoon Temporary Waste Storage Site


Gaza City



Site will be cleaned and will remain in operation as transfer station

Al Maslakhi Temporary Storage Site

Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer Station to serve Gaza Governorate

Al Karama Temporary Waste Storage Site


Deir al Balah

Deir al Balah None yet New transfer station will be established for Deir al Balah

Khan Yunis

Al Namsawi Temporary Waste Storage Site

Site will be cleaned, and transformed into Transfer Station to serve Khan Yunis

Rafah

Tel al Sultan Temporary Waste Storage Site

(1) Dump site will be covered and closed. (2) Composting plant will be expanded. (3) Transfer station will be constructed.

The years 2015, 2020 and 2040 have been taken as base years for schematizing the waste streams under the different scenarios. The collected waste flows for all scenarios are provided in the next table.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 38 Collected Waste Flows – all scenarios

Region Transfer / Waste Flow (tons / day) Distance to Transport

2015 2020 2040 Landfill (or Bulk

transfer site) North Gaza Through Beit Lahia 212 240 346 12 km

Direct to Johr al Deek 206 233 336 12 km

Gaza City Through Yarmuk 320 361 522 8 km

Through Al Al Mashlakh 100 113 163 3 km

Direct to Johr al Deek 351 397 572 8 km

Middle Area Through Deir al Balah TS 208 235 339 23 km

Through Al Namsawi 159 180 259 11 km

Direct to Rafah 100 113 163 15 km

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 98 111 160 15 km

Direct to Rafah 100 113 163 10 km

TOTAL 1854 2096 3023

To facilitate the collection of these waste flows, it is foreseen that the following waste collection and transportation means will be required for all scenarios. In this set up it is foreseen that gradually the use of donkey carts (3 tons / day) will be replaced by small tractors (10 tons / day). Below table assumes that still 90% of the waste is still collected with donkey carts in 2015, going down to 50% in 2020 and finally to 10% in 2040. Table 39 Required collection staff and means for all scenarios

2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040North Gaza Through Beit Lahia

141 160 231 127 80 23 2 12 31Direct to LF 137 155 224 124 78 22 2 12 30

Gaza City Through Yarmuk 213 241 348 192 120 35 3 18 47Through Al Al Mashlakh

67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15Direct to LF 234 265 381 211 132 38 4 20 51

Middle Area Through Deir al Balah 139 157 226 125 78 23 2 12 31Through Al Namsawi 106 120 173 95 60 17 2 9 23Direct 67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 65 74 107 59 37 11 1 6 14Direct 67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15

TOTAL 1236 1397 2016 1112 699 202 19 105 272

Collection requirements Donkey Carts 1,5 ton/day) Tractors (10 ton / day)Workers (1,5 ton/day)

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 40 Required transportation means (to landfills) for all scenarios

50% large trucks (40 ton / day)2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040

North Gaza Through Beit Lahia7 8 12 3 3 4

Direct to LF 7 8 11 3 3 4Gaza City Through Yarmuk 11 12 17 4 5 7

Through Al Al Mashlakh3 4 5 1 1 2

Direct to LF 12 13 19 4 5 7Middle Area Through Deir al Balah TS 7 8 11 3 3 4

Through Al Namsawi 5 6 9 2 2 3Direct 3 4 5 1 1 2

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 3 4 5 1 1 2Direct 3 4 5 1 1 2

TOTAL 62 70 101 23 26 38

Transport Requirement 50% Small trucks (15 ton / day)

Table 41 Required Petrol Needs for collection and primary transportation

2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040North Gaza Through Beit Lahia

40.238 87.600 186.909 25.793 29.200 42.097Direct to LF 39.099 85.045 181.507 25.063 28.348 40.880

Gaza City Through Yarmuk 60.736 131.765 281.984 38.933 43.922 63.510Through Al Al Mashlakh

18.980 41.245 88.053 12.167 13.748 19.832Direct to LF 66.620 144.905 308.994 42.705 48.302 69.593

Middle Through Deir al Balah TS 39.478 85.775 183.128 25.307 28.592 41.245Through Al Namsawi 30.178 65.700 139.912 19.345 21.900 31.512Direct 18.980 41.245 88.053 12.167 13.748 19.832

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 18.600 40.515 86.432 11.923 13.505 19.467Direct 18.980 41.245 88.053 12.167 13.748 19.832

TOTAL 351.889 765.040 1.633.025 225.570 255.013 367.798

Large trucks (liters / yr)Petrol Requirements Small trucks (liters / yr)

This leads to the following total costs for primary collection, transfer and transport for all scenarios.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 10

5 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 4

2 P

rim

ary

Co

llect

ion

an

d T

ran

sfer

Op

erat

ing

Co

sts

(all

scen

ario

s)

Yea

rC

olle

cted

Was

teN

o of

wor

kers

Sal

arie

sO

verh

ead

Don

key

cart

sP

etro

lP

etro

lC

ar M

aint

ton

/ day

requ

ired

(230

0 N

IS /

mon

th)

(80%

)(1

,5 to

n/da

y)T

ract

ors

Tru

cks

2% o

f(1

.5 to

n/w

/d)

US

D /

yrU

SD

/ yr

(20

NIS

mon

th)

(4 N

IS /

l)(4

NIS

/l)in

v pe

r yr

1 U

SD

= 4

NIS

US

D /

yrU

SD

/ yr

US

D /

yrU

SD

/ yr

US

D to

tal

US

D p

er to

n

2013

1771

1180

8.14

4.90

46.

515.

923

76.6

7418

6.62

921

3.79

310

6.23

615

.244

.159

23,5

920

1418

3112

218.

422.

902

6.73

8.32

171

.709

269.

259

219.

681

118.

008

15.8

39.8

8023

,70

2015

1893

1262

8.70

7.78

76.

966.

230

66.7

4435

1.88

922

5.57

012

9.78

016

.448

.000

23,8

120

1619

5613

048.

998.

576

7.19

8.86

161

.779

434.

519

231.

459

141.

552

17.0

66.7

4523

,90

2017

2024

1349

9.31

0.35

97.

448.

287

56.8

1451

7.15

023

7.34

715

3.32

417

.723

.281

23,9

920

1820

9213

959.

624.

753

7.69

9.80

251

.850

599.

780

243.

236

165.

096

18.3

84.5

1624

,07

2019

2161

1441

9.94

1.29

57.

953.

036

46.8

8568

2.41

024

9.12

517

6.86

819

.049

.619

24,1

520

2022

3014

8710

.259

.502

8.20

7.60

241

.920

765.

040

255.

013

188.

640

19.7

17.7

1724

,22

2021

2315

1543

10.6

48.4

758.

518.

780

40.4

2980

8.43

926

0.65

319

5.83

520

.472

.609

24,2

320

2224

0116

0111

.044

.690

8.83

5.75

238

.937

851.

838

266.

292

203.

029

21.2

40.5

3824

,24

2023

2489

1659

11.4

47.8

819.

158.

305

37.4

4689

5.23

827

1.93

121

0.22

422

.021

.023

24,2

420

2425

7817

1911

.857

.759

9.48

6.20

735

.954

938.

637

277.

570

217.

418

22.8

13.5

4524

,25

2025

2668

1779

12.2

74.0

109.

819.

208

34.4

6398

2.03

628

3.21

022

4.61

323

.617

.539

24,2

520

2627

6018

4012

.696

.297

10.1

57.0

3832

.972

1.02

5.43

528

8.84

923

1.80

724

.432

.398

24,2

520

2728

5319

0213

.124

.259

10.4

99.4

0731

.480

1.06

8.83

529

4.48

823

9.00

225

.257

.471

24,2

520

2829

4719

6513

.557

.511

10.8

46.0

0929

.989

1.11

2.23

430

0.12

724

6.19

626

.092

.066

24,2

520

2930

4320

2813

.995

.644

11.1

96.5

1528

.497

1.15

5.63

330

5.76

725

3.39

126

.935

.447

24,2

520

3031

3920

9214

.438

.226

11.5

50.5

8127

.006

1.19

9.03

231

1.40

626

0.58

527

.786

.836

24,2

520

3132

2721

5114

.844

.428

11.8

75.5

4225

.515

1.24

2.43

231

7.04

526

7.78

028

.572

.741

24,2

620

3233

0422

0315

.199

.154

12.1

59.3

2324

.023

1.28

5.83

132

2.68

427

4.97

429

.265

.989

24,2

720

3333

6022

4015

.456

.735

12.3

65.3

8822

.532

1.32

9.23

032

8.32

428

2.16

929

.784

.377

24,2

820

3434

1422

7615

.704

.772

12.5

63.8

1721

.040

1.37

2.62

933

3.96

328

9.36

330

.285

.585

24,3

020

3534

6623

1115

.942

.655

12.7

54.1

2419

.549

1.41

6.02

833

9.60

229

6.55

830

.768

.516

24,3

220

3635

1523

4316

.169

.795

12.9

35.8

3618

.058

1.45

9.42

834

5.24

130

3.75

231

.232

.109

24,3

420

3735

6223

7516

.385

.618

13.1

08.4

9416

.566

1.50

2.82

735

0.88

131

0.94

731

.675

.333

24,3

620

3836

0624

0416

.589

.576

13.2

71.6

6115

.075

1.54

6.22

635

6.52

031

8.14

132

.097

.199

24,3

820

3936

4824

3216

.781

.144

13.4

24.9

1513

.583

1.58

9.62

536

2.15

932

5.33

632

.496

.762

24,4

120

4036

8724

5816

.959

.821

13.5

67.8

5712

.092

1.63

3.02

536

7.79

833

2.53

032

.873

.123

24,4

3

TO

TA

LP

rim

ary

colle

ctio

n a

nd

tra

nsf

er c

ost

s (o

per

atio

nal

exp

ense

s)

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


8.1.2 Scenario 1 – Two Long Term Sanitary Landfills (2040)

Under this scenario it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served until the year 2040 by two sanitary landfills: one located at Johr al Deek to serve the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza; and the other located at Rafah to serve the governorates of Deir al Balah, Khan Yunis and Rafah. The site selection process for these two sanitary landfills as appropriate locations has been described in section 3.6. Within this scenario, waste collection services will be provided by the current waste service providers, making use of an improved waste collection fleet. It is foreseen that donkey carts remain to be used for preliminary collection of waste from the individual households in the various service areas. Additionally, new waste collection vehicles and sufficient staff will be required for adequate collection of waste from the numerous street containers, and for transporting bulk transport of the waste to the two sanitary landfills. Details on how to upgrade the current collection facilities are presented in section 7.2. It is assumed that the currently applied temporary storage sites throughout Gaza will either be closed or cleared, or will be transformed into small transfer stations. The remaining transfer stations shall enable donkey carts and small vehicles to discharge their waste at relative short distances. From here larger vehicles will either transfer the waste to Johr al Deek landfill or to Rafah landfill. The waste flows under scenario 1 are schematized in the figure below.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 14 Waste Flows Scenario 1

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Disposal Under scenario 1 all waste is either disposed of at Johr al Deek Landfill, or at Rafah landfill. The disposal quantities are the following: Table 43 Disposal Forecasts Scenario 1

DisposalDeir al Balah

Waste Soil cover m3 / yr Waste Soil coverCell Year m3 / yr m3 / yr m3 m dunum m3 / yr m3 / yr m3 m dunum

2007 282.415 108.064 44.8652008 296.606 109.973 45.8192009 308.542 113.363 47.3912010 321.135 116.868 49.0142011 328.826 121.810 51.1952012 336.858 37.429 180.441 20.0492013 345.010 38.334 188.171 20.9082014 355.211 39.468 196.169 21.797

2015 361.900 40.211 202.370 22.4862016 360.918 40.102 204.346 22.7052017 372.230 41.359 212.619 23.6242018 383.562 42.618 221.036 24.5602019 394.894 43.877 229.589 25.5102020 401.929 44.659 235.758 26.1952021 395.502 43.945 238.198 26.4662022 406.119 45.124 251.160 27.9072023 416.655 46.295 264.619 29.4022024 427.089 47.454 278.576 30.9532025 432.541 48.060 289.780 32.1982026 422.702 46.967 290.889 32.3212027 432.147 48.016 305.498 33.9442028 441.414 49.046 320.582 35.6202029 450.482 50.054 336.139 37.3492030 459.331 51.037 352.165 39.1292031 467.941 51.993 366.386 40.7102032 470.688 52.299 373.526 41.5032033 478.663 53.185 379.858 42.2062034 486.343 54.038 385.955 42.8842035 487.830 54.203 387.138 43.0152036 494.779 54.975 392.655 43.6282037 501.382 55.709 397.898 44.2112038 501.505 55.723 397.999 44.2222039 507.295 56.366 402.596 44.7332040 512.694 56.966 406.884 45.209

Total Area (dunum) 398 Total Area (dunum) 26439

56,9

Scenario 1

39

45,7

39

53,9

39

31,4

39

37,7

Cell

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

22

38,7

1.78

3.63

7 2.

103.

181

2.22

0.03

6

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Vol

ume

852.

391

1.22

5.94

2 1.

469.

260

39

DisposalSofa Landfill

Vol

ume

39

Cell

DisposalJohr al Deek

19

39

39

39

81,8

54,5

59,2

62,9

68,1

71,7

LT C

ell 3

LT C

ell 4

LT C

ell 5

1.55

4.42

2 2.

126.

149

2.30

8.78

3 2.

451.

197

2.65

7.18

3 2.

797.

394

past

/ pr

esen

tS

TLT

Cel

l 1LT

Cel

l 2

An outline of the required disposal capacities under Scenario 1 for Rafah and Johr al Deek is provided in the next figures.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 15 Disposal Rafah landfill – Scenario 1

P = Leachate Pond ST = Short Term Disposal (2012 – 2015) RC = Reception Area C/R = Composting / recycling area TR/TS = Bulk Transfer Station / Temporary Storage Area Cells = Long term disposal

Figure 16 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenarios 1

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


8.1.3 Scenario 2 – One Long Term (2040) and One Interim (2020) Landfill

Collection and Transportation One of the clear constraints of scenario 1 is the available space for extension of Johr al Deek landfill is located not more than 300 m from the Israeli border, while ideally this would be 500 m. This might pose risks in terms in accessibility and safety. Under scenario 2 it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served until the year 2020 (in stead of 2040) by Johr al Deek for the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza. From 2020 onwards, all waste from Gaza Strip will be disposed of at Rafah landfill. Obviously this will require less disposal space at Johr al Deek and more space at Rafah compared to scenario 1. Starting from 2021, a bulk transfer station will be positioned at the entrance of Johr al Deek, to facilitate bulk transport from the northern governorates to Rafah. Also, some space will be reserved at Johr al Deek for temporary storage of waste in case Israel would invade Gaza and block temporarily transport routes from north to south. From 2021 onwards, a Gaza-wide Joint Service Council will take over responsibility for operating the one central landfill at Rafah as well as for operating bulk transfer at Johr al Deek and bulk transport between the two. The waste flows under scenario 2 are schematized in the figure below. Within scenario 2, waste collection services will be provided by the current waste service providers until 2020, making use of an improved waste collection fleet. It is foreseen that donkey carts remain to be important for preliminary collection of waste from the individual households in the various service areas. Additionally, new waste collection vehicles and sufficient staff will be required for adequate collection of waste from the numerous street containers, and for transporting transport of the waste to the central locations (Johr al Deek and Rafah). In addition, starting from 2021, high capacity transport vehicles will be required for bulk transport between Johr al Deek Bulk Transfer Station and Rafah Landfill.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 44 Bulk Transport Johr al Deek --> Rafah under scenario 2

Year Bulk transport Distance Container trucks Total Petrol(ton / day) (km) (15 tons / trip) km per day Requirement

(2 trips per day) (liter / year)2021 1445 28 48 2697 492.1802022 1484 28 49 2769 505.3922023 1522 28 51 2841 518.5042024 1560 28 52 2912 531.4892025 1598 28 53 2983 544.3212026 1635 28 54 3052 556.9732027 1671 28 56 3120 569.4172028 1707 28 57 3187 581.6282029 1742 28 58 3252 593.5772030 1777 28 59 3316 605.2372031 1810 28 60 3379 616.5812032 1842 28 61 3439 627.5832033 1873 28 62 3497 638.2172034 1903 28 63 3553 648.4572035 1932 28 64 3607 658.2772036 1960 28 65 3658 667.6542037 1986 28 66 3707 676.5632038 2011 28 67 3753 684.9832039 2034 28 68 3797 692.8902040 2056 28 69 3837 700.266

The bulk transport indicated below with the thick blue line will be effective from 2020 onwards.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 17 Waste Flows Scenarios 2 (and 3)

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Disposal Under scenario 2 all waste is either disposed of at Johr al Deek Landfill, or at Rafah landfill until 2020. Afterwards all waste will be disposed of at Rafah. The disposal quantities are the following: Table 45 Disposal Forecasts Scenario 2



2007 282.415 108.064 44.8652008 296.606 109.973 45.8192009 308.542 113.363 47.3912010 321.135 116.868 49.0142011 328.826 121.810 51.1952012 336.858 37.429 180.441 20.0492013 345.010 38.334 188.171 20.9082014 355.211 39.468 196.169 21.797

2015 361.900 40.211 202.370 22.4862016 360.918 40.102 204.346 22.7052017 372.230 41.359 212.619 23.6242018 383.562 42.618 221.036 24.5602019 394.894 43.877 229.589 25.5102020 401.929 44.659 235.758 26.1952021 633.700 70.4112022 657.279 73.0312023 681.273 75.6972024 705.666 78.4072025 722.321 80.2582026 713.592 79.2882027 737.645 81.9612028 761.996 84.6662029 786.621 87.4022030 811.496 90.1662031 834.327 92.7032032 844.214 93.8022033 858.521 95.3912034 872.298 96.9222035 874.969 97.2192036 887.435 98.6042037 899.280 99.9202038 899.504 99.9452039 909.891 101.0992040 919.579 102.175


4.76

0.36

4

39

122,

1

LT C

ell 5

5.01

7.43

0

39

128,

7

LT C

ell 4

3.77

8.04

3

39

96,9

LT C

ell 3

4.23

4.83

4

39

108,

6

LT C

ell 2

852.

391

22

38,7

LT C

ell 1

2.12

6.14

9

39

54,5

1.22

5.94

2

39

31,4

ST

1.55

4.42

2

19

81,8

Cell Cell

past

/ pr

esen

t

Vol

ume

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Vol

ume

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Scenario 2Disposal Disposal

Johr al Deek Sofa Landfill

An outline of the required disposal capacities under Scenario 2 for Rafah and Johr al Deek is provided in the next figures.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC



P = Leachate Pond ST = Short Term Disposal (2012 – 2015) RA = Reception Area C/R = Composting / recycling area TR/TS = Transfer Station / Temporary Storage (from 2020)

Figure 19 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenario 2

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


8.1.4 Scenario 3 – One Long Term Sanitary Landfill (2040)

Collection and Transportation Under scenario 3 it is assumed that the Gaza Strip will be served only for the short term, until 2015 (in stead of 2040 or 2020) by Johr al Deek for the governorates of Gaza City and North Gaza. From 2016 onwards, all waste from Gaza Strip will be disposed of at Rafah landfill. This will require again less disposal space at Johr al Deek and more space at Rafah compared to scenarios 1 and 2. Starting from 2016, a bulk transfer station will be positioned at the entrance of Johr al Deek, to facilitate bulk transport from the northern governorates to Rafah. Also, some space will be reserved at Johr al Deek for temporary storage of waste in case Israel would invade Gaza and block temporarily transport routes from north to south. From 2016 onwards, a Gaza-wide Joint Service Council will take over responsibility for operating the one central landfill at Rafah as well as for operating bulk transfer at Johr al Deek and bulk transport between the two. The waste flows under scenario 3 are schematized in the figure below. Within scenario 3, waste collection services will be provided by the current waste service providers until 2016, making use of an improved waste collection fleet. It is foreseen that donkey carts remain to be important for preliminary collection of waste from the individual households in the various service areas. Additionally, new waste collection vehicles and sufficient staff will be required for adequate collection of waste from the numerous street containers, and for transporting transport of the waste to the central locations (Johr al Deek and Rafah). In addition, starting from 2016, high capacity transport vehicles will be required for bulk transport between Johr al Deek Bulk Transfer Station and Rafah Landfill.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 46 Bulk Transport Johr al Deek --> Rafah under scenario 3

Year Bulk transport Distance Container trucks Total Petrol(ton / day) (km) (15 tons / trip) km per day Requirement

(2 trips per day) (liter / year)2016 1249 28 42 2332 425.5042017 1288 28 43 2405 438.8402018 1327 28 44 2478 452.2002019 1367 28 46 2551 465.5592020 1406 28 47 2624 478.8942021 1445 28 48 2697 492.1802022 1484 28 49 2769 505.3922023 1522 28 51 2841 518.5042024 1560 28 52 2912 531.4892025 1598 28 53 2983 544.3212026 1635 28 54 3052 556.9732027 1671 28 56 3120 569.4172028 1707 28 57 3187 581.6282029 1742 28 58 3252 593.5772030 1777 28 59 3316 605.2372031 1810 28 60 3379 616.5812032 1842 28 61 3439 627.5832033 1873 28 62 3497 638.2172034 1903 28 63 3553 648.4572035 1932 28 64 3607 658.2772036 1960 28 65 3658 667.6542037 1986 28 66 3707 676.5632038 2011 28 67 3753 684.9832039 2034 28 68 3797 692.8902040 2056 28 69 3837 700.266

The bulk transport indicated below with the thick blue line will be effective from 2016 onwards.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 20 Waste flows Scenarios 2 (and 3)

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Disposal Under scenario 3 all waste is either disposed of at Johr al Deek Landfill, or at Rafah landfill until 2015. Afterwards all waste will be disposed of at Rafah. The disposal quantities are the following: Table 47 Disposal Forecasts Scenario 3



2007 282.415 108.064 44.8652008 296.606 109.973 45.8192009 308.542 113.363 47.3912010 321.135 116.868 49.0142011 328.826 121.810 51.1952012 336.858 37.429 180.441 20.0492013 345.010 38.334 188.171 20.9082014 355.211 39.468 196.169 21.797

2015 361.900 40.211 202.370 22.4862016 565.264 62.8072017 584.849 64.9832018 604.598 67.1782019 624.483 69.3872020 637.688 70.8542021 633.700 70.4112022 657.279 73.0312023 681.273 75.6972024 705.666 78.4072025 722.321 80.2582026 713.592 79.2882027 737.645 81.9612028 761.996 84.6662029 786.621 87.4022030 811.496 90.1662031 834.327 92.7032032 844.214 93.8022033 858.521 95.3912034 872.298 96.9222035 874.969 97.2192036 887.435 98.6042037 899.280 99.9202038 899.504 99.9452039 909.891 101.0992040 919.579 102.175


4.76

0.36

4

39

122,

1

LT C

ell 5

5.01

7.43

0

39

128,

7

LT C

ell 4

3.77

8.04

3

39

96,9

LT C

ell 3

4.23

4.83

4

39

108,

6

LT C

ell 2

852.

391

22

38,7

LT C

ell 1

3.35

2.09

0

39

86,0

ST

1.55

4.42

2

19

81,8

Cell Cell

past

/ pr

esen

t

Vol

ume

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Vol

ume

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Scenario 3Disposal Disposal

Johr al Deek Sofa Landfill

An outline of the required disposal capacities under Scenario 3 for Rafah and Johr al Deek is provided in the next figures. It should be noted the extensive space needed for Rafah landfill under this scenario requires that the entrance road at the left hand side of the landfill has to be re-routed. This implies some extra investment costs.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC



P = Leachate Pond ST = Short Term Disposal (2012 – 2015) RA = Reception Area C/R = Composting / recycling area TR/TS = Transfer Station / Temporary Storage (from 2016)

Figure 22 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill – Scenario 3

8.2 Expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX) for the three Alternative Scenarios

The Capital and Operational Expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX) for each scenario are presented hereafter. The presented OPEX for the alternative scenarios are excluding the costs for aftercare after closure of the landfills.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

0 -

Pub

lic

Cap

ital

Exp

end

itu

res

(CA

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 1

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Cle

anin

g T

rans

fer

ST

JaD

Clo

sure

ST

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k LT

JaD

LT S

ofa

Com

post

ing

CA

PE

XV

ehic

les

Dum

psite

sS

tatio

nsLa

ndfil

lD

eir

al B

alah

Land

fill

tran

sfer

tran

spor

tLa

ndfil

lLa

ndfil

lS

trat

egy

2012

$020

13$1

9.98

9.00

0$6

.489

.000

$1.5

00.0

00$6

.800

.000

$1.6

00.0

00$3

.600

.000

2014

$1.0

50.0

00$1

.050

.000

2015

$15.

169.

000

$1.2

69.0

00$7

.400

.000

$6.5

00.0

0020

16$1

4.20

0.00

0$3

.500

.000

$1.7

00.0

00$9

.000

.000

2017

$020

18$2

.027

.500

$2.0

27.5

0020

19$0

2020

$9.1

00.0

00$5

.700

.000

$3.4

00.0

0020

21$4

.600

.000

$4.6

00.0

0020

22$0

2023

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2024

$020

25$1

1.30

0.00

0$6

.600

.000

$4.7

00.0

0020

26$1

2.60

0.00

0$1

2.60

0.00

020

27$0

2028

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2029

$020

30$1

2.00

0.00

0$7

.000

.000

$5.0

00.0

0020

31$0

2032

$6.3

00.0

00$6

.300

.000

2033

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2034

$020

35$1

2.60

0.00

0$7

.300

.000

$5.3

00.0

0020

36$0

2037

$020

38$8

.327

.500

$2.0

27.5

00$6

.300

.000

2039

$020

40$7

.500

.000

$4.0

00.0

00$3

.500

.000

2041

$020

42$0

2043

$0T

OT

AL

$142

.845

.500

$16.

626.

