SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT I? U. Asmmi " olidwastemanagement isoneamongthebasicessential _.servicesprovidedby municipal authoritiesin the Table 8.2 WasteQuantities and \5C"aste GenerationRatesin 1 miliion plus Cities and StateCapitals *1countryto keepurbancentres clean.However, it is amongthemostpoorlyrendered services in thebasketthe City systemsappliedare unscientic,outdatedand ineicient; populationcoverage is low; and the poor aremarginalized. Vadodara* Wasteislitteredalloverleadingto insanitary livingconditions. Kohima Municipal laws governing the urban local bodies do not Nashik Lucknow Guwahati haveadequate provisionsto dealeffectivelywith the ever growingproblemof solidwastemanagement. With rapid Gandhinagar urbanization,the situationis becomingcritical.The urban Jabalpur population has grown vefold in the last six decades Ranchi with 285.35million peopleliving in urbanareasasperthe Nagpur 2001 Census. QjuAN'rUM ANDNATUR13 op SOLIDWAS'I"1¬ Table 81 WasteGenerationper Capita in lndian cities Populationrange (in million) 0 1 to 0 5 to 1 0 to 2 0 to 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 5 0 plus Averageper capitawastegeneration gmslcapita]day 210 250 270 350 Wastegeneration rate(kg/c/d/) 157.33 12.48 200 474.59 166.25 43.62 216.19 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.225 0.23 208.27 0.246 503.85 0.25 Dehradun 131 0.29 Raipur 184.27 0.3 Indore Bhubaneshwar Patna Ahmedabad Faridabad Dhanbad 556.51 234.46 510.94 1302 448.01 77.12 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.387 Bhopal Agartala 1669 574.07 77.36 0.39 0.4 0.4 Asansol Darnan Meerut 206.65 15.2 490 0.425 0.43 0.46 Agra 653.57 0.49 Allahabad Ludhiana 509.24 734.37 0.51 0.53 Jamshedpur Visakhapatanam 387.98 600 0.59 0.62 Percapitawastegeneration rangesbetween0.2 kg and 0.6 kg perdayin theIndiancitiesamountingto about1.15lakh MT of wasteperdayand42 million MT annually.Also,as thecityexpands, average percapitawastegeneration increases Bangalore (Tables 8.1 and 8.2). Wastequantity generated(MT/d) Note;MT/ d: metrictonnesperday;kg/c/d:kilogramspercapitaperday. 500 *Thereportingdoesnot seemto betrue.It shouldbein therangeof 0.3 (kg/c/d)kilograms percapitaperdaylookingat the sizeof the Sourte: NEER1 (1995) city and commercialactivitiescarriedout therein. Saurce:Akolkar (2005) Viewsexpressed in the chapterareof the author. $- Safari Waste/1/[maczgemmt161 The wastegenerationratesin India arelowerthan the lowincomecountriesin otherpartsof theworld andmuch lowercompared to developed countries(Annexe TablesA8.1 andA8.2).However, lifestylechanges, especially in thelarger cities,areleadingto the useof morepackaging materialand andpractices continue to beoutdated andineicient.No serious effortsaremadeto adaptlatestmethodsandtechnologies of wastemanagement, treatmentanddisposal. Thougha large portion of the municipalbudgetis allottedfor solidwaste management, mostof it is spenton the wagesof sanitation workers whoseproductivity isverylow.Thereareno clearplans per capita wastegenerationis increasingby about 1.3 per centperyear.With theurbanpopulationgrowingat 2.7per to enhancetheir efficiencyor improveworkingconditions centto 3.5 per centper annum,the yearlyincrease in the throughthe provisionof modernequipmentandprotective overallquantityof solidwastein thecitieswill bemorethan gear.Unionizationof the workers,politicizationof labour 5 percent.The EnergyandResources Institute(TERI) has unionsandtheconsequent indisciplineamongtheworkforce estimated thatwastegeneration will exceed 260milliontonnes areall resultsof badworkingconditionsandinepthandling of labour issues. peryearby 2047more thanfivetimesthepresentlevel. Almostallthe3955townswith populationbelow100,000 Cities with 100,000plus population contribute 72.5 per centof the wastegenerated in the countryascomparedto run SWM services ratherunprofessionally. Theydependon other3955urbancentres that produceonly 17.5percentof sanitaryinspectors to managesolidwastewith the help of the total waste (Table 8.3). sanitation workers. In manysmalltowns,evenqualifiedsanitary inspectors arenot postedandservices areleft in thehandsof Table 8.3 unqualifiedsupervisors. WasteGenerationin Class1 Cities with Population The situationof citieswith 100,000pluspopulationis above 100,000 somewhatbetter,though far from satisfactory. In these cities, generally there are health officers who head the Typeofm<:.i_ti_e.s_WWMMWMMm;Tow1_1.r'ime_s./day percentof totalgarbage SWM department.In someof the largercities qualied The7mega cities 21,100 engineerssuperviseSWM seekingtechnicalinputs from The 28 metro cities 19,643 17.08 The 388 class 1 towns 42,635 37.07 Total 83,378 72 50 doctors as well. Note: Mega cities are above4 million population and metro cities (alsoknownasmillion pluscities)arethe sameasthe identified cities under the proposedJNNURM (TableA1.1). Class 1 cities with populationin the 100,000to 1 million rangeare388 in number. Source:MOUD (2005) AésemeofCommum'ty Pzz7ticz}>./atian Communityparticipationhasa directbearingon efficient SWM.Yet,themunicipalauthoritieshavefailedto mobilize the community and educatecitizens on the rudiments of handlingwasteandproperpractices of storingit in theirown binsat thehousehold, shopandestablishmentlevel. In the absenceof a basicfacility of collection of wastefrom source, citiesvary dependingon populationsizeand geographical citizens are prone to dumping waste on the streets,open Physicalandchemicalcharacteristics of solidwastein Indian location(Annexe Tables A8.3,A8.4,A8.7andA8.8).Though compositionof urbanwasteis changingwith increasing use of packagingmaterialand plastics,yet, as comparedto developed countries, Indiansolidwastestill comprises mostly, of largeproportions of organicmatteraswellasinertmaterial (Annexe Tables A8.5 and A86). REASONS FORINADEQUACY AND spaces,drains,and water bodiesin the vicinity creating insanitary conditions.Citizensassumethat wastethrown on thestreetswouldbepickedup by themunicipalitythrough streetsweeping. Forthegeneralpublic,whichis quiteindifferenttowards garbagedisposaletiquette,the onus of keepingthe city cleanis entirelyon the ULBs.This mind setis primarily responsible for theunscientific systems of wastemanagement in the country. INE.FF1CIEN(jY IN SERVICIES /l]7zZZ}J}/ 0fM";'/mit'z]>a[ /lzzt/lroritias DRA\x/BACKS IN PRESENT S\X7M SERVICES Thoughmunicipalauthorities haveheldtheresponsibility of managing solidwastefromtheirinceptionoverthreecenturies ago,the issueseldomgot the attentionit deserved. Elected representatives aswellasthemunicipalauthoritiesgenerally relegate theresponsibility of managing municipalsolidwaste (MSW/)to juniorofcialssuchassanitaryinspectors. Systems [V0Storage 0f Wfaste onSource e Thereis no practiceof storing the wasteat sourcein a scientifically segregated way.Citizenshavenot beeneducated to keepdomestic,trade,andinstitutionalbinsfor storage of wasteat sourceand stop littering on the streets. 162 India I7/zastmcrum Repart2006 thisoldandrumblingsquadof squalidvehicles. Thetraditional N0 System qf7Vz'7Vza.7jy C0ZZeL2fz'm:z om theDoarsrep transportationsystemdoesnot synchronizewith the system Thereis no public systemof primarycollectionfrom the of primarycollectionand secondary wastestoragefacilities source of wastegeneration. Thewastedischarged hereandthere andmultiplemanualhandlingof wasteresults. islatercollected bymunicipalsanitation workers throughstreet sweeping, draincleaning, etc.Street sweeping has,thusbecome Pr0ce55i7zg of Wfizste theprincipalmethodof primarycollection. Generallyno processing of municipalsolidwasteis donein the country.Only a few cities havebeenpractisingde- IrregularStreetSweepzg centralizedor centralizedcompostingon a limited scaleusing aerobicor anaerobic systems of composting. In sometowns unsegregated wasteis put into thepitsandallowedto decay material andimportantstreets areprioritizedandrestof thestreets are for morethansixmonthsandthesemidecomposed is sold out as compost. In some large cities aerobic compost sweptoccasionally or not sweptat all. Generally, no sweeping aresetup but they is doneon Sundays and public holidaysand a backlog is plantsof 100MT to 700 MT capacities arefunctioningmuchbelowinstalledcapacity. A fewtowns createdon thenextworkingday. are practising vermicomposting on a limited scale. Thetoolsusedfor streetsweeping aregenerally inefficient Evenstreetsweepingis not carriedout on a daytodaybasis in mostcitiesandtownsin India. Generallycommercialroads and outdated. For instance, the broom with a short handle is still in useforcingsweepers to bendfor hoursresultingin Disposalof W/Zzsre fatigueandlossof productivity. Traditional handcarts/tricycles Disposalof wasteis themostneglected areaof SWMservices are usedfor collection, which do not synchronizewith the andthe currentpractices aregrosslyunscientific. Almostall secondary storage systems. Wasteis deposited on theground municipalauthoritiesdepositsolid wasteat a dumpyard necessitating multiplehandling. situatedwithin or outsidethe city haphazardly anddo not Therearenouniformyardsticks adopted forstreetsweeping. botherto spread andcoverthewastewith inertmaterial. These Though,somestates/ citieshaveprescribed worknorms, these sites emanate foul smell and become breeding grounds for are not very scientific. Most of the cities allocatework to flies, rodent, and pests. Liquid seeping through the rotting sanitation workers on ad hoc basis. The work distribution pollutesunderground waterand ranges between 200metresto 1000metresof streetsweeping organicwastecalledleachate poses a serious threat to health and environment. eachday. Somesanitationworkersare found under worked Landll sitesalsorelease landfillgaswith 50to 60 percent while some over burdened. methaneby volume.Methaneis 21 timesmorepotentthan carbondioxideaggravating problems related to globalwarming. It is estimatedby TERI that in 1997 India releasedabout 7 Wbsze StamgeDepots million tonnesof methaneinto theatmosphere. This could As wasteis collectedthroughtraditionalhandcarts/tricycles increaseto 39 million tonnesby 2047 if no efforts aremade thatcancarryonlya smallquantityof wasteat a time,thereis to reducetheemissionthroughcomposting, recycling,etc. a practiceto setup depotsfor temporarystorage of wasteto facilitatetransportation throughmotorized vehicles. Generally, open sitesor round cementconcretebins, masonrybins or TI;t:HNOL(>GJL2s AVAILABLEFOR PR(><:EssINt;, concrete structures areusedfor temporary bulkstorage, which necessitates multiple handlingof waste.Wasteoften spills overwhichis both unsightlyaswell asunhygienic. TR13A'tMi:N't, AND DISPOSALOF SOLID VVASTI3 tmzsportation of Wlzste Transportation of wastefromthewastestorage depotsto the disposalsite is donethrougha varietyof vehiclessuchas bullock carts, threewheelers, tractors, and trucks. A few cities The main technologicaloptionsavailablefor processing/ treatmentand disposalof MSW are composting,vermicomposting, anaerobic digestion/biomethanation, incineration, gasification andpyrolysis, plasma pyrolysis, production of Refuse DerivedFuel(RDF),alsoknownaspelletization andsanitary landlling/landfillgasrecovery. Not alltechnologies areequally good.Eachoneof themhasadvantages andlimitations. usemodernhydraulicvehicles aswell.Mostof thetransport vehicles areold andopen.Theyareusuallyloadedmanually. C0mp0.stz'ng The fleetis generallyinadequate and utilizationinoptimal. Compostingis a technologyknown in India sincetimes Inefficientworkshopfacilitiesdo not do muchto support immemorial.Compostingis the decomposition of organic @ SolidWaste ll/Kmzzagemem 163 matter by microorganismin warm, moist, aerobicand 100-700 TPD (AnnexeTableA8.9). Many havebeenclosed anaerobicenvironment. Farmershavebeen using compost downor arefunctioningatalowercapacity. Thosefunctioning aregenerally beingmanaged by theprivatesectorthrougha madeout of cowdungand otheragrowaste. The compost madeout of urbanheterogeneous wasteis found to be of highernutrientvalueascompared to thecompostmadeout of cowdungandagrowaste. Composting of MSWis,therefore, themostsimpleandcosteffectivetechnology for treatingthe organicfraction of MSW Fullscalecommercially viable composting technology is alreadydemonstrated in Indiaand is in usein several citiesandtowns.Its applicationto farm land,teagardens, fruit orchards or its useassoilconditioner in parks,gardens, agriculturallands,etc.,is however, limited on accountof poormarketing. Main advantages of composting includeimprovement in soiltextureandaugmenting of micronutrientdeciencies. It alsoincreases moistureholding capacityof thesoilandhelps in maintaining soilhealth.Moreover, it isanageold established conceptfor recyclingnutrientsto the soil. It is simpleand straightforward to adopt,for sourceseparated MSW It does not requirelargecapitalinvestment, compared to otherwaste treatmentoptions.The technologyis scaleneutral. contractual arrangementwith municipal authorities. Most of theplantsarefacinga problemof marketingthecompost dueto an ineffectivemarketingmechanism. The capitalinvestmentrequirement for suchprojectsis typicallyin therangeof Rs10to 20 millionper 100MT per dayplantdepending on sophistication. 