Makassar Fs Report LFG (EDocFind - Com)

WORLD BANK Feasibility Study of Makassar Landfill Gas Project FINAL REPORT
16 November 2007
www.erm.com
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF LANDFILL 2.1 LANDFILL LOCATION AND OPERATION 2.2 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND DISPOSAL TONNAGES 3 PROPOSED LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION 3.1 LANDFILL STABILITY 3.2 LANDFILL CAPPING LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3.3 LFG COLLECTION SYSTEM 3.4 METHANE PRODUCTION 4 BUSINESS PLAN 4.1 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 4.2 RECOMMENDED BUSINESS PLAN 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5.1 PROJECT SUMMARY 5.2 RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5.3 INVESTMENT PLANNING 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS 7 CONCLUSIONS 1 3 3 8 10 10 16 18 20 27 27 33 37 37 37 39 43 43 54 58
REFERENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007
WB 16 NOVEMBER, 2007
APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H SITE VISIT REPORT HSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CDM MONITORING INFORMATION LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND FLARING REQUIREMENT DRAFT MAKASSAR TENDER LEACHATE TEST RESULTS GROUNDWATER TEST RESULTS DETAILED FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF LFG
TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Summary of Economic Analysis for LFG Flaring Project with 50% LFG recovery Efficiency IPCC 2006 Recommended Default Half-life Values Methane Gas Generation Parameters Degradable Organic Carbon of MSW (DOC) Methane Generation Rate Constant (k) Methane Generation Potential - Lo 30% Recovery Efficiency 50% Recovery Efficiency 70% Recovery Efficiency LFG Flaring without ER Revenue LFG Flaring with ER Revenue LFGTE CDM Project Activity Scenario 1 - 30% Collection Efficiency Scenario 2 - 50% Collection Efficiency Scenario 3 - 70% Collection Efficiency Gas Emission Generated from the Flaring of the Landfill Gas Emission Standards for Flaring
iii 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 29 30 31 40 41 42 44 44
FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Map of Sulawesi Island TPA Tamangapa Landfill Project Location TPA Tamangapa Landfill Concept Layout Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries Business Plan of Option #1 Business Plan of Option #2 Business Plan of Option #3 (Recommended) 5 6 7 8 35 35 36
GLOSSARY
CDM COP DKI Jakarta DNA DOC DOCF EHS ER IPCC IRR LFG LFGTE MSW O&M PIN PDD PLN ROI SNI STP SWM TPA UNFCCC WACC
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Clean Development Mechanism Conference of the Parties Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta / Special Capital of Jakarta Designated National Authority Degradable Organic Carbon Degradable Organic Carbon Dissimilated Environmental, Health & Safety Emissions Reduction Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Internal Rate of Return Landfill Gas Landfill Gas to Energy Municipal Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Project Idea Note Project Design Document Perusahaan Listrik Negara/ Indonesian State Electricity Company Radius of Influence Standard National Indonesia Standard Temperature Pressure Solid Waste Management Tempat Pembuangan Disposal Facility Sampah Akhir/ Final Waste
United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change Weighted Average Cost of Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study Report addresses the potential implementation of a project involving landfill gas (LFG) collection and flaring at TPA Tamangapa located in Makassar City, South Sulawesi in Indonesia. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Indonesia has prepared this report for the World Bank in accordance with the Contract Scope of Work. This project generally consists of the installation of a landfill gas collection system to reduce methane gas emissions through flaring. This reduction in methane, which has a global warming potential of 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2), will potentially generate revenue through the sale of Certified Emissions Reductions (CER) of the greenhouse gas. The reduction of methane gas, which makes up approximately 50 percent of LFG, is achieved through combustion. This feasibility study includes a sensitivity analysis based on the current price paid for CERs. This study attempts to determine whether it is technically and financially feasible to capture and destroy the methane gas from the landfill for a period of at least 7 years (worst case scenario, since the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the World Bank purchased the agreement for a period of 2008 2014). If the Kyoto Protocol is extended after 2012, then credit period of Makassars LFG is valid through 2026. The following is a summary of the relevant project: The landfill of TPA Tamangapa was established in 1993 situated on the incline of an escarpment. This landfill has an allocation of 14.3 hectares of land with depths ranging from approximately 4 to 20 meters. Since its opening, an estimated 1,240,000 tonne of MSW has been disposed of to this landfill with a current waste volume of approximately 1,800,000 m3. Increasing the capacity and lifetime of this landfill will be achieved through organic mining and cell/block rehabilitation as well as increasing the area by an additional 3 hectares. This study attempts to determine whether it is technically and financially feasible to capture and destroy the methane gas from the landfill. The volume of methane capture and destruction from Makassar municipal solid waste landfill, TPA Tamangapa, is dependant upon efficiency and effectiveness of design and management of leachate and LFG. Design and installation of sealed cell will reduce rainfall infiltration and methane gas emission. Therefore improved efficiency of methane extraction and destruction can be achieved over the 10 year credit period. The emission reduction and its monetary value will increase with the increase of collection efficiency from the current minimum value of 30% (minimal cell/block closure) to a maximum of 70% (environmental cell/block closure). The LFG recovery efficiency of 30%, 50%, and 70% have been assessed and it is recommended that 50% recovery efficiency is the most
appropriate level used for assessment. With 50% LFG collection efficiency, the estimated emission reduction over the 7 year period is equivalent to 560,000 tonnes of CO2e or $US 5,600,000 (@ $US10/tonne CO2e). The progressive installation of horizontal piping system in a new cell for LFG collection will also contribute to increased methane capture and destruction. The landfill currently does not have a dedicated landfill gas collection and control system. At present, the methane gas escapes to atmosphere from the landfill surface as fugitive emissions. The stability of landfill site is a critical factor that should be considered during the design phase. Proper site stability design by qualified engineers is important prior to installation and operation of gas collection system, including landfill cap Makassar City has 3 business options in operating the LFG Flaring project; (1) sole management by the government of Makassar, (2) management by joint operation with external investor, and (3) sole management by internal investor. We recommended that option (3) is the most viable option for the city of Makassar where the investor will then pay a royalty or a share of profits to the government of Makassar City to be used for improved MSW management and better collection efficiency which will bring benefits to the community through higher CERs.
In addition to the technical evaluation, this study also includes a financial assessment of the project to determine feasibility under a variety of scenarios. From a commercial perspective the decision to invest in a CDM activity must be made on basic business principles, with the three key assessment criteria, i.e., (i) an acceptable return on investment, (ii) an appropriate payback period, and (iii) minimal risks. The financial assessment was conducted for LFG flaring, as well as the use of LFG to Energy (LFGTE), wherein revenue is generated by CERs. The financial assessment demonstrates that the LFG Flaring project can generate a revenue stream from CERs that will provide the city of Makassar with the financial ability to re-invest this revenue into Solid Waste Management (SWM). A CDM-LFG Flaring activity meets the requirements of both the Kyoto Protocol and those of the city of Makassar. The alternative model evaluated, for the use of LFGTE, is not commercially viable and does not meet the key requirement of Makassar, which is to provide a revenue stream for financing SWM improvement. The investment cost for LFGTE is much higher than the more simple approach of LFG Flaring. The assessment uses the current PLN buy-back rate to determine the commercial viability of a LFGTE project. It is evident that at the current buy back rate a LFGTE-CDM activity for TPA Tamangapa is not commercially viable. The summary of economic analysis of LFG Flaring with 50% recovery efficiency is provided in Table 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007 WB 16 NOVEMBER, 2007
ii
Table 1
Summary of Economic Analysis for LFG Flaring Project with 50% LFG recovery Efficiency
Costs Initial Capital Investment Expansion/Extension of LFG system over 7 year life of project collection Amount ($US) $1,368,500 $578,000 Frequency On implementation On closure of cells
Operation & Maintenance costs (7 year project life) [includes upfront finance repayment and monitoring] Total Project Revenue CERs Revenue based on ERPA sale 0f ERs over 7 year period 2008 - 2014 (@ $10.00 / tonne CO2e) Financial Indicators Total Debt (Upfront finance CDM Development) Total Equity IRR
$1,205,050 $3,151,550 Tonne CO2e Sold 625,353
Total of life of project
$US $6,250,000 $US $250,000 $1,395,500
Project Asset Discount Rate 10.00%
37.93% 27.67% $US $869,069 $652,072 $555,573 $1,406,663
NPV
15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset)
iii
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate the potential of the proposed Landfill Gas Flaring project in the city of Makassar, Indonesia, as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project under the Kyoto Protocol for Climate Change. This mechanism provides a commercial opportunity for the city of Makassar to realize the economic potential of its organic waste stream to improve the environmental performance of its operation. The city of Makassar intends to apply to receive carbon finance for the methane emissions avoided or recovered via landfill gas extraction and flaring from its landfill, Tempat Pembuangan Sampah Akhir (TPA) Tamangapa. The City of Makassar (formally Ujung Pandang) is situated on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi and is the provincial capital of the province of South Sulawesi. Its residential population in 2006 was approximately 1.3 million people having grown from 1.0 million people in 1993. The city, like many others in Indonesia, suffers from an inability to cope with waste generation and disposal. Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is estimated at around 880 tonne/day (0.70 kg/capita/day or 3,800 m3/day @ 0.23 tonne/m3)1 of which 344 tonne/day2 or 39% (1,500 m3/day) was collected in 2006 and approximately 458 tonne/day3 or 48% (1,991 m3/day) in 2007. It is the intention of Makassar City to apply to receive carbon finance for the methane emissions avoided or recovered via landfill gas extraction and flaring and the generation of electricity energy from LFG generation for site need from its landfill, TPA Tamangapa. This project will use a proven technology and
engineering approach that has been used in the extraction and the LFG flaring, as well as will consider increasing the utilization of this gas to be generated to electricity or for another use in medium term.
To be classified as a CDM project, the project must be able to abate, avoid or sequester Greenhouse Gases (GHG) which includes carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and others through the implementation of a project activity. Therefore, the project contributes to minimizing global climate change, Acting locally whilst thinking globally. During the life of a registered CDM project, the success of GHG abatement and/or avoidance is monitored. The verification of this monitored data leads to the issuance of Emission Reduction (ER) or Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits. Under the mechanism established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) these credits are commercially tradable commodities. Present market value of CERs is around $US 7.0/tonne CO2e.
1 2 3
JICA (1996) 2006 Weighbridge Data, Dinas Keindahan, Kota Makassar 2007 Weighbridge Data, Dinas Keindahan, Kota Makassar
For the proposed project, a Project Idea Note (PIN) and pre-feasibility assessments have been made estimating the landfill gas potential and associated greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Design Document (PDD) is currently being developed. This Feasibility Study of the proposed CDM project is required as part of the due diligence process to validate the predicted methane generation potential of the landfill, to provide inputs into the PDD and to assist the city of Makassar in the implementation of the project. The objectives of the feasibility study are to: Prepare a feasibility report, basic design and define total level of investment, prepare preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates for the proposed landfill gas extraction and flaring project in Makassar; Estimate LFG resource and draw sensitivity analyses for the present and future gas quantities that may be generated and recoverable from the Makassar site; Prepare the necessary economic and financial analyses and environmental and social safeguard analyses and a project implementation schedule for the works; Undertake Community Consultation and prepare Development objectives for the proposed CDM project; Community
The scope of work of the feasibility study is as follows: Task A Task B Task C Task D : Prepare an Overview with the initial Landfill Gas (LFG) generation estimates; : Updated landfill gas and GHG emissions reduction estimates; : Develop the Conceptual Design for the necessary facility for the flaring system; : Provide a Technical Analysis with costs and financial analysis as well as regulatory requirements and environmental, safety and social measures; : Provide Community Consultation and develop Community Development Programs, and : Provide Business and Implementation Plans for the Gas Flaring project
Task E Task F
DESCRIPTION OF LANDFILL
The improvement of solid waste management in Makassar is one of the main objectives of the gas flaring project; carbon financing from the reduction of methane gas emissions from the landfill will enable the city of Makassar to improve its solid waste management, providing benefits to both the environment and the community. This section will give a general overview of the landfill location and will discuss the characterization of the solid waste composition and management, which affects methane gas production in the landfill.
2.1
LANDFILL LOCATION AND OPERATION The Makassar City is comprised of 11 kecamatan (sub-district) covering a total area of 17,577 ha which designated as 25% residential, 2% commercial, 2% industry, 25% paddy field, 14% dry land, 8% fish pond, 2% open space, and 4% vacant land. Its residential population in 2006 is approximately 1.3 million people having grown from 1.0 million people in 1993. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the location of the city of Makassar in the Sulawesi Island and the project location, respectively. This project will be located at the City of Makassar landfill, TPA Tamangapa, which is located in Kecamatan Antang, Desa Tamangapa, the western border of East Makassar approximately 15km from the city centre. This landfill was established in 1993 and is expected to continue to provide the only MSW disposal location for the city until 2016. TPA Tamangapa is situated of the incline of an escarpment currently covering approximately 14.3 hectares with depths ranging from approximately 4 to 20 metres. Since opening an estimated 1,240,000 tonne of MSW has been disposed of to this landfill with a current waste volume of approximately 1,800,000 m3. Increasing the capacity and lifetime of this landfill will be achieved through organic mining and cell rehabilitation as well as increasing the area by an additional 3 hectares. The Makassar local authority plans the 3 hectares expansion of the landfill by the year 2012 to a total of 17.3 hectares. In 2007, Makassar has allocated 600 million rupiahs (~USD 60,000) to acquire approximately 3 hectares of land. During the years to 1996 the landfill was the focus of a Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study and assistance project during the years to 1996. Over the years 1999 - 2000 an Australian-Indonesian cooperative Activity Implemented Jointly (AIJ) project was undertaken on the landfill to determine the potential for GHG emission abated through landfill gas capture and landfill organic mining. A small-scale commercial landfill mining activity is currently underway on the landfill; this is not apart of this proposal.
This project proposes the installation of a LFG extraction and flaring system and small-scale electricity generation for the purpose of capturing and destroying methane gas. The LFG well field will be installed progressively; commencing with the 6.5 hectares area that is currently closed and capped. The depth of this area varies from 15 to 20 meters and consisting of approximately 75% waste less than 5 years since disposed. The LFG well field will be progressively extend into the current dumping area as closed and capped areas become available during 2007 and 2008. This 4.5hectare area has depths varying from 15 to 20 meters and contains approximately 85% waste less than 2 years since dumping. As this landfill also has an ongoing landfill organic mining activity (not currently included in this proposal) the LFG extraction systems will be incorporated into new cell structure design as new areas become available for new dumping. Current and future landfill mining activities are restricted to the zones that currently contain waste more than 10 years old (material suitably degraded for use as compost) and will not encroach upon areas designated for fresh waste disposal or LFG collection. The concept layout of TPA Tamangapa landfill is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 1
Map of Sulawesi Island
Figure 2
TPA Tamangapa Landfill Project Location