500

$1.5

00.0

00$2

.319

.000

$6.8

00.0

00$1

.600

.000

$3.6

00.0

00$0

$0$4

1.50

0.00

0$3

0.10

0.00

0$3

8.80

0.00

0

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

1 -

Pub

lic

Cap

ital

Exp

end

itu

res

(CA

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 2

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Cle

anin

g T

rans

fer

ST

JaD

Clo

sure

ST

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k LT

JaD

LT S

ofa

Com

post

ing

CA

PE

XV

ehic

les

Dum

psite

sS

tatio

nsLa

ndfil

lD

eir

al B

alah

Land

fill

tran

sfer

tran

spor

tLa

ndfil

lLa

ndfil

lS

trat

egy

2012

$020

13$1

9.98

9.00

0$6

.489

.000

$1.5

00.0

00$6

.800

.000

$1.6

00.0

00$3

.600

.000

2014

$1.0

50.0

00$1

.050

.000

2015

$15.

169.

000

$1.2

69.0

00$7

.400

.000

$6.5

00.0

0020

16$1

4.20

0.00

0$3

.500

.000

$1.7

00.0

00$9

.000

.000

2017

$020

18$2

.027

.500

$2.0

27.5

0020

19$0

2020

$13.

300.

000

$1.2

00.0

00$1

.500

.000

$1.3

00.0

00$9

.300

.000

2021

$4.6

00.0

00$4

.600

.000

2022

$020

23$2

.027

.500

$2.0

27.5

0020

24$1

50.0

00$1

50.0

0020

25$9

.700

.000

$9.7

00.0

0020

26$1

2.60

0.00

0$1

2.60

0.00

020

27$0

2028

$2.1

77.5

00$2

.027

.500

$150

.000

2029

$020

30$1

0.00

0.00

0$1

0.00

0.00

020

31$0

2032

$6.4

50.0

00$1

50.0

00$6

.300

.000

2033

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2034

$020

35$1

2.40

0.00

0$1

2.40

0.00

020

36$1

50.0

00$1

50.0

0020

37$0

2038

$8.3

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

$6.3

00.0

0020

39$0

2040

$6.8

00.0

00$6

.800

.000

2041

$020

42$0

2043

$0T

OT

AL

$143

.145

.500

$16.

626.

500

$1.5

00.0

00$2

.319

.000

$6.8

00.0

00$1

.600

.000

$3.6

00.0

00$1

.200

.000

$2.1

00.0

00$1

2.20

0.00

0$5

6.40

0.00

0$3

8.80

0.00

0

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

2 -

Pub

lic

Cap

ital

Exp

end

itu

res

(CA

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 3

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Cle

anin

g T

rans

fer

ST

JaD

Clo

sure

ST

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k LT

JaD

LT S

ofa

Com

post

ing

CA

PE

XV

ehic

les

Dum

psite

sS

tatio

nsLa

ndfil

lD

eir

al B

alah

Land

fill

tran

sfer

tran

spor

tLa

ndfil

lLa

ndfil

lS

trat

egy

2012

$020

13$1

9.98

9.00

0$6

.489

.000

$1.5

00.0

00$6

.800

.000

$1.6

00.0

00$3

.600

.000

2014

$1.0

50.0

00$1

.050

.000

2015

$12.

819.

000

$1.2

69.0

00$1

.200

.000

$1.3

50.0

00$9

.000

.000

2016

$14.

200.

000

$3.5

00.0

00$1

.700

.000

$9.0

00.0

0020

17$0

2018

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2019

$150

.000

$150

.000

2020

$9.3

00.0

00$9

.300

.000

2021

$4.6

00.0

00$4

.600

.000

2022

$020

23$2

.177

.500

$2.0

27.5

00$1

50.0

0020

24$0

2025

$9.7

00.0

00$9

.700

.000

2026

$12.

600.

000

$12.

600.

000

2027

$150

.000

$150

.000

2028

$2.0

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

2029

$020

30$1

0.00

0.00

0$1

0.00

0.00

020

31$1

50.0

00$1

50.0

0020

32$6

.300

.000

$6.3

00.0

0020

33$2

.027

.500

$2.0

27.5

0020

34$0

2035

$12.

550.

000

$150

.000

$12.

400.

000

2036

$020

37$0

2038

$8.3

27.5

00$2

.027

.500

$6.3

00.0

0020

39$1

50.0

00$1

50.0

0020

40$8

.100

.000

$8.1

00.0

0020

41$0

2042

$020

43$0

TO

TA

L$1

38.3

95.5

00$1

6.62

6.50

0$1

.500

.000

$2.3

19.0

00$6

.800

.000

$1.6

00.0

00$3

.600

.000

$1.2

00.0

00$2

.250

.000

$3.5

00.0

00$6

0.20

0.00

0$3

8.80

0.00

0

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

3 -

Pub

lic

Op

erat

ion

al E

xpen

dit

ure

s (O

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 1

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Was

te

JaD

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k C

ompo

stin

gIn

stitu

tiona

lG

SW

MO

PE

XT

rans

port

atio

nT

rans

fer

Land

fill

Land

fill

Tra

nsfe

rT

rans

port

Str

ateg

yD

ev p

roje

ctP

MU

2012

2013

$16.

579.

931

$15.

244.

159

$517

.516

$282

.256

$400

.000

$136

.000

2014

$17.

974.

950

$15.

839.

880

$800

.000

$532

.816

$294

.253

$372

.000

$136

.000

2015

$19.

001.

464

$16.

448.

000

$827

.058

$542

.851

$303

.556

$744

.000

$136

.000

2016

$20.

021.

318

$17.

066.

745

$854

.677

$541

.377

$306

.518

$1.1

16.0

00$1

36.0

0020

17$2

1.10

8.84

5$1

7.72

3.28

1$8

84.2

90$5

58.3

46$3

18.9

28$1

.488

.000

$136

.000

2018

$22.

201.

565

$18.

384.

516

$914

.151

$575

.343

$331

.554

$1.8

60.0

00$1

36.0

0020

19$2

3.29

8.55

8$1

9.04

9.61

9$9

44.2

16$5

92.3

41$3

44.3

83$2

.232

.000

$136

.000

2020

$24.

388.

687

$19.

717.

717

$974

.439

$602

.894

$353

.638

$2.6

04.0

00$1

36.0

0020

21$2

5.54

6.54

2$2

0.47

2.60

9$1

.011

.383

$593

.253

$357

.297

$2.9

76.0

00$1

36.0

0020

22$2

6.75

9.47

1$2

1.24

0.53

8$1

.049

.015

$609

.178

$376

.741

$3.3

48.0

00$1

36.0

0020

23$2

7.98

6.24

3$2

2.02

1.02

3$1

.087

.310

$624

.982

$396

.928

$3.7

20.0

00$1

36.0

0020

24$2

9.22

6.28

3$2

2.81

3.54

5$1

.126

.240

$640

.634

$417

.865

$4.0

92.0

00$1

36.0

0020

25$3

0.46

6.79

5$2

3.61

7.53

9$1

.165

.775

$648

.811

$434

.671

$4.4

64.0

00$1

36.0

0020

26$3

1.68

0.66

8$2

4.43

2.39

8$1

.205

.883

$634

.054

$436

.334

$4.8

36.0

00$1

36.0

0020

27$3

2.95

4.47

0$2

5.25

7.47

1$1

.246

.531

$648

.221

$458

.247

$5.2

08.0

00$1

36.0

0020

28$3

4.23

8.74

1$2

6.09

2.06

6$1

.287

.681

$662

.121

$480

.873

$5.5

80.0

00$1

36.0

0020

29$3

5.53

2.67

3$2

6.93

5.44

7$1

.329

.294

$675

.723

$504

.208

$5.9

52.0

00$1

36.0

0020

30$3

6.83

5.41

0$2

7.78

6.83

6$1

.371

.330

$688

.997

$528

.247

$6.3

24.0

00$1

36.0

0020

31$3

8.06

6.14

2$2

8.57

2.74

1$1

.409

.911

$701

.912

$549

.578

$6.6

96.0

00$1

36.0

0020

32$3

9.17

9.91

3$2

9.26

5.98

9$1

.443

.603

$706

.031

$560

.289

$7.0

68.0

00$1

36.0

0020

33$4

0.11

6.22

6$2

9.78

4.37

7$1

.468

.067

$717

.994

$569

.787

$7.4

40.0

00$1

36.0

0020

34$4

1.03

3.65

7$3

0.28

5.58

5$1

.491

.626

$729

.514

$578

.932

$7.8

12.0

00$1

36.0

0020

35$4

1.91

5.18

9$3

0.76

8.51

6$1

.514

.220

$731

.746

$580

.707

$8.1

84.0

00$1

36.0

0020

36$4

2.79

1.05

4$3

1.23

2.10

9$1

.535

.793

$742

.169

$588

.983

$8.5

56.0

00$1

36.0

0020

37$4

3.64

4.54

4$3

1.67

5.33

3$1

.556

.292

$752

.072

$596

.847

$8.9

28.0

00$1

36.0

0020

38$4

4.45

8.11

8$3

2.09

7.19

9$1

.575

.664

$752

.258

$596

.998

$9.3

00.0

00$1

36.0

0020

39$4

5.26

3.45

6$3

2.49

6.76

2$1

.593

.859

$760

.942

$603

.894

$9.6

72.0

00$1

36.0

0020

40$4

6.87

9.32

0$3

2.87

3.12

3$1

.610

.829

$769

.042

$610

.326

$10.

880.

000

$136

.000

2041

2042

2043

TO

TA

L$8

99.1

50.2

36$6

89.1

95.1

23$3

3.27

9.13

6$1

8.25

3.13

6$1

2.76

2.84

0$0

$0$1

41.4

52.0

00$4

00.0

00$3

.808

.000

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

4 -

Pub

lic

Op

erat

ion

al E

xpen

dit

ure

s (O

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 2

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Was

te

JaD

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k C

ompo

stin

gIn

stitu

tiona

lG

SW

MO

PE

XT

rans

port

atio

nT

rans

fer

Land

fill

Land

fill

Tra

nsfe

rT

rans

port

Str

ateg

yD

ev p

roje

ctP

MU

2012

2013

$16.

579.

931

$15.

244.

159

$517

.516

$282

.256

$400

.000

$136

.000

2014

$17.

974.

950

$15.

839.

880

$800

.000

$532

.816

$294

.253

$372

.000

$136

.000

2015

$19.

001.

464

$16.

448.

000

$827

.058

$542

.851

$303

.556

$744

.000

$136

.000

2016

$20.

021.

318

$17.

066.

745

$854

.677

$541

.377

$306

.518

$1.1

16.0

00$1

36.0

0020

17$2

1.10

8.84

5$1

7.72

3.28

1$8

84.2

90$5

58.3

46$3

18.9

28$1

.488

.000

$136

.000

2018

$22.

201.

565

$18.

384.

516

$914

.151

$575

.343

$331

.554

$1.8

60.0

00$1

36.0

0020

19$2

3.29

8.55

8$1

9.04

9.61

9$9

44.2

16$5

92.3

41$3

44.3

83$2

.232

.000

$136

.000

2020

$24.

388.

687

$19.

717.

717

$974

.439

$602

.894

$353

.638

$2.6

04.0

00$1

36.0

0020

21$2

6.94

3.28

6$2

0.47

2.60

9$1

.011

.383

$950

.550

485.

743

911.

000

$2.9

76.0

00$1

36.0

0020

22$2

8.17

4.28

9$2

1.24

0.53

8$1

.049

.015

$985

.919

503.

817

911.

000

$3.3

48.0

00$1

36.0

0020

23$2

9.51

0.55

3$2

2.02

1.02

3$1

.087

.310

$1.0

21.9

1052

2.20

91.

002.

100

$3.7

20.0

00$1

36.0

0020

24$3

0.76

9.29

0$2

2.81

3.54

5$1

.126

.240

$1.0

58.4

9854

0.90

61.

002.

100

$4.0

92.0

00$1

36.0

0020

25$3

2.02

8.79

0$2

3.61

7.53

9$1

.165

.775

$1.0

83.4

8255

9.89

41.

002.

100

$4.4

64.0

00$1

36.0

0020

26$3

3.26

1.92

6$2

4.43

2.39

8$1

.205

.883

$1.0

70.3

8857

9.15

71.

002.

100

$4.8

36.0

00$1

36.0

0020

27$3

4.64

6.34

9$2

5.25

7.47

1$1

.246

.531

$1.1

06.4

6859

8.67

91.

093.

200

$5.2

08.0

00$1

36.0

0020

28$3

5.95

0.38

4$2

6.09

2.06

6$1

.287

.681

$1.1

42.9

9461

8.44

31.

093.

200

$5.5

80.0

00$1

36.0

0020

29$3

7.26

4.30

2$2

6.93

5.44

7$1

.329

.294

$1.1

79.9

3263

8.42

91.

093.

200

$5.9

52.0

00$1

36.0

0020

30$3

8.58

7.22

8$2

7.78

6.83

6$1

.371

.330

$1.2

17.2

4465

8.61

81.

093.

200

$6.3

24.0

00$1

36.0

0020

31$3

9.92

7.58

9$2

8.57

2.74

1$1

.409

.911

$1.2

51.4

9067

7.14

71.

184.

300

$6.6

96.0

00$1

36.0

0020

32$4

1.05

7.54

1$2

9.26

5.98

9$1

.443

.603

$1.2

66.3

2169

3.32

81.

184.

300

$7.0

68.0

00$1

36.0

0020

33$4

2.00

5.60

4$2

9.78

4.37

7$1

.468

.067

$1.2

87.7

8170

5.07

81.

184.

300

$7.4

40.0

00$1

36.0

0020

34$4

2.93

4.35

0$3

0.28

5.58

5$1

.491

.626

$1.3

08.4

4671

6.39

31.

184.

300

$7.8

12.0

00$1

36.0

0020

35$4

3.82

6.73

3$3

0.76

8.51

6$1

.514

.220

$1.3

12.4

5372

7.24

41.

184.

300

$8.1

84.0

00$1

36.0

0020

36$4

4.80

4.05

9$3

1.23

2.10

9$1

.535

.793

$1.3

31.1

5273

7.60

51.

275.

400

$8.5

56.0

00$1

36.0

0020

37$4

5.66

7.39

4$3

1.67

5.33

3$1

.556

.292

$1.3

48.9

1974

7.45

01.

275.

400

$8.9

28.0

00$1

36.0

0020

38$4

6.49

0.27

3$3

2.09

7.19

9$1

.575

.664

$1.3

49.2

5575

6.75

41.

275.

400

$9.3

00.0

00$1

36.0

0020

39$4

7.30

4.34

9$3

2.49

6.76

2$1

.593

.859

$1.3

64.8

3676

5.49

31.

275.

400

$9.6

72.0

00$1

36.0

0020

40$4

8.92

8.36

3$3

2.87

3.12

3$1

.610

.829

$1.3

79.3

6877

3.64

31.

275.

400

$10.

880.

000

$136

.000

2041

2042

2043

TO

TA

L$9

34.6

57.9

70$6

89.1

95.1

23$3

3.27

9.13

6$4

.463

.483

$26.

552.

493

$13.

006.

034

$22.

501.

700

$141

.452

.000

$400

.000

$3.8

08.0

00

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 12

5 -

Pub

lic

Op

erat

ion

al E

xpen

dit

ure

s (O

PE

X)

Sce

nar

io 3

Yea

rT

OT

AL

Col

lect

ion

Was

te

JaD

Sof

aB

ulk

Bul

k C

ompo

stin

gIn

stitu

tiona

lG

SW

MO

PE

XT

rans

port

atio

nT

rans

fer

Land

fill

Land

fill

Tra

nsfe

rT

rans

port

Str

ateg

yD

ev p

roje

ctP

MU

2012

2013

$16.

579.

931

$15.

244.

159

$517

.516

$282

.256

$400

.000

$136

.000

2014

$17.

974.

950

$15.

839.

880

$800

.000

$532

.816

$294

.253

$372

.000

$136

.000

2015

$19.

001.

464

$16.

448.

000

$827

.058

$542

.851

$303

.556

$744

.000

$136

.000

2016

$21.

251.

743

$17.

066.

745

$854

.677

$847

.896

$410

.525

$819

.900

$1.1

16.0

00$1

36.0

0020

17$2

2.35

3.49

4$1

7.72

3.28

1$8

84.2

90$8

77.2

74$4

24.7

49$8

19.9

00$1

.488

.000

$136

.000

2018

$23.

460.

557

$18.

384.

516

$914

.151

$906

.898

$439

.092

$819

.900

$1.8

60.0

00$1

36.0

0020

19$2

4.57

1.99

2$1

9.04

9.61

9$9

44.2

16$9

36.7

24$4

53.5

33$8

19.9

00$2

.232

.000

$136

.000

2020

$25.

767.

737

$19.

717.

717

$974

.439

$956

.531

$468

.050

$911

.000

$2.6

04.0

00$1

36.0

0020

21$2

6.94

3.33

8$2

0.47

2.60

9$1

.011

.383

$950

.550

$485

.795

$911

.000

$2.9

76.0

00$1

36.0

0020

22$2

8.17

4.34

3$2

1.24

0.53

8$1

.049

.015

$985

.919

$503

.871

$911

.000

$3.3

48.0

00$1

36.0

0020

23$2

9.51

0.60

8$2

2.02

1.02

3$1

.087

.310

$1.0

21.9

10$5

22.2

65$1

.002

.100

$3.7

20.0

00$1

36.0

0020

24$3

0.76

9.34

7$2

2.81

3.54

5$1

.126

.240

$1.0

58.4

98$5

40.9

64$1

.002

.100

$4.0

92.0

00$1

36.0

0020

25$3

2.02

8.84

9$2

3.61

7.53

9$1

.165

.775

$1.0

83.4

82$5

59.9

54$1

.002

.100

$4.4

64.0

00$1

36.0

0020

26$3

3.26

1.98

8$2

4.43

2.39

8$1

.205

.883

$1.0

70.3

88$5

79.2

19$1

.002

.100

$4.8

36.0

00$1

36.0

0020

27$3

4.64

6.41

3$2

5.25

7.47

1$1

.246

.531

$1.1

06.4

68$5

98.7

43$1

.093

.200

$5.2

08.0

00$1

36.0

0020

28$3

5.95

0.45

0$2

6.09

2.06

6$1

.287

.681

$1.1

42.9

94$6

18.5

09$1

.093

.200

$5.5

80.0

00$1

36.0

0020

29$3

7.26

4.37

0$2

6.93

5.44

7$1

.329

.294

$1.1

79.9

32$6

38.4

97$1

.093

.200

$5.9

52.0

00$1

36.0

0020

30$3

8.58

7.29

8$2

7.78

6.83

6$1

.371

.330

$1.2

17.2

44$6

58.6

88$1

.093

.200

$6.3

24.0

00$1

36.0

0020

31$3

9.92

7.66

2$2

8.57

2.74

1$1

.409

.911

$1.2

51.4

90$6

77.2

19$1

.184

.300

$6.6

96.0

00$1

36.0

0020

32$4

1.05

7.61

5$2

9.26

5.98

9$1

.443

.603

$1.2

66.3

21$6

93.4

02$1

.184

.300

$7.0

68.0

00$1

36.0

0020

33$4

2.00

5.68

0$2

9.78

4.37

7$1

.468

.067

$1.2

87.7

81$7

05.1

54$1

.184

.300

$7.4

40.0

00$1

36.0

0020

34$4

2.93

4.42

6$3

0.28

5.58

5$1

.491

.626

$1.3

08.4

46$7

16.4

69$1

.184

.300

$7.8

12.0

00$1

36.0

0020

35$4

3.82

6.81

1$3

0.76

8.51

6$1

.514

.220

$1.3

12.4

53$7

27.3

22$1

.184

.300

$8.1

84.0

00$1

36.0

0020

36$4

4.80

4.13

8$3

1.23

2.10

9$1

.535

.793

$1.3

31.1

52$7

37.6

84$1

.275

.400

$8.5

56.0

00$1

36.0

0020

37$4

5.66

7.47

4$3

1.67

5.33

3$1

.556

.292

$1.3

48.9

19$7

47.5

30$1

.275

.400

$8.9

28.0

00$1

36.0

0020

38$4

6.49

0.35

3$3

2.09

7.19

9$1

.575

.664

$1.3

49.2

55$7

56.8

35$1

.275

.400

$9.3

00.0

00$1

36.0

0020

39$4

7.30

4.43

1$3

2.49

6.76

2$1

.593

.859

$1.3

64.8

36$7

65.5

75$1

.275

.400

$9.6

72.0

00$1

36.0

0020

40$4

8.92

8.44

6$3

2.87

3.12

3$1

.610

.829

$1.3

79.3

68$7

73.7

26$1

.275

.400

$10.

880.

000

$136

.000

2041

2042

2043

TO

TA

L$9

41.0

45.9

09$6

89.1

95.1

23$3

3.27

9.13

6$1

.593

.182

$29.

422.

794

$15.

203.

373

$26.

692.

300

$141

.452

.000

$400

.000

$3.8

08.0

00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


8.3 Landfill Operational Expenditures

The above mentioned operational costs for the landfills have been based on the following reference landfill operational expenditures. For the sake of this FS an average landfill operational cost of 1.5 USD per m3 has been assumed.

Table 48 Example of landfill operational costs (based on 300.000 m3 per year)

Cost items quantity unitsunit

costsannual

coststotal (NIS)

1. Salary Costs (Gross) (NIS) (NIS)H-B JSC (/Site) Manager 1 NIS/mnth 5.000 65.000Deputy Manager (LF) 1 ,, 4.500 58.500Deputy manager (TF + LH transport) 1 4.500 58.500HRM/Social manager 1 ,, 4.000 52.000Administrator/Secretary 2 ,, 2.000 52.000Workshop Engineer/Mechanic 1 ,, 3.500 45.500Landfill/Equipment Operators 2 ,, 2.500 65.000Weighbridge Operator 1 ,, 2.500 32.500

Guard(s) 2 ,, 2.000 52.000

Unforeseen/contingencies 2 20% 96.200

total 14 577.200

2. Energy / fuel consumptionCompactor 100 NIS/kwh 0,6 86.400

eff. factor 60%

Buldozer/Shovel 75 0,6 86.400

eff. factor 80%

Electricity/lighting 20 NIS/kwh 0,6 8.640

eff. factor 50%

Other (Pumps) 50 NIS/kwh 0,6 43.200

eff. factor 60%

Truck 6.000 ltr/yr 6,5 39.000

Water 2.500 m3/yr 6,0 15.000

Other/unforeseen 10% 27.864

total 306.5043. Maintenance and Repair NIS % Invstmnt

Civil Works (LF cell/Buildings/Roads) 1,0% 286.837

Compactor/Shovel/Trucks etc. 7% 206.822

Other Equipment (M&E) 3% 83.844

total 577.5034. Other Costs USD

(Daily/weekly) Soil covering avrg 20/30.000 m3/yr 74000

Office Consumables LS 60.000

Utility Costs (electra) LS 60.000

Insurance Costs 0,25% 86.083

Other/unforeseen 10% 20.608

total 300.691

5. Miscellaneous/contingencies 38.102

Total LF Operational annual costs (1-5) 1.800.000

USD 450.000

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


9 COMPARISON OF MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS

This section presents an assessment of the three scenarios with regard to technical, economic, social, environmental, institutional criteria having regard to objectives, likely constraints, security, political situation, land availability, availability of funds, and local, regional and international best practice (SWOT analysis).