3%/miCfomposring Vermicompost is thenaturalorganicmanureproduced from theexcreta of earthworms fedonscientically semideoomposed organicwaste.A few vermicompostingplantsgenerallyof smallsizehavebeensetup in somecitiesandtownsin India, the largestplant beingin Bangalore of about100MT/day capacity. Normally,vermicomposting ispreferred to microbial compostingin small towns asit requireslessmechanization andit is easyto operate.It is, however, to be ensuredthat toxicmaterialdoesnot enterthechainwhichif presentcould Composting issuitablefor organicbiodegradable fraction kill the earthworms. of MSW yard (or garden)waste/waste containinghigh proportionof lignocelluloses materials, whichdo not readily W/zzste to Energy degrade underanaerobic conditions, wastefromslaughterhouse and dairy waste. Eventhoughthetechnology of wasteto energy (WTE)projects This method,however,is not very suitablefor wastesthat may be too wet and during heavyrainsopen compostplants haveto bestopped.Landrequiredfor opencompostplants is relativelylarge.Also,issuesof methaneemission,odour, andfliesfrom badlymanaged opencompostplantsremain. At the operational level,if wastesegregation at sourceis not properlycarriedoutthereispossibility of toxicmaterial entering thestreamof MSW It is essential that compostproducedbe safefor application.Standardization of compostqualityis, therefore, necessary. TheMSW (Management andHandling) Rules2000(MSWRules2000)havespecified certainlimits to acceptable percentage of heavymetalsin compost produced from MSW anda mechanism is put in placeto ensurethat thesamearestrictlyimplemented. Marketingof compostis a major concernfor private operators. Lackof awareness amongthefarmersregarding the benefitsof usingcompostis animpedimentto its sale.Also, thereis a needto marketthe productnearthecompostsite to minimize transportationcost. Compostingp1Oj¬:C{S in India hasbeenprovenworldwide, its viability and sustainabilityis yet to be to be demonstratedand establishedin the country. The main factorsthat determinethe technoeconomic viability of\WTE projects arequantumof investment, scale of operation, availabilityof quality waste,statutoryrequirementsand project risks. WTE projectsgenerallyinvolvehighercapitalinvestment andaremorecomplex whencompared to otheroptionsof waste disposal,but aspointedby Ministry of NonConventional EnergySources (MNES),gainsin termsof wastereduction, energy, etc.arealsohigher.Suchplantsarefinanciallyviable in developed countries mainlybecause of thetippingfees/ gate feescharged by thefacilityfor theservice of wastedisposal, in additionto itsrevenue incomefrompowersales. It isthereafter the soleresponsibilityof the facility operatorto treatand dispose of theaccepted wasteasperstatutoryrequirements. However, at presentin India,revenue frompowersales is the only sourceof revenue for WTE plants. Mostcitiesgenerate sufficientwastequantitiesto enable projectsof totalpowergeneration capacities rangingfrom550MW whichcorresponds to MSWgeneration rangingfrom 500-5000TPD. Technologically it is feasible to setup even smallercapacity projects of theI-5 MW range,corresponding Therearemanysmallandlargecompostingprojectsin the countrythoughtheexactfigureisnot known.Thetreatment to around 100-500 TPD wastetreatment. However, economies capacity designed for thesefacilitiesin largecitiesranges from of scale generally favourcentralized, largescale projects. Waste 164 India ,I7nzz5zmcrure Report2006 froma numberof adjoiningregions/ citiescouldbetreatedat a commonWTE facility; however,in suchcasesthe costsof wastetransportation versus projectsbenetsmustbecarefully evaluated. Enforcement of strictmeasures for segregation of waste atsource in orderto avoidmixingof undesirable wastestreams will playa majorrolein makinga WTE facilityfinancially viable.Thestatutoryrequirements that aWTE facilitymust complywith, will directlygovernthe costof the stringent environmental pollutioncontrolmeasures to beincorporated in the overallfacility The termsfor MSW supply,allotmentof landandsale/ purchase of powerdirectlyaffectthenetrevenue to thefacility operatorandarefactorsin determining thefinancialviability of projectsandprivatesectorparticipation.SinceFI lending for suchfacilitiesis usuallyprojectbased,it is criticalthat eitherdirectlyor afterdrying,its qualityneedsto beensured to meetstatutorystandards. No grindingof wastematerial shouldtakeplace.Wastewater generated in theplantrequires treatmentbeforedisposal to meetstatutorystandards. Biogas leakage poses asmallenvironmental andre hazard. Thisplant is morecapitalintensivethan aerobiccomposting.The biogas technology developed at BARCin Indiaandcommercialized asNisarguna Biogas Plantisanimprovement onthistechnology (Box 8.1). Biomethanationplants in India Recentlya 5 MW powerplant basedon biomethanation technologywasconstructedand operationalizedat Lucknow but unfortunatelyit hadto becloseddown for variousreasons, oneamongthembeingnonsupplyof appropriate qualityof MSWto theplant.Theorganiccontentin thewastesupplied agreements. Theenergyoff takeagreements mustbein place, to the plant is reportedto havebeenaslow as15 per cent. to ensuremarketability. Biomethanation technology onasmallscale isalsofunctioning Somewasteto energy technologies arediscussed hereunder. at Vijayawadaand at other placesin the countryfor the treatmentof selected organicwastecollectedfrom canteens, vegetable markets,etc. AnaerobicDigestion and Biomethanation all project risks be suitably addressed,with backtoback Biomethanation isacomparatively wellestablished technology Production of RefuseDerived Fuel (RDF) or Pelletization for disinfections, deodorization and stabilizationof sewage methodfor mixedMSW,which sludge,farmyardmanures,animalslurries,and industrial It is basicallya processing sludge.Itsapplication to theorganicfractionof MSWismore canbeveryeffectivein preparingan enrichedfuel feedfor like incinerationor industrialfurnaces. recentandlessextensive. It leadsto biogas/ powergeneration thermalprocesses TheRDFpellets canbeconveniently storedandtransported in additionto productionof compost(residual sludge). This andcanbeusedasa coalsubstituteat a lower methodprovides avalueadditionto theaerobic(composting) longdistances processand alsoofferscertainother clearadvantages over price. As pelletizationinvolvessignificantMSW sorting compostingin termsof energyproduction/consumption, operations,it providesa greateropportunity to remove environmentally harmfulmaterials fromtheincomingwaste compostqualityandnetenvironmental gains. This method is suitable for kitchen wastes and, other putresciblewastes,which may be too wet and lackingin structurefor aerobiccomposting. It isa netenergyproducing process (100150k\Whpertonneof wasteinput).A totally enclosed systemenables all thegasproducedto becollected for use.A modularconstruction of plantandclosedtreatment needslesslandarea.Thisplantis freefrombadodour,rodent andfly menace, visiblepollution,andsocialresistance. It has potentialfor codisposal with otherorganicwastestreams from agrobased industry. Theplantcanbescaled updepending on the availability of the waste. prior to combustion. The process,however,is energyintensiveand not suitable for wet MSW duringrainyseason. If RDF fluff/pelletsare contaminated by toxic/hazardous material,thepelletsarenot safefor burningin theopenor for domesticuse. RDFPlantsin India: Suchplantsarein the initial stageof development in India. The viability and sustainabilityof thetechnology process andprojectsunderway, arestill being examined. TheDepartment of Science andTechnology (DST)of the Technology Information,Forecasting andAssessment Council (TIFAC)NewDelhihadinitiallyperfected thetechnology of complexorganicsor oils, grease,or lignocellulosicmaterials processing municipalsolidwasteto separate thecombustible suchasyardwaste.Similarto theaerobiccomposting process fractionandcarryout densification into fuelpelletsto a scale plantat theDeonar input wasteneedsto be segregated for improvingdigestion of 2 tonnesperhourin a demonstration efficiency(biogasyield) and the qualityof residualsludge. Dump Yardof the MumbaiMunicipalCorporation.Fuel While theliquid sludgecanbeusedasrich organicmanure, pelletsproducedin the demoplant werefound to havea However,this methodis suitablefor only the organic biodegradable fractionof MS\X/;it doesnot degradeany .5}/.£'z'.cl W/1555 /S/ifrwzagewzenzf 165 L LT fVfL LLL ' LL plant use~L,vegeLtableL, and,fruiLt1maLrke't:fwasteL,.Lfruit and .propcessLingLindLustrie's waste, domestic Lar1LdVinstitutional kitchen] L 1wéLste,{paper,sgaLrdénL Waste; animal anldsisabattbir waste etc.However. ithewastegthatyc cannot. betreated audiobeLstrictly Lavoided'areL ,L,Vcoco,nutLshells.'eggLshells; big'boI1es,.plastic/polythenegglassgymetai, sandL,1Lsilt,VVdLebtis buiVldingVmaterials', wood; clo'th/clotheLLLs,,r,OLpesL,l1ylonthreads;_batteries,Htyresfrubberghazardous waste etc.LMLuLnicipalauthorities;therefore, have to; L, thsfs6gf¬8atedlLwast¢beeS¢YiS@1P.LtheL.biog:;glplarigfiy I 1LMajorL components ofthefplantsareyia mixture/pulper (5Vmotor)LtheL soli;dwaLstLe,L pLremixL»tank(s),gpredigestertanl§,L, fgLai_rLcon1preLssLL .r:VV.IiiaiI1t¬f1aIi¢¢¢harg¢sL(RS)[ . : V; LV(I0I1H¢S/da5*)V.. . _ - V. V9;1Lo eL L3,g.NotLe: This'is-Lari approLi:irnate;cost for g¢Ln,eLration and,increase 10-20cent y Q1o¢aIj1L(,Ln;,gife ,VLg LL._.Vspecific.parharneters, costof Lrnaterials;labo_ur_.cost etcL.1L.iin.differentstates/JcitiesL§ Costofadditional'infrastructureL.like.-officeL L LI spaceL,toilets, secLurL.ity,L compound wall, oodcontrol'measures etc}. andforpower,LgenerationL.willL"be extra, if LrLeqLuireLd.V fI L calorificvalueconsistently in excess of 3000k calperkg and the fuelwastestmarketed aroundRs1000pertonnein and aroundMumbai.Thereafter, theDSTtechnology of processing MSWintofuelpellets wastransferred toM/s.Selco International Limited,Hyderabad for scalingupandcommercial operation. TheTechnology Development Boardof DSTandTIFAChas of MSW to convertinto Huff and mix it with 30 per cent ricehuskfor generation of power.DST hasalsotransferred the technologyto M/ s SriramEnergySystemsLtd to setup a similar plant at Vijayawada.Both theseplantsareoperational assistedSelcoto set up a 6.6 MW power plant using MSW sinceNovember2003.The proportionof useof agrowaste alongwith municipalsolidwasteclaimedby theoperators of thesefacilitiesis beingchallenged by somepeopleand the derivedfuelandgenerate electricity. Selcois using400tonnes matter is under judicial scrutiny. 166 India clnztszmcrwe Repay"! 2006 [r:cz'n./:mz'z'0n Thismethod,commonlyusedin developed countries is most suitablefor highcaloricvaluewastewith a largecomponent of paper,plastic,packaging material,pathological wastes, etc. It canreducewastevolumesby over90 per cent and convert No commercial planthascomeup in Indiaor elsewhere for the disposalof MSW.It is an emergingtechnologyfor MSW,yet to be successfully demonstrated for largescale application. wasteto innocuousmaterial,with energyrecovery.The SanitaryLzina:/Elk arm! landll G25R¬¬0i'}¬7j/ methodis relativelyhygienic,noiseless, andodourless, andland Sanitary landllsaretheultimatemeans of disposal of alltypes requirements areminimal.The plantcanbe locatedwithin city limits, reducingthecostof wastetransportation. This method,however,is leastsuitablefor disposalof chlorinatedwasteand aqueous/high moisturecontent/low caloricvaluewasteassupplementary fuelmaybeneededto sustaincombustion, adversely affectingnet energyrecovery. Theplantrequires largecapitalandentailssubstantial operation andmaintenance costs.Skilledpersonnel arerequired for plant operationandmaintenance. Emissionof particulates, SOX, NOX, chlorinatedcompoundsin air and toxic metalsin particulatesconcentratedin the ashhaveraisedconcerns. incinerators in India of residual, residential, commercial and institutional waste as wellasunutilizedmunicipalsolidwastefromwasteprocessing facilitiesandothertypesof inorganicwasteandinertsthat cannot be reusedor recycledin the foreseeable future. Its main advantage is that it is the leastcostoption for wastedisposal andhasthepotentialfor therecovery of landll gasasa sourceof energy,with net environmental gainsif organicwastes arelandlled.Thegasafternecessary cleaning, canbe utilizedfor powergeneration or asdomesticfuel for directthermalapplicationsl. Highlyskilledpersonnel arenot requiredto operatea sanitarylandll. Majorlimitationof thismethodisthecostlytransportation of MSW to far awaylandll sites.Down gradientsurface watercanbe pollutedby surfacerunof in the absence of properdrainagesystems and groundwater aquifersmayget contaminated bypollutedleacheate in theabsence of a proper leacheate collectionandtreatmentsystem. An inefcientgas An incinerator capable of generating 3.75MW powerfrom300 TPD MSWwasinstalledatTimarpur,Delhiin theyear1987. It couldnot operate successfully dueto lownetcaloricvalue of MSW Theplantislyingidleandtheinvestment iswasted. recoveryprocessemits two major greenhousegases,carbon dioxideandmethane,into the atmosphere. It requireslarge land area.At timesthe cost of pretreatmentto upgrade Pyr0L:V.sz's/Gaszyfiaztion, PlasmaPym!)