Sustainability of the Integrated Waste Management System: A Case Study of Bihor County, Romania

Abstract

This study examines a range of aspects relating to the projected waste generation in Bihor County, Romania from 2020 to 2040, focusing on key milestones set for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. The analysis incorporates socio-economic, macroeconomic, and demographic factors, along with household income, economic activities, and waste composition, in order to obtain accurate projections. Furthermore, this study evaluates the current state of waste management, identifies deficiencies, and proposes targeted objectives. The assessment methodology considers targets such as increasing waste reuse and recycling rates, reducing biodegradable waste landfilling, enhancing energy recovery, and improving separate waste collection systems. Three alternative waste management strategies are analyzed, including a “zero” alternative (i.e., maintaining the current system) and two investment-driven alternatives. The evaluation integrates both quantitative criteria—such as financial viability and environmental impacts—and qualitative factors, including market risk and adherence to circular economy principles. Through a comprehensive analysis, this study offers a robust foundation for strategic decision-making in the context of sustainable waste management and the efficient implementation of waste treatment practices in Bihor County.

1. Introduction

The development of a sustainable vision for waste management is currently one of the main global priorities [1,2,3]. Environmental protection is a responsibility that involves the entirety of society and, in this context, creating a sustainable vision for waste management has become a global priority [4,5,6].

European legislation regarding waste management is complex and undergoes continuous changes [7]. The European Union’s waste management policies emphasize the importance of an integrated approach to the process [8].

At the European level, waste management is based on three major premises [3,9,10,11]:

1.

Prevention of waste generation [12,13]—this principle is reflected in waste management policies and aims to reduce the quantity of generated waste, parallel to improving production technologies. Through raising awareness of the impacts of waste, members of society are encouraged to adopt responsible behaviors and choose environmentally friendly products.

2.

Recycling and reusing [14,15,16]—in the event of waste generation, the focus is on maximizing their valorization through the recycling process. In this context, Romanian legislation (in line with European directives) establishes different waste streams concerning packaging, batteries, and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), as well as other types of waste.

3.

Improving methods of final waste disposal [17,18]—in cases where waste cannot be valorized, it must be disposed of in a way that does not harm the environment and public health.

In recent years, technological advances have influenced the waste management sector [17,19]. Through technological innovations, there has been a significant improvement in integrated waste management systems, with the goal of minimizing waste generation and, consequently, efficiently and rationally utilizing the available resources [1,17,20].

The legal framework for waste management in Romania aligns with that of the European Union, which has had positive effects in recent years [21]; however, there is a continuous need for improvement in order to ensure the sustainability of the integrated waste management system [22].

An efficient waste management system significantly contributes to reducing negative effects on the environment and human health [23,24]. In comparison to other European Union countries, the waste management situation in Romania is relatively different, given the high consumption of products in relation to its under-developed sanitation infrastructure [25]. Nevertheless, there is an increased involvement of society members at the national level in efforts to minimize waste generation, as a result of heightened awareness regarding the negative impacts on the environment [26].

Waste management must be carried out in an integrated manner based on responsible decisions [27,28]. The main purpose of management is to reduce the production of waste, as well as ensure its proper treatment and environmentally friendly disposal using suitable processes and tools [29]. All these aspects are encompassed in the concept of integrated waste management, which essentially aims to [30,31] prevent the formation of, valorize, and properly dispose of waste.

This concept essentially refers to a carefully planned system in which the most efficient methods of waste valorization or disposal have been identified, with the aim of ensuring sustainability and, consequently, protecting the environment and public health [32]. Integrated waste management plans require constant adaptation due to the complexity of environmental issues [33], necessitating differentiated solutions and measures for the efficient and safe management of waste [34].

Waste management plans play an essential role in the development of sustainable waste management approaches [35,36]. The waste management planning process is continuous and is periodically re-assessed and revised based on new conditions that arise over time [37].

The presented case study—namely, the County Waste Management Plan—takes into account the specific characteristics of Bihor County, including aspects such as its population, level of economic development, geography/climate, and road network. This plan includes an analysis of the current waste management situation in the geographical territory of Bihor County, as well as the measures needed to improve environmental conditions regarding the preparation of waste for reuse, recycling, valorization, and disposal. Additionally, an evaluation focused on how the plan will contribute to the implementation of waste management objectives and legal regulations is conducted, including any potential subsequent modifications and additions.

The planning process prioritizes the development of a controlled waste management system, focusing on:

✓

Recovery and Recycling—emphasis is placed on the recovery and recycling of waste, with a focus on materials from packaging compositions such as paper, cardboard, and plastic.

✓

Proper Disposal—it ensures the correct and responsible disposal of waste.

✓

Reduction of Stored Biodegradable Waste—it aims to decrease the quantities of stored biodegradable waste to minimize the associated environmental impacts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. General Information About Bihor County

The case study was carried out in Bihor County, organized administratively into 4 municipalities (Oradea—county seat, Salonta, Beiuș, Marghita, Romania), 6 towns (Aleșd, Ștei, Nucet, Valea lui Mihai, Vașcău, Săcuieni, Romania), and 91 communes (Territorial Administrative Units, TAUs). The total area of the county is 7544 km². In 2018, the coverage of sanitation services in urban and rural areas was 99% and 84.51%, respectively.

The waste categories that were taken as the subject of analysis included municipal waste (household waste and similar waste from commerce, industry, and institutions, including separately collected fractions); fractions collected separately; waste from gardens and parks (including waste from cemeteries); other municipal waste (mixed municipal waste, market waste, street waste, bulky waste, etc.); and packaging and packaging waste (including separately collected municipal packaging waste).

The conducted analysis involved calculating the projected generated waste quantities for the following reference years: 2019, as the baseline year; 2020, as the first year of the projection; 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035, as the years in which objectives must be met; and 2040, indicating the end of the planning period.

Starting from the baseline data (socio-economic, macroeconomic, demographic, household incomes, economic activities, quantities and compositions, waste flows) for the year 2018, using the variation gradient over the last 5 years, projections were made for the period 2020–2025. The situation was analyzed after the implementation of the integrated waste management system (IWMS) and the targets set for the year 2025, according to the provisions of the National Waste Management Plan. The forecasting of generated quantities was performed using average assumptions for waste generation projections, taking into account that municipal waste management is an evolving process.

2.2. Population Projection

The population projection for Bihor County was conducted separately for urban and rural areas, based on the medium scenario developed by the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) in 2017, titled “Population Projection of Romania, Territorial Profile, by the Year 2060”, which involved a degressive forecast every 10 years, based on data from the Population Projection of Romania, Territorial Profile by the Year 2060, rural/urban index forecast—linear forecast for 2019–2040, and correction of the optimistic forecast from the Population Projection of Romania, Territorial Profile by the Year 2060, starting from the actual recorded population values to date, enabling modeling of the real population’s evolution at the level of Bihor County. The projections for rural and urban areas were estimated considering the ratio between the two as of the year 2018, according to the NIS.

The projection for socio-economic indicators took into account the following information for the period 2020–2025, as communicated by the National Commission for Prognosis in the publications Forecast 2020–2025 for the average exchange rate—January 2020 and the National Bank of Romania (NBR)’s projections for the average monthly inflation rate. To make the forecast as realistic as possible, weighting was applied between the population change for the years 2025–2040 and the values of economic indicators in the same period, in order to avoid overestimation.

The projections for socio-economic indicators considered the following information: for the period 2019–2023, data communicated by the National Commission for Prognosis in the publications were used: winter 2019, forecast 2018–2022 for the average exchange rate—January 2019, NBR Projections for the average monthly inflation rate, and the Medium-term Forecast 2019–2023—Fall 2019 version from December 2019 for the rest of the indicators. Starting in 2024, the values of economic indicators were limited to those estimated for the year 2023, in order to avoid overestimations.

The estimation of population income was carried out based on the statistical information available on the NIS websites. The available statistical forecasts extend for 5 years, up to 2027.

2.3. Projection of Municipal Waste Generation

The forecasting of municipal waste generation consists of three main parts:

✓

Projection of the quantities of municipal waste generated during the planning period, which requires assumptions regarding the generation of household waste, similar waste, waste from parks and gardens, market waste, and street waste.

✓

Projection of the composition of the main categories of municipal waste, which includes assumptions about the proportion of similar waste in household waste, establishing that these represent an average of 25% of household waste. The quantities generated by waste from parks and gardens, markets, and street waste are considered to remain constant throughout the planning period.

✓

Projection of special flows from municipal waste, which refers to biodegradable municipal waste, hazardous municipal waste, and bulky waste.

The projection of household waste generation depends mainly on the following parameters: demographic projection, variations in generation rates, and the degree of the population’s connection to sanitation services.

Regarding other categories of municipal waste, the following assumptions were used for the forecasting of waste generation: the proportion of similar waste from household waste remained constant throughout the planning period, averaging 25% of household waste; and the quantities generated via waste from parks and gardens, market waste, and street waste remained constant throughout the planning period.

Forecasting of the composition of municipal waste was performed separately for household waste and similar waste, waste from parks and gardens, market waste, and recyclables from household waste collected by operators other than sanitation operators.

The assumptions of the Bihor County Waste Management Plan (WMP) were used for all three categories of municipal waste. Thus, for household waste and similar waste, changes in composition were considered to occur during the planning period. For the other two categories, it was assumed that the composition remained constant. Forecasting of the composition of household waste and similar waste was carried out based on the current composition.

In the assessment, it was assumed that street waste resulting from mechanized sweeping represents approximately 10% of the waste quantity resulting from cleaning public areas (streets, sidewalks, and street bins). It is assumed that waste from mechanized street sweeping has a 100% inert waste content and, consequently, these wastes will be transported directly to the landfill without the need for prior treatment. The remaining wastes from semi-mechanical sweeping, street bins, and abandoned waste must be treated before disposal. For wastes from parks and gardens, it was assumed that 93% are biodegradable waste and 7% inert waste (i.e., soil and stones). This estimate was developed based on discussions with operators in Bihor County who are responsible for collecting waste from parks and gardens. It was assumed that municipal service wastes (from parks and gardens, markets, and street cleaning) are generated only in urban areas.

The forecasting of special flows from municipal waste (biodegradable municipal waste, hazardous municipal waste, and bulky waste) was performed based on projections of the quantities of municipal waste generated and the composition of the main categories of municipal waste.

The projection regarding the generation of biodegradable municipal waste is particularly important for designing an integrated waste management system, both in terms of establishing measures for municipal waste treatment and with respect to the objective of reducing the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste. The quantities of biodegradable municipal waste were calculated based on the forecasted municipal waste generation, taking into account the proportion of biodegradable waste in municipal waste (according to the composition data).

2.4. Projection Regarding the Generation of Construction and Demolition Waste

Forecasting of the annual quantity of construction and demolition waste was performed based on the projected population and associated generation indicators, which had the following values: 250 kg/inhabitant/year for urban areas, and 80 kg/inhabitant/year for rural areas.

The quantity of sludge generated depends on the degree to which the population is connection to sewage systems and the processes applied for wastewater treatment. The forecasted sludge generation from urban wastewater treatment plants was carried out based on assumptions about the expansion of the sewerage network (established based on existing local development plans), using a generation indicator of 60 g dry substance/inhabitant/day.

