R O M A N I A




AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT

















Working Paper 6




DESIGN OF VILLAGE-LEVEL


MANURE MANAGEMENT STORAGE

AND HANDLING SYSTEM



















Prepared by:

Phil Metcalfe, consultant
ADAS Consulting Ltd



Ion Toncea, consultant
RICIC
Fundulea

ADAS Consulting
















ROMANIA
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT
Design of Village-level Manure Management Storage and Handling System




















Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Natural Resources Adviser
J P Metcalfe BSc MSc C Eng. MIAgrE
DFID
ADAS
Victoria St
Woodthorne
London EC1
Wergs Road

WOLVERHAMPTON
WV6 8TQ
Rural Development and Environment
Ion Toncea Phd Eng.
Operations Officer(Romania delegation)
Research Institute for Cereals and
World Bank Office
Industrial Crops, Fundulea
83 Boulevard Dacia
N.Titulescu 1; 8264 Fundulea - Calarasi
Sector 2
Bucharest

2nd November 2000

1
ADAS Consulting



CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4
2. INTRODUCTION: ORIGIN AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSIGNMENT 7
2.1 Origin
7
2.2 Objectives
7
3. BACKGROUND
8
3.1 Project
8
3.2
Household and village organisation
8
3.3 Pattern
analysis
8
3.4 Land
area
9
3.5
Livestock numbers per household
10
4. EVALUATION OF EXISTING SITUATION
12
4.1
Existing waste management at village level
12
4.2
Extent of pollution and impact on water quality
13
4.3
Waste management at large farm level
14
4.4
Problems of disposal of livestock effluent and solid waste at household level
14
4.5
Evaluation of existing "waste storage platforms"
15
5. DESIGN OF MANURE STORAGE SYSTEM
18
5.1 Concept
18
5.2
Storage systems on households
18
5.3
Storage systems at the main platform
19
5.4
Concept for waste storage at large farms
20
5.5
Existing platform remediation.
20
5.6 Designs
21
5.7
Bill of quantities for household stores
22
5.8 Costs
22
5.9
Design of main platform
22

2
ADAS Consulting



5.10
Evaluation of Comuna platform design proposals
23
5.11
Bill of quantities for Main platform
25
5.12 Costs
26
6. DESIGN OF MANURE HANDLING AND APPLICATION SYSTEM
27
6.1
Concept and management of collection, storage and application system
27
6.2 Equipment
specifications
28
7. OPTIONS FOR HANDLING LIVESTOCK EFFLUENT AT HOUSEHOLD
LEVEL 29
8. INDICATIVE
FIVE-YEAR
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
30
8.1
Training and information
30
8.2
First-year numbers with location and cost estimates
31
8.3
Indicative program for years 2 - 5
32
9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS
33
9.1 Environmental
assessment
33
9.2 Economic
assessments
35

Annexes

3
ADAS Consulting




1. Executive summary
The Government of Romania (GOR) has obtained an agreement from the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) to support an Agricultural Pollution Control Project (APCP). The ultimate
goal of the project is to reduce the discharge of nutrients and other agricultural pollutants into
the Danube River and Black Sea through integrated land and water management.

The objective of the consultancy assignment is to: design and cost a typical waste
management system at the village level; propose criteria for selecting eligible investments;
prepare an indicative five-year investment program; and prepare construction and equipment
specifications for bidding documents.

This report is to support the project preparation of the World Bank Agricultural Pollution
Control Project.

Evaluation of Existing Situation
The present waste management system has the following features
· The management policy of households is to mix house waste materials such as plastic,
glass and metal containers with livestock waste.
· Waste is accumulated in a household store before it leaves the holding
· Urine and water run off from the store is allowed to leach into the soil.
· Water contamination is increased by large areas of dirty yard and roof water.
· The management of cattle waste at household level involves handling waste twice when a
single operation is possible.
· Storage areas without concrete make picking up and collection of the waste more difficult.

After accumulation of waste at the household store the mixed waste is taken by the householder
by cart a communal waste storage area called a platform. At waste platforms the following
environmental problems were identified.
· The waste platforms are a major source of pollution from livestock wastes as direct
pollution and as run off to watercourses and diffuse pollution through drainage into the
water table.
· The management of the waste at the platforms is minimal so waste becomes distributed
over a large area.
· The extensive areas covered and low height of stored waste results in higher than
necessary catchment of rainfall and increased potential for leaching.
· The location of the waste collection areas can lead to direct contamination of watercourse
from run off.
· The contamination of the agricultural solid waste with the house waste makes much of it
unsuitable for recycling in agriculture.
· Relatively small amounts of waste are responsible for contaminating large amounts of
agricultural waste.
· The waste at the platforms has been present for several years and more material has been
added. These will continue to pose a threat to the environment by continued leaching of
nutrients from the material already deposited unless the waste is removed and recycled or
stabilised.

Design of Manure Storage System
A new waste management strategy is proposed involving


4
ADAS Consulting



1. Segregation of inert and recyclable materials such as metal cans, glass and plastics from
livestock wastes through the provision of a separate household waste container.
2. Provide improved manure stores for storage of waste at a single impermeable store at the
household with enough storage for up to 1 month's production.
3. Utilise the existing practice of the householder who transported his waste by cart to the
village platform. For those householders who do not have transport a chargeable
collection service to the village or comuna platform could be offered.
4. Make use of the transfer of waste from the farm store to the platform to aerate the waste,
promoting continued bacterial activity in the waste.
5. Deposition of the segregated inert materials in designated bunkers.
6. Management of the waste at the main bunker involving stacking in shaped heaps.
7. The transfer of the waste from the household storage to the main platform will allow
aeration and mixing of the waste.
8. Store the waste deep so that the areas receiving rainfall is minimised.
9. Provide impermeable walls and floor to eliminate leaching.
10. Provide storage capacity for over the winter so that matured material will be available for
use on the land

The waste is to be stored for up to one month at the household by the provision of
impermeable storage. Transfer to the platform will achieve sufficient aeration for aerobic
decomposition to take place. The waste must be stacked high to avoid excessive water and
effluent. A further 5 months storage is provided, making 6 in all.

Costs
The typical size of platform to serve a village to hold 3200 tonnes has a cost of $99,273.
A management loader and up to 3 waste spreaders will be required for each comuna
7 loaders
14 tractors
14 spreaders
1 shredder
7 trailers
7 vacuum tankers
Cost of 14 platforms to manage 2/3 of the waste arisings at households and the machinery
complement with monitoring, training and technical advice plus stores and segregation
containers at 4200 households is $3,467,767

Indicative five-year investment program
The investment programme is proposed in 5 stages.
· training and information
· household segregation encouragement
· pilot village platform
· household stores construction
· 1st platform investment
· Monitoring and evaluation
· Further platform construction

A programme which installs 1 platform in the first year is proposed with monitoring for use
to enable design size optimisation.
The criteria for selection for the investments.
· Demonstration of ability to control the segregation of waste by householders at the
household and the platform. Indicators: Achievements on existing platforms, Guidance
provided to households, Provision of staff to manage and operate the facility, Training
program for staff.

5
ADAS Consulting



· Commitment to the recycling of the quantities of material on agricultural land in the
comuna. Indicators: Associations and farmers declared as requiring recyclable material.
Quantities committed.
· A location that is at least 10 m away from a watercourse or drainage channel and 50m
away from any well. Indicators: Site location plan.
· The size of facility must match the number of households it is intended to serve.
Indicators: Number of households, livestock numbers, waste quantities, platform
dimensions.
· Existing equipment available that they are able to commit to the management of the waste.
Indicators: Machinery held at mayor's office, and potential users.

Environmental and Economic assessments
The recycling of waste will provide the following environmental and financial benefits

Environmental Impact
IMPACT REDUCTION ON ( )

Place
Landscape
Stock
General
Water
Soil
Public
Quality
Smell/Odour






Noise






Dust






Solid Waste






Image






Effluents






· Saving on primary sum invested in fertilisers by farmers recycling the waste to their
agricultural land.
· Reduced interest payments
· Increased revenues from delayed sales of produce if a surplus is present after sales for
interest repayments at harvest.
· Increased yields from recycled nutrients.

6
ADAS Consulting




2. Introduction: Origin and objectives of the assignment
2.1 Origin
The wider goal of the project is to reduce the discharge of nutrients and other
agricultural pollutants into the Danube River and Black Sea through integrated land and
water management. The project is envisaged as a pilot activity in the Calarasi Judet of
southern Romania, along the lower Danube. The project aims to increase significantly
the use of environment-friendly agricultural practices in the area to achieve the wider
goal.
2.2 Objectives

The project will assist the Government of Romania to: (i) promote the adoption of
environment-friendly agricultural practices by farmers associations, family associations
and individual farmers in seven communes of the Calarasi Judet; (ii) promote
ecologically sustainable land use in the Boianu-Sticleanu Polder including a
conservation management plan for the Iezer Calarasi water body; (iii) strengthen
national and local policy and regulatory capacity; and (iv) promote regional level
collaboration. The pilot project will be replicated in similar sites in Romania which
will, in the long term, reduce the discharge of organic matter and yield substantial
benefits in terms of improved quality of Romanian surface and ground waters and the
Black Sea.


7
ADAS Consulting




3. Background
3.1 Project

The project area comprises the following comunae: Al. Odobescu, Ciocãnesti,
Grãdistea, Cuza Vodã, Vlad Tepes, Vîlcelele and Independenta. The total area is about
74,200 hectares. There are 3-4 villages in each comuna and each village has about 1000
inhabitants, or 500 households. Typically each household has 2 cows, 3 sows with
fattening pigs, and poultry contained in a small area around the house.

3.2 Household and village organisation

Livestock housing systems were rudimentary with accumulation of dung plus urine
and effluent that was allowed to soak into the ground. A few households had simple
tanks for collecting effluent. These were regularly emptied and effluent added to the
solid, straw waste. Solid waste was often dumped by the roadside or left in the water-
courses. A number of incumbent village Mayors had introduced "platforms" (part of a
field near the village) to where the people are obliged to take the solid waste. Villagers
were generally unprepared to separate different materials ­ bottles, scrap iron, organic
waste - so that the platform for waste ends up as a rubbish dump containing a
significant amount of organic animal excrement and associated waste.
3.3 Pattern analysis

The recycling of wastes to agricultural crops is constrained by the cropping pattern and
the climate. The risk to water from nutrients is influenced by the local topography and
periods when the waste can be applied. The annual weather data is shown in figure 1
with the corresponding agricultural activity and waste management activities shown
underneath this.