9.1 Logistic and Technical Considerations

The primary collection, transfer and transportation logistics for all three scenarios are the same, since all waste streams shall be transported to either the Johr al Deek landfill or to the Rafah landfill. The proposed required investments needed for upgrading these basic services (regardless of selection of scenario 1, 2 or 3) are presented in section 11.2. The major logistic difference between the three scenarios is that under scenario 2 and 3 bulk transfer and transport from Johr al Deek to Rafah will be required. Under scenario 2 about 96 bulk trips per day will be needed in 2021, increasing to about 138 trips per day in 2040. Under scenario 3 about 82 trips per day will be needed in 2016, increasing to also 138 trips per day in 2040. This requires adequate road capacities, as well as measures to ensure safety along the main road from Johr al Deek to Rafah. Logistically this furthermore requires operation of the bulk transfer station at Johr al Deek, and adequate bulk transport vehicle maintenance and garage facilities. Scenario 3 furthermore requires that the access road to Rafah will be re-routed, in order to make sufficient space for the large landfill. This re-routing would not be required under scenario’s 1 and 2. Under scenario 1 the Johr al Deek landfill will remain in operation until 2040, implying operations close to the border with Israel (300 m) compared to 500 m from the border at Rafah. This might lead to some logistic safety restrictions as has happened before at Johr al Deek or at Deir la Balah. This will not be the case under scenarios 2 and 3. Temporary storage capacities at Johr al Deek are foreseen as well Under Scenario 2 and 3, to overcome possible blockage of the Gaza strip by the Israelis as happened occasionally in the previous years. Logistically scenario 2 and 3 poses a big challenge to managing the very large central landfill at Rafah. Under scenario 2 Rafah landfill will have to process about 2314 ton waste per day in 2021, increasing to 3687 ton / day in 2040. In addition, 193 m3 of sand cover needs to be applied per day in 2020, increasing to 280 m3 of sand per day in 2040. This requires well organized operational procedures at the landfill. On the other hand, managing two central landfills under scenario 1 will require a double set of landfill operations up until 2040, be it with smaller capacities for each. Under all scenarios huge landfill gas volumes are to be generated, close to 4 Billion m3 until 2040, of which 50% may be recovered. These quantities make it interesting to regenerate energy either through on site power generation, or through connecting locally generated energy to Gaza electricity grid. If decided to opt for this last option, it might be logistically easier to connect to the electricity grid at two different locations, i.e. under scenario 1.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 49 Technical and Logistic Criteria

Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Primary collection and transport












Risks remain until 2040 Risks remain until 2020 Risks remain until 2015





DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


9.2 Financial Considerations

Comparing the CAPEX and OPEX for the three scenarios provides the following overview. Table 50 Summary CAPEX and OPEX for three scenarios

YearSc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

20122013 $19.989.000 $19.989.000 $19.989.000 $16.579.931 $16.579.931 $16.579.9312014 $1.050.000 $1.050.000 $1.050.000 $17.974.950 $17.974.950 $17.974.9502015 $15.169.000 $15.169.000 $12.819.000 $19.001.464 $19.001.464 $19.001.4642016 $14.200.000 $14.200.000 $14.200.000 $20.021.318 $20.021.318 $21.251.7432017 $0 $0 $0 $21.108.845 $21.108.845 $22.353.4942018 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $22.201.565 $22.201.565 $23.460.5572019 $0 $0 $150.000 $23.298.558 $23.298.558 $24.571.9922020 $9.100.000 $13.300.000 $9.300.000 $24.388.687 $24.388.687 $25.767.7372021 $4.600.000 $4.600.000 $4.600.000 $25.546.542 $26.943.286 $26.943.3382022 $0 $0 $0 $26.759.471 $28.174.289 $28.174.3432023 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.177.500 $27.986.243 $29.510.553 $29.510.6082024 $0 $150.000 $0 $29.226.283 $30.769.290 $30.769.3472025 $11.300.000 $9.700.000 $9.700.000 $30.466.795 $32.028.790 $32.028.8492026 $12.600.000 $12.600.000 $12.600.000 $31.680.668 $33.261.926 $33.261.9882027 $0 $0 $150.000 $32.954.470 $34.646.349 $34.646.4132028 $2.027.500 $2.177.500 $2.027.500 $34.238.741 $35.950.384 $35.950.4502029 $0 $0 $0 $35.532.673 $37.264.302 $37.264.3702030 $12.000.000 $10.000.000 $10.000.000 $36.835.410 $38.587.228 $38.587.2982031 $0 $0 $150.000 $38.066.142 $39.927.589 $39.927.6622032 $6.300.000 $6.450.000 $6.300.000 $39.179.913 $41.057.541 $41.057.6152033 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $40.116.226 $42.005.604 $42.005.6802034 $0 $0 $0 $41.033.657 $42.934.350 $42.934.4262035 $12.600.000 $12.400.000 $12.550.000 $41.915.189 $43.826.733 $43.826.8112036 $0 $150.000 $0 $42.791.054 $44.804.059 $44.804.1382037 $0 $0 $0 $43.644.544 $45.667.394 $45.667.4742038 $8.327.500 $8.327.500 $8.327.500 $44.458.118 $46.490.273 $46.490.3532039 $0 $0 $150.000 $45.263.456 $47.304.349 $47.304.4312040 $7.500.000 $6.800.000 $8.100.000 $46.879.320 $48.928.363 $48.928.446204120422043

TOTAL $142.845.500 $143.145.500 $138.395.500 $899.150.236 $934.657.970 $941.045.909

CAPEX OPEX

As above table shows, the CAPEX for the three scenarios are in the same range, be it that scenario 3 is slightly cheaper due to the limited investments at Johr al Deek (only ST) and the lower land acquisition costs at Rafah. The differences in OPEX are more prominent, with scenario 1 being the cheapest. This fully relates to the fact the scenario 1 does not require relative expensive annual operational costs for bulk transfer and transport. Assuming that the cost for the SWM components as described above in Gaza are to be recovered from fees of waste collection, and assuming an average collected waste fee of 4.1 NIS per person per month, or

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


24.6 NIS per household per month assuming 6 persons per household, this would lead to the following Internal Rates of Return and Net Present Values for the three scenario’s. In these calculations the revenues from selling compost at a unit cost of USD 100 per ton are taken into account as well. Table 51 IRR and NPV for three scenarios

IRR and NPV

Discount Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Rate IRR NPV IRR NPV IRR NPV

0,00% 8,1% $45.833.773 2,5% $10.026.039 2,1% $8.388.100

2,00% 8,1% $27.272.694 2,5% $1.480.579 2,1% $446.590

4,00% 8,1% $14.822.651 2,5% -$4.179.774 2,1% -$4.851.065

6,00% 8,1% $6.298.003 2,5% -$8.002.288 2,1% -$8.447.821

8,00% 8,1% $343.633 2,5% -$10.631.505 2,1% -$10.930.069

10,00% 8,1% -$3.895.152 2,5% -$12.470.874 2,1% -$12.668.542

12,00% 8,1% -$6.966.772 2,5% -$13.777.283 2,1% -$13.901.559

The previous conclusion that Scenario 1 is the most preferable option is confirmed by these calculations, with the internal rate of return of 8,1%, based on an average waste fee revenue of 4.1 NIS per person per month (24.6 NIS per household)1 throughout Gaza, and 100 USD per ton of compost being produced. In this set up both the capital investments and the operational costs in the solid waste sector in Gaza would be fully recovered from these revenues. Assuming an interest rate of 6% on capital investments, the net present value of all SWM operations in Gaza in 2040 would remain around 6 MUSD. For reference reasons: the actual operational costs for SWM in Gaza (collection, transport and disposal) over 2010 were approximately the following: Actual Operational Costs (2010): 1. North Gaza JSC 9 Million NIS 2. Gaza City 20.4 Million NIS 3. Deir al Balah JSC 3 Million NIS 4. Khan Yunis 4 Million NIS 5. Rafah 4.8 Million NIS 6. UNWRA 6.8 Million NIS Total: 48 Million NIS (12 MUSD) This corresponds to an average waste fee revenue of 2.67 NIS per person per month, or 13.3 NIS per month per household for the whole of Gaza. The next table presents the related input for the above table.

1 If one would only like to recover only the operational costs, than at least a waste fee of 3.4 NIS per person per month

(17 NIS per household) would have to be recovered throughout Gaza under scenario 1.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 13

1 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 5

2 In

pu

t d

ata

IRR

an

d N

PV

Yea

rP

op

ula

tio

nD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

Sce

nar

io 1

Sce

nar

io 2

Sce

nar

io 3

Ho

use

ho

ldC

om

po

stS

cen

ario

1S

cen

ario

2S

cen

ario

3

2013

1.77

3.43

653

3.18

1$3

6.56

8.93

1$3

6.56

8.93

1$3

6.56

8.93

1$2

1.81

3.26

2,80

-$14

.755

.667

,78

-$14

.755

.667

,78

-$14

.755

.667

,78

2014

1.83

2.03

555

1.38

0$1

9.02

4.95

0$1

9.02

4.95

0$1

9.02

4.95

0$2

2.53

4.03

0,50

$547

.059

$4.0

56.1

39,5

4$4

.056

.139

,54

$4.0

56.1

39,5

420

151.

891.

982

564.

271

$34.

170.

464

$34.

170.

464

$31.

820.

464

$23.

271.

378,

60$1

.094

.118

-$9.

804.

967,

87-$

9.80

4.96

7,87

-$7.

454.

967,

8720

161.

953.

134

565.

264

$34.

221.

318

$34.

221.

318

$35.

451.

743

$24.

023.

548,

20$1

.641

.176

-$8.

556.

593,

46-$

8.55

6.59

3,46

-$9.

787.

018,

5820

172.

014.

505

584.

849

$21.

108.

845

$21.

108.

845

$22.

353.

494

$24.

778.

407,

98$2

.188

.235

$5.8

57.7

98,4

6$5

.857

.798

,46

$4.6

13.1

49,4

320

182.

075.

991

604.

598

$24.

229.

065

$24.

229.

065

$25.

488.

057

$25.

534.

686,

13$2

.735

.294

$4.0

40.9

15,4

0$4

.040

.915

,40

$2.7

81.9

23,3

620

192.

137.

485

624.

483

$23.

298.

558

$23.

298.

558

$24.

721.

992

$26.

291.

065,

94$3

.282

.353

$6.2

74.8

60,4

1$6

.274

.860

,41

$4.8

51.4

27,3

620

202.

198.

877

637.

688

$33.

488.

687

$37.

688.

687

$35.

067.

737

$27.

046.

189,

01$3

.829

.412

-$2.

613.

086,

14-$

6.81

3.08

6,14

-$4.

192.

136,

1420

212.

260.

054

633.

700

$30.

146.

542

$31.

543.

286

$31.

543.

338

$27.

798.

658,

90$4

.376

.471

$2.0

28.5

87,2

3$6

31.8

43,7

6$6

31.7

91,8

620

222.

320.

898

657.

279

$26.

759.

471

$28.

174.

289

$28.

174.

343

$28.

547.

044,

96$4

.923

.529

$6.7

11.1

02,9

7$5

.296

.285

,66

$5.2

96.2

31,8

320

232.

381.

292

681.

273

$30.

013.

743

$31.

538.

053

$31.

688.

108

$29.

289.

886,

48$5

.470

.588

$4.7

46.7

31,5

0$3

.222

.422

,12

$3.0

72.3

66,3

320

242.

441.

114

705.

666

$29.

226.

283

$30.

919.

290

$30.

769.

347

$30.

025.

697,

06$6

.017

.647

$6.8

17.0

61,0

2$5

.124

.054

,55

$5.2

73.9

96,7

620

252.

500.

241

722.

321

$41.

766.

795

$41.

728.

790

$41.

728.

849

$30.

752.

969,

30$6

.564

.706

-$4.

449.

120,

11-$

4.41

1.11

4,40

-$4.

411.

174,

2220

262.

558.

551

713.

592

$44.

280.

668

$45.

861.

926

$45.

861.

988

$31.

470.

179,

62$7

.111

.765

-$5.

698.

724,

16-$

7.27

9.98

1,61

-$7.

280.

043,

4820

272.

615.

918

737.

645

$32.

954.

470

$34.

646.

349

$34.

796.

413

$32.

175.

793,

30$7

.658

.824

$6.8

80.1

47,1

5$5

.188

.267

,67

$5.0

38.2

03,7

020

282.

672.

217

761.

996

$36.

266.

241

$38.

127.

884

$37.

977.

950

$32.

868.

269,

80$8

.205

.882

$4.8

07.9

11,1

9$2

.946

.268

,38

$3.0

96.2

02,3

020

292.

727.

323

786.

621

$35.

532.

673

$37.

264.

302

$37.

264.

370

$33.

546.

068,

11$8

.752

.941

$6.7

66.3

36,1

4$5

.034

.707

,34

$5.0

34.6

39,1

320

302.

781.

110

811.

496

$48.

835.

410

$48.

587.

228

$48.

587.

298

$34.

207.

652,

27$9

.300

.000

-$5.

327.

758,

10-$

5.07

9.57

5,80

-$5.

079.

646,

1720

312.

833.

455

834.

327

$38.

066.

142

$39.

927.

589

$40.

077.

662

$34.

851.

497,

09$9

.847

.059

$6.6

32.4

13,6

7$4

.770

.966

,55

$4.6

20.8

94,2

020

322.

884.

235

844.

214

$45.

479.

913

$47.

507.

541

$47.

357.

615

$35.

476.

093,

80$1

0.39

4.11

8$3

90.2

98,7

2-$

1.63

7.32

9,67

-$1.

487.

403,

7520

332.

933.

330

858.

521

$42.

143.

726

$44.

033.

104

$44.

033.

180

$36.

079.

955,

82$1

0.94

1.17

6$4

.877

.406

,19

$2.9

88.0

27,9

0$2

.987

.952

,57

2034

2.98

0.62

087

2.29

8$4

1.03

3.65

7$4

2.93

4.35

0$4

2.93

4.42

6$3

6.66

1.62

4,62

$11.

488.

235

$7.1

16.2

03,0

0$5

.215

.510

,22

$5.2

15.4

33,6

820

353.

025.

990

874.

969

$54.

515.

189

$56.

226.

733

$56.

376.

811

$37.

219.

675,

43$1

2.03

5.29

4-$

5.26

0.21

9,74

-$6.

971.

763,

88-$

7.12

1.84

1,57

2036

3.06

9.32

788

7.43

5$4

2.79

1.05

4$4

4.95

4.05

9$4

4.80

4.13

8$3

7.75

2.72

2,99

$12.

582.

353

$7.5

44.0

21,9

7$5

.381

.016

,59

$5.5

30.9

37,7

920

373.

110.

523

899.

280

$43.

644.

544

$45.

667.

394

$45.

667.

474

$38.

259.

427,

22$1

3.12

9.41

2$7

.744

.294

,96

$5.7

21.4

44,5

2$5

.721

.364

,66

2038

3.14

9.47

189

9.50

4$5

2.78

5.61

8$5

4.81

7.77

3$5

4.81

7.85

3$3

8.73

8.49

8,78

$13.

676.

471

-$37

0.64

8,92

-$2.

402.

803,

16-$

2.40

2.88

4,01

2039

3.18

6.07

490

9.89

1$4

5.26

3.45

6$4

7.30

4.34

9$4

7.45

4.43

1$3

9.18

8.70

4,46

$14.

223.

529

$8.1

48.7

77,5

0$6

.107

.884

,67

$5.9

57.8

02,8

820

403.

220.

234

919.

579

$54.

379.

320

$55.

728.

363

$57.

028.

446

$39.

608.

872,

45$1

6.00

0.00

0$1

.229

.552

,42

-$11

9.49

1,00

-$1.

419.

573,

66T

OT

AL

20.6

77.3

18$1

.041

.995

.736

$1.0

77.8

03.4

70$1

.079

.441

.409

$879

.811

.862

$208

.017

.647

$45.

833.

773

$10.

026.

039

$8.3

88.1

00

To

tal R

even

ues

Inp

ut

Dat

aT

ota

l CA

PE

X +

OP

EX

Rev

- C

ost

s

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


9.3 Environmental and Social Considerations

Scenario 1 puts a large landfill (Johr al Deek) in a more densely used area than scenarios 2 and 3. This creates higher levels of nuisance (air, dust, smell, visual aspects) to the surrounding population for scenario 1. Scenario 2 and 3 require bulk transport between Johr al Deek and Rafah, which causes additional road capacity, safety and accident risks, as well as additional CO2 emissions related to the bulk transport. The other environmental and social impacts as described in the separate ESIA are more or less similar for all three scenarios.

9.4 Organizational Considerations

9.4.1 General

Currently five organizations are responsible for waste collection, transportation and disposal in the Gaza Strip. In addition, different non profit and profit organizations as well as international financiers are involved in various pilot projects in the field of recycling, reuse and composting of waste in Gaza. This fragmented situation results from the history of decentralized service provision in Gaza, and from the lack of financial incentives to expand the scale of operations for solid waste management. This fragmentation is clear in the different systems and frequencies of waste collection that are applied, the different collection rates, and the different costs and revenues among the five service providers. The fragmentation furthermore hampers joint initiatives to improve the solid waste services in Gaza, such as sharing vehicle capacities and maintenance; sharing staff capacities, joint awareness raising; capacity development and training; common initiatives for waste separation at the source; or other potential joint efforts that would or could make the sector more effective. On the other hand, two of the five main service providers are already mergers of previously different small scale waste collectors, namely the two existing Joint Service Councils for North Gaza and for the Deir al Balah area. These Joint Service Councils have demonstrated that up scaling of SWM services in Gaza will indeed be possible under the appropriate conditions. Scenario 1 in this feasibility study assumes that the number of central dumpsites within Gaza will be reduced from three dump sites to two sanitary landfills until the year 2040. Under scenario 2 this number will be further reduced to one central landfill at Rafah from 2021 until 2040. Under scenario 3 the one central landfill at Rafah will be in operation already in 2016 until 2040. At the meantime, efforts to separate, reuse, recycle and compost separate waste streams have to be intensified drastically to reduce the remaining disposal requirements. This it the more urgent since the current population in Gaza of about 1.5 Million might grow to 3 Million by 2040. Each scenario will require that the organizational framework for solid waste management in Gaza will be adjusted and optimized. The proposed organizational changes would have to go hand in hand with financial optimizations in terms of cost and revenues, particularly if the new organizational structures will open their doors for private sector investors as well. On the short term (until 2015) it is proposed to maintain the organizational framework for SWM largely as it is: Northern Gaza JSC

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• responsible for collecting waste in its area and transporting it to the extended Johr al Deek Landfill

Gaza City

• responsible for collecting waste in its area and transporting it to the extended Johr al Deek Landfill;

• responsible for operating and monitoring the expanded landfill of Johr al Deek under sanitary conditions, making use of operating staff and capabilities of the Deir al Balah Landfill (which will be closed)

• responsible for charging Gaza City, Northern Gaza, Deir al Balah, UNWRA and other private waste providers for disposal of waste at the landfill

Deir al Balah JSC

• responsible for collecting waste in its area and transporting it to the extended Rafah landfill • participating (see below) in the sanitary closure of the sanitary landfill of Deir al Balah, and

transferring/selling workable equipment, hardware and software from this landfill to either Johr al Deek or to Rafah

Rafah Municipality

• responsible for collecting waste in its area and transporting it to the extended Rafah Landfill; • responsible for operating and monitoring the expanded landfill of Rafah under sanitary conditions,

making use of capabilities of the Deir al Balah Landfill (which will be closed) • responsible for charging Rafah, Deir al Balah JSC, UNWRA and other private waste providers for

disposal of waste at the landfill UNWRA

• responsible for collecting waste from the refugee camps and transporting it to the extended Johr al Deek Landfill or the extended Rafah landfill

Joint Efforts (all five)

• set up a joint system of capacity and maintenance sharing (staff and equipment) • set up a joint system of joint capability development and training for SWM staff • initiating and supporting joint pilots for further expansion of separation of waste collection, reuse,

recycling and composting • Preparing for joint proposals (technically, organizational, financial) for the development of a Gaza

Joint Service Council, which is advised to be eventually responsible for operating the one central landfill (Rafah) after 2020, and the related central transfer station in northern Gaza plus bulk transport from the central transfer station to the one central landfill

9.4.2 SWM Investment Management

It is advised in this Feasibility Study to establish a Program Management Unit (PMU) under auspices of one of the existing lending execution agencies (such as the UNDP or MLDF) for management of the short and long term SWM investment funds, which will eventually transfer ownership and O&M responsibilities for the short term rehabilitation of the existing dump sites to the Gaza Municipality (Johr al Deek) and Rafah Municipality (Rafah), and for the long term central sanitary landfill and related transfer stations to the newly to be established Joint Service Councils.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Taking into account the current coordinating role of UNDP PAPP in Gaza on solid waste management on behalf of international donors, and its wide experience with contract management in different sectors in Gaza, the Consultant advises to assign UNDP PAPP to manage such a PMU.

9.5 International and Political Considerations

Scenario 1 puts a huge landfill not more than 300 meters away from the borders of Israel (Johr al Deek), since more space away from the border is not available. It will be questionably whether the Israeli’s will approve this. Furthermore, it has been experienced during the last years that Israeli border solders regularly general safety threats to the workers at both the Johr al Deek as well as the Deir al Balah landfills, which are both located within 300 m from Israel. These threats include shooting accidents as well as kidnapping of landfill staff. It cannot be excluded that these events would not happen again in the future. This threat is biggest under scenario 1 (until 2040), followed by scenario 2 (until 2020) and is smallest under scenario 3 (until 2015).

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


10 FINAL SYNTHESIS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

10.1 Sensitivity Analysis on Petrol Costs, Wages and Land Prices

This section provides a sensitivity analysis of some of the crucial parameters applied in this feasibility study. Petrol costs Currently the cost for petrol in Gaza are low: in this FS a cost of 1 USD per liter is assumed. This section presents the financial impacts on the three scenarios in case the petrol costs will rise to “European” levels, i.e. 2 USD per liter. Under this assumption only scenario 1 would remain having a positive internal rate of return, decreasing from 10.6% down to 4.6%. Also the NPV of the whole SWM Gaza Project would drastically be reduced, and would become negative at an 8 % discount rate for scenario 1. Scenarios 2 and 3 would not remain financially viable at all under these circumstances. Table 53 Impact of rising petrol cost from 1 to 2 USD per liter.

Discount Scenario 1 Rate IRR NPV

0,00% 4,6% $17.944.435

2,00% 4,6% $8.242.557

4,00% 4,6% $1.604.736

6,00% 4,6% -$3.032.731

8,00% 4,6% -$6.337.549

10,00% 4,6% -$8.736.377

12,00% 4,6% -$10.506.799

Wages Currently the salary levels are set on 2300 NIS per month for an average SW worker. This section also presents the financial impacts on the three scenarios in case the salaries will rise to about 5000 NIS per month. As expected, this will have a drastic impact on the total cost for SWM in Gaza. The household collection fees would have to rise from about 24.6 NIS per month to about 38 NIS per month to account for these higher wages. This is specifically sensitive for scenarios 2 and 3 which also depend on staff for operations of the bulk transfer station and bulk waste transport. Land Acquisition Costs: In this FS the land acquisition costs for the two landfills have been put on 12.5 USD per m2 for Rafah, and 17.5 USD per m2 for Johr al Deek. This section also presents the financial impacts on the three scenarios in case the land acquisition costs would be doubled, i.e. 25 USD per m2 for Rafah and 35 USD for Johr al Deek. Under scenario 1 the investment cost for Johr al Deek would increase with 7 MUSD, while Rafah would increase with 3.75 MUSD (10.75 MUSD in total). Under scenario 2, the investment cost for Johr al Deek would increase with 1,225 MUSD, while Rafah would increase with 7,5 MUSD (totally 8,725 MUSD).

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Under scenario 3, the investment costs for Johr al Deek would not increase, while Rafah would increase with 7.5 MUSD (totally 7.5 MUSD). Although the higher land prices will lower the IRR and NPV under all scenarios, the differences do not have significant impacts on the total cost of SWM in the Gaza Strip. Scenario 1 would remain the most attractive option from a financial point of view.

10.2 Sensitivity Analysis in case of Abandoning the Composting Strategy

This section analysis the impacts on the three scenarios in case the proposed Composting Strategy would not be implemented, for instance due to lack of commitment towards separating organic waste steams at the source, or lack of willingness to pay for compost by the local farmers. This implies that all waste would have to be disposed of on the landfills. No investments would be required for implementing the Composting Strategy, and no benefits would be received in terms of revenues from selling compost to the local agricultural sector in Gaza. Clearly, this would be a very disadvantage situation in terms of moving towards a more sustainable and integrated solid waste management system in Gaza. It would not only keep the Gaza farmers dependent on mainly Israeli import of compost, but it would also lead to higher cost for waste management in Gaza as a whole. The assumption would lead to 18% more waste to be disposed of in the year 2040, or 9% on average during the FS planning period. It is assumed that the operational costs for all components would remain more or less the same, but that the landfill investment costs will increase gradually towards 15%, since the required land is directly related to the total amounts of waste to be disposed of, while the landfill reception area and related infrastructure does not have to grow. Furthermore, the CAPEX, OPEX and revenues from composting should be deleted from the overall financial analysis. These changes lead to the following total CAPEX and OPEX figures for the three scenarios.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 54 CAPEX and OPEX without Composting Strategy

YearSc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3

20122013 $19.989.000 $19.989.000 $19.989.000 $16.280.723 $16.280.723 $16.280.7232014 $1.050.000 $1.050.000 $1.050.000 $17.467.583 $17.467.583 $17.467.5832015 $15.169.000 $15.169.000 $12.819.000 $18.267.577 $18.267.577 $18.267.5772016 $5.200.000 $5.200.000 $14.200.000 $19.099.117 $19.099.117 $20.314.0502017 $0 $0 $0 $19.974.656 $19.974.656 $21.207.2842018 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $20.865.820 $20.865.820 $22.116.5272019 $0 $0 $150.000 $21.771.758 $21.771.758 $23.040.9122020 $9.100.000 $13.300.000 $9.300.000 $22.815.427 $22.815.427 $24.194.4772021 $0 $0 $4.600.000 $23.823.476 $25.224.802 $25.224.8552022 $0 $0 $0 $24.900.827 $26.325.150 $26.325.2052023 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.177.500 $26.006.555 $27.545.644 $27.545.7022024 $0 $150.000 $0 $27.140.370 $28.703.788 $28.703.8482025 $11.300.000 $10.600.000 $10.600.000 $28.061.200 $29.649.604 $29.649.6672026 $0 $0 $12.600.000 $29.191.527 $30.800.104 $30.800.1682027 $0 $0 $150.000 $30.153.160 $31.878.927 $31.878.9952028 $2.027.500 $2.177.500 $2.027.500 $31.377.001 $33.123.650 $33.123.7202029 $0 $0 $0 $32.366.266 $34.140.055 $34.140.1282030 $13.200.000 $11.000.000 $11.000.000 $33.549.110 $35.344.422 $35.344.4972031 $0 $0 $150.000 $34.363.370 $36.275.923 $36.276.0012032 $0 $150.000 $6.300.000 $35.237.096 $37.167.051 $37.167.1312033 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $35.824.109 $37.773.352 $37.773.4342034 $0 $0 $0 $36.676.277 $38.637.796 $38.637.8792035 $13.830.000 $13.600.000 $13.750.000 $37.206.667 $39.186.819 $39.186.9042036 $0 $150.000 $0 $38.023.063 $40.105.654 $40.105.7412037 $0 $0 $0 $38.522.483 $40.622.899 $40.622.9882038 $2.027.500 $2.027.500 $8.327.500 $39.280.438 $41.391.123 $41.391.2122039 $0 $0 $150.000 $39.727.645 $41.855.198 $41.855.2892040 $8.600.000 $7.950.000 $9.300.000 $34.299.312 $36.435.938 $36.436.030204120422043

TOTAL $107.575.500 $108.595.500 $142.695.500 $812.272.615 $848.730.561 $855.078.525

CAPEX OPEX

Although the total investment and operational costs will be lower for all scenario’s, the revenues will also reduce drastically due to lack of selling compost. Assuming again 24.6 NIS per month per household as remaining revenue, the total revenues until 2040 will be $ 879.811.862, which is less than the total OPEX and CAPEX cost for all scenarios. It would be required to increase the household fees up to 26.7 NIS per household per month to compensate for the loss of income due to abandoning the composting strategy. Consequently, the Composting Strategy, if implemented appropriately, does not only have clear environmental and economic benefit for Gaza, but also a direct financial benefit for the solid waste sector.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


10.3 Final Synthesis

This section presents the final synthesis of the assessment of the three alternative scenarios. Table 55 Final synthesis: comparison of alternative scenarios

Criteria Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Technical and Logistic Criteria Primary collection and transport












Risks remain until 2040

Risks remain until 2020 Risks remain until 2015





Financial Criteria Total SWM cost until 2040 $1.041.995.736 $1.077.803.470 $1.079.441.409

IRR (20.5 NIS per HH pm) 8.1% 2.5% 2.1% NPV (6% discount rate) 6.3 MUSD -8.0 MUSD -8.5 MUSD Environmental and Social Criteria Environment Impacts No bulk transport

impacts Impacts due to bulk transport from 2021

Impacts due to bulk transport from 2016

Social Impacts Nuisance of Large landfill in dense area (Johr al Deek)



Organizational Criteria Waste Management Bulk waste

management divided over two landfills



Political Criteria Distance to Israel (300 / 500 m)




Temporary Storage to overcome Israeli blockage of Gaza

Not required Required from 2021 onwards

Required from 2016 onwards

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Different criteria may be appreciated differently by the various stakeholders. Obviously, the financial criteria point towards scenario 1 as the preferred alternative, even if land acquisition cost would be higher than assumed in this feasibility study. Remaining disadvantages of scenario 1 are: the short distance of the Johr la Deek landfill to the border with Israel (300 m) and related Israeli threats, and the organizational complexity of managing two central landfills in Gaza in stead of one. Clear advantage of scenario 1 is that bulk transfer and transport through Gaza would not be required, which has not only a positive financial impact, but also positive impacts on road safety and the environment, and the need to temporary storage. The Consultant concludes that scenario 1 would be the preferred alternative if agreement with Israel can be reached on extension of the landfill at Johr al Deek at 300 m from the border, or moving the landfill away from the border. If not, than scenario 2 seems to be the second best alternative. Under the current unit costs for petrol and labor, the related household fee should not be lower than 24.6 NIS per household per month (assuming full fee recovery). If additionally 100 USD per ton of produced compost will be recovered, than the revenues would enable full cost recovery of all CAPEX and OPEX of the following SWM components until 2040:

• waste collection, primary transfer and primary transportation • final sanitary disposal at Johr al Deek and Rafah • composting strategy

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


11 PREFERRED MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

11.1 Framework for Preferred Strategy

Based on the above evaluations and final synthesis for municipal solid waste management two major meetings were organized. First, a meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee for the project, including representatives with the five waste management service providers in Gaza, was organized on the 22nd of November 2011 in Gaza City. Secondly, a Video Conference meeting was organized with representatives of UNDP PAPP, the Word Bank, ADF, EU, GoJ, IDB and MDLF, and the Consultant on the 1st of December from UNDP’s headquarters in Gaza and Jerusalem. These meetings resulted in conclusions for the Preferred Municipal Waste Scenario for Gaza until 2040. This preferred scenario is further elaborated in this section 11. Based on the above, the following decisions were made in connection to the preferred scenario:

1. Is was agreed that the Short Term upgrade of the landfills would be effective from 2013 onwards, followed by a 5 year operation period for construction and completion of the long term sanitary landfills.