2.5. Methodology for Establishing Alternatives

To determine alternatives for municipal waste management, the following factors were considered: the current situation at the county and national levels, deficiencies in the management of municipal waste identified during the previous programming period, projections regarding the generation of various categories of municipal waste for the period 2020–2025, and objectives and targets for municipal waste management.

The evaluation criteria for alternatives in municipal waste management are represented by the following specific targets, established according to legislation in the field:

✓

Increase the degree of preparation for reuse and recycling: 50% of the quantity of paper, metal, plastic, glass, and wood waste from household and similar waste, including public services, by 2020 (Calculation Method 2 from Commission Decision 2011/753/EU), and 50%, 55%, and 60% of the total quantity of municipal waste generated by 2025, 2030, and 2035, respectively (Calculation Method 4 from Commission Decision 2011/753/EU).

✓

Reduce the quantity of deposited biodegradable municipal waste to 35% of the total quantity (gravimetrically expressed) produced in 1995 by 2020.

✓

Increase the energy recovery rate of municipal waste to 15% of the total quantity of energetically recovered municipal waste by 2025.

✓

Waste deposition is allowed only if the waste has been previously subjected to technically feasible treatment by 2025; waste deposition only in compliant landfills starting in 2020; implementation of separate collection of hazardous household waste and bulky waste starting in 2020; and reducing the quantity of deposited municipal waste to 10% of the generated quantity by 2035.

✓

Ensure adequate storage capacity for the entire quantity of waste that cannot be valorized (ongoing); separate collection and proper treatment of hazardous household waste (ongoing); separate collection, preparation for reuse, or proper treatment of bulky waste (ongoing); encourage the use of materials resulting from the treatment of biowaste in agriculture, such as composting and anaerobic digestion (ongoing); separate collection, both from the population and from economic operators, and valorization of used cooking oil (ongoing); implementation of separate collection of textile waste (starting in 2025).

✓

Ensuring the infrastructure for separate collection of special waste streams from municipal waste through establishing at least one collection center (which can be the same as the one for collecting WEEE) through the voluntary contribution of waste such as paper and cardboard, glass, metal, plastic materials, wood, textiles, packaging, battery waste, and bulky waste (e.g., mattresses and furniture) in each administrative-territorial unit (ongoing); increase the separate collection rate of WEEE, with a separate collection rate of 45% starting from 2018 to 2020, and 65% starting from 2021; increase the reuse and recycling rate of construction and demolition waste (to be borne by legal entities for whom construction/demolition permits are issued), with a minimum of 55% of the quantity of waste from construction activities in 2019, and a minimum of 70% of the quantity of waste from construction activities in 2020; ensure disposal capacities for DCD that cannot be valorized (ongoing); ensure the deposition of waste only in compliant landfills (ongoing).

In order to determine the necessary investments to achieve the objectives and targets, three alternatives were defined and analyzed:

✓

Zero alternative—this alternative involves only the existing investments and those that will be completed through the IWMS projects.

✓

Two alternatives—these alternatives propose new investments to ensure the fulfillment of objectives and targets.

To choose the most advantageous alternative for efficient waste management and the achievement of established targets, an analysis of the proposed alternatives was carried out based on the following set of criteria:

✓

Quantitative criteria—financial evaluation of investment costs and operating costs, as well as quantification of environmental impacts through estimating net emissions (expressed in tons of CO₂ equivalent).

✓

Qualitative criteria—degree of waste valorization, market risk, compliance with circular economy principles, and other relevant criteria at the county level.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Existing Situation

In the tables below, the quantities of municipal waste generated in Bihor County during the analysis period of 2014–2018 are presented, including both total quantities and quantities for each category individually (Table 1).

Table 1. Quantities of municipal waste generated, 2014–2018.

Types of Municipal Waste	Amount of Municipal Waste (Tons/Year)
	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
1. Mixed and separate household and similar waste, including:	126,827	126,027	124,607	126,708	128,145
Mixed household waste collected from the public and similar mixed waste from economic operators	124,012	122,186	119,169	119,673	115,253
Collected waste separately from the population and separately collected wastes from economic operators	2815	3841	5438	7035	12,892
2. Market waste, waste from gardens and parks, and street waste	4263	4729	5211	6001	8335
3. Household packaging collected by other operators	8248	8227	8182	8350	8740
4. Generated and uncollected household and similar waste	13,560	11,830	11,830	10,574	4322
Total municipal waste generated	152,898	150,814	149,831	151,632	149,542
Construction and demolition waste	5584	1222	21,684	87,402	62,722
Total waste generated	158,482	152,036	171,515	239,034	212,264

The total municipal waste varied slightly, staying at around 150,000 tons/year. The amount of separately collected municipal waste increased significantly, from 2815 tons in 2014 to 12,892 tons in 2018, suggesting an improvement in separate collection practices. Waste from markets, gardens, and streets presented a steady increase, from 4263 tons in 2014 to 8335 tons in 2018. Waste generated and uncollected decreased significantly, from 13,560 tons in 2014 to 4322 tons in 2018.

Note that the total amount of municipal waste collected reported by TAU or sanitation operators to the Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) Ecolect Group does not include waste from municipal services (parks and gardens, markets, streets), as well as waste from construction and demolitions collected separately from the population. Using data received from the Bihor Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Bihor) and the IDA Ecolect Group, the municipal waste generation indicator was calculated (Table 2). Throughout the analysis period, this indicator presented a value lower than the national average value, according to the National Waste Management Plan.

Table 2. Municipal and household waste generation index values.

Waste Generation Index	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Municipal environment (Bihor), kg/inhabitant/year	267	265	265	269	266
Municipal environment (national), kg/inhabitant/year	253	253	253	253	248
Eurostat, kg/inhabitant/year	478	481	483	486	486
Urban household waste, kg/inhabitant/year	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.54	0.50
Rural household waste, kg/inhabitant/year	0.33	0.32	0.32	0.31	0.30

The indicator of municipal waste generation in Bihor (kg/inhabitant/year) was consistently higher than the national average (e.g., 266 kg/inhabitant/year in 2018 compared to 248 kg/inhabitant/year at the national level). The amount of waste from urban households was considerably higher than that in rural areas (e.g., 0.50 kg/day urban vs. 0.30 kg/day rural in 2018).

The share of similar waste quantities from household waste for the period 2015–2018 was approximately 20–25% of municipal waste, in accordance with the estimate/recommendation in the National Waste Management Plan. The observed quantities of waste from municipal services (parks and gardens, markets, streets) had a very small share of the total generated waste (approximately 2.7% in 2015 and reaching 6% in 2018), compared to the national average of 10% (according to the National Waste Management Plan). The quantities of uncollected waste were evaluated based on the number of residents who have benefited from sanitation services and delivered their generated waste to collectors. For the period 2014–2019, the calculated generation indicators presented uneven fluctuations, both in urban and rural environments (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9).

Table 3. Estimation of waste from parks and gardens for 2019.

Urban Locality	Park Area	Generation Indicator	Generated Quantity
	ha	Ton/ha/Year	Ton/Year
Oradea	516	6.8	3508.8
Beius	7	1.8	12.6
Marghita	28	1.8	50.4
Salonta	54	4	216
Alesd	15	4	60
Nucet	14	0.8	11.2
Sacueni	20	4	80
Stei	17	0.8	13.6
Valea lui Mihai	25	1.8	45
Vașcău	10	0.8	8
Total	706		4006

Table 4. Estimation of waste from markets for 2019.

Urban Locality	Resident Population	Share of Total	Quantity Generated, Ton/Year
Oradea	201,195	70.34	1542.16
Beius	9994	3.49	62.01
Marghita	16,006	5.60	99.31
Salonta	17,088	5.97	106.03
Alesd	10,148	3.55	62.97
Nucet	1882	0.66	6.87
Sacueni	11,467	4.01	71.15
Stei	6414	2.24	35.11
Valea lui Mihai	9803	3.43	60.83
Vașcău	2050	0.72	8.98
Total	286,046	1.00	2055

Table 5. Estimated amount of street waste generated.

Urban Locality	Length of Modernized Streets, km	Generation Indicator Related to the Cleaned Surface, Ton/ha/Day	Amount of Street Waste Generated According to the Length of the Streets, Tons/Year
Oradea	380	0.23	3190.1
Beius	32	0.11	128.48
Marghita	38	0.11	152.57
Salonta	53	0.14	270.83
Alesd	47	0.14	240.17
Nucet	14	0.1	51.1
Sacueni	18	0.14	91.98
Stei	18	0.1	65.7
Valea lui Mihai	13	0.11	52.195
Vașcău	7	0.1	25.55
Total	620		4269

Table 6. Assumptions used to adjust the amounts of municipal waste generated during the analysis period.

Assumption	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Residential population	572,057	568,969	566,381	564,171	561,404	559,992
Urban	293,214	292,951	290,853	289,013	287,053	286,046
Rural	278,843	276,018	275,528	275,158	274,351	273,946
Generation indicator
Urban (kg/city/day)	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.54	0.5	0.75
Rural (kg/city/day)	0.33	0.32	0.32	0.31	0.3	0.40
Share of housekeeper quantity
Urban	0.51	0.51	0.51	0.51	0.51	0.51
Rural	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49
Share of mechanically swept waste from street waste	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10
Urban	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10
Rural	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10

Table 7. Quantities of municipal waste generated for 2019—adjusted values.

Types of Municipal Waste	Amount of Municipal Waste, Tons/Year
	2019
1. Household and similar waste collected in a mixture and separately, including:	148,177
Household waste collected in a mixture and separately from the population	118,542
Similar waste, collected in a mixture and separately	29,635
2. Waste from markets	2055
3. Waste from gardens and parks	4006
4. Street waste	4269
5. Packaging from housekeepers collected by other operators	9303
6. Household and similar waste generated and not collected	4650
Total municipal waste generated	158,507

Table 8. Estimated amounts of waste by category for the reference year (2019).

Municipal Waste Categories	Quantity, Tons/Year	Estimation Mode
Household waste	118,542	80% of household and similar waste
Similar waste	29,635	20% of household and similar waste
Similar waste from street bins, abandoned waste	3842	90% of the amount of code 20 03 03 waste
Waste from gardens and parks	4006	Based on adjusted questionnaires
Waste from markets	2055	Based on adjusted questionnaires
Street waste	427	10% of the amount of code 20 03 03 waste
Total municipal waste generated	158,507

Table 9. Composition of household waste for the year 2020.

Waste Code	Material Type	Urban, %	Rural, %
20 01 11	Textile	3.99	3.7
20 01 01	Cardboard paper	3.11	1.2
15 01 02	Plastic (pet, foils, others)	3.34	1.9
20 01 38	Wood	1.25	1.7
15 01 07	Glass	3.35	2.8
15 01 04	Metals	2.07	0.9
17 01 07	Construction waste	3.46	2.7
20 02 01	Biodegradable (food waste, vegetables, fruits, leaves)	40.21	42.2
	Other	39.7	42.9
Total	100%	100	100

The total amount of municipal waste generated was 158,507 tons, comprising an increase from the previous year. The amount of waste from markets (2055 tons) and gardens and parks (4006 tons) was relatively constant. Street waste was estimated at 4269 tons, with 90% of this coming from street bins and abandoned waste. The amount of waste from urban households was considerably higher than in rural areas (e.g., 0.50 kg/day urban vs. 0.30 kg/day rural in 2018).