8
ADAS Consulting




Figure 1: Average Monthly Air Temperature and Rainfall

70
60
Air
50
temperature
Deg C
40
Rainfall mm
30
20
10
0
-10
April
May
June
July
January
March
February
August
October
September
November
December


Farm activity Sowing


Sowing

Fora
Harvest Harvest

ge
Cultivation

Cultivation

Waste Storage Spreading Storage Spreading Storage
management

3.4 Land area

The area of land in each of the seven comunae is shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Land area in the comunae

Comuna Total
Arable % total Pasture
% Vines
% Orchards
%
agricultural
and
total
total
total
surface
forage
Gradistea 14984
14796 98.75%
25 0.17%
163 1.09%
-
-
Al. Odobescu
5761 5409 93.89%
77 1.34%
275 4.77%
-
-
Ciocanesti 10834
10561 97.48%
13 0.12%
256 2.36%
2 0.02%
Independenta 5494
5394 98.18%
1 0.02%
99 1.80% -
-
Vilcelele 5720
5560 97.20%
-
-
160 2.80%
-
-
Vlad Tepes
6468 6268 96.91%
69 1.07%
131 2.03%
-
-
Cuza Voda
12433 12108 97.39%
-
-
322 2.59%
3 0.02%
Total 61694
60096
185
1406

5


9
ADAS Consulting



3.5 Livestock numbers per household

Livestock on holdings in the Judet by types and number is listed by comuna from the
agricultural returns submitted to the Calarasi office of the Director General for
Agriculture at 30th September 2000. (DGA 2000).These were split between the larger
farmer associations, individual households and the Commercial societies.

Table 2: Total livestock numbers

Comuna cattle pigs
sheep and horses
poultry
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
Gradistea 1,820
6,336
3,556
637
48,700
Al. Odobescu
676
1,725
3,644
587
23,006
Ciocanesti 955
5,993
9,338
294
52,469
Independenta 1,406
2,695
865
328
34,780
Vilcelele 649
2,364
2,331
350
68,108
Vlad Tepes
452
1,763
2,018
390
27,000
Cuza Voda
1,151
1,549
7,173
341
38,159
Total Stock
7,109
22,425
28,925
2,927
292,222

Some stock is held on large former state farms. The number of stock on households is given
in the table below.

Table 3: Number of stock on households

Comuna cattle pigs
sheep and horses
poultry
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
Gradistea 1,820
6,336
3,468
637
48,700
Al. Odobescu
646
1,725
3,644
587
23,006
Ciocanesti 955
5,993
9,224
294
52,469
Independenta 1,232
2,695
865
328
34,780
Vilcelele 457
2,264
2,331
350
68,108
Vlad Tepes
452
1,736
2,018
390
27,000
Cuza Voda
1,067
1,408
4,005
341
29,240
Total Stock
6,629
22,157
25,555
2,927
283,303

For the five comunae visited, the mayoral offices provided house numbers. The Mayors of
each comuna suggested that approximately 60 % of households kept livestock. This data was
then used to calculate the average number of livestock on each comuna visited. The
calculation is shown in Annex 4.

10
ADAS Consulting



Table 4: Livestock at each household

Comuna households
with Cattle
pigs
sheep and horses
poultry
stock
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
Gradistea 1975
60%
2
5
3
1
41
Al. Odobescu
1800
60%
1
2
3
1
21
Ciocanesti 2900
60%
1
3
5
0
30
Independenta 1396
60%
1
3
1
0
42
Vilcelele 900
60%
1
4
4
1
126
Vlad Tepes
1300
60%
1
2
3
1
35
Cuza Voda
1720
60%
1
1
4
0
28

The number of stock seen on individual households as shown in Annex 3 is in accordance
with this estimation. Some stock is held on large former state farms. By comuna the number
of stock on large farms is shown below.

Table 5: Stock on large farms

Comuna cattle pigs
Sheep and horses
poultry
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
Gradistea
0 0 88 0 0
Al.
Odobescu
30 0 0 0 0
Ciocanesti
0 0 114
0 0
Independenta
174
0 0 0 0
Vilcelele 192 100 0 0 0
Vlad
Tepes
0 27 0 0 0
Cuza Voda
84
141
3,168
0
8,919
Total
Stock
480 268 3,370
0 8,919

There are only one or two large farms in each comuna so the numbers presented above
represent major concentrations of stock that can pose a risk to the environment. This is
further increased by the poor current state of the complicated slurry and solid waste systems
installed

Trends in livestock numbers and location
The trend is for more households to keep stock. The number of farming businesses keeping a
large number of animals was also anticipated increase. These businesses would invest in
housing and waste storage on sites that are not connected to households. The large farms
visited have less stock then they have had in the past. In future they may increase their
number of stock. The concentration of stock on a small number of large farms means that
each represents a potential hot spot for potential pollution. These farms should also be
encouraged to adopt good practice on their waste stores and in the way they manage and
recycle this resource.

11
ADAS Consulting




4. Evaluation of Existing Situation
4.1 Existing waste management at village level

The Comunae of Vilcelele, Cuza Voda, Independenta, Alexandru Odobescu and
Gradistea were visited. Inspection of households and farms followed discussion with
the locally elected representatives. Reports of the households and farms which were
visited are included in detail in Annex 3.

Livestock housing
The permanent stock housing was generally located at the rear of the household. Cattle
pigs, poultry and horses were kept at the household. Sheep were housed for four
months during winter. The housing of cattle and pigs is usually in adjoining buildings.
On most sites visited winter and summer accommodation for cattle was provided in
separate buildings. The cattle and horses had concrete lying areas. This was completely
flat. There was no raised lying area and no wide channel for the collection of faeces.
As a result of this the cows were able to lie in the waste and were dirty. The concrete
was laid with a slope to a urine collection channel cast onto the concrete behind the
animals.

The pig housing consisted of the kennel and the yard at the front. There was not
usually a channel in the concrete for the liquid run off. The liquid was collected into
unlined pits.

Poultry were housed in percheries with waste collection on concrete beneath. The birds
were allowed free range of the enclosure so that waste was present over the surface of
the whole of their enclosure.

Materials
The agricultural waste consisted of the faeces and urine from the animals, bedding, and
discarded fodder. Cereal straw was obtained from the large cereal farms. It was stored
loose in stacks in the household area. Members of farming associations received their
income as feed and fodder therefore it was in their interest to utilise the materials.
Maize straw was also collected from the farmers own and association arable land. It
was utilised primarily as fodder. The leaves and cereal were eaten by the stock. The
stalk material which was left was then used as a bedding or placed directly onto the
waste store. The maize straw is coarse and fibrous and does not easily absorb waste or
liquid in its long form. This would work better as bedding after it had been chopped.
The waste taken from the cattle areas consisted of a mixture of faeces, cereal straw and
long fibres of maize straw.

At the end of the growing season vegetable crops and tomatoes were taken out of the
soil and disposed of at the platform. The vines from the tomatoes were long and
fibrous and provided additional difficulty in handling and storage.

On site Handling of livestock waste
To keep the cow lying area clean the cattle waste was thrown at various times of the
day from the impermeable concrete and placed outside onto the earth. The waste
deposited on the earth adjacent to the stock housing was allowed to accumulate over 2-
3 days before it is scraped up into a wheelbarrow and taken to a waste store. The waste
store was usually close to large gates at the front of the holding. The effect was that the
waste was handled twice. It was difficult to scrape up from the earth. It is impossible to

12
ADAS Consulting



completely remove all waste from the soil in this area. There is a continuous
opportunity for nutrients to enter the soil by leaching at this point in the practiced
manure management system.

Finally the waste was accumulated in a main storage area without a concrete base. The
waste was not stacked high and the heap can cover a considerable area. The heaps were
not fenced off and it was possible for other stock such as poultry to pick over the heap
further spreading the waste over the surface. The low height and lack of retaining
structure results in a large surface area for the catchment of rainfall and leaching of
nutrients.

The urine channel was successful in intercepting the urine on the cattle housing. There
was sometimes no channel in the concrete yards of pig housing so the liquid flowed
from the concrete onto the bare earth. On all sites the liquid waste was managed by
allowing it to soak away. The liquid was channelled to unlined pits. These were
emptied periodically with a bucket and the liquid tipped over the solid waste.

Household waste
The wastes arising from the household were:

Containers made from plastic glass, metal, and cardboard. These were placed on the
main waste store and transported with this waste for deposition at the village platform.

Human latrine waste was provide for with an unlined pit. There was no management of
this. When the area becomes saturated the latrine location was changed and the area
was covered with a slab.

In Vilcelele and Cuza Voda the stock accommodation and the size of the holding were
very similar at 6000 m2. Independenta had small holding areas of 1000 m2. Households
in Gradistea were the largest at approximately 1 hectare and had better access with
gates at both front and rear
4.2 Extent of pollution and impact on water quality

The main pollutants going to water were identified as:
· liquid waste as urine
· leachate from solid waste and rainwater which can be contaminated by yard areas or
solid waste stores
· latrine wastes (not considered within the scope of the project)
· Pollutant sources to water were identified as:
· Directly through diffuse pollution from households .
· Indirectly from households via waste taken to waste platforms
· Indirectly from large farms via waste stored at their own waste platforms
· Indirectly from large farms where waste was washed off dirty concrete areas
· The main polluted places were households, platforms and large farms with
livestock.
· The pollution on site from household waste management is diffuse pollution from
a number of sources. These include:
· Unlined pits for cattle urine
· Unlined pits for pig yard run off
· Yards for free range poultry receiving rainfall.
· The surface storage of cattle and horse waste on earth

13
ADAS Consulting



· The main storage area.
· The latrine

The size of each holding was such that all these sources of pollution were within 50
metres of the well. There was thus a localised risk to the well water in addition to the
general level of pollution of the water table. The proximity of other households with
similar numbers of livestock located at their perimeter leads to the conclusion that the
well was at risk from three times the quantities produced by a single household. The
water table is generally polluted with Nitrogen compounds in all villages in each
comuna visited. This comes from the leaching from the platforms as indirect pollution
to the soil, and also direct run off of nutrients and solids into waste courses where
platforms were placed too close to and on slopes adjacent to open water courses and
drainage ditches. Eutrophication of the surface water was indicated growth of water
plants in drainage ditches and streams.
4.3 Waste management at large farm level

The large farms there utilise the housing of former state farms and co-operatives. The
cows were housed in cowsheds with stalls and neck bands. The floors have a dung
channel with automatic scrapers. These deliver the waste into a pit at the end of the
building or into trailers by elevator. The waste from the cowsheds is then taken by
trailer and tipped at the farm waste platform. Young stock were loose housed in pens
with straw bedding. The straw bedding is taken to the farm waste platform. Other stock
were kept in pens on concrete areas. There were few roof gutters to the buildings.
Rainfall can wash waste from the concrete of these dirty yard areas the soil.


Pigs were housed in large buildings with pens with dunging areas with slats(grid
covers). The automatic feeding systems installed no longer work. A slurry system was
in place with a 2m wide slatted area and a water flushing system. Due to operating cost
and complexity a settlement lagoon system had been abandoned. The electrically
driven main transfer pump was now used to discharge the slurry into a large unlined pit
at the edge of a wood. No attempt is made to utilise the waste. This area represents a
major pollution source. The farm did not have a manure spreader.