/51's I/irrificzzzfiorz the gasqualityand leacheate treatmentmaybe signicant. {I-PV}/Plxzsma Arc Pmcess Thereis a risk of spontaneous ignition/explosion due to in air within Pyrolysis gasication processes areestablished for homogenous possiblebuild up of methaneconcentrations enclosures if propergasventilation organicmatter like wood, pulp, etc., while plasmapyrolysis thelandll or surrounding is not constructed. vitrication is a relativelynew technologyfor disposalof particularly hazardouswastes,radioactivewastes,etc. Toxic UrbanLocalbodiesgenerally nd it verydifcult to locate of MSW materials getencapsulated in vitreousmass, whichisrelatively asuitablelandll site,whichmeetstherequirements muchsaferto handlethanincinerator/gasier ash.Theseare Rulesdue to public resistance asinvariably,no onewants nowbeingofferedasanattractive optionfor disposal of MSW landlls closeto their property.This is popularlyknownas also.In all theseprocesses, besides netenergyrecovery, proper the Not In My Backyard(NIMBY) Syndrome.The cost of destructionof the wasteis alsoensured.Theseprocesses, construction andoperation andmaintenance of anengineered therefore, havean edgeoverincineration. landll is alsohighascompared to theminimalexpenditure Thisprocess produces iel gas/fueloil, whichreplace fossil incurredtodayin thecrudedumpingof waste. Smaller landlls fuelsandcompared to incineration, atmospheric pollutioncan with overheadcoststurn out to be much more expensiveas becontrolledat theplantlevel.NO andSOgasemissions do compared to regionallandllsrun ona costsharing basis. The not occurin normaloperations dueto thelackof oxygenin Maharashtra SWM Cell has estimated that a small landll, maycostoverRs 1000perMT of wasteascompared to Rs the system. It is a capitaland energyintensiveprocessand net energy 200perMT of wastedisposed at a commonlyshared facility. recoverymay sufferin caseof wasteswith excessive moisture In India disposalof organicwasteat the landll is and inert content.High viscosityof Pyrolysisoil maybe prohibitedand it is mademandatoryto treatthe organic problematic for itstransportation andburning.Concentration of toxic]hazardous matterin gasierashneeds carein handling 1 In India, organicwasteis not to be put in landfills,hencethere anddisposal. doesnot existthe potentialfor this. SolidWastell/Iomczgemem 167 fractionof municipalsolidwastebeforedisposal of waste. The scopeof landfill gasrecovery is, therefore, minimizedin the Indian situation. Sanitarylandfill sitesin India Until recentlytherewasnot a singlesanitarylandfill sitein Experience showsthat theWTE havebeensuccessful in developingcountriesto handlelargequantitiesof MSW TwoRDFbasedwasteto energyprojectshaverecentlybeen commissioned in Indiaandfewmoreareundervariousstages of development. Their resultsareencouraging; but yetto be confirmedthroughindependent verificationastheir success is being contested. India. All cities and towns without exceptiondisposewaste mostunscientifically in lowlyingareas or thelandsdesignated JUDECIAL INTERVENIlON TOIMPROVE THESY'STE.M for the purposewithin or outsidethe city. In mostof the citiesthe wasteis not evenspreador coveredto prevent A publicinterestlitigationwasfiledbyAlmitraH. Pateland unsightlyappearance of foul smell.No pollutionprevention anotherin The SupremeCourt of India in the year1996 measures are taken. Of late four sites have been constructed (SpecialCivil ApplicationNo. 888 of 1996)againstthe Governmentof India, all stategovernments and several at Surat (Gujarat), Pune (Maharashtra),Puttur and Karwar (Karnataka). A few more sites are under construction. Under municipalauthoritiesin the countryallegingthat theyhave the Municipal Solid (Management and Handling) Rules failedto discharge theirobligatorydutyto manage municipal 2000,it is imperativefor all localbodiesin the countryto solidwasteappropriately. TheSupreme CourtsetupanExpert on the issueafterconsulting havesanitarylandfillsitesthatmeettherequirements of law. Committee,whichdeliberated in class I citiesandotherstakeholders As constructionof sanitarylandfillsis quite expensive and 300municipalauthorities needsprofessional management, sitingof regionalfacilitiesis, by holdingregionalworkshops in Mumbai,Delhi,Chennai, and Kolkata.It submittedits report to the SupremeCourt in therefore, beingactivelyconsidered in Indiain somestatesof March,1999makingdetailedrecommendations, whichwere WestBengal,Gujarat,Rajasthan, etc. circulated to all the class I cities and various stakeholders throughthe Governmentof India with interim directions FAC"I()RS GCDVERNING CHOICE OF TECHNOLOGY for implementation. To ensurecompliance,the principalrecommendations The decisionto implementanyparticulartechnologyneedsto be basedon its technoeconomicviability, sustainability,as of the SupremeCourt appointedCommitteehavebeen wellasenvironmental implications, keepingin Viewthelocal incorporated in theMunicipalSolidWaste(Management and conditionsandtheavailable physicalandfinancialresources. Handling)Rules2000notifiedbytheMinistryof Environment The key factorsare: 0 ° 0 0 ° ° ° theoriginandqualityof thewaste; presence of hazardous or toxicwaste; availabilityof outletsfor theenergyproduced; marketfor thecompost/anaerobic digestionsludge; energyprices/buyback tariff for energypurchase; costof alternatives, landpriceandcapitalandlabourcost; capabilities andexperience of thetechnology provider. It needsto be ensuredthat any proposedfacility illy complieswith theenvironmental regulations aslaiddownin the Municipal SolidWaste(Management and Handling) Rules2000 issuedby the Ministry of EnvironmentandForests and asmay be amendedfrom time to time. Moreover, it has been scientifically established that extensiveuseof chemicalfertilizers,has resultedin fertility and Forestin September2000. jluiczpal SolidWlzsre {Managewzent andHdndiing) Rules 2000 TheMinistryof EnvironmentandForestnotifiedMunicipal SolidWaste(Management andHandling)Rules2000after widelycirculatingthedraftrulesin 1999invitingobjections andsuggestions if anyandmadeit mandatory for allmunicipal authoritiesin the country,irrespectiveof their sizeand population,to implementtherules.To improvethesystems thefollowingsevendirectives aregiven. I. Prohibitlitteringonthestreets byensuring storage of waste at sourcein two bins;onefor biodegradable wasteand anotherfor recyclablematerial. 2. Primarycollection of biodegradable andnonbiodegradable wastefrom the doorstep,(includingslumsandsquatter regainits fertility aswell aswaterretainingcapacity. Studies areas) at preinformed timingson adaytodaybasisusing by theIndianCouncilfor AgriculturalResearch haveshown containerized tricycle/handcarts/ pick up vans. covering alltheresidential andcommercial that compostusedwith chemicalfertilizershasshown15 3. Streetsweeping areas on all the days of the year irrespective of Sundays and percentincrease in foodproductioncreatinga strongcasefor loss and decreasein carbon content of the soil. Hence, there is an urgent needto providehumusto the soil to enableit to its promotion. public holidays. 168 India I7;1fm5tmcr:w:* Report2006 4. Abolitionof openwastestoragedepotsandprovisionof covered containers or closedbodywastestoragedepots. 5. Transportation of wastein coveredvehicleson a dayto Pollution Control Boards as well as national and international institutionsto guidethe citiesand townsin implementing therulesexpeditiously. day basis. 6. Treatmentof biodegradable wasteusingcompostingor wasteto energytechnologiesmeeting the standardslaid down. 7. Minimizethewastegoingto thelandfill anddisposeof onlyrejectsfrom thetreatmentplantsandinert material at the landfillsas per the standardslaid down in the rules. ZlfanualhirZ1/1uniczVpa:[Au#'9oriz'é65 Government of India,Ministry of UrbanDevelopment set up an expertpanelto preparea nationalmanualon solid wastemanagement to helpthe municipalauthoritiesadopt appropriate systems of solidwastemanagement. Themanual waspublished in May2000andmadeavailable to allthestates. Therulesareto beimplemented andmonitoredin atime bound manner (Table 8.4). Campfiance 0fA15WRafe:2000 Table 8.4 Completecompliance within 31 December 2003remainsa Timeframefor the Implementationof the Rules distant dream.Many citiesand townshavenot eveninitiated 'ST§{SfWmE3§£1}§1i§B'cé"E§{EE§i§ mmmmmmmmmm msmégdlém TTTTM measures A B C D Settingupof wasteprocessing By31December 2003 or earlier anddisposal facilities Once in six months Monitoringtheperformance of waste processing and disposal facilities Improvement of existing landfill By31December sitesasperprovisions of these rules 2001or earlier Identification of landfill sites By 31 December for futureuseandmakingsite(s) readyfor operation. 2002 or earlier whereas some cities have moved forward on their ownor underthepressure of Supreme Court,respective state governments, pollution control boards,etc. There is no consolidated official data available about the status of complianceof MSW Rulesin the countrythoughall the statesare expectedto submit their annual reports.A study wasconducted to ascertain thestatusof compliance of MSW Rules2000 by classI cities of India. One hundred twenty- eight classI citiesof India respondedand the statusof compliance ason 1April 2004showsthatthereisinsignificant progress in thematterof processing of wasteandconstruction of sanitarylandfills,and only aboutonethirdcompliance hastakenplacein theremainingfivesteps(Figure8.1). RespansiéilizyrImplementation Reczyonsfor N0n~C"0mj7Zia7¢c¬ The entire responsibilityof implementationas well as development of requiredinfrastructure lieswith municipal As per municipalitiescompliancein wastecollectionis authorities.They are directed to obtain authorization from constrainedby: thestatepollutioncontrolboards/committees for settingup wasteprocessing and disposalfacilitiesand furnishannual reportof compliance. The Secretary, Urban Development Department of therespective stategovernment isresponsible for theenforcement of theprovisions in metropolitan cities.A DistrictMagistrate oraDeputyCommissioner of theconcerned districtis responsible for theenforcement of theseprovisions withintheterritoriallimit of hisjurisdiction. Thestatepollution controlboardsareexpected to monitor the complianceof standards regarding groundwater,ambientair,leacheate quality andthecompostqualityincludingincinerationstandards as specifiedin the rules.The stateboardor the committeeis directed to issue authorization to themunicipalities whenasked for within 45 daysandthe centralpollution controlboard is expected to coordinate with the stateboardsin regardto implementation of therules.Several trainingprogrammes and workshops havebeenorganized by the centralgovernment, stategovernments, CentralPollutionControl Board,State 0 lackof publicawareness, motivation,education; ° lackof widepublicitythroughelectronic andprint media; e 0 lack of finances to create awareness; ° 0 0 0 0 resistance to change; difficultyeducatingslumdwellers; lackof sufficientknowledge on benefitsof segregation; non cooperation from households, tradeandcommerce; unwillingness on partof citizensto spendon separate bin for recyclables; 0 lack of litter bins in the city; 0 nonavailability ofprimarycollection vehicles andequipment; 0 lackof powersto levyspotfines; 0 lackof financialresources for procurement of toolsand modern vehicles. In creating treatment anddisposal facilities,theconstraints outlined were: ' paucityof financialresources aswell aslackof support from stategovernment; SolidWastell/fozmzgemem 169 ° nonavailability of appropriate land; 0 prohibitivetime andcostconsiderations in landacquisition andimplementation of treatment andlandfilltechnologies; 0 lack of technicalknow how and skilledmanpowerfor treatmentanddisposalof waste; ° low qualityof municipalsolidwaste; 0 delayin clearance of disposal sites. 80 whicharestill grapplingwith choiceof technology andother operational issues. Authoritiesneedto taketheimplementing of the rulesseriouslyand find out of the boxsolutions.Days arenot far when city governments may be hauledup by the courtsand statepollution controlboards(SPCBs)for noncompliance. Given the lack of inhousecapabilityof municipal authoritiesandpaucityof financialresources, it is desirable to outsourcecertainservicesandresortto privatesector/NGO participation in providing SWM services. 