2. It was also agreed that scenario (1): two landfills up to 2040; would be the preferred scenario, with the exception that the Johr la Deek landfill shall be located not closer than 500 m from the border with Israel. Thus puts certain constraints on the available land for this landfill, also taking into account the minimum distance of 200 m from adjacent houses. As the next table shows, this implies that the Johr al Deek landfill will remain in operation until 2032, and might be closed in that year.

3. All stakeholders agreed that both landfills shall be realized at a depth of 20 m below surface. The soil profiles obtained from drillings at both landfills show that the soil conditions, including existing clay layers and depth to groundwater, permit environmentally safe landfilling under these conditions. This will require that leachate will be pumped up 20 m to the leachate pond, from which the water is spread over the waste bodies. Both landfills will be filled until 30 m above surface, as such realizing a total height of 50 m for the waste bodies. Although this will increase the overall investment cost, this will have a clear advantage in terms of visual aspects of the landfill, and will enable more realistic closure and landscaping plans.

4. After 2032, there will be two options: (1) all municipal waste, expect the waste streams that will be recycled or composted, will be disposed of at one central landfill located in Rafah; (2) if agreement can be reached with the Israeli’s to expand the landfill towards the 300 m border line, Johr al Deek landfill will remain in operation after 2032.

5. Option 1 implies that from 2033 onwards a bulk transfer station shall be established at Johr al Deek. The Waste Reception Area at Johr al Deek will then be transformed into a Bulk Transfer Station. Meanwhile bulk waste vehicles will transport all waste from Johr al Deek to the Rafah central landfill.

6. Starting from the operation of the long term sanitary landfills at Johr la Deek and Rafah, two Joint Service Councils will be established in the Gaza Strip: (1) one for Northern Gaza (including Gaza City and the existing JSC for Northern Gaza), responsible for waste collection, transportation and

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


operation of the Johr al Deek Sanitary Landfill; (2) the second one for Southern Gaza (including Beir al Balah JSC and Rafah City), responsible for waste collection, transportation and operation of the Rafah Landfill. This situation will remain in place at least until the year 2032. UNWRA, which is responsible for collection of waste from the refugee camps can decide either to outsource their waste collection services to these two JSC’s, or to continue waste collection by them selves

7. The two Joint Service Councils will co-operate closely with each other, and with all municipalities and related public authorities, to set up an effective and integrated solid waste management system for Gaza, as elaborated in this Feasibility Study. Important aspects will be the improvement of waste collection services, elimination of the identified environmental and public health threats currently at stake, waste fee collection and enforcement of all financial and technical solid waste regulations. It is foreseen that both Joint Service Councils will be supervised by a Regulatory Body to be established, representing the major public authorities in Gaza.

8. Management of all Solid Waste investments under this program will be performed by a separate Solid Waste Program Management Unit (SWM-PMU), to be managed either by UNDP – PAPP or MDLF. Further analysis is provided below.

9. Further preparatory steps are to be prepared by the SWM-PMU to implement the other recommendations in the Feasibility Study including: (1) Resource Recovery and Composting; (2) Hazardous Waste Management; (3) Healthcare Waste Management

10. This feasibility has a final time frame until 2040, and foresees in major landfilling activities up until that year. Nevertheless it may be expected that during the next 30 years alternative waste treatment technologies requiring less space will also become feasible for the Gaza Strip, including digestion and incineration. However, much will depend on the economic developments within Gaza in the next 30 years, as well as further improvement of waste management services and related enforcement of operational and financial regulations.

11.2 Logistic and Technical Arrangements

11.2.1 Primary Collection, Transfer and Transportation

Section 8.1.1 provides an overview of the required capacities for waste collection and transfer under all scenarios. For the next five years the current waste service providers will remain responsible of primary waste collection, transfer and transportation of waste to either Johr al Deek or to Rafah. Starting from 2018 two central Joint Service Providers will take over these responsibilities: one for northern Gaza and the other for southern Gaza. The next figure provides a schematic overview of the final arrangements for primary collection, transfer and transportation.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 23 Waste Flows Preferred Scenario

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Section 8.1.1 provides an overview for the base years 2015, 2020 and 2040 of the required collected waste flows, number of workers, donkey carts, required collection tractors and trucks and the related petrol requirements for each of the six service areas (ref. tables 35 until 39). The total operating costs required for the primary collection, transfer and transportation are provided in table 40.

11.2.2 Bulk Transport and Waste Disposal

Under the preferred scenario all waste is either disposed of at Johr al Deek or at Rafah until 2032. Afterwards all waste may be disposed of at Rafah. The following disposal quantities are applicable: Table 56 Disposal Forecasts Preferred Scenario



2007 282.415 108.064 44.8652008 296.606 109.973 45.8192009 308.542 113.363 47.3912010 321.135 116.868 49.0142011 328.826 121.810 51.1952012 336.858 126.966 53.4762013 345.010 38.334 188.171 20.9082014 355.211 39.468 196.169 21.7972015 361.900 40.211 202.370 22.4862016 360.918 40.102 204.346 22.7052017 372.230 41.359 212.619 23.6242018 383.562 42.618 221.036 24.5602019 394.894 43.877 229.589 25.5102020 401.929 44.659 235.758 26.1952021 395.502 43.945 238.198 26.4662022 406.119 45.124 251.160 27.9072023 416.655 46.295 264.619 29.4022024 427.089 47.454 278.576 30.9532025 432.541 48.060 289.780 32.1982026 422.702 46.967 290.889 32.3212027 432.147 48.016 305.498 33.9442028 441.414 49.046 320.582 35.6202029 450.482 50.054 336.139 37.3492030 459.331 51.037 352.165 39.1292031 467.941 51.993 366.386 40.7102032 470.688 52.299 373.526 41.5032033 858.521 95.3912034 872.298 96.9222035 874.969 97.2192036 887.435 98.6042037 899.280 99.9202038 899.504 99.9452039 909.891 101.0992040 919.579 102.1752041 929.267 103.2522042 938.955 104.328


past

/ pr

esen

tS

TLT

Cel

l 1LT

Cel

l 2LT

Cel

l 3LT

Cel

l 4LT

Cel

l 5

1.99

4.74

5 2.

202.

229

2.36

7.92

7 2.

544.

285

39

105,

056

,560

,765

,2

DisposalSofa Landfill

Vol

ume

39

Cell

DisposalJohr al Deek

19

1.94

3.10

8 4.

880.

557

5.10

7.99

4

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

Vol

ume

1.11

5.19

4 1.

306.

380

1.58

8.18

1

39

40,7

Cell

Ave

r. H

eigh

t

Are

a

22

50,7

39

131,

0

Preferred Scenario

39

49,8

39

125,

1

39

33,5

39

Starting from 2033 all waste may have to be transported from Johr al Deek Bulk Transfer station to Rafah. This would require the following bulk transportation vehicles.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 57 Bulk Transport Requirements JOA – Rafah (2033 – 2040)

Year Bulk transport Distance Container trucks Total Petrol (ton / day) (km) (30 tons / trip) km per day Requirement (3 trips per day) (liter / year)

2033 1873 28 21 1166 212.739

2034 1903 28 21 1184 216.152

2035 1932 28 21 1202 219.426

2036 1960 28 22 1219 222.551

2037 1986 28 22 1236 225.521

2038 2011 28 22 1251 228.328

2039 2034 28 23 1266 230.963

2040 2056 28 23 1279 233.422

11.2.3 Technical Criteria for Landfilling

The geographic outline of the required disposal capacities under the preferred scenario for Johr al Deek and Rafah are provided in the next figures.

Figure 24 Disposal Johr al Deek landfill until 2032

P = Leachate pond / pumping station ST = Short Term Disposal (2013 – 2017) RA = Reception Area (until 2032) / Bulk Transfer Station (from 2033) CR = Composting and Recycling Area

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Figure 25 Disposal Rafah landfill until 2040 (expansion cell 5 until 2042) The proposed two sanitary landfills meet the following technical criteria: • Capacity is sufficient to facilitate the services areas • Available capacity until the final planning horizons (2032 i.e. 2040); • Possibility to dispose of generated waste in a controlled way; • Minimization of the social and environmental impacts. The short term measures focus only on upgrading the disposal facilities in a sanitary fashion, meanwhile making use of existing and already foreseen collection and transportation means, as well as the currently existing organizational framework for solid waste management in Gaza. Thee landfills will provide vegetative buffer zones, curved internal access roads that limit sight-lines into the facility, and environmental mitigation measures that minimize emissions. Furthermore the landfills will meet the following criteria: • will meet local zoning and land use criteria, including local road weight limits and other limitations; • are easily accessible by solid waste vehicles in all weather conditions; • safely protects surface and groundwater quality; • controls landfill gas;

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• has access to earth cover material that can be easily handled and compacted (originating from soil excavation 20 m deep);

• are located where the landfill's operation will not affect external environmentally sensitive areas; • comprises enough land and internal capacity to provide a buffer zone from neighboring properties • will be the most economic site available given transport distances to user communities and other

economic considerations. Technically the sanitary land fills will include the following systems and components: • Adequate landfill cell protection; bottom lining, intermediate and final cover, • Leachate collection and control, including pumping up; • Leachate treatment, • Landfill gas collection system, • Landfill gas treatment or recovery system, • Rainwater discharge (of surrounding, paved areas and areas which are not under operation) • Weighbridges, • Landfill site offices and sanitation facilities, • Monitoring systems, basic laboratory (see lay out next page), • Site security systems, • Adequate site roads and parking, • Vehicle wheel-wash. Cellular structure Landfills will be operated and filled in cells, covering on average 5 years of operation each. This enables good control and separation of the rainwater and leachate. Clean rainwater can be removed from inactive cells and discharged without treatment whereas smaller quantities of leachate removed from the active cell requiring treatment. Cells are constructed by building a base sealing across the landfill, creating a separate cell which is filled and then covered with a sealing layer. Further the cellular phased construction approach enables to minimize the required initial investment costs, and to avoid that all invested capital is immediately used (‘dead capital’), which would also increase the annual operational and maintenance costs. Cells at a depth of 20 m The two landfills will be constructed with a base sealing system located 20 m deep from the ground level. This is based on the necessity to generate additional volumes considering the limited surface areas for landfill sites. One important consequence of this option is that it will be necessary to pump out the leachate during at least 50 years from pumping shafts which are subject to the settlements of the waste and consequently strong mechanical solicitations. In the designs, the access to the pumps located at the low points of the cells shall be guaranteed for maintenance and replacement, and consequently the shaft shall be accessible to workers. For this reason it is planned to construct an inspection / repair shaft that leads rectangular downwards (not in parallel to the slopes of the base sealing system). Also a pipe that links the deep point of the landfill with the shaft is required. The shaft needs good ventilation, three or four inter-levels and a proper lighting. Also, the replacement of pumps shall be possible. It will also be possible to bring down required equipment to the bottom of the shaft via a pulley (hoist). Also, in emergency cases it shall be possible to lift working people via the pulley very quick. The rectangular shaft causes additional excavation work of about 3.000

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


m³ or (in alternative) high efforts for securing a foundation pit with rectangular walls. The shaft will be designed in detail during the design phase.

Figure 26 Lay out Sanitary Landfill Office Building

Construction will be divided as follow • Rafah and JAD Construction phase 1: construction of a base sealing system which shows an area for

a filling period of 5 years (cell 1) • Rafah and JAD Construction phase 2: construction of a base sealing system which shows an area for

a filling period of 5 years (in parallel to the 5th operation year of landfill) and construction of a surface sealing system of the final filled areas of cell 1 (in the 6th operation year of the landfill)

• Rafah and JAD Construction phase 3: construction of a base sealing system which shows an area for a filling period of additional 5 years (in parallel to the 10th operation year of landfill) and construction of a surface sealing system of the final filled areas of cell 1 (in the 11th operation year of the landfill)

• Rafah will continue as such until cell 5. Leachate Collection and Treatment According to International/EU-regulations, “…leachate needs to be collected and treated that it reaches the required quality for discharge ... “. Defined parameters may not exceed given limits prior to discharge into the environment. These parameters are amongst others COD, BOD, NH4-N, NO2, NO3, AOX and heavy

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


metals. In principle leachate treatment can be divided into biological, physical and chemical treatment. A leachate pond can be regarded as a simple biological treatment. A special dedicated leachate pond is a large basin to retain and treat the leachate within a period of several days. Sedimentation and biological stabilisation take place at the same time in the pond. Organic pollutants in the leachate are removed by micro organisms and by sedimentation processes. At the bottom of the pond a mixture of mud and water will be settled, this will be pumped to the landfill when the pond is cleaned. After biological degradation, leachate still contains a wide range of substances (e.g. heavy metals or bio refractory), that normally prevents discharge into communal sewage waste management system. As a result the leachate usually has to be returned to the landfill by the leachate recycling system or treated on site in a suitable plant. For both landfills pumping stations will be required to pump the water from 20 below surface to the leachate ponds. The dimensions of the pumping stations and leachate system partly depend on the meteorological conditions in Gaza. The following weather data are used in the following for the conceptual design: Table 58 B Meteorological input data for conceptual design

MONTHS Meteorological Elements

Station J F M A M J J A S O N D Yearly

Jerusalem 6.1 6.9 8.7 10.3 15.3 17.7 18.9 19.0 18.1 16.4 12.3 8.0 Temperature, daily minimum [°C] Gaza 9.4 10.0 11.7 14.5 16.9 19.7 21.8 22.2 21.2 19.4 14.5 11.3

Jerusalem 11.4 12.9 16.0 20.9 24.8 27.3 28.4 28.6 27.5 24.5 18.7 13.3 Temperature, daily maximum [°C] Gaza 17.5 17.5 19.5 23.0 24.5 27.0 29.0 29.5 27.5 26.5 23.0 19.0

Mean total rainfall [mm]

Gaza 105 88 37 9 1 0 0 0 0 36 71 99 446

Maximum rainfall per day [mm]

Gaza 55.7 39.7 54.3 7.3 3.6 0 0 0 0 20.2 78.6 126.7

Maximum rain-fall per hour [mm]

Gaza 45.0

Maximum rain-fall in 5 min. [mm]

Gaza 20.1

Jerusalem 67 66 59 50 45 48 53 57 58 56 59 66 Mean Relative Humidity at 12 GMT [%]

Gaza 67 67 70 70 73 75 76 75 73 69 67 68 71

Jerusalem 110 104 157 195 238 232 252 228 127 128 63 55 Evaporation [mm]

Gaza 68 76 115 142 162 190 193 183 165 132 87 69 1582

Jerusalem 16.3 18.0 18.4 18.5 18.0 19.4 20.4 18.6 17.0 13.0 14.1 16.0 Mean Wind Speed [km/h] Gaza

These data are taken from Application of Methods for Analysis of Rainfall Intensity in Areas of Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian Interest, EXACT, 2006 http://www.pmd.ps/ar/ehsa2eatmna5eh.php, Palestinian Meteorological Office

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment Decomposing organic wastes generates ‘landfill gas’ comprising mainly methane, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. It needs to be collected and properly managed. If minimal quantities are generated it can simply be vented but most likely will need to be treated by flaring or utilized for energy generation. Gas vents and collection pipes are to be built into the landfill cells as the cells are being filled and the extraction points constructed in the capping zone to enable the gasses to be collected to a manifold and pumped to a flare of processing system for further utilization. Where significant quantities are generated, the gas can be used for burning purposes or to generate electricity. The generated energy might be applied on the spot, or could be connected to the Gaza electricity network. Monitoring Systems Finally the landfills will require proper monitoring systems, including: • Groundwater boreholes located around the perimeter (inside or outside the site boundaries), • A basic laboratory for analyzing samples of waste, groundwater and leachate, • A basic weather station for recording wind speed, direction, humidity and rainfall. Monitoring has to be based on procedures with respect to: • Air quality (odour, dust): regular monitoring of air quality parameters by quantitative measures is difficult

and expensive. Therefore it is recommended that dust and odor be measured in a qualitative fashion through regular interviewing of local residents.

• Landfill gas: the major constituents of landfill gas are methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are colourless and odourless. Landfill gas may cause a risk if allowed to accumulate with the potential for explosions or flash fires. Monitoring should be carried out on site, to determine the local effectiveness of gas collection equipment and to detect gas concentrations that initiate appropriate remedial actions. For on site measurement methane detectors have to be used.

• Noise: Considering the large distance to settlements a regular monitoring of noise emissions does not seem to be necessary. In case of complaints from neighbouring villages, noise levels should be identified. If these measurements prove impacts on settlements, measures for noise increase have to be elaborated. For the discussion of complaints from local citizens, an independent panel of citizens and officials should be established.

11.2.4 Landfill Systems Description

The technical systems for sanitary landfilling will be equal for each of the two identified sites in Gaza respectively in Rafah and are described in this chapter. The following items have to be regarded: I. Base sealing system

II. Leachate collection and treatment

III. Surface water collection IV. Surface sealing system V. Gas collection and treatment

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


I. Base Sealing System

The base sealing system has to prevent leakage of leachate and, as a result, pollution of soil and ground-water. It is assumed that the base sealing system has to be constructed that is adequate to the needs of the Governorates of Gaza Strip and the World Bank Guidelines.

Alternative or additional options for the base sealing are: • PE-HD geo-membrane with a thickness of 1.5 or 2.5 mm

• Bentonite mat (instead of one layer clay with 25 cm) • Asphalt layers • “Bento-Kies”, a well grain sized mixture, made of bentonite, sand and gravel

• Clay (two layers of 25 cm, each, kf < 1 x 10-9 m/s) The following sets out the advantages and disadvantages of these sealing systems:

The geo-membrane made of PE-HD is a technical product which probably has to be imported to Gaza Strip. Advantages of this system include:

• The PE-HD geo-membrane is in accordance with European and World Bank standards. • The daily laying is very high (minimizes construction time). • A PE-HD geo-membrane was also used for the landfills in the West Bank.

Disadvantages: • Geo-membrane probably has to be imported.

• Geo-membrane needs a protection layer (geo-textile) against damages by the gravel material of the drainage layer and (in case of rocky areas) to the natural ground

• Laying of geo-membrane requires special knowledge and experience of construction firm (otherwise

it might be destroyed). • In case of earthquakes geo-membrane is destroyed more quickly than clay layer.

According to the above listed advantages and disadvantages and the experiences of West Bank landfills, the geo-membrane could be used as a sealing layer.

Using a bentonite mat as an alternative base layer could be also an alternative option. Advantages of this system include: • The bentonite mat is in accordance with the World Bank standards.

• A bentonite mat provides an easy and quick construction • A double bentonite mat was also used for the landfills in the West Bank.

Disadvantages: • The bentonite mat is an expensive product and has to be imported • A bentonite mat probably needs a protection layer against damages of the gravel material of the

drainage layer (if it is used as a one-layer system) and in case of rocked areas to the natural ground. According to the above listed advantages and disadvantages and the experiences of West Bank landfills,

the geo-membrane could be used as a sealing layer. A sealing system made out of clay shows the following advantages and disadvantages.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Advantages:

• Clay is a natural ground material. • Clay shows a high resistance against earthquakes. • Clay has the characteristic of “self curing” if cracks develop.

• Especially at the site area of Rafah, clay material in good quality and quantity is available. Disadvantages:

• The construction time is longer. • Clay causes higher efforts for quality control.

Bore holes were drilled and laboratory tests were executed on both sites (see report of “Association of Engineers-Gaza, Material Testing Laboratory”, Report No. GI 69786, dated 24/07/2011 and Report No. GI 69110, dated 16/07/2011) and the clayey material in the ground of the site areas were classified as follow:

Extension of Johr al Deek • Till to a depth of about 6 to 7 m a mixture of clay silt and sand was identified. Below these layers

gravelly sands follow. • The water content ranges between 6.5 % and 14.8 %. • The binding materials (top layers of the ground) can be classified to clayey silts (CL-ML) and to sand-

silt-clay mixture (SM-SC). • According to the literature (“Grundbau Taschenbuch, Ernst & Sohn, 1990) the permeability ranges

between 1 x 10-7 m/s and 1 x 10-9 m/s for the above described materials.

Extension of Rafah • Till to a depth of about 10 m clayey silts were identified. Below this layer different layers of fine sand,

clays silts, silty sands and other soil mixtures follow • The water content ranges between 5.1 % and 17.2 %. • The binding material (top layer of the ground) can be classified to “ML”.

• According to the literature the described material can reach a permeability of about 1 x 10-10 m/s. It is doubtful whether clay of sufficient quality in available in Gaza for construct an adequate lining for the

landfill. Therefore it is advised to apply a sealing system consisting of a synthetic clay layer (bentonite mat), a 1.5 mm HDPE geomembrane and geotextile for both sites. II. Leachate collection and treatment Leachate collection Leachate is generated due to chemical processes in the landfill, the water content of the waste disposed

on the site and the inevitable infiltration of rain water during operation of the site. It contains several organic and inorganic pollutants and need to be collected and treated.

A main leachate collecting pipe will be located in the deepest point of the landfill area running from north-west to south-east direction (for Johr al Deek landfill inside the waste body) respectively from north-east to south-west (for Rafah landfill at the border of the waste body). For the interim disposal area at Rafah site

the leachate main pipe will be located at the north-eastern border of the landfill.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Leachate drain pipes will be placed rectangular to the main pipe. The drain pipes will have a distance of about 50 m, in maximum. The collected leachate will be lead to the deep point of each site area. From the

deep point leachate will be led by gravity to the leachate pond south-east of each landfill area. PE-HD pipes (2/3 – perforated) will be used for leachate collection. The calculation will be done on the

following basis: • The average inflow will be used for calculating the efficiency of the leachate pipes. (remark: According

to the European regulations a “worst case” has to be considered for the calculation (first waste is filled,

the rest of the landfill is open). For achieving a cost reduction this worst case should not be calculated.) Calculation with the average inflow means, that for a short period of time a build-up of leachate in the drain layer has to be accepted. Calculation will be done with a precipitation of 30 mm

per hour (rain amount 45 mm per hour for a 50-year event). • Inclination: a minimum of 1 % for leachate drain pipes and 1 % for main leachate pipes • Connection between main leachate pipe and leachate drain pipes with 90°

• Internal diameters of at least 450 mm for the main leachate pipes and 300 mm for the leachate drain pipes are chosen for the Gaza landfill. The new sanitary landfill in Rafah requires diameters of at least 500 mm for the main leachate pipe and 350 mm for the leachate drain pipes, whereas for the small

interim landfill one leachate main pipe with a diameter of 350 mm is sufficient (located in the centre of the landfill and at the north-eastern border of the landfill.

The following basic data are applied for the pipe calculation: • intensity of rainwater: i = 30 mm/h • runoff coefficient (in waste): c = 0.4

Leachate treatment and rough leachate calculation After the pre-treatment of the leachate (inside the leachate pond via sedimentation, natural biological treatment and evaporation), the remaining water must be discharged or treated.

A discharge is possible by re-circling of the leachate back to the landfill body. Re-circling will be done with a pump that will be constructed in a separate shaft. The shaft will be linked to the leachate pond by a pipe.

Leachate will be spread widely over open landfill areas via pumping. Remark: Due to the climatic conditions in the Gaza Strip (high evaporation rate), it is not planned to

construct a special leachate treatment plant that requires high engineered facilities and a lot of operating materials which have to be imported to Gaza.

For the leachate pond construction a rough calculation of the leachate amount is necessary. The following basic data will apply for this calculation: • intensity of rainwater i = 300 mm/a (see below)

• runoff coefficient (open base sealing system): c = 0.9 III. Surface Water Collection

Rainwater/ surface water usually can be regarded as non polluted as long as it is not in contact with the disposed waste. In particular the surface of the waste body has to be covered intermediately during

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


operation of the landfill and finally after closure of the landfill. Rainwater always has to be separated from leachate water as much as possible.

Rainwater will flow in general (for both sites) from the surrounding and (after filling) from the surface sealing of the landfill to trenches around the landfill body to the deepest point of the landfill, located at the

south respectively at the north. From these deep points rain water will be led by gravity to adjacent areas.