The farm platforms covered areas of typically 230 metres by 30 metres. The waste that
was tipped onto the platform was pushed up into heaps up to 3 metres high and
allowed to mature for up to a year. The waste from the farm platforms was spread and
ploughed in at summer time or at spring time. The methods of spreading the waste
from large farms included:

· Loading into tipping lorries, tipping on the field and spreading with a bulldozer at
rates of 100 tonnes/ha.
· Spreading by manure spreader on only two large farms. Many of the spreaders
which were on the former state farms were no longer serviceable. The farms have
chosen to invest in cultivation and harvesting machinery in preference to waste
handling and spreading equipment.
4.4 Problems of disposal of livestock effluent and solid waste at
household level
The flow diagram showing the existing waste management at household and at the
platforms is shown in Annex 2


14
ADAS Consulting



Effluents
Urine and leachate from dung was collected from cows and horses. For pigs the
effluents were not collected from the edge of the concrete yard area. Thus their disposal
was not well managed. Where effluents were collected they were directed to unlined
pits (in all cases but one) There was no containment of the liquid. The disposal through
drainage into the soil gives rise to diffuse pollution to the water table. With prolonged
use of these pits, their effectiveness will reduce as the suspended solids reduce the
infiltration rates but effectively the loss of nutrients to the soil is continuous.

The householder will not appreciate the volumes involved when he empties the pit
because the liquid soaks away. Handling of the effluents from the pits is carried out by
bucket. Tipping the liquid over the waste heap which is on the soil enables that which is
not absorbed by the waste heap to leach. This was likely to be increased in the wet
winter months when rainfall adds to the moisture entering the solid waste heap.

In addition to the effluent produced by the stock directly there is also the rainfall on to
yard areas and onto roofs. Rainfall onto dirty yard areas such as poultry compounds
will wash the nutrients directly into the soil. Rain water from roofed areas which enters
the waste stream can increase the volumes of effluents which can pollute. Examples of
this were where asbestos roofs overhang existing unlined effluent pits, roofs which
leak onto the livestock concrete areas, drainpipes which discharge onto dirty yard areas.

The householders have no sealed tank for the effluent. There is no machinery available
in the communes for the handling and disposal of accumulated effluent.

Solid waste
The main problems of solid waste handling arise from:
· Stock housing without dunging channels and which results in the need for frequent
cleaning of the flat lying areas.
· The double handling of the waste onto areas without a concrete base which creates
an avenue of pollution and makes gathering up of the waste even with simple tools
such as a shovel difficult.
· Location of the livestock at the rear boundary of the household and the main
waste store near to the front gate of the holding makes access for mechanical
handling difficult.
· Lack of an impermeable concrete base for the main waste store. This also makes
picking up the waste difficult.
· The waste could not be stacked high nor livestock kept out because there were no
retaining walls.
· Most holdings did not have access to mechanical handling equipment such as
tractors with loaders and were limited to horse and cart.
· There were no manure spreaders available for the spreading of waste from the
platforms.

The presence of the maize straw as bedding or as rejected fodder material makes direct
use of the solid waste onto agricultural land unacceptable. Decomposition of the waste
is required to break down the fibrous lignocelluloses material. The combination of this
material and the finely divided animal wastes were not easily handled together.

4.5 Evaluation of existing "waste storage platforms"

The waste platforms were located on land controlled by the council.

15
ADAS Consulting




At Cuza Voda and Vilcelele, waste was placed in a strip of land 5m wide and 200 m
long along the edge of drainage ditches. The area at Vilcelele was adjacent to the point
where this ditch discharged into a water course. The end of the heap being less than 5
meters from this watercourse. The slope of the land and the closeness of the track
would result in run off from the full length of the heap discharging directly into the
stream. This is clearly poor practice which in times of higher precipitation rates gives
rise to direct pollution.

As the heaps were inspected in autumn after a particularly dry summer much of the,
material was very dry and had been burnt. This practice was discouraged by the village
administration. The effect of burning is to leave a fine cover of ash on the waste pile.
This then weathers and with the addition of rainfall forms a surface cover to the waste.
It is suspected that this will inhibit aerobic decomposition of the waste.

A feature of all the heaps was the presence of contaminating amounts of inert
domestic refuse which consisted of cans, bottles, glass and plastic. Demolition and
construction waste was seen at some of the waste platforms. The maize straw in the
livestock waste was very bulky and resistant to weathering. This does not break down
quickly.

Most of the platforms had been in place for 10-12 years. Although the surface is dry
they have ability to retain moisture and a mixture of anaerobic and aerobic conditions
will be present. The heaps will also be a source of methane emission to atmosphere. As
the material in the platforms remains in place, additional rainfall and liquid release
from anaerobic digestion will lead to continued release of leachate into the soils.
Indicator species of weed (datura stramonium) for the presence of high nitrogen were
observed.

Of the seven community waste platforms inspected, six were on the surface but on one
site large pits had been excavated to increase the capacity prior to tipping operations.
The height of material on the platforms was not usually greater than 1 metre. No effort
had been made to pile the material. The size of fresh heaps was equivalent to a loaded
cart (approximately 2 m3). On one site was the waste periodically moved by bulldozer
up into a heap to reduce the storage area and manage the site. There was no separate
place where non agricultural wastes could be placed.

A programme of waste segregation had been practised at Independenta in the mid
1990s. This had been successful enough to produce a sufficiently decomposed waste,
free from contaminants that was sold as an organic fertiliser to vegetable growers
outside the area. Segregation of wastes had now fallen into disuse. The reasons for this
lie in:

· Low perception of value to agricultural production of the clean waste.
· Lack of ownership of the resource, the joint management of the land by the
agricultural associations
· Lack of specialised equipment for its handling and application.

At Alexandru Odobescu the platform was better organised with the material arranged in
rows up to 2m high and 4 m wide at the base. The waste was still contaminated. There
were concentrations of plastic bottles and other inert waste where an attempt had been
made to encourage segregation of these items from the livestock waste. At this site was

16
ADAS Consulting



an unlined pit for the disposal of fallen stock. This represents a further potential hazard
for pollution and spread of disease.

Conclusions

The waste platforms were a major source of pollution from livestock wastes both as
direct pollution and as run off to watercourses and diffuse pollution through drainage
into the water table.

The extensive areas covered and low height results in higher than necessary catchment
of rainfall and increased potential for leaching

The location of the waste collection areas can lead to direct contamination of
watercourse from run off.

The contamination of the agricultural solid waste makes much of that waste unusable.

Relatively small amounts of waste were responsible for contaminating large amounts of
agricultural waste.

The management of the waste at the platforms is minimal.

The waste at the platforms has been present for several years and more material has
been added. These will continue to pose a threat to the environment unless the waste is
removed and recycled or stabilised.

17
ADAS Consulting




5. Design of Manure Storage System
5.1 Concept

The management of the household waste has 10 key elements

1. Segregation of inert and recyclable materials such as metal cans, glass and plastics
from livestock wastes through the provision of a separate household waste
container.

2. Provide improved manure stores for storage of waste at a single impermeable store
at the household with enough storage for up to 1 month's production.

3. Utilise the existing practice of the householder who transported his waste by cart
to the village platform. For those householders who do not have transport a
chargeable collection service to the village or comuna platform could be offered.

4. Make use of the transfer of waste from the farm store to the platform to aerate the
waste, promoting continued bacterial activity in the waste.

5. Deposition of the segregated inert materials in designated bunkers.

6. Management of the waste at the main bunker involving stacking in shaped
windrow heaps 3 metres tall.

7. The transfer of the waste from the household storage to the main platform will
allow aeration and mixing of the waste. Active management of composting of a
proportion of the waste is likely to be necessary. In particular this should include
the tomato vines and the long maize stalks. This activity should be kept to a
minimum in order to reduce operating costs.

8. Store the waste deep so that the areas receiving rainfall is minimised.

9. Provide impermeable walls and floor to eliminate leaching.

10. Provide storage capacity for over the winter so that matured material will be
available for use on the land

The flow diagram for the waste management system from household to agricultural
land is shown at Annex 2
5.2 Storage systems on households
The development of the concept of waste handling is best integrated with the housing
system for the stock. In many cases there would be most benefit from the replacement
of the livestock housing with better structures. This would also assist the
rationalisation of materials handling and the location of investments in waste storage.
For new and existing stock housing it proposed that the waste storage and handling
system should have the following characteristics.

· Locate the waste store close to the livestock housing.
· Avoid double handling of the waste before the store

18
ADAS Consulting



· Provide impermeable storage for the solid livestock waste
· Stack the waste to reduce run off
· Stack the waste to increase storage capacity
· Provide catchment to effluent run off and urine
· Direct all rainfall onto roofs away from waste
· Provide facilities for the optional composting of waste within the storage areas.
· Provide sufficient storage period for over winter storage this should be a minimum
of 1 month.

Household Waste Store
The size should be selected according the number of stock at the households it is
required to serve. The householders will be required to stack the material up to 1.2 m
high at the back.
5.3 Storage systems at the main platform

Constraints affecting the storage periods required:
1. The ground is likely to be frozen between November and February.
2. Ploughing is between August to October.
3. Seedbed preparation occurs in Spring.
4. Cultivation of spring sown crop seedbeds from the over wintered ploughed ground
is between March and May.

The minimum period for the management and storage of waste should be for 4 months.
With capability of storage at the house hold for at least one month the effective storage
period is 5 months. The objective should be to empty the store by the end of autumn.
The length of time that is needed to hold the material can be put to good effect in the
stabilisation of the waste. The recommended facilities at the platform were :
1. Concrete area for the management of the waste.

2. Bunkers for the segregated household wastes.
a)
metal cans to go for recycling
b)
glass for landfill and future recycling markets
c)
plastic and other materials for landfill.

3. Platforms for the safe disposal of b, and c. It is may be possible to utilise the
existing platform locations where these do not pose additional environmental threat.

4. Catchment channel for run off from the platform.

5. Storage pits and tanks with impermeable base and walls.

6. A wall to the perimeter of the platform to contain the waste and prevent effluent
leakage.

7. Security fencing.

8. Safety fencing of the effluent storage area.

9. Office / Staff facilities.
10. Landscaping

11. Monitoring wells for the water table

19
ADAS Consulting



5.4 Concept for waste storage at large farms

The existing farm stores observed in the visits to the comunae were also in need of
environmental upgrading. The problems of storage of waste from large farms must be
addressed in order to provide the overall solution to the waste management needs of the
region

Dairy cattle waste
Dairy cattle were wintered in cowsheds and fed on hay and straw with considerable
quantities of straw used for bedding. The existing system of waste storage employed a
farmyard manure based management technique. The store could be updated along the
lines of the village platforms for a farmyard manure system. This would require
impermeable floors and walls and catchment of run off to a reception tank. Some
managers have in place or proposed slurry systems. Although some solid material was
to be produced using separators, no significant reduction in the volume of waste would
be expected. Straw based housing systems are likely to be more appropriate.
Assistance in the selection of components of the system should be made available. The
abundance of straw in the region is likely to make a straw based system suitable.