76.1 PriwzteSectorP.ozrz;icz'pczL:19n in SVVMat Compliance % 531 {Jr/anLam!BadyLave! Experience the world over hasshownthat privatesector 284 participation (PSP)resultsin cost savingsand improvement in efficiencyand effectiveness in servicedeliverymainly due to financialandmanagerial autonomyandaccountability in 9.18 privatesectoroperations.Besides,it bringsin new investment andbettertechnologies. In developed countriesthe private sectormanages mostof theSWM services. In India, by and large,municipal authoritiesareproviding solidwastemanagement services departmentally. Resistance from labourunionsandinterpretations of labourlawshave discouraged cityadministrations fromcontracting outservices to privateoperators. Of late,someexperiments to privatize Fig. 8.1 Statusof ComplianceofMSX" Rule 2000 by ClassI citiesason I April 2004 certain SWM serviceshave demonstratedimprovement in the level of services in a costeffective manner. The SupremeCourt of India hasclearedthe doubtson legalimplicationsunderthe ContractLabour(Regulation Source:Asnani (2004) However, thereis a definiteawareness amonglocalbodies and Abolition) Act 1970 by its decisionin SpecialC.A. No. aswell aspolicymakers to solidwastemanagement systems. 6009-6010 of 2001 in Steel Authority of India Limited Therehasat leastbeensomeprogress in the right direction and others versus National Union Water Front Workers and othersin August2001.Thishaspavedthewayfor municipal in five yearstime, which is not a meanachievementfor India. EventheUS,whichhasbeentryingto followelfrcientSWM authorities to contract out certain SWM services. Private practices for thelast25 years,only25 percentsolidwasteis sectorparticipationhas beenattemptedin doortodoor storageof recycled and 15percentwasteis utilizedfor wasteto energy collectionof waste,streetsweeping,secondary waste, transportation of waste, composting of waste or power andremaining50percentof wasteincludingorganicmatter generation from waste and final disposal of waste at the is beinglandlled eventoday:The situationin India is fast engineered landll. improving with regularmonitoring by the SupremeCourt, Thepresentcapacity of municipalities in Indiato manage initiativesbyvariousstategovernments, largefinancialsupport fromthecentral government ontherecommendation of 12th the privatizationprocessis, however,extremelylimited. There Finance Commission, allocation of urban renewal funds to the statesandtechnicalandfinancialsupportfrom various ministriesandnationalandinternationalorganizations. is a needfor developinginhousefinancialand managerial capabilityto awardcontracts to privatesectorandmonitoring the servicesprovidedsincethe onus of ensuringproper service deliveryandcompliance of standards, remains with the local body. STRATEGY TO IMPLEMIENT MEWS RULES 2000 Fiveyearshavepassed sincethenotificationof MSW Rules, 2000 and the time limit for the implementationof the rules has run out in December 2003. Yet, there are cities, which havenot initiated any measures at all. Thereareseveral e Service contracts Contractsaregenerally givenfor doortodoorcollectionof wastein themorninghourswith or without theequipment 170 India I }1d§liZtCfL£V¬ Repay"! 2006 of thecontractor. Thisactivityislabourintensive andgenerally of wastetransported (examples canbefoundin Ahmedabad, takenupbysmallcontractors or NGOsata lowcost.Citiesof Surat, and Mumbai) Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Jaipur,NorthDumdum,New Barrackpore(WestBengal),Gandhinagar,Vejalpur(Gujarat) aresomeexamples. Differentmodelsareadoptedin differentcities.At some places,contractsaregivento privateoperators for doorstep collectionandtransportation basedonwardsallottedto each contractor, whoappoints hisownmanpower, uses hisowntools, vehicles andequipment andispaidpermonthbythemunicipal corporation for theservices rendered (forexample, Bangalore, Jaipur,andNagpur).In othercases, contracts areawarded to NGOsfor doortodoor collection andsupervision onlyagainst a monthlypayment(for example, Vejalpur).In sometowns contractsaregivento NGOs or individualsto collectthewaste from doortodoorbut the contractoris expected to recover theuserfeefromthecitizensdirectlyasprescribed bythelocal body(examples wouldbeGandhinagar, NorthDumdum,New Barrackpore, etc.).In Ahmedabad doortodoorcollectionis entrusted to residents welfare associations and associations B003: 800, and BBC Conz'mct5_f£2r Wmzfmez/zt andDisposal0_fW/czste Generally,municipal authoritiesin our towns and cities are notequipped to handletreatment anddisposal of waste, which arehighlytechnicaloperations. Privatesectorparticipation is thuspreferredandis graduallypickingup in the country. Build,Own,OperateandTransfer(BOOT)andBuild,Own andOperate (BOT)arethemostpopularmodelsof concession agreementsin voguein the country. Cities such as Kolkata, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Ahmedabad, Trivandrum, andThane areexamples of suchcontracts for theconstruction of compost plantsor wasteto energyplants.In most suchcasesthe municipalauthorityprovideslandon a tokenleaserentand freegarbage at theplantsite.Theprivatefirm investsmoney to build, ownandoperatethefacilityfor a termof normally 20 to 30 yearssuflicientfor a reasonable return on investment. of backwardclasses andtheyaregivena monthlygrantfor supportingsanitation workersandannualgrantsfor purchase of tools,etc.On anaverage 200houses areserved by onepart timesanitation workerin afourhourshift.Contractpackages aremadeby municipalauthoritieskeepingin mindthework to bedoneandthe minimumwagespayableunderthe law. Thecontractoris paidpermonthon thebasisof thenumber At theendof theBOOT contractperiodthefacilityis to be of houses served. astheydo not haveto investanymoneyanda facilitycreatedby Streetsweeping privatefirm iseventually transferred to them.In suchcontracts ULBsdo demandsomepaymentin theformof royaltyfrom theprivatesector, whichisof theorderof Rs10perMT of raw wasteor Rs20 to Rs35 perMT of compostproduced. The Streetsweepingcontractsarelesscommon.They aregenerally transferredto the local body. In caseof BOO,theplantis dismantled andsiteiscleared in line with the concessionagreementbetweenthe service providerandthe municipality.The privatefirm earnsfrom marketingof compostor powerand recyclablematerial recovered duringtheprocess. Localbodies preferBOOTmodel givento coverunserved andnewlydeveloped areas. Payments privateentrepreneurs are,however,requestingroyaltywaiveras aremadeperkm areaservedor on thebasisof unit areaxed thecostof composting hasgoneupwith theMSWRules2000. CitiessuchasMysore,Calicut,Kochi,Shillong,andPuri for streetsweeping. Suratwasperhaps thefirst city to award haveadoptedthedesign,buildandoperate(DBO)modelfor contractsfor brushingthestreetsat night aftertheplaguein 1994 and transformedthe city into one of the cleanestin settingup compostplants.Underthis arrangement, funds, land, and garbage are provided by the municipal authorities India. Followingthis example,Hyderabadhassuccessfully outsourced the sweeping of 75 per centof its streetsusing whereas theprivatefirm isresponsible for designing, building, 161smallcontracts,applyinga uniqueunit areamethodof andoperating thefacility.Theownership of theplantremains with theULB.Theprivatefirm isgiventimeboundcontracts 8 km road length per 18 sanitationworkers. on mutually agreedterms and conditions. Seconclary storageand transportation Municipalauthoritiesenterinto secondary storageand/or transportation contractsto avoidinvestingin vehiclesand equipmentandto availof a moreefficientsystem. In suchan arrangement, the privatefirms providecontainersand/or vehicles with driversaswellasfuel.Theonusof maintaining the fleet of vehicles also lies with them. Such contractors are eitherpaid per trip to the treatment/disposal siteor per tonne PrivatizationQfDz'5]>05zzZ OfWaste In caseof disposal of waste,thereareno examples of private sectorparticipationin India asno suchplantsexistedthus far. However,the conceptof payingtipping feesis gaining acceptance with a beginning made by the Municipal Corporationof Bangalore. TheBMP (Bangalore Mahanagar Palike)is usingan integratedtreatmentanddisposalfacility SoliaWasteA/Lznagement171 for the treatmentanddisposalof 1000tonnesof wasteper wastecollectionandtransportation. Quiteoftenthestaff day.Here,thecontractor ispaida tippingfeeof Rs195/tonne ismorethanadequate butunderutilized. Private contracting only for the disposalof rejectsnot exceeding 30 percentof to improvethe sameservicerendersthe existingstaff thetotal quantityof wastedelivered. redundant. It therefore becomes imperative thatanadequate Basedupon technologyand investmentrequirements, staffingplanbedrawnupin consultation with theunions variousprolesof contracting with privatefirmsareemerging. to arriveatajudiciouscombination of labourretrenching: Megacities namelyDelhi, Mumbai, Bangalore,Kolkata, and redeployment. Chennai,Hyderabad,and Ahmedabadhavegonein for largecontracts andhaveattractednationalandinternational INI11AT1\/ESTAKEN BY SrAr£ GOVERNMENTS firms.In somecases citieshavestrategically gonein for small TO IIANDL]: Sour) WAs"rE wastecollectionandtransportation contracts promotinglocal firms with modest financial resources. Cities must ensure that A few stategovernments havetakenimportantinitiatives suchservice responsibility isdistributed amongst multiplefirms towardslongtermsolutionsto SWMcatalysed by theMSW or betweenprivatefirmsandULB staffsothat in caseone Rules 2000. firm failsotherscantakeoverwithoutdisruptingtheservice. Karnaza/ea RoleofResia'ent W/.'e.:/fazce Associations (RVV/ls), Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs),,and Cmnnzanigl BasedOrganizations (CBO) Karnataka formulatedthestatepolicyfor implementation of Integrated SolidWasteManagement (ISWM)based on MSW Rules2000layingdownguidelines for all theactivitiesunder MSWM, definingrolesandresponsibilities of all the stake holders namely, ULBs,elected representatives, wastegenerators, NGOs,CBOs,SHGs,etc.It created thepostof Environmental Engineers in 123localbodiesto build technicalcapability. SWMActionPlanandManagement Plansfor 56citieswere prepared basedon datapertainingto concerned ULBs.The statealso preparedtechnicalmanualson (a) designand specifications of the toolsandequipmentfor SWM and(b) treatmentandlandll operations. Thereis enormouspotentialto involveRWAs,NGOs and CBOs in SWM services in a costeffective manner without gettinginto contractswith privateoperators.With some supportfrom the ULB in the form of grantor subsidy,the communityiskeento manage itsownwaste. ThereareNGOs/ CBOswhichalsopromotethe welfareof ragpickers.They arewillingto comeforwardto involvetheragpickersin doortodoorcollectionand sourcesegregation of waste.In this model, followed in Ahmedabad and Ludhiana, there is no To promote SWM practicesat the local levelit prepared contractual relationship between theULBsandRWAs/NGOs a short film and issued six short books on MSWM for astheyonly getgrantsto supporttheir activitycarriedout educating stakeholders. A series of workshops wasconducted throughtheir ownlabourandgrantscanbediscontinued if for the localbodyofficials,electedrepresentatives, NGOs, purposeis not served. etc.,for preparation of actionplan,adoptionof statepolicy, identificationof bestpractices, carryingout of Information, O/astaeies to PrivateContractingin SWZM Education andCommunication (IEC)activities andidentifying suitable landfill sites for treatment and disposal of waste. 1. Absence of userc/aarges: Provisionof doorstepwaste Thestatehasissued ordersfor transferof government land collection service under MSW Rules 2000 adds to the cost of SWM freeof costto the 226 localbodiesfor sanitarylandfills,issued service and thus affects the finances of guidelines for identificationandpurchase of privatelandfor beneficiaries. This is lackingin mostof thecitiesandthe thispurposeand,if required,provides100percentfinancial to purchasethe identifiedland from a budget contractoris paidout of the generalrevenue of thelocal assistance allocation of Rs16.1crore.The government initiatedaction body.Thisrequires thelocalbodyto haveasoundrevenue to developscientificlandfill sitesin eightclass1 citieson base from which to allocate resources for SWM. The privatization effortcurrentlyunderway in NorthDumdum BOT basis. andNewBarrackpore in WestBengalandGandhinagar in Gujarataregoodexamples of usercharges leviedto Gujarat sustain doortodoor collection onalongtermbasis without additional burden on the ULBs. Government of Gujarathassetup a statelevelcommittee 2. Absence ofa labourrationalization policy:In somecitiesas headedby the PrincipalSecretary, UrbanDevelopment and muchas20 to 50 percentof theULB staffis engaged in UrbanHousingDepartment anda subcommittee headed by ULBs unlessthey introducerecoveryof userfeesfrom the @ 172 India 2"72ct5tmc£zzr.:* Repart2006 asubject expertto identifysystems for solidwastemanagement. All citiesand townshavebeenadvisedto implementthe recommended systems. Regionalandstatelevelworkshops havebeenconductedto providetrainingto all responsible officersof ULBs and actionplanshavebeenpreparedfor almostall the citiesthroughthe GujaratMunicipalFinance Board,a nodal agencyof the stategovernmentand City ManagersAssociation, Gujarat.The stategovernment has givenRs22 croresince2000to ULBsof classI cities/towns for theprocurement of toolsandequipment. Government of Gujarathaspassed aresolution to allotland to municipalcorporations at 25 percentof themarketvalue andto smallerlocalbodieson a tokenleaserentfor a period of 30yearsfor