3.2. Projections

The planning document created at the level of Bihor County utilized average assumptions for waste generation projections, taking into consideration that municipal waste management is an evolving process (Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14).

Table 10. Projection of the evolution of the resident population in Bihor county.

People	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2030	2040
Total	561,404	560,203	557,738	555,284	552,841	550,408	547,987	536,036	512,912
Urban	286,316	274,499	273,292	272,089	270,892	269,700	268,513	262,658	251,327
Rural	275,088	285,704	284,446	283,195	281,949	280,708	279,473	273,379	261,585

Table 11. Socio-economic indicators for use in the forecasting process.

Socio-Economic Indicator	The Unit of Measure	Projection Year
		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Average rate monthly inflation	%	3.85	2.90	3.18	3.18	3.18	3.18	3.18	3.18
Average exchange rate	Lei/euro	4.75	4.62	4.60	4.58	4.58	4.58	4.58	4.58
GDP (current prices)
Bihor county	Billions Lei	24,132	26,238	28,336	30,480	32,624	32,624	32,624	32,624
Real GDP growth
Bihor county	%	5.9	4.3	4.4	4.5	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3
GDP/capita
Bihor county	Euro/pers	9079	9906	10,749	11,608	12,474	12,474	12,474	12,474
Unemployment rate
Bihor county	%	1.4	1.3	1.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1
Average monthly net salary earnings
Bihor county	Lei/pers	2394	2634	2833	3038	3246	3246	3246	3246
Increase in average net earnings
Bihor County	%	14.7	10.0	7.6	7.2	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9

Table 12. Population income projections.

Population Indicator	Unit	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025–2040
Average number of people/household	number	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67
In the urban environment	number	2.72	2.72	2.72	2.72	2.72	2.72
In the countryside	number	2.63	2.63	2.63	2.63	2.63	2.63
Gross income projection for Bihor county
Gross income per household, including:	lei/household	4450	4896	5266	5647	6567	6567
In the urban environment	lei/household	4534	4988	5365	5753	6690	6690
In the countryside	lei/household	4384	4823	5187	5563	6468	6468
Gross income per person, including:	lei/person	1676	1844	2029	2232	2456	2456
In the urban environment	lei/person	1708	1879	2067	2274	2502	2502
In the countryside	lei/person	1651	1817	1999	2199	2419	2419
Net income projection for Bihor county
Net income per household	lei/household	3467	3815	4103	4400	5116	5116
The average net salary at the level of Bihor county	lei/person	2394	2634	2833	3038	3246	3246
Average expenditure per household
Bihor County, including:	lei/household	3467	3815	3998	4010	4023	4023
In the urban environment	lei/household	3532	3886	4072	4085	4098	4098
In the countryside	lei/household	3415	3758	3938	3950	3963	3963

Table 13. Projection of household waste generation indicators during the planning period (2020–2025).

Household Waste Generation Indicator, kg/Inhabitant/Day	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Urban	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.748	0.748	0.745	0.745
Rural	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40

Table 14. Projection of the quantities of municipal waste at the level of Bihor county during the planning period (2020–2040).

Municipal Waste Categories	Quantity, Tons/Year
	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2040
1. Household waste and similar generated, from which:	146,071	145,428	144,789	143,904	143,271	142,273	133,167
1.1. Mixed and separate household waste	116,857	116,343	115,831	115,123	114,617	113,819	106,534
Urban	75,144	74,814	74,484	73,959	73,634	73,016	68,342
Rural	41,713	41,529	41,346	41,165	40,983	40,803	38,191
1.2. Similar waste collected in a mixture and separately	29,214	29,086	28,958	28,781	28,654	28,455	26,633
2. Waste from gardens and parks	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006
3. Waste from markets	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055
4. Street waste, including that from:	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269
Mechanized sweeping	427	427	427	427	427	427	427
Semi-mechanical sweeping, street bins	3842	3842	3842	3842	3842	3842	3842
Generated and uncollected waste	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Urban	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rural	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total municipal waste generated	156,401	155,758	155,119	154,234	153,601	152,603	143,497

The estimated total amount of municipal waste generated presented a decrease from 156,401 tons in 2020 to 152,603 tons in 2025 and 143,497 tons in 2040, thus registering decreases of approximately 2.4% and 8.2% compared to 2020, respectively (Table 15, Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, Table 19 and Table 20).

Table 15. Projection of the composition of municipal waste in the period 2020–2040.

Waste Type	Share, %
	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Paper and cardboard	12.4	12.6	1.8	13.0	13.3	13.5	13.5
Metals	2.4	2.6	2.8	3.0	3.2	3.5	3.5
Plastic	11.0	10.8	10.6	10.4	10.2	10.0	10.0
Glass	5.0	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.6	4.5	4.5
Wood	2.5	2.6	2.6	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7
Biowaste	57.0	56.5	56.5	56.0	55.5	55.0	55.0
Textile	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Bulky	2.4	2.4	2.6	2.6	2.8	3.0	3.0
Other waste	6.3	6.6	6.3	6.6	6.7	6.8	6.8

Table 16. Forecast regarding the composition of waste from parks and gardens at the level of Bihor county during the planning period (2020–2040).

Composition of Waste from Parks and Gardens, %	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Paper and cardboard	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Metals	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Plastic	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Glass	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Wood	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Biowaste	93.1	93.1	93.1	93.1	93.1	93.1	93.1
Textile	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Bulky	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other waste	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9

Table 17. Forecast regarding the composition of waste from markets at the level of Bihor county during the planning period (2020–2040).

Composition of Waste from Markets, %	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Paper and cardboard	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9
Metals	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9
Plastic	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.9
Glass	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7
Wood	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2
Biowaste	74.0	74.0	74.0	74.0	74.0	74.0	74.0
Textile	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Bulky	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other waste	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3

Table 18. Forecast regarding the composition of street waste at the level of Bihor county during the planning period (2020–2040).

Composition of Street Waste (Tons/Year)	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026–2040
Paper and cardboard	10.1	10.1	10.1	10.1	10.1	10.1	10.1
Metals	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2
Plastic	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.7
Glass	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4
Wood	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9
Biowaste	60.2	60.2	60.2	60.2	60.2	60.2	60.2
Textile	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Bulky	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other waste	10.3	10.3	10.3	10.3	10.3	10.3	10.3

Table 19. Forecast of the generation of municipal biodegradable waste at the level of Bihor county in the target years of the planning period (2020–2040).

Biodegradable Waste Category (Tons/Year)	2020	2021	2022	2023	2025	2040
Paper + cardboard + wood from household waste and similar	21,765	22,105	22,297	22,593	22,923	21,573
Biowaste from household and similar waste	83,261	82,167	81,806	80,586	79,515	73,242
Paper + cardboard + wood from market waste	187	187	187	187	187	187
Paper + cardboard + wood from street waste, other than that from mechanized sweeping	499	499	499	499	499	499
Biowaste from garden and park waste	3730	3730	3730	3730	3730	3730
Biowaste from waste in markets	1521	1521	1521	1521	1521	1521
Biowaste from street waste	2574	2574	2574	2574	2574	2574
Total biodegradable waste	91,772	90,678	90,317	89,097	88,026	81,753

Table 20. Minimum municipal waste collection rates to ensure that the set targets are met.

Name	Unit	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2040
The target for the separate collection of recyclable waste	%	50	60	70	70	70	70	70
Total amount of recyclable waste that must be collected separately	tons	22,495	26,962	31,419	33,357	33,669	33,292	31,161
The target for the separate collection of biowaste	%	10	30	40	45	50	55	57
Amount of biodegradable waste to be collected separately and treated in biological treatment facilities	tons	9136	26,861	35,961	39,907	43,806	47,491	46,363

Considering the projected evolution of population and socio-economic indicators (2020–2040) for Bihor County, the population is projected to decrease from 561,404 in 2019 to 512,912 in 2040. Bihor County’s gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to increase, which could influence the amount of waste generated, and the net income per household is projected to increase to 5116 lei by 2024, having an impact on consumption and, thus, on waste generated.

Regarding the waste generation forecast (2020–2040), total municipal waste is projected to decrease from 156,401 tons in 2020 to 143,497 tons in 2040, representing a decrease of about 8.2%. Household waste will remain predominant, decreasing from 146,071 tons in 2020 to 133,167 tons in 2040, and biodegradable waste is expected to still account for the largest proportion (55% in 2025). The amount of plastics in waste is projected to gradually decrease from 11% in 2020 to 10% in 2025. There is a trend towards a reduction in the quantities of municipal waste generated, suggesting more efficient waste management (Table 21 and Table 22). Increasing amounts of separately collected waste indicate an improvement in the recycling process. Socio-economic factors such as increasing incomes and a decreasing population will influence the dynamics of waste generation up to 2040. Waste management policies need to be maintained and improved, particularly in terms of reducing biodegradable waste and plastics.

Table 21. Comparative description of the three alternatives.