Figure 3
TPA Tamangapa Landfill Concept Layout
2.2
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND DISPOSAL TONNAGES Gas is produced in landfills when organic materials decompose in an anaerobic system (without oxygen). Landfill gas is comprised of approximately equal parts of methane and carbon dioxide, with trace concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and other constituents. The generation of landfill gas will vary depending on the amount and composition of the disposed waste in the landfill, with high organic content providing more ideal conditions for rapid anaerobic decomposition and formation of methane. This section will discuss waste characterization and disposal amounts specific to TPA Tamangapa. Indonesian Waste Generation and Composition Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation and composition in middle income countries differs considerably from that in high-income countries, as can be seen in Figure 3. Typically, MSW in countries in transition middle income such as Indonesia have a high organic waste content, which is predominately putrecibles, and have a low paper content. In contrast, developed countries have the opposite composition.
Low Income Countries: Current Total Waste = 158,000,000 tonnes per year
Middle Income Countries: Current Total Waste = 34,000,000 tonnes per year
Other, 11%
High Income Countries: Current Total Waste = 85,000,000 tonnes per year
Other, 12% Metal, 8% Glass, 7% Plastic, 9% Organic, 28%
Other, 47%
Organic, 41%
Metal, 3% Glass, 2% Plastic, 11%
Metal, 1% Glass, 2%
Paper, 5% Plastic, 4%
Paper, 15%
Organic, 58%
Paper, 36%
Source: The World Bank (1999) What a Waste
Figure 4
Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries
In general, lower income communities generate a high proportion of putrescible organic waste due to a number of factors, including: Lack of refrigeration to store food; Food preparation is undertaken in the household, rather than through the purchase of prepared food, particularly packaged food, which maybe produced and processed outside the cities or in other countries.
The composition of waste in Indonesia follows this trend for lower income communities. Affluent cities, such as Jakarta, have lower waste generation rates with a lower organic (putrescible) content than the less affluent cities (World Bank, 1999). MSW Collection Services in Makassar City The city disposes of waste in the landfill at a rate of about 458 metric tons/day, which is around 48% of the total waste generated in the city from its population of 1.3 million people4. Based upon predicted population growth and anticipated improvement in collection services, this landfill has a waste receiving life of only 7 to 8 years. Forecast MSW Generation and Disposal Constant population growth within the city of Makassar has led to a corresponding increase in MSW generation, requiring the city to continually invest in additional haulage capacity. The predicted growth in population and corresponding increase in collection service needs will therefore place a limit on the life of TPA Tamangapa unless further land is acquired, as planned. In addition, the current low levels of collection service within the city are unacceptable for the government and residents. The intent of the government of Makassar in undertaking this CDM project is to generate the much needed revenue stream to improve MSW management. Increased MSW disposal will bring about other benefits under CDM as this additional organic waste will generate methane which the project will collect and destroy therefore increasing the projects CER revenue. Increases in population and collection services from 2007 until 2017 will lead to additional disposal of 2.128 million tonnes of organic waste. Although an additional 3 hectares has been reported as being available for expansion the disposal life of the present landfill will be until about 2012. The life could be extended if an activity such as landfill mining was undertaken, releasing old cells for new waste disposal.
Statistical Center Unit of Makassar; 2006
PROPOSED LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION
In a landfill, there are two natural pathways through which the landfill gas generated within the landfill can leave; one is by migration into the adjacent subsurface, and the other is by venting through the landfill cover system. In both cases the gas will ultimately reach the atmosphere if an appropriate capturing and controlling system is not provided. Subsections below describe the proposed landfill gas collection system for the Makassar TPA Tamangapa landfill, with consideration to the current general condition of landfills in Indonesia, which require that special attention be paid to landfill stability and capping system to ensure efficient landfill gas collection.
3.1
LANDFILL STABILITY Landfills in Indonesia are typically one of two designs, individual stepped pyramid cells or progressively dumped into ravines or hill slopes. Both of these methods of disposal have potential for instability, as can be witnessed by two landfill landslides in the past three years in Indonesia: February 2005, TPA Leuwigajah Bandung, where a 2.7 million m3 waste landslide killed approximately 147 people; and September 2006, TPA Bantar Gebang Bekasi, where the side of an operating cell collapsed, killing three people. The landfill at this Makassar site has been constructed on the side slope of an ancient valley. The slope was originally approximately 15m in height. An extensive wet land area was present at the toe of the slope, part of which now is covered by the landfill. There are no immediate residences or other properties present at the toe of the landfill, however any collapse will present a risk to the ecosystem of the adjoining wetland area, as well as local operators and the ever present scavenging community. Following a site visit by ERM, undertaken on the 7th March 2007, the following issues are noted in relation to overall stability and capping. The entire landfill was visually inspected during this visit. A walkover of the landfill was undertaken and in particular the following features were investigated and reviewed: Leachate breakouts Tension cracks Settlement Slippage Bulging Fires
10
A separate Site Visit Report was prepared detailing the site visit, and is included in this report in the Appendix Historical Information The following report and drawings have been made available to ERM: Master Plan and Feasibility Study on Wastewater and Solid Waste Management for The City of Ujung Pandang, Sept 1995. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) This report and the drawings have provided valuable insight into the proposed construction and working practice of the landfill. However this report does not necessarily represent the As Built construction or methodology of operation. (ERM can not verify the accuracy of this report and use the information contained as reference material only) Previous site photographs have also been reviewed. From a review of this information the previous site topography consisted of a north to south side slope approximately 12.0 metres in height, with a slope angle of approximately 20 degrees (verbally informed). The toe of the site formed part of an alluvial plain which is usually flooded and is connected to the Mangara swamp during the rainy season. Surface water is reported to reach depths of 1.5m to the east of the disposal site. Soft clays and loose sands are recorded to be present in the alluvial plain. The former valley side slopes are reported to consist of a firm to moderately stiff lateritic clay layer up to 3.0m thick, overlying a highly weathered bedrock (2.0m to 4.0m thick), with an interbedded sandstone and claystone sequence forming the bedrock. Leachate Breakout Leachate breakouts were noted in many places on the landfill, around the lower tiers and sometimes higher up on the landfill surface. Leachate was notable in the perimeter drainage areas particularly from the mining/compost area, and adjacent open fill faces in the north west of the tip. The wet land area surrounding the north east and south sides of the tip are now in direct contact with the tipped wastes and it is extremely likely that leachate is entering the surface water system. In the south of the site there is noticeable leachate breakout on the lower slopes adjacent to the wet land. On the surface of the landfill a surface water drain has been crudely constructed into the waste, running from the crest of the tip to the east. It is likely that a mixture of surface water and leachate is flowing in this drain. There are many minor leachate seeps on the slopes of the landfill throughout.
11
Available drawings indicate that there should be an on site road (bund) surrounding the waste at the toe of the landfill. There was no evidence of this bund during the visit, however this does not mean it is not present. No As Built drawings were made available to assess the nature of the site construction. ERM were verbally informed that there is an As Built drawing which indicates that there is a landfill liner in place at the base of the landfill. However the presence of the liner is questionable as ERM were also verbally informed by site operatives that the liner was never constructed due to financial constraints. Given the high water table in the area it is therefore likely that the base of the landfill is saturated by groundwater and leachate, leading to leachate breakouts within the waste slopes at levels above the surrounding water level. There is no toe drain to speak of which is collecting leachate and diverting it to a leachate control area. Tension Cracks During the site visit an inspection was made along the crest of the tip. No signs of tension cracks were recorded at the crest of the slopes. Settlement Settlement always occurs in landfills, even in modern well operated sites. The process of compaction and waste degradation adds to the settlement of waste materials and this is unavoidable. There where minor signs of settlements on the landfill where recent boreholes had been constructed, however these were extremely local instances. There were no significant signs of settlement. However, ERM have copies of photographs taken in 2004 which indicate that within the landfill there was a previous concrete road structure which was used to deliver the waste to the tip, and to end tip from the edge. We have been verbally informed that this structure is now buried under the existing waste, and that no attempt was made to demolish the structure or break it in any way. Although there were no signs of settlement, in this area the potential for later differential settlements could be high. During the site visit there was no evidence of compaction ongoing during waste placement. However we understand that the waste was placed by excavator and dozer following end tipping. Some compaction will have therefore occurred but this may not necessarily be adequate. The JICA report made available, has a section indicating the preferred method of waste placement for the site. ERM can not say at this stage if this methodology was ever implemented. However the methodology indicated in the report is considered suitable for this particular site setting, although the construction can not be proven.
12
Settlements are to be expected particularly given the age of the waste and the potential lack of adequate compaction. If significant differential settlements occur within the wastes then these may cause zones of weakness through the vertical section of the waste, which may in turn develop into tension cracks, and affect the stability of the tip. During the site visit there were no signs of significant differential settlement. However verbal reports that the former access road was never demolished, may suggest that differential settlement could occur in the future. The position of this access road and the distance to the exposed faces of the landfill remains in doubt; however this could cause a plane of weakness nonetheless. Soft alluvial soils at the base of the landfill will be settling due to the weight of overlying waste (up to 15 meters thick). Given that the tip has only been in place less than 20 years ongoing settlements of the sub grade soils should be expected. In addition there is potential for differential settlements over the section of the tip which covers the change in lithology in the sub grade from the side slopes to the valley soils (alluvial soft clays). The Engineers developing this site for LFG collection should satisfy themselves with respect to the site stability, and the potential for ongoing settlements, and how these could affect the gas collection system and cap. Slippage The JICA report suggests that side slopes should be in the order of 1:3 (vertical: horizontal) or about 18.5 degrees. During the site visit, side slope angles were noted to vary locally between near vertical (in minor instances) to generally between 30 degrees and 40 degrees, a lot steeper than the JICA report recommends. According to the site operators there have been no slope slips in the operational life of the site. On inspection there were no signs of any significant slips. Shallow surficial slips were present on oversteep sections of the waste, but these are insignificant and can be attributed to loose waste matter sliding down the face of the slopes. In fact in some areas local scavenging had rendered parts of the slope vertical. According to the JICA report, there was little or no preparation of the side slopes prior to the tipping of the wastes. It is likely therefore that wastes are in direct contract with the original slope profile, rather than being deposited on pre cut steps into the waste. If the waste placement was undertaken in accordance with the JICA preferred method of waste placement for the site, then the chances of slippages as a result of waste placement would be minimized. However ERM are unsure of this method was applied and there is little proof to verify that this occurred. Therefore in all probability the waste abuts the original slope profile, potentially with no liner in place. The possibility arises therefore that there will be a zone of weakness at the waste / former slope interface. Inadequate surface water drainage at this interface will
13
potentially add lubricant to the interface. However, given the volume of wastes in front of the original slope, it is considered unlikely that any movement will occur, unless there are multiple mechanisms at work within the landfill structure which could cause catastrophic failure. Bulging There were no visible signs of bulging of the side slopes which could suggest instability. There were no verbal reports (site operator) of bulging ever occurring during the life time of the landfill. Fires The site operators indicated that there had been minor surface fires on the landfill, however these had always been put out and from verbal reports (via the site operator), were never deep seated fires. However, historical records provided to ERM suggest that fires can and do start, in particular on the operating faces of the landfill during the dry season. It is reported that attempts to put out this fire were unsuccessful, and it appeared that the fires were deep seated. However, during the rainy season in late September and October the fires ceased due to rainfall infiltration. One other fire was reported at one location on the south side of the tip, at the crest, although the date of this fire is unclear. This fire was put out and subsequently excavated. The excavation still remains at the crest of the tip and is approximately 2.0m deep by 5.0m in width. It is likely that this hollow will be infilled at a later date. Those fires that have been recorded, and those that are unrecorded can act as potential zones of weakness within the landfill waste structure. Waste materials can be fused together, or be burnt such that the resultant burnt or fused wastes exist adjacent to less consolidated wastes. These surfaces could therefore act as zones of further weakness because of the reduction in interparticle friction, and interlocking of waste particles. It is difficult, without detailed records, to understand the locations of these fires, and the nature of the possible zones of weakness caused as a result of the fires, however the landfill engineers must take these zones of weakness into account (ref: recent Bandung landslide) when designing any future gas collection or capping systems. Other issues: The bearing capacity of the lower alluvial valley soils, the soft clays, should be considered in any analysis. The JICA report indicates the N Values of these soils is low, N=2 to 4, indicating that bearing capacities of these soils will also be low. Failure in soils due to inadequate bearing capacity can occur. An assessment of the bearing capacity of the local valley soils should also be considered.
14
LFG surface acitivity A visual inspection of the landfill site during this feasibility study revealed numerous locations where LFG is being emitted through the surface capping Conclusion: In terms of stability at the time of the site visit, from a visual assessment there did not appear to be any signs of distress in the landfill which would indicate potential instability. However, given the steepness of the waste in the landfill, the possibility of differential settlements caused by different strengths of subgrade and the buried access road, and the possible planes of weakness caused by deep seated smouldering fires, it would be advisable to undertake a stability analyses on the landfill which should be completed by an experienced competent engineer. Any analysis should consider the complex possibility that all these features could interact with one another. In particular attention should be given to the possibility for weak zones to develop across areas of differential settlements (area of former access road, and where waste cover changes from valley sides to valley base), steep side slopes, areas of previous fires, and the possibility of a saturated basal layer of the tip due to high groundwater and leachate levels. The stability in terms of the bearing capacity of the soft valley soils (soft clay, loose sand and paddy clay) should also be reviewed. If leachate levels rise in the waste, more breakouts may rapidly develop uncontrollably and cause further surface water pollution, however, worse can occur. Collapse of sloping faces can occur due to the presence of high leachate levels as a major if not the primary contributor. The possibility of the lower layer being saturated has not been proven, however this would affect the overall stability of the cell. A qualified engineer should perform stability analyses using appropriate geotechnical software allowing for analyses of pore water pressures at the base of the cell to demonstrate potential high leachate levels. Equally consideration should be given to adequate site investigations to determine the strength of the underlying subgrade soils, and to establish leachate levels in the base of the landfill. Consideration should be given to improving the leachate collection system, not only to prevent the build up of leachate at the base of the landfill, but also to prevent leachate breakout and protect the local environment. Preliminary analysis may be made based on the information contained within the JICA report, however any Engineering company would have to derive their own information or accept the liability for the use of non verified information, provided by others.
15
3.2
LANDFILL CAPPING LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ERM understand that the plans for development of the gas collection system include the provision of a semi impermeable cap to allow moisture infiltration. The introduction of regulations elsewhere in the world is such that all landfills should now be capped with an appropriate membrane to prevent the escape of LFG to the atmosphere. It is now widely recognized that landfills are one of the main contributors to methane production and add to Greenhouse Gas problems around the world. Capping with a semi permeable cap, such as the local soil, will not provide an impermeable seal which would prevent the escape of LFG, however it will allow moisture to penetrate into the waste, increasing degradation and allowing for the production of LFG, and also reducing longer term settlement. Consideration should be given to provision of a permanent impermeable cap, such that further emissions to the atmosphere can be avoided and LFG can be controlled and collected properly via a gas collection layer with an adequately engineered cap. In its present form the site has already been capped in the southern portion, although this cap only consists of approximately 40cm of local soil cover. This cap is very poor and does not prevent the escape of LFG to the atmosphere. Swelling and drying has caused the soils to crack throughout the cap which allow for moisture penetration and LFG escape. There were no odours or smell of landfill gas in the southern part of the tip, which suggests that either the LFG production has slowed down, or that the LFG is rapidly escaping to the atmosphere throughout the existing cap and being dispersed quickly by the wind. Existing steep side slopes will be difficult to cap with soil alone as erosion and slippages would constantly occur washing away the cap until adequate natural vegetation was firmly established. For provision of a permanent impermeable cap the present landform is slightly unfavorable on the slopes due to the steep sides. An element of reprofiling may be required, but the advice should be sought from an experienced Engineering company or membrane manufacturer to determine the side slope profile requirements, and cap make up requirements. A permanent impermeable cap will provide more control in the collection of gas but the following should be considered: An impermeable cap would increase the degradation time and longer term settlements would be expected. An element of landfill reprofiling is likely required to ensure cap stability
16
Toe drainage design would need careful consideration given the proximity to the wetland areas Reprofiling of the wastes will mean placement of MSW on top of the landfill. Cost. A properly engineered cap, and associated infrastructure, for a site of this size may be prohibitively high.
A typical modern impermeable cap for a municipal solid waste landfill consists of the following make up: Topsoil: Varying from 30cm to 100cm thick Drainage Layer: Granular materials about 30cm to 50cm thick Compacted Clay: Approx 50cm to 100cm thick, (k<1x10-9m/s) Gas Collection Layer: Granular or Synthetic Leveling layer: Sand layer to smooth off waste profile Waste
The thicknesses and types of materials used all can vary depending upon availability, further detailed assessments, and cost. Additionally various synthetic products are available to replace and /or enhance natural materials for impermeable membranes, drainage and collection layers, and separator layers. A typical cross section through an engineered cap is given below. Note that the thickness indicated are purely theoretical and can vary based on specific requirements, rainfall data, likely gas production rates etc.
Topsoil, 150250mm Sub soil, 450-750mm Drainage Layer. Granular OR geonet with geotextile separators either side Geomembrane LLDPE or HDPE. Compacted Clay Layer, 600-800mm
Gas collection layer. Granular or Geonet equivalent. 300-450mm Blinding layer, 100mm Waste
17
The current practice for capping at the Makassar site appears to be purely using local soil cover. No engineering practice appears to be observed (although we were not provided with any information). Whilst this would not be the best practice for capping a landfill, there are no apparent regulations in Indonesia in relation to the capping of municipal waste sites (although there is a regulation for hazardous wastes). A semi permeable cap would allow infiltration and promote LFG production, but equally it will also allow the escape of LFG to the atmosphere therefore not allowing for the appropriate collection of all available LFG. From site observations there appears to be little or no maintenance to any covered areas such that the escape of LFG is inevitable. The developer should therefore consider the most effective method for gas collection in order to achieve the appropriate LFG yields necessary to operate the collection system effectively, profitably, and also to prevent the escape of LFG to the atmosphere.
3.3
LFG COLLECTION SYSTEM Landfills in tropical climates typically have high leachate levels that reduce LFG extraction rates if traditional vertical well collection systems are used. Due to the existing conditions, this feasibility study evaluated both the traditional vertical well collection system and horizontal well system. As described previously, an active collection system consists of a mechanical blower or compressor attached to a system of gas extraction wells or collection trenches. A pressure gradient is created in the wells or trenches, thereby forcing the removal of gas from the landfill. The gas is then piped to a flare, cogeneration unit or other treatment system. The effectiveness of an active LFG collection system depends greatly on the design and operation of the system, and on the methane generation capability of the landfill waste. An effective collection system should be designed and configured so as to: handle the maximum LFG generation rate; effectively collect LFG from all areas of the landfill; and monitor and adjust the operation of individual extraction wells and trenches.
Air intrusion is a major concern in the design of the active LFG collection system. Air intrusion may naturally permeate through the landfill cover and into the refuse.
18
An active collection system has four major components: Horizontal Gas extraction wells, including gas collection pipes. The function of the collection pipe is to collect the gas from each well and deliver it to the flaring system. This shall be constructed with a loop system, header system or single main with outfield regulation. The gas collection pipe should be made of PVC or polyethylene with a diameter of 100 mm. The pipe should be placed on land surface, in order to facilitate regular checks for possible leaking. Each joint between the pipe and well are to be equipped with connectors for continuous monitoring of gas quality, quantity, temperature and pressure. Piping should be placed on the outer part of the gas collection cell. The collection pipe should be provided with condensation points before being connected to the flaring system, to facilitate disposal of liquid from within the pipe. Gas moving equipment; LFG treatment units; and Condensate removal and disposal units.
The location of the LFG flaring system is as follows: Gas Flaring System is to be located at the central area that can be easily reached from each existing cell according to the landfill long-term operations plan. Around 5,000 m2 of land is required for the gas flaring area, which has to be well-fenced to prevent trespassing by unauthorized people into the area. The area for construction must be flood-free, have efficient rain water drainage, an available electricity system, clean water and waste water spillway, and easy car access. Redesigning of whole landfill area is needed.
The type of the LFG Flaring system is as follows: Gas flaring system to be used must be an Enclosed Flares Type and has to be equipped with an in and out gas quality detector. Carbon and other gases efficiency have to be more than 90% and should be clearly measured continuously at all time 24 hour a day. Gas flaring system body has to be stainless steel that can remain for 20 years operations or more and covered with repair guarantee during that time so that whenever there is trouble it can be repaired Gas flaring system has to be easily operated and cheap without high cost, no specific expert and safe to the operator or surrounding environment. Gas flaring system facility equipment should at least consist of: connecting system to gas collecting pipe, blower with capacity of 900 m3/hour, water trap, gas flow meter, safety valve, gas analyzer, thermometer, pressure gauge, gas burner completed with electric starter both manual and automatic system.
19
Contractor must have to provide complete gas flaring brochure when delivering the bid. The brochure should consist of: gas flaring system material type, construction type, dimension, supporting building required, power and electricity source required, work system, monitoring system both for quantity and quality of flared gas, operations system, and anything else that should be conveyed.
The details of LFGs collection and flaring requirements are provided in Appendix D.
3.4
METHANE PRODUCTION Introduction Landfill gas is generated by the anaerobic decomposition of solid waste within the landfill. It is typically composed of methane with remainder primarily being carbon dioxide. The rate of LFG generation is largely a function of the type of waste disposed, the moisture content, age of the waste and the local climatic conditions. Table 1 from IPCC NGGP 2006, used for LFG modeling assessment, provides some guidelines and default value for different organic waste and climates.
20
Table 2
IPCC 2006 Recommended Default Half-life Values
It is widely accepted that the LFG generation rate can be described by a first order decay equation as described below. LFG Modeling and Assessment The initial methane generation assessment has been modeled for the current closed cells, Cell 1 & 2, using the IPCC default First Order Decay model. QT,x = kRxLoe-k(T-x) This forecast is calculated on the methane generation potential during each year of the proposed CDM project, for 21 years.
21
Where: QT, x = k Rx T x = = = = the amount of methane generated in the current year (T) by the waste Rx methane generation rate constant (1/yr) the amount of waste disposed in year x the current year the year of waste input
The overall parameters used in the forecast are provided in Table 3.
Table 3
Methane Gas Generation Parameters