Dirty water
Dirty water arises from rain water contaminated when it falls on dirty yards and water
used for washing surfaces and equipment. It can also include urine where this is
collected separately from the solid waste. Rainfall was allowed to fall upon dirty yard
areas from the cowshed roofs. All roofs should be fitted with roof gutters so that this
rainwater can be conducted away from dirty yard areas and to soak away without
becoming contaminated with waste. The water falling directly onto dirty concrete yard
areas must be intercepted by a channel cast into concrete at the edge of the dirty yards
and channelled away to below ground dirty water storage tanks which can also store the
waste water which has been used to wash the milking equipment and dairy. The tanks
must be of sufficient size to allow for maximum daily rainfall and the capacity of the
waste handling system to dispose of it safely to land.

Pig Farm Wastes
The pig farm observed utilised a slurry system with added water to flush the waste out..
This slurry was pumped to an unlined pit where the liquid fraction was allowed to soak
away. This practice is environmentally unacceptable. The options available were:

1. An impermeable basin can be excavated and lined and in which the slurry can be
stored. This could be fitted with a de-watering section into which the liquid can
drain so that it can be removed and spread by a vacuum spreader.

2. Mix the pig slurry with the cattle waste in an above ground store with permeable
walls and a collection channel around the perimeter. The separated liquid is
collected in a basin with an impermeable lining.

3. An above ground slurry tank with mixing equipment to avoid settlement of the
slurry. This could utilise the existing below ground mixing tank and transfer pump
at the farm. The slurry would then be handled and spread with vacuum spreaders.
5.5 Existing platform remediation.
The existing platforms will continue to be a source of pollution. Once the addition of
the waste from households to the existing old platform has ceased then a programme of
remediation must be implemented. The preferred option is the segregation of the inert

20
ADAS Consulting



wastes within the deposits and the recycling of the agricultural waste. The remaining
inert waste can be recycled or landfilled as for the inert and recyclable wastes from
new platforms. The alternative is to stabilise the waste to avoid further leaching. This
can be achieved by composting.
5.6 Designs
Household Stores
The waste quantities arising at the average household have been used to calculate
nominal capacity of household agricultural waste stores.

A simple open fronted store with concrete base and 1.2 m tall walls would be sufficient
for most households.

A separate small capacity container should be provided for the collection of recyclable
and non recyclable household wastes. This should be approximately 90 litres capacity.

The minimum width of the agricultural waste store should enable access by machine
and enable the waste to be manually loaded by fork.

The concrete floor shall slope at 1:100 towards the front.

A drainage channel should be cast into the concrete base .

This should connect to a covered below ground tank of 250-500 litres capacity.

Dimensions for a typical property is shown below. This capacity is recommended for
all properties. It is expected that households with greater numbers of stock will empty
their stores more frequently

Vol. m3
Depth m
Area m2
Width m
Length m
5.4 1.2
4.5
2
2.2


21
ADAS Consulting




5.7 Bill of quantities for household stores

Household waste store


Household store
width length apron
depth/ volume area
m
m
length m height m3
m2
m
Preliminaries





Excavation of topsoil under base
2
2.24
1.2
0.3
2

Excavation of foundation under walls 2
6.49

0.3
4

Hard-core under base
2
2.24
1.2
0.15
1

Concrete floor
2
2.24
1.2
0.15
1

Concrete foundation
2
6.49

0.3
4

Damp proof membrane
2
2.24
1.2
1

7
Concrete walling or block
0.25
6.49

1.2
2



5.8 Costs
The cost for materials for the construction of the house store is shown below

House Store
2
2.2
4.4
240
Apron
2
1.2
2.4
79
Tank 500litres

20
Cost per household

339


5.9 Design of main platform
The main platform should preferably be a walled on 3 sides of a rectangular platform to
contain the waste. The walls must be able to withstand the load waste piled against
them and the loads from the loading machine. The costs of the walls were equivalent to
50% of the cost of the platform.

The activities within the platform should be unrestricted by internal walls so that the
space needed for management and storage can be flexible. This will suit the
requirements for active management of composting if this is necessary for certain
materials. An apron of concrete is provided for the movement of machinery and the
unloading of the household cart or an agricultural trailer.

An effluent collection channel is provided across the full width of the front of the
platform. This collects rainfall and effluent into a large basin to the side of the
platform. Also provided at the platform were 3 open fronted bunkers for the
householders to deposit the three types of waste: steel, glass and plastic/cartons. The
bunkers were 2,5 metres wide so that they can be emptied by a mechanical loader
shovel.


22
ADAS Consulting



This size of the platform has been calculated for a typical village. This was calculated
from the typical waste volumes from the size of stock observed for the number for
households in each comuna and number of villages in each comuna. It is recommend
that this capacity should be calculated for each individual village or where a platform is
required to serve a number of villages.

The calculated capacity for a typical village is for 3200 tonnes of material after 4
months. Consultation with the mayors indicated that they would have preferred 6
months of storage. The additional 1 month of storage at households partly addresses
this concern. A density of 0.75 tonnes per cubic metre is assumed for the fresh material
to allow for the bulky nature of the fibrous material. The material will be stacked to a
height of 3 metres.

The storage basin has been designed to hold 30 days rainfall as it is expected that the
liquid can be applied to land or returned to the waste at more frequent intervals than the
waste is spread.

Platform capacity Waste height
Vol.
area
width length
for seasonal
t/m3
m2
m
m
storage
120 day storage
3200 3 0.75
1422 33 46.10



Storage tank for rainfall
volume absorbed
depth area width length
run off
mm
m3
by store
30
day
38 76 1.00 1.20 82.5 10 8.25
5.10 Evaluation of Comuna platform design proposals

The comuna of Alexandru Odobescu had advanced plans for the construction of 3
platforms. Scheme plans showing construction and layout were produced. These can
be seen in Annex 5. The general principles of segregation and delivery of the material
as proposed in this document.

Inert waste store
1. The pit for inert waste is large. There appears to be no provision for extraction of
the waste for its transport to further recycling or a more permanent location. The
fence around the compound would impede the emptying of this area by use of an
excavator. It is recommended that the area is smaller with adequate access.

2. The depth of 4 m may not be suitable for sites with high water table. this also means
that drainage cannot be supplied for this structure.

3. There is no provision for the removal of accumulated rainwater and effluents. A
sump for the extraction of effluent would be a minimum requirement.

4. A permanent lined structure would be uneconomic as a permanent store for the
waste.

5. The position in front of the main platform for agricultural waste is acceptable.


23
ADAS Consulting



6. There appears to be no segregation of plastics and glass. It is assumed that the metal
items were to be taken away in the platform container.

Apron areas
1. The area at the front of the agricultural waste storage area is very wide at 15 metres
leading to collection of water on a dirty yard area. If this and the perimeter tack can
be kept as clean road area then this could be drained to land. There is a risk that this
area will be contaminated by spilled waste.

2. The positioning of the container close to the entry point of the site is recommended
to encourage the deposition of the inert and recyclable components of the waste
before the agricultural waste is dumped.

Main platform areas
1. The use of two separate areas for waste of different age is useful. This involves
extra cost over a single zone which has designated areas only instead of physical
barriers which may become restrictive.

2. It is recommended that the entrance ramp is extended across the full width of the
front of the waste storage area. The fence will then not be required and there will be
easier access for the loading of vehicles and turning.

3. The designation of areas for composting and storage must be flexible.

4. The partial submersion of the platforms results in a basin for the collection of
rainfall. It causes the level of water in the collection basin to be lower, and reduces
capacity. This produces risks for high water tables. This solution can be accepted for
AL. Odobescu but will be unsuited to high water table areas. An all above ground
installation is recommended for this reason. The cost of the construction of a
submersed platform was considered by the civil engineer to be more expensive
than a structure built on the surface.

5. The use of a concrete platform construction with a membrane is good practice.

6. The basin capacity shown is too small. The frequent emptying that this will require
may not be possible.

7. The tree screen is good landscaping practice and will also protect from run off of
nutrients and give shelter against the wind. A higher security fence is required.

Basins
1. The drainage water basin should be larger.

2. Paved access should be provided for the vacuum spreader that will be used to
empty it.

3. The provision of a sealed septic tank for carcasses provides effective containment
of this waste. These were well suited for small animals and young stock. Lime
should not be used and the chamber should be seeded with bacteria from well-rotted
livestock waste. The problem of emptying and disposal of the effluent remains.
They were less suitable for adult ruminants.


24
ADAS Consulting



4. The installation of an animal carcass incinerator for large carcasses should be
considered as an alternative.
5.11 Bill of quantities for Main platform
The following bills of quantities are provided for a platform for 3200 tonnes. Detailed
information relating to this size of platform is required from the civil engineers who
were available for assistance in the last 5 days of the International consultant's visit to
Romania.

Main Platform
width length apron depth volume area
m
m
length m
m
m3
m2
Preliminaries

Excavation of topsoil under base
35
47
6
0.3
557
Excavation of foundation under walls
2
129
0.5
129
Hardcore under base
35
47
6
0.15
278
Concrete floor
35
47
6
0.25
464
Concrete foundation
2
129
0.3
77
Damp proof membrane
33
47
6
1
1749
Concrete walling or block
0.25
129
3
97
Reinforcing fabric perimeter
2
129

258
Reinforcing fabric wall
129
3
774
Reinforcing fabric main floor and apron
33
47
6
1
1749




25
ADAS Consulting




Basin
width Lengt
apron depth volume area
m
h m length m
m
m 3
m2
Excavation of topsoil under base
10
8
6
1.5
214
Excavation of foundation under walls
1.5
36
0.3
16
Hard-core under base
10
8
6
0.15
21
Concrete floor
10
8
6
0.15
21
Concrete foundation
1.5
36
0.3
16
Damp proof membrane
10
8
6
1
142
Concrete walling
0.25
36
1.5
14
Reinforcing fabric wall
36
1.5

55
Reinforcing fabric main floor and apron
10
8
6
1
142


Waste segregation bunker( 1 of 3)
width Length apron depth volume area
m
m
length m
m
m3
m2
Excavation of topsoil under base
2.5
4
6
0.3
7.5
Excavation of foundation under walls
1.5
10.5
0.3 4.725
Hard-core under base
2.5
4
6
0.15
3.75
Concrete floor
2.5
4
6
0.15
3.75
Concrete foundation
1.5
10.5
0.3 4.725
Damp proof membrane
2.5
4
6
1

25
walling block
0.25
10.5
2
5.25
Reinforcing fabric wall
10.5
2

21
Reinforcing fabric main floor and apron
2.5
4
6
1

25
5.12 Costs
Indicative costs were estimated from the layout plan drawing for a typical village
platform shown in Annexe 5. This was undertaken by the civil engineer for a larger
store capable of holding 4800 m3. The costs for this option were $144, 756 including a
platform structure cost of 117,355. This would have made very few platforms available
within the project budget. It was therefore decided to produce costs for a smaller
platform capable of storing 3200 tonnes of waste based on the revised store length of
46 metres. The cost of the main perimeter fence was also removed from the budget.
The costs for a walled platform area shown below:

Costs Price
$US
Main platform
Base and walls
79,387
Apron and
8,850
fencing
Basin 9,400
Bunkers 1,636
Total 99,273

This cost has been included in projected costs at Annex 6
The cost of the platform should be investigated further by seeking quotations from
building contractors in the Calarasi area. Further work is required on the design to
refine the bills of quantities for control of cost.