Waste Management Operation	Alternative 0	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
Collection and transport
Collection and transport	No new investments are planned	Maintaining the existing collection system for residual waste (from door to door in the urban environment, the area of houses, and in the rural environment). Streamlining the system of separate collection of the recyclable fraction and biowaste (from door to door in the urban environment, the area of houses, and in the rural environment). Streamlining the system of separate collection of biowaste from markets and economic operators (food preparation and expired food). The creation of underground, waterproofed platforms for fractional collection of waste from identified tourist areas (20 areas) equipped with special containers with protection against vandalism by wild animals, and with mechanized means of special transport of this waste (bulldozers, compactor trucks Superstructure 2 volume + 1 two-volume compactor Autospeciala 4 × 4 with crane and satellite trailer ATV + accessories for collection; tracks, trailer). Creation of 32 collection platforms with voluntary contribution: Oradea (2), Marghita, Săcueni, Valea lui Mihai, Salonta, Alesd, Beius, Stei, and 23 collection points with voluntary contribution distributed in 3–4 municipalities. Each will be equipped with 132 30-cubic meter containers, 220 14-cubic meter containers, 32 waste containers for construction materials, 32 office containers, 32 sanitary filters, 32 toilet containers, 9 crushing stations, 9 scales, 32 loading–unloading ramps, a shed, and a control cabin. They will be perimeter fenced and illuminated, equipped with access doors.	Maintaining the existing collection system for residual waste (from door to door in the urban environment, the area of houses, and in the rural environment). Streamlining the system of separate collection of the recyclable fraction and biowaste (from door to door in the urban environment, the area of houses, and in the rural environment). Streamlining the system of separate collection of biowaste from markets and economic operators (food preparation and expired food). The creation of underground, waterproofed platforms for fractional collection of waste from identified tourist areas (20 areas) equipped with special containers with protection against vandalism by wild animals, and with mechanized means of special transport of this waste (bulldozers, compactor trucks Superstructure 2 volume + 1 two-volume compactor Autospeciala 4 × 4 with crane and satellite trailer ATV + accessories for collection; tracks, trailer). Creation of 32 collection platforms with voluntary contribution: Oradea (2), Marghita, Săcueni, Valea lui Mihai, Salonta, Alesd, Beius, Stei, and 23 collection points with voluntary contribution distributed in 3–4 municipalities. Each will be equipped with 132 30-cubic meter containers, 220 14-cubic meter containers, 32 waste containers for construction materials, 32 office containers, 32 sanitary filters, 32 toilet containers, 9 crushing stations, 9 scales, 32 loading–unloading ramps, a shed, and a control cabin. They will be perimeter fenced and illuminated, equipped with access doors.
Transfer and treatment
Transfer and Treatment	No new investments are planned	Purchase at the Alesd Transfer Station of a baling press, office, and changing rooms, as well as construction of fire-extinguishing equipment; wastewater, rainwater, and leachate collection systems; and concrete platforms.	Purchase at the Alesd Transfer Station of a baling press, office, and changing rooms, as well as construction of fire-extinguishing equipment; wastewater, rainwater, and leachate collection systems; and concrete platforms.
Treatment
Sorting stations	No new investments are planned	Modernization of the Valea lui Mihai sorting station with a sorting cabin with 10–12 stations for the separation of plastic and metal > 6 mm, a magnetic separator, a bag opener, conveyor belts, feeding belt, and baled press, and ballistic separator. Extension of the bale sorting and storage hall. Equipment for each of the sorting stations in Salonta, Marghita, and Beiuș, including bag opener, conveyor belts, belt for feeding the press, ballistic separator, and expansion of the storage hall. Modernization of the Alesd Sorting Station by equipping it with a sorting cabin, magnetic separator, bag opener, conveyor belts, press feeding belt, and callistic separator, as well as extending the hall, bale storage, and concrete platform.	Modernization of the Valea lui Mihai sorting station with a sorting cabin with 10–12 stations for the separation of plastic and metal > 6 mm, a magnetic separator, a bag opener, conveyor belts, feeding belt, and baled press, and ballistic separator. Extension of the bale sorting and storage hall. Equipment for each of the sorting stations in Salonta, Marghita, and Beiuș, including bag opener, conveyor belts, belt for feeding the press, ballistic separator, and expansion of the storage hall. Modernization of the Alesd Sorting Station by equipping it with a sorting cabin, magnetic separator, bag opener, conveyor belts, press feeding belt, and callistic separator, as well as extending the hall, bale storage, and concrete platform.
Composting stations	No new investments are planned	Static composting platforms with a capacity of: -26,000 tons in the premises of the Oradea TMB, equipped with at least 1 piece of turning equipment, 1 front loader, 1 rainwater collection system, 1 leachate collection system, and a platform; -3000 tons in Beiuș within the premises of the sorting/transfer station, equipped with at least 1 piece of return equipment, 1 front loader, 1 rainwater collection system, 1 leachate collection system, and a platform for the treatment of solid biodegradable vegetable waste (green, food, from markets, leaves, plants, dry plant material, residues from tree trimming, vegetable residues from markets, households).	Static composting platform with a capacity of 3000 tons in Beiuș within the sorting/transfer station, equipped with at least 1 piece of return equipment, 1 front loader, 1 rainwater collection system, 1 leachate collection system, and a platform for the treatment of solid biodegradable waste (green, food, from markets, leaves, plants, dry plant material, residues from tree trimming, vegetable residues from markets, households).
TMB installations	No new investments are planned	Modernization of TMB by equipping with a minimum of: Air separator, Non-Fe separator, sorting cabin, ballistic separator, SRF chopper, baling press, RDF wrapping press, conveyor belts, hall and platform extension, and NTPA 001 treatment station.	Modernization of TMB by equipping with a minimum of: Air separator, Non-Fe separator, sorting cabin, ballistic separator, SRF chopper, baling press, RDF wrapping press, conveyor belts, hall, and platform extension, and NTPA 001 treatment station.
Anaerobic digestion facilities	No new investments are planned	No investments are foreseen.	Anaerobic fermentation digester with digestate composting station for the treatment of solid or liquid biodegradable waste (food waste, green waste, waste from the food industry, manure, sludge from city sewage treatment plants) in Oradea, within the premises of the TMB and with a capacity of 32,000 tons.
Energy recovery facilities	No new investments are planned	No investments are foreseen.	No investments are foreseen.
Construction/expansion of compliant warehouses	No new investments are planned	Expansion of the Oradea-compliant warehouse with another cell having the following characteristics: -surface area: 228,000 m2 -total volume: 3,800,000 m3 -volume of cell 7: approx. 633,333 m3 = 750,000 tons	Expansion of the Oradea-compliant warehouse with another cell having the following characteristics: -surface area: 228,000 m2 -total volume: 3,800,000 m3 -volume of cell 7: approx. 633,333 m3 = 750,000 tons

Table 22. Waste management facilities in the three evaluation alternatives (0, current situation; 1 and 2, proposed alternatives).

Type of Installation	Alternative 0		Alternative 1		Alternative 2
	Total Number	Total Capacity, Tons/Year	Total Number	Total Capacity, Tons/Year	Total Number	Total Capacity, Tons/Year
Transfer stations	6	65,800	6	65,800	6	65,800
Sorting stations	6	62,000	6	62,000	6	62,000
TMB with biostabilization	1	60,000	1	60,000	1	60,000
Static composting platforms	2	16,000	4	45,000	3	19,000
Individual composting	20,000	3080	20,000	3080	20,000	3080
Digestor	0	-	-	-	1	32,000
Conform deposit	1	Total capacity provided for storage: 4,500,000 tons Remaining capacity: 2,150,000 tons	1	Total capacity provided for storage: 4,500,000 + 750,000 tons Remaining capacity: 2,150,000 tons	1	Total capacity provided for storage: 4,500,000 + 750,000 tons Remaining capacity: 2,150,000 tons

General description of the alternatives (Table 23, Table 24 and Table 25): Alternative 0 represents the status quo, with no additional investment in waste management infrastructure. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose significant improvements in terms of waste collection, transfer, treatment, and landfilling, while Alternative 2 includes additional investment into anaerobic digestion.

Table 23. Waste flow for the period 2020–2040 in the case of Alternative 0.

	Calendar Year
Types of Municipal Waste	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2036	2037	2038	2039	2040
1. Household and similar waste collected in a mixture and separately, including:	146,071	145,428	144,789	143,904	143,271	142,273	142,257	141,631	141,008	140,388	139,770	139,155	138,543	137,933	137,326	136,722	136,120	135,521	134,925	134,331	133,740
Mixed household waste collected from the population	116,857	116,343	115,831	115,123	114,617	113,819	113,806	113,305	112,806	112,310	111,816	111,324	110,834	110,346	109,861	109,377	108,896	108,417	107,940	107,465	106,992
Similar waste collected in a mixture from economic agents	29,214	29,086	28,958	28,781	28,654	28,455	28,451	28,326	28,202	28,078	27,954	27,831	27,709	27,587	27,465	27,344	27,224	27,104	26,985	26,866	26,748
2. Waste from markets	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055
3. Waste from gardens and parks	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006
4. Street waste	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269
5. Sludge from the treatment plant	-	-	-	-	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800
Total municipal waste generated	156,401	155,031	155,263	160,034	159,831	158,403	158,387	157,761	157,138	156,518	155,900	155,285	154,673	154,063	153,456	152,852	152,250	151,651	151,055	150,461	150,461
Separately collected biowaste, tons/year	41,111	44,768	49,446	48,776	48,187	47,491	47,301	47,113	46,925	46,738	46,552	46,367	46,183	45,999	45,816	45,634	45,453	45,273	45,093	44,914	44,736
Recyclable waste generated, tons/year	46,516	46,463	46,410	46,280	46,799	46,342	46,145	45,948	45,753	45,558	45,364	45,172	44,980	44,788	44,598	44,408	44,220	44,032	43,845	43,659	43,473
Recyclable waste (household, similar) collected separately and treated, tons/year, including:	22,495	26,962	31,419	33,357	33,669	33,292	33,145	33,000	32,854	32,710	32,566	32,423	32,280	32,138	31,997	31,856	31,716	31,576	31,437	31,299	31,161
Recyclables collected by sanitation operators and treated in sorting stations	12,995	17,462	21,919	23,857	24,169	23,792	23,645	23,500	23,354	23,210	23,066	22,923	22,780	22,638	22,497	22,356	22,216	22,076	21,937	21,799	21,661
Recyclables collected by other operators/recyclers	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500
Composted biowaste (tons/year)	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080
Composted household and similar biowaste (tons/year)—in the existing installation	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080
Separately collected and composted biowaste from parks and gardens, tons/year	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000
Waste collected in the mix	90,189	80,695	71,792	71,525	71,547	66,818	66,811	66,529	66,249	65,970	65,693	65,416	65,141	64,867	64,594	64,322	64,052	63,783	63,515	63,248	62,982
TMB with biostabilization	-	30,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000	60,000
Other collected recyclable waste (bulky, wood, textiles, glass, etc.) for dismantling/recovery/recycling through collection campaigns and in centers with voluntary input	14,685	14,621	16,321	14,689	16,298	14,195	14,134	14,074	14,014	13,954	13,894	13,835	13,776	13,717	13,658	13,600	13,542	13,484	13,426	13,369	13,312
Stored without treatment (street and residual)	107,439	86,679	65,763	72,211	70,217	71,053	71,099	70,602	70,108	69,616	69,126	68,638	68,152	67,669	67,188	66,708	66,231	65,756	65,284	64,812	64,343

Table 24. Waste flow for the period 2020–2040 in the case of Alternative 1.

	Calendar Year
Types of Municipal Waste	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2036	2037	2038	2039	2040
Household and similar waste collected in a mixture and separately, including:	146,071	145,428	144,789	143,904	143,271	142,273	142,257	141,631	141,008	140,388	139,770	139,155	138,543	137,933	137,326	136,722	136,120	135,521	134,925	134,331	133,740
Mixed household waste collected from the population	116,857	116,343	115,831	115,123	114,617	113,819	113,806	113,305	112,806	112,310	111,816	111,324	110,834	110,346	109,861	109,377	108,896	108,417	107,940	107,465	106,992
Similar waste collected in a mixture from economic agents	29,214	29,086	28,958	28,781	28,654	28,455	28,451	28,326	28,202	28,078	27,954	27,831	27,709	27,587	27,465	27,344	27,224	27,104	26,985	26,866	26,748
Waste from markets	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055
Waste from gardens and parks	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006
Street waste	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269
Sludge from the treatment plant	-	-	-	-	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800
Total municipal waste generated	156,401	155,031	155,263	160,034	159,831	158,403	158,387	157,761	157,138	156,518	155,900	155,285	154,673	154,063	153,456	152,852	152,250	151,651	151,055	150,461	150,461
Separately collected biowaste, tons/year	41,111	44,768	49,446	48,776	48,187	47,491	47,301	47,113	46,925	46,738	46,552	46,367	46,183	45,999	45,816	45,634	45,453	45,273	45,093	44,914	44,736
Recyclable waste generated, tons/year	46,516	46,463	46,410	46,280	46,799	46,342	46,145	45,948	45,753	45,558	45,364	45,172	44,980	44,788	44,598	44,408	44,220	44,032	43,845	43,659	43,473
Recyclable waste (household, similar) collected separately and treated, tons/year, including:	22,495	26,962	31,419	33,357	33,669	33,292	33,145	33,000	32,854	32,710	32,566	32,423	32,280	32,138	31,997	31,856	31,716	31,576	31,437	31,299	31,161
Recyclables collected by sanitation operators and treated in sorting stations	12,995	17,462	21,919	23,857	24,169	23,792	23,645	23,500	23,354	23,210	23,066	22,923	22,780	22,638	22,497	22,356	22,216	22,076	21,937	21,799	21,661
Recyclables collected by other operators/recyclers	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500
Composted biowaste, tons/year	19,080	19,080	19,080	19,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080	48,080
Household and similar biowaste collected separately and composted (tons/year)—in existing individual composters	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080
Household and similar biowaste collected separately and composted on static composting platforms, tons/year	16,000	16,000	16,000	16,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000
Waste collected in the mix	71,849	62,246	53,483	51,114	51,069	52,783	52,572	52,363	52,155	51,947	50,894	50,692	50,490	50,290	50,090	49,062	48,867	48,673	48,480	48,288	48,097
TMB with biostabilization	-	33,307	57,637	55,437	55,438	57,185	56,956	56,727	56,500	56,274	55,202	54,981	54,761	54,542	54,323	53,276	53,064	52,852	52,640	52,430	52,221
Other recyclable waste captured (bulky, wood, textiles, etc.) for disassembly/re-recovery/recycling through collection campaigns and in centers with voluntary input in Oradea	14,685	14,621	16,321	14,689	16,298	14,195	14,134	14,074	14,014	13,954	13,894	13,835	13,776	13,717	13,658	13,600	13,542	13,484	13,426	13,369	13,312
Stored at the Oradea Ecological Depository	107,439	104,115	99,868	92,063	20,521	20,633	20,578	20,523	20,468	20,414	20,233	20,180	20,126	20,074	20,021	19,844	19,792	19,741	19,690	19,639	19,588