treatment anddisposal of waste. Thus,147out of 149citiesandtownshavebeenableto earmark appropriate land and thesesiteshavebeenduly authorizedby the state pollutioncontrolboardfor treatmentanddisposalof waste. The year 2005 has been declaredthe Year for Urban government hasformeda corecommitteeof administrative and technicalexpertsand identified the Gujarat Urban Development Companyasa nodalagencyto facilitatethe construction of treatmentanddisposal sitesthroughqualified contractors.The work is proposedto be taken up simultaneously in four regionsof the Gujaratstate. Besides bearingthefull costof construction of treatment anddisposal facilities, using128Finance Commission grant andUrbanRenewal Missionfund thestategovernment now proposes to givefinancialsupportrangingbetween50 and 90 per centto municipalitiesfor toolsand equipmentfor collection, secondary storage, andwaste transportation facilities. The entireventureis expectedto costthe governmentof Gujarat Rs 346 crore. The 141 urban local bodies in the state (other than the corporations) havebeengroupedin four to sixcategories and costestimates havebeenpreparedfor the constructionof landfill sitesand compostplantsof standarddesignsfor Development. Underthisinitiative,construction of treatment different levels of cities/ towns (Tables 8.5 and 8.6). anddisposal sitesin all the141municipalities, hasbeentaken Thestategovernment isalsoconsidering theconstruction of 44 common waste disposal facilities in lieu of individual up centrallyusingexpertagencies, stategovernment funds and centralgovernment grants.For this purpose,the state landfillsto ensuretheir professional management. Table 8.5 $_ Cost Estimates forStandard Landfill Sites inGujarat @ Cost of Population No. of landlls Optimal Design Cost Capacity population Capacity of cell (CMT) covered (MT/day) (5 yrs) Costof olfrce, handling Total weighbridge tractors, cost(in etc. JCBetc. Rslakh) Total costper category 120,000 to 193,000 10 38,500 200,000 15 48.00 12.00 18.50 78.50 785.00 75,000 to 120,000 16 30,800 150,000 12 41.00 12.00 5.00 59.40 950.40 60,000 to 75,000 12 20,900 100,000 8 31.40 12.00 6.00 49.40 592.80 15,000 to 60,000 Grand Total 103 141 15,400 75,000 6 28.00 3.00 6.00 35.00 3605.00 5933.20 Note:Thecostof approach roadwill beRs600persqm, whichwill haveto beaddedto thiscostdepending on theroadlengthrequired. Source:Asnani (2005) Table 8.6 Estimatesfor StandardCompost Plantsin Gujarat MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 3:.H3?TWWWMMM7TW7M5§EEET7577577577577M5Ei1"E§§§Ei'ti;7 Sno Populationrange No. of cities/towns compost population plantsto be Capacity expected to be constructed (in MT) covered Landll design (MT/day) (CMT) to last for 5yrs percent for inert material 1 120,000 to 193,000 10 10 40.0 200,000 15 35,000 38,500 2 75,000 to 120,000 16 16 30.0 150,000 12 28,000 30,800 3 60,000 to 75,000 18 18 20.0 100,000 8 19,000 20,900 4 40,000 to 60,000 19 19 15.0 75,000 6 14,000 15,400 5 25,000 to 40,000 43 43 10.0 50,000 4 9500 10,450 6 15,000 to 25,000 Total 35 35 141 7.5 37,500 3 7000 7700 Source:Asnani (2005) SoimV(7al5t¬ /1/[a'z/mgemmt 173 procurementof largehaulingvehiclesfor transportation, construction of regionalaswellasindividualcompostplants andconstruction of about25regional landll facilities covering WestBengal TheGovernment ofWestBengalhaslaunched a WestBengal SolidWasteManagement Missionregistered undertheWest BengalSocieties Registration Act 1961on 18May2005.The missionhasbeensetup underthechairmanship of theChief the entire state. Thestategovernment proposes to usethefundsallocated by the 121FinanceCommission aswell asfrom the urban The government of Indiahas Secretaryto Governmentand a technicalcommitteeheaded renewalfund for this purpose. in thestateout by the Secretary, Departmentof Environment.Regulations allocatedRs393 croreto themunicipalities of which50percentisearmarked for solidwastemanagement havebeenframedand the powers,dutiesand functionsof the missionaswell astechnicaladvisorycommitteehavebeen in urban areas. Besides another Rs 1271 crore have been allotted laid down. The objectiveof the missionis to promote modernization of collectionandtransportation of MSWand facilitate developmentof costeffectivetechnologyfor treatmentanddisposal of thesamein thestate.Provisionof technicaland nancial supportto municipalbodies,PRIs, andauthoritiesof thestatutoryareafor settingup of regional or commonsolidwastemanagement facilitiesis proposed. The technicalcommitteehasprepared anactionplanfor implementingMSW Rules2000 in the state.It hasbeen envisaged that25to 30regional facilities wouldbeconstructed in the stateto cover126ULBsincludingsix corporations. OneregionalfacilitywouldserveaboutfiveULBsandeach to panchayats out of which the stateexpectsto spendat city would sharethe O8CM cost in proportion to the waste delivered for treatmentanddisposal. Thestategovernments technicalcommitteehasprepared a tentativeestimateof over Rs 395 crorefor supporting municipalauthoritiesin thestateif theyagreeto enterinto a costsharingarrangement of a little overRs 15 crore(cost estimates in Table8.7). UpgradingSWM services would includeprovisions for publicawareness, capacitybuildingof themunicipalauthorities, procurement of tools,equipment, and vehiclesfor primarycollection,secondary storageand transportationof waste,constructionof transferstations, least10 per cent on solid wastemanagementmaking a total Rs 323.60 crore. Some additional funds would be found from theurbanrenewal grantto beallocated by thegovernment of India and internal resources of the state as well as local bodies. Rczjazv/van TheRajasthan government hasissueda policydocumentfor solidwastemanagement aftera cabinetapprovalin theyear 2001.This policydocumentoutlinesthe mannerin which privateentrepreneurs wouldbeselected for settingup waste to energyor wasteto compostplantsin thestate,thetypeof facilitythatwouldbeextended to themandtheresponsibilities that would be placedwith them.The stategovernmenthasset upastatelevelempowered committee underthechairmanship of Secretary,Local Self Government to recommend the proposals received for usefulconversion of solidwaste. Out of 183 urban local bodies, 152 local bodies have either been allotted construction land or land has been identified of landfill for them for sites. All district collectors have been requested to makelandavailable for landfillsitesto theULBs. Development of landfillsitesisin progress undermostULBs Table 8.7 Cost Estimatesfor improving Solid WasteManagementServicesin \WestBengal Item Quantity Public awareness Secondarystoragecontainers Costsharing by Costtobeborne bystate ULBs (Rscrore) government(Rscrore) 1.50 Capacitybuilding Containerizedtricycles Cost (Rscrore) 1.50 1.50 25,000 1.50 20.00 5.0 4000 10.00 2.0 TransportVehicles 500 33.75 8.45 Construction of transfer stations 180 21.60 15.00 8.00 25.30 21.60 LargeContainers for transferstations 500 7 50 7 50 Largehauling vehicles 250 50.00 50.00 125.00 12500 125.00 12500 Constructionof compostplants Engineered landfills Total Source:Asnani (2005) 46 25 395.85 15.45 380.40 174 India ,1Ti1d5Zi"ZtCt:b£i¬ Report2006 sanitarylandlls asper the MSW Rules.As a resultof this policydecision,with theexception of about7-8 citiesall the councilshaveacquiredland for landll construction.Two Guidelines have been issued to all ULBs for doortodoor hundredandtwo sitesaregoodenoughfor about25 years. collection of garbage andthescheme hasalready beenlaunched The governmenthasalsoset up district levelcommittees in citiesofjaipur,Ajmer,Jodhpur, Kota,Bhilwara, Pali,Beawar, under District Collectorsto coordinatethe implementation of theRulesin the Jaisalmer, Bharatpur, Alwar,andRamkanjMandi.RUIDPis of theMSW Rules.The implementation collection of wasteand providingequipmentfor solid wastemanagement to six stateis particularlylackingin doorstep divisionalcitiesviz.,Jaipur,Jodhpur,Ajmer,Kota,Bikaner, wasteprocessing (Table8.8). andUdaipur.Thechiefministerhasannounced assistance of Rs 10croreto smallerlocalbodiesduringthenancialyear Table 8.8 2005-6for purchasing tool,equipment andvehicles to improve Statusofthe Implementationofthe Ruiesin l\/Iaharashtra providingapproach road,fencing,etc.Thelandll sitesin six divisionalheadquarter citiesarebeingdeveloped centrallyby Rajasthan UrbanInfrastructure Development Project(RUIDP). sanitation facilities in the state. Complianceby no. of cities/towns out of 247 cities/ towns in the state Maa 2acz.vbtmz All India Institute of Local SelfGovernment (AIILSG), Mumbai,which is a premiertraining institution in the country in theeld of Municipaladministration, organized astatelevel Noticationon prohibitionof 214 littering andstorageat source Doorstep collection of waste Identifying land and agency forwaste processing Theconsultation succeeded in extracting acommitment from Identifying land for landll for 25 years the politicaland administrative leadership of Maharashtra MPCBauthorization forsanitary landllgranted towardsimproved solid wastemanagementpracticeswithin consultation on SWM in February2001 for Maharashtra. 95 65 202 242 theframeworkof theMSW Rules2000.The pathbreaking statelevelconsultation wasfollowedby a series of meetings to Thegovernment is alsoconsidering a capitalgrantto the citiesfor developing theinfrastructure requiredfor processing institutionalcapacity of theULBstowardsunderstanding the and disposalfacility.The SWM cell hasestimatedthat an provisions of theMSWrulesandselection of technologies for amountof Rs776 croremayberequiredto fund theentire waste management. Accordingly, theSWMCellwasestablished capitalexpenditure for implementingall thecomponents of in theAIILSGandbecame operational in May 2002. the MSW Rules. Thecellhasorganized manytrainingworkshops aswellas It canbeinferredfromrecentdevelopments in statesthat studytoursfor citymanagers to visittheUnitedStates to learn somestates havebecome proactive in extending technicaland the latestwasteprocessing technologies. The SWM Cell has nancialsupportto ULBsto implementtherules.However, beenprovidingusefulinputsbothto thestategovernment of in spiteof supportfromstategovernments, manylocalbodies Maharashtra andtheGovernment of Indiaonthepolicyissues. areat a lossto identifyappropriate technologies for treatment Basedon the feedback of the eld agencies, particularlythe anddisposal ofwaste. Theyarenotaware of meritsanddemerits ULBs,thecellhasreferred several issues to thestategovernment of eachtechnology advocated by thevendors.Without past for policydecisions and recommended amendments in the experience and technicalexpertise, severallocalbodiesend statutes governingtheULBs.The cellreleased statusreports up with facilities,which neitherfully meetthe statutory of all the citiesalongwith a consolidated actionplan in requirementsnor arethey suitableunder local conditions. evolve a consensus for a nucleus cell in the AIILSG to enhance February2005. It hasdone a study on the marketability of MSWderived manure.The studycovered all regionsandall majorcropsof thestateto estimatethe marketpotentialin termsof the quantityand the priceof the municipalsolid wastederivedmanure.The cell is alsoactivein preparingand PPP 1N Cmts Baiagalore Bangalore hasenteredinto two kinds of servicecontracts. Onefor theprimarywastecollectionfrom thedoorstepand transportation to thedisposal sitethroughsmallcontractors andanotherfor integratedtreatmentanddisposalof waste Grant of governmentland for treatmentand disposal throughpaymentof tippingfeesto expertagencies. In the rst kind of arrangement, 66 per centof the city Thestategovernment hastakendecision to grantgovernment aregivenfor land freeof occupancyprice to the ULBs for developing hasbeendividedinto 61 groupsandcontracts distributingmaterialon thecompliance criteriaof theMSW Rulesandsustainable wastemanagement. e SolidWaste Mmmgem¬m 175 primarywastecollectionin wastetricycles/handcarts and throughdrawingof lots. One unit areais allottedto each direct transfer to a vehicle (owned by the contractor) and contractor who in turn hires sanitation workers. One hundred suchcontracts arein placeengaging 4347workers transportationto thedisposal site.Eachcontractormanages andsixtyone 2 to 3 health wards of the city at the maximum. \)V1ththis in sweeping of streets, footpaths, andopenspaces duringthe arrangement, theULB is nowspending 50percentof whatit dayand2015workersfor sweeping 310km importantroads wouldcostto undertake thetaskdepartmentally. at night.Thisincludes14selfemployed womengroups.The In anothercontractfor thetreatment anddisposal of 1000 systemis in operationfor morethanfiveyearsandworking mt of wasteper day,landandsolidwasteis to be givenby satisfactorily. theMCB to theprivateoperatorwhois expected to makean SelcoInternationalis runningaWTE facilityusingRDF investment of aboutRs25 to 30 croreto setup thefacility. technology in Hyderabadin consultation with TIFAC to The corporationis not expected to payfor wastetreatment produce200 tonnesRDF per day from 700 tonnesof but a tippingfeeof Rs195perMT of rejectsis agreed