Modeling Parameter DOC 0.211 Value Degradable organic carbon [fraction (Gg C/Gg MSW)] IPCC (2006) default for fraction of degradable organic carbon is given as 0.50 whilst this assessment uses the IPCC (1996) default which is viewed as more appropriated for Indonesian landfill environments. Decay constant for rate of methane generation (Table 5) Total methane generation potential of the waste (m3 CH4 / kg organic waste) ( Table 6) MCF = Methane correction factor (fraction) Landfill Oxidation Factor Percent Methane captured 0.8 10% 50% Based upon the installation of an Enclosed Flare and full monitoring according to UNFCC Annex 13 Methodological Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane IPCC (2006) Vol 2, Stationary Combustion, default EF for LFG stationary combustion in the energy sector, Table 2.2, page 2.17 1 kg GHG / TJ IPCC (2006) default tonne CH4 / m3 CH4 Global Warming value IPCC (2006) default for un-managed landfills IPCC (2006) default
DOCF
0.77
0.208
Lo
0.129
Flaring Efficiency
95%
Power Plant Efficiency
99%
Methane concentration in LFG Methane m3 to kg @ S.T.P. ( 0 degree Celsius and 1,013 bar) CO2 equivalent of Methane
50% 0.0007168 21
22
Derivation of the individual parameter calculations for DOC, DOCF, k and Lo are provided in Table 4 Table 6.
Table 4
Degradable Organic Carbon of MSW (DOC)