Table 25. Waste flow for the period 2020–2040 in the case of Alternative 2.

	Calendar Year
Types of Municipal Waste	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033	2034	2035	2036	2037	2038	2039	2040
Household and similar waste collected in a mixture and separately, including:	146,071	145,428	144,789	143,904	143,271	142,273	142,257	141,631	141,008	140,388	139,770	139,155	138,543	137,933	137,326	136,722	136,120	135,521	134,925	134,331	133,740
Mixed household waste collected from the population	116,857	116,343	115,831	115,123	114,617	113,819	113,806	113,305	112,806	112,310	111,816	111,324	110,834	110,346	109,861	109,377	108,896	108,417	107,940	107,465	106,992
Similar waste collected in a mixture from economic agents	29,214	29,086	28,958	28,781	28,654	28,455	28,451	28,326	28,202	28,078	27,954	27,831	27,709	27,587	27,465	27,344	27,224	27,104	26,985	26,866	26,748
Waste from markets	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055	2055
Waste from gardens and parks	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006	4006
Street waste	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269	4269
Sludge from the treatment plant	-	-	-	-	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800	5800
Total municipal waste generated	156,401	155,031	155,263	160,034	159,831	158,403	158,387	157,761	157,138	156,518	155,900	155,285	154,673	154,063	153,456	152,852	152,250	151,651	151,055	150,461	150,461
Separately collected biowaste, tons/year	41,111	44,768	49,446	48,776	48,187	47,491	47,301	47,113	46,925	46,738	46,552	46,367	46,183	45,999	45,816	45,634	45,453	45,273	45,093	44,914	44,736
Recyclable waste generated, tons/year	46,516	46,463	46,410	46,280	46,799	46,342	46,145	45,948	45,753	45,558	45,364	45,172	44,980	44,788	44,598	44,408	44,220	44,032	43,845	43,659	43,473
Recyclable waste (household, similar) collected separately and treated, tons/year, including:	22,495	26,962	31,419	33,357	33,669	33,292	33,145	33,000	32,854	32,710	32,566	32,423	32,280	32,138	31,997	31,856	31,716	31,576	31,437	31,299	31,161
Recyclables collected by sanitation operators and treated in sorting stations	12,995	17,462	21,919	23,857	24,169	23,792	23,645	23,500	23,354	23,210	23,066	22,923	22,780	22,638	22,497	22,356	22,216	22,076	21,937	21,799	21,661
Recyclables collected by other operators/recyclers	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500	9500
Biowaste collected separately treated, tons/year	19,080	19,080	19,080	48,776	48,187	47,491	47,301	47,113	46,925	46,738	46,552	46,367	46,183	45,999	45,816	45,634	45,453	45,273	45,093	44,914	44,736
Household and similar biowaste collected separately and composted, tons/year—in existing individual composters	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080	3080
Household and similar biowaste collected separately and composted on static composting platforms, tons/year	16,000	16,000	16,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000	19,000
Digester, tons/year	-	-	-	-	31,907	31,211	31,021	30,833	30,645	30,458	31,119	30,930	30,742	30,555	30,369	31,014	30,826	30,639	30,453	30,267	30,083
Waste collected in the mix	85,559	75,886	67,198	64,733	64,761	57,419	57,190	56,962	56,735	56,509	56,284	56,060	55,837	55,614	55,393	55,173	54,954	54,736	54,519	54,302	54,087
TMB with biostabilization	-	33,307	57,637	55,437	55,438	57,185	56,956	56,727	56,500	56,274	56,048	55,824	55,600	55,378	55,156	54,936	54,716	54,498	54,280	54,064	53,848
Other captured recyclable waste (bulky, wood, textiles, etc.) with a view to dismantling/re-recovery/recycling through collection campaigns and in centers with voluntary contributions	3263	4874	4896	9734	8149	14,195	14,134	14,074	14,014	13,954	13,894	13,835	13,776	13,717	13,658	13,600	13,542	13,484	13,426	13,369	13,312
Stored at the Oradea Ecological Depository	107,439	104,115	99,868	89,063	14,726	14,803	14,739	14,674	14,610	14,547	14,483	14,420	14,358	14,295	14,233	14,171	14,109	14,048	13,986	13,926	13,865

Collection and transportation: Alternative 0 assumes no changes, maintaining the existing system. In contrast, Alternatives 1 and 2 involve streamlining the separate collection of recyclable and biodegradable waste, the creation of underground platforms in tourist areas, and the implementation of new voluntary collection points equipped with specialized containers.

Transfer and treatment: While Alternative 0 does not foresee new investments, Alternatives 1 and 2 include the modernization of sorting stations in Valea lui Mihai, Alesd, Salonta, Marghita, and Beiuș, adding advanced equipment such as magnetic separators, balers, and conveyor belts.

Composting and mechanical–biological treatment (MBT): Alternatives 1 and 2 propose the development of static composting platforms with expanded capacity for the processing of biodegradable waste. The TMBs will also be upgraded with state-of-the-art equipment for better separation and processing of recyclable and reusable materials.

Anaerobic digestion and energy recovery: In contrast to Alternatives 0 and 1, Alternative 2 introduces an anaerobic digestion plant in Oradea with a capacity of 32,000 tons, designed to treat solid and liquid biodegradable waste.

Plant capacity: Although the number of transfer stations, sorting, and TMB remain constant between the alternatives, the capacity of the composting platforms increases significantly under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, Alternatives 1 and 2 provide for the expansion of the compliant landfill in Oradea, adding 750,000 tons to the total landfill capacity.

Regarding the evolution of municipal waste between 2020 and 2040 (Alternative 0), the total municipal waste generated was found to steadily decrease from 156,401 tons in 2020 to 150,461 tons in 2040. Separately collected waste, such as biowaste and recyclables, increased significantly over these years, reflecting an improving trend in waste management.

Regarding household waste and its collection over the 2020–2040 period, the amount of mixed and separately collected household waste gradually decreased from 146,071 tons in 2020 to 133,740 tons in 2040. These decreases are attributed to both reduced consumption and improved recycling and composting processes.

In terms of recyclable waste, the amount generated annually remained relatively constant, hovering around 46,000 tons, while separately collected recyclable waste increased significantly, reaching 33,357 tons in 2023. This suggests an improvement in the collection and processing infrastructure for recyclables.

Separately collected and composted organic waste showed a steady behavior from 2020 to 2040, with about 19,080 tons of biowaste managed annually through composting. This practice continues to remain an important pillar of waste management.

In Alternative 1, beginning in 2024, a significant increase in the amount of composted waste was observed, and the use of biowaste digester began to become relevant beginning in 2024, with a continued increase through 2040. These measures contribute to a reduction in the amount of landfilled waste and more efficient resource management (Table 26).

Table 26. Estimation of investment costs (Euro).

Activity	Proposed Investments	Average Unit Cost	Capacity, Tons/Year	Alternative Zero	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
		Euro	Pieces
Waste collection centers in tourist areas	Construction	37,500	20	-	750,000	750,000
	Equipment/Machines	12,850	60	-	771,000	771,000
	Special means of transport	285,000	12	-	3,420,000	3,420,000
Collection centers with voluntary input	Construction	300,000	32	-	9,600,000	9,600,000
	Container (30 cubic meters)	5950	132	-	785,400	785,400
	Container (14 cubic meters)	4650	220	-	1,023,000	1,023,000
	Construction materials container	8250	32	-	264,000	264,000
	Office container, sanitary filter	6750	32	-	216,000	216,000
	Toilet container	8750	32	-	280,000	280,000
	Crushing stations	47,500	9	-	427,500	427,500
	Scale	35,000	9	-	315,000	315,000
Modernization of Alesd Transfer Station		12,700	50	-	635,000	635,000
Modernization and upgrading of machinery and equipment at Valea lui Mihai Sorting Station		4500	420	-	1,890,000	1,890,000
Modernization and upgrading of machinery and equipment at Alesd Sorting Station		4000	575	-	2,300,000	2,300,000
Modernization and upgrading of machinery and equipment at Beiuș Sorting Station		7000	120	-	840,000	840,000
Modernization and upgrading of machinery and equipment at Salonta Sorting Station		4500	120	-	540,000	540,000
Modernization and upgrading of machinery and equipment at Marghita Sorting Station		4500	120	-	540,000	540,000
Modernization investments related to the treatment component (TMB station)		60,000	100	-	6,000,000	6,000,000
New investments related to the treatment component—static composting platform, Oradea		26,000	300	-	7,800,000	-
The new investments related to the treatment component—static composting platform, Beiuș		3000	300	-	900,000	900,000
New investments related to the treatment component (anaerobic digestion) with composting station for digestate		32,000	650	-	-	20,800,000
Other costs (design, technical support, supervision)				-	435,000	1,085,000
Expansion of the Oradea-compliant warehouse with an additional cell		750,000	4.5	-	3,375,000	3,375,000
Total investment costs				-	43,106,900	56,756,900

Under Alternative 2, innovative solutions for waste treatment—such as MBT with biostabilization—are to be widely deployed between 2021 and 2040. In addition, the volume of waste captured for recycling, especially bulky and wood waste, was observed to significantly increase in 2024 and beyond.

Investment Costs (Euro): Alternative 0 (Table 27) has no proposed investments, while Alternatives 1 (Table 28) and 2 (Table 29) feature investments in areas including construction, machinery, special transport, and treatment components (e.g., composting, anaerobic digestion). Alternatives 1 and 2 involve considerable costs associated with building infrastructure such as transfer stations, sorting stations, and waste collection centers in tourist areas. Alternative 2 involves additional significant investments in new technologies, namely, anaerobic digestion and composting.