upon. municipalsolidwasteprovidedby the municipalityfreeof A maximumlimit of 30 per cent of wastedeliveredfor charge. Themunicipalcorporation hasprovided10acres land treatment has been set to ensure that minimum waste comes on 30 yearsleaseto Selcowith anannualleaserentof 5 per centof theregistered valueof theland.Selcohasbeenfurther to theengineered landfill for disposal. allowedto mortgage theleasehold landin favourof financial institutions. Starting with an RDF plant using up to 400 C/7mmzz' MT of MSWinitially,SelcohasrecentlysetupanRDFbased Chennaiis the pioneerin PPPsfor SWM on a largescale. powerplantof 6.6 MW capacityat Shadnagar, 55 km from The municipalcorporationhaswithdrawnits stafffrom the Hyderabad. Thefluff prepared attheRDFplantistransported three out of the ten zonesof the city. A sevenyearcontract to the power plant where it is usedalong with 30 per cent hasbeenawardedto the privateoperatorOnyx througha transparent competitive biddingprocess for primarycollection, streetsweeping, secondary storageat a transferstationand transportation of wasteto thedisposal site.Onyxhasengaged its ownmanpower, tools,equipmentandfleetof vehicles. It is paidon a Rspertonnebasiswith an annualincrease of 5 per cent in this ratebuilt into the contract.The costper tonneof wastein this arrangement is merely50 percentof the departmental costfor the sameserviceprovidedby the agrowaste for generating power.Theplantisfunctionalsince November 2003. It is expectedthat this plant will reduce greenhouse gasemission equivalent to 43,705MT of carbon dioxide per year. Abmedaézzd PPPsin SWM in Ahmedabad startedwith thesettingup of a 500MT capacity compost plant.Thiswasfollowedbyprivate city administrationin the otherzones.The efficiencyof service contractingof secondary storageandtransportation. Doorthrough hasgoneup andthequantityof wastecollectedhasincreased todoorcollectionof wasteisnowentirelyconducted substantially. Unfortunately, segregation of recyclable waste RWAs, associations of sanitation workers, and womens at sourcein termsof MSW Rules2000 is not a part of organizations. The municipalcorporationgivesgrantsfor It hasmet the contract. Motivational efforts by the Municipal doortodoorwastecollection,andits supervision. success in allitsSWMventures throughPPPs. Commissioner haveresultedin successful sourcesegregation with reasonable For primarycollectionof waste,the city is dividedinto and doortodoorcollectionin the zonesdirectlymanaged by the municipality. 3900 units of 200 households each. Each unit is allotted to an RWA and in its absence, other associations of backward classes and women.In the rst yearof its operation,the corporationhasdecidedto providea grantto theconcerned at the rateof Rs 10 per familyper month.The Hyderabadhasprivatizednearly75 per cent of its street association sweepingoperationsapplying a unique unit areamethod to corporationhasprovidedcontainerized tricyclescostingRs 6500eachto the sanitationworkersappointedby the RWA eliminatethebiddingprocess. Eachunit comprising of 8 km roadlengthis allottedto a teamof 15 femaleand 3 male with thefuturearrangements of replacing thesameat regular to visit each workersfor streetsweeping andwastetransfer to thesecondary intervals.The sanitationworkersareexpected storagedepot.The unit costhasbeenworkedout on the houseand collect MSW in their containerizedtricycle and basisof theneedfor manpower, theminimumwagepayable, deposit thewasteatthemunicipal wastedepot.Thecorporation proposes to introducea userfeeto recoverthecostfrom the the tools and equipmentrequired,etc. It comesto Rs48,853 for one year,the benefitsof permonthper 18sanitationworkersfor cleaningduringthe citizensafter demonstrating dayandRs69,250permonthper 18sanitationworkersfor doorstepcollection.Corporationis likely to club it alongwith account. Thecommercial areas nightcleaning. Applications areinvitedandcontracts awarded propertytaxundera separate I-zldera baa! @~ 176 {mafia einfraszrzzctwe Rcprm? 2006 Transportation of wastefromtheprimarycollection points areproposed to besimilarlycovered butwithoutanypayment to two agencies who to thewastecollector.Here,theamountof Rs10permonth to transferstationshasbeencontracted per shop is proposedto be recovereddirectly from the deploy22 vehiclesto makea total 221 tripsperday.Rs128 pertrip is paidto the contractorresultingin a net savingof shopkeeperby the wastecollector. 17.40 per cent in transportationcost. The work of supervision of doortodoorcollectionhas Contractsfor secondarytransportationof wastefor been contracted out to the All India Institute of Local Self removingMSW from transferstationto final disposalsite Government(AIILSG) with the working arrangementthat to fourprivateagencies. Fivetransfer stations thesanitationdiplomaholderswhoqualifyfromtheinstitute havebeenawarded havebeensetupandtheentirequantityof 1000MT of MSW wouldbepostedfor oneyeareld trainingcumservice to the by the privateagencies at the rateof Rs7.81 citygovernment whichwouldpaypartof thetrainees stipend. is transported perkmMT.The contractors deploy42 closebodyvehicles, The municipalcorporationhasprivatized50 percentof secondarywastestorageand transportation.About 300 waste whichmake150dailytrips. For final wastedisposalSurathasconstructedthe first storage depotsin thecityhavebeenhandedoverto twoprivate landfillin thecountrywith acellcapacity entrepreneurs. Secondary storage binsof 7 cubicmetrecapacity largesizeengineered of 12,5000 cmt through a privateagencyat a costof Rs105 placedall overthecity receivewastethroughsanitationworkers. per cmt. The cost of the cell constructed isRs131lakh,which Thesecontainers oncefilledaretransported to thetreatment plant or disposalsite using vehiclesand manpowerengaged will last for six years.Provisionof sevenmore cellsis made by theprivatecontractor. for the future. Fordisposal of biomedical waste,a sevenyear contracthas In the area of waste treatment, Excel Industries Ltd has setup a mechanized compostplanton 25 acresof municipal landallottedat a nominalleaserentof Re1 persquare metre peryearfor a periodof 15 years.In returnfor 500 MT of wasteprovidedfreeof costat theplantsite,thecorporation expects to receiveRs35 per MT of compostproducedasa royalty.Theplantisoperational since2001.Theresponsibility of operation andmaintenance of thefacilityaswellasmarketing of the product restswith ExcelIndustries.The plant is functioningat 50-60 per centof installedcapacitydueto problemsin marketingthecompost. Surat Suratthe secondlargestcity of Gujaratwith a population of 2.4 millionused to be one of the dirtiest cities of India. Thecity introducedseveral measures of privatization in solid wastemanagement aftertheplague in 1994,whichtransformed it to one amongthe cleanest. Unlike other citiesSuratpractisesnight brushingand scraping of roads.Forty-seven majorroadshavebeenidentified for nightcleaningby 1183persons and99vehicles deployed through31 agencies. 30 paiseper sq mt is paid for night cleaningamountingto anannualexpenditure of Rs472lakh resultingin annualsavingof Rs30 lakh. Privatelymanagedprimary wastecollectionhas been introducedin somepartsof thecity.Fourhundredresidential societies havebeengivengrantin aid at therateof 40 paise persqmt permonthfor cleaningtheirownarea.Minimum amountof Rs1000isgivenpersociety. Onesweeper isengaged per 3000 sq mt by the society. beenawardedto a privateoperatoron BOOT basis.A plant with thecapacity to dispose 200kg of wasteperdayhasbeen constructed.It is equippedwith an incinerator,autoclave,and shredder. Rs10perkgischarged for collection, transportation, anddisposal of biomedical waste. Threehundredandftysix hospitals with 5087beds,1154dispensaries and157pathological laboratories areservedthrough27 collectioncentres. i\/Zzrtb Dmmrlumand1'\/ew Bairmckpore M'm¢icz']9¢zZirz&# Boththesecitieshavetakenupa modelSWMdemonstration projectwith 50percentcostsharingby government of India throughtheCentralPollutionControlBoard.Boththecities haveintroducedan elementof costrecoveryfor primary collectionof wastefromthedoorstepto maketheoperation sustainable. North DumdumMunicipalitywith populationof over2 lakhhasawarded contracts to unemployed youth.Thewaste collectors are allotted about 250 to 300 houses each for door todoorcollectionusinga containerized tricycleandawhistle. Their supervisor,who is also on contract, collectsthe user feesat the rate of Rs 10 from everyhousehold.The userfee is sharedamongsanitationworkers(Rs8), supervisors(Re 1) andmunicipality(Re1).Theextentof costrecovery isaround 95 percent.The systemis workingverywell. The city of New Barrackpore is relativelysmallwith a populationof about85,000.Heretoodoortodoorcollection of wasteisprivatelymanaged. Themonthlycharge prescribed is only Rs5 perfamilyper monthandis directlyrecovered bythesanitation workerfromthebeneciary. Thepercentage of recovery is almost100percent. Two hundredand forty hotelsandrestaurants arebeing serviced throughthe hotelassociation engaging 42 workers Cities are evolving various ways to handle solid waste. and18vehicles for collection andtransportation of hotelwaste. TheMunicipalCorporationof Delhihasinvested fundsinto @~ Salim Waste A/[cznezgement 177 integrated reformof itsSWMsystem to ensure acleancity(Box 8.3). Somecities,on the otherhand,aremakingimprovements in their existingfacilities.Nagpurhasconverted their waste dumpsiteinto a modelmunicipallandfillsite(Box8.4). Issues related zfaPPP in SW/W Labour Issues Contract Labour (Regulationand aswell as by vestedinterestsoperatingin that area.The MSWrulesfor sitingmustbeadhered to in orderto minimize adverse impacton environment andqualityof life of citizens. A numberof PILshavebeenfiled in recentyearsregarding thesitingof wastetreatmentanddisposal facilities.SuchPILs delayprojectimplementation andhavefinancialimplications for theprivatefirm. Ab0liti0r1)ACt, 1970 (CLAE 5. Adherence to Environmental This Act was passedin 1970 when the governmentwas anddisposalof municipalsolidwasteposesproblemsof the environmentalpollution and health hazards,the private concerned aboutexploitationof workersunderthecontract labour system.The Act abolishedcontract labour in various StczndczrdszSince treatment operatorsaswell asmunicipal authoritiesareexpectedto be very careful.The Pollution Control Boardsareduty bound to jobsandprocesses andregulated itsemployment whereit could properlyaspertermsof MSW not be abolished.It essentially laysdown the relationship ensurethatMSW is managed Rules 2000. The treatment and disposalfacilitiescanface betweentheprincipalemployerandcontractlabour. closure if the standards are not met. In accordance with provisionslaid out under Section 10 (1) of the CLA, the stategovernments may prohibit employment of contractlabourin anyprocess, operationor Patents issues work in any establishment(definedto include any oice or departmentof a localauthority).Any statethat chooses to exercise this provisionmustcarefullyreviewimplicationsof sucha decision on thedeliveryof SWMservice, staffstrength andrelatedexpenditure of thelocalbody.Furthersucha ban wouldprecludeprivatesectorparticipation. TamilNaduhas bannedtheuseof contractlabourin sweeping andscavenging services. TheChennaiMunicipalCorporationhadto request the statefor specialexemptionfrom the ban to privatize In thecaseof patented technology/ process, theissueof patent transferneedsto be reviewed.This may becomecritical for localbodiesto beableto successfully operateandmaintain suchfacilitiesupontransfer. Rolegfliivrmni Sector:N G055.27/Mi CBO: Whereasthe privatesectorcan play an importantrole in construction, operation,andmaintenance of treatmentand disposal facility,NGOscanplayanimportantrolein: It maybenotedthat in casea localbody chooses to employ collectorsfor doortodoor contractlabourfor SWM,it wouldbetheprincipalemployer 0 organizingragpickers/waste collection and segregation of waste andtheonusof fulfillingthetermsundertheCIA wouldrest 0 creating public awareness for storageof organicand with it. In casea contractis awarded to a privateoperator, the recyclable wasteseparately at sourceandhandingoverthe localbodyastheprincipalemployer mustensure thattheprivate SWM services. firm meetsdutiesunder the CLA. Alternately,the local body waste to the waste collector. treatment mustspecify/identify theprivatefirm astheprincipalemployer ° promotingrecyclingof wasteanddecentralized of waste involving community, CBOS, etc. in the project agreement. Ragpickers couldbeinvolvedin doortodoorcollection If a privatefirm takesup thejob of collectinghousehold of municipal solid wasteaswell asrecyclable wasteso that wasteandtransporting thesameeitherto themunicipaldust wastefromthedoorstep bin or upto thedesignated dumpingsitesasperanagreement theycouldgeta userfeefor collecting reachedwith individual households or residential associations, and deriveadditional income from saleof recyclables. There is a potentialof recovering at least15 percentof the waste generated in the country which couldbemorethan 15,000 thelocalbodyandit cannotbetakenastheprincipalemployer. MT per day providing employment opportunities to about TheSupreme Courtof Indiahasinterpreted thislawand setthematterto restin Special C.A.No. 6009-6010of 2001 5,00,000ragpickersin thecountry.Despiteimmensepotential in big citiesin thisarea,NGO/CBO participationis still on in SteelAuthority of India Limited and othersversusNational the said activities cannot be taken as done at the instance of Union, Water Front Workers and others which must be a very small scale. carefullystudiedby municipalauthorities. The SelfEmployed WomensAssociation(SEWA)has takenup thetaskof doortodoorwastecollectionin Vejalpur and Gandhinagarcities near Ahmedabadand providing Environmental issues employmentto over 500 ragpickers.Similarly, the Centre oz.Siting:Sitingof a landfillfacilityis verydifficult taskand meetswith stiff resistance fromthecommunitylivingnearby e for Development Communication in Jaipurhastakenup the work of primary collectionand transportationof waste 178 Imfzlz/2r»:5truc;tzw'e Report2006 llntegrézlted tietgtgngattheMqiilcipaittclorpctatiigrlTéffneim e ' LVS/2225/éééétélbésgé V :lpTlie,MnnicipaliCeorpotatibn ofppbelhliiise gmghglthietlleaggest mmiicipalgtodges in thelworldiptoviding.eiviesetviees,to'5n1i)re »than:.:l3.78,pg Emillioncitiiens(2001) inthecapital city-.. It,;is nexttonly"etQ"Tokyo in »tetrn,s.