26
ADAS Consulting




6. Design of Manure Handling and Application System
6.1 Concept and management of collection, storage and application
system
Collection of waste from households and farms. The current practice of bringing waste
to the platform is to be retained and encouraged. The agricultural waste and the
segregated waste is to be brought by the householder to the platform. The household
waste will be deposited in the recycling bunkers. The use of skips would involve
investment in specialised lorries which would increase the project costs so this
approach is not recommended.

Unloading of waste at the platform. The carts of agricultural waste will be unloaded on
a concrete apron at the front of the platform or driven into the platform area.

Managing waste at the platform. The periods over which the waste must be stored
when it cannot be applied to land can be utilised to reduce the amount of active
management of the waste to encourage it to break down. The movement of the waste
after the period of storage from holding will be sufficient to aerate the material. Further
handling once it has been placed on the platform should be minimised

The waste which consists mainly of animal waste is not expected to require active
management. For the composting of some of the fibrous waste such as maize stalks
and tomato haulm these should be placed in rows running the length of the storage area.
Turning and mixing can be achieved by moving the row to an equivalent position to
one side with the loader avoiding the need for specialised compost turners. Waste must
be moved from the reception area and placed on the platform in a heap 2-3 metres
high. For this operation and turning of the heap to assist the composting process as
appropriate a loader machine is required. This should be a specialised machine. The
loader should have an interchangeable fork and bucket attachment. The bucket
attachment will be required for handling some waste on the platform and also for
transferring the accumulation of household wastes from the reception bunkers to
trailers for recycling or deposition at the landfill.

Spreading of the waste. After the waste has been stored. it will be required as a nutrient
source in agriculture. To enable best use of the waste during spring and late summer on
cultivated ground and on growing crops specialised spreading machinery will be
required. Given the high dry matter of the incoming waste rear discharge spreaders
will be required. A tractor will be required to operate the spreader allowing the loader
tractor to load the spreader.

The rainfall onto the platform and associated run off will be collected in a separate
lagoon or tank with an impermeable lining. To empty this and spread to the liquid
onto crops or return it to the waste heap a vacuum tanker is required.

Long fibrous material such as tomato vines and maize stalks should be chopped up to
speed up the decomposition process. A small shredding machine is required for this.

27
ADAS Consulting




Additional items
The following additional items will be required

Hand tools, shovels, forks, brushes.

An incinerator for animal carcasses. This could be of local design and use wood or corn
cobs as fuel.
6.2 Equipment specifications
Equipment specifications.

Loader
Type: - 4 wheel drive.
Loading height: 4 m
Fork capacity: 2m3
Bucket capacity 2m3
Minimum Engine power 90 hp
Number required per comuna 1 initially but up to 1 per platform

Waste spreader
Type rear discharge
Capacity- 5 m3 (largest Romanian supply)
Number required 10

Vacuum tanker
Type: vacuum
Capacity: 5000 l
Number required per comuna 1

Trailer
Type: single axle tipping body
Nominal capacity: 5 tonnes
Number required 1 per comuna

Tractor
Type: 2 wheel drive.
Power: 65 hp
Manufacturer: Universal
Number required 10
Number per comuna 2

Waste Shredder
One per comuna.

Indicative costs for these machines from local supplier information are shown in
Annexe 6.

28
ADAS Consulting




7. Options for handling livestock effluent at household level
Livestock effluent at household level consists of the urine from cows and horses and
liquids running off the yard areas of pig housing. The effluent from the cows and horse
is caught in the channel in the concrete floor at the front of the housing. The pig effluent
is either caught in a channel or is allowed to drain directly into the soil where it runs off
the concrete floor at the front of the yard. Where roof water is badly managed it is
allowed to fall onto these yard areas or into the channel where it can increase the volume
of effluent and also wash further solids and nutrients into the system.

The strategy for controlling effluents is :
1
Minimisation of volumes by attention to detail on roof drainage and keeping yard
areas clean so that roof and yard drainage of rainwater does not come into
contact with waste.

2.
Catchment of all effluents and rainfall on to concrete areas where there is waste.
This will involve the construction of drainage channels to catch urine, drainage
from pig yards and rainfall from dirty yard areas.

3.
Containment - all channels must be collected in a lined pit or storage tank. This
tank must be covered and be located close to the stock housing. It must also be
placed near to the storage facility so that effluent from this can also be contained.

4.
Safe Disposal -The first option for disposal of effluent is to lift it out of the tank
by long handled 4 litre scoop or with a bucket and pour it over the solid waste so
that it is absorbed. When the waste has reached saturation the catchment channel
will return any excess to the tank. Good practice would be to apply this liquid to
the waste store when it is almost full with dry solid waste. The tank must be
small so that the practice of application of the collected liquid must be carried
out frequently. A long narrow plan shape will make it easier to empty. The tank
must have heavy well fitting lid with a lockable fastener to prevent unauthorised
opening.

The second option is to utilise the service of the vacuum tanker associated with the main
platform to provide a special service of emptying the storage tank.

29
ADAS Consulting




8. Indicative five-year investment program
The investment programme is proposed in five stages.
· training and information
· pilot first village platform with monitoring
· main platforms investment
· household segregation encouragement
· household stores construction
8.1 Training and information

Before any investment in materials or equipment can be authorised an information and
training programme for the implementation of the programme by Mayors, farmers'
householders and operational staff must be in place:
· To gain the confidence that the investment is at appropriate levels and will be
supported by changes in practices.
· To achieve a higher turnover on recycling to land than the present methods used on
farm stores and platforms.
· Promote correct use of the facilities.
· Maximise the number of households served
· Safeguard quality of materials for recycling
· To ensure markets for the stored material
· Responsible recycling

1. A seven day study tour of farms in the UK demonstrating the storage and
recycling of agricultural wastes. Commercial farms in the UK have been involved
in a series of Government sponsored demonstrations on the recycling of livestock
wastes to land. The purpose of this training is to

· Demonstrate that very long storage periods were not necessary for effective
recycling.
· Encourage changes in the farming practices designed to make better use of the
waste.
· Demonstrate choice of housing and waste system as an integrated concept.

It is recommended that these are included in an itinerary which should also
demonstrate the integration of livestock housing with the waste management and
recycling system. The recommended criteria for selection for this awareness
training were:
Mayors, farming associations leaders, research consultants, extension consultants,
DGA officials

2.
Implementation of training for the operating staff in the use of machines and the
management of segregation.

3.
Implementation of a training and information plan to educate the householders
This must include;
· Awareness information on the benefits to the community of waste recycling.
· The collection of effluents.
· The use of the household store.
· Procedures for the use of containers for the house waste

30
ADAS Consulting



· Management of the waste at household level.
· Deposition of segregated waste at the platform.
· The use of the platform and the need to deposit the segregated waste into the
appropriate bunker.

4.
Information and training in the business management and administration of a
waste recycling facility. For Mayors, other comuna officials and the site staff.
This must also deal with the recycling of materials from the livestock and the
households.

5.
Training and extension aimed at all farmers and the farming associations
· The value and other benefits of the recycling of nutrients form livestock with
rotation examples.
· Good practice in the storage and recycling of nutrients.
· Timing of applications.
· Preparation of application plans.
8.2 First-year numbers with location and cost estimates

The first year will be the production of platforms for the waste.
It is proposed that 1 village platform is constructed in the first year. This single
platform will be monitored for utilisation , uptake by householders, management and
recycling of nutrients to farmland. This will enable the practical verification of these
assumptions for the designed as outlined in section 6. The remainder of the program
can then be completed providing opportunity to revise the dimensions of platforms for
later investments and implementing any changes as indicated from the results of
monitoring and evaluation.

The criteria for selection for the investments.
· Demonstration of ability to control the segregation of waste by householders at the
household and the platform. Indicators: Achievements on existing platforms,
Guidance provided to households, Staff provision commitment, Training program
for staff.
· Demonstration of a commitment to the recycling of the quantities of material on
agricultural land in the comuna. Indicators: associations and farmers declared as
requiring recyclable material, Quantities committed.
· A location which is at least 10 m away from a watercourse or drainage channel
and 50m away from any well. Indicators: site location plan.
· The size of facility must match the number of households it is intended to serve.
Indicators: Number of households, livestock numbers, waste quantities, platform
dimensions.
· Existing equipment available which they were able to commit to the management
of the waste. Indicators: Machinery held by mayors' office, and potential users.

The first platform will be supplied with an assisted materials handler.
Assisted purchase of a waste spreader, tractor and trailer, shredder and vacuum tanker
per comuna.

The first year platform must be monitored, evaluated and necessary actions taken
prior to further investments

31
ADAS Consulting



Monitoring and evaluation of segregation at household levels. Indicator: Degree of
contamination of the agricultural waste, Volumes of wastes by type deposited in the
inert waste bunkers.

Monitoring and evaluation of platforms. Indicators: Waste quantities accommodated
and how rapidly this was recycled. Volumes of run off from the platform Volumes
applied to crops.

8.3 Indicative program for years 2 - 5
The remainder of the programme is intended to assist the villages in the implementation
of platform and household stores providing up to 2/3 the total estimated capacity.

year 2
Villages supplied with bins for house wastes
Construction of household stores
Construction of 3 more platforms with equipment on 3 comunae
Additional assisted purchase of spreaders by agricultural associations.

Year 3
Construction of 3 more platforms with equipment on 3 comunae
Construction of household stores
Assisted spreader purchase

Yr. 4
Construction of 3 second platforms on 3 comunae
Construction of household stores
Construction of farm stores

Yr. 5
Construction of 4 second platforms 4 comunae
Construction of household stores

The indicative programme is shown in Annexe 6

32
ADAS Consulting




9. Environmental and Economic assessments
9.1 Environmental assessment
The impact of waste at the household and platform levels is summarised in tables
below:

Households
Environmental Impact
IMPACT ON ( )

Site
Farmer
Neighbours
Stock
General
Water
Public
Quality
Smell/Odour






Noise






Dust






Solid Waste






Visual Intrusion






Effluents







The sources of pollution arising from households include:
1. Diffuse pollution from leachate from waste storage areas.
2. Diffuse pollution from unlined reception pits for urine and liquids running off
concreted areas.

Platforms

Environmental Impact
IMPACT ON ( )

Place
Landscape
Stock
General
Water
Soil
Public
Quality
Smell/Odour






Noise






Dust






Solid Waste






Image






Effluents







The sources of pollution from platforms arise from:
1. All platforms cause nitrogen impact through indirect pollution. This comes from
leachate entering the water table through the soil beneath and close to the platform.
2. Comuna platforms close to water courses cause impact through direct pollution
from surface run off into watercourses.
3. Former state farms and large farm platforms cause diffuse pollution through the
leaching of effluent from their permeable bases.
4. All existing community platforms will continue to pose a risk to the environment
from the continuation of leaching
5. The main type of pollution observed from indicator plants was that of nitrogen
pollution and eutrophication by phosphate.