DOC (Degradable % Composition DOC content in % Organic Carbon) kg per of Total of fresh wet kg of fresh organic Organics organic waste1 waste 6.6% 12.4% 76.3% 0 4.7% 6.6% 100.0% 0.30 0.40 0.16 0 0.40 0.30 Total DOC (kg) 0.020 0.050 0.122 0 0.019 0.020 0.211
Material
% Composition (Makassar) 5.7% 10.7% 65% 0 4.1% 5.7% 86.4%
Wood Paper Organic (Food) Grass, Leaf, Palm Fronds, Coconut, Bamboo, Rattan2 Textile Wood Total Organics (kg)
1 IPCC 2006 Chapter 5 Table 2.4
2 Estimated % of Food
Table 5
Methane Generation Rate Constant (k)

Waste Type Years (T) 1 2 4 10 20 k values (Ln2/T1/2) 2 0.301 0.151 0.060 0.030 % of Total Organics 53.4% 22.9% 17.1% 6.6% Averaged k value 0.161 0.034 0.010 0.002 0.208
Readily Degradable(3) Moderately Degradable Slowly Degradable - Paper & Textiles Slowly Degradable - Wood
1 2 3
Project Methane Generation Rate Constant (k) =
IPCC (2006) IPCC (2000) 50% of organic (food and garden waste) is classified as moderately degradable
23
Table 6
Methane Generation Potential - Lo
Using IPCC default value for DOCf = 0.77 calculated at a temperature of 35oC in the anaerobic zone of a landfill Lo = MCF * DOC * DOCF * F * 16/12 (Gg CH4/Gg waste) Where; MCF = Methane correction factor (fraction) DOC = Degradable organic carbon [fraction (Gg C/Gg MSW)] DOCF = Fraction DOC dissimilated F = Fraction by volume of CH4 in landfill gas Methane m3 to kg @ S.T.P. ( 0 degree Celsius and 1,013 bar) Insitu Waste Lo = = = 0.8 x 0.211 x 0.77 x 0.5 0.087 0.129 Gg C/Gg MSW or m3/kg Managed Un managed - deep (> 5m) Value 1 0.8 0.211 0.77 50% 0.7168 tonne CH4 / m3
Forecasting LFG Collection and Destruction Efficiencies Methane gas is a harmful GHG and therefore the efficiency of collection and destruction is a key element of CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. High organic content in combination with high temperature and moisture content provide ideal conditions for rapid anaerobic decomposition. The ability to capture and destroy the methane content of the LFG is a fundamental reason for landfill CDM projects. In addition to this global responsibility, maximizing the capture and destruction methane enables the ability of the government of Makassar to finance improvements in MSW management. The efficiency of the LFG collection system in maximizing the recovery of LFG can be related to the methods of closure and management practices. Landfills with reduce gas fluxes, well design and operated recovery systems and less permeable surface covering will have a higher recovery efficiency than those with minimal cover and poorly implemented recovery systems. With this in mind the three following scenarios (Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9) demonstrate the potential GHG abatement based upon the ability to efficiently and effectively collecting LFG from Indonesian landfills. These scenario examine the proposed projects effectiveness of maximizing methane destruction based upon different LFG recovery efficiencies, 30% (poorly managed), 50% (managed), 70% (enhanced management). The recovery and destruction effectiveness of the project over the next 10 years (current maximum ERs purchase agreement period) is: 30% efficiency 50% efficiency (default) 70% efficiency 539,511 tonne CO2e destroyed (Table 7) 861,251 tonne CO2e destroyed (Table 8) IPCC (2006) 1,182,000 tonne CO2e destroyed (Table 9)
24
The bottom line, therefore, is the monetary value of implementing improved LFG collection and management. The difference between 30% and 70% collection efficiency is 643,000 tonne of CO2e or an additional revenue of the first 7 years of $US 6,430,000 (@ $US10 / tonne CO2e) from a LFG Flaring project.
Table 7
30% Recovery Efficiency