Table 27. Estimated operation and maintenance costs (Euro) for Alternative 0.

Elements		Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2020, Tons	Total Value, 2020, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2025, Tons	Total Value, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2040, Tons	Total Value, Euro
0	1	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3
a	Collection and transport costs	37.66	156,401	5,890,062	48.06	158,403	7,612,848	99.92	149,870	14,975,010
b	Costs—waste transfer	17.18	65,800	1,130,444	21.93	65,800	1,442,994	45.58	65,800	2,999,164
c	Costs—waste sorting	11.33	22,495	254,868.4	47.2	31,371	1,480,711	92.6	29,490	2,730,774
d	Costs—static composting green waste and biowaste collected separately	4.28	-	-	51.8	57,185	2,962,198	98.4	60,000	5,904,000
e	Costs—TMB waste collected in the mix	16,000	16,000	202,080	47.1	16,000	753,600	91.2	16,000	1,459,200
e	Costs—waste storage	107,439	107,439	1,755,625	17.24	20,633	355,712.9	35.85	19,588	702,229.8
f	Costs with the contribution to the circular economy	107,439	107,439	1,860,843	17.32	20,633	357,363.6	17.32	19,588	339,264.2
I	Total gross operating costs			11,093,922			13,812,996			26,386,845
g	Revenues from the recovery of recyclable waste	45	21,370	961,661	45	21,768	979,560	45	20,679	930,555
h	Income from compost/digestate utilization	5	15,200	76,000	5	10,500	52,500	5	10,500	52,500
i	Income from RDF energy co-processing	-	1949	-	-	22,200	-	1	22,200	22,200
j	Revenues related to the share borne by OIREP	126	11,248	1,418,310	176.1	15,686	2,762,217	366	14,745	5,396,670
II	Total net operating costs			8,637,951			10,018,719			19,984,920

Table 28. Estimated operation and maintenance costs (Euro) for Alternative 1.

Elements		Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2020, Tons	Total Value, 2020, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2025, Tons	Total Value, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2040, Tons	Total Value, Euro
0	1	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3
a	Collection and transport costs	37.66	156,401	5,890,062	48.06	158,403	7,612,848	99.92	149,870	14,975,010
b	Costs—waste transfer	17.18	65,800	1,130,444	21.93	65,800	1,442,994	45.58	65,800	2,999,164
c	Costs—waste sorting	11.33	22,495	254,868	47.2	31,371	1,480,711	92.6	29,490	2,730,774
d	Costs—static composting green waste and biowaste collected separately	4.28	-	-	51.8	57,185	2,962,183	98.4	52,221	5,138,546
e	Costs—TMB waste collected in the mix	12.63	16,000	202,080	47.1	45,000	2,119,500	91.2	45,000	4,104,000
f	Costs—waste storage	13.51	107,439	1,755,625	17.24	20,633	355,713	35.85	19,588	702,230
h	Costs with the contribution to the circular economy	17.32	107,439	1,860,843	17.32	20,633	357,364	17.32	19,588	339,264
I	Total gross operating costs			11,093,922			16,331,313			30,988,989
i	Revenues from the recovery of recyclable waste	45	21,370	961,661	45	29,802	1,341,110	45	28,016	1,260,698
j	Income from compost/digestate utilization	5	15,200	76,000	5	42,750	213,750	5	42,750	213,750
k	Income from RDF energy co-processing	-	1949	-	12.64	3281	41,472	18.75	2998	56,213
l	Revenues related to the share borne by OIREP	126.1	11,248	1,418,310	176.1	15,686	2,762,217	366	14,745	5,396,670
II	Total net operating costs			8,637,951	11,972,764			24,061,659

Table 29. Estimated operation and maintenance costs (Euro) for Alternative 2.

Elements		Unit Value, Euro/ Ton	Amount of Waste 2020, Tons	Total Value, 2020, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/ Ton	Amount of Waste 2025, Tons	Total Value, Euro	Unit Value, Euro/Ton	Amount of Waste 2040, Tons	Total Value, Euro
0	1	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3	2	3	4 = 2 × 3
a	Collection and transport costs	37.66	156,401	5,890,062	48.06	158,403	7,612,848	99.92	149,870	14,975,010
b	Costs—waste transfer	17.18	65,800	1,130,444	21.93	65,800	1,442,994	45.58	65,800	2,999,164
c	Costs—waste sorting	11.33	22,495	254,868.4	47.2	31,371	1,480,711	92.6	29,490	2,730,774
d	TMB costs	4.28	-	-	51.8	57,185	2,962,183	98.4	53,848	5,298,643
e	Costs—composting	12.63	16,000	202,080	47.1	19,000	894,900	91.2	19,000	1,732,800
f	Costs—digestion	-	-	-	38.5	31,211	1,201,624	96.5	30,083	2,903,010
g	Costs—storage	13.51	107,439	1,755,625	17.24	14,803	255,203	35.85	13,865	497,060
h	Costs with the contribution to the circular economy	17.32	107,439	1,860,843	17.32	14,803	256,388	17.32	13,865	240,141
I	Total gross operating costs			11,093,922			16,106,852			31,376,603
i	Revenues from the recovery of recyclable waste	45	21,370	961,661	45	29,802	1,341,110	45	28,016	1,260,698
j	Income from compost/digestate utilization	5	15,200	76,000	5	18,050	90,250	5	18,050	90,250
k	Income from RDF energy co-processing	-	1949	-	12.64	36,260	458,326.4	18.75	33,104	620,700
k	Revenues related to the share borne by OIREP	126.1	11,248	1,418,310	176.1	15,686	2,762,217	366	14,745	5,396,670
II	Total net operating costs			8,637,951	11,454,948				24,008,286

Collection and transport costs were found to increase significantly from 2020 to 2040, with a rise from EUR 5.89 million in 2020 to EUR 14.98 million in 2040; as such, total gross operating costs increased from EUR 11.09 million in 2020 to EUR 26.39 million in 2040. Revenues from recyclable waste recovery and income from compost/digestate utilization add up and reduce total net operating costs, which were found to rise from EUR 8.64 million in 2020 to EUR 19.98 million in 2040.

Under Alternative 1, the total gross operating costs are higher than under Alternative 0, with values reaching EUR 16.33 million in 2025 and EUR 30.99 million in 2040. Income from compost/digestate utilization and RDF energy co-processing contribute to reducing net operating costs, although they still remain higher than those under Alternative 0.

The total gross operating costs for Alternative 2 follow a similar trend as those under Alternative 1, but are slightly higher in 2040 (EUR 31.38 million). The costs for TMB and digestion systems increase, especially in 2040, making this alternative potentially more expensive in the long term. Despite income from recycling and energy, the total net operating costs are still increased when compared to Alternative 0, reaching EUR 24.01 million in 2040.

Alternatives 1 and 2 involve higher initial and operational costs compared to Alternative 0, but they aim for more advanced waste treatment systems and higher recycling rates. Alternative 0 remains the least costly, but it might have lower efficiency in terms of waste management and involve less advanced treatment technologies. Long-term operational costs grow under all alternatives, but Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 appear to be more expensive—primarily due to more advanced processing and waste management methods. Under Alternative 2, innovative solutions for waste treatment, such as MBT with biostabilization, are thus required to be widely deployed in the period 2021–2040. In addition, the volume of waste captured for recycling—especially bulky waste and wood waste—was found to be significantly increased in 2024 and beyond.

Specific CO₂ emissions for the three alternatives is presented in the Table 30, Table 31, Table 32 and Table 33.

Table 30. Specific CO₂ emissions (kg CO₂ equivalent/ton of waste).

Waste Management Activity	CO2e Emissions/ Tons of Waste
Waste not collected or collected in a mixture and disposed of in landfills that do not have a landfill gas collection system	833
Waste collected in a mixture disposed of directly at the landfill	298
Waste collected in a mixture transported directly to the incineration plant	253
Waste collected in mixture converted into RDF and transported to the incineration facility	236
Separately collected and composted biowaste (aerobic treatment)	26
Biowaste collected separately and treated anaerobically (anaerobic digestion)	8
Packaging waste collected separately and recycled	−1037
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with storage of treated waste	161
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with the energy recovery of the treated material	272

Table 31. Specific CO₂ emissions under Alternative 0.

Waste Management Activity	CO2e Emissions/Tons of Treated Waste (kg CO2)	Quantity, Tons/2020	CO2 Emissions/2020, Tons	Quantity, Tons/2025	CO2 Emissions/2025 Tons
Waste not collected or collected in a mixture and disposed of in landfills that do not have a landfill gas collection system	833	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture disposed of directly at the landfill	298	107,439	32,017	59,546	17,745
Waste collected in a mixture transported directly to the incineration plant	253	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in mixture converted into RDF and transported to the incineration facility	236	37,180	8774	23,792	5615
Separately collected and composted biowaste (aerobic treatment)	26	19,080	496	19,080	496
Biowaste collected separately and treated anaerobically (anaerobic digestion)	8	-	-	0	-
Packaging waste collected separately and recycled	−1037	18,590	−19,278	30,841	−31,982
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with storage of treated waste	161	-	-	60,000	9660
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with the energy recovery of the treated material	272	-	-	-	-
Total emissions	-	-	22,010	-	1534

Table 32. Specific CO₂ emissions under Alternative 1.

Waste Management Activity	CO2e Emissions/Tons of Treated Waste (kg CO2)	Quantity, Tons/2020	CO2 Emissions/2020, Tons	Quantity, Tons/2025	CO2 Emissions/2025 Tons
Waste not collected or collected in a mixture and disposed of in landfills that do not have a landfill gas collection system	833	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture disposed of directly at the landfill	298	107,439	32,017	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture transported directly to the incineration plant	253	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in mixture converted into RDF and transported to the incineration facility	236	37,180	8774	23,792	5615
Separately collected and composted biowaste (aerobic treatment)	26	19,080	496	48,080	1250
Biowaste collected separately and treated anaerobically (anaerobic digestion)	8	-	-	-	0
Packaging waste collected separately and recycled	−1037	18,590	−19,278	30,841	−31,982
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with storage of treated waste	161	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with the energy recovery of the treated material	272	-	-	57,185	15,554
Total emissions	-	-	22,010	-	−9563

Table 33. Specific CO₂ emissions under Alternative 2.

Waste Management Activity	CO2e Emissions/Tons of Treated Waste (kg CO2)	Quantity, Tons/2020	CO2 Emissions/2020, Tons	Quantity, Tons/2025	CO2 Emissions/2025 Tons
Waste not collected or collected in a mixture and disposed of in landfills that do not have a landfill gas collection system	833	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture disposed of directly at the according landfill	298	107,439	32,017	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture transported directly to the incineration plant	253	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in mixture converted into RDF and transported to the incineration facility	236	37,180	8774	23,792	5615
Separately collected and composted biowaste (aerobic treatment)	26	19,080	496	22,080	574
Biowaste collected separately and treated anaerobically (anaerobic digestion)	8	-	-	31,211	250
Packaging waste collected separately and recycled	−1037	18,590	−19,278	30,841	−31,982
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with storage of treated waste	161	-	-	-	-
Waste collected in a mixture and treated in TMB facilities with aerobic treatment, with the energy recovery of the treated material	272	-	-	57,185	15,554
Total emissions	-	-	22,010	-	−9989

The results regarding total CO₂ emissions for 2025 are as follows:

Alternative 0—Total Emissions = 1534 tons (for 2025). These emissions primarily come from landfill disposal, RDF incineration, composting, anaerobic digestion, and TMB with energy recovery.