33
ADAS Consulting



The quantity of Nitrogen entering the water system was estimated to be 404 tonnes
per year. This was based on the number of stock, (DGA 2000) and the assumption that
all available nitrogen is leached. In addition to this quantity the additional direct
pollution from household latrines represents a further 21% increase in nitrogen.

The quantity of phosphate which could be lost to the water resource was estimated to
be 238 tonnes. This was based on the assumption that all soluble phosphate would be
lost.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Measures
The impact of waste management measures at the household and platform levels is
summarised in tables below.

Household

Reduction of
IMPACT REDUCTION ON ( )
Environmental Impact

Site
Farmer
Neighbours
Stock
General
Water
Public
Quality
Smell/Odour






Noise






Dust






Solid Waste






Visual Intrusion






Effluents








Platforms

Environmental Impact
IMPACT REDUCTION ON ( )

Place
Landscape
Stock
General
Water
Soil
Public
Quality
Smell/Odour






Noise






Dust






Solid Waste






Image






Effluents







1. The actions will eliminate all future sources of pollution at the platforms from
leaching into ground water and direct drainage of liquids into surface water.

2. All waste can be utilised in autumn and spring replacing purchased fertiliser.
More likely in the short term it will be used to increase yields through addition of
nutrients.

3. It is recommended that the waste be applied to cropped land so that the maximum
utilisation of nutrients can be achieved. The maximum rate of nutrient loss for

34
ADAS Consulting



farmyard manure will be limited to 5% of the total nitrogen applied (Smith et al.,
1998). The effect of adoption of the recommendation will be to reduce nitrogen
loss to the water table by 90% for future waste arisings.

4. The increased use of the waste will maintain organic matter in the soil so
reducing susceptibility to erosion. Maintaining soil structure will also assist the in
the avoidance of soil structural problems. This in turn will avoid unnecessary use
of energy in cultivations.

5. The loss of agricultural land to platforms for agricultural waste will be arrested.

6. The detrimental effect of water quality on livestock and human health will be
decreased.

7. Energy use reductions and environmental benefits of resource savings from
recycling of the inert materials will be achieved.

8. The platforms will be managed in a sustainable way and be cleared at the end of
autumn each year. The unsightly appearance of the existing facilities will not
continue.

9. There will not be any immediate effect on releases from the existing wastes
deposited. The presence of sustainable facilities will enable a strategy for the
clean up of the existing platforms

10. The human effort will decrease. The labour required for two handling operations
will change to a single operation of placing the waste into the household store. A
concrete base to the waste store will make it much easier to gather the waste into
the cart for transport to the platform. The labour input into handling waste at
household level when unloading at the platform will be reduced.

Impact of waste disposal
The available area for the recycling of the wastes is 59616 ha (DGA2000)
Applied once every 4 years in a rotation this would give an available area for recycling
of 14720 ha. At an application rate of 40 tonnes /ha the total area needed would be
3123 ha. This demonstrates that the nutrient loading on the land is easily within the
accepted maximum rates (MAFF 1998) associated with good agricultural practice.
9.2 Economic assessments
The main economic benefit from management of agricultural waste will be realised in
the recycling of the nutrients in crop production. Known nutrient contents and
utilisation by the crops in a rotation which is typical of the region can be used to
calculate the financial benefit.

The expected benefit over a typical rotation of maize, wheat and soya for an
application of 40 tonnes on a hectare is shown in the table below. Detail is provided in
Annex 1.


Saving (ROL/ha)

Year 1
2,730,000

Year 2
1,502,000

Year 3
995,000

Year 4
negligible


35
ADAS Consulting



Total 5,227,000

($211)
If the waste can be recycled on 3123 ha then this represents an annual saving in the
project area of $658,222

The benefit to farms arises from the savings shown above. There will also be a benefit
in that the waste applied nutrients represents lower borrowing from financial
institutions. This will reduce pressure to dispose of the harvested crop immediately
after the harvest when the market is weak. The benefits will therefore be:
· Saving on primary sum invested in fertilisers.
· Reduced interest payments
· Increased revenues from later sales of produce if a surplus is present after sales for
interest repayments at harvest.
· Increased yields from recycled nutrients.

Un-quantified Financial Benefits
· There will be improvement of the quality of the produce. In addition to the financial
savings or yield improvement related to use of waste.
· The waste generated at household level has a value which can be realised by
management and storage followed by application to arable land for vegetables,
vines, fruit trees and field crops.
· Number of permanent jobs created per comuna: 1 loader driver plus 1 persons for
each platform constructed to supervise deliveries and assist in the waste spreading,
site security and administration.
· Temporary jobs created for the construction of platforms.

36
ADAS Consulting



ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT

A. MITIGATION PLAN

Cost Institutional

Comments
Responsibility
(e.g.
secondary
impacts)
Phase Issue Mitigation

Install Operate Install
Operate

measure
location
indirect and direct
minimum 10 m from

comuna admin. comuna admin.


pollution of water
water or drain
platform
indirect and direct
provide lined basin





construction
pollution of water
excavations
direct pollution of water not into water table


contractors
contractors

disposal of soil
loss of soil quality
store top soil

contractors
contractors
separately from
subsoil
fill low lying areas
supply of
environmental burden
local supply where

contractors
contractors
environmental
materials
of extraction and
possible
burdens from
transport
use of waste glass
manufacture
in hard-core
dirty water from pollution of
contained in basin


contractors
contractors

construction
watercourse
vehicle access
road traffic emissions
close to comuna and

comuna admin. comuna admin.

fuel use
existing road

37
ADAS Consulting




Operation
pollution of the water
containment of

householders
comuna admin.

table by nutrients
wastes
comuna
householders
from agricultural
sensible recycling
admin.
farmer
wastes
to arable land
associations
Segregation of
recycling of materials
instruction

OJCA
OJCA extension

house waste
waste minimisation
information
extension
householder
containers provided

Storage of
leaching of nutrients
instruction

OJCA
OJCA extension

livestock waste
groundwater pollution
information
extension
householder
at household
waste store
comuna admin.
constructed
householder
Collection of
leaching of nutrients
tank installed


comuna admin. householder
effluents
groundwater pollution
householder
Transport to
loss onto roads
existing carts

householder
householder
platform
litter
secure loads
Waste
litter
instruction

OJCA
OJCA extension

unloading
recycling of materials
information
extension
householder
segregated
bunkers at platform
local admin.

house
supervision
local admin.
Unloading
leaching of nutrients
information

OJCA
householder
livestock waste
groundwater pollution
instruction
extension
concrete apron

assistance from site
local admin.
loader
Handling of
leaching of nutrients
impermeable store


local admin.
local admin.

waste
groundwater pollution
odour

38
ADAS Consulting




Operation
pollution of the water
containment of

householders
comuna admin.

table by nutrients
wastes
comuna
householders
from agricultural
sensible recycling
admin.
farmer
wastes
to arable land
associations
Control of run
leaching of nutrients
collection channel


local admin.
local admin.

off
impermeable basin
Distribution of
leaching of nutrients
Stabilised material

environmental
farmers
avoided
manure
groundwater pollution
applied
agency
associations
burdens in
maximum limit 250

fertiliser
kg N /ha

manufacture
information
OJCA
instruction
extension
Recycling of
saving energy
to metals recovery


local admin.
local admin.
avoided
steel
sustainability
merchant
burdens
Recycling of
methane release
not yet established


local admin.
local admin.
avoided
paper
burdens
Other wastes
sustainability
new regulated

environmental
local admin.
sustainable
from bunkers
groundwater pollution
platform or landfill
agency
landfills
glass for aggregate
Existing waste
sustainability
pick over waste and

local
admin.
local admin.
Poses a threat
on existing
groundwater pollution
recycle organic
environmental
if not treated
platforms
waste
agency
compost to stabilise
nitrogen


39
ADAS Consulting





REFERENCES


MAFF (1998), The Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water - Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - UK.

DGA (2000), Agricultural returns for the Calarasi Judet, 30th September 2000.

Smith K.A., Chambers B., Cumby T.,Scotford I., Pain B.,(1998) - Managing livestock manures -
series. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - UK.


40
Annex 1

Calculation of financial benefit from use of waste on arable land

Using Livestock Manures in Arable Land



Crop rotation
4 years
maize
sunflower wheat
wheat
Manured Crop
maize

Rate 40 t/ha
Farmyard
manure(FYM)
Previous crop
wheat

Stage N
P2O5
K2O
Financial
saving
( ROL)
Estimate of nutrient content
kg/t
6
3.5
8
Total Nutrients
kg/ha
240
140
320
Available nutrients for maize
kg/t
1.75
1.5
3
Nutrient required (7t/ha yield)
kg/ha
147
71
196
Nutrient supply from manure
kg/ha
70
60
120 2,730,000
Inorganic fertiliser need
kg/ha
77
11
76
Available nutrients for sunflower
kg/t
0.9
1
1.5
Nutrient required (2.5 t/ha yield)
kg/ha
103
59
123
Nutrient supply from manure
kg/ha
36
40
60 1,502,000
Inorganic fertiliser need
kg/ha
67
19
63
Available nutrients for wheat
kg/t
0.5
0.75
1
Nutrient required (5 t/ha yield)
kg/ha
128
68
140
Nutrient supply from manure
kg/ha
20
30
40
995,000
Inorganic fertiliser need
kg/ha
108
38
100
Total saving on NPK
kg
126
130
220 5,227,000


Prices of nutrients
ROL/kg
12,000
12,500
9,500

Annex 2
Waste And Nutrient Flows For Existing Household System

Agricultural

Products Livestock House Products
on
Concrete

















Concrete





















Soak away
Soil


















Nutrient
leaching






Store on soil


















Nutrient
leaching





Cart

























Platform

















Nutrient leaching

Nutrient run off







Waste and Nutrient Flows for Proposed System

Agricultural

Products Livestock
on
House Products
Concrete

























Organic



materials










Plastics
Tank
Household
Glass
Metals
waste
store






















Cart Cart




















Segregated

Platform
waste
bunker





Metal
Manure
spreader
recycling




Landfill

Agricultural
land













Reduced leaching
Nutrient utilisation


by
crops








Annex 3

Diary

Date Location
Mode Activity
Persons
Met
08/10
UK /Romania
Field
Mobilisation
Stefan Nicolau director PPU
09/10
Bucharest - World
Field Background Dana
Dobrescu
Bank Resident
Mission