V. Gas Collection and Treatment The anaerobic decomposition of organic substances causes development of landfill gas. To avoid

influences which are harmful to the environment, a degasifying system of the landfill must be provided. A gas forecast has been worked out according to the formula of Rettenberger (see Production Manager

Manual for Landfill Gas, Trier, 1995). The gas forecast is based on the following basic data: • Total waste quantity: m = 3,600,000 / 500,000 / 13,200,000 Mg • Organic carbon: C = 200 kg/Mg

• Temperature: T = 30 °C • Decomposition parameter: k = 0.04

Remarks: • For the decomposition parameter the value 0.04 was chosen. That means, that a time period of about

7.5 years has to be calculated for a decomposition of the organic parts of 50 %.

• Normally the typical household waste in the Gaza Strip should show organic carbon portions up to 250 kg/Mg. However, due to the fact that about 15 to 20 % of the disposed waste consists of materials with low organic portion (for example: daily cover material) and the development of

composting facilities is plant for the Gaza Strip the C-value was reduced to 200 kg/Mg. Based on the above mentioned data, the following gas quantities will be produced during the total lifetime

of the three landfills: a. Johr al Deek site: G = 1,868 x C x m x (0.014 x T + 0.28) ≈ 940 million m³ b. Rafah (new sanitary landfill): G ≈ 3,450 million m³ c. Rafah interim landfill G ≈ 130 million m³

With a good degasifying system it will be possible to collect about 50 % of the currently produced gas. The landfill is actively degasified by means of a vertical gas collecting system (gas vents). After filling the

landfill, the following total of gas vents are built into the waste: • 40 vertical gas vents for Gaza landfill, • 150 vertical gas vents for new Rafah landfill and

• 10 vertical gas vents for interim landfill at Rafah Each vent has a collection radius of approximately 30 m. The gas vents are erected gradually after waste

filling (of each cell). For the gas vents a borehole with a diameter of 800 m, at least has to be drilled till a depth of 2 m above

the base sealing system. Into the borehole a steel pipe (pull pipe, DN 600, length: 4 m) is placed. A PE-HD filter pipe (internal diameter about 150 mm) is embedded on a support cone inside the steel pipe. The

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


annular space between the steel and filter pipe is filled with broken stones free from lime. After it, the filter pipe is extended accordingly by drawing the steel pipe. A new filter pipe will be linked to the existing filter

pipe and the annular space will be refilled again. Finally the filter pipe will be led through the surface sealing system as a non-perforated pipe and the steel

pipe will be removed (can be used for another gas vent). Because of the non-perforated pipe and the sealing system, a penetration of atmosphere from the outside into the gas collection system is avoided.

The landfill gas will be collected inside the broken stones (gravel-filled drain trench) and led via the PE-HD pipes out of the landfill body. Between the waste and the mineral surface sealing a compensation layer, in which gas can flow easily and which allows supply to the gas vents, will be applied.

Following to the gas vents a pipe system concerning of PE-HD pipes (DN 100 and DN 250 for Gaza landfill respectively for interim Rafah landfill as well as DN 150 and DN 350 for new Rafah landfill) is installed that

leads all collected gas from the gas vents to the gas compression station. The PE-HD pipes with a diameter of 100 mm (150 mm) leads the gas from each gas well to a gas collection station. These pipes are located inside the recultiviation layer and show an inclination of at least 5 %. About fifteen gas pipes

will be linked to a main gas pipe (diameter 250 mm respectively 350 mm) at each gas collection station. The main gas pipe will be placed inside the ring road and links the collection station with the compression station.

11.2.5 Landfill Infrastructures

The future main sanitary landfill for the Gaza Strip until 2040 will be located at Rafah. Therefore, at this site

a proper infrastructure is required. Following the infrastructure for Rafah site is described. At the end of this chapter the differences for Gaza site are explained.

Rafah Landfill The infrastructure for the landfill will be located west and south-east of the landfill area and will be divided into two areas:

• Entrance area (east of the interim and new landfill site) • Infrastructure area (east and north of the interim and new landfill site)

The entrance area includes: • a control building (prefabricated container with a size of about 3 m x 6 m with a toilet, a storage room

and an inspectors room) where all required data for delivering trucks will be registered by the landfill

staff and with the possibility of waste control (fixed installed ladder), • a weighing bridge with a length of 18 m and a weight registration up to 40 Mg (including a data link to

the control building),

• a wheel cleaning unit for trucks that will leave the landfill area (wheel cleaning with water) • a container area (concrete-paved area) for recycling activities and for safe-guarding of undefined

waste (inspection area) - area of about 300 m² to 400 m²

• a parking area for 10 cars, at least The infrastructure area includes:

• an operation building (size about 500 m²) including meeting (conference) room, toilets, dressing rooms, laboratory, kitchen with a rest room, security room and offices

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• a garage (size about 400 m²) which serves as the shelter for all mechanical equipment to be used at the landfill

• a fuel tank (volume of about 5.000 l) • an emergency generator • a septic tank for sewage

• a basic weather station for recording wind speed and direction, humidity and rainfall • a basic laboratory for analyzing samples of waste, groundwater and leachate (laboratory is located

inside the operation building)

The landfill is supplied with water and energy (including a transformer). A telecommunication supply is also provided.

The total landfill area will be surrounded by a fence. The access to the site can be closed by a gate.

Also, the leachate pond, the re-circulation shaft (including the pump) and all gas facilities belong the required infrastructure of a landfill. These technical equipments are located south-east of the interim respectively south of the new landfill.

South of the proposed landfill (towards the border) an enlargement of the site area is possible for material storage (waste coverage) as well as for later recycling activities.

Note: During landfill operation for the first 10 to 15 years, the enlargement area for the future operation can be used for (excavated) cover material storage.

Johr al Deek As the Gaza landfill will only be used for a time period of maximum about 9 to 10 years, a reduced

infrastructure is planned on site. All infrastructural facilities are located north of the new landfill respectively north-west of the existing dump site.

The infrastructural facilities include: • a control building (see above), • a weighing bridge with a length of 18 m and a weight registration up to 40 Mg (see above),

• a wheel cleaning unit for trucks that will leave the landfill area (see above), • a parking area for 5 cars, at least, • an operation building (size about 100 m²) including toilets, dressing rooms, kitchen with a rest room,

security room, • a garage (size about 150 m²), • a fuel tank (volume of about 5.000 l),

• an emergency generator, • a septic tank for sewage and • a supply of water, energy and telecommunication.

The total site area will be surrounded by a fence. The access to the site can be closed by a gate.

The leachate pond, the re-circulation shaft (including the pump) and all gas facilities are located mainly east of the new landfill.

Towards the border an enlargement of the site area is possible for material storage (waste coverage).

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


11.2.6 Roads

The following design criteria are proposed for all access and internal roads (of all sites): • Maximum slope: about 8 % (adapted to the topographical situation) • Cross slope: 2%

• Maximum speed: 30 km/h • Minimum radius: there is no limitation on the classification • Width of road: 8 m

The following sub-structure for the access road and all bituminous paved areas are proposed: • 5 cm asphalt layer

• 8 cm binder layer • 20 cm crushed stone base • 20 cm sub-base layer

The existing access roads to the landfills are presently unpaved or damaged and show insufficient width and tonnage capacity.

The access roads for Rafah and Johor Al Deek landfill sites are connected directly to Salah El Deen street (The main road crossing Gaza strip) . For Rafah landfill, which is located in the southern east of Gaza Strip, the access road comprises of two main roads leading to the site. The first access road starts from Salah El-Deen street to the east and is about 2.3 km in length and 18 m wide. Only 6 m wide of this road is paved. The second access road is about 500 m long and 10 m wide, of which only 6m wide is paved. This second road links the first road with the landfill site. For Johor al Deek landfill, the access roads to the site are located in the middle of the Gaza Strip. There are two roads leading to the site. The first road starts from Salah El-Deen street to towards the East and is about 3.2 km long and 35 m wide, of which 7 m is paved. The second road is about 1.74 km long and 10 m wide. Only 6 m wide is paved and it links with the first road at the landfill site. Several site visits were conducted to assess the current structural conditions of the roads and obtain an estimate of the required cost to obtain an 8m wide access roads to each landfill. Rafah Landfill Access Roads First Road The road is 18 m wide of which only 6 m is paved, 4 m from the each side is unpaved. See picture (1). The pavement condition of the first 1.2 km is in a good structural condition. Along the whole width of the road deep cuts are observed of 20 cm deep by 6m long. The pavement condition of other segments is in a general good condition with small holes and cracks with a total area of 20 m2 See picture (2). Second Road The road is 10 m wide, with only 6 m paved. About 2 m from the each side the road is unpaved. See picture (3). The pavement condition of the first 200 m is a good structural condition. There are holes and

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


cuts of about a 20 cm deep by 8 m long along the whole width. There are several segments where the width of the road decreases to only 3 m. In other segments, the condition of the road is generally good with a few cracks and small holes, See picture (4). Johor Al Deek Landfill Roads: First Road The width of the road is 35 m wide with only 7 m of it is paved, 8 m from the right and 20 m from the left is unpaved. See picture (5). The first 200 m has paving condition which can be considered good. Afterwards, there are several 15 cm deep cuts along the road with measured length of 5 m. The rest of the road has a general good paving condition, except some small holes and cracks with a total area of 30 m2. See picture (6). Second Road The road width is 10 m wide with only 6 m of it is paved, 2 m from the each side is unpaved. See picture (7). The general pavement condition of the road along most of its length is in a bad condition. The cover here needs full removal and reconstruction of a new pavement. See picture (8) Cost estimate for Extending and Rehabilitation the Roads Rafah Landfill Roads The cost estimate is based on rehabilitating the road due to the holes and cracks, and increasing the paved width of the road to 8 m instead of 6 m.

A total cost of 169,375 US $ is needed for this process

o First Segment: • Rehabilitation cost =2375 US Dollar • Extending Cost = 138000US $

o Second Segment:

• Rehabilitation cost =1375US $ • Extending Cost = 30000US $

Joher El Deek Landfill Roads The cost estimate is based on rehabilitating the road due to the holes and cracks, and increasing the paved width of the road to 8 m instead of 6 m.

A total cost of 465,325 US $ is needed for this process

o First Segment: • Rehabilitation cost =8.125 US $ • Extending Cost = 144.000 US $

o Second Segment:

• Extending (reconstructing) Cost = 313.200 US $

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


The breakdown of the above mentioned costs are given in the next table Table 59 Cost Break Down of Upgrading Access Roads to Rafah and Johr al Deek

Rehabilitation Cost

Road Name Measurement Unit Quantity Unit Price

($ US) Total

($ US)

First Segment m2 95 25 2375 Rafah Site

Second Segment m2 55 25 1375

Total 3750 $

Johr Al Deek Site

First Segment m2 325 25 8125

Total Cost for the Rehabilitation of existing pavement for the two Roads 11875 $

Cost for extending the pavement to 8 m width

Road Name Measurement Unit Quantity Unit Price

($ US) Total

($ US)

First Segment m2 4600 30 138000 Rafah Site

Second Segment m2 1000 30 30000

Total 168000 $

First Segment m2 4800 30 144000 Johr Al Deek Site Second Segment m2 10440 30 313200

Total 457200 $

Total Cost for Rehabilitation and extension of the Two Roads 625200 $

Pictures Rafah Roads

Picture 1 Picture 2

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Picture 3 Picture 4

Johor Al Deek Roads

Picture 5 Picture 6

Picture 7 Picture 8

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


11.2.7 Waste Filling and Monitoring

Waste filling (for the new landfills) The delivering waste vehicles have to unload the waste in a distance of about 10 m to the actual waste

filling area. The waste is transported to the filling area with a compactor and will be built in by the compactor in layers with a maximum thickness of 50 cm.

Waste will only be covered with ground material daily and in areas which will be not under operation for a longer time. To minimize emission of the waste disposal the filling shall be carried out as follows: • Size of the waste filling area is dimensioned in such a way that after approximately 3 days the next

waste layer can be started. • Areas where no waste has been placed for a longer time are covered with a soil layer of about 20 cm

in thickness. The soil cover is applied in these areas immediately after waste filling.

In this way odour emissions are minimised. Flying paper or other waste drifts are reduced by waste build-in (incorporation) with the compactor.

Protection and safety measurements (for the new landfills) The following measurements are planned:

• Ground material of a volume of at least 200 m³ will be stored near the waste filling area for fire fighting on landfill.

• A utility water pipe sufficiently dimensioned for fire fighting will be constructed nearby and around the

disposal area. • Smoking is only allowed in the staff room of the operation building. • In all buildings fire extinguisher have to be fixed.

• Outside slopes will be covered with ground material until the surface sealing system is constructed. Safety boots, safety gloves, weather protection clothes, ear protection and warning clothes for the staff

guiding the truck to the place of disposal for vehicles are available for every person who has to work on the landfill.

Control and monitoring measurements (for the new landfills) The following control measurements have to be done regularly respectively if required on the landfills: • Control of the delivering vehicles (every vehicle)

• Looking through and eventually control analysis if waste is declared in a wrong way (if suspected) • Gas analysis (once a year) • Leachate analysis (once a year)

• Inspection of all roads in the landfill area and of the fence during filling process (daily) • Inspection of all roads in the landfill area, the fence and the recultivated areas after closing time

(weekly)

• Topographical survey during filling (once a year) and after closing (once in 2 years) • Control of the quantity of leachate.

Three ground water wells are proposed to be constructed for each site; 1 well in ground water afflux and 2 wells in effluent direction. These wells will allow a proof of the tightness of the base sealing system. Due to the considerable depth of the existing ground water levels all wells will have a depth of about 50 m.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


To minimise the impact of the landfill on the surrounding environment and to detect potential failure of existing environmental safety measures it is necessary to undertake an environmental monitoring on a

regular basis.

11.3 Decommissioning of Landfills

After completion of the operational phases of the landfills, they will be closed off. Next a long period of aftercare will start, focusing on continued landfill gas collection, treatment and collection of the remainder of leachate generated by the waste body and environmental monitoring. Immediately after the operational phase of each cell, the surface of the landfill will be equalised using a 50 cm thick compensation layer with on top a double layer of geo textile. The geo textile will be sealed of with a 50 cm low permeable clay layer to prevent future infiltration of rainwater into the waste body. On top a drainage layer of 30 cm thick will be realized for the collection and discharge of rainwater. Finally the landfill will be recultivated using a soil layer of 100 cm thick, to enable reuse of the landfill for particular purposes, such as a public park or other purposes that would not affect the efficiency of the top sealing. The production of landfill gas will peak for a period of about 10 years, starting 3 to 4 years after disposal. During these 10 years, landfill gas may be emitted in sufficient quantities for generating energy. Afterwards the production of landfill gas will gradually reduce, but needs to be collected and flared for various decennia. Consequently, the gas abstraction facilities as described in section 11.2 shall remain in place many years, maybe as much as 50 years, after closure of the landfill. After closure and sealing off the surface of the landfill, the production of leachate from the landfill will diminish quickly. But the production of biological leachate, as result of the biological degradation process of the waste, will continue for something like an additional 10 years. Consequently, the leachate abstraction facilities as described in section 11.2 shall remain in place after closure of the landfill. The leachate itself needs to be treated, either on side or at a central WWTP. Rainfall water will be discharged by the surface drainage layer and may be expected to be clean. Nevertheless, monitoring of its quality is recommended before discharging the water, or infiltrating the water into the groundwater aquifer. It will also be required to regularly monitoring the quality of the underneath groundwater The efficiency of the surface sealing itself depends on its age. After some decades, say about 30 years, it may be expected that the surface sealing, including clay layer and above, may have to be replaced. The best timing for replacement depends on the actual land use after closure. For instance planting trees will eventually cause degradation of the sealing due to the tree roots. Presence of small animals, in particular rabbits, may further reduce the lifetime of the landfill sealing. Above aftercare measures are to be organized efficiently, and need to have sufficient financial resources for their operations. An indication of related costs is provided hereafter. Estimated Annual After Care Costs:

• Staffing USD 10,000 • Gas collection USD 100,000 • Leachate collection USD 50,000 • Storm water discharge USD 10,000 • Groundwater monitoring USD 3,000

TOTAL: USD 173,000 per year for one landfill

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


11.4 Closure of Existing Unprotected Dump Sites

In general, the existing dump sites in the Gaza Strip are causing substantial environmental and health

threats. In addition to enhancing their current operation practices (or introducing operation at all) in the short term, existing dumpsites should be rehabilitated.

Dumpsites in the Gaza Strip are usually marked with steep slopes going downwards to a sloped natural ground. The sites are normally located close to a paved road. From the road or maybe from a short access road respectively ramp leading to the site all delivered waste is thrown down the existing dump slopes.

Due to this disposal procedure the site expands away from the access road which causes a flat delivery zone on top of the waste and steep slopes at the exterior sides of the dumpsite.

Usually the waste is separated in recyclable and saleable materials which is executed by scavengers as well as in remaining waste that has to be disposed. The remaining waste is normally burned (that means, the gas production inside the dumpsite is low). Typically dumpsites will be covered with debris.

The following section outlines technical and operational measures for closing / rehabilitation of the current waste bodies at Johr al Deek, Deir al Balah and Rafah.

Technical and operational rehabilitation measures for dump sites include: • Profiling waste body;

• Surface sealing system; • Surface water collection; • Leachate collection and treatment;

• Gas collection and treatment; and • Improvements of infrastructural facilities and operation.

Profiling waste body Generally landfill slopes should not exceed a profile of 1:2; in maximum (if a surface sealing system should

be applied). The existing slopes of the dumpsites show normally an inclination of about 1.1 to 1:1.5. Therefore the risk of landfill slides exists.

The most appropriate measure to reduce the risk of sliding is the profiling of the existent slope to an inclination of 1:2; in maximum.

To avoid extreme mass movements inside the waste body it is suggested that the steep slopes will be reduced by material fillings at the outside of the slopes. In consequence the border of the site will be moved from the site away. Therefore earth materials or debris should be used for filling in order to avoid

additional pollution of the ground. Remark: As far as the extension of the dump site is not limited a slope inclination of 1:2.5 or 1:3 should be

preferred. The flat area (plateau area on top of the waste body) should be profiled with a minimum inclination of at

least 5 %.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


In the final design the required mass movements can be calculated exactly. Mass movements then have to be executed according to the results of the design.

Surface sealing system

Dumpsites might cause negative impact on the environment even many years after the operation has been stopped. To reduce these impacts certain requirements for re-cultivation are necessary. The kind of covering must have the purpose to:

• isolate the waste, • prevent liquid infiltration into the waste, • control and guide the generated biogas production,

• reduce erosion, • provide a proper drainage, and to • support a vegetal cover. The final cover is required for the sloped area and the platform. To comply with above requirements the following surface sealing system should be applied on top of the profiled waste body including the following layers:

• compensation layer, thickness: about 50 cm; permeability about 1 x 10-5 m/s; • clay layer, thickness about 50 cm, permeability < 1 x 10-8 m/s; • drainage layer, thickness: 30 cm, at least, permeability more than 1 x 10-3 m/s;

• geo-textile; and • re-cultivation layer, thickness: about 70 cm.

The different layers of the surface sealing system are nearly the same as for a new landfill site and are described more in detail further on in this report. Therefore only the technical requirements for the clay liner will be described below.

The mineral sealing (clay) layer will be applied in one layer of at least 50 cm. A good binding material (suitable combination of coarse and fine particles) has to be used. The material will only be built in when

weather conditions allow a good compaction of the material (no frost, no rain). The following quality demands have to be considered: • at least 10 mass-% of clay particles with a high adsorptive capacity,

• maximum 5 mass-% of organic substances, and • maximum 20 mass-% of carbonate.

For the material and its incorporation the following requirements must be guaranteed: • homogenous material that shows a homogenous water content and homogenous incorporation of the

material,

• proctor density of each layer of Dpr ≥ 95 %, and • water content (w) must be higher than the proctor water content (wpr). Surface water collection If upstream surface water will continue to flow into the waste body, this will pollute the ground and surface

water even decades after stopping dumping of waste. The negative impact on ground and surface water can considerably be reduced by draining the surface water away from the dumpsite even when the dumpsite is still in operation.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Especially during rainy season surface water is seeping into the waste body and contributes to the

generation of leachate. Water inside the waste body might have a negative impact on the slope stability, too.

As a minimum requirement a drainage channel along the borders of the dumpsite should be constructed in such a way that surface water can stream by gravity to the deep point of the site area and (as far as possible) should be linked to a stream or (in alternative) evaporated and trickled to the ground in a rain

water retention pond. Furthermore surface water from filled and covered sections of the site should be drained away from the

dumpsite towards the above mentioned drainage channel or pond. Considering the water flow after average rainfall and also during heavy rainfall events in the region, it has

to be assumed that a drainage channel with a width of about 1.5 m and a depth of about 0.40 m is requested. Crossings with possible paths have to be executed with culverts.

Leachate collection and treatment Normally leachate discharges through the open waste slopes generate a runoff towards the valley

(deepest point of the dumpsite). To avoid a mixing of leachate and surface water a ditch or a perforated pipe at the base point of the open waste slopes has to be constructed. The ditch should be made of clay with a proper quality whereas the pipe must be formed by PE-HD material. Adjacent to the ditch / pipe a

pond to store all leachate follows. Due to the fact that it is planned to construct a new sanitary landfill adjacent to the current waste bodies at

Johr al Deek and Rafah, the leachate from the dump sites can be discharged to the new leachate pond. The leachate effluent from the dump site to the pond ensured by perforated PE-HD pipes which are located within the material fillings at the outside of the slopes (see profiling waste body).

Gas collection and treatment

Landfill gas consists of the two components methane and carbon dioxide. Together with oxygen, methane conglomerates a potentially explosive alloy (mixture) within certain ranges of concentration. The explosive range for pure methane in air lies between 4.9 and 15.4 Vol.-%. The explosive range is limited by inert

gases like carbon dioxide and nitrogen. As a result it has to be stated that in an open dumpsite (on the waste surface) there is always the danger

of an explosive mixture due to the leaking methane towards the circumfluent air. However, due to the high portion of waste that was already combusted it is suggested for the two dump

sites to install a passive degasifying collection system. In detail, the following gas collection and treatment system is suggested: • Gas collection via the permeable compensation layer of the surface sealing system;

• Gas treatment via simple gas windows which are located inside the re-cultivation layer and filled with compost to allow methane oxidation.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


For Deir Al Balah landfill (up to now) nothing is known about existing gas facilities. Therefore, a proper gas collection and treatment is planned for this landfill, and calculated in the costs as well.

11.5 Preferred Institutional Arrangements

The proposed institutional arrangements for Gaza are based on the preferred option for waste collection and disposal, whereas northern Gaza will be served by the Johr al Deek landfill until the years 2032, and southern Gaza will be served by the Rafah landfill until 2040 or longer.

The Consultant would like to propose that the various municipalities and solid waste councils in Gaza (with a total population of around 1,500,000 in 2010) will remain responsible in the short term for the primary collection/transport of the municipal waste to transfer stations, or directly to landfills when appropriate. In the long run, the collection, transportation and disposal of waste to a new and central sanitary landfill(s) can be best managed by two Joint Gaza Service Councils, each one responsible for providing waste services connected to each of the two long term sanitary landfill. The advantage of establishing two (long term) central Gaza Joint Service Councils, compared to separate waste providers for different municipalities would be the following:

• These organizations would be independent, and therefore impartial towards all public and private waste providers in the Gaza strip

• They could optimize the disposal operations for their jurisdiction, including technical and financial operations and environmental and public health management

• They would be able to offer a uniform, flat rate for waste being offered either at Johr al Deek, or at the Rafah Sanitary landfill. This has the advantage that waste providers are treated equally and are free to minimize their own primary transportation costs. This would imply that there will be some cross-subsidy among the waste providers for disposal cost, depending on their distance to the landfill

• This flat rate would have to cover for all operations of the Gaza Joint Service Councils, including operation of Rafah and Johr al Deek, waste collection, transfer and transportation to the central landfills

• Ideally, the Gaza JSCs could provide for depreciation costs for their central landfill as well. Whether such Gaza Joint Service Councils would operate as a fully public organization, whether it would be set up as a Public – Private Partnership (PPP), or whether it is set up as a fully private concession would largely depend on the financial and operational conditions. Furthermore it would be required that the financing schemes for the JSC operations have to be validated by the Municipalities, specifically if co-financing would be partly arranged through the Municipalities. If the operations of the Gaza JSC would prove to be financially sustainable, it is advised to seriously consider the PPP alternative, taking into account that:

• PPP enables generation of private investments • PPP enables to mobilize private sector experience • PPP requires a positive business case (profits) • PPP creates market discipline if allocation of risks are properly designed (commercial risks should

be born by private partner). • PPP requires clear responsibilities and commitments, both on public as well as on private side • PPP cannot represent public interests only

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


• PPP requires effective dispute resolution schemes Including collection and primary transportation services also into the two JSCs would create the following advantages.

• The two organizations would be independent, and therefore impartial towards all public and private waste generators in the Gaza strip

• It could optimize and standardize collection fees and primary transportation operations of waste for the whole of Gaza, including technical and financial operations and environmental and public health management

• It would be have to minimize its expenditures, based on the above flat rate (NIS per ton) for waste being offered either at this transfer station or directly at the Rafah Sanitary landfill. This has the advantage that waste providers are free to optimize their own primary collection and transportation costs

• It would therefore have a strong incentive to minimize the waste streams being offered for disposal, which in return is a strong incentive for maximizing reuse, recycling and composting, provided that related costs are less than the disposal costs

These proposed institutional arrangements would imply the following:

• North Gaza Joint Service Council: would become a merger of the existing Northern Gaza JSC with the waste services of Gaza Municipality

• South Gaza Joint Service Council: would become a merger of the existing Deir al Balah JSC with the waste services of Khan Yunis and Rafah.

• The waste services of UNWRA might also be integrated into these two Joint Service Councils, for instance through a system of outsourcing, where as flat rates for waste collection from the refugee camps could be negotiated.

It will be eventually up to the existing five service providers in Gaza to decide whether and how this preferred proposed institutional set-up can best be realized. Bilateral negotiations between the participating parties will be further required, similar to the process that was undertaken to establish the currently existing two joint services providers. Also the experiences with establishing the Gaza Coastal Water Utility as joint water and wastewater service provider can be taken into account. Eventually a written agreement will be required between the current service providers before the new institutional set up can be implemented.