[Qfaereaii1ncp:letitsi jurisdiction. [Also withinpitseiitisdietibln» aifeie :ssonie ofthe,,inQst_denselvlpopulatedltireas the vs/p(l)_'rld:_.l TheC'bnseifv;iney'ahdl SainitatyfEngineeringDepartinent' MCD_catets to percent of é.tea.of Delhipstate;serving:i pdpulation 'ofltnb,tee.thani, 13million. capitalegaibage §;enetati¢n3 iisi1estiniate'c7li jy be{0;45 kglpeprf dayameunting td 6500 tMTper fc1ay:£o;e_the;my,s Currently, theitactualgarbagei llftit1g"pe1f,_:clay1E6000 MT,Thef : 1ipiojectedlgatbége'generétiOn?§bv202l isi1;8,0_00'M'_I_»p'er day, ;C,SEdepért1pei1t haslailstatff strength oftbetpjweeen f60,00Qj7C),000ipetsgnsi-.l itconsisdngmaint1y«>£sweepers.:t:: _ it V - v v V V- !» Tthe,ttasll:r:r1lrrpliissil1>1>,;(b):at¢ch:l;¢;a1,:gastei; V fer and(c)::pprlv:i,tefsect:(l)t_basedl'treé1tnient:énd dispdséillprojeetsehéisedflopn tecomniendatiQns7 o_ftl1e,Mé.ster pla;11.,The I :With:Q_the'r, 2igehCies"cl_evel()ped tl1el.p2:1,r:atf1eters_f(§r}pr(jject develdplilent,lheliidingtechnieal :st1l1dies._'Theefirst two:' "1phases' were staijted simultaneddslyiwhile thef1lnal_jphapse islexlpectedtdcornmeneetbvvards theendOfrphéS¬'iI.:'UllltCd"Natl0l1SOféC .i[ProjeeteSe,r:viees» (mops) e:1nelsiwe'relraised'fotthevvéste tre-altnient iandsidisposall fhéS,f¬r1[§lan forthel"st;}l1_te ofDel}1i;fottl1esnextv 25years; _ ' ' lglnthel¢»rstephl§iSeafPuhliC~lrivalte»Pé112 0 948.00 1000 categories of citiesandtownsin India (Table8.9). 180 India Innstrncnme Repart2006 Operations andmaintenance costsisgenerally obtainedfrom waste.Suchprogrammes providetangiblenancialbenets materials andconserved energy, andadditional two sources: currentgeneralrevenues and SWM operating fromrecovered benetsfromavoidedcostsof landlling. Further,thesehelp revenue, essentially usercharges. increasethe life of a landll facility. Operational Expemlitnre SWMconstitutes upto 10to 50percentof municipalbudget expenditure depending ontheincomesources of themunicipal authorities.The main expenditureheadsunderSWM are in salaries andallowances, consumables, vehiclesrepairand maintenance, contingencies andothers.A recentsurveybythe Inzvestmenz ny thePrivateSector Role of the privatesectorin nancing resourcerecovery (composting, wastetoenergy) facilitiesis growingin India. Manycomposting facilitiesandtwo powerplantshavebeen setup in the countrywith privatesectorparticipation. National Institute of Urban Affairs shows salaries of sanitation workers for SWM in class I cities, constitute as much as 75 percentof totalSWM expenditure. This is still higherat 85 P00!FinancingMet/Qnnism per cent in classII cities. Underthis arrangement localbodiescancometogetherto develop/construct commonfacilitieson a costsharingbasis andaccess thecapitalmarketto raiseinds for suchprojects througha commonleadagencythat mustbeestablished by thestategovernment. Ckzpiral Investments Capitalcostsfor SWM in India aremet from the current revenueand borrowings.City levelplanningwith related budgetestimates, isusuallyabsentin mostlocalbodies.Cities borrow funds from nancial institutions such as HUDCO andbanksfor nancingequipment andvehicles to theextent their nancialhealthpermits. SUPPLEMENTING ULB RESOURCES 77.26 12" Finnmre C07/nmissionGm%f5 The12thFinance Commission hastakena veryconsidered SOURCES OF FUNDS C0nserwzncy Ylzx Traditionally, fundingfor solidwastesystems comesfromthe general fund.MostULBsusea percentage of thepropertytax to supportthesolidwastemanagement system. Thistax,known asconservancy tax,iseasyto administer sincenoseparate billing or collectionsystemis needed.However, thedisadvantage is thatin mostIndiancitiesassessment andcollection of property taxis poorandthispoorbaseprovides for verylittle income. Viewfor improvingurbaninfrastructure andallottedRs5000 crorefor supplementing the resources of the ULBs in the country (Table8.10). Out of aboveamount,50 per cent amounthasbeen earmarked for improvingSWMservices. Thisistherst time a sizeableallocation has been made towardsSWM by the government. This amountis to bespentbetween200510. Theurbanrenewal fundof thegovernment alsohasanSWM component. If thestategovernments andULBscomeforward with matchingfunds,effectivemanagement of MSWshould be possible. UserC/nzrges Increased publicawareness of solidwasteissuesand public involvement in thedecisionmaking process mayprovidethe opportunityto adjustuserchargesto reflectreal costsof providing solid wasteservices. Usercharges if properlyadministered: 0 arean equitablemeansof fundingSWM services; 0 can provide incentive to reducewastegeneration;and encouragerecycling. RevenneamRet'0ver3/ and Treatment of'W/nste Wasterecycling,composting,wastetoenergy,may generate operatingrevenues or at leastreducethecostof treatmentof Snppoz/tgmStareGozzerninenrs Uttar Pradesh, MadhyaPradesh, Tamil Nadu,AndhraPradesh, Maharashtra, Haryana,Karnataka,Gujarat,and Rajasthan haveannounced policymeasures pertainingto allotmentof landat nominallease rent,freesupplyof garbage andfacilities for evacuation, saleandpurchase of powerto encourage the settingup of WTE projects. The tariff for powerpurchase is agreed uponasperthegeneral guidelines issued bytheMinistry of NonConventional EnergySources(MNES).However, thereareoften delaysin nalization of actualcontract terms with theentrepreneur, especially with regardto powertari, in thewakeof the deregulation of the powersectorandthe absence of clearpolicydirection. Solicz Waste11/[amzgemwzr 181 monitoring.As a resultthe impactof theseschemes is not Table 8.10 128 Finance Ailocation toMunicipalities andPanchayats (Z005-10) known readily at the GOI level. TheMoA introduceda centrallysponsored Balanced and Integrated Use of Fertilizers in 1992 (Eighth fiveyear plan S.no. State §é£Eé_ii{ 7Zii§E£E{£§j__ j§eTc}}r1E:(_ii_s_' period1992-7),underwhichsupportisgivento localbodies 1. AndhraPradesh 7.935 1587.00 7.480 374.00 andprivatesector(includedrecently)for settingup compost 2. Arunachal 0.340 68.00 0.060 3.00 plantsusingMSW This grantis available for buildingplant, Pradesh andmachineryup to onethirdof theprojectcostsubjectto 3. Assam 2.630 526.00 1.100 55.00 amaximumof Rs50lakhperprojectfor atreatmentcapacity 4. Bihar 8.120 1624.00 2.840 142.00 of 50to 100TPD.Thirtyeightprojectsweretakenup under 5. Chhattisgarh 3.075 615.00 1.760 88.00 thisscheme. Thetotalcentralassistance proposed duringthe 6. Goa 0.090 18.00 0.240 12.00 Ninth planperiod(1997-2002)wasRs180million andthe 7. Gujarat 4.655 931.00 8.280 414.00 budgetprovisionduringthe2002-3wasRs5 Crore. Thegrant 8. Haryana 1.940 388.00 1.820 91.00 remainslargelyunutilized. 9. Himachal Pradesh 0.735 147.00 0.160 8.00 Since1992 the MOEF hasbeenprovidingnancial subsidies of up to 50 percentof the capitalcoststo setup 10. Jammuand 1.405 281.00 0.760 38.00 Panchayats Municipalities Kashmir demonstrationplantson MSW composting.The ministry also 11. Jharkhand 2.410 482.00 1.960 12. Karnataka 4.440 888.00 6.460 323.00 13. Kerala 4.925 985.00 2.980 149.00 andfeasibilitystudies. TheMoEFsanctioned 3 pilot projects for qualitativeandquantitativeassessment of thesolidwaste 14. MadhyaPradesh 8.315 1663.00 7.220 361.00 in the cities of Hyderabad,Simla, and Ghaziabad. 15. Maharashtra 1983.00 15.820 791.00 16. Manipur 0.230 46.00 0.180 9.00 17. Meghalaya 0.250 50.00 0.160 18. Mizoram 0.100 20.00 0.200 9.915 8.00 10.00 19. Nagaland 0.200 20. Orissa 4.015 803.00 2.080 104.00 21. 22. Punjab Rajasthan 1.620 6.150 324.00 1230.00 3.420 4.400 171.00 220.00 23. Sikkim 0.065 13.00 0.020 1.00 24. Tamil Nadu 4.350 870.00 11.440 572.00 25. Tripura 26. Uttar Pradesh 27. Uttaranchal 28. WestBengal Total 40.00 98.00 0.120 6.00 extends limited financial assistance for waste characterization Recentlya few moredemonstration projectshavebeen sanctionedand they are under implementationin North Dumdum and New Barrackporemunicipalitiesin West Bengal,Chandigarh, Kozikodein Kerala,andUdumalpetin TamilNadu.Threemoreprojectsof Kohima,Suryapet and Mandi arelikely to be sanctionedshortly. 0.160 8.00 TheNationalProgramme on energyrecovery fromurban and industrialwastewaslaunchedby the MNES during the year 1995with the approvalof the Commissionfor AdditionalSources of Energy(CASE).MNES hasnotified an accelerated programme providingfinancialassistance for projectson energyrecovery fromurbanwasteduringtheyear 14.640 2928.00 10.340 517.00 2005-6. The incentivesofferedvary from schemeto scheme 0.810 162.00 0.680 34.00 0.285 6.355 100.000 57.00 1271.00 7.860 20000.00 100.000 393.00 5000.00 Subszkfyforr Campast Plantsand IVTE Projects The Ministry of Agriculture(MoA) and the Ministry of EnvironmentandForest(MoEF)havebeenactivelypromoting (Table 8.11). For projectsin the North EasternRegionand special categorystatesnamely,Himachal Pradesh,]8cK, Sikkim and Uttaranchalfinancialassistance will be 20 per centhigher than thosespecified.The SupremeCourt of India has, however,orderedthe government of India not to sanction anysubsidies for projectsbased on municipalsolidwasteuntil furtherordersof theSupreme Court.Therefore, government of Indiasubsidies for wasteto energyprojectsareon holdat wastecomposting, while the MNES hasdesigned schemes the moment. This is mainly becauseissueshavebeenraised to promote WTE projects. Further the Ministry of beforethe Court aboutthe misuseof the provisionsmade Environment and Forestshad also sanctioneda project to andthematteris underjudicialscrutiny. theCentralRoadResearch Institutefor conductingresearch on effective utilization of MSW in road construction. FuzzdsamSafe0fC'cm%n Credits The MoA andthe MoEFhavetwo separate schemes to international initiatives are underwa Y to miti 3ate promote MSWcomposting. Bothschemes provide onlysubsidies Ma'or I gasemission(GHG). RioEarthsummit 1992 without followup on implementationand performance greenhouse 182 Int/212 .I7rzv:15zrzxctur.e Report2006 Table 8.1 1 citiescanpoolresources togetherandmakea combinedcase for availingof carboncredits. GOl Subsidyon S\WMPlants Projectfor powergeneration fromMSW involvingrefusederivedfuel Rs1.5croreperMW Powerproject basedon high rate biomethanationtechnology Rs 2 croreper MW Demonstration projectfor power generation from MSWbasedon Rs3 croreperMW WAY F ORWARD While SWM was completelyneglectedin past and is now receivingsomeattentionat thehighestlevelsin several cities and states,many are lagging behind and severalhave not botheredto makeanyimprovement at all.The nationaland gasication/Pyrolysisand plasma arc technology state solid wastemanagementmissionsneed to be created Biomethanation technology for power generation fromcattledung,vegetable marketandslaughterhouse waste 50 percentof project costupto amaximum of Rs3 croreperMW above250 KW capacity Biogas generation for thermal Up to Rs 1 croreper application Projectdevelopmentassistance MW equivalent Up to Rs 10 lakh per project Rs 3 lakh per event Training course,seminar,workshop,etc. Note:The financialassistance for anysingleprojectwill belimited to Rs 8 crore. Source: Government of India,Ministryof NonConventional Energy SourceScheme,25 July 2005. to ensure thatmunicipalauthoritiesperformtheirobligatory dutiesregularlyin compliance with MSWRules2000within a predetermined time frame. The nancial allocationof the government of India as per the 12*FinanceCommission recommendations, the urban renewal fund, and state level allocations for SWM need to be pooledjudiciouslyand usedin a plannedmanner throughthe nationaland statemissions.ULBSneedto be strengthened with handholdingwherever necessary to meet thechallenge. Morespecicstepscouldincludethefollowing: 1. The national mission, in consultation with state missions, could preparestrategies to implementMunicipalSolid Waste(Management 8c Handling)Rules2000 in time focused attentionon thisissueandit wasfurtherstrengthened at Kyotoin 1997whereinindustrialized nationsagreedto reducetheiraggregate emission to 5.2percentof 1990levels by 2008-12.As reductionof emissioninviteshugecostsfor bound manner. 