Methane Generated (m3 x 106 / year) 15.02 16.65 18.37 19.92 21.32 23.10 24.71 Potential Emission Reductions (tonne CO2e / year) 35,677 69,201 75,514 81,177 86,328 92,842 98,771 539,511
Project Credit Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Methane gas Destroyed (m3 x 106 / year) 2.37 4.60 5.02 5.39 5.73 6.17 6.56
Methane gas Destroyed (m3 / day) 6,493 12,595 13,744 14,775 15,712 16,898 17,977
Methane gas Destroyed (m3 / hour) 271 525 573 616 655 704 749 Total
Table 8

Methane Generated (m3 x 106 / year) 15.02 16.65 18.37 19.92 21.32 23.10 24.71 Potential Emission Reductions (tonne CO2e / year) 54,042 109,916 120,438 129,877 138,461 149,318 159,199 861,251
Methane gas Destroyed (m3 / hour) 410 834 913 985 1,050 1,132 1,207 Total
25
Table 9

Methane Generated (m3 x 106 / year) 15.02 16.65 18.37 19.92 21.32 23.10 24.71 Potential Emission Reductions (tonne CO2e / year) 72,408 150,631 165,362 178,576 190,593 205,794 219,628 1,182,000
Methane gas Destroyed (m3 / hour) 549 1,142 1,254 1,354 1,445 1,561 1,666 Total
26
BUSINESS PLAN
4.1
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The motivation behind the city of Makassars proposed CDM project, as stated in the draft PDD, is that the carbon financing will provide the city with the financial means to improve SWM collection and disposal without adding extra burden to its yearly budgets. Taking this into account, this financial assessment must also ensure that the project meets one of the fundamental criteria of Kyoto Protocols CDM projects, which is that a project must be additional to what would be normally undertaken commercially or due to regulations; it cannot be business as usual. It must also be shown that there are barriers that prohibit the undertaking of other project activities that would also lead to abatement GHG emission. From a commercial perspective, the decision to invest in a CDM activity must be made on normal business principals. Three key assessment issues are therefore a suitable return on investment, minimal risks and an appropriate payback period being. In Indonesia no landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects have been implemented even though the resource opportunities (MSW) exist in large amounts and the technology is well proven in developed countries. It is commonly perceived that the major barrier to the implementation of LFGTE projects is the current buy-back rate for selling electricity into PLN grid. Currently this rate is between $US 0.04 to $US 0.05 per kWhr for small-scale power generation, for generation less than 15MWhr. As no regulations exist in Indonesia requiring a landfill owner to collect and flare LFG, there has been no incentive, prior to the Kyoto Protocol, for them to do so. Of the options for abating methane emissions from landfills, LFG Flaring requires the least capital investment and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. However, without an income stream the burden for methane emissions is on the government and residents of the city, which creates a barrier for methane abatement activity. The financial assessment of proposed LFG Flaring activity in TPA Tamangapa provided in
27
Table 10 clearly shows that without an income stream from emission reductions the activity is not viable. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is too negative to be determined.
28
Table 10
LFG Flaring without ER Revenue
The financial assessment provided in Table 12 demonstrates the impact on a LFG Flaring project if a revenue stream were available from emission reductions. Being able to realize this potential revenue stream provides the city of Makassar with the financial ability to re-invest this revenue back into SWM.
29
Table 11
LFG Flaring with ER Revenue

Costs Initial Capital Investment Expansion/Extension of LFG system over 7 year life of project collection Amount ($US) $1,368,500 Frequency On implementation
$578,000
On closure of cells
$1,205,050 $3,151,550 Tonne CO2e Sold 625,353
$US $6,250,000 $US $250,000 $1,395,500
Project Asset Discount Rate 10.00%
37.93% 27.67% $US $869,069 $652,072 $555,573 $1,406,663
NPV
15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset)
Another option under CDM is to utilize the LFG for electricity generation (LFGTE), where the methane destroyed in the combustion process (flaring and electricity generation) generating ERs with additional revenue streams provided by: Sale of electricity to PLN, and ERs credits from the displacement of electricity generated from fossil fuels The investment cost for LFGTE is much higher than the simple approach of LFG Flaring, so a commercial and risk assessment is required to determine the viability of each approach. The financial assessment detailed in Table 12 uses the current PLN buy-back rate to determine the commercial viability of a LFGTE project, revenue being generated through CDM ERs and the sale of electricity to the grid.
30
Whilst there is opportunity to sell electricity directly to industry or to utilize it for meeting power requirements associated with managing the landfill these are not assessed in this study as the key is to determine commercial viability from the worst case scenario. It is evident that at the current buy back rate a LFGTE CDM activity for TPA Tamangapa is not commercially viable and does not meet the key requirement of Makassar, which is to provide a revenue stream for financing SWM improvement.
Table 12
LFGTE CDM Project Activity

$US $250,000 $4,012,492 $4,262,492 $3,572,333 $7,834,825 $2,656,102
Investment Summary - Collection, Electricity Generation and Flaring CDM Project Development 1MWhr Power Plant Costs (all costs), Flaring Facility Costs, initial LFG Well Field and Closure Cells Total Initial CAPEX Ongoing CAPEX requirement - Well Field expansion Total Project CAPEX Requirement 10 Year Operational & Maintenance Costs (O&M) Total Project Revenue - 10 year ERs Revenue - 7 year (@ $US10.00 tonne CO2e) ERs Grid Displacement Revenue - 7 year Revenue from Electricity Sales - 10 year (@ $US0.045 kWhr) Total Revenue Power Plant Total Project Financial Indicators Total Debt Total Equity IRR Project Asset NPV (Discount Rate) 10.00% 15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset)
$7,200,000 $490,212 $3,060,000 $10,750,212 $250,000 $4,012,492 1.44% 1.48% -$682,598 -$807,854 -$851,101 $141,891
31
To an extent, the business risk of the project in not being able to recover the volume of methane forecast is covered due to the high IRR that is achievable through the implementation of a CDM LFG Flaring activity. This financial assessment therefore concludes that a CDM LFG Flaring activity meets the requirements of both the Kyoto Protocol and the city of Makassar. Typical Project Costs
Machinery / Equipment / Vehicles Flaring Facility LFG Electricity Gen and Flaring Equipment Spare Parts Shipping from Europe or USA to Jakarta ( 1 x 40ft container) Import and other taxes and charges (30% of Equipment Cost) Local transportation Installation and commissioning Technical/Operational Training Documentation Maintenance Agreement (per year) Insurance (2.5% of Equipment Cost) sub total Landfill Gas Field (16 wells / hectare x 2 hectares) Gas well field (inc drilling and materials) Total Machinery/ Equipment / Vehicles Buildings Furniture & Fittings Civil Works, Utilities etc Operating costs (including taxes if any): Emissions Monitoring Monitoring Equipment (equipment, installation, commissioning) Monitoring, Reporting Agreement and Maintenance (per year) sub total Power and Fuel Labor Repairs and Maintenance Selling Expenses Administration $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 25,000 55,000 3,000 20,000 60,000 60,000 $ 250,000 $ 2,414,333 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 16,000 25,000 724,300 24,000 28,000 26,000 5,500 18,000 60,358 Cost ($US)
$ 3,341,492
$ 3,591,492 $ $ $ 80,000 12,000 170,000
32
Electricity Generation Cost Components