To establish the proposed institutional arrangements for SWM in Gaza would require a Solid Waste Institutional Development Project for Gaza, with the major objective to assist the current waste service providers along the path of establishing the two Gaza Joint Service Councils, and to strengthen their capabilities in terms of improved technical, operational and financial management of the waste sector. Such a project might require an implementation period of approximately one year and an investment of approximately 400,000 USD.

11.6 Solid Waste Program Management Unit

In order to manage the above investments in the Gaza solid waste sector it is advised to establish a Gaza Solid Waste Program Management Unit (GSW-PMU), preferably under the auspices of one of the existing

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


investment management and lending execution agencies in Gaza, such as UNDP-PAPP or the Municipal Lending and Development Fund. The advantage of setting up such a PMU is that experience in terms of tendering and contract supervision in the waste sector can be built up centrally. This allows also for the development of standard tendering and procurement regulations for solid waste investments. International standards such as developed bythe World Bank can be used as practical example. Furthermore the GSW-PMU would allow for development of additionally required programs, such as an integrated Hazardous and Health Care Waste Management System. The PMU could be steered by a Steering Committee, consisting of the participating international donors, and could be advised by an advisory committee, consisting of the benefiting municipalities and other solid waste stakeholders in Gaza. Eventually the PMU would have to transfer operations of the investments to the identified operators. For instance the landfill related investments should after their construction be handed over to the proposed Joint Service Councils. Whether such as PMU should be organized by UNDP-PAPP or MDLF depends on different factors, including: 1. experience with solid waste sector in Gaza 2. experience in development of project and tender documents; 3. experience in financial management and reporting. 4. experience with international tendering and contract supervision 5. Unit costs for implementing the PMU An initial assessment of the Consultant based on these criteria shows that both UNDP-PAPP and MDLF could qualify for running this PMU, be it that UNPD-PAPP has substantial more experience with the solid waste section in Gaza and would therefore have the preference. Alternatively it can be decided that both UNDP-PAPP and MDLF would be invited to prepare a detailed proposal for running such a PMU based on an independent Terms of Reference to be prepared by the Consultant.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

12.1 Capital and Operational Expenditures

Summarizing the above, the following investment costs for development of Integrated Solid Waste Management have been identified in this Feasibility Study for the period from 2012 until 2040: Table 60 Summary of Investment Costs

SWM Package

Investment Investment Period

1 Upgrading Waste Collection Fleet 16.6 MUSD 2013 – 2038

2 Cleaning Random Dump Sites 1.5 MUSD 2013

3 Upgrade and Construction of Transfer Stations 2.3 MUSD 2014 - 2015

4 Johr al Deek – Short Term Investments* 6.8 MUSD 2013

5 Deir al Balah – Short Term Closure 1.6 MUSD 2013

6 Rafah Landfill – Short Term Investments* 3.6 MUSD 2013

7 Johr al Deek – Long Term Investments 26.0 MUSD 2017 – 2033

9 Rafah Landfill – Long Term Investments 43.9 MUSD 2017 – 2043

10 Composting Strategy 38.8 MUSD 2013 – 2038

11 Solid Waste Institutional Development Project 0.4 MUSD 2012

12 GSW PMU 7,3 MUSD 2012 - 2043

TOTAL SWM Gaza (2012 – 2040) 148.8 MUSD

* These costs are excluding closure costs

The total sum of solid waste sector investments required for Gaza up until 2043 would be 148.8 Million US Dollars. This excludes the cost for the development and setting up tailor-made Hazardous and Health Care Waste Management Systems and an integrated Agricultural Waste Management System for Gaza, which are also urgently required. The investment costs are also exclusive of the potential investments in a Bulk Transfer Station and Bulk transport vehicles in the year 2032, after expiration of the foreseen operation period of Johr al Deek. As explained earlier, this depends whether Johr al Deek is allowed by the Israelis to continue landfilling within the 300-500 m border zone after 2032 or not. The below summary table provides an overview of the annual Capital Expenditures (1 to 10) foreseen under the preferred scenario. Details for the individual investment packages are provided in the next sections.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 61 CAPEX Preferred Strategy Capital Expentidures (CAPEX)Prefered Scenario

Year TOTAL Collection Cleaning Transfer ST JaD Closure ST Sofa LT JaD LT Sofa CompostingCAPEX Vehicles Dumpsites Stations Landfill Deir al Balah Landfill Landfill Landfill Strategy

20122013 $19.989.000 $6.489.000 $1.500.000 $6.800.000 $1.600.000 $3.600.0002014 $1.050.000 $1.050.0002015 $1.269.000 $1.269.0002016 $9.000.000 $9.000.0002017 $13.900.000 $7.400.000 $6.500.0002018 $7.227.500 $2.027.500 $3.500.000 $1.700.000201920202021 $4.600.000 $4.600.0002022 $9.100.000 $5.700.000 $3.400.0002023 $2.027.500 $2.027.500202420252026 $12.600.000 $12.600.0002027 $11.300.000 $6.600.000 $4.700.0002028 $2.027.500 $2.027.5002029203020312032 $16.300.000 $10.000.000 $6.300.0002033 $4.927.500 $2.027.500 $2.900.0002034203520362037 $12.400.000 $12.400.0002038 $8.327.500 $2.027.500 $6.300.00020392040204120422043 $5.200.000 $5.200.000

TOTAL $141.245.500 $16.626.500 $1.500.000 $2.319.000 $6.800.000 $1.600.000 $3.600.000 $26.100.000 $43.900.000 $38.800.000 The below table provides an overview of the foreseen operational expenditures for solid waste management in the Gaza Strip, including operations of the capital investments mentioned above. Also the annual expenditures for the (11) Solid Waste Institutional Development Project and the operational costs for the (12) PMU are included below.

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 62 OPEX Preferred Strategy Operational Expentidures (OPEX)Prefered Scenario

Year TOTAL Collection Waste JaD Sofa Bulk Bulk Composting Institutional GSWMOPEX Transportation Transfer Landfill Landfill Transfer Transport Strategy Dev project PMU

20122013 $14.980.555 $14.444.555 $400.000 $136.0002014 $17.170.049 $15.034.980 $800.000 $532.816 $294.253 $372.000 $136.0002015 $18.164.209 $15.610.744 $827.058 $542.851 $303.556 $744.000 $136.0002016 $19.151.148 $16.196.575 $854.677 $541.377 $306.518 $1.116.000 $136.0002017 $20.203.765 $16.818.201 $884.290 $558.346 $318.928 $1.488.000 $136.0002018 $21.261.327 $17.444.279 $914.151 $575.343 $331.554 $1.860.000 $136.0002019 $22.322.959 $18.074.020 $944.216 $592.341 $344.383 $2.232.000 $136.0002020 $23.377.568 $18.706.598 $974.439 $602.894 $353.638 $2.604.000 $136.0002021 $24.495.854 $19.421.921 $1.011.383 $593.253 $357.297 $2.976.000 $136.0002022 $25.668.526 $20.149.593 $1.049.015 $609.178 $376.741 $3.348.000 $136.0002023 $26.854.379 $20.889.159 $1.087.310 $624.982 $396.928 $3.720.000 $136.0002024 $28.052.864 $21.640.126 $1.126.240 $640.634 $417.865 $4.092.000 $136.0002025 $29.251.216 $22.401.959 $1.165.775 $648.811 $434.671 $4.464.000 $136.0002026 $30.422.356 $23.174.085 $1.205.883 $634.054 $436.334 $4.836.000 $136.0002027 $31.652.884 $23.955.886 $1.246.531 $648.221 $458.247 $5.208.000 $136.0002028 $32.893.381 $24.746.706 $1.287.681 $662.121 $480.873 $5.580.000 $136.0002029 $34.143.075 $25.545.849 $1.329.294 $675.723 $504.208 $5.952.000 $136.0002030 $35.401.151 $26.352.576 $1.371.330 $688.997 $528.247 $6.324.000 $136.0002031 $36.590.677 $27.097.276 $1.409.911 $701.912 $549.578 $6.696.000 $136.0002032 $37.668.131 $27.754.208 $1.443.603 $706.031 $560.289 $7.068.000 $136.0002033 $40.548.633 $28.245.506 $1.468.067 $173.000 $1.287.781 $705.078 $1.093.200 $7.440.000 $136.0002034 $41.451.195 $28.720.530 $1.491.626 $173.000 $1.308.446 $716.392 $1.093.200 $7.812.000 $136.0002035 $42.318.360 $29.178.243 $1.514.220 $173.000 $1.312.453 $727.244 $1.093.200 $8.184.000 $136.0002036 $43.180.387 $29.617.637 $1.535.793 $173.000 $1.331.152 $737.605 $1.093.200 $8.556.000 $136.0002037 $44.020.598 $30.037.737 $1.556.292 $173.000 $1.348.919 $747.450 $1.093.200 $8.928.000 $136.0002038 $44.821.480 $30.437.607 $1.575.664 $173.000 $1.349.255 $756.754 $1.093.200 $9.300.000 $136.0002039 $45.614.737 $30.816.350 $1.593.859 $173.000 $1.364.836 $765.493 $1.093.200 $9.672.000 $136.0002040 $47.219.155 $31.173.115 $1.610.829 $173.000 $1.379.368 $773.643 $1.093.200 $10.880.000 $136.0002041 $1.566.900 $173.000 $1.393.9002042 $1.581.432 $173.000 $1.408.432

2043 etc $346.000 $173.000 $173.000TOTAL $882.394.949 $653.686.017 $33.279.136 $13.682.884 $21.411.652 $5.929.659 $8.745.600 $141.452.000 $400.000 $3.808.000

Italic = aftercare It should be noted that the operational costs for the composting strategy, mentioned above, would directly lead to revenues in terms of selling compost. These revenues are set here on 100 USD / ton of compost against operational expenditures of around 68 USD / ton. The total revenues will depend of the average per ton revenues from households and other waste generators as well the revenues from the sale of compost.

12.2 Revenues and Affordability of Preferred Strategy

The total costs and revenues of the Preferred Solid Waste Strategy for the Gaza Strip are presented in table 63. The total costs include all CAPEX and OPEX for the Gaza Strip:

• Waste collection • Transfer of waste • Transport to the two disposal landfills • Composting

The total revenues relate to waste collection fees (assumed at 4.1 NIS per person per month, or 24.6 NIS per household per month) and the revenues from selling compost (100 USD per ton of produced compost). Assuming that these revenues will indeed be fully effectuated, the internal rate of return of 17.8%. Suppose as worst case scenario that the actual cost recovery from collecting waste fees and selling compost would lack far behind the required level of revenues (in 2010 a total of 13.2 Million NIS was

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


actually collected from waste fees), and that only 50% of the produced compost can be actually sold. This means that the remainder of OPEX and CAPEX would have to be provided by international donors. Table 64 provides an overview. In that case an additional 18 MUSD donor contribution would be required in 2015, growing to 41 MUSD in 2040 to cover the gap in OPEX and CAPEX requirements. Clearly this would go beyond the financing capabilities of the international donor community, leading to the conclusion that improving waste collection services and enforcement of waste fee collection are of the utmost importance. Table 65 provides an overview in case only the operational costs would be recovered. It is assumed that the capital investments presented in table 61 will be fully provided by the international donors (141 Million USD in total until 2040). If assuming a collection fee of 3.62 NIS per person per month, or 21.7 NIS per household per month, and assuming that only 50% of the produced compost will be sold, would lead to recovery of all operational expenditures until 2040 with in IRR of about 20%. It should be noted that eventually (in 2032 precisely) the household fees are to be increased to compensate for additional operational expenditures due to new operational expenditures for bulk transfer and transport from Johr al Deek to Rafah. Table 66 provides the cost and revenues for Johr al Deek landfill only (at the Gate). Assuming a flat entrance fee of 8 USD per ton (or 32 NIS per ton), the landfill can be operated with an internal Rate of Return of 15.4%. This includes all related OPEX and CAPEX cost for the landfill. Table 67 provides the cost and revenues for Rafah landfill only (at the Gate). Assuming again a flat entrance fee of 8 USD per ton (or 32 NIS per ton), the landfill can be operated with an internal Rate of Return of 15.7%. This includes all related OPEX and CAPEX cost for the landfill. Table 68 provides the cost and revenues for the business case wherein all six proposed transfer stations are operated, including bulk transport from here to the two landfills, and including the operations of the landfills themselves (long term only). All OPEX and CAPEX for these components are included in the cost column. Assuming a unified tariff for these services of 25 USD per ton (or 100 NIS per ton), this would lead to an Internal rate of Return of 19.6%.

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

2 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

3 C

ost

an

d R

even

ues

an

d IR

R f

or

SW

M S

trat

egy

(to

tal)

fo

r G

aza

Str

ip (

excl

aft

erca

re)

T

ota

l CA

PE

X +

OP

EX

Rev

- C

ost

sY

ear

Po

pu

lati

on

Dis

po

sal (

ton

)H

ou

seh

old

Co

mp

ost

Dis

cou

nt

Rat

eIR

RN

PV

2013

1.77

3.43

653

3.18

1$3

4.96

9.55

5$2

1.81

3.26

2,80

-$13

.156

.291

,94

0,00

%17

,8%

$74.

267.

392

2014

1.83

2.03

555

1.38

0$1

8.22

0.04

9$2

2.53

4.03

0,50

$547

.059

$4.8

61.0

39,9

42,

00%

17,8

%$5

1.30

9.62

920

151.

891.

982

564.

271

$19.

433.

209

$23.

271.

378,

60$1

.094

.118

$4.9

32.2

87,2

74,

00%

17,8

%$3

5.68

8.24

320

161.

953.

134

565.

264

$28.

151.

148

$24.

023.

548,

20$1

.641

.176

-$2.

486.

422,

846,

00%

17,8

%$2

4.81

3.96

920

172.

014.

505

584.

849

$34.

103.

765

$24.

778.

407,

98$2

.188

.235

-$7.

137.

121,

428,

00%

17,8

%$1

7.07

6.60

920

182.

075.

991

604.

598

$28.

488.

827

$25.

534.

686,

13$2

.735

.294

-$21

8.84

7,01

10,0

0%17

,8%

$11.

455.

282

2019

2.13

7.48

562

4.48

3$2

2.32

2.95

9$2

6.29

1.06

5,94

$3.2

82.3

53$7

.250

.459

,53

12,0

0%17

,8%

$7.2

90.2

3620

202.

198.

877

637.

688

$23.

377.

568

$27.

046.

189,

01$3

.829

.412

$7.4

98.0

32,5

820

212.

260.

054

633.

700

$29.

095.

854

$27.

798.

658,

90$4

.376

.471

$3.0

79.2

75,1

720

222.

320.

898

657.

279

$34.

768.

526

$28.

547.

044,

96$4

.923

.529

-$1.

297.

952,

0220

232.

381.

292

681.

273

$28.

881.

879

$29.

289.

886,

48$5

.470

.588

$5.8

78.5

96,1

820

242.

441.

114

705.

666

$28.

052.

864

$30.

025.

697,

06$6

.017

.647

$7.9

90.4

80,4

820

252.

500.

241

722.

321

$29.

251.

216

$30.

752.

969,

30$6

.564

.706

$8.0

66.4

59,4

520

262.

558.

551

713.

592

$43.

022.

356

$31.

470.

179,

62$7

.111

.765

-$4.

440.

411,

1820

272.

615.

918

737.

645

$42.

952.

884

$32.

175.

793,

30$7

.658

.824

-$3.

118.

267,

4720

282.

672.

217

761.

996

$34.

920.

881

$32.

868.

269,

80$8

.205

.882

$6.1

53.2

71,4

020

292.

727.

323

786.

621

$34.

143.

075

$33.

546.

068,

11$8

.752

.941

$8.1

55.9

34,7

720

302.

781.

110

811.

496

$35.

401.

151

$34.

207.

652,

27$9

.300

.000

$8.1

06.5

01,4

820

312.

833.

455

834.

327

$36.

590.

677

$34.

851.

497,

09$9

.847

.059

$8.1

07.8

78,9

120

322.

884.

235

844.

214

$53.

968.

131

$35.

476.

093,

80$1

0.39

4.11

8-$

8.09

7.91

9,55

2033

2.93

3.33

085

8.52

1$4

5.30

3.13

3$3

6.07

9.95

5,82

$10.

941.

176

$1.7

17.9

99,7

020

342.

980.

620

872.

298

$41.

278.

195

$36.

661.

624,

62$1

1.48

8.23

5$6

.871

.665

,24

2035

3.02

5.99

087

4.96

9$4

2.14

5.36

0$3

7.21

9.67

5,43

$12.

035.

294

$7.1

09.6

10,0

520

363.

069.

327

887.

435

$43.

007.

387

$37.

752.

722,

99$1

2.58

2.35

3$7

.327

.688

,94

2037

3.11

0.52

389

9.28

0$5

6.24

7.59

8$3

8.25

9.42

7,22

$13.

129.

412

-$4.

858.

759,

4720

383.

149.

471

899.

504

$52.

975.

980

$38.

738.

498,

78$1

3.67

6.47

1-$

561.

010,

4520

393.

186.

074

909.

891

$45.

441.

737

$39.

188.

704,

46$1

4.22

3.52

9$7

.970

.497

,21

2040

3.22

0.23

491

9.57

9$4

7.04

6.15

5$3

9.60

8.87

2,45

$16.

000.

000

$8.5

62.7

17,1

0T

OT

AL

20.6

77.3

18$1

.013

.562

.117

$879

.811

.862

$208

.017

.647

$74.

267.

392

IRR

an

d N

PV

Inp

ut

Dat

aT

ota

l Rev

enu

es

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

3 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

4 W

ors

t C

ase

Sce

nar

io o

n C

ost

Rec

ove

ry (

excl

aft

erca

re)

To

tal C

AP

EX

+ O

PE

XR

ev -

Co

sts

0P

op

ula

tio

nD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

Ho

use

ho

ldC

om

po

stD

on

ors

Dis

cou

nt

Rat

eIR

RN

PV

2013

1.77

3.43

653

3.18

1$3

4.96

9.55

5$3

.750

.000

,00

$0$1

8.06

3.26

3-$

13.1

56.2

91,9

40,

00%

17,8

%$7

4.26

7.39

220

141.

832.

035

551.

380

$18.

220.

049

$3.8

73.9

09,8

8$2

73.5

29$1

8.93

3.65

0$4

.861

.039

,94

2,00

%17

,8%

$51.

309.

629

2015

1.89

1.98

256

4.27

1$1

9.43

3.20

9$4

.000

.670

,17

$547

.059

$19.

817.

767

$4.9

32.2

87,2

74,

00%

17,8

%$3

5.68

8.24

320

161.

953.

134

565.

264

$28.

151.

148

$4.1

29.9

78,4

7$8

20.5

88$2

0.71

4.15

8-$

2.48

6.42

2,84

6,00

%17

,8%

$24.

813.

969

2017

2.01

4.50

558

4.84

9$3

4.10

3.76

5$4

.259

.749

,25

$1.0

94.1

18$2

1.61

2.77

6-$

7.13

7.12

1,42

8,00

%17

,8%

$17.

076.

609

2018

2.07

5.99

160

4.59

8$2

8.48

8.82

7$4

.389

.763

,87

$1.3

67.6

47$2

2.51

2.56

9-$

218.

847,

0110

,00%

17,8

%$1

1.45

5.28

220

192.

137.

485

624.

483

$22.

322.

959

$4.5

19.7

95,9

7$1

.641

.176

$23.

412.

446

$7.2

50.4

59,5

312

,00%

17,8

%$7

.290

.236

2020

2.19

8.87

763

7.68

8$2

3.37

7.56

8$4

.649

.612

,01

$1.9

14.7

06$2

4.31

1.28

3$7

.498

.032

,58

2021

2.26

0.05

463

3.70

0$2

9.09

5.85

4$4

.778

.971

,94

$2.1

88.2

35$2

5.20

7.92

2$3

.079

.275

,17

2022

2.32

0.89

865

7.27

9$3

4.76

8.52

6$4

.907

.629

,80

$2.4

61.7

65$2

6.10

1.18

0-$

1.29

7.95

2,02

2023

2.38

1.29

268

1.27

3$2

8.88

1.87

9$5

.035

.334

,48

$2.7

35.2

94$2

6.98

9.84

6$5

.878

.596

,18

2024

2.44

1.11

470

5.66

6$2

8.05

2.86

4$5

.161

.830

,44

$3.0

08.8

24$2

7.87

2.69

0$7

.990

.480

,48

2025

2.50

0.24

172

2.32

1$2

9.25

1.21

6$5

.286

.858

,55

$3.2

82.3

53$2

8.74

8.46

4$8

.066

.459

,45

2026

2.55

8.55

171

3.59

2$4

3.02

2.35

6$5

.410

.156

,87

$3.5

55.8

82$2

9.61

5.90

5-$

4.44

0.41

1,18

2027

2.61

5.91

873

7.64

5$4

2.95

2.88

4$5

.531

.461

,57

$3.8

29.4

12$3

0.47

3.74

3-$

3.11

8.26

7,47

2028

2.67

2.21

776

1.99

6$3

4.92

0.88

1$5

.650

.507

,81

$4.1

02.9

41$3

1.32

0.70

3$6

.153

.271

,40

2029

2.72

7.32

378

6.62

1$3

4.14

3.07

5$5

.767

.030

,66

$4.3

76.4

71$3

2.15

5.50

8$8

.155

.934

,77

2030

2.78

1.11

081

1.49

6$3

5.40

1.15

1$5

.880

.766

,08

$4.6

50.0

00$3

2.97

6.88

6$8

.106

.501

,48

2031

2.83

3.45

583

4.32

7$3

6.59

0.67

7$5

.991

.451

,87

$4.9

23.5

29$3

3.78

3.57

5$8

.107

.878

,91

2032

2.88

4.23

584

4.21

4$5

3.96

8.13

1$6

.098

.828

,63

$5.1

97.0

59$3

4.57

4.32

4-$

8.09

7.91

9,55

2033

2.93

3.33

085

8.52

1$4

5.30

3.13

3$6

.202

.640

,82

$5.4

70.5

88$3

5.34

7.90

3$1

.717

.999

,70

2034

2.98

0.62

087

2.29

8$4

1.27

8.19

5$6

.302

.637

,69

$5.7

44.1

18$3

6.10

3.10

5$6

.871

.665

,24

2035

3.02

5.99

087

4.96

9$4

2.14

5.36

0$6

.398

.574

,30

$6.0

17.6

47$3

6.83

8.74

8$7

.109

.610

,05

2036

3.06

9.32

788

7.43

5$4

3.00

7.38

7$6

.490

.212

,51

$6.2

91.1

76$3

7.55

3.68

7$7

.327

.688

,94

2037

3.11

0.52

389

9.28

0$5

6.24

7.59

8$6

.577

.321

,94

$6.5

64.7

06$3

8.24

6.81

1-$

4.85

8.75

9,47

2038

3.14

9.47

189

9.50

4$5

2.97

5.98

0$6

.659

.680

,94

$6.8

38.2

35$3

8.91

7.05

3-$

561.

010,

4520

393.

186.

074

909.

891

$45.

441.

737

$6.7

37.0

77,4

9$7

.111

.765

$39.

563.

392

$7.9

70.4

97,2

120

403.

220.

234

919.

579

$47.

046.

155

$6.8

09.3

10,1

5$8

.000

.000

$40.

799.

562

$8.5

62.7

17,1

0T

OT

AL

20.6

77.3

18$1

.013

.562

.117

$151

.251

.764

$104

.008

.824

$832

.568

.921

$74.

267.

392

Inp

ut

Dat

aT

ota

l Rev

enu

esIR

R a

nd

NP

V

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

4 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

5 C

ost

Rec

ove

ry o

f O

per

atio

nal

Exp

end

itu

res

on

ly (

excl

aft

erca

re)

T

ota

l OP

EX

Rev

- C

ost

s0

Po

pu

lati

on

Dis

po

sal (

ton

)H

ou

seh

old

Co

mp

ost

Do

no

rsD

isco

un

tR

ate

IRR

NP

V20

131.

773.

436

533.

181

$14.

980.

555

$3.7

50.0

00,0

0$0

$0-$

11.2

30.5

54,7

40,

00%

20,2

%$7

4.26

7.39

220

141.

832.

035

551.

380

$17.

170.

049

$19.

895.

900,

10$2

73.5

29$0

$2.9

99.3

80,1

32,

00%

20,2

%$5

1.30

9.62

920

151.

891.

982

564.

271

$18.

164.

209

$20.

546.

924,

52$5

47.0

59$0

$2.9

29.7

74,3

74,

00%

20,2

%$3

5.68

8.24

320

161.

953.

134

565.

264

$19.

151.

148

$21.

211.

035,

24$8

20.5

88$0

$2.8

80.4

75,9

66,

00%

20,2

%$2

4.81

3.96

920

172.

014.

505

584.

849

$20.

203.

765

$21.

877.

521,

19$1

.094

.118

$0$2

.767

.874

,15

8,00

%20

,2%

$17.

076.

609

2018

2.07

5.99

160

4.59

8$2

1.26

1.32

7$2

2.54

5.25

9,47

$1.3

67.6

47$0

$2.6

51.5

79,2

610

,00%

20,2

%$1

1.45

5.28

220

192.

137.

485

624.

483

$22.

322.

959

$23.

213.

087,

49$1

.641

.176

$0$2

.531

.304

,60

12,0

0%20

,2%

$7.2

90.2

3620

202.

198.

877

637.

688

$23.

377.

568

$23.

879.

805,

91$1

.914

.706

$0$2

.416

.943

,60

2021

2.26

0.05

463

3.70

0$2

4.49

5.85

4$2

4.54

4.18

1,76

$2.1

88.2

35$0

$2.2

36.5

62,7

320

222.

320.

898

657.

279

$25.

668.

526

$25.

204.

951,

89$2

.461

.765

$0$1

.998

.190

,20

2023

2.38

1.29

268

1.27

3$2

6.85

4.37

9$2

5.86

0.82

6,60

$2.7

35.2

94$0

$1.7

41.7

42,1

820

242.

441.

114

705.

666

$28.

052.

864

$26.

510.

493,

50$3

.008

.824

$0$1

.466

.453

,39

2025

2.50

0.24

172

2.32

1$2

9.25

1.21

6$2

7.15

2.62

1,68

$3.2

82.3

53$0

$1.1

83.7

58,8

920

262.