Alternative 1—Total Emissions = −9563 tons (for 2025). The observed negative emissions were due to high recycling of packaging waste (−31,982 tons), aerobic treatment of biowaste (1250 tons), and TMB with energy recovery (15,554 tons).

Alternative 2—Total Emissions = −9989 tons (for 2025). Similar to Alternative 1, with negative emissions primarily being due to packaging waste recycling (−31,982 tons) and energy recovery from TMB (15,554 tons), along with biowaste composting and aerobic treatment.

Under all alternatives, a significant amount of waste is still disposed of in landfills, contributing to CO₂ emissions. However, the quantity of waste allocated to landfills is the same under Alternatives 0 and 1 (107,439 tons in 2020, 59,546 tons in 2025) with a reduction in Alternative 0; meanwhile, Alternative 2 shows no landfill waste in 2025.

In terms of recycling packaging waste, Alternatives 1 and 2 present significant negative emissions due to packaging waste recycling: Alternative 1: −31,982 tons, Alternative 2: −31,982 tons

This indicates the environmental benefit of high recycling rates, especially for packaging waste.

Regarding energy recovery from TMB, Alternatives 1 and 2 both use TMB (aerobic treatment with energy recovery) significantly (for 57,185 tons of waste) in 2025, contributing to negative emissions from energy recovery processes (although not as large as recycling).

In terms of biowaste treatment, under Alternative 0, biowaste is composted (aerobic treatment), with relatively low emissions of 496 tons.

Meanwhile, under Alternative 1, the quantity of biowaste composted will increase to 48,080 tons in 2025, which leads to more emissions but still at a relatively low level (1250 tons of CO₂).

Alternative 2 presents a similar trend for composting, with 22,080 tons of biowaste composted and 574 tons of emissions.

Considering energy recovery from TMB, Alternatives 1 and 2 show the highest energy recovery emissions (15,554 tons) from TMB with energy recovery, further reducing CO₂ emissions.

In summary, Alternatives 1 and 2 are more environmentally beneficial, with negative total emissions in 2025 due to the high associated recycling rates and energy recovery.

Meanwhile, Alternative 0 is less efficient and will result in positive total CO₂ emissions in 2025, primarily due to the continued use of landfills and waste incineration without recovery (Table 34).

Table 34. Degree of energy recovery from waste under considered alternatives.

Alternative	Amount of Municipal Waste Collected in 2020	Amount of Energy Co-Processed Waste 2020	Degree of Energy Recovery 2020	Amount of Municipal Waste Collected 2025	Amount of Energy Co-Processed Waste 2025	Degree of Energy Recovery 2025
Alternative 0	156,401	1689	1.08%	158,403	3005	1.90%
Alternative 1	156,401	1689	1.08%	158,403	36,260	22.88%
Alternative 2	156,401	1689	1.08%	158,403	36,173	22.84%

The key drivers for reducing emissions under these alternatives are the recycling of packaging waste, biowaste treatment (composting and anaerobic digestion), and energy recovery from TMB.

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 show significant increases in energy recovery by 2025, around 22.88% and 22.84%, respectively, compared to 1.90% under Alternative 0.

Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 invest in greater energy co-processing by 2025, whereas Alternative 0 maintains much lower energy recovery rates (Table 35).

Table 35. Outputs of waste treatment facilities.

Treatment Plant	Output	Use	Market Risk
Separately collected recyclable waste sorting stations	Sorted recyclable waste fractions (paper/cardboard, plastic, metal and glass)	Economic operators/recyclers	It depends on the demand from recyclers. For some fractions, the demand is lower (e.g., glass), leading to a higher risk of non-take-up.
	Residues from sorting	Co-processing in cement factories Deposition in landfill	Dependent on the demand from the cement factories, as well as the quality of the refuse, generating a risk of non-takeover with financial impact. If there is no demand from the cement plants, there is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-takeover being low.
Biowaste composting station collected separately	Compost (after application of the waste status termination procedure)	Users, for soil quality improvement	Dependent on the demand as well as the quality of the compost, generating a risk of non-takeover.
	Compost that does not meet the criteria for use/recovery	Compliance deposit	There is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-retrieval being low.
	Residues from composting	Compliance deposit	There is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-retrieval being low.
Mechano-biological treatment plants with aerobic treatment	Sorted recyclable waste fractions (paper/cardboard, plastic, metal and glass)	Economic operators/recyclers	Dependent on the demand from the recyclers. For some fractions, the demand is lower (e.g., glass), generating a higher risk of non-takeover.
	RDF	Co-processing in cement factories	Dependent on demand from cement plants and the quality of RDF, generating a higher risk of non-takeover with financial impact.
	Treated waste	Compliance deposit	There is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-retrieval being low.
TMB plants with anaerobic digestion	Digested/composted	Users, for soil quality improvement	Dependent on the demand as well as the quality of the digestate, generating a risk of non-takeover.
	Digestate that does not meet the criteria for use/recovery	Compliance deposit	There is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-retrieval being low.
	Treatment residues	Compliance deposit	There is storage capacity available during the forecast period, with the risk of non-retrieval being low.
	Biogas, transformed into heat and/or electricity	Internal use, for the operation of the installation or Local network	Low risk of default.

Outcomes regarding the outputs of waste treatment facilities are detailed in the following.

For recyclable waste sorting stations, all alternatives face medium to high risks of non-takeover for sorted recyclable waste (e.g., glass), depending on the demand from recyclers.

For composting stations, Alternative 1 has a medium risk of non-retrieval for compost, while Alternatives 0 and 2 present a lower risk due to smaller quantities.

Regarding mechanical–biological treatment, Alternatives 1 and 2 face a higher risk of non-takeover for refuse-derived fuel (RDF), associated with the demand by cement plants and quality of the RDF, while Alternative 0 shows a medium risk due to smaller quantities.

In terms of digestate from anaerobic treatment, both Alternatives 1 and 2 face small risks of non-retrieval, while Alternative 0 does not show major issues due to the production of smaller volumes.

All alternatives present a degree of dependence on market demand for recyclables (e.g., glass and RDF) for the continued success of treatment and co-processing in industries such as cement production.

Overall, Alternatives 1 and 2 present greater risks of non-takeover for certain outputs (e.g., RDF), whereas Alternative 0 presents moderate risks but smaller volumes (Table 36 and Table 37).

Table 36. Evaluation of the takeover risk, for each Alternative, for the year 2025.

Treatment Facility/Output	Alternative 0	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
Recyclable waste sorting station - RDF	3005 tons There is a medium risk of non-takeover, the amount and risk being lower than in the other two alternatives.	3005 tons There is a higher risk of non-takeover compared to Alternative 0, the quantity being higher.	3005 tons There is a higher risk of non-takeover compared to Alternative 0, with the quantity being higher (the same risk as Alternative 1).
- Recyclable waste	45,566 tons Dependent on the demand from the recyclers. For some fractions, the demand is lower (e.g., glass), generating a higher risk of non-takeover.	45,566 tons Dependent on the demand from the recyclers. For some fractions, the demand is lower (e.g., glass), generating a higher risk of non-takeover.	45,566 tons Dependent on the demand from the recyclers. For some fractions, the demand is lower (e.g., glass), generating a higher risk of non-takeover.
Static composting stations, digestion	16,000 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being very small.	22,500 tons There is a medium risk of non-takeover, depending on the quality of the compost.	21,964 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being very small.
Digester - energy	-	-	50,211 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being very small.
TMB station with anaerobic treatment - CLO	22,200 tons There is a high risk of non-takeover, depending on the demand from the cement plants and the quality of the material.	11,437 tons There is a high risk of non-takeover, depending on the demand from the cement plants and the quality of the material.	11,437 tons There is a high risk of non-takeover, depending on the demand from the cement plants and the quality of the material.
- recyclable waste	2100 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being small.	4162 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being small.	4162 tons There is a small risk of non-takeover, the quantity being small.
TMB station with anaerobic treatment - RDF	-	21,730 tons There is a risk of non-takeover, depending on the demand from the cement plants and the quality of the material.	21,730 tons There is a risk of non-takeover, depending on the demand from the cement plants and the quality of the material.

Table 37. Assessment of compliance with principles of circular economy.

TOTAL	Amount of Municipal Waste Generated in 2025	Amount of Material Co-Processed Waste 2025	Degree of Material Capitalization, %
Alternative 0	158,403	82,085	51.82
Alternative 1	158,403	105,190	66.40
Alternative 2	158,403	110,476	69.74

Regarding compliance with the principles of the circular economy, Alternatives 1 and 2 present better material capitalization rates (66.40% and 69.74%, respectively, compared to 51.82% under Alternative 0). These higher rates indicate that Alternatives 1 and 2 are more aligned with circular economy principles, as they focus more on recovering materials for reuse and minimizing the waste sent to landfills.

Regarding energy recovery, Alternatives 1 and 2 achieve much higher energy recovery rates (22.88% and 22.84%) by 2025, when compared to Alternative 0 (1.90%). This indicates a much higher level of energy utilization in these alternatives, making them more energy efficient.

In terms of output risks, recyclables and RDF face varying degrees of non-takeover risk depending on market demand. Alternatives 1 and 2 have higher quantities of output with higher risk for certain materials, while Alternative 0 maintains smaller volumes with lower risks (Table 38, Table 39 and Table 40).

Table 38. The degree of achievement of the targets in the case of Alternative 0.

Degree of Achievement of Targets/Alternative 0		The Year 2020		The Year 2025		The Year 2030		The Year 2035		The Year 2040
		%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton
Increasing readiness for reuse and recycling, Method 2 (2020) and Method 4 (2025–2048)	Aim	50	22,495	50	76,302	60	89,701	65	95,203	65	93,273
	Achievable	100	22,495	43.63	33,292	36.3	32,566	33.46	31,856	33.4	31,161
Reducing the amount of waste disposed of through storage (amount that can still be stored)	Aim	40	62,560	30	45,781	20	29,900	10	15,226	10	14,929
	Achievable	-	107,439	-	71,053	-	69,126	-	66,708	-	64,343
Reducing landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste	Aim	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746
	Achievable	-	19,080	-	19,080	-	19,080	-	19,080	-	19,080
Increasing the degree of energy recovery of municipal waste	Aim	15	25,603	15	22,890	15	20,966	15	20,508	15	20,061
	Achievable	7.6	1949	14.33	3281	15.25	3198	15.10	3097	14.94	2998

Table 39. The degree of achievement of the targets in the case of Alternative 1.