Item 1MWhr Power Plant Grid Connection Equipment Grid Interconnection line Plant construction/siteworks Power Plant Building Installation and Commissioning Monitoring and recording equipment Engineering/Contingency Total Estimated Power Plant Costs Total Estimated Cost ($US) 1,200,000 300,000 116,667 60,000 100,000 66,667 55,000 100,000 1,998,333
4.2
RECOMMENDED BUSINESS PLAN The operation of the LFG Flaring project will require both financial and technical resources. In terms of a business plan, the Regional Government of Makassar City has three options: Option #1 - Sole Management by Regional Government of Makassar City Option #1 is to undertake sole investment and management of the LFG Flaring project, meaning that the government of Makassar will provide the financial investment and technical resources, either itself or through a subcontractor, for the project. The government will therefore collect all of the sales of the methane, and will also bear all of the risks. Error! Reference source not found. 4 illustrates the process to develop business plan of Option #1. The government of Makassar City does not currently have the financial or technical resources to invest in and manage the project, and therefore it is not recommended to pursue this business plan. Option #2 presents the business plan for engaging an external investor to provide financial and technical resources for the LFG Flaring project. Option #2 - Management by Joint Operation with External Investor Option #2 involves the engagement of an external investor by the government of Makassar City to share in the investment and risk of the LFG Flaring project, as well as the ERs. The external investor will take responsibility for the financial investment, as well as the technical management and implementation of the flaring project either with its own resources or through a subcontractor. The government of Makassar City will remain the owner of the project and as such will conduct the transaction of carbon credits under the CDM, and will then pay the investor out of the sale of those credits to provide a return on investment, according to the cooperation agreement between the parties. The government of Makassar City will also retain a reputable consultant for monitoring and evaluation of the project, to satisfy the requirements of the
33
CDM. Error! Reference source not found.5 illustrates the process to develop business plan of Option #2. Option #3 (Recommended) Sole Management by Internal Investor Option #3 is for the internal investor to have sole management of the project and ownership of the ERs. The investor will then pay a royalty or a share of profits to the government of Makassar City to be used for MSW management. The investor/contractor will be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility for 10-15 years. We recommend that the government of Makassar pursue Option #3, as it does not have the financial or technical resources to invest in the project alone. The royalty or a share of the revenues to be negotiated between the government and the investor will benefit the community as Makassar city can improve the MSW management for increased waste disposal. It will also improve the LFG collection efficiency for higher CERs. The Makassar City government must be very careful in choosing the investor and CDM consultant so as to ensure that it can account for its capability on financial, engineering and CDM aspects.
34
Figure 5
Business Plan of Option #1
Figure 6
Business Plan of Option #2
35
Makassar City Prepares Tender Document
Makassar City Determine the Investor (Financial and Technical Capabilities)
Investor and Contractor Operate the LFG Flaring Project, and Owns the ERs CDM Consultant to Monitor Investor Pays Royalty/Shares Profit with Makassar City for MSW
Figure 7 Business Plan of Option #3 (Recommended)
36
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
5.1
PROJECT SUMMARY The objective of the LFG Flaring project is to provide an LFG flaring system in TPA Tamangapa to reduce methane emissions and obtain carbon financing under the CDM. This feasibility study has determined that the implementation of an LFG flaring system could lead to a total methane reduction of over 800,000 tonne of CO2e with a 50% LFG collection efficiency (see Chapter 3), which could bring in potential revenues of nearly US$8 million from the sale of carbon credits. The government of Makassar City plans to use the carbon financing to improve solid waste management services within the city. The LFG Flaring project requires a total financial investment of US$1,900,000 (US$1,300,000 initial investment and US$600,000 ongoing operating costs). There is also substantial technical input needed for the engineering, design, and operation of the LFG flaring system. As discussed in Chapter 4.2, the government of Makassar City does not have the budget to make this financial investment, nor the technical capability to manage the flaring system. It is therefore recommended that an external investor be engaged to share the cost and provide technical input into the design and operation of the flaring system. The government of Makassar City would remain owner of the project and conduct transactions for carbon credits for methane reduction, and share the sales with the external investor to provide a return on investment. In addition, an experienced CDM consultant will be required to monitor the volume of gas flared. To be registered in UNFCCC, this project should be approved by Komnas MPB, the Indonesian Designated National Authority (DNA), the National Commission for Clean Development Mechanism (Komisi Nasional Mekanisme Pembangunan Bersih/ Komnas MPB). This section will provide the recommended implementation plan for the LFG Flaring project of Tamangapa.
5.2
RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Joint management with an external investor will require careful selection of the investor and clear definitions of roles, responsibilities and expectations. The implementation plan for management of the LFG Flaring project by joint operation with an external investor is comprised of the following process:
37
1.
Offer the LFG Flaring project to a private company, which should have the capability to provide investment of budget, technology and human resources, and have an understanding of the CDM mechanism, especially of the Carbon Credit Fund. The process of selecting the external investor includes: a. Prequalification, which involve following requirements: b. c. Administrative Company profile Technical capability Human resources Initial proposal
Prequalification Schedule Determination of shortlist
2.
Once an external investor is selected, an Agreement Form including the following elements must be signed by both parties: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Objective Period of agreement Right and obligation of the parties Initial requirement Sanction Termination of agreement Intellectual right properties Location of the project Scope of work Technical requirements, covering: Security Location of gas flaring system Type of gas flaring system Location of the project Drilling hole for methane capturing Gas collection pipe Landfill reforestation and restructuring Leachate within the waste pile
3.
Technical Specifications must be determined, including: a. b. c.
The scope of work for an investor to develop the LFG project is as follows: 1. 2. 3. Coordination with related institutions in regards to CDM project; Management and operation of TPA Tamangapa; Provide detailed design and construction of collection and flaring of methane including their support infrastructure;
38
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Operation and maintenance of capturing and collection of methane in closed TPA; Flaring of methane; Protection of overall infrastructure in TPA; Monitoring of environmental aspects inside and surrounding TPA; Monitoring and reporting of gas quantity and quality before and after gas flaring; Pursuing of carbon credit payment and share with the government of Makassar City; and
10. Give overall assets in completion of the agreement. The pre-qualification, tender and contract documents are provided in Appendix E. The details of the CDM Monitoring plan are provided in Appendix C. It should be noted an experienced and independent CDM-consultant will be required to monitor and verify the volume of gas flared for the landfill.
5.3
INVESTMENT PLANNING The viability of the proposed project relies upon maximizing LFG collection and methane destruction. LFG collection efficiency provides the most potential for increasing the financial performance of the project and therefore a critical component of the capital investment plan. The design and investment into appropriate LFG and leachate management plans will have a major impact on financial performance as well the ability to re invest into over all waste management. In addition this investment will reduce the negative environment and health impacts currently emanating from the landfill. To a lesser extent the destruction efficiency of the flare has an influence on revenue generation from emission reductions and therefore efficiency is an important criteria for flare selection. The following simple cost-benefit analysis provides a comparison between the different levels of investment into LFG and Leachate Management and the corresponding increase in revenue through additional LFG capture and flaring. Scenario 1 30% recovery efficiency, assumes that minimal investment is made into improving the current leachate problems, minimal capping on the cells and delaying the installation of collection system in new cells. Scenario 2 50% recovery efficiency, assumes investment is made into improving the current leachate problems, closure of cell and 300mm clay capping and timely installation of horizontal collection system in new cells.
39
Scenario 3 70% recovery efficiency, assumes closure of cell using synthetic membranes with vegetation layer and some recycling of leachate within the cells. Horizontal collection and leachate drainage management systems are installation during the operational period of new cells. This simple cost/benefit analysis demonstrates the projects financial benefit achievable through investment in LFG and Leachate Management systems, Scenario 1 Project IRR of 5.45%, Scenario 2 Project IRR of 27% and Scenario 3 Project IRR of 23.14%. The corresponding Total Project CAPEX being $1,447,900, $1,900,000 and $2,845,900 respectively. Additional benefits achieved are reduced health and environmental impacts as well as the costs associated with dealing with these negative impacts. Tables below show details of the scenarios.
Table 13
Scenario 1 - 30% Collection Efficiency

Investment Summary - Collection and Flaring Component CDM Project Development Flaring Facility Costs LFG Well Field and Cell Closure - Initial 2 cells and leachate management Total Initial CAPEX Ongoing CAPEX requirement Total Project CAPEX Requirement 10 Year Operational & Maintenance Costs (O&M) CERs Revenue - 7 year (@ $US10.00 tonne CO2e) Total Debt (CDM Upfront Development Costs) Total Equity IRR Project Asset NPV (Discount Rate) 10.00% 15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset) ($172,346) ($285,515) ($328,320) $474,990 5.45% 6.85% $US $250,000 $561,900 $42,000 $853,900 $594,000 $1,447,900 $1,519,180 $3,580,966 $250,000 $601,900
40
Table 14

Costs Initial Capital Investment Expansion/Extension of LFG system over 7 year life of project collection Amount ($US) $1,368,500 Frequency On implementation
$578,000
On closure of cells
$1,205,050 $3,151,550 Tonne CO2e Sold 625,353
$US $6,250,000 $US $250,000 $1,395,500 37.93% 27.67% $US $869,069 $652,072 $555,573 $1,406,663
NPV
Project Asset Discount Rate 10.00% 15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset)
41
Table 15

Investment Summary - Collection and Flaring Component CDM Project Development Flaring Facility Costs LFG Well Field and Cell Closure - Initial 2 cells and leachate management Total Initial CAPEX Ongoing CAPEX requirement Total Project CAPEX Requirement 10 Year Operational & Maintenance Costs (O&M) CERs Revenue - 7 year (@ $US10.00 tonne CO2e) Total Debt (CDM Upfront Development Costs) Total Equity IRR Project Asset NPV (Discount Rate) 10.00% 15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset) $771,229 $371,946 $204,005 $2,489,253 23.14% 21.89% $US $250,000 $561,900 $240,000 $1,051,900 $1,794,000 $2,845,900 $1,679,180 $8,395,627 $250,000 $801,900
42
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
One of the primary roles of the landfill gas flare is to protect people and the environment from landfill gas emissions. However, the proposed LFG Flaring project will have environmental impacts in both the construction and operation phases. This section will identify the potential Environmental, Health & Safety (EHS) and social aspects of the project in each phase, note the relevant regulations and standards, and propose mitigating actions to avoid or reduce impacts and ensure compliance. The project will utilize an enclosed flare system, in which an insulation system reduces heat losses and enables operation at higher temperatures. The enclosed flare system is also known as ground flare.
6.1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed project involves mainly flaring activities, in which the major contaminants and pollutants are emissions from combustion during flaring. Effluent and other solid wastes from project activities will not have significant impact. During the construction phase, the environmental impacts include: Noise, generated from transportation and installation activities; and Dust, generated from transportation activities.
These impacts will affect communities living in and near the project site. Noise can be minimized by proper design and use of a noise silencer. Dust can be minimized by using dust suppressant techniques, e.g. water spraying. Some environmental impacts are expected to occur during the operation phase, due to the emission of gases from flaring as a result of the combustion of methane generated in the landfill. These gases and their sources are noted in Table 16. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are the primary gaseous emissions from the flaring. In addition, there will be emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a product of combustion. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4) may occur due to incomplete combustion during flaring. There is no regulation for CO2 emissions. The other emissions, i.e. NOx, CO, CH4 and H2 may have some impacts on the ambient air quality and safety of the population nearby due to fire hazards. A comparison of relevant emission standards is given in Table 17
43
Table 16
Gas Emission Generated from the Flaring of the Landfill Gas

Emission Emission Source CO2 H2O CO H2 NOx CH4 Combustion products of methane and other carbon compounds Combustion products of methane and other carbon compounds Product of incomplete combustion Product of incomplete combustion Combustion product, nitrogen in fuel or secondary formation in fuel Un-burnt fuel gas (indicating incomplete combustion)
Carbon Dioxide Water Vapor Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Nitrogen Oxide Methane
Source: Guidance for Monitoring Enclosed Landfill Gas Flares, SEPA, 2004
Table 17
Emission Standards for Flaring