558.

551

713.

592

$30.

422.

356

$27.

785.

865,

90$3

.555

.882

$0$9

19.3

92,7

620

272.

615.

918

737.

645

$31.

652.

884

$28.

408.

871,

16$3

.829

.412

$0$5

85.3

98,6

220

282.

672.

217

761.

996

$32.

893.

381

$29.

020.

277,

24$4

.102

.941

$0$2

29.8

37,6

620

292.

727.

323

786.

621

$34.

143.

075

$29.

618.

723,

55$4

.376

.471

$0-$

147.

880,

3820

302.

781.

110

811.

496

$35.

401.

151

$30.

202.

853,

96$4

.650

.000

$0-$

548.

296,

8320

312.

833.

455

834.

327

$36.

590.

677

$30.

771.

321,

82$4

.923

.529

$0-$

895.

825,

7720

322.

884.

235

844.

214

$37.

668.

131

$31.

322.

795,

01$5

.197

.059

$0-$

1.14

8.27

7,16

2033

2.93

3.33

085

8.52

1$4

0.37

5.63

3$3

1.85

5.96

0,99

$5.4

70.5

88$0

-$3.

049.

083,

3620

342.

980.

620

872.

298

$41.

278.

195

$32.

369.

531,

98$5

.744

.118

$0-$

3.16

4.54

5,04

2035

3.02

5.99

087

4.96

9$4

2.14

5.36

0$3

2.86

2.25

0,01

$6.0

17.6

47$0

-$3.

265.

462,

4320

363.

069.

327

887.

435

$43.

007.

387

$33.

332.

892,

00$6

.291

.176

$0-$

3.38

3.31

8,52

2037

3.11

0.52

389

9.28

0$4

3.84

7.59

8$3

3.78

0.27

4,76

$6.5

64.7

06$0

-$3.

502.

617,

8120

383.

149.

471

899.

504

$44.

648.

480

$34.

203.

259,

90$6

.838

.235

$0-$

3.60

6.98

4,62

2039

3.18

6.07

490

9.89

1$4

5.44

1.73

7$3

4.60

0.75

8,58

$7.1

11.7

65$0

-$3.

729.

213,

3820

403.

220.

234

919.

579

$47.

046.

155

$34.

971.

736,

16$8

.000

.000

$0-$

4.07

4.41

9,19

TO

TA

L20

.677

.318

$877

.516

.617

$761

.299

.982

$104

.008

.824

$0-$

12.2

07.8

11

Inp

ut

Dat

aT

ota

l Rev

enu

esIR

R a

nd

NP

V

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

5 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

6 C

ost

an

d R

even

ues

an

d IR

R f

or

Dis

po

sal a

t Jo

hr

al D

eek

Lan

dfi

ll o

nly

(at

th

e G

ate)

(ex

cl a

fter

care

)

To

tal C

AP

EX

+ O

PE

XT

ota

l Rev

enu

esR

ev -

Co

sts

Yea

rD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

8D

isco

un

t(U

SD

per

ton)

Rat

eIR

RN

PV

2012

0,00

%15

,4%

$18.

146.

166

2013

$6.8

00.0

00-$

6.80

0.00

0,00

2,00

%15

,4%

$13.

206.

491

2014

355.

211

$532

.816

$2.8

41.6

85,5

7$2

.308

.869

,52

4,00

%15

,4%

$9.5

07.0

2220

1536

1.90

0$5

42.8

51$2

.895

.203

,81

$2.3

52.3

53,1

06,

00%

15,4

%$6

.707

.160

2016

360.

918

$541

.377

$2.8

87.3

45,4

4$2

.345

.968

,17

8,00

%15

,4%

$4.5

65.9

1820

1737

2.23

0$7

.958

.346

$2.9

77.8

43,4

9-$

4.98

0.50

2,16

10,0

0%15

,4%

$2.9

11.2

9520

1838

3.56

2$4

.075

.343

$3.0

68.4

98,1

5-$

1.00

6.84

5,25

12,0

0%15

,4%

$1.6

19.4

5620

1939

4.89

4$5

92.3

41$3

.159

.151

,16

$2.5

66.8

10,3

120

2040

1.92

9$6

02.8

94$3

.215

.432

,57

$2.6

12.5

38,9

620

2139

5.50

2$5

93.2

53$3

.164

.016

,16

$2.5

70.7

63,1

320

2240

6.11

9$6

.309

.178

$3.2

48.9

48,8

2-$

3.06

0.22

9,09

2023

416.

655

$624

.982

$3.3

33.2

37,5

0$2

.708

.255

,47

2024

427.

089

$640

.634

$3.4

16.7

13,2

1$2

.776

.079

,48

2025

432.

541

$648

.811

$3.4

60.3

24,5

5$2

.811

.513

,70

2026

422.

702

$634

.054

$3.3

81.6

19,7

6$2

.747

.566

,06

2027

432.

147

$7.2

48.2

21$3

.457

.177

,39

-$3.

791.

043,

3720

2844

1.41

4$6

62.1

21$3

.531

.312

,01

$2.8

69.1

91,0

120

2945

0.48

2$6

75.7

23$3

.603

.858

,39

$2.9

28.1

34,9

420

3045

9.33

1$6

88.9

97$3

.674

.651

,89

$2.9

85.6

54,6

620

3146

7.94

1$7

01.9

12$3

.743

.529

,10

$3.0

41.6

17,3

920

3247

0.68

8$7

06.0

31$3

.765

.500

,99

$3.0

59.4

69,5

620

330

$2.9

00.0

00$0

,00

-$2.

900.

000,

0020

34 -

204

00

$0$0

,00

$0,0

0T

OT

AL

7.85

3.25

6$4

4.67

9.88

4$6

2.82

6.05

0$1

8.14

6.16

6

Inp

ut

Dat

a Jo

hr

al D

eek

IRR

an

d N

PV

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

6 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

7 C

ost

an

d R

even

ues

an

d IR

R f

or

Dis

po

sal

at R

afah

Lan

dfi

ll o

nly

(at

th

e G

ate)

(ex

cl a

fter

care

)

To

tal C

AP

EX

+ O

PE

XT

ota

l Rev

enu

esR

ev -

Co

sts

Yea

rD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

8D

isco

un

t(U

SD

per

ton)

Rat

eIR

RN

PV

2012

53.4

76$0

0,00

%15

,7%

$32.

390.

720

2013

188.

171

$3.6

00.0

00-$

3.60

0.00

0,00

2,00

%15

,7%

$21.

073.

636

2014

196.

169

$294

.253

$1.5

69.3

51,4

6$1

.275

.098

,06

4,00

%15

,7%

$13.

711.

706

2015

202.

370

$303

.556

$1.6

18.9

63,4

0$1

.315

.407

,76

6,00

%15

,7%

$8.8

44.2

1020

1620

4.34

6$3

06.5

18$1

.634

.764

,87

$1.3

28.2

46,4

68,

00%

15,7

%$5

.573

.223

2017

212.

619

$6.8

18.9

28$1

.700

.949

,18

-$5.

117.

978,

7910

,00%

15,7

%$3

.339

.225

2018

221.

036

$2.0

31.5

54$1

.768

.288

,90

-$26

3.26

5,27

12,0

0%15

,7%

$1.7

88.7

9620

1922

9.58

9$3

44.3

83$1

.836

.709

,91

$1.4

92.3

26,8

020

2023

5.75

8$3

53.6

38$1

.886

.067

,62

$1.5

32.4

29,9

420

2123

8.19

8$3

57.2

97$1

.905

.583

,73

$1.5

48.2

86,7

820

2225

1.16

0$3

.776

.741

$2.0

09.2

83,8

0-$

1.76

7.45

6,91

2023

264.

619

$396

.928

$2.1

16.9

49,1

8$1

.720

.021

,20

2024

278.

576

$417

.865

$2.2

28.6

10,9

8$1

.810

.746

,42

2025

289.

780

$434

.671

$2.3

18.2

43,6

7$1

.883

.572

,98

2026

290.

889

$436

.334

$2.3

27.1

13,8

0$1

.890

.779

,97

2027

305.

498

$5.1

58.2

47$2

.443

.984

,09

-$2.

714.

262,

9220

2832

0.58

2$4

80.8

73$2

.564

.655

,90

$2.0

83.7

82,9

220

2933

6.13

9$5

04.2

08$2

.689

.110

,63

$2.1

84.9

02,3

820

3035

2.16

5$5

28.2

47$2

.817

.318

,48

$2.2

89.0

71,2

720

3136

6.38

6$5

49.5

78$2

.931

.085

,07

$2.3

81.5

06,6

220

3237

3.52

6$1

0.56

0.28

9$2

.988

.209

,99

-$7.

572.

079,

3820

3385

8.52

1$1

.287

.781

$6.8

68.1

66,7

1$5

.580

.385

,46

2034

872.

298

$1.3

08.4

46$6

.978

.381

,20

$5.6

69.9

34,7

220

3587

4.96

9$1

.312

.453

$6.9

99.7

49,8

6$5

.687

.296

,76

2036

887.

435

$1.3

31.1

52$7

.099

.477

,17

$5.7

68.3

25,2

020

3789

9.28

0$1

3.74

8.91

9$7

.194

.236

,23

-$6.

554.

683,

0620

3889

9.50

4$1

.349

.255

$7.1

96.0

29,2

4$5

.846

.773

,76

2039

909.

891

$1.3

64.8

36$7

.279

.125

,03

$5.9

14.2

89,0

920

4091

9.57

9$1

.379

.368

$7.3

56.6

29,5

9$5

.977

.261

,55

2043

$5.2

00.0

00$0

,00

-$5.

200.

000,

00T

OT

AL

12.5

32.5

27$6

5.93

6.32

0$9

8.32

7.04

0$3

2.39

0.72

0

Inp

ut

Dat

a S

ofa

Lan

dfi

llIR

R a

nd

NP

V

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

7 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 6

8 C

ost

an

d R

even

ues

an

d IR

R f

or

Tra

nsf

er, B

ulk

tra

nsp

ort

an

d D

isp

osa

l on

ly (

Gaz

a T

ota

l)

(Bas

ed o

n u

nif

ied

tar

iff

of

25 U

SD

/ to

n)

T

ota

l CA

PE

X +

OP

EX

To

tal R

even

ues

Rev

- C

ost

s20

12P

op

ula

tio

nD

isp

osa

l (to

n)

LF

+ T

S +

BT

25 U

SD

/ to

nD

isco

un

tR

ate

IRR

NP

V20

151.

891.

982

564.

271

0,00

%19

,6%

$22.

344.

723

2016

1.95

3.13

456

5.26

42,

00%

19,6

%$1

7.44

0.05

020

172.

014.

505

584.

849

$24.

070.

664

$14.

621.

227,

11-$

9.44

9.43

7,00

4,00

%19

,6%

$13.

604.

699

2018

2.07

5.99

160

4.59

8$1

6.75

6.93

8$1

5.11

4.95

9,54

-$1.

641.

978,

276,

00%

19,6

%$1

0.55

0.63

020

192.

137.

485

624.

483

$10.

917.

950

$15.

612.

065,

84$4

.694

.116

,33

8,00

%19

,6%

$8.0

79.5

1920

202.

198.

877

637.

688

$11.

284.

269

$15.

942.

188,

10$4

.657

.919

,00

10,0

0%19

,6%

$6.0

51.7

0920

212.

260.

054

633.

700

$11.

672.

894

$15.

842.

499,

64$4

.169

.605

,98

12,0

0%19

,6%

$4.3

66.7

7020

222.

320.

898

657.

279

$21.

209.

730

$16.

431.

976,

94-$

4.77

7.75

3,15

2023

2.38

1.29

268

1.27

3$1

3.56

7.54

9$1

7.03

1.83

3,35

$3.4

64.2

84,1

3LF

Land

fill

2024

2.44

1.11

470

5.66

6$1

3.00

4.80

1$1

7.64

1.63

8,07

$4.6

36.8

37,2

3T

ST

rans

fer

Sta

tion

2025

2.50

0.24

172

2.32

1$1

3.45

0.23

6$1

8.05

8.02

5,69

$4.6

07.7

89,5

9B

TB

ulk

Tra

nspo

rt20

262.

558.

551

713.

592

$13.

863.

313

$17.

839.

792,

39$3

.976

.479

,16

2027

2.61

5.91

873

7.64

5$2

5.63

0.94

1$1

8.44

1.12

9,64

-$7.

189.

811,

8520

282.

672.

217

761.

996

$15.

817.

778

$19.

049.

899,

71$3

.232

.121

,94

2029

2.72

7.32

378

6.62

1$1

5.28

2.15

0$1

9.66

5.52

8,17

$4.3

83.3

77,9

120

302.

781.

110

811.

496

$15.

764.

863

$20.

287.

407,

42$4

.522

.544

,64

2031

2.83

3.45

583

4.32

7$1

6.21

0.03

9$2

0.85

8.16

9,26

$4.6

48.1

30,1

520

322.

884.

235

844.

214

$26.

587.

027

$21.

105.

346,

83-$

5.48

1.68

0,38

2033

2.93

3.33

085

8.52

1$2

2.59

0.63

0$2

1.46

3.02

0,98

-$1.

127.

608,

6820

342.

980.

620

872.

298

$18.

969.

930

$21.

807.

441,

25$2

.837

.511

,54

2035

3.02

5.99

087

4.96

9$1

9.23

6.23

8$2

1.87

4.21

8,30

$2.6

37.9

80,2

120

363.

069.

327

887.

435

$19.

506.

569

$22.

185.

866,

17$2

.679

.297

,53

2037

3.11

0.52

389

9.28

0$3

2.16

4.73

0$2

2.48

1.98

8,23

-$9.

682.

741,

7120

383.

149.

471

899.

504

$21.

007.

426

$22.

487.

591,

38$1

.480

.164

,88

2039

3.18

6.07

490

9.89

1$2

0.22

5.56

2$2

2.74

7.26

5,72

$2.5

21.7

03,8

320

403.

220.

234

919.

579

$20.

443.

598

$22.

989.

467,

48$2

.545

.869

,59

TO

TA

L0

0$0

$0,0

0$0

,00

00

0$0

$0,0

0$0

,00

019

.592

.757

$439

.235

.825

$461

.580

.547

$22.

344.

723

Inp

ut

Dat

aIR

R a

nd

NP

V

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


50% Large Trucks (40 ton / day)2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040

North Gaza Through Beit Lahia7 8 12 3 3 4

Direct to LF 7 8 11 3 3 4Gaza City Through Yarmuk 11 12 17 4 5 7

Through Al Al Mashlakh3 4 5 1 1 2

Direct to LF 12 13 19 4 5 7Middle Area Through Deir al Balah TS

7 8 11 3 3 4Through Al Namsawi 5 6 9 2 2 3Direct 3 4 5 1 1 2

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 3 4 5 1 1 2Direct 3 4 5 1 1 2

TOTAL 62 70 101 23 26 38

50% Small Trucks (15 ton / day)Transport Requirement

Workers (1,5 ton/day)2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040 2015 2020 2040

North Gaza Through Beit Lahia141 160 231 127 80 23 2 12 31

Direct to LF 137 155 224 124 78 22 2 12 30Gaza City Through Yarmuk 213 241 348 192 120 35 3 18 47

Through Al Al Mashlakh67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15

Direct to LF 234 265 381 211 132 38 4 20 51Middle Area Through Deir al Balah

TS 139 157 226 125 78 23 2 12 31Through Al Namsawi 106 120 173 95 60 17 2 9 23Direct 67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15

Rafah Through Tel al Sultan 65 74 107 59 37 11 1 6 14Direct 67 75 109 60 38 11 1 6 15

TOTAL 1236 1397 2016 1112 699 202 19 105 272

Collection requirements Donkey Carts (1,5 ton/day) Tractors (10 ton / day)

12.3 CAPEX Waste Collection and Transportation

Most of the current collection and transportation vehicles in Gaza are outdated and need to be replaced. The required transportation means for Gaza for the base years 2015, 2020 and 2040 have been assessed in section 8.1.1 of this Feasibility Study.

Table 69 – Primary Waste Collection Requirements

The purchase costs for these vehicle requirements, including the additionally required collector tractors that will gradually replace donkey carts (ref. table 38), are mentioned in the next table. Totally an investment of 16.6 MUSD will be required until 2040. It should be noted that detailed investment packages have to be agreed upon with each service provider later on. For instance, Gaza Municipality would prefer to apply mainly compactor trucks (13 cubic meters of around 9 compacted solid waste tons) for collection of waste from paved street districts within the city limits. Also the purchase of additional street sweepers may be considered for sweeping the paved streets in Gaza city.

Nour

Highlight

D

HV

B.V

. EN

FR

A T

EC

C

UN

DP

- P

AP

P/F

easi

bilit

y S

tud

y an

d D

etai

led

Des

ign

for

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent

31 J

anua

ry 2

012,

ver

sion

03

- 17

9 -

Pub

lic

Tab

le 7

0 –P

rim

ary

Was

te C

olle

ctio

n a

nd

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n V

ehic

les

Req

uir

emen

ts (

in U

SD

)

Lar

ge

Tru

ck:

100,

000

US

DR

equ

irem

ents

(U

SD

)20

1520

2020

4020

1520

2020

4020

1520

2020

40N

ort

h G

aza

Thr

ough

Bei

t Lah

ia$4

24.0

00$5

6.00

0$2

12.0

00$2

65.0

00$3

5.00

0$1

32.5

00$5

3.00

0$2

47.0

00$4

78.5

00D

irect

to L

F$4

12.0

00$5

4.00

0$2

06.0

00$2

57.5

00$3

3.75

0$1

28.7

50$5

1.50

0$2

39.7

50$4

64.7

50G

aza

Cit

yT

hrou

gh Y

arm

uk$6

40.0

00$8

2.00

0$3

22.0

00$4

00.0

00$5

1.25

0$2

01.2

50$8

0.00

0$3

71.2

50$7

23.2

50T

hrou

gh A

l Al M

ashl

akh

$200

.000

$26.

000

$100

.000

$125

.000

$16.

250

$62.

500

$25.

000

$116

.250

$225

.500

Dire

ct to

LF

$702

.000

$92.

000

$350

.000

$438

.750

$57.

500

$218

.750

$87.

750

$408

.500

$790

.750

Mid

dle

Are

aT

hrou

gh D

eir

al B

alah

TS

$416

.000

$54.

000

$208

.000

$260

.000

$33.

750

$130

.000

$52.

000

$241

.750

$469

.000

Thr

ough

Al N

amsa

wi

$318

.000

$42.

000

$158

.000

$198

.750

$26.

250

$98.

750

$39.

750

$185

.250

$357

.750

Dire

ct$2

00.0

00$2

6.00

0$1

00.0

00$1

25.0

00$1

6.25

0$6

2.50

0$2

5.00

0$1

16.2

50$2

25.5

00R

afah

Thr

ough

Tel

al S

ulta

n$1

96.0

00$2

6.00

0$9

8.00

0$1

22.5

00$1

6.25

0$6

1.25

0$2

4.50

0$1

14.2

50$2

21.2

50D

irect

$200

.000

$26.

000

$100

.000

$125

.000

$16.

250

$62.

500

$25.

000

$116

.250

$225

.500

$16.

626.

500

No

rth

Gaz

a$1

0.66

4.50

0S

ou

th G

aza

$5.9

62.0

00

2013

$6.4

89.0

00$2

.013

$4.1

61.5

00$2

.013

$2.3

27.5

0020

18$2

.027

.500

$2.0

18$1

.300

.600

$2.0

18$7

26.9

0020

23$2

.027

.500

$2.0

23$1

.300

.600

$2.0

23$7

26.9

0020

28$2

.027

.500

$2.0

28$1

.300

.600

$2.0

28$7

26.9

0020

33$2

.027

.500

$2.0

33$1

.300

.600

$2.0

33$7

26.9

0020

38$2

.027

.500

$2.0

38$1

.300

.600

$2.0

38$7

26.9

00

Inve

stm

ent

Pla

n

$2.1

68.0

00$1

.355

.000

$2.4

39.0

00

To

tal i

nve

stm

ent

req

uir

emen

t:

SW

M V

ehic

les

Sm

all T

ruck

s: 6

0,00

0 U

SD

C

olle

ctio

n T

ract

or:

25,

000

US

D

TO

TA

L u

nti

l 204

0$6

.046

.000

$3.7

78.7

50$6

.801

.750

TO

TA

L N

OR

TH

GA

ZA

TO

TA

L S

OU

TH

GA

ZA

$3.8

78.0

00$2

.423

.750

$4.3

62.7

50

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.4 CAPEX Cleaning Dump Sites and Primary Transfer Stations

In above sections 4.4 and 8.1.1 the actions are described for cleaning up the current waste dumps and construction of primary transfer stations:

Table 71 Action Plan for Random Dump Sites and Primary Transfer Stations

Location


North Gaza Beit Lahia Temporary Waste Site will be cleaned (50,000 ton)

Storage Site Site will be transformed into Transfer Station (346 ton / day in 2040)

Um al Nasser Temporary Waste Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned (50,000 ton)

Beit Hanoon Temporary Waste Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned (50,000 ton)

Gaza City



Site will be cleaned (40,000 ton) and will remain in operation as transfer station (522 ton / day in 2040)

Al Maslakhi Temporary Storage Site will be cleaned (20,000 ton)

Site Site will be transformed into Transfer Station (163 ton / day in 2040)

Al Karama Temporary Waste Storage Site Site will be cleaned and abandoned (70,000 ton)

Deir al Balah

Deir al Balah None yet New transfer station will be established for Deir al Balah (339 ton / day in 2040)

Khan Yunis

Al Namsawi Temporary Waste Site will be cleaned (20,000 ton)

Storage Site Site will be transformed into Transfer Station (259 ton / day in 2040)

Rafah

Tel al Sultan Temporary Waste Dump site will be covered and closed

Storage Site Transfer station will be constructed (160 ton / day in 2040)

The following investment costs are foreseen for cleaning up the random dump sites in the Gaza Strip. It is suggested that the waste will be picked up and brought to Deir al Balah before this landfill will be closed permanently. In this case, the capacities of the new sanitary landfills at Johr al Deek and Rafah will remain available for the waste to be generated in the future.

Nour

Highlight

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 72 Investment Costs for Cleaning Dump Sites (5 USD per ton)

Location

Activity Investment Costs

North Gaza Beit Lahia Site will be cleaned (50,000 ton) 250,000 USD

Um al Nasser Site will be cleaned and abandoned (50,000 ton) 250,000 USD

Beit Hanoon Site will be cleaned and abandoned (50,000 ton) 250,000 USD

Gaza City

Yarmuk Transfer Station Site will be cleaned (40,000 ton) 200,000 USD

Al Maslakhi Site will be cleaned (20,000 ton) 100,000 USD

Al Karama Site will be cleaned and abandoned (70,000 ton) 350,000 USD

Khan Yunis

Al Namsawi Site will be cleaned (20,000 ton) 100,000 USD

TOTAL 1,500,000 USD A total of approximately 1.5 MUSD is required to clean the current random dump sites in Gaza, based on an average costs of 5 USD per ton of waste to be removed and disposed of. It is foreseen that these investments will be realized as soon as possible, i.e. not later than the year 2013. The following average investment costs are foreseen to construct the primary transfer stations as indicated in table 63. These indicative investment costs are based on the following unit prices (excluding the costs for land acquisition).

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 73 Investment Cost Standard Transfer Station 250 ton / day

Transfer Station TF 1 - Investment costs UnitUnit price

($)

Total costs

($)

0. Land aquisition tbd tbd1. Ground works

Mobilisation LS 25.000Site clearance 4.000 m² 0,75 3.000Earthworks (cuts) 1.000 m³ 4,50 4.500Earthworks (fills) 2.000 m³ 3,00 6.000Planum construction 4.000 m² 0,45 1.800

total 40.3002. Civil works

Access road 100 m² 30,00 3.000Bituminous paved areas (RoRo area) 350 m² 30,00 10.500Concrete paved discharge areas 100 m² 52,50 5.250retaining wall (h=3m) 65 m 300,00 19.500roof (corregated steel) 200 m² 225,00 45.000

total 83.2503. Facilities

Lighting 1,00 LS 4.500 4.500Water tank 1,00 LS 1.500 1.500Transformer / electrical system 1,00 LS 15.000 15.000Fences+gate 350 m 38 13.125Social - control building 1,00 LS 37.500 37.500Emergency generator 1,00 LS 30.000 30.000

total 101.6254. Other

Unforeseen/contingencies 10% 29.142Engineering/supervision 5% 15.684

total 44.825

sub total Civil works (1-4) 270.0005. Handling equipment

Front loader 1 150.000 150.000total 150.000

Total Investment Costs TF station (1-6) 420.000

NIS 2.195.469 Above table is used as basis for making preliminary cost estimates for the five transfer stations

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 74 Indicative Investment Costs for Primary Transfer Stations

Location

New situation Indicative Investment Costs

North Gaza Beit Lahia New transfer station (346 ton / day) USD 524,000

Gaza City

Yarmuk Upgrade and repair works – existing TS USD 200,000

Al Maslakhi New transfer station (163 ton / day) USD 326,000

Deir al Balah

Deir al Balah New transfer station (339 ton / day) USD 516,000

Khan Yunis

Al Namsawi New Transfer Station (259 ton / day) USD 430,000

Rafah

Tel al Sultan New Transfer Station (160 ton / day) USD 323,000

TOTAL USD 2,319,000 It is foreseen that the El Yarmuk transfer station in Gaza City will be upgraded, including rain water discharge and plantation of trees surrounding it to reduce the smell and visual nuisance to neighboring dwells. The related costs are estimated to be USD 200,000. A total of approximately 2.3 MUSD is required to construct five new primary transfer stations in Gaza and upgrade the existing transfer station at Yarmuk. Together this would create the six required transfer stations as indicated in figure 23.