Degree of Achievement of Targets/Alternative 1		The Year 2020		The Year 2025		The Year 2030		The Year 2035		The Year 2040
		%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton
Increasing readiness for reuse and recycling, Method 2 (2020) and Method 4 (2025–2048)	Aim	50	22,495	50	76,302	60	89,701	65	95,203	65	93,273
	Achievable	100	38,575	100	152,163	100	149,026	100	146,026	100	143,057
Reducing the amount of waste disposed of through storage (amount that can still be stored)	Aim	40	62,560	30	45,781	20	29,900	10	15,226	10	14,929
	Achievable	-	107,439	100	20,633	100	20,233	86.45	19,844	85.35	19,588
Reducing landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste	Aim	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746
	Achievable	40.8	19,080	86,347	100	84,640	100	82,971	100	81,338	86,347
Increasing the degree of energy recovery of municipal waste	Aim	15	25,603	15	22,890	15	20,966	15	20,508	15	20,061
	Achievable	6.6	1689	100	36,260	100	35,016	100	33,807	100	33,104

Table 40. The degree of achievement of the targets in the case of Alternative 2.

Degree of Achievement of Targets/Alternative 2		The Year 2020		The Year 2025		The Year 2030		The Year 2035		The Year 2040
		%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton	%	Ton
Increasing readiness for reuse and recycling, Method 2 (2020) and Method 4 (2025–2048)	Aim	50	22,495	50	76,302	60	89,701	65	95,203	65	93,273
	Achievable	84.8	19,080	100	157,963	100	154,826	100	151,826	100	148,857
Reducing the amount of waste disposed of through storage (amount that can still be stored)	Aim	40	62,560	30	45,781	20	29,900	10	15,226	10	14,929
	Achievable		107,439	100	14,803	100	14,483	100	14,171	100	13,865
Reducing landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste	Aim	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746	35	46,746
	Achievable	40.8	19,080	100	92,147	100	90,440	100	88,771	100	87,138
Increasing the degree of energy recovery of municipal waste	Aim	15	25,603	15	22,890	15	20,966	15	20,508	15	20,061
	Achievable	6.6	1689	100	36,260	100	35,016	100	33,807	100	33,104

In summary, Alternatives 1 and 2 are more efficient in terms of energy recovery and material recycling, demonstrating higher capitalization of waste materials, in addition to better alignment with circular economy principles and energy recovery goals; however, they come with higher risks of non-takeover for certain waste outputs, particularly for RDF.

Notably, while Alternative 0 has lower rates of energy recovery and material capitalization, it may carry lower risks of non-takeover due to the smaller quantities of materials generated.

The proposed waste management alternatives were compared in terms of the degree to which they achieve the targets set for recycling, reducing landfilling, and increasing energy recovery.

Alternatives 1 and 2 were found to be the most effective in meeting the recycling and landfill reduction targets, achieving 100% of the targets set for all time steps analyzed from 2025 to 2040.

In contrast, Alternative 0 failed to meet the recycling and energy recovery targets, with a low degree of achievement and values significantly lower than the targets.

In terms of waste landfill reduction, all alternatives indicated remarkable progress, with Alternatives 1 and 2 consistently achieving 100% of the 2025–2040 targets, while Alternative 0 remained steady at around 100% in this direction.

Biodegradable waste landfill reduction targets are most easily achieved under Alternatives 1 and 2, which were found to reach 100% of their targets as early as 2025, compared to Alternative 0, which remained well below this threshold.

In terms of energy recovery from waste, Alternatives 1 and 2 stand out, fully achieving the targets starting in 2025 and continuing until 2040, while Alternative 0 failed to reach even half of the energy recovery target (Table 41).

Table 41. Result of the analysis of alternatives for the year 2025.

Criterion	Alternative “Zero”	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
Investment costs
Total investment costs (Euros)	-	43,106,900	56,756,900
Score (1–3)	3	2	1
O&M costs
Net operating costs (mil.Euro)	10,019	11,973	11,454
Score (1–3)	1	2	3
Environmental impact
Greenhouse gas emissions (tons of CO2(e)/year)	1534	−9563	−9989
Score (1–3)	1	2	3
The degree of energy recovery of waste
The amount/percentage of waste converted into energy (tons/%)	1.90%	22.88%	22.84%
Score (1–3)	1	3	2
Market risk
The degree of dependence on the operation of existing facilities
Score (1–3)	1	2	2
Compliance with the principles of the circular economy
The amount/percentage of material and energetically recovered waste (tons/%)	51.82%	66.40%	69.74%
Score (1–3)	1	2	3
Another relevant criterion
Overall rating (total score)	8	13	14

The evaluation was carried out for the three analyzed alternatives and the alternative with the highest score was selected.

The grading system presented in the table above is structured as follows: 1 represents the worst-performing alternative, while 3 represents the best alternative. The alternative selected based on the results of this analysis was Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 was developed starting from the premise of optimizing the operationalization of the SMID project, especially regarding the treatment facilities (TMB), to which a series of additional investment proposals are added, as presented in the table below.

The description of Alternative 2 also includes a detailed analysis related to the verification of the approach to meeting the objectives; as such, the approach to achieving the targets and objectives is summarized in Table 42.

Table 42. Approach to achieve the set targets and objectives under Alternative 2.

The Target/Objective	Target Quantification	Alternative 2
The separation of recyclable waste	50% of the total generated in 2020, according to PNGD	50%
	75% of the total generated in 2025, according to PNGD	70%
The separate collection of biowaste	45% of the total generated in 2020, according to PNGD	45%
Municipal waste recycling/reuse	50% of total recyclable waste generated in 2020	50%
	50% of total municipal waste generated in 2025	65%
	55% of total municipal waste generated in 2030	65%
	60% of total municipal waste generated in 2035	65%
Landfill reduction—biodegradable	Maximum quantity that can be stored (starting from 2020, maximum 35% of the quantity stored in 1995: 46,746 tons)	46,746 tons
Municipal waste storage target	10% of the amount of municipal water generated in 2035	10%
Energy recovery target	15% of collected municipal waste in 2020	15%

From the data presented above it follows that, in the case of Alternative 2, the targets can be fully achieved starting from the year 2025 through the operation of the facilities proposed for the treatment of biowaste and residual waste.

A summary of the investment and operating costs under Alternative 2, at the 2025 level—when it is estimated that all the proposed facilities will become operational—is provided in Table 43, Table 44 and Table 45.

Table 43. Investment costs and operation and maintenance costs—Alternative 2 (euro).

Activity	Capacity (Tons/2025)	Investment Cost (Euro/Ron)	Total Investment Cost (Euro)	Amount of Waste (Tons/2025)	Operation and Maintenance Cost * (Euro/Ton)	Total Operating Cost (Euro/2025)
Collection and transport costs	160,000	111.57	17,851,900	158,403	48.06	7,612,848
Waste transfer costs	65,800	9.65	635,000	65,800	21.93	1,442,994
Waste sorting costs	62,000	98.55	6,110,000	31,371	47.2	1,480,711
Digester construction costs and complementary equipment	32,000	682.50	21,840,000	31,211	38.5	1,201,624
Waste composting costs	19,000	49.74	945,000	19,000	47.1	894,900
Modernized TMB costs	60,000	100.00	6,000,000	57,185	51.8	2,962,183
Storage costs, including the circular economy contribution	1,950,000	1.73	3,375,000	14,803	34.56	511,592
Total gross operating costs (euro)	-	-	56,756,900	-	-	16,106,852
Total estimated revenues (euro)	-	-	-	-	-	4,672,818
Total net operating costs (euro)	-	-	56,756,900	-	-	11,434,034

* includes the operator’s profit, estimated at 10%.

Table 44. Payment capacity of the population.

Indicator	Unit	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Average net income at household level	lei/month	3467	3815	4103	4400	5116	5116
	euro/month	750	829	896	961	1117	1117
Currency exchange rate		4.62	4.60	4.58	4.58	4.58	4.58
Maximum monthly household sanitation bill value	lei/month inclusive VAT	34.67	38.15	41.03	44	51.16	51.16
	lei/month exclusive of VAT	29.13	32.06	34.48	36.97	42.99	42.99
Number of persons per household at the level of Bihor county	people	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67
The amount of waste generated by the population	kg/place/month	25.39	25.39	25.4	25.22	25.22	25.04
Maximum bearable rate	lei/ton exclusive of VAT	429.70	472.92	508.42	549.42	638.43	643.02
	euro/ton	93.01	102.36	110.05	118.92	138.19	139.18

Table 45. Average unit cost per county for 2025.

No.	Cost/Income Elements	Amount of Waste (t)	Unit Value (EUR/t)	Total Value (euro)
a	Collection and transport costs	158,403	48.06	7,612,848
b	Costs—waste transfer	65,800	21.93	1,442,994
c	Costs—waste sorting	31,371	47.2	1,480,711
d	Digestor	31,211	38.5	1,201,624
e	Costs—static composting green waste and biowaste collected separately	19,000	47.1	894,900
f	Costs—TMB waste collected in the mix	57,185	51.8	2,962,183
g	Costs—waste storage	14,803	34.56	511,592
i	Costs with the contribution to the circular economy	14,803	48.06	7,612,848
i	Total gross operating costs (I = a + b + c + d)			16,106,852
k	Revenues from the recovery of recyclable waste	45	29,802	1,341,110
l	Compost/digestate	5	18,050	90,250
m	Revenues from biogas/energy recovery	12.64	36,260	458,326.4
n	Revenues related to the share borne by OTR	176.1	15,686	2,762,217
o	Total net operating cost (II = I-h-i-j-k)			11,454,948
Total net operating cost				72.31
The value of the maximum tax/tariff that can be borne at the county level (without VAT)				139.18
The percentage at which the maximum bearable tariff covers the average unit cost per county (%)				100
Difference to be covered (euro/ton)				-

Analyzing the values from the table above and comparing them with the maximum rate per ton, calculated at the county level, the following can be found (Table 46):

Table 46. Analysis of the affordability level of associated tariffs.

The affordability level of the tariffs	2025
Average net unit operating cost, including investment amortization and operator profit (euro/ton excl. VAT)	72.31
The maximum bearable tariff for the population (euro/ton excl. VAT)	139.18
Average cost/maximum rate ratio (%)	51.95

✓

The maximum bearable tariff covers the average unit cost per county;

✓

The difference to be covered is negative, which means that the population has the capacity to cover the costs of sanitation services.

Thus, the percentage at which the maximum tariff bearable by the population covers the average unit cost per county is over 100% throughout the analyzed period.

4. Conclusions

Sustainable waste management is a fundamental responsibility of any community. In Bihor County, Romania, a county-wide waste management plan has been developed based on the study underlying this paper. Its primary objective is to establish a framework for implementing a sustainable waste management system at the local level, ensuring compliance with established targets and objectives.

Using baseline data from 2018 and analyzing trends over the previous five years, projections for 2020–2025 were developed, considering socio-economic, macroeconomic, and demographic factors, as well as household income, economic activity, waste quantity, composition, and flows. The analysis relied on official data from the National Statistical Commission, the National Commission for Prognosis, annual reports from waste management operators, APM Bihor, and the National Waste Management Plan, alongside other relevant sources. The study also assessed the situation following the implementation of the Integrated Waste Management System (SMID) and evaluated the feasibility of achieving the 2025 targets.

Additionally, the research incorporated the requirements of the circular economy package adopted in June 2018, which sets progressive targets for reuse and recycling until 2035. By 2040, Romania must reduce landfilled municipal waste to 10% of total waste generation.

The study aimed to prioritize investment measures that align with European Commission directives while considering the economic capacity of the local population in Bihor County. The proposed solutions not only meet circular economy requirements but also ensure environmental sustainability and financial feasibility for the community.