Parameter Impact Generated CO NOx CH4 Health impact Health impact (photochemical smoke) Health & safety impact (photochemical smoke and fire & explosion) Global Warming (GHG) No significant impact Safety impact (fire & explosion) Standard National* No Standard 1,000 mg/Nm3 No Standard International ** 50 mg/Nm3 150 mg/Nm3 10 mg/Nm3
Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxide Methane (Unburnt Hydrocarbon) Carbon Dioxide *** Water Vapor Hydrogen
CO2 H2O H2
No Standard No Standard No Standard
No Standard No Standard No Standard
*National standard based on Indonesias National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Industries (Kep13/MENLH/3/1995) ** International standards are based on the UK Emission Standards for Enclosed Landfill Gas Flares *** In landfill gas, CO2 considered to be biogenic, and therefore a natural part of the carbon cycle
Other environmental impacts include risks of fire and explosions; asphyxia, odor nuisance, noise, heat, and opacity. There will be potential impacts on local communities in terms of health and safety risks. The emission of gases from the flares will have an impact on ambient air quality, and on the health of workers and people who live near the proposed project site. In designing the flaring facility, international standards as shown in Table 17 which are more stringent than national standards, should be applied to avoid air pollution as far as possible. Every attempt should be made to ensure that the plume from the flare is not allowed to pass directly over human habitation under prevailing wind conditions. This is particularly important because scavenger communities are located directly within the landfill boundaries.
44
In addition to impacts to ambient air quality and resulting risks to human health in the project site area, there are potential physical impacts of the proposed project activities. These are noted below, with a description of the receiving environment, impacted receptors, and potential mitigating actions to reduce or avoid impacts: Fire& Explosion The flares will burn relatively large amounts of fuel gas, which poses a risk of fire and explosion, leading to emissions of and exposure to CH4 and/or H2. This presents a potential health and safety risk to workers at the site, as well as communities living close to the proposed project site. The following actions should be considered to reduce potential risk and impact from fire and explosion at the project site: Standard fire prevention devices should be made available at the project site; The flare should be located with consideration of safety aspects, i.e. not locating the flare within enclosed spaces (e.g. within buildings) or near to the trees or other structures that could ignite at high temperatures. The gas dispersion modeling should be used to assess the safety of the location of the flare; Access to emergency services for both workers and surrounding communities should be made available in the case of fire or explosion.
Asphyxia Since an enclosed flare system is proposed for this project, there is a potential risk of asphyxia at the project location, impacting mostly workers at the project site. The enclosed flare system is used to prevent nuisance from noise and to offer protection from the weather and prevent unauthorized human access. However, the landfill gas is an asphyxiant, so adequate ventilation or systematic safeguards must be used. It is also advisable to avoid locating the flares in hollows, or other such locations where venting gases may collect. Odor Nuisance Some models of an open flare system have a large amount of unburned gases passing straight through a flame, causing odor problems. Such odors are generally caused by trace components of the landfill gas, which nevertheless exceed their associated low-odor threshold values. This often results in the general public making complaints to the landfill operators. The proposed project will use an enclosed flare system, so the impacts of odor will be reduced onsite.
45
Noise Pollution The flare can be very noisy due to operation of mechanical equipment and from the combustion itself. The noise pollution has a potential impact on workers at the project site, as well as on the people living near the project site. To reduce the impact of noise pollution on these receptors, the flare should be located away from buildings. If this is not possible, it is necessary to employ extensive sound attenuation measures, including the construction of brick buildings around the flares with sound mufflers on the ventilation ports. Under rare conditions, the low-frequency vibration generated from the turbulence within enclosed flares can cause resonance in nearby structures such as buildings and vehicles, causing nausea and headaches. This effect could be avoided by locating the flare at a great enough distance from such structures. Heat Scavenger communities nearby the project site may be exposed to the heat from the flare, depending on the physical design and location of the flare. The source of heat within the flare is as follows: Radiative heat from the flame. This only occurs when the flare is operating above its design point; The heat through the walls of a combustion chamber; where the combustion chamber has inadequate insulation, the outside surface temperature may be excessive, posing a problem.
The impact of heat from flaring can be mitigated by proper design of the flare and site location; the flare should be located away from population centers and at a proper height. The impact of heat from flaring can also be mitigated through the use of insulation.
6.1.1
Environmental Management Plan (RKL) The environmental management plan describes all impacts to the environment caused by the LFG project during the construction phase and operational phase. Environmental management efforts are made for each impact to reduce and control the environmental damage caused by the impacts. The Environmental Management Plan lists the appropriate Indonesian Government regulations to be followed for measuring various impacts. During the construction phase the major impacts will include noise and dust from the transportation activities. In addition, there may be the odor nuisance generated from the disturbance of the landfill itself.
46
During the operational phase there is the possibility of fire and explosion and odor nuisance from the landfill gases. Other impacts include noise that is caused by equipment operation. In addition, attention must be given to manage the water quality and quantity from landfill leachate, particularly since there is a wetland area in the vicinity. Public health is also of concern and will require regular monitoring and proper management. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) of the LFG project in the construction phase and the operation phase is summarized in Table 2.5. The complete Environmental Management Plan can be found on the Makassar Tamangapa Landfills AMDAL (Environmental Impact Assessment) document. The Project sponsor/investor will be responsible for implementing the Environmental Management Plan in coordination with the Government of Makassar City, as the project initiator.
47
Table 6.18
Environmental Management Plan

Impact Measuring Standard Govt. Regulation Number 41 Year 1999; Minister of Environment Decree, Number Decree48/MENLH/II/1996 Minister of Environment Decree Number Decree50/MENLH/II/1996 Environment Management Effort Execution Time Executor Institution
Impact Type CONSTRUCTION PHASE Air quality and Noise
- Vehicles periodic maintenance, - Cultivation of protector crop, - Conducting sprinkler 2-3 times a day
During construction phase
- Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer
Odor Nuisance
- Cultivation of protector crop around project location, - Covering the cell with soil every 1 - 3 day, - Covering the cell with tarpaulin or geotextile - Constructing affluent surface water shifting channel, - Landfill compaction to prevent leachate soak into land, - Covering cell with impermeable material, - Constructing leachate treatment pond, - Constructing monitoring well - Covering cell with soil every 1 - 3 day, - Covering cell with tarpaulin hence vector would not spread, - Repressing or breaking off the growth of vector disease
Surface Water and ground water quality
Government Regulation Number 82 Year 2001
To be done on the construction initial phase
Vector Spread
Vector spread width
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
2007
48
Impact Type Public Health
Impact Measuring Standard Number of prevalence and Incident rate
Environment Management Effort - Workers suppose to wearing self protector appliances, such as masker, earplug. If these steps can be executed properly then the public health decline risk can be minimized
Execution Time During construction phase
Executor Institution - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer
2007
49
Impact Type OPERATIONAL PHASE Fire, explosion and Asphyxia
Impact Measuring Standard Occurrence Frequency
Environment Management Effort
Execution Time
Executor Institution
- Preparing fire fighting appliances proportionally, - Installation of danger marking which is easy to be seen by other society and operator, - Making of gas dispersion modelling, - Training to operator, - Constructing proportional room ventilation, - Using self protector appliances - Using Enclosed Flaring System, - Installing odor detector, - Using self protector appliances, such as masker, etc - Conducting routine equipment maintenance, - Using proper tool, - Using self protector appliances like earmuff or earplug - Continuously operation of leachate treatment pond, - etc - Conducting periodic health inspection for operator, for example once every 6 months, - Giving health and accident insurance to high risk labour. If such the above efforts can be executed properly then the public health decline risk can be minimized.
During LFG operations phase
Odor Nuisance
Spread width and Minister of Environment Decree Number Decree50/MENLH/II/1996 Noise Level 79dBA, Governor Decree Number 14 Year 2003 Government Regulation Number 82 Year 2001 and Governor Decree Number 14 Year 2003 Number of prevalence and Incident rate
Noise
Water Quality
Public Health
2007
50
6.2
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN (RPL INDONESIAN ACRONYM) The environmental monitoring plan describes all impacts to the environment and the monitoring efforts required during the construction phase and operational phase of the LFG Flaring Project. Environmental monitoring plans and efforts are made for each impact to reduce and control the environmental impacts caused by the project. The Government has also stipulated standards for various environmental parameters as a guidance and reference to monitor those impacts. Wherever applicable the stipulated standards will be followed for monitoring the impacts on the environment. Environmental Monitoring Plan of the LFG project in the construction phase and the operation phase is summarized in Table 2.6. The complete Environmental Monitoring Plan can be found on the Makassar Tamangapa Landfills AMDAL (Environmental Impact Assessment) document. The Project sponsor/investor will be responsible for implementing the Environmental Monitoring Plan in coordination with the Government of Makassar City, as the project initiator.
2007
51
Table 6.19
Environmental Monitoring Plan

Parameter Environmental Monitoring Effort Implementation Executor Institution
Impact Type CONSTRUCTION PHASE Air quality and Noise
Dust / particulate, Noise
Conducting measurement of air quality and noise level minimum once every 3 months and reported once every 6 months to the related/relevant institution. Conducting measurement on odor of minimum once every 3 months and reported minimum once every 6 months to the related/relevant institution
Odor Nuisance
Surface Water and ground water quality
Parameter according to water class; Ground water (Class I), Surface Water (Class III) Vector spread width Number of prevalence and Incident rate
- Conducting measurement of surface water quality minimum once every 6 months, - Conducting organoleptical monitoring to the monitoring well Monitoring amount, type and width of vector spread exist in LFG project - Conducting employees health inspection minimum once every 6 months, - Monitoring the number of employee that has health problem during working in the LFG project
To be done on the construction initial phase
Vector Spread Public Health
During construction phase During construction phase
- Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer
2007
52
Impact Type
Parameter
Environmental Monitoring Effort - Monitoring the readiness of fire fighting equipments every moment, - Monitoring the readiness and adherence of employees in using self protector appliance. Measuring odor spread width which coming out from LFG project location Measuring noise level with sound level meter in every moment and reported minimum once every 6 months Conducting measurement of water quality minimum once every 6 months - Conducting employee health inspection minimum once every 6 months, - Monitoring the number of employee that has health problem during working in the LFG project
Implementation During LFG operations phase
Executor Institution - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer
OPERATIONAL PHASE Fire, explosion and Occurance Frequency Asphyxia
Odor Nuisance Noise
Spread Width Noise level 79dBA
During LFG operations phase During LFG operations phase During LFG operations phase During LFG operations phase
- Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer - Project Executor, - Landfill Organizer
Water Quality
Parameter according to water class Number of prevalence and Incident rate
Public Health
2007
53
6.3
SOCIAL IMPACTS A study was conducted to determine social considerations in the project area, and to inform the design of a community development project. The study activities included: Stakeholders interview (July 2-6, 2007); Public consultation (July 3, 2007); Stakeholders consultation (September 13, 2007)
The public consultation with the stakeholders was held in Makassar on July 3rd 2007. The stakeholders of about 30 people, included: NGOs Scavengers Local Officers Landfill Technical Unit Officers Local Community Leaders Local Community Residents
Initially there appeared to be a negative perception among the majority of the community members due to the misunderstanding and lack of communication of the CDM project. There was concern among the scavengers that their income level would be reduced. The community at large was concerned about the expansion plan of the landfill. The perception was that the expansion would increase the odor, flooding, and disease in the area. However there was clear indication for the support of the LFG project after they were provided with the details of the projects and the benefits. As a matter of fact, there was positive response and support for the LFG project when it was clearly indicated that there should be improvement in their income levels, health, and waste management service quality in Makassar city with the implementation of the LFG project. Field observations indicate that there are two communities living in the area surrounding of TPA Tamangapa: The impact recipient group, those who are native to the area (lived in the area before the landfill was constructed), and the benefit recipient group, scavengers who moved to the area after the construction of the landfill for economic opportunity. The native community for the most part does not depend on the landfill for their livelihoods while the scavenger community does. In general, local public figures include ustadz, teachers, traders, entrepreneurs, employees and government officers. The detailed social activities of the Makassar LFG are given in Table 2.7.
2007
54
Table 2.20
Activities Public Meeting
Public Consultation and Communication Process