2. The national mission should include a nationvvide awareness campaignthroughmediausingexpertcommunication agenciesseekingcommunity participation in solid waste developednations, they have evolvedan ingenious system management. Statemissionsshouldgivewidepublicity wherein theycanreduceemissions in anypartof theworld to conducivesolid wastemanagementpracticesto attract community, NGO and private sectorparticipation. and earn carbon credits to count towards their effort to reduce greenhouse gasemissions globally. Therearethreemechanisms 3. The nationalandstatemissionscouldidentify,empanel to supplement thenationaleffortto achieve measurable and andcirculatelistsof nationaland internationalexperts, cost effective GHG reduction individuals,and organizations,to providetechnicalknow as under. 1. Cleandevelopmentmechanism(CDM) how as well as commercial 2. Internationalemissiontrading(IET) 3. Jointimplementation (JI) Theserms could,constructandoperationalize treatment anddisposalfacilities,takeup 0 8CM contracts, etc. Cities can take up wastetreatmentand disposalprojects SWM services to the ULBS. 4. The national mission, in consultation with state missions, underthis mechanism andavailof thebenetsthroughsale couldprepare tenderdocuments, designs andspecications, of certiedemission reductioncreditsattheprevailing market and concessionagreements to facilitate expeditious procurement of tools,vehicles, andservices. price (rangingfrom US$196 to US$59per tonne carbon equivalent) to thedeveloped countries throughwellestablished 5. It could dovetail programmesof variousministries mechanism involvingconsultants dealingwith this matter. responsible for differentaspects of solidwastemanagement with the activities of national and state missions. Ministries TheMoEFhasanodalofficerhandlingthese matters. Landlls involved would include Ministry of Environment and generate biogasconsistingof 50 percentmethane. A tonne of methaneis equivalent to 21 tonnesof carbondioxideand Forests,Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of aserious threatto thecause of GHG reduction. Appropriately HealthandFamilyWelfare,Ministryof Agriculture,and Ministryof Non Conventional EnergySources. management of landlls,compostplantsor WTE plantscan earnmunicipalauthoritiesin largecitiessubstantial carbon 6. To market compost producedthrough SWM activities, creditswhich can be sold not only to recovercost of system the missionshouldincludea programme to promoteits installationandupgradation of operations but alsogenerate useascompostamongstfarmersraisingawareness about surplusfundsinvaluablefor thecashstarvedULBs.Smaller its advantages overchemicalfertilizersin preserving the @~ SolidWwtell/[atmzgemwzt183 fertilityof thesoilwhileleadingto productivityincreases. Linkingthesubsidyon chemicalfertilizerswith theuse of compostcouldintroduceanincentiveinto thesystem. 7. Stateleveltaskforcesunderrespective districtmagistrates/ collectorscould be givena timelineof 6 monthsto identifysuitablesitesfor treatmentanddisposal of waste within theparameters of theMSWRules2000for cities andtownsfallingin theirjurisdiction. 8. All states shouldappointanEmpowered Committeefor the allotmentof governmentland for treatmentand disposalof wastefreeof cost.Localbodiesaswell as regionalplanningauthoritieslike the DistrictPlanning Thoughlevelsof SWMservices in thecountryhavestarted improvingon accountof activemonitoringby the Supreme Courtof India,thecentralandstatepollutioncontrolboards and financeand technicalsupport from proactivestate governmentsthere still is a long way to go. Save the formalization of the MSW Rules 2000, state action in this regard atmanylevels hasbeenfairlyuninspiring thusfar.\X/hile MSW Rules2000 is a watersheddocumentin Indiashistory of effective SWM,implementation issues still overwhelm the system.A firm commitment from central and the state governments towardsa time bound missionto turn the provisionsinto actionis urgent.Isolatedcases of shortterm solidwastecanhardlybecitedasinstances of Committee and Metropolitan Planning Committees, stepsto manage awareness andsensitivityto a problemthat is Improvement Trusts, andUrbanDevelopment Authorities governmental hour.It is no shouldmakeadequate provisionsof appropriateland only gettingmoredauntingwith eachpassing to merelypostpone the for settingup temporarywastestoredepotsin eachcity longerenoughto takeadhocmeasures consequences of decades of neglectandnationwide andfor settingup treatmentplantsandsanitarylandfill inevitable of SWM. A comprehensive nationwide sitesin landuseplanskeepingin mind requirements mismanagement projectedfor thenext25 years. programmeneedsto beactivelyimplementedkeepingin mind 9. Commoncostsharingfacilitiescouldbecreated onlarge possible futurescenarios. Keyindividuals withinthegoverning parcelsof land for groupsof cities,which could be system andthebureaucracy needto beeducated to themagnitude of the crisis and motivated to use their power to influencethe professionally managed for sharedbenefits. 10. A statepolicy could be formulatedto ensurethat systemand appropriately channelizeresources to actively promoteeffective andprogressive SWMprojects andpractices. governmentand semigovernmentparks, gardensand farmlands givepreference to theuseof compost produced by ULBs within the state. 184 India ,[rzfr.o52fruczfure Repo rt 2006' ANNEXE Table A8.2 Table A8.1 \X/asteGenerationRatesin DevelopingCountries Current urban MSW generation S.no. Country (kglcapita/day) Country USA Lowincome 0.64 Japan 1. Nepal 0.50 Germany 2. Bangladesh 0.49 Mexico 3. Myanmar 0.45 France 4. Vietnam 0.55 Turkey 5. Mongolia 0.60 Italy 6. India 0.46 Canada 7. Lao PDR 0.69 Spain 8. 9. China SriLanka 0.79 0.89 Poland Australia Middle income 0.73 The _NetherlandS 1. Indonesia 0.76 Belgium 2. Philippines 3. 4. 0.52 Thailand Malaysia 1.10 0.81 H$Y Alma Greece Portugal High income 1.64 Sweden 1. Korea,Republicof 1.59 Finland 2. Hong Kong 5.07 Switzerland 3. Singapore 1. 10 Denmark 4. Japan 1.47 Norway MSW generationrate kgl capitalday 2.00 Source:World Bank (1997a) 1.12 Table A83 0.99 0.33 0.85 0.32 1.29 0.49 PhysicalCharacteristics0f1V111I}1C1p21l Solid \Wastein lnclian Cities §0F1H§$TiKi§EWm WWWWmmm§Jab§;Ee§§1§WW mmmmmmmmmmm (in millions) surveyed Paper and synthetics Glass 0.1 to 0.5 12 2.91 0.78 0.56 0.5 to 1.0 15 2.95 0.73 0.56 1.0 to 2.0 09 4.71 0.71 0.46 2.0 to 5.0 03 3.18 0.48 0.48 5.0andabove 04 0.28 0.94 __6_.43 Note:All Valuesarein per cent calculatedon wet weight basis. Source:NEERI (1995) Metal Source:OECD (1995), World Bank (1997b) WW7 Soiioz 1,1/74z5.tc Mandgewzent Table /318.4 PhysicalComposition of Municipal Solid Wastein 1 million plus Cities and StateCapitalsin lndia (averagevalues) Name of the city Jabalpur Jamshedpur Patna Ranchi Bhubaneshwar 186 India ,lT'/Zf7id5Z'V£i{'l'?//V6 Regso rt 2006' Table A8 .5 Cornposition of Solid Wastein DevelopingCountries Compostable Paper 41 4.6 3.8 80 7 5.68 Low income countries Nepal Bangladesh 84.37 Myanmar 80 Plastic Glass Metal Others 2.1 1 47.5 2.5 3 0.5 7 1.74 3.19 3.19 1.83 4 2 0 0 14 41.8 5.7 3.9 2.1 1.9 44.6 Lao PDR 54.3 3.3 7.8 8.5 3.8 22.3 China 35.8 3.7 3.8 2 0.3 54.4 Sri Lanka 76.4 10.6 5.7 1.3 1.3 4.7 Middle income 57.5 14.9 10.9 2.4 3.1 11.2 Indonesia 70.2 10.6 8.7 1.7 1.8 7 India Philippines 41.6 19.5 13.8 2.5 4.8 17.8 Thailand 48.6 14.6 13.9 5.1 3.6 14.2 Malaysia 43.2 23.7 11.2 3.2 4.2 14.5 High income 27.8 36 9.4 6.7 7.7 12.4 Hong Kong 37.2 21.6 15.7 3.9 3.9 17.7 Singapore 44.4 28.3 11.8 4.1 4.1 6.6 13239 .............WW... ............. .2?............. __.4._5_ .............. Source: World Bank (1999) __. ?................. .,,Z,w. ..............._6,.Ww ......._1,.L..__._ 4? Tahie /18.6 ..Coumr...y ..... .. ggnic Physicalcompositionof MS\(/ in DevelopedCountries ..... .. Papa. ..... ..Plastic.. .. ...S .. .. ... Meta]..... .. O.the.;. Canada 34 28 11 7 8 13 Mexico 52 14 4 6 3 20 USA 23 38 9 7 8 16 Japan 26 46 9 7 8 12 Australia 50 22 7 9 5 8 Denmark 37 30 7 6 3 17 Finland 32 26 0 6 3 35 France 25 30 10 12 6 17 Greece 49 20 9 5 5 13 Luxembourg 44 20 7 3 17 Netherlands 43 27 4 5 8 Norway 18 31 4 5 36 Portugal 35 23 12 5 3 22 Spain 44 21 11 7 4 13 6 Switzerland 27 28 15 3 3 24 Turkey 64 6 3 2 1 24 Average 38 26 8 6 5 18 Note:Compositionof wastevarieswith thesizeof thecity,season andincomegroup. Source:OECD (1995) .S0lz2z' Waste jwamzgement 187 Table A8."/" Chenlicai Characteristicsof1\/lunicipalSo1id\Wastein Indian Cities 1>3§J1§ESH?§H§77M 71§IMi}}3§§17§é7£3{§1 71>1i3i§E1§§)§3{i§ wwwwwwwwwww 7153"{a"§§ii{1}}T WWWWWW 77571117 m(5a13r11i5 iV§1iiém (inmillion) Nitrogen asP205 asK20 Ratio kcallkg. 0.1 to 0.5 0.71 0.63 0.83 30.94 1009.89 0.5 to 1.0 0.66 0.56 0.69 21.13 900.61 1.0 to 2.0 0.64 0.82 0.72 23.68 980.05 2.0 to 5.0 0.56 0.69 0.78 22.45 907.18 5.0 and above 0.56 0.52 0.52 30.11 800.70 Source: NEER1 (1995) Tahie A88 ChemicalCharacteristicsof Municipa1Soiid \X/astep1us(AverageVaiues)of 1 milhon p1usCities and StateCapitals. ph Volatile C per N per P per cent K per cent c/n hcv Kcall l:{3§:a:.2£s§:x ......... ..,.1)£9é§:2£: ...... ..§32§S,.,......}33EE<:£ mmmm .32: wwww ,.E?.f,E,._._.._?}§..132.E?.§. ......... -Ei1E2.9,._.._.._..,£iE§f.. ........... .J::s._..,. Indore 30.87 6.37-9.73 38.02 21.99 0.82 0.61 0.71 29.30 1436.75 Bhopal 42.66 6.99-9.03 35.78 23.53 0.94 0.66 0.51 21.58 1421.32 Dhanbad 50.28 7.11-8.01 16.52 9.08 0.54 0.55 0.44 18.22 Jabalpur 34.56 5.84-10.94 46.60 25.17 0.96 0.60 1.04 27.28 2051 590.56 Jamshedpur 47.61 6.20-8.26 24.43 13.59 0.69 0.54 0.51 19.29 1008.84 Patna 35.95 7.42-8.62 24.72 14.32 0.77 0.77 0.64 18.39 818.82 Ranchi 48.69 6.96-8.02 29.70 17.20 0.85 0.61 0.79 20.37 1059.59 Bhubaneshwar 59.26 6.41-7.62 25.84 15.02 0.73 0.64 0.67 20.66 741.56 Ahrnedabad 32 6.2-8.0 63.80 37.02 1.18 0.67 0.42 34.61 1180 59 34.22 0.92 0.49 - 38.17 3086.51 32.15 18.64 0.82 0.67 0.72 23.50 1273.17 Nashik 74.64 5.2-7.0 Raipur 29.49 6.65-7.99 Asansol 54.48 6.44-8.22 17.73 10.07 0.79 0.76 0.54 14.08 1156.07 Bangalore 54.95 6.0-7.7 48.28 27.98 0.80 0.54 1.00 35.12 2385.96 Agartala 60,.06 5.21-7.65 49.52 28.82 9.96 0.53 0.77 30.02 2427 Agra 28.33 6.21-8.1 18.90 10.96 0.52 0.60 0.57 21.56 7.13 519.82 Allahabad 18.40 29.51 17.12 0.88 0.73 0.70 19.00 1180.12 Daman 52.78 5.88-6.61 52.99 30.74 1.38 0.47 0.6 22.34 2588 Faridabad 34.02 6.33-8.25 25.72 14.92 0.80 0.62 0.66 18.58 1319.02 Lucknow 59.87 4.8-9.18 34.04 20.32 0.93 0.65 0.79 21.41 1556.78 Meerut 32.48 6.16-7.95 26.67 15.47 0.79 0.80 1.02 19.24 1088.65 4.91-7.80 57.10 33.12 1.24 0.71 1.46 26.37 2632.23 34.96 20.28 0.60 0.71 0.38 40.34 1780.51 Nagpur 40.55 Vadodara 24.98 - Gandhinagar 23.69 44 25.5 0.79 0.62 0.39 36.05 698.02 Visakhapatanarn 52.70 7.5-8.7 7.02 64.4 37.3 0.97 0.66 1.10 41.70 1602.09 Dehradun 79.36 6.12-7.24 39.81 23.08 1.24 0.91 3.64 25.90 2445.47 Ludhiana 64.59 5.21-7.40 43.66 25.32 0.91 0.56 3.08 52.17 2559.19 Guwahati 70.93 6.41-7.72 34.27 19.88 1.10 0.76 1.06 17.71 1519.49 Kohima 64.93 5.63-7.7 57.20 33.17 1.09 0.73 0.97 30.87 2844 Source:Akolkar (2005) 188 No. KN >-{ SolidVVa5te Mznagement 189 REFERENCES Akolkar,A.B. (2005).Status of SolidWaste Management in India, Implementation Status of Municipal SolidWastes, Management and Handling Rules 2000, Central Pollution Control Board, andMinistry of UrbanDevelopment andPovertyAlleviation, Government of India, New Delhi. MOUD Report(2005).Management ofSolidWaste inIndianCities, Ministry of Urban Development,Governmentof India, New New Delhi. Delhi. Asnani,P.U.(2004).UnitedStates AsiaEnvironmental Partnership Report, United StatesAgencyfor InternationalDevelopment, NEERI (1995). Strategy Paper on SWM in India, National CentreforEnvironmental Planning andTechnology, Ahmedabad. Environmental EngineeringResearchInstitute, Nagpur. __ (2005). Téchnical Committee Report,W/est Bengal SWM Mission OECD (1995). OECD Environmental Data Compendium 1995, OECD, Paris. 2005,Government of WestBengal,Kolkata. CPCB (2000). Statusof Municipal Solid WasteGeneration, SC (1999).Report of theSupreme CourtAppointed Committee on Solid Waste Management in Class I Cities inIndia,Supreme Court Collection Treatment, andDisposal in Class 1 Cities,Central Pollution Control Board,Ministry of Environmentand Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. of India, New Delhi. World Bank (1997a).WhataWaste, World Bank,Washington,DC. Solid Waste Generation inDeveloped Nations, GOI (2003).Report of theTéchnology Advisory Group onSolidWaste M (l997b).PerCapita Management, Government of IndiaPublications, NewDelhi. World Bank,Washington,DC. __ (1999).l«WJata Waste: SolidWaste Management inAsia,World MOUDPA (2000).ManualonSolidWaste Management, Ministry of Urban Developmentand PovertyAlleviation, Government of India Publications, New Delhi. .,_ (2003). DraftReport of CoreGroup onAppropriate Technology, Research andDevelopment (SWIVI), Technology AdvisoryGroup Bank,Washington,DC.