These investment will be required as soon as possible after cleaning up the random dump sites. Assuming that the cleaning up works will be completed in 2013, investments in the primary transfer stations are to be realized in 2014 and 2015. Investment Plan Primary transfer Stations 2014: 1,050,000 USD 2015: 1,269,000 USD

Nour

Highlight

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.5 Short Term Landfill Investment Costs

12.5.1 Johr al Deek Landfill (2013 – 2017)

Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price

in $ in $1. Construction of planum, preliminaries

Site mobilization sum 1 270.000,00 270.000,00

Site clearance m2 120.000 0,15 18.000,00

Surface water retention pond sum 1 10.000,00 10.000,00

Culvert (di 500 mm) beneath landfill m 600 300,00 180.000,00

Ground works (cuts) m³ 10.000 1,00 10.000,00

Ground works (fills) m3 150.000 1,00 150.000,00

Examination of planum m2 105.000 0,60 63.000,00

Total 701.000,00

2. Base sealing system, Leachate

Sealing system (bentonite mat) m² 105.000 10,50 1.102.500,00

Sealing system (geo-membrane, 1.5 mm) m2 105.000 6,00 630.000,00

Protection layer (geotextile, 1200 g/m²) m² 105.000 4,50 472.500,00

Drainage layer, 30 cm gravel m3 33.000 14,00 462.000,00

PE-HD main leachate pipe (di 450) m 600 200,00 120.000,00

PE-HD leachate drain pipes (di 300) m 1.800 120,00 216.000,00

Leachate pipe support (sand) m3 2.600 35,00 91.000,00

Manholes (leachate drain pipes) piece 19 1.500,00 28.500,00

Control chambers (leachate main pipe) piece 1 12.000,00 12.000,00

Pump station leachate (recirculation) piece 1 60.000,00 60.000,00

Pressure pipe (to pond and recirculation) m 300 100,00 30.000,00

Leachate pond (about 8,000 m²) total 1 150.000,00 150.000,00

Temporary surface water discharge total 1 50.000,00 50.000,00

Total 3.424.500,00

3. Surface sealing, Surface water (separate issue after closure)

Compensation layer (50 cm) m3 52.500 7,50 393.750,00

Geotextile (2 layers) m2 210.000 2,00 420.000,00

Sealing system (clay, 50 cm) m² 105.000 9,00 945.000,00

Drainage layer (30 cm) m3 31.500 14,00 441.000,00

Recultivation layer (100 cm in minimum) m3 105.000 10,00 1.050.000,00

Maintenance path (unpaved) m 2.500 75,00 187.500,00

Ditches along auxillary roads m 2.500 20,00 50.000,00

Total 3.487.250,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4. Gas collection

Unperforated pipes (di 250), 4m piece 30 240,00 7.200,00

Perforated pipes (di 150) m 600 45,00 27.000,00

Steel pipes (di 800) piece 30 300,00 9.000,00

Gravel (16/32 mm) m3 300 30,00 9.000,00

Gas pipes (di 100) m 3.000 24,00 72.000,00

Gas pipes (di 250) m 1.400 60,00 84.000,00

Gas condensate pipes (di 50) m 1.400 15,00 21.000,00

Gas collection station piece 3 30.000,00 90.000,00

Gas compression station total 1 300.000,00 300.000,00

Flare total 1 200.000,00 200.000,00

Total 819.200,00

5. General

Access road (width = 6 m), inside landfill m 500 120,00 60.000,00

Access road (width = 6 m), to landfill m 1.000 70,00 70.000,00

Ring road, paved m 1.400 120,00 168.000,00

Surface water drainage along ring road m 1.400 80,00 112.000,00

Bituminous paved areas (entrance area) m2 1.000 40,00 40.000,00

Concrete paved areas m2 400 60,00 24.000,00

Control building, container total 1 24.000,00 24.000,00

Garage building total 1 80.000,00 80.000,00

Operation building total 1 100.000,00 100.000,00

Weighing bridge total 1 60.000,00 60.000,00

Wheel cleaning unit total 1 20.000,00 20.000,00

Technical equipment (tank/garage) total 1 40.000,00 40.000,00

Essential spare parts (first purchase) LS 1 15.000,00 15.000,00

Ground water wells LS 3 25.000,00 75.000,00

Weather station LS 1 6.000,00 6.000,00

Fence m 2.400 25,00 60.000,00

Energy supply / Trafo total 1 80.000,00 80.000,00

Water supply total 1 20.000,00 20.000,00

Septic tank total 1 15.000,00 15.000,00

Fuel tanc total 1 12.000,00 12.000,00

Emergency generator total 1 45.000,00 45.000,00

Telecommunication supply total 1 10.000,00 10.000,00

Total 1.136.000,00

Sum (total) for items 1 to 5 9.567.950,00

Land Acquisition (approximately 30 dunum) 30,00 17.500,00 525.000,00

Miscellaneous and rounding up 407.050,00

Sum (total) 10.500.000,00

Sum (total) without surface sealing and gas pipes = Part of Long Term 6.008.700,00Land Acquisition (approximately 30 dunum) 30,00 17.500,00 525.000,00Miscellaneous and rounding up 266.300,00Sum (total) 6.800.000,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.5.2 Deir al Balah (closure)




Site clearance m2 0 0,15 0,00

Surface water retention pond sum 0 10.000,00 0,00

Culvert (di 500 mm) m 0 300,00 0,00

Mass movements (waste movement) m³ 5.000 1,00 5.000,00

Ground works (fills) m3 0 1,00 0,00

Storm water ditch (water from adjacent areas) m 0 30,00 0,00

Total 35.000,00

2. Base sealing system, Leachate already exists

Sealing system (clay, 50 cm) m² 0 12,00 0,00

Sealing system (asphalt, 2 x 6 cm)) m2 0 16,00 0,00

Drainage layer, 30 cm gravel m3 0 14,00 0,00

PE-HD main leachate pipe (di 450) m 0 200,00 0,00

PE-HD leachate drain pipes (di 300) m 0 120,00 0,00

Leachate pipe support (sand) m3 0 35,00 0,00

Manholes (leachate drain pipes) piece 0 1.500,00 0,00

Control chambers (leachate main pipe) piece 0 12.000,00 0,00

Pump station leachate (recirculation) piece 0 60.000,00 0,00

Pressure pipe (to pond and recirculation) m 0 100,00 0,00

Leachate pond (about 8,000 m²) total 0 200.000,00 0,00

Temporary surface water discharge total 0 25.000,00 0,00

Total 0,00



Geotextile (1 layer) m2 88.000 2,00 176.000,00



Recultivation layer (70 cm in minimum) m3 61.500 5,00 307.500,00

Maintenance path (unpaved) m 900 75,00 67.500,00

Ditches along auxillary roads m 900 20,00 18.000,00

Total 1.524.500,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4. Gas collection




Gravel (16/32 mm) m3 450 30,00 13.500,00

Gas pipes (di 100) m 3.000 24,00 72.000,00

Gas pipes (di 250) m 1.100 60,00 66.000,00




Flare total 1 250.000,00 250.000,00

Total 834.700,00

5. General

Access road (width = 6 m), inside landfill m 0 120,00 0,00

Access road (width = 6 m), to landfill m 0 70,00 0,00

Ring road, paved m 0 120,00 0,00

Surface water drainage along ring road m 0 80,00 0,00

Bituminous paved areas (entrance area) m2 0 40,00 0,00

Concrete paved areas m2 0 60,00 0,00

Control building, container total 0 24.000,00 0,00

Garage building total 0 80.000,00 0,00

Operation building total 0 100.000,00 0,00

Weighing bridge total 0 60.000,00 0,00

Wheel cleaning unit total 0 20.000,00 0,00

Technical equipment (tank/garage) total 0 40.000,00 0,00

Essential spare parts (first purchase) LS 0 15.000,00 0,00

Ground water wells LS 0 25.000,00 0,00

Weather station LS 0 6.000,00 0,00

Fence m 0 36,00 0,00

Energy supply / Trafo total 0 80.000,00 0,00

Water supply total 0 20.000,00 0,00

Septic tank total 0 15.000,00 0,00

Fuel tanc total 0 12.000,00 0,00

Emergency generator total 0 45.000,00 0,00

Telecommunication supply total 0 10.000,00 0,00

Total 0,00


Miscellaneous (about 5 %) and rounding up 505.800,00

Sum (total) 2.900.000,00

Sum (total) for items 1 to 5 (without gas collection) 1.559.500,00Miscellaneous and rounding up 40.500,00Sum (total) 1.600.000,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.5.3 Rafah Landfill (2013 – 2017)




Site clearance m2 60.000 0,15 9.000,00


Culvert (di 500 mm) beneath landfill m 0 300,00 0,00

Ground works (cuts) m³ 60.000 1,00 60.000,00



Total 189.600,00


Sealing system (bentonite mat) m² 51.000 10,50 535.500,00

Sealing system (geo-membrane, 1.5 mm) m2 51.000 6,00 306.000,00




PE-HD leachate drain pipes (di 200) m 600 120,00 72.000,00




Pump station leachate (recirculation) piece 0 80.000,00 0,00

Pressure pipe (to pond and recirculation) m 0 100,00 0,00

Leachate pond (about 8,000 m²) total 0 200.000,00 0,00

Temporary surface water discharge total 0 25.000,00 0,00

Total 1.511.500,00









Total 1.663.950,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4. Gas collection




Gravel (16/32 mm) m3 150 30,00 4.500,00

Gas pipes (di 100) m 1.500 24,00 36.000,00

Gas pipes (di 250) m 750 60,00 45.000,00

Gas condensate pipes (di 50) m 750 15,00 11.250,00


Gas compression station total 0 500.000,00 0,00

Flare total 0 300.000,00 0,00

Total 148.350,00

5. General

Access road (width = 6 m), inside landfill m 700 120,00 84.000,00

Access road (width = 6 m), to landfill m 1.000 70,00 70.000,00

Ring road, paved m 750 120,00 90.000,00

Surface water drainage along ring road m 750 50,00 37.500,00



Control building, container total 1 24.000,00 24.000,00



Weighing bridge total 1 60.000,00 60.000,00

Wheel cleaning unit total 1 20.000,00 20.000,00




Weather station LS 1 6.000,00 6.000,00

Fence m 2.000 25,00 50.000,00

Energy supply / Trafo total 1 100.000,00 100.000,00

Water supply total 1 40.000,00 40.000,00

Septic tank total 1 15.000,00 15.000,00

Fuel tanc total 1 12.000,00 12.000,00

Emergency generator total 1 45.000,00 45.000,00

Telecommunication supply total 1 15.000,00 15.000,00

Total 1.217.500,00


Land Acquisition Cost (about 30 dunum) 30,00 12.500,00 375.000,00


Sum (total) 5.300.000,00

Sum (total) without surface sealing and gas pipes = Long Term Costs 3.030.950,00Land Acquisition Cost (about 30 dunum) 30,00 12.500,00 375.000,00Miscellaneous and rounding up 194.050,00Sum (total) 3.600.000,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.6 Long Term Investments Sanitary Landfills

12.6.1 Johr al Deek Landfill (2018 – 2033)

Investment costs Closure Short Term Cell Johr al Deek (105 dunum, in 2018) Surface sealing, Surface water (separate issue after closure)








Total 3.487.250,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC





Site clearance m2 200.000 0,15 30.000,00

Surface water retention pond sum 2 10.000,00 20.000,00

Culvert (di 500 mm) beneath landfill m 600 300,00 180.000,00

Ground works (cuts) m³ 2.000.000 1,00 2.000.000,00



Total 3.011.000,00



Sealing system (geo-membrane, 1.5 mm) m2 184.000 6,00 1.104.000,00








Pump station leachate (out of landfill) piece 1 500.000,00 500.000,00


Pressure pipe (to pond and recirculation) m 500 100,00 50.000,00

Leachate pond (additional efforts) total 1 100.000,00 100.000,00


Total 6.426.000,00




Sealing system (clay, 50 cm) m² 184.000 9,00 1.656.000,00





Total 5.979.800,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4. Gas collection


Perforated pipes (di 150) m 2.700 45,00 121.500,00


Gravel (16/32 mm) m3 1.350 30,00 40.500,00

Gas pipes (di 100) m 12.000 24,00 288.000,00

Gas pipes (di 250) m 2.200 60,00 132.000,00




Flare total 1 600.000,00 600.000,00

Total 2.063.600,00

5. General

Bulldozer/compactor LS 1 300.000 300.000

Truck LS 1 50.000 50.000

Forklift truck LS 1 40.000 40.000



Ring road, paved m 2.200 120,00 264.000,00


Bituminous paved areas (entrance area) m2 0 40,00 0,00

Concrete paved areas m2 0 60,00 0,00


Garage building total 0 80.000,00 0,00

Operation building total 0 100.000,00 0,00



Technical equipment (tank/garage) total 0 40.000,00 0,00

Essential spare parts (first purchase) LS 0 15.000,00 0,00



Fence m 2.000 25,00 50.000,00







Total 930.000,00


Land Acquisition (184 dunum) 184,00 17.500,00 3.220.000,00


Sum (total) 22.600.000,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.6.2 Rafah Landfill (2018 – 2043)

Investment Costs Closure Short Term Cell Rafah (2018)

Surface sealing, Surface water (separate issue after closure)








Total 1.663.950,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC




Site mobilization sum 1 1.000.000,00 1.000.000,00

Site clearance m2 400.000 0,15 60.000,00


Culvert (di 500 mm) beneath landfill m 0 300,00 0,00

Ground works (cuts) m³ 4.000.000 1,00 4.000.000,00



Total 5.649.200,00



Sealing system (geo-membrane, 1.5 mm) m2 381.000 6,00 2.286.000,00

Protection layer (geotextile, 1200 g/m²) m² 381.000 4,50 1.714.500,00

Drainage layer, 30 cm gravel m3 118.000 14,00 1.652.000,00

PE-HD main leachate pipe (di 450) m 1.200 200,00 240.000,00





Pump station leachate (out of landfill) piece 1 500.000,00 500.000,00


Pressure pipe (to pond and recirculation) m 1.000 100,00 100.000,00

Leachate pond (additional efforts) total 1 150.000,00 150.000,00


Total 12.133.500,00


Compensation layer (50 cm) m3 190.500 7,50 1.428.750,00

Geotextile (2 layers) m2 762.000 2,00 1.524.000,00

Sealing system (clay, 50 cm) m² 381.000 9,00 3.429.000,00

Drainage layer (30 cm) m3 114.500 14,00 1.603.000,00




Total 12.459.750,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


4. Gas collection


Perforated pipes (di 150) m 5.400 45,00 243.000,00


Gravel (16/32 mm) m3 2.700 30,00 81.000,00

Gas pipes (di 100) m 72.000 24,00 1.728.000,00

Gas pipes (di 250) m 3.000 60,00 180.000,00




Flare total 1 900.000,00 900.000,00

Total 4.324.200,00

5. General

Bulldozer/compactor LS 2 300.000 600.000

Truck LS 2 50.000 100.000

Forklift truck LS 2 40.000 80.000



Ring road, paved m 3.000 120,00 360.000,00











Ground water wells LS 0 25.000,00 0,00


Fence m 2.500 25,00 62.500,00







Total 1.826.500,00


Land Acquisition 381,00 12.500,00 4.762.500,00

Miscellaneous and rounding up 1.044.350,00

Sum (total) 42.200.000,00

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


12.7 CAPEX and OPEX Composting Strategy

The cost estimates for the investments for the Composting facilities are divided in two parts, a part for the costs of civil works and a part for the mechanical and electrical works. The estimates are done for an annual capacity of 50,000 tons. The influence of mixed waste on the costs is also mentioned. In the investment estimates no costs are included for: • Land acquisition

• Building permit

• Space arrangement

• Connection to the nearest electrical supply system

• Connection to the nearest water supply system

• Access road The cost calculations are based on the cost level of 2011. The equipment costs are based on information of mostly European suppliers with offices in Israel and include installation costs. For recalculation of costs in euro to costs in US dollar an exchange rate is used of 1.4 USD/Euro (average for 2011). Additionally an import tax (by Israel) of 15 % is taken into account for import from Israel to Gaza. The costs mentioned are average costs. The exact costs depend on the location in which the composting facility will be planned.

Table 75 Composting – Civil Works

No Item Unit Price ($)/unit Units Total (USD)

1 Land survey 1,000 m2 70 16.6 1,200 2 soil investigations (3 boreholes 25 m) piece 1,000 1 1,000 3 Clearing/leveling/ stabilizing site m2 3.5 16,600 58,100 4 Rainwater drain system piece 76,000 1 76,000 5 Terrain lighting system (Iightpoles) piece 150 14 2,100 6 Construction Fences (incl. gate) m 65 640 41,600

Gates piece 1,600 2 3,200 7 Construction green areas m2 15 1,600 24,000 8 Construction of gravel pavement m2 1 3,750 3,750 9 Construction of composting building

and auxiliary building, including roof (see description and lay-out in chapter 3 of the conceptual design)

m2 150 11,250 1,687,500

Sub total 1,917,350

Design and supervision % 10 191,700 Contractors-(De-) Mobilisation % 5 95,900 Unforeseen % 15 287,600 Total 2,492,550

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Table 76 Composting - Mechanical and Electrical Works

No Item Unit Electric capacity (kW)

Price ($)/unit

Units Total (USD)

Composting and auxiliary building 1 Electricity and lighting piece 2,000 1 2,000 2 Telephone, computer piece 5,000 1 5,000 3 Analytical equipment piece 8,000 1 8,000 4 Ventilation and heating piece 5,000 1 5,000

Sub total 20 20,000 Composting equipment

5 Front loader piece - 260,000 3 780,000 6 Plate feeder/feeding hopper waste

combined with bag opening drum piece 25 330,000 1 330,000

7 Shredder or crusher piece 120 330,000 1 330,000 8 Rotating drum screen (150 mm) piece 50 285,000 1 285,000 9 Plate feeder/feeding hopper compost piece 7 240,000 1 240,000

10 Belt conveyer 5 m long piece 5 30,000 2 60,000 11 Ballistic separator piece 15 190,000 1 190,000 12 Magnetic separator piece 3 125,000 1 125,000 13 Grinder piece 100 275,000 1 275,000 14 Double rotating drum screen (15/40 mm) piece 50 285,000 1 285,000 15 Belt conveyer 10 m long piece 5 30,000 2 60,000 16 Thermostats/temperature sensor piece - 850 30 25,500 17 Aeration ventilators piece 20 25,000 24 600,000

Sub total 3,585,500

Transport % 5 179,500 Total 3,785,000

*Prices are excluding VAT Total investments The total investments for a composting facility for separately collected organic waste with a capacity of 50,000 tons/year is calculated at USD 6.28 million, excluding the acquisition costs for 16,600 m2 of land required. If the bag opening drum and rotating drum screen (including a belt conveyer) which are recommended but are not strictly required, are replaced by 15 additional hand pickers, the equipment costs will be reduced with USD 645,000. This corresponds with approx. 17 % of the equipment costs and with approx. 10 % of the total investment costs. If mixed domestic waste is brought to the composting facility instead of separately collected waste this has a large consequence for the economic feasibility. About 170,000 tons of domestic waste should be brought to the facility to be able to compost 50,000 tons of organic matter after mechanical separation of the organic fraction. The high capacity of 170,000 tons/year is only required for the pre-treatment unit. After

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


this unit the major macro-contaminants will be separated from the organic material and the capacity for the remaining part of the facility can be designed for 50,000 tons per year as would be the case for separately collected waste.

When 170,000 tons of mixed waste is brought to a composting facility 50,000 tons of organic material will be separated and composted. The remaining 120,000 tons will still have to be landfilled (or incinerated if applicable). The separation of 170,000 tons of mixed domestic waste will require a bag opening drum and a mechanical screen with a capacity more than 3 times as high in comparison to the composting facility for separately collected waste and an additional front loader. This will increase the equipment costs with USD 500,000. Furthermore the surface area required for the facility will increase with 640 m2. Also the composting building will have to be increased resulting in approximately 10 % higher building costs which corresponds to approx. USD 170,000. The cost calculations for operations are based on the cost level of 2011. For recalculation of costs in NIS to costs in US dollar an exchange rate is used of 0.3 USD/NIS. For the calculation of maintenance costs higher percentages have been used than standard applicable for composting facilities on advice of local civil engineers. For maintenance of civil works a percentage is used of 5 % instead of 2 %, for mechanical/ electrical works a percentage of 10 % instead of 5 %. This has a significant influence on the total operational costs.

Table 77 Composting – Operational Costs

Item (50,000 ton / yr) Units Unit cost Total (USD) Capital costs • Civil works (25 years at 6%) • M/E works (10 years at 6%)

$ 2,492,550 $ 3,785,000

7.823 %

13.587 %

709,300 195,000 514,300

Employee costs • Director • Administrator/general engineer • Skilled workers (technicians, operators,

maintenance) • Manual workers (hand picker, cleaning)

1 2 7 5

USD 2,500 USD 1,500 USD 1,000

USD 700

16,000 2,500 3,000 7,000

3,500

Energy Installed capacity Electricity usage Diesel usage

870 kW 2,000,000 kWh 6,000 L

USD 0.15/kWh

USD 2.1/l

312,600

300,000

12,600

Water usage

2,000 m3 USD 0.6/m3 1,200

Maintenance/spare parts • civil works • M/E works

$ 2,492,550 $ 3,785,000

5.0 %

10.0 %

503,100 124,600 378,500

Insurance

$ 6,277,550 0.1 % 6,300

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


Auxiliary Equipment • Uniforms and gloves (1 supply/year) • Shoes (1 supply/2 year) • Brooms, brushes, shovels

500

SUBTOTAL

1,549,000

Unforeseen costs (10 %)

154,900

TOTAL

1,703,900

Quantity/year 50.000 tons COSTS/TON 34.1

The operational / treatment costs are totally USD 34.1 per ton of organic waste (= USD 68 per ton of produced compost). If handpicking is considered as alternative for various pre-treatment techniques, this will result in a decrease of the capital and maintenance costs for the M/E works with 17 %, a decrease of the energy costs with 5 % and a decrease of the insurance costs of 10 %. However the costs for the auxiliary equipment will increase with 50 % and the costs of 15 additional hand pickers will have to be taken into account. The total decrease of the operational costs is calculated on approx. USD 76.000 per year (4.5 %) resulting in treatment costs of USD 32.6/ton. Sensitivity analysis The calculated treatment costs of USD 34.1 per ton of organic waste (= USD 68 per ton of produced compost) are mainly determined by the capital costs (46 %), the electricity costs (20 %) and the costs for maintenance and spare parts (33 %). A sensitivity analysis has been performed for each of these components of the operational costs separately:

• The capital costs are based on an interest rate of 6 %. If the interest would be 4 % or 8 % instead of 6 %, the operational cost would be USD 1.8 per ton lower respectively USD 2.0 per ton higher. This has an influence of 5 to 6 % (higher or lower) on the total operational costs.

• The electricity costs are based on an electricity price of USD 0.15 per kWh. If this price would be USD 0.03 higher or lower, the operational costs would be USD 1.3 per ton higher or lower. This has an influence of approximately 4 % (higher or lower) on the total operational costs.

• Higher percentages have been used for the calculation of maintenance costs than standard applicable for composting facilities on advice of local civil engineers. If the standard percentages would have been used, the operational costs would be USD 5.8 lower. This has an influence of 17 % (lower) on the total operational costs.

As calculated before, the investments will increase when mixed domestic waste is brought to a composting facility instead of separately collected waste. These higher investments also result in an increase of the capital and maintenance costs for both the civil and M/E works with respectively 6.8 and 13.2 %. Further an increase of the energy costs with 7 % and the costs of 5 additional hand pickers will have to be taken into account. The total increase of the operational costs is calculated on approx. USD 180,000 per year (11 %). Of the 170,000 tons of domestic waste 120,000 tons are landfilled and 50,000 tons are composted. If the treatment costs are calculated on basis of the total amount of the domestic waste it corresponds to treatment costs of USD 11.1/ton mixed domestic waste. These are the costs that will have to be made

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


additionally to the landfilling costs to reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled with 29 %. This 29 % of the waste is turned into a low quality composted which hopefully can be used on low quality markets as landfill cover or in polluted areas which have to be remediated. The total extra costs of approx. USD 1.88 million (170,000 tons and USD 11.1 per ton) will only be economically beneficial if the landfilling costs are higher than USD 37.7 per ton (USD 1,880,000/50,000 tons of reduced amount for landfilling). If the treatment costs are calculated on basis of the amount of organic waste (50,000 tons) they correspond to USD 37.7/ton organic waste. This is USD 3.6/ton higher than would be the case for the composting of separately collected waste, while the compost quality is lower. If handpicking will be enhanced, than the costs will increase to € 5.1/ ton. Of course separate collection requires a separate collection systems, with will slightly increase of costs in comparison to combined collection.

The following table presents a summary of the foreseen investment plan for the proposed composting strategy: Table 78 Composting – Investment Plan 2012 - 2040

2012: Composting Preparatory Study (including waste separation, 0,4 MUSD) 2016: Construction composting plant at Rafah - Tel al Sultan: 30,000 tons / yr, 4.5 MUSD 2016: Construction composting plant at Johr al Deek: 30,000 tons / year, 4.5 MUSD 2021: Expansion Rafah – Tel al Sultan with 30,000 tons / year, 2.3 MUSD 2021: Expansion Johr al Deek with 30,000 tons / year, 2.3 MUSD 2026: Construction composting plant at Beit Lahia: 50,000 tons / yr, 6.3 MUSD 2026: Construction composting plant at Rafah Landfill, 50,000 tons / yr, 6.3 MUSD 2032: Expansion composting plant at Rafah Landfill, 50,000 tons / yr, 6.3 MUSD 2032: Expansion composting plant at Beit Lahia or Johr al Deek, 50,000 tons / yr, 6.3 MUSD Total composting capacity 2038: 320,000 ton per year Total investment in Composting Strategy: 39,2 MUSD

DHV B.V. ENFRA TECC


13 COLOPHON

UNDP - PAPP/Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management

Client : UNDP - PAPP Project : Feasibility Study and Detailed Design for Solid Waste Management Report : Final Feasibility Study File : BA4772-100-100 Length of report : 201 pages Author : Jeroen Kool Co-authors : Dr. Abdelmajid Nassar, Christian Düsel, Mark de Groot, Dr. Aard

Hartveld, Dr. Peter Nuttall Contributions : Project Staff DHV / ENFRA / TECC Project Manager : Jeroen Kool DHV Director : Paul van Ruiten Date : 31 January 2012 Name/Initials :

feasibility study and detailed design for solid waste ... · 7.8 municipal organic waste...

Documents