Time June 16, 2007 Form of Activities - public consultation - Interactive dialogue and discussion between attendance Attendances - Communities around the landfill - Local officers - UPTD employees - Scavengers and collectors - Journalist from Unhas and ERM - Total attendance: 26 people Communities have the difficulties to get clean water Anxiety of explosion from the gas flaring project Issues Socialization on the LFG Project Complains Communities complain to the government about the smell generated from the landfill and garbage trucks
Social Study
June 17, 2007
Depth Interview Focus Group Discussion
UNHAS
Communitys perception on LFG project Presentation about the advantages and impacts from LFG Project
Environmental impact management on odor and the decrease of health quality and business opportunity The community asked about how far could the project increase communitys welfare, business opportunity, health and education quality for scavengers children How far could the LFG project reduce smell, rubbish, and the decreasing of land price
Public Consultation
June 23, 2007
- Community discussion and comments
- ERM, Unhas, Scavengers, NGO Local official UPTD employees, DPLHK staff - Total Attendance: 30 people
Social Study (due diligence)
July 2-7, 2007
Indepth interview and FGD Discussion
ERM's team Unhas
Communitys perception on the LFG project Community Development Program
The community expect for soil cover every month, cover on garbage trucks, fence for the landfill area Community around the landfill became priority for job opportunities
2007
55
Activities Technical meeting
Time September 13, 2007
Form of Activities Interactive discussion and comments
Attendances ERM, DPLHK staff, government institution
Issues Presentation on the LFG Project
Complains How far could the LFG project increase the environment quality and reduce pollution Economical advantages for Makassar Community
2007
56
Benefits to the Recipient Group The scavengers in TPA Tamangapa earn money through the collection of rubbish. They are divided into groups and collect either plastic bags and bottles; glass including glass bottles; or iron, nail and other metals. The organization of the scavengers is quite clear, and each group has its own boss known as small boss, who sends the collected material to the big boss. Scavengers receive payment based on the weight of their collection. Currently, the scavengers in TPA Tamangapa mostly collect plastic and plastic bags because these bring a higher price. The scavengers clearly depend on the landfill as an economic resource, and are likely to be upset if the proposed project affects their ability to earn money from the collection of rubbish. Impacted Recipient Group The impacted recipient group is comprised of the inhabitants that live around TPA Tamangapa. Their livelihood has no direct relation to the TPA Tamangapa activities. Based on the results of a meeting with this group, their main complaint was about the unpleasant smell. The other problem was the lack of clean water, especially for cooking and drinking. In conclusion, the Social Impacts are as follows: The scavengers group has a positive perception of the proposed project in TPA Tamangapa, as long as their livelihood is not disturbed. Their involvement will be required to ensure that their livelihood is indeed not disturbed The scavengers expected that the improvement of TPA Tamangapa Landfill would improve the quality of the environment around the TPA landfill. This in turn will improve the quality of life for the scavengers
According to field observation, an appropriate Community Development Program for benefits of the impacted recipients should include the following: Community Development Program for Scavenger : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Strengthening the scavenger organization; Waste Management Training; Socialization on Environmental Pollution Impact; Facilitation for the establishment of plastic washing plant; Group Assistance; and Facilitation for education and health.
Community Development Program for Community (Society) : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Establishment of Environment Awareness Group; Socialization about the benefit of waste; Training on the waste processing (composting); Establishment of the free school (cooperation with NGOs); and Establishment and development of health facilities.
2007
57
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of the Feasibility Study are as follows: Technical and Financial Assessments Field observation indicated that methane generation will be stable at a flow rate of 20 L/minute, which will generate around 30% methane in the landfill. This is the minimum methane generation that is usually used for commercial purposes. In this condition, the oxygen concentration of 6 8% will be the safe value for gas recovery; The volume of methane capture and destruction from Makassar municipal solid waste landfill, TPA Tamangapa, is dependant upon efficiency and effectiveness of the design and management of leachate and LFG. Installation of sealed cell design will reduce rainfall infiltration and methane gas emission therefore improving efficiency of methane extraction and destruction over the next 10 years. The emission reduction and its monetary value will increase if the collection efficiency is increased from the current low of 30% to a maximum of 70%. With 50% LFG collection efficiency, the estimated emission reduction 7 year period is equivalent to 560,000 tonnes of CO2e or $US 5,600,000 (@ $US10/tonne CO2e). Progressive installation of horizontal LFG collection piping in a new cell will also contribute to increased methane capture and destruction. The stability of landfill site is a critical factor that should be considered during the design phase. Proper site stability design by qualified engineers is important prior to installation and operation of gas collection system, including landfill cap. The financial assessment concluded that a CDM LFG Flaring Project will meet the requirements of both the Kyoto Protocol and those of the city of Makassar. The alternative scenario of the Landfill Gas To Energy (LFGTE) will require a higher investment cost which is not commercially viable and does not meet the key requirement of Makassar city, which is to provide a revenue stream for financing SWM improvement;
Environmental Assessments During the construction phase, increased levels of noise and dust may occur and may have an impact on the local community living nearby. During the operation phase, the emissions expected from the flaring of LFG will primarily include carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no regulation, national or international, for CO2. However, CO2, a common greenhouse gas, will contribute to global warming, although to a much lesser extent compared to methane.
2007
58
During the operation phase there are potential physical impacts which are health and safety related, such as fire and explosion, as well as asphyxia. In addition, there is potential for some nuisance-type impacts such as odor and noise.
Socio-Economic Assessments The scavengers in the TPA Tamangapa Landfill site are the primary socioeconomic groups who will be impacted by the proposed project. The group has a positive perception of the proposed project in TPA Tamangapa, as long as their livelihood is not disturbed. Their involvement will be required to ensure that their livelihood is indeed not disturbed; The scavengers expected the improvement of TPA Tamangapa Landfill would improve the quality of the environment around the TPA landfill. This in turn will improve the quality of life for the scavengers.
2007
59
REFERENCES
[1]
Decree of the States Ministry of Environment No. KEP13/MENLH/3/1995, Emission Quality Standards from Stationary Source; Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 41 Year 1999, Air Pollution Control; Decree of the States Ministry of Environment No. 50/MENLH/11/1996, Standard of Unpleasant Odor Levels; Decree of the States Ministry of Environment 48/MENLH/11/1996, Noise Level Standards; No. KEPKEP-
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (2004), Guidance for Monitoring Enclosed Landfill Gas Flares; Barlaz et. Al. (1989) Anaerobic biodegradation of cellulose and hemicellulose in excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay. J. Ind. Microbial. 13 147 - 153; Parkin GF and Owen WF (1986) Fundamental of Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Asuldge, J. Environ. Eng. 122 (5) 867-914; Bookter et. al. ( 1982) Stabilization of solid waste in landfills. Journal of Environmental Engineering 108 6, 1089 1100; Bingemer, H. G. and Crutzen, P. J. (1987), 'The Production of Methane From Solid Wastes', Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 92, No. D2, p. 2183; Tabasaran, O. (1981): Gas production from landfill. In: Household Waste Management in Europe, Economics and Techniques, A.V. Bridgewater and Lidgren, K. (eds.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, USA, pp. 159-175; Damanhuri, E and Padmi, T (2004): Pengolahan Sampah Bandung, Environmental Engineering Department, Bandung Institute of Technology; Santosa, B. H. & McMichael, H., (2004): Industrial Development In East Java: A Special Case, Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra, Australia; US EPA (1996), Turning a Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-toEnergy Project Development Handbook Landfill Methane Outreach Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1996.
[7] [8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Makassar Fs Report LFG (EDocFind - Com)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Makassar Fs Report LFG (EDocFind - Com)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORLD BANK Feasibility Study of Makassar Landfill Gas Project FINAL REPORT

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

$1,205,050 $3,151,550 Tonne CO2e Sold 625,353

Total of life of project

$US $6,250,000 $US $250,000 $1,395,500

Project Asset Discount Rate 10.00%

37.93% 27.67% $US $869,069 $652,072 $555,573 $1,406,663

15.00% 18.00% WACC (asset)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

Map of Sulawesi Island

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

TPA Tamangapa Landfill Project Location

TPA Tamangapa Landfill Concept Layout

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

Metal, 3% Glass, 2% Plastic, 11%

Source: The World Bank (1999) What a Waste

Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

Statistical Center Unit of Makassar; 2006

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

PROPOSED LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

IPCC 2006 Recommended Default Half-life Values

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

The overall parameters used in the forecast are provided in Table 3.

Methane Gas Generation Parameters

Power Plant Efficiency

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

Degradable Organic Carbon of MSW (DOC)

% Composition (Makassar) 5.7% 10.7% 65% 0 4.1% 5.7% 86.4%

1 IPCC 2006 Chapter 5 Table 2.4

Methane Generation Rate Constant (k)

Project Methane Generation Rate Constant (k) =

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

Methane Generation Potential - Lo

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

30% Recovery Efficiency

50% Recovery Efficiency

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

70% Recovery Efficiency

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

LFG Flaring without ER Revenue

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MAKASSAR FINAL ENGLISH NOV 16 2007

LFG Flaring with ER Revenue

$1,205,050 $3,151,550 Tonne CO2e Sold 625,353

Total of life of project

$US $6,250,000 $US $250,000 $1,395,500