British Embassy

Meet DFID
Eugenia Stanciu
KHF
Mariana Pavalan
co-ordinator
10/10
Institute for research
Field Meet
Ion Toncea
into cereals and
counterpart
Stefan Nicolau
industrial crops-
Fundulea
11/10
World Bank
Office
Advise on
Dana Dobrescu
Codes of Good
Petra TOR 5 legal consultant
Agric. Practice
Stefan Nicolau
Gabriel Vulpe assistant to PPU
12/10 DGAIA
Calarasi
Field See
platforms
Christian Parapiru DGAIA

development
Mayor Vilcelele
13/10 Cuza
Voda
Field

Ion Toncea

Mayor Toma Grigore - Cuza Voda
Christian Parapiru

Independenta
Field
Data collection
Mayor Constantin Anghel ­
Independenta
14/10
DGAIA Calarasi
Office
Report
Ion Toncea
Christian Parapiru
15/10 Hotel
Office Report
John
Cole
16/10
EPA offices Calarasi
Field
Data collection
Christian Parapiru
Ion Toncea, Mr Ciofu, Director
Victoria Enache
Mitea Gratiela
17/10 Gradistea
Field
Data
collection
Ion Toncea, Gabriel Radescu Director,
former state farm

Mayor Iancu Florian
Deputy mayor

DGAIA Calarasi
Office
Report
Ion Toncea
Director Mr Dobre
Christian Parapiru
18 Project
Office
Field Data collection
Ion Toncea
19 DGAIA
Calarasi Office
Report
Mr Anton Magearu
ANCA Extension
Stefan Nicolau
service
John Cole
20
Project Office
Office
Report
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
21 DGAIA
Calarasi Office
Data collection
British ,Spanish and Italian

delegates from EU SAPARD
Independenta
programme
Vilcelele Stefan
Nicolau
John Cole

Date Location
Mode Activity
Persons
Met
22 Hotel

Report
John
Cole
23
Project Office
Office
Report
Ion Toncea
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
24
Project Office
Office
Report
Ion Toncea
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
Arnold King
25 Al.
Odobescu
Field Data collection
Ion Toncea
Mayor Mr Sultan
26 DGAIA
Calarasi Office

Mayors of
Report
Independenta
Presentation to
Vilcelele
Mayors
Gradistea
Vlad Tepes
Ciocanesti
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
Arnold King
27
Project Office
Office
Construction
Gabriel Popovici
Costs
Anca Gheorghiu
Reporting
Ramesh Kanwar
Ion Toncea
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
Arnold King
28
Project Office
Office
Reporting
Ion Toncea
Stefan Nicolau
John Cole
Arnold King
29
Project Office
Office
Report
John Cole
Arnold King
30
DGAIA Calarasi
Office
Presentation of
Dana Dobrescu World Bank
proposals
EPA

Dept. Of Health

Mayors

Mr Anton Magearu

Sevastel Mircea PPU procurement

Stefan Nicolau

Ion Toncea

Local Press

John Cole
Monitoring
Ramesh Kanwar
programme
Simon Turner
meeting
Arnold King

Date Location
Mode Activity
Persons
Met
31/10
Project Office
Office
Investment
Stefan Nicolau
Calarasi

programme
John Cole




ISPIF Bucharest
Field
Construction
Gabriel Popovici

cost
Anca Gheorghiu
Design
01/11
World Bank ­
Office Report
Sevastel Mircea
Resident Mission
Preparation
Dana Dobrescu
Bucharest



Notes on the visits to the farms and properties

Vilcelele Comuna
Two villages: Vilcelele and Floroaica

Areas are provided where householders take waste approximately every 2 weeks.
Two areas visited were placed in a strip of land 5m wide and 200 m long along the edge of drainage
ditches.

The areas at Vilcelele was adjacent to the point where this ditch discharged into a watercourse. The end of
the heap being less than 5 meters from this watercourse. The slope of the land and the closeness of the
track would result in run off from the full length of the heap discharging directly into the stream. this is
clearly poor practice which in times of higher precipitation rates gives rise to direct pollution.

As the heaps were inspected in autumn after a particularly dry summer much of the, materiel was very and
had been burnt. This practice was being discouraged by the village administration.

A feature of all the heaps was the presence of small but contaminating amounts of inert domestic refuse
cans , bottles , glass and plastic.

The heaps were manages in that local farmers could apply to take away the agricultural solid waste for land
application. however much of this waste could not be used because of the contamination. Discussion with
the mayor indicated that there was a strong demand for this material.

The mayor in discussion favourer the provision of facilities for the separate collection of inert solid waste.
This would render the agricultural waste more useable.

A third larger storage area contained solid waste from 120 dairy cows and additional village waste. this
covered an area of approximately 1 ha. The majority of the waste had been contaminated by the inert waste
brought by villagers. Despite the dry conditions considerable leachate was observed to be oozing from the
waste.

The main source of waste was from the dairy cow feed passage scraped areas. The is was central to two
sets of paddocks. The cow standing areas had at one time been covered, providing shelter for the stock and
also preventing rainfall collection by the dirty cow standing area. The roofing sheets for this area had been
stolen as this had previously been a state farm. As a result an rainfall will carry waste and nutrients of the
side of the concrete and into the adjacent soil.

The combinat also had places for 3000 pigs although presently only 300 were housed. A slurry system was
in place with a 2m wide slatted area and a water flushing system . Due to operating cost and complexity a
settlement lagoon system had been abandoned. The electrically driven main transfer pump was now used to
discharge the slurry into a large unlined pit at the edge of a wood.

Spreading the waste.
There was no specialist waste spreading machinery available. Only the solid waste could be utilised. this
was spread from heaps distributed across the field. the scale of this operation ranged from the use of lorries
and bulldozers to hose and cart and muck fork. this resulted in very high applications of waste quoted at 50
tonnes /ha. The combinat was well equipped with machinery including several relatively new combines.
These had been funded through EBRD.

Utilisation of waste was limited to late summer / autumn. This may be a function of the methods used to
apply the crop in that there is no possibility of application to growing crops.


Two dwellings were visited, these had cows pigs and poultry. In to the cases liquid runoff from the
concrete floor of the stock housing ran into unlined pits. These pits were emptied periodically by bucket
and the liquid thrown over the main waste store. Neither of the cow sheds had a dung channel for the
collection of faeces and urine. This was thrown at various times of the day outside onto the earth.. In one
case this was picked up daily and moved by wheelbarrow over to a large heap adjacent to the gate. it was
noted that these heaps were little more than 350 mm deep and covered an area of 25m2. The waste could
then be lifted by the farmer's son who had a 900 ha farm and spread. The other holding spread their waste
on their own fields by tractor drawn cart. Both sets of occupants were elderly.

None of the roof drainage was collected. Some of this fell onto the earth yards or into the unlined pits for
roofs without gutters. Where gutters were present discharge spouts dropped the water onto the earth. In
some cases this was onto dirty areas so that nutrients could be washed into the soil.

Conclusions

There is a basic understanding of the nutrient benefits of recycling of solid waste to agricultural crops and
this is practised a much as possible.

The location of the waste collection areas can lead to direct contamination of watercourse from run off.

The contamination of the agricultural solid waste makes much of that waste unusable.

Relatively small amounts of waste are responsible for contaminating large amounts of agricultural waste.

There are no machines available to the large or small farmer for the handling and spreading of liquid waste.

Water contamination is increased by large areas of dirty yard and roof water.

The management of cattle waste at household level involves double handling.

Storage areas without concrete make picking up and collection of the waste more difficult.


Uncovered separate storage for inert waste would be unlikely to lead to nitrate loss.

Recommendations

Separate designated storage for inert domestic refuse should be provided.

Concrete based areas with retaining walls should be constructed for the central waste storage. This should
be provided with a collection channel and a storage tank for leachate.


Comuna Cuza Voda
Meeting with the mayor- Toma Grigore
Date of meeting: 13/10/00

Numbers of livestock were reported as.
cattle
pigs
sheep and goats horses & poultry
beehives
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
donkeys(
(heads)
(heads)

heads)
1052
1771
4135
603
13100
260

Households 1720
6 pads for waste
3 villages make up the comuna. These are:
Cuza Voda
Ceacu
Calarasii Vechi
Only 10 % of the waste is utilised. This by one individual who grows vegetables.
General information.
The overall area of the comuna is 12800 hectares
there are 3 large farms
Agromixt commercial society. This has 1500 ha of land for arable production. The livestock is sheep and
horses.
Rapid of Calarasii Vechi with 720 ha with cows and sheep.
Victoria has 1100 ha with pigs and cows.
There are many associations with only arable crops.

650 ha of pasture are available as common land for which the users have to pay rent. 350 ha of this is
permanent pasture and the remainder is sown with ryegrass varieties for cattle.
Cattle are outside from the 15th April to the 6th December.

Barriers to greater use of the waste were reported as:
· Manure requires more transportation to the field which are farmed in association.
· The farming companies like to buy chemical fertiliser. They have machinery to apply it.
· They do not have specialised machinery to apply the waste.
· Use of the waste requires high labour.
· The waste is contaminated.

The waste is placed in a cart and is spread manually in autumn before ploughing.
The Mayor, suggested that the following was required to improve the waste quality:
A manned separate area at the platform.
The use of bags to collect the different waste streams and bring to the platform.

Platforms
Two examples of the platforms use were inspected:

One outside village within 10m of road side ditch .
Located on a slope and some 300 m long by 15 m wide and 1.5 m deep on a slope
Materials include demolition waste / soil , livestock solid waste.
The waste was contaminated by glass, plastic containers and metal cans in small but frequent amounts.


The second platform covers 1 ha . Agricultural solid waste with contamination by household containers
plastic shoes textiles, steel wire had been deposited. Plastic was observed to be on the surface of the
adjacent field.

A horticultural holding which used waste at 50 tonne ha every 3 years was visited. Good yield and quality
was achieved with the use of pesticides. The crops were not grown in rotation.

A second household was visited . This had the following stock:
Stock
Cows 2
Bull 1
Horse 1
Pigs - 2 sows 20 growers

Mixed livestock waste and household contaminants were placed close to the gates to the household.
Urine and runoff from the cattle housing is collected by a channel and runs to a concrete slab lined but
unsealed pit. This has dimensions 50 cm x 50 cm x 50 cm.
Adjacent to the cattle housing is the pig housing. The Pig housing has a concrete area to the front .Liquid
run off from this area is not intercepted..
Solid waste is placed onto a wheel barrow and taken to the waste storage areas adjacent to the gate.
Other buildings and structures on the site include Maize cob storage and stacks of maize straw and wheat
straw.

The cows and bull were not on the site. These were grazing on the common pasture land..


Comuna Independenta
Meeting with the mayor ­ Mr. Anghel Constantin
Date of meeting: 13/10/00

Number of livestock was reported as.
cattle
pigs
sheep and goats Horses & poultry
beehives
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
donkeys(
(heads)
(heads)

heads)
1400
800
4600
386
35000
260

Households 1396
6 pads for waste
3 villages make up the comuna. These are:
Independenta
Potcoava
Visini
25 % of the waste is utilised.
General information.
The overall area of the comuna is 1735 hectares
There is one large farm.
Agrozootehnica commercial society. This has 1735 ha of land for arable production with cows.
The total stock number in the herd is 174 with 74 milk cows. The waste storage area provided for the
waste from this stock is separate from the village platforms. The farm manages its own waste, maturing it
for a year before application

There are two small associations with a total of 40 ha each with other fields rented.

Rapid of Calarasii Vechi 720 ha with cows and sheep.
There is a common area for use by householders only of 350 ha
269 ha of common pasture land is cultivated . 60 ha for alfalfa and the remaining 209 ha for ryegrass.

Comuna Gradistea
Meeting with the mayor- Mr Iancu Florian
Date of meeting: 16/10/00

Households 1975
Population 5500
2 platforms are available for waste
2 villages make up the comuna.
Only 25-30% % of the waste is utilised. Demand was expected to increase with the increase in vegetable
crops grown.

General information.
The overall area of the comuna is 27,000 hectares
There are one very large former state farm with a number of farming associations on e of which has farms
in Cuza Voda.
Former State farm. This has 4524 ha of land for arable production and capacity for 200 cows. This was
currently not stocked due to slaughter of the herd as a result of disease.
There are seven associations of over 500 ha with only arable crops.
693 ha of pasture are available as forage crop land for which the users have to pay rent of this 350 ha was
permanent pasture. Part of the land was drained polder land
228 ha of land was designated for construction.
Cattle are outside from the 15th April to the 6th December.

Waste management
The management of waste was described as disastrous with uncontrolled dumping of waste at the
perimeters of villages, on the roadside and even in the neighbouring comuna.
the comuna has already made an application to the rural development agency under the programme.
The requirement had been for two platforms , two tractors to collect and handle the waste. After winter
storage and rotting of the waste this would be spread to the fields.
the plan was to raise taxes to a modest level in order to pay for the fuel and labour.

there were local examples of use of the waste by vegetable growers who were able to produce crops
without chemicals. There was confidence in the economics of this method of production .


The previous use of the clean waste from former state farm platforms had demonstrated the demand for
well rotted waste

Platforms
One outside village on the polder .
this was located within 10 metres of the main drainage canal which discharged directly into a major
tributary to the Danube. The drainage ditch had clear water but noticeable quantities of vegetation . This
indicated eutrophication of the watercourse.
The platform was 300 m long by 200 m wide with a perimeter earth bund. It has formerly been a huge
slurry lagoon. After all the uncontaminated waste had been removed the area had been used as a platform
for the solid wastes . The whole of the area was covered with deposition of agricultural waste which was
contaminated by household waste. The waste was contaminated by glass, plastic containers and metal
cans in small but frequent amounts.

Households visited
The households were larger than encountered at the other comunae. The areas were approximately 1 ha.
The first household visited was owned by fit but very elderly farmer who had:
1 cow
1 horse
5 pigs

In addition to stacks of maize straw the farmer had stacks of loose wheat straw which was available for the
taking away and lucerne bales which he had purchased. Other than the pig accommodation and winter
cattle accommodation the accommodation did not have a concrete base. More straw was used on the earth
floor for stock bedding.

The second holding was farmed by a man who had employment in Calarasi. He had purchased 10 cows.
These were also accommodated in a shed with an earth floor. The building was made from steel, larger
and more enclosed than any previously seen. The people who looked after the stock were young and clean
bedding was used.

The waste was cleaned out of the shed daily and stored in heaps outside. It was only lightly contaminated
with cattle dung. Pig accommodation was provided separately. The pigs were also kept on a deep litter
system. Unfortunately this stock housing was within 10 metres of the bank of the main drain to the polder.
The foundations of new winter cattle accommodation had been constructed 50 m in from the waterside
boundary.

This household was the only one in which plastic bottles and other wastes were segregated. Plastic bottles
were stored in an unused hay rack.

The former state farm was also visited. Discussion were held with the Director, Gabriel Radescu
The farm grew the following crops:
2300 ha cereals and oilseed rape
700 ha maize
700 ha soya-bean
200 ha fodder crops
300 ha seed production
450 ha sunflower

Chemical fertiliser was used.
700 tonnes per year 25-20-0 compound fertiliser which was applied at rate of 200 kg /ha on cereals
300 tonnes per year ammonium nitrate which was applied at rate of 140 kg /ha on wheat

Well rotted farm wastes were use at 100 tonnes per hectare which was ploughed in autumn.
(this rate would exceed the 250 kg /ha recommended by good agricultural practice)
The farm utilised a spreader to apply the waste.

The manager has adopted the latest techniques including the growing of genetically modified soya.
His experience with other local farmers is that their knowledge is at a low level and that they are unwilling
to acquire extra knowledge. His offer of advice and knowledge was usually met with indifference. Local
extension services consisted of articles in the news paper.


Extension Services

Director - Mr Anton Magearu Calarasi.
The extension service is a state funded organisation providing services throughout the Calarasi
Judet.

There are 20 local centres providing extension. One specialist services 2-3 comunae.

I winter training course are provided from farmers including how to understand and accept EU
requirements.

The main target group for extension is younger farmers. The economic value of the use of
manure is promoted to this group. The main problem for farmers is the lack of financial
resources and machinery to manage and apply waste.

Extension services specific to the project should be targeted to younger and new farmers.
Information to farmers was provided through a monthly farmers magazine which was distributed
free to 1000 farmers. This publication could be used to promote better management of the waste.
Examples similar to the ones presented in the ADAS/ MAFF managing livestock manures series
of leaflets could be used. Mr Magearu said that the examples in the booklets were applicable to
Romanian conditions.





Annex 4




Waste quantities based on stock numbers at 30/09/ 2000


Comuna cattle
pigs
sheep and horses
poultry
househol % with stock
Comuna
cattle
pigs
sheep and horses
poultry
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
ds
(heads)
(heads)
goats
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
(heads)
Gradistea 1,820
6,336
3,468
637
48,700
1975
60%

Gradistea 2
5
3
1
41
Al. Odobescu
646
1,725
3,644
587
23,006
1800
60%
Al. Odobescu
1
2
3
1
21
Ciocanesti 955
5,993
9,224
294
52,469
2900
60%

Ciocanesti 1
3
5
0
30
Independenta 1,232
2,695 865
328
34,780
1396
60%
Independenta
1
3
1
0
42
Vilcele 457
2,264
2,331
350
68,108
900
60%

Vilcele 1
4
4
1
126
Vlad Tepes
452
1,736
2,018
390
27,000
1300
60%
Vlad Tepes
1
2
3
1
35
Cuza Voda
1,067
1,408
4,005
341
29,240
1720
60%
Cuza Voda
1
1
4
0
28
Total Stock
6,629
22,157
25,555
2,927
283,303
11991


Waste/head l/d
42
4
2
28
0.12

2.9
0.27 Straw
kg/day

Total daily
278 91 38
82
33


amount
housing period
150
150
100
150
150

150
150

Waste



Additional mass of straw in the waste t/year
quantity
By Comuna t/year

number Mass/ Comuna Total
Total Mass/
of
village t
straw/
Mass/ village t
villages
comuna t comuna t Total

Gradistea 11,466
3,897
520
2,675
840
19,398
4
4,850
Gradistea 792
257
1048
20447
5112
Al. Odobescu
4,070
1,061
547
2,465
397
8,540
3
2,847 Al. Odobescu
281
70
351
8890
2963
Ciocanesti 6,017
3,686
1,384
1,235
905
13,226
3
4,409
Ciocanesti 415
243
658
13884
4628
Independenta 7,762
1,657 130
1,378
600
11,526
3
3,842 Independenta
536
109
645
12171
4057
Vilcele 2,879
1,392
350
1,470
1,175
7,266
2
3,633
Vilcele 199
92
290
7556
3778
Vlad Tepes
2,848
1,068
303
1,638
466
6,322
2
3,161 Vlad Tepes
197
70
267
6589
3294
Cuza Voda
6,722
866
601
1,432
504
10,125
3
3,375 Cuza Voda
464
57
521
10647
3549
Total m3
41,763
13,627
3,833
12,293
4,887
76,403

2884
897
3781
80184





Platform
waste height Vol.
t/m3 area m2 width m length m


capacity for
seasonal
storage
150 day
4000 3
0.75
1778
33
56.87


storage
Area for rain
198 36
234



2,012




Storage tank
rainfall mm
volume absorbed depth area width length

for run off
m3
by store
30 day

38
76
1.00
1.20
64
10
7.01


Annex 5
Imprejmuire



Gunoi de grajd
maturat
(5 luni +1@ in
Gospodarii Individuale = 6)





)




Gard de protectie


Bazin

Stocare




10 m x

2.5 m x

8.5 m x

4 m x

1.5 m

1.5 m
Plastic Metal


Canal
33 metri
Porti de acces 6 metri
Caruta
Gunoi
Annex 6





Romania Cost table for each sub component





Activity
Unit
Unit cost US$ Pre
PY1 PY2
PY3
PY4 PY5
Total
Cost $
Possible
project
Number
Farmer inputs
$
A. Investment



1 Civil works structures


Platform 99,273
1
2
2
3
3
3
14
1,389,822
347455.5
house
store 339
300
300
600
1000 1000
1000
4200
1,424,416
750,000
materials
2 Goods


0

2.1 Vehicles


0

Loader 17,108
1
2
2
2
7
119,759

Tractor 8,434
1
2
2
3
4
2
14
118,072
118072.3
2.2 Equipment


0

Spreader 6,750
1
2
2
3
4
2
14
94,500

Trailer 3,614
1
2
2
0
2
7
25,301
25301.2
Tanker 5,060
1
2
2
2
7
35,422

Shredder 3,000
1
0
0
0
1
3,000


Bins
30
600 1800
1800
1800
750
6750
202,500

3 Technical assistance

0

3.1 International consultant
621
15
10

25
15,525

flight
250
2
1

3
750

3.2 transport
20
15
10

25
500

Local
consultant
20
10

30
0

transport
20
20
10

30
600

4 Field trials /demonstrations

0


Activity
Unit
Unit cost US$ Pre
PY1 PY2
PY3
PY4 PY5
Total
Cost $
Possible
project
Number
Farmer inputs
$
4.1 Inputs
consultant 20
10

30

monitoring
transport
20
20
10

30









4.2 Demonstrations


4.3 Small equipment


5 Training







5.1 Workshops



5.2 Short
Managers 500
7

7
3,500

courses
overseas
Driver
500
7

7
3,500

Supervisor 500
7

7
14
7,000


delegates
9 300
1

2,700

flight
delegates
9 100
7

6,300

accommodat
ion(
(
1 300
7

2,100

interpreter (
1
90
7

630

consultant
2
500
6

6,000

Transport
1
100
7

700







Activity
Unit
Unit cost US$ Pre
PY1 PY2
PY3
PY4 PY5
Total
Cost $
Possible
project
Number
Farmer inputs
$
B
Recurrent costs






6 Salaries
numbers recruited
2
6
6
3
4

total
2
8
14
17
21

7 Vehicle



Loader
Loader
17,108
86
257
428
599
599
1,967

Tractor
Tractor
8,434
42
127
211
337
506
1,223
1518.072
8 Operation/maintenance










Spreader 6,750
34
101
169
270
405
979

Trailer 3,614
18
54
90
90
90
343
470
Tanker 5,060
25
76
127
177
177
582

Shredder 3,000
15
15
15
15
15
75

9 Materials





3,467,767
1,